Hiatus

My temporary hiatus shall be coming to an end shortly.
I have been quite busy with work and school.
Both are winding down some and I will be back at it shortly.

Until then, Happy Thanksgiving!

“We’re not quite as bad as the Democrats”

I think it is high time that the Republican Party wake up to the fact that "We're not quite as bad as the Democrats," as the Party slogan isn't going to win them any elections.

The Republican Party needs to get back to its core beliefs and values and stop pumping up the pork in bills that are unnecessary and in my mind a fraud.

The Transportation Bill that was recently passed, needs to be rescinded so that the recovery of the Gulf Coast can be paid for without reaching into my pocket more than it has to.

The $286 billion transportation measure contains a record 6,371 pet projects inserted by members of Congress from both parties.

According to transportation officials, "the vast majority of the measure is geared toward road construction and public transit projects, with the money doled out over five years according to formulas designed to provide state and local governments considerable flexibility."
There are nearly 6,500 member-requested projects worth more than $24 billion, nearly nine percent of the total spending.
Read that last line again!

The Congress is out of control, the Republican Party no longer stands for fiscal conservatism, and the Democrats aren't any better.

It is time for the true Conservatives in this country to kick out those in the Republican Party that can't stand up to the true calling that we as a people have expected from them.

Vote them out, don't replace them with Democrats either!
It is time for a new Conservative Party movement to commence!
In fact, I think that should be the name of the Party, "The Conservative Party of America" has a nice ring to it.

Get rid of these bums that call themselves conservative and merely cave into the crap that the Democrats spew. They are spineless weasels and have made a mockery of the Republican Party.

I hereby resign as a card carrying member of the Republican Party.
I will maintain independent status until such time as a true Conservative Party is born.

I will maintain Independent status until such time as a true Conservative Party is born, or the old one decides to come back to its base.
You no longer have my vote, or support.
If you want it, you have to earn it.

Navy honors four Marines' valor in combat

Continuing with my theme on heros, here's one from the Marine Corps.
Thanks for your service gentlemen.



CHARLIE NEUMAN / Union-Tribune
Navy Secretary Gordon England pinned the Silver Star on Marine Cpl. Timothy C. Tardif at Camp Pendleton yesterday. Staff Sgt. Adam R. Sikes (center) also received the Silver Star; Sgt. Marco A. Martinez (at far left) received the Navy Cross.

By Rick Rogers
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
May 4, 2004

CAMP PENDLETON – As Sgt. Marco A. Martinez read his Navy Cross citation, the words took him back to April 12, 2003, and the battle of Tarmiya.

After his squad leader was wounded, Martinez, then a corporal, rallied the troops. At one point, his men came under fire from a building.

"Enduring intense enemy fire and without regard for his own personal safety, Cpl. Martinez launched a captured enemy rocket-propelled grenade into the building . . . allowing a wounded Marine to be evacuated," read the citation accompanying the medal.

Later in the battle, "he single-handedly assaulted the building and killed four enemy soldiers with a grenade and his rifle," according to the citation.

Yesterday, Navy Secretary Gordon England presented the Navy Cross to the 22-year-old Martinez and the Silver Star to two other 2nd Battalion, 5th Regiment Marines – Staff Sgt. Adam R. Sikes, 27, of Aliso Viejo, and Cpl. Timothy C. Tardif, 22, of Huntington Beach – before a gathering of hundreds of Marines at Camp Pendleton.

A spokeswoman at the base said the combat medals might be the highest awards presented so far to members of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force who fought their way into Baghdad last year.

Gordon also presented the wife of Gunnery Sgt. Jeffrey E. Bohr Jr. of Fallbrook with a posthumous Silver Star.

It was little more than a year ago that 2nd Battalion, 5th Marines was ambushed in a hail of small-arms and rocket-propelled grenade fire at Tarmiya.

When asked after the ceremony if he was afraid, Martinez said quietly, "There's really no time for fear."



Martinez, of Las Cruces, N.M., who in boots might be 5 feet 7 inches tall and weigh 140 pounds, added, "Through the whole firefight, I really wasn't scared. It was more I wanted to kill them before they kill me.

"Reading the citation, I remember what I did and what I saw that day," Martinez said. "During combat, the first 10 to 20 seconds moved in slow motion, but when you realize that if you don't move fast enough you are going to get shot, it goes back to real time. It's hard to explain."

The Navy Cross is the Navy's second-highest decoration for bravery after the Medal of Honor.

In the same battle, Sikes and Tardif earned their Silver Stars, the third-highest decoration for heroism during combat.

