Friday, January 20, 2006

Coulter Earns High Marks at LMU

It’s First Amendment Week at Loyola Marymount University (LMU), the perfect venue for James Carville and Ann Coulter to square off on a college campus. After the University of Connecticut’s anti-speech tantrum last month, Media Drool, Free Republic and I were invited to see how left-coast students behaved south of Berkeley.

Although a few socialists suffered from intellectual seizures, the hundreds of other students who packed the Burns Back Court quickly revived them in ways that almost seemed, well, Republican. Having my own college-aged kids, I was relieved that some students haven’t yet been body-snatched by America’s swarming moonbats.

Because this was a new event for LMU, organizers had their guests speak separately, followed by questions from the audience.

After the audience watched a short video of the importance of free speech and civility, Carville warmed up the crowd with self-depreciating jokes about his academic record, attributing his 4.0 average on his blood-alcohol content, followed up by his disappointment that Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders’ masturbation classes might have motivated the homework and extra credit that would guarantee his only high marks.

Carville’s a funny guy, but once he finished his opening remarks, his speech degraded into the predicable bumper-sticker blather that generated some tepid-to-raucous applause and cheers:

Bush Lied! (applause) Bush is incompetent! (applause) Bush is dangerous! (applause) Republicans are corrupt! (applause) – the same nonsense that the Times (pick one) hopes to revive their crippled newspapers with.

At one point, a grown-up (who identified himself as Carville’s personal friend) cheered when Carville said Bill Clinton didn’t kill anyone when he lied about sex. Although people like Carville still frame Clinton’s admitted felony perjury in terms of sexual indiscretion instead of an Equal Protection issue, when Coulter later discussed the 14th Amendment the friend leaned to his wife and whispered, “What’s the 14th Amendment?” Southern Democrats are very funny when they aren’t wearing hoods and robes.

To his credit, Carville performed like someone whose wife had kicked him out and found an old script under the sticky cushions of Michael Moore’s couch. He was engaging and fun to listen to – a good representation of the political party that should have imploded when the Civil War snuffed their final defense of slavery.

One of the funnier comments (to me) wasn’t made by Carville or Coulter, but from a student who sat amid large group of youthful male admirers and screamed, “I love you Ann Coulter – I want to have your baby if you promise not to eat it!”

Unlike Carville, whose anti-Bush haiku was more suited for applause, Ann’s relentless delivery of facts and content made applause all but impossible. Her fact-riddled lecture required the attention of scholars, while those who struggle with concepts like the Constitution, due process, freedom, and civil rights were often left pages behind.

This was apparent throughout her speech. At one point when she criticized Democrats who doubted that brown-skinned (Iraqis) were suitable candidates for Democracy, someone behind me gasped, “What did she say about brown-skinned brothers?”

To her fans, Coulter’s charm comes not only from being smart AND attractive, but from the apoplexy she provokes in Democrats who can no longer rely on rape, torture, and lynching to silence uppity and educated Republicans who are no longer intimidated by the niceties enforced by the Jim Crow laws of political correctness.

To their credit, The Loyolan Managing Director Natalie Nordseth and Advisor Tom Nelson put on a great show for LMU’s deserving audience, and I look forward to future presentations.

See Free Republic for more - photos at Media Drool

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

A Change of Plans

There are times in our lives when we’re going in one way and life suddenly takes a new direction. Such a time has come for me this week.

Before I left Newcastle Elementary School, I knew that I would build a career of public service as an LAPD officer. Like everyone, I’ve had ups and downs, but my perseverance has rewarded me with a lifetime of dreams fulfilled.

Since retiring from the LAPD in 2000, I have enjoyed travel, time with my family and friends, and the peace that comes with knowing that I’ve done good things for my neighbors and community. I’ve also enjoyed writing and sharing what has been in my heart for so many years.

