Who does the ACLU represent? What do the letters stand for?  They claim they stand for "American Civil Liberties Union", but I doubt it... at least the "American" part.  The latest outrage from these defenders of NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association, an organisation to which I'm not going to provide a link) is to defend terrorists.  That's right, the ACLU is angrily insisting that the al-Qaeda terrorists and Taliban members detained at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba should be given all the rights of the American citizens they've killed and tried to kill.  The ACLU seems to think that they should be treated as common criminals with citizens' rights, instead of foreign war criminals or terrorists. 

These secret detentions exemplify the dramatic erosion of constitutional rights under the Bush administration. Individuals have been denied access to an attorney and held without being charged of a crime. Among other things, the government has classified detainees as "enemy combatants," and in doing so has tried to justify holding a person indefinitely or having his or her case heard by a military tribunal, where due process rights are significantly curtailed, rather than by a civilian judge and jury.
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=13079&c=207

Constitutional rights for foreign nationals who take up arms our people? Whose side is the ACLU on?  I tried to find the place in the Constitution where it says that foreigners who have sworn to carry out our destruction are accorded the right to have a criminal trial as if they were merely caught shoplifting.  I couldn't find it.  You won't be able to, either.  How can the Bush administration be causing a "dramatic erosion" of that which never existed?

Today, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case which will allow them to decide whether terrorists "may contest their captivity in American courts".  Surely this must be a joke.  If the Supreme Court decides in favor of the terrorists, and even one terrorist is freed by their decision, it will be one too many.

The last time we dealt with something like this, captured enemy combatants were dealt with in the Nuremburg Trials.  First, certain Nazi organisations were examined by the International Military Tribunal -- America, Great Britain, France and Russia -- and indicted as criminal organisations.  Then prisoners of war were tried to determine the extent of their involvement with the criminal organisations: the SS, the Gestapo, and the Corps of the Nazi Party Political Leaders.  All of this was carried out not in civilian courts, and not by granting the prisoners the same rights as American citizens.  The trials were held by the military, and their outcome was swift and fair.

While awaiting trial, the Nazi prisoners were held in far worse and restrictive conditions than the Taliban and al-Qaeda prisoners are in now.  Thousands of personal lawyers were not retained at government expense, however, nor were tens of thousands of people called away from their jobs to serve on juries.  None of them had a chance of escaping justice due to technicalities or lawyers' tricks.  Most importantly, the trials were held when the war was OVER.  I think the Nuremburg model is the one we should follow when dealing with the Guantanamo Bay prisoners.

Earlier this year, an email was circulating around the internet regarding Sears and how they were standing by their employees who were called to duty in Iraq.  Perhaps you saw it... perhaps you've since forgotten.  The email generally said the following:

Fwd: Good News !!!!!! SHOP AT SEARS
I assume you have all seen the reports about how Sears is treating its reservist employees who are called up? By law, they are required to hold their jobs open and available, but nothing more. Usually, people take a big pay cut and lose benefits as a result of being called up...
Sears is voluntarily paying the difference in salaries and maintaining all benefits, including medical insurance and bonus programs, for all called up reservist employees for up to two years. I submit that Sears is an exemplary corporate citizen and should be recognized for its contribution.
I suggest we all shop at Sears, and be sure to find a manager to tell them why we are there so the company gets the positive reinforcement it well deserves.
Pass it on.

A friend of mine, not certain whether this was true (or whether it was still in effect), sent the following email to Sears today:

Is there any truth to this email? I am ex military and was in the national guard. I would love to forward this on but want to know if there is any truth to it before I do so. Thanks in advance.
Keith

Their reply was short, but to the point:

Thank you for contacting Sears.
The information is factual. We appreciate your positive feedback. Sears regards service to our country as one of greatest sacrifices our young men and women can make. We are happy to do our part to lessen the burden they bear at this time.
Bill Thorn
Sears Customer Care
webcenter@sears.com
1-800-349-4358

He then recieved a follow-up email that, though it contains more information, is a little more personal:

According to an organisation called Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve, Sears is not alone in going above and beyond in their support of our troops.  Their website contains a page called "Outstanding Employers" which lists companies who are doing more than the law requires for their employees who've been called to duty. The list can be found at http://www.esgr.org/employers/outstandingEmployers.asp.