"Staff Sgt. Sikes charged alone across 70 meters of fire-swept ground to close on the first enemy strong point, which he cleared with a grenade and rifle fire," according to his citation. He then moved to the roof of a three-story building that was exposed to enemy fire. There he adjusted mortar fire and "decimated an enemy position," the citation read.

Like Martinez and Sikes, Tardif belonged to 1st Platoon, Company G, 2nd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment.

"Cpl. Tardif charged across a road under intense small arms and rocket propelled grenade fire inspiring his Marines to follow his example," according to his citation. "Engaged in intense close quarters battle, he received significant shrapnel wounds."

Tardif later collapsed from his injuries. He said a blood transfusion on a medical evacuation helicopter saved his life. No Marines were killed at Tarmiya, though a handful were wounded.

Gordon presented Lori Bohr with her husband's Silver Star.

Gunnery Sgt. Jeffrey E. Bohr Jr. was killed April 10 during a mission to take a presidential palace in Baghdad.

"When the lead vehicles of the convoy reached a dead-end and were subjected to enemy fire, Gunnery Sgt. Bohr continued to boldly engage the enemy while calmly maneuvering his Marines to safety," the citation read.

"My husband really believed in what he was doing over there," Lori Bohr said.

Navy honors four Marines' valor in combat

The story I posted earlier references Sgt. Marco A. Martinez, so I felt it fitting to post the awarding of his Navy Cross as well.

Campus Rads vs. Our Vets

This is an article that discusses the college campus radicals vs. the Veterans umongst them.
It is a shame that these people can't appreciate the sacrifices made by our men and women in uniform.
Again, the "I support our trooops, but..." crowd is out in force and continue to denigrate our military.
All you liberal idiots need to quit saying you support the troops, and in the same breath disparage them for their service to this nation.

Here's a taste:

Campus Rads vs. Our Vets
The antiwar unwelcome on campus.

By Wynton C. Hall & Peter Schweizer

As college students hit campuses across the nation this week, a new generation of young veterans will step off the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan and onto the ideological battlefield of our university campuses. For those on the frontline in the war on terror, the antiwar hostility of liberal professors and campus activists will assuredly prove unsettling.

Just ask Marine sergeant Marco Martinez, a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and a full-time psychology major at Saddleback College in Mission Viejo, Calif.

“A woman on campus had apparently learned I might be a Marine. When I told her I was, she said, ‘You’re a disgusting human being, and I hope you rot in hell!’ ”

Indeed, Martinez, who will be the first male in his family to receive a college diploma, says he is receiving more of an education than he bargained for: “There are a lot of people who don’t appreciate military service in college,” Martinez said. “If someone asks me about it, and I think that they’re not too liberal, I might tell them I was in Iraq. But I don’t tell them the full extent of it or anything about the Navy Cross.”

The Navy Cross — as in second only to the Congressional Medal of Honor. Martinez, formerly of 2nd Battalion, 5th Marines, is a bona-fide American hero and the first Hispanic American since Vietnam to receive the Navy Cross. During the Battle of At Tarmiya, one of Sergeant Martinez’s fellow marines had been hit in the legs and left for dead by five terrorists holed up in an adobe garden shed. That’s when Martinez used his body to shield the dying marine from the terrorist before mounting a 20-meter frontal charge at the bunker with nothing but a depleted rifle and a grenade. With enemy bullets pinging off his gear, Martinez unpinned the grenade, slammed his body into the adobe building, and lobbed the device into the window of the structure, killing all the terrorists inside.

But as liberal professors and antiwar activists continue to wage a nationwide campaign to rid university campuses of military recruiters — in some cases going so far as to throw water bottles and scream epithets at them — it is easy to see why Sergeant Martinez would remain tight-lipped about being one of the nation’s most decorated heroes.

More

Wake up America!
Support our troops without the "but" after you say it.
Deeds, not words, show your support for our troops, they deserve it.

Anti-War Protests Target Wounded at Army Hospital

This has got to be the most despicable action that can ever be undertaken in a time of war!
The people that are involved in this need to have their heads examined.
I am ashamed to consider them Americans.
Protesting a war is fine. Protesting a war in front of the hospital where the majority of the wounded return to is inexcusable.
How dare any of them.
I bet they also say that they "support the troops" in their hatred for America.

I am appalled that anyone would consider this to be a legitimate action.

Here's a story that needs to keep going and needs to be shoved into the faces of the collective America bashing, troop hating left of this country.