Last week, a friend asked me to represent California’s 42nd Assembly District. Assembly Member Paul Koretz has held the post since 2000 and his term ends this year. As a Marine Corps sergeant and LA cop, I’ve never run from duty and I’m not about to start now. After discussing the idea with my family and friends, I’ve decided to accept the challenge. I signed the papers last night and am now the Republican candidate for the 42nd Assembly District of California.

I have never aspired to be a politician. I have enjoyed a retirement of reading, writing, and family punctuated by work as a private investigator and scuba divemaster in the Andaman Sea. I’d much rather ride my motorcycle around this great country with Carol than chase campaign contributions or make speeches. At the same time, I believe that much can be done to improve the lives of all Californians. Democracy is only as good as the people who make it work.

Regardless of any philosophical differences we may have, you will always know where I stand on any given issue. I won’t compromise myself for campaign funding or votes. What you see is what you get.

As one who worked on the streets of LA, I’ve lived where the political rubber meets the constituent road: A place where politicians do bad things by pretending to oppose them, and block good things by pretending to support them. Serving LA residents from San Pedro to Chatsworth and Oakwood to Downtown has always been easier than dealing with the mess left by reckless politicians. And after decades of Democratic leadership in Los Angeles, it’s hard to imagine anyone wanting more of the same.

I have nothing to hide politically. Many of my philosophies are on this blog and, although you might argue on some points, you will see that I’m honest about who I am and what I think – something I’ve rarely found among political candidates. I’m not ambitious. If you vote for me you won’t have any problem figuring out who I am or what I stand for. My door will always be open as will be my heart and ear.

In the coming weeks I will post where I stand on various issues. If you don’t see an issue that concerns you or have questions, please feel free to email me at:


Vote4CW(AT)sbcglobal.net

You'll find more information about my candidacy HERE



Sunday, January 15, 2006

An Offer of Proof

A reader objected recently to my comment that Democrats were responsible for the lynching of black and white Republicans during the 19th and 20th centuries. Sounding a little like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he demanded academic proof.

Although one essay cannot adequately present proof, these books, this movie, and this Civil War series contain plenty of resources for further study.

Like my antagonist and many other Americans, public schools taught me that white people had enslaved blacks and that their progeny were entitled to relief. I didn’t question this, although it didn’t square with my ancestors who fought to end slavery 150 years ago. If whites were guilty, why did two million of them interrupt their lives to fight the bloodiest war in American history to free slaves owned by Southern Democrats? If this was a white-against-black thing, why did whites fight the Civil War against other whites?

The answer is that the Civil War wasn’t between whites and blacks, but between Republicans who wanted to end slavery, and Democrats who did not. And as ugly as the Democratic Party’s roots and legacy of slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow, and Disenfranchisement is, why does the party still exist today?

The first clue of this information blackout comes directly from Democrats. Although the Republican Party proudly discloses their Abolitionist roots on their website, the Democratic Party (DNC) website ignores their slavery agenda, excluding the entire period between 1848 and the 20th Century. Instead, the DNC boasts the “longest running political organization in the world”, the “Democratic cause” (slavery) and their dominance in urban (e.g., black) politics - as if Democrats had nothing to do with the brutality used to round up blacks.

This is a synopsis of what the DNC website missed.

Failed Reconstruction

This geographical representation contains pre-war information on free states and slave states. The Civil War began when Democrats wanted to spread slavery west and the Republican Party wanted to end it. Five years later, 360,000 Yankees (e.g., Republicans) had died in the struggle to free slaves from Democrat slaveholders.

Democrats weren’t happy with Reconstruction (1865-1877), especially when the Radical Republicans (including former slaves) began to supervise reforms.

Imagine how former slaveholders felt about being supervised by Yankees and black Republicans. These Democrats quickly adopted Jim Crow laws and formed the Ku Klux Klan – a group that “only used force when the forces of the Radical Republicans gave them no other choice.” (With these enforcement tools, its not hard to imagine how Democrats controlled 98 percent of the vote in the South by 1944.)