I know that Sears and the other companies on that list are getting my business when I do my Christmas shopping this year.  But how does one "support" companies like DH Griffin (a wrecking company)? Have someone's house torn down for Christmas, maybe?

Err... What's Ted Kennedy's address, again?

Situation: you are a US Army Lieutenant Colonel at war.  Your unit recently came under attack, and captured one of the men responsible for planning it.  The same reliable informant that helped you capture him tells you that another attack has already been planned which may take the lives of some of your men. The prisoner helped plan it, and knows all the details... but he's not telling.  The men under your command are in danger.  Their lives are your responsibility.  More than that, they're your men... practically family.  Question: how far will you go to get the information from your prisoner that you need to save the lives of your men?

Lt. Colonel Allen B. West, an artillery batallion commander with the 4th Infantry Division, had the answer... but it required him to make an incredible personal sacrifice.  Colonel West knew that he was within weeks of making the twenty-year mark that would allow him to retire.  He knew that the much higher retirement pay he would attain then would ensure the treatment his wife (a cancer survivor) needs.  He knew that the rules did not allow him to threaten his prisoner with physical harm.  But he also knew that the lives of his men were his to save... or lose.  He knew that there was no time to waste. 

Knowing all of this, Lieutenant Colonel West deliberately chose to put his career and retirement benefits on the line to preserve the lives of the men under his command, an act of self-sacrifice few men and women would commit.

He fired his pistol twice into a barrel to scare the prisoner into giving up his information. He did this so the lives of American soldiers would be saved. He did it so that he would not have to bury a man the next day.  Then, Lt. Col. West immediately reported his actions to his superior officer.

Col. West said the detainee then provided the names of two accomplices and told of another planned sniper attack the next day.
"I have never denied what happened and have always been brutally honest," said Col. West. "I accept responsibility for the episode, but my intent was to scare this individual and keep my soldiers out of a potential ambush. There were no further attacks from that town. We further apprehended two other conspirators (a third fled town) and found out one of the conspirators was the father of a man we had detained for his Saddam Fedeyeen affiliation."
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20031030-113114-2964r.htm

As a result of his actions, Colonel West was ordered to retire immediately -- forfeiting all his accumulated benefits -- or face a court martial and possible sentence of eight years.  He offered to retire at a lower rank, so he could retain some benefits, but the offer was refused by the bureaucracy.

I honestly believe this is the sort of instance in which the Commander-in-Chief himself needs to step in and allow Colonel West to retire without losing his benefits.  Anyone who wishes to can call the White House comment line at 202-456-1111 to make a comment, or email the President's staff at president@whitehouse.gov.  Tell 'em I sent you.

The importance of the Senate Intelligence Committee requires that its members be not merely bipartisan, but completely apartisan regarding its business.  The safety and security of not only all American citizens, but of all our soldiers in the field rest upon the Committee's ability to oversee the CIA and intelligence-gathering operations in such a way as to put all politics aside, keeping the security of the nation foremost in the minds of its members.  Serving on the Committee is, to put it bluntly, a duty that should never be tainted by the stink of partisan politics.

Well, it stinks now.

FOX news recently acquired a copy of a memo from Vice Chairman of the Committee Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va), apparently meant for the other Democrats on the Committee.  The full text of the memo can be found at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102258,00.html.  At first, Rockefeller claimed it was written by a staffer, then later revealed it was written at his direction.  Not only has he not denounced its contents, neither have the other Democrats.  Any of them. (Except Zell Miller (D-Ga), who said, "Heads should roll".)  This memo clearly shows the existence of a Democratic plot to use the power of the Senate Intelligence Committee as a political tool to undermine the credibility of the President and Commander-in-Chief while American troops are fighting a war.

It reveals a plan to push Republicans into revealing as much as possible about how the CIA's intelligence was used to form the conclusion that war in Iraq was necessary.  Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials. 

Following that, the Democrats plan to insert their pre-written conclusions about the necessity for the war into any reports the Committee as a whole may issue.  Assiduously prepare Democratic "additional views" to attach to any interim or final reports the committee may release. Committee rules provide this opportunity and we intend to take full advantage of it. 

After that, they plan to force the creation of an independent commission to investigate the Administration starting with the "dubious motives and methods" that they themseves will have exaggerated the reports (by including their pre-written additions) to show.  Our additional views will also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry. The Democrats will then be in a strong position to reopen the question of establishing an independent commission. 

Their plan is to do this next year, timed in such a way as to cause the most damage to President Bush's re-election campaign.  We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation at any time -- but we can only do so once. The best time to do so will probably be next year... We could attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the "use" of intelligence.

To the Democrats thus entrusted with the lives and safety of Americans at home and abroad, nothing is more important than finding a way to use their public trust to attack President Bush.  Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq.

The memo even clearly reveals that this foul strategy has already been followed.  Remember the big investigation into the Iraq-Niger uranium deal?  The FBI investigation was initiated by Jay Rockefeller, supposedly to "allay concerns" that the US government was involved in the forgery of the documents the British bought from Italian intelligence.  Now we know the true reason why... it was part of the overall Democrat campaign to undermine President Bush's credibility.  For example, the FBI Niger investigation was done solely at the request of the vice chairman...

If we don't see Rockefeller stepping down from his position on the Committee -- if not resigning from the Senate altogether -- within a week, then we'll know the Democrats still plan to use whatever they can to attack the President's credibility in any way they can.  The important questions are: how can we insure the impartiality of the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee in the future... and how do we make certain that our CIA and FBI are not being used as tools of partisan politics? 

Last night, I was "invited" to take part in a UCLA study.  Not personally, of course.  Someone posted a repeat message to multiple threads on RightWingNews that said:

Hello
I'm a researcher in the Dept. of Anthropology at UCLA. I have recently put up a web-based research study that surveys vaious aspects of political opinion and personality. I would appreciate it if I could get anyone using this listserv to participate in the study. Up until now, I have primarily had left-leaning university students as participants in the study, and would like to have broader views represented in the study. If you have a few minutes, I would appreciate if you would take the survey.

Well, I'm always interested in advancing the cause of science, so I followed the link supplied by the poster and found a survey at UCLA all right, but not exactly what I'd call "balanced"!  After answering a question about how strongly I valued my self-identity as "an American" (very strongly), I was presented with a list of statements and asked to answer whether I agreed or disagree with each, and how strongly.  And what statements they were!!  They are all variants on the following:

Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us.

It would be best for everyone if the proper authorities censored magazines so that people could not get their hands on trashy and disgusting material.

There are many radical, immoral people in our country today, who are trying to ruin it for their own godless purposes, whom the authorities should put out of action.

This country would work a lot better if certain groups of troublemakers would just shut up and accept their group's traditional place in society.

The established authorities generally turn out to be right about things, while the radicals and protestors are usually just loud mouths showing off their ignorance.

Once our government gives us the go ahead, it will be the duty of every patriotic citizen to help stomp out the rot that is poisoning our country from within.

Have you ever heard of such an obviously biased "study" as this?  Raise your hands, anyone who can't see that they're attempting to correlate one's self-identity as an "American" with strong religious beliefs coupled with strong agreement with those wildly biased statements.  I certainly hope that none of MY tax dollars went to fund this travesty of scholarly inquiry. 

If you manage to hold your disgust in all the way to the end of the questionnaire (I'm a man of fortitude), you're rewarded with... a banana! No, with their position paper on the theory they're attempting to prove. It starts out:

"Terror management theory (TMT; Greenberg, Pyszczynski and Solomon, 1986; Greenberg, Solomon and Pyszczynski, 1997) seeks to explain the well-known tendency for people to defend their deeply held beliefs and ideological commitments (e.g., Festinger 1957; Lerner 1980)."

Well, according to CavalierX, 2003, Conservatives defend their deeply held beliefs and ideological commitments because they MAKE SENSE. But that means nothing to people who arrive at their beliefs through sheer emotionalism, especially those driven by guilt and hatred. And especially those to whom NO belief is deeply held except self-loathing and fear of anyone too different from one's self... so much so that Liberals will CHANGE THEIR BELIEFS rather than be considered different from the rest.

As our primary hypothesis for this experiment, we predicted that participants scoring high on authoritarianism would be likely to respond to fitness-reducing threats by increasing their pro-American bias in evaluating pro and anti-American authors when compared to a control group.  We also predicted that those participants scoring low on authoritarianism would not show increased pro-American bias, and may even show decreased bias when compared to controls, as this would be consistent with their ingroup ideology of tolerance towards others with dissimilar views.