Former slaves like Congressman John Lynch and Senator Blanche Bruce were both Republican, as were all 23 blacks who entered Congress after the Civil War. Thirteen were ex-slaves. Mississippi’s history illustrates the political ascendancy of blacks from 1865 until 1890, when Democrats used fraud, violence, and intimidation to pass a new state constitution that undid all of the Republican reforms gained during Reconstruction.

Blacks weren’t welcomed into the Democratic Party until 1935, when Congressman Arthur Mitchell (who Democrats supported for his opposition to the NAACP) was elected in Chicago. By 1948, Democrats offered some modest reforms (they outlawed lynching in 1939) and Houston native Barbara Jordan became the first black congresswoman from a southern state in 1973.

Mississippi Burning was NOT about whites who killed blacks – it was about Democrats who murdered civil rights workers trying to implement reforms in 1964 that President Lincoln had secured (and 360,000 Yankees died for) a century earlier. These workers died trying to restore what Democrats sabotaged since 1865 and still undermine today.

Reparations Lawsuit

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is now reviewing Case No. 05-35890 in which a descendant of slavery is suing the Democratic Party.

The Plaintiff alleges:

  1. Democrats supported Slavery and its expansion into the northern states
  2. Democrats introduced the Missouri Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act to expand slavery into the northern states
  3. Democrats support of the Dred Scott Decision
  4. Democrats supported Fugitive Slave Laws
  5. Democrats collectively opposed the 13th Amendment to end slavery
  6. Democrats collectively opposed the 14th Amendment to give blacks citizenship
  7. Democrats collectively opposed the 15th Amendment to give blacks the right to vote
  8. Democrats exhausted every efforts to destroy Reconstruction including opposing the 1867 Reconstruction Act and coming up with the Compromise of 1877
  9. Democrats opposed the Freedman Bureau
  10. Democrats opposed Senate Bill 60 of 1866 to give blacks 40 acres and mule (It was Democratic President Andrew Johnson that vetoed the Bill)
  11. Democrats supported of the Slaughter House Case
  12. Democrats opposed the 1866 Civil Rights Acts
  13. Democrats opposed the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 and continue to opposed anti-lynching laws up through 1965
  14. Democrats passed a multitude of Jim Crow Legislation
  15. Democrats passed of Black Codes
  16. Democrats establishment of the Ku Klux Klan and other terrorist auxiliaries for their Party to keep blacks in their place
  17. Democrats promoted White Supremacy
  18. Democrats opposed blacks schools and colleges
  19. Democrats supported of Plessy v Ferguson legalizing Segregation
  20. Democrats were against the decision in the case of Brown v Board of Education
  21. Democrats supported, participated and endorsed over 5,000 lynching in states under their control
  22. Democrats opposed to the NAACP and other organization designed to help blacks
  23. Democrats were in opposition to blacks holding political office and drove many from office during Reconstruction with terror and violence
  24. Southern Democrats debated against the passage of the 1964 Civil Right Act
  25. Southern Democrats debated against the passage of 1965 Voting Rights Act
  26. Southern Democrats fought against Affirmative Action
  27. Southern Democrats fought against the integration of Southern schools
  28. Democrats supported and participated in burning down middle class black communities like those in Rosewood, Florida, Wilmington, North Carolina and the Greenwood District (Black Wallstreet) in Tulsa Oklahoma
  29. Southern Democrats fraudulently took over two million acres of black property according to an investigation by Associated Press
  30. Democrats in an effort to keep blacks in their place used sadistic torture, terror and violence including: lynching, mutilations, murder, decapitations and beating and burning to death countless number of blacks.
Although the Plaintiff only wants an apology, the Democratic Party has hired Attorney Dave Burman to avoid even that. Berman does not dispute the allegations, but wants the complaint dismissed because the Plaintiff has not shown the “concrete and personalized injury” necessary to confer standing.

So with all of this (and much more) information available, why are so many Americans ignorant of our own history? I haven’t found a definitive answer yet, but it seems to coincide with the end of segregation. Democrats have learned that by empowering blacks who are willing to marginalize Republican abolitionists, they can tame Judas Horses like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Maxine Waters to control blacks and large populations of poorly educated American voters.