Permit me to translate.  "Pro-American equals religious fanatic equals right-wing authoritarianism, while anti-American equals religious tolerance equals sweet multiculturalism."  And they made certain that their hypothesis would be corroborated by weighting the questions like Luca Brasi going down to sleep with the fishes.  What else could one expect from the Liberal elitist mob at UCLA?

I was checking out some of the fantastically unhinged rants over at Democratic Underground, which bills itself as "one of the premier left-wing websites on the Internet, publishing original content six days a week, and hosting one of the Web's most active left-wing discussion boards".  I also noticed that they stated "Visitors may also participate in our discussion forums, which have become one of the most popular places on the Web for members of the political left to share ideas and discuss the issues."

'That might be fun!' I thought.  After all, where better to have a real discussion about the issues of the day than those with those whose views are opposite mine?  How better to gain an appreciation and understanding of the Liberal mind than to chat with some Liberals and maybe, if we're all lucky, find some common ground? 

I just knew that they themselves would welcome such a discussion, even a chance to bring me over to their views on some issues.  After all, don't Liberals see themselves as "progressive", "all-inclusive", and "open to all points of view"?  Aren't the Democrats billed as the "big tent party"?  Don't they proclaim that patriotism is best shown by debate and questions?  Anticipating some really rousing debate, I navigated to the register page to set up an ID and meet my new debate partners.

Alas!  I read the rules of the site and realised my hope of a good debate was in vain.  It seems the progressive, all-inclusive, open-to-all-views members of the big tent party don't welcome opposing points of view after all!  They openly tell visitors to the site that they're not welcome if they dissent from the Liberal agenda!  Read for yourself, and weep for the "tolerant" Left that isn't so tolerant, it seems, of the dissent they pretend to admire.

"If you think overall that George W. Bush is doing a swell job, or if you wish to see Republicans win, or if you are generally supportive of conservative ideals, please do not register to post, as you will likely be banned."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html#welcome

Wow!  What could be more fair, progressive, tolerant, all-inclusive, and "liberal" than that?

So once again, the America-haters joined up with the Bush-Bashers, time-lost burned-out hippies, and fanatical ostrich-imitating terrorist appeasers ("Peace at ANY cost!") under the all-embracing red banner of the Communists to bring us another treat: the sight of a group of losers frothing at the mouth with hatred of America and especially President George W. Bush parading through our nation's capitol.

Oh, joy.

John Hawkins of Right Wing News has put up a few assorted photos of some of the assorted idiots who think that running away from trouble is the best way to deal with it, with links to many more: http://www.rightwingnews.com/archives/week_2003_10_26.PHP#001450

"The demonstration was co-sponsored by the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism) and United for Peace and Justice."
http://www.internationalanswer.org/news/update/102503report.html

So we know who sponsored the demonstrations, now don't we?  Why does that matter?  Well, would YOU attend a pro-troop rally if it was sponsored by the KKK? (Yes, I know they were founded by Democrats, but I'm making a point here.)  I certainly wouldn't.  So who attends these things?

"Al Sharpton, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, exhorted the crowd not to be content with the gradual withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/war_protests

So we know who endorses them, too.  Who else spoke at this Communist-sponsored rally?  And can we trust any of those who did so to run the country they hate so much that they join up with Communists -- remember them, the totalitarians who enslaved half the world until Ronald Reagan drove the U.S.S.R. to its knees? -- to protest its policies? I don't think so.

Do you?

Well, the Liberal mind strikes again... in entirely the wrong direction, as usual.  It seems that (to my utter shock) the BCIS (formerly known as the INS) is actually doing its job, enforcing the law. According to an Associated Press "news" story published yesterday (thinly disguised Liberal op/ed, as usual), half a million illegal aliens have been deported since 1996 and -- get this -- America is at fault for the criminal activities they commit back in their home countries.

The U.S. government calls them criminal aliens, but they are as American as drive-by shootings and crack cocaine.