The Myth of Republican Racism

As I Googled my way around the Internet, I found that most news, government, and university websites offer information on slavery and post-Civil War brutality, but inexplicably ignore or defend the undeniable linkages to Democrats. Many sites describe the Civil War, Jim Crow, Disenfranchisement, and the KKK as if unrelated to the Democratic Party’s effort to control black voters.

The Ku Klux Klan justifies its history as a response to persecution by “Radical Republicans” during Reconstruction, but doesn’t mention Democrats. Republicans were considered radical because, to many Democrats, freeing slaves was as radical an idea as freeing their livestock and horses.

Northridge University’s Ronald Davis offers a comprehensive timeline of Jim Crow but doesn’t mention Democrats until the White Primary (1944) decision eighty years later. The University of Michigan shows a 98 percent Democratic vote in the Deep South but doesn’t explain how voting was enforced by Jim Crow, Disenfranchisement, and the KKK. George Mason University does the same thing, implying that blacks preferred the Jim Crow party over Republicans who had freed them. The Columbia Encyclopedia states that organizations like the Ku Klux Klan kept “African Americans and white Republicans from voting" but doesn’t mention the Democrats behind it. Like Wikipedia, Long Island University’s History of Slavery does not mention Democrats either. These slave narrative and photo sites make no mention as well.

Children who click on Discovery.com’s US link will learn that Europeans brought slaves to American and the Lincoln freed them. Children are apparently old enough to learn that racism is wrong, but not old enough to know that truth about Democrats. Slaveryinamerica.org offers educational resources, but nothing on Democrats. Duke University offers some books on the subject, but you have to buy them or visit. Emancipated slave Ida Wells wrote that lynching was used to keep blacks out of the political process, but the website that quotes her doesn’t say why.

Despite the historical evidence against the Democratic Party, why are so many Americans so ignorant about their past? Why do so many American voters still support the party of slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow, and lynching?

Rewriting History

The media and university biases that have created and enforced this historical blackout are well documented.

Like most unions, the National Education Association (NEA) extorts millions of dollars from taxpayers through union strikes. Union leaders then draw millions from workers in the form of union dues and direct them back to their pockets and the Democratic Party. The NEA is the fourth largest contributor to the Democratic Party (DNC).

I have described the relationship between teacher unions and the DNC that produce millions of undereducated and indoctrinated graduates and drop-outs HERE, HERE, and HERE. Teachers, like the media and universities, have an incentive not to expose the real history of the Democratic Party - for anyone who understands their history will find parallels between their past and how they control black Americans and laborers today. Why haven't Americans asked why blacks in cities like New Orleans, Los Angeles, and Detroit still suffer after 40 years of almost exclusively Democratic Party leadership? Why do some of these neighborhoods still look like neighborhoods from the Deep South during Jim Crow?

Here are some a number of reasons:
  • Democrats have co-opted the media, public schools, and unions.
  • Democrats empower union leaders who control teachers, writers, movie production laborers, actors, electrical workers, and so forth to redirect union dues back to Democrats who empower them
  • Union teachers and educators write the curriculum taught in public schools, careful not to offend the party that empowers them while marginalizing Republicans
  • Union actors, set workers, writers, musicians, and others in the media are careful not to alienate their union leadership and the Democratic Party to avoid workplace retaliation.
As a result of these and other forces, Americans are inundated with propaganda and union pressure that not only rewards acquiescence, but also punishes resistance.

This is why so many people don’t believe Democrats lynched blacks, which is part of the reason why I am now a Republican. Democrats continue to prove that those who do not understand their history are condemned to repeat it.

Subsequent related essays:

Challenging an Unreasonable Doubt (2008)
An Exercise in Futility (2008)

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

The Tipping Point

Viruses are small parasites that infect cells within our bodies. Despite their size, these organisms constantly attack to exploit our weaknesses. Despite the billions of cells that give us life, a single virus can undo the miracle of our creation.

To protect us from these invaders, we produce antibodies to identify, attack, and remove them. Despite the value of these proteins, numerous diseases exist that reprogram antibodies into attacking otherwise healthy tissue. With one confused message, our antibodies can turn on us and, like AIDS, they can kill. Why these proteins betray us is still a mystery.

The analogy of the body politic is not new. Like Social Darwinism, today’s scientists are loathe to suggest parallels between biology and society because of the genocidal way socialists like Stalin and Hitler applied them. Although the laws of political correctness prohibit analysis of dangerous ideas, I couldn’t help but think of biology last week, when Letterman asked O’Reilly about the growing attacks on Christmas (video).

After O’Reilly shared two of many verifiable accounts, Letterman scoffed at both and told his national audience that he thought sixty percent of everything O’Reilly said was crap. When O’Reilly asked him to name one untruth, Letterman said he’d never seen The Factor and relied on things he’d heard from others about his guest before adding, “I’m just spitballing here.”

Like all superstitions, spitballing is an emotional way that intellectually lazy people cope with disturbing realities. It’s not that Letterman isn’t smart, but that spitballing (or what Russell Peterson calls the cheerful delivery of lazy nihilism) doesn’t require the discipline or tenacity of good citizenship.

As a court jester, Letterman has an excuse. But as a college-educated American who influences millions of viewers, it’s hard to understand why the comedian deliberately overlooked the obvious absurdity of a Christ-less manger scene to slander a guest known for his dogged veracity. It’s not that O’Reilly and his fans can’t handle comedy, but that conservative and liberal ratings prove that slander isn’t nearly as entertaining as fact. As an entertainer, Letterman chose a cheap laugh over a more meaningful one.

Like any communicable disease, slander isn’t dangerous until it spreads. With the existence of talk radio, the Internet, and cable news, Americans have never had more resources to challenge and confirm information. Although the Information Age has weakened the Democratic Party’s 150-year strangle on education, our public schools’ continuing decline – coupled with the disappearing service industry, lower wages, and the undereducated laborers’ reliance on the shrinking cul de sac of overpaid union jobs makes me wonder whether a nationally broadcasted slander will one day reach the tipping point that results in a political pandemic.

While I don’t see an imminent catastrophe here, the democratic elections and disastrous reforms of Latin American socialists and communists have already affected many of the entrepreneurs who drive those economies. For some voters, the reward of schadenfruede is soon replaced by the reality that former employers can no longer afford to keep wage-earners who feed families. More often than not, the inevitable disenchantment that follows socialist and communist reforms generates political paranoia that invariably results in crackdowns like those that keep Fidel Castro in power and his critics in prison.

Although I don’t see most Democrats accepting the dream shared by union leaders, the ACLU, and the Communist Party, the DNC’s symbiotic relationship with these groups pose dangers that may one day demand remedies as painful to Americans as the Civil War. And for those who think the war hasn’t already begun, ask New Yorkers about their recent holiday commute.

I’m not saying that Republicans are perfect. Many of us are steamed about the enormous cost for slipshod security at our borders and airports as well as the stalled momentum of what might be the Republican Party’s greatest opportunity since Emancipation. But as much as we struggle as a political party, conservative philosophy has not changed much since 1854. And while Abramoff, Cunningham, and Nixon were crooks, Republicans haven’t defended their felons the way the Democratic Party did for Kennedy, Torricelli, and Clinton. As much as caricatures like Byrd, Schumer, and Kennedy wave their Constitution pocketbooks, their unconstitutional departures like jury nullification and judicial activism undermine Equal Protection under the guise of equal protection to incite lawyers, courts, and juries to acquit the guilty and convict the innocent. Just as the Republican philosophy has not wavered from its foundation, the party of slavery and Jim Crow has not wavered from theirs.