Whatever happened to baseball, hot dogs and apple pie?  It's great how this writer starts right off with his anti-American vitriol, so we know where he stands, isn't it?  Some of them try to disguise it, pretending to be unbiased. Not this guy.  When he thinks of America, it's drive-bys and crack. Nice.

Many came to the United States as children, often in the arms of men and women fleeing poverty and war. They went to school here, but usually not for long. They came of age on city streets from Los Angeles to New York. Eventually they broke the law.

Well, that would make them criminals, then, wouldn't it?  I love how the story makes it sound inevitable that they would break the law, possibly against their will.  Then again, Liberals believe people are not capable of deciding their own behavior.  That's why they're not to be held responsible when they just happen to break the law.

In 1996, Congress banished them from America for life and directed immigration agents to hunt them down. The biggest dragnet in U.S. history is now well underway. Already, more than 500,000 have been rounded up and deported, according to government figures, and this year they are being banished at a rate of one every seven minutes to more than 160 countries around the world.

All I can say is, "Yaay!".  Then I can wait seven minutes and say it again.  They're criminals. They're aliens. They're outta here.

The culture of drugs and guns many carry back to their native lands is wreaking havoc in nations that receive them in substantial numbers.

This is how Liberals view the United States. "The culture of drugs and guns".  No wonder France hates us... they must read a lot of AP "news" reports.

Despite the profound impact of the criminal deportations, few Americans know anything about them.

That's probably because the "profound impact" is positive... for Americans.  Hmm... fewer criminals on our streets.  Fewer criminals in our jails living at our expense.  It's a win-win situation for American citizens.

Under the 1996 U.S. law, every non-citizen sentenced to a year or more in prison is subject to deportation, even if the sentence is suspended. Deportable crimes can be anything from murder to petty theft. The law is retroactive, making immigrants deportable for crimes that did not warrant deportation at the time they were committed. And the law eliminated nearly all grounds for appeal, making deportations virtually automatic.

You mean if you come here and commit a crime, you have to go home? What a great law!

They are an army of social misfits - drug addicts and drunken drivers, robbers and shoplifters, rapists and wife-beaters, drug traffickers and gang members.

All the more reason to get them the hell out of our country.  The plaque on the Statue of Liberty says "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.  Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:  I lift my lamp beside the golden door."  It doesn't mention criminals.

Deported after serving sentences for their crimes in America, the criminal deportees are simply set loose upon arrival, usually with little or no money and with no prospects for work.
To survive in what for most of them are unfamiliar surroundings, many turn to the skills learned on the streets of America - to drug dealing, stealing, extortion, sometimes even murder.

But Liberals make the same excuses for repeat offenders right here at home. "Its not their fault, it's all they know!" Look, I've lived in America all my life. I didn't learn those skills on "the streets of America".  Why is it America's fault when people become criminals?  I will never understand why Liberals refuse to hold people responsible for their own behavior and choices.

In El Salvador and Honduras, many of the deportees become victims before they can become victimizers. Regarded as pariahs in their native lands, they are hunted by vigilante squads, some shot down within days of stepping off the unmarked U.S. Marshal's Service jetliners that carry them into exile several days every week.

Sounds like a matter for the governments of El Salvador and Honduras to deal with.  Maybe we can send all of our Liberals down there to help them become more enlightened.  They can learn to give criminals free housing, three meals a day, and cable tv. They can heavily tax the citizenry to pay for that and other social programs.  Before you know it, they'll be just like America!

But unlike citizens, aliens who commit crimes can simply be sent home.

Right. Because they're here as guests of this country.  If they break our laws, they SHOULD leave.

What I want to know is, what does AP writer Randall Richard want done with non-citizens who commit crimes in our country?  I didn't notice his solution to the problem in the story, just a lot of whining about how America is to blame for the world's woes.  Should we just keep them in US jails at US taxpayer expense? Grant them citizenship -- which, apparently, many of them never bothered to apply for -- so that we have to turn them loose on OUR streets instead?  THAT would be great, wouldn't it: come break our laws and get your citizenship free!  Act now! Operators are standing by!

I think we deserve more from "news" organisations than these pathetic laments backed by violins playing for the poor, poor victims of America.  Would it be asking too much to request that writers who point the finger at the bad old USA offer a suggestion of their own on how to fix the matter, instead of just whining on about how bad America is?

Yeah, that'll happen.