Maybe they’ve forgotten, but individuals and corporations like Letterman and the mainstream media (MSM) are Americans first and entertainers second. These antibodies have a responsibility to provide accurate information so that Americans and people throughout the world can make informed decisions in the ballot box, the jury box, and especially during times of war. When the MSM leans to the left or promotes lies for profit or political reasons like Rathergate and the deadly toilet-Koran story, they assault democracies around the world. When they release national security secrets under the pretense of free speech or civic duty, they assault Americans, our allies, and our troops like hijacked planes and IEDs.

And as benign as Letterman’s lapse might be, even professional clowns must weigh the virulent impact that their slander has on humanity. One never knows where America’s tipping point might be.

SF Chronicle Exposed

Blogger Zombietime shows us that there’s more to this photo than meets the eye.

This photo appeared the San Francisco Chronicle’s front page on 24 September 2005. Unfortunately for the communist sympathizers at the Chronicle, Zombietime was also there to brilliantly expose the Chronicle’s bias.

The Chronicle confirms the story HERE

Follow the link to Zombietime’s site HERE

Brilliant work!

(Hat tip to Genevieve)

Monday, January 09, 2006

Dowd in a Dither

For those who love New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd the same way I do, you’ll enjoy Joel Stein’s recent column, How to apologize to a feminist.

When Stein joked about an ex-boyfriend who dumped her, the celebrated uberfeminazi collapsed in a dither and complained that Stein’s comments were sexist – a bizarre complaint for a woman who wrote Are Men Necessary?

Stein’s piece shines a new light on the pesky pomeranian.

Laura Chick Audits LAUSD

Kudos to LA City Controller Laura Chick for successfully pressuring Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Superintendent Roy Romer (kicking and screaming) to surrender records to conduct an audit (finally!).

I worked with Ms. Chick during her years as a City Councilmember and even collaborated with her on a traffic safety project when I was still with the LAPD. Despite the corruption and sleaze of LA’s drug-addicted and corrupt political peers, she’s proven herself as a feisty (yet loveable) pit bull. (She's also a great dancer.)

She’ll make a great mayor for LA one day.

Thursday, January 05, 2006

NSA: The Necessity Defense

As the New York Times dances with treason and the possibility of serious jail time, I thought of a motorist I stopped a few years ago.

I’d been watching an intersection when I saw a car slow to a red light before driving through it.

When I pulled the driver over, he explained that his pregnant wife was in labor and that they were on the way to the hospital. After a few questions and directions, I escorted the driver and his wife to the emergency room. I congratulated the new parents and did not issue a ticket.

I’m no lawyer, but I’d say the Necessity Defense is ten percent legal theory and 90 percent common sense. The standard for this defense generally allows the commission of a crime if:

  1. An individual believes its commission is necessary to avoid a harm or evil to himself or someone else;
  2. The harm or evil sought to be avoided is greater than that sought to be prevented by the law;
  3. The law that defines the offense does not provide exceptions or defenses dealing with the specific situation involved, and;
  4. A legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed does not otherwise plainly appear.
Had the motorist been speeding or recklessly endangered his family and others, I would have found another solution and might well have cited him. In this case, the driver appeared coherent and cautious despite the act. To me, his conduct was reasonable to protect the health of his wife and new baby. He had a reasonable necessity to commit the act.

While smart people debate the merits of President Bush’s NSA deployment to tap electronic communications, I doubt that he committed any crime. He wasn’t covering up a sexual harassment lawsuit or dispatching IRS investigators to audit his political enemies. But for argument’s sake, let’s assume that President Bush did not have the legal authority to conduct a warrantless wiretap. Let’s assume that he violated wiretapping laws.
  • Can President Bush reasonably believe that its commission was necessary to avoid a harm or evil to Americans greater than that sought to be prevented by law?
I’ve found no reports where wiretaps have harmed innocent Americans. At the same time, prosecutors have described how these wiretaps have helped the United States thwart Al Qaeda attacks, kidnappings, and plans that would have resulted in hundreds or thousands of American deaths. Most Americans understand that the security of Aunt Polly’s email and phone conversations are not as vital to the United States as the failure of protections that might permit the deaths of thousands, or millions of Americans during an attack. Had warrantless eavesdropping prevented 9-11, I sure Aunt Polly wouldn’t have lost any sleep.
  • Do the laws that define electronic crimes provide exceptions or defenses with the specific situations involved?
Unlike the days when laws prohibiting electronic eavesdropping were created, we are at war with an enemy that has no country, rules, or values. Because of the terms of this war, our enemies continuously use every means necessary to gain victory – even if it takes using the New York Times and the ACLU as agents against the United States of America.

While it may take months or years to create laws and procedures, our enemies may take an hour or less to develop and deploy tactics that can be used against us. If President Bush was required to wait for the courts and legislature to consider and authorize each warrant or modification in our policies and tactics, he will have violated his oath to protect and defend these United States. America’s domestic enemies want to force Bush into inaction and paralysis that will cause our president to violate his oath of office – dereliction that may well be an impeachable offense. President Bush is not listening to Bill and Monica – he’s listening to America’s enemies.
  • Does a legislative purpose to exclude President Bush’s justification plainly appear?
No. The fact that this debate continues demonstrates that none exists.


In Defense of Treason

Although they cannot describe a single case of electronic eavesdropping that injured innocent Americans, the New York Times attempts to use the same defense for treason:
A democratic society cannot long survive if whistle-blowers are criminally punished for revealing what those in power don't want the public to know - especially if it's unethical, illegal or unconstitutional behavior by top officials.

Let’s examine the same questions:
  • Was the release of classified information by government officials and the New York Times necessary to avoid a harm or evil to Americans greater than that sought to be prevented by law?
The New York Times wants American’s to think that harvesting electronic data during a time of war poses a greater danger to Americans than the violation of secrecy laws. To prove this, it would be helpful for the Times to demonstrate a few victims of data harvesting. At this time, none exist.

Had a whistleblower and the Times disclosed our plan to attack Normandy Beach (D-Day 1944), I doubt that FDR would have spared the traitor and news editors from being shot.
  • Do the laws that define electronic crimes provide exceptions or defenses with the specific situations involved?
No. Again, Congress passed these laws years before many of today's technologies, strategies, and military scenarios existed.
  • Does a legislative purpose to exclude the New York Times’ justification to release classified information plainly appear?
No. The New York Times delivers political and ideological reasons to marginalize President Bush’s effectiveness. Because those reasons have not worked, they now flirt with treason to undermine the war effort and our Commander in Chief.

Congressional legislative intent may have already answered the question of whether electronic eavesdropping is more serious than the release of classified material. The unauthorized release of “communication intelligence” is punishable by up to ten years imprisonment, while electronic eavesdropping, a misdemeanor, is punishable by a $500 civil fine.

The United States has a compelling reason to prosecute media outlets and individuals who release classified information. And while the MSM, ACLU, and other enemies may lament the chilling effect of such prosecutions, putting this treachery on ice is long overdue.

Some Folks Can't Take a Joke

Hey, did you hear the one about the white male conservative…?

During a recent visit with some of my liberal-Jewish-Hollywood-ex-hippie-dope-smoking-friends (you know, those really nice do-your-own-thing, let’s all get along cool people), one characterized a meeting I had with Republicans as a “Nazi beer hall meeting.”

Everyone had a nice chuckle… until I reminded them that Democrats strung up thousands of black and white Republicans during the 19th and 20th centuries, much like Nazis strung up Jews and gays during the 30s and 40s.

My Jewish friends took offense to this, rolled their eyes and told me I couldn’t take a joke. (sigh)

Sunday, January 01, 2006

Mightier Than the Pen

Journalist Matt Pottinger recently gave up his job at WSJ and, at 31 years, is probably one of the oldest second lieutenants in the Marine Corps. He describes why he left one of the most prestigious newspapers in the world to join the Marines HERE.

Hat tip to Steve Finefrock

Tagometer