Anti-War Protests Target Wounded at Army Hospital
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
August 25, 2005

Washington (CNSNews.com) - The Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., the current home of hundreds of wounded veterans from the war in Iraq, has been the target of weekly anti-war demonstrations since March. The protesters hold signs that read "Maimed for Lies" and "Enlist here and die for Halliburton."

The anti-war demonstrators, who obtain their protest permits from the Washington, D.C., police department, position themselves directly in front of the main entrance to the Army Medical Center, which is located in northwest D.C., about five miles from the White House.

Among the props used by the protesters are mock caskets, lined up on the sidewalk to represent the death toll in Iraq.

Code Pink Women for Peace, one of the groups backing anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan's vigil outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford Texas, organizes the protests at Walter Reed as well.

Some conservative supporters of the war call the protests, which have been ignored by the establishment media, "shameless" and have taken to conducting counter-demonstrations at Walter Reed. "[The anti-war protesters] should not be demonstrating at a hospital. A hospital is not a suitable location for an anti-war demonstration," said Bill Floyd of the D.C. chapter of FreeRepublic.com, who stood across the street from the anti-war demonstrators on Aug. 19.

"I believe they are tormenting our wounded soldiers and they should just leave them alone," Floyd added.

According to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, nearly 4,000 individuals involved in the Iraq war were treated at the facility as of March of this year, 1,050 of whom were wounded in battle.

More.

May the Pinko communist pigs rot in hell.

And, oh by the way, many people that support the President have worn the uniform, and many have served in combat. I am one of them.

Immigration, and Democrats Are Two Faced Liars

Catchy title isn't it!

Gov. Bill Richards is a two faced liar.
His "Border Emergency" is a political ploy and is not meant to do anything against illegal immigration.

Want proof? Read on...

The declaration says:

"the region has been devastated by the ravages and terror of human smuggling, drug smuggling, kidnapping, murder, destruction of property and the death of livestock... [It] is in an extreme state of disrepair and is inadequately funded or safeguarded to protect the lives and property of New Mexican citizens."

...Richardson... criticized the "total inaction and lack of resources from the federal government and Congress" in helping protect his state's residents along the border...

Sounds good doesn't it?

How does he justify his stance on this issue when he has been a complete opposite on this until now?

A 1996 quote from the governor:

"These are changing political times where our basic and programs are being attacked. Illegal and legal immigration unfairly attacked. We have to band together and that means Latinos in Florida, Cuban-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Puerto Ricans, South Americans - we have to network better - we have to be more politically minded - we have to put aside party and think of ourselves as Latinos, as Hispanics, more than we have in the past."

And another from 2003:

"¡Viva la raza! . . . Thank you for coming to Santa Fe. Know that New Mexico is your home. We will protect you. You have rights here."

Oh, and there is this 8/18/05 :

"...In fact my state, New Mexico, is the most immigrant friendly state. We have licenses for undocumented workers. We have scholarships for them to go to our university because we want to integrate them; we don't want them out driving without insurance..."

Need more? Read more:

...Richardson plans to spend about $50,000 to fence the stockyards at the Columbus Port of Entry, but has no other plans for fencing along the 180-mile New Mexico-Mexico border, [Richardson policy adviser Bill Hume] said.
Richardson said Monday he is not in favor of closing the border.

"We're looking to increase law enforcement to knock back the illegal activity associated with the immigration," Hume said.

He still supports driver's licenses for illegal immigrants and still supports giving them scholarships to universities, and has not stopped giving them aid and comfort in his state by continuing to give them hand outs in the form of welfare and other subsities that we as Americans are paying across the board.

Governor Richards is a liar and two faced political hack.

Recognizing our Troops

I've decided to add news about Soldiers that recieve medals for heroism.
I think there is way too many people in America that don't support our troops, and their sacrifices. It is high time that there heroism and sacrifices be noted.

Special Forces Soldier awarded the Silver Star

Sgt. Joe Healy
U.S Army Special Operations Command

FORT BRAGG, N.C. (USASOC News Service, July 14, 2005) — A Special Forces Soldier was awarded the Silver Star in a ceremony at the U.S. Army Special Operations Command here July 14.

With his wife and children watching nearby, Sgt. Maj. Roderick C. Anderson, a command sergeant major assigned to 3rd Special Forces Group (Airborne), received the Silver Star from Brig. Gen. Gary M. Jones, commanding general, U.S. Army Special Forces Command (Airborne).

Anderson received the award for exceptionally valorous achievement July 3, 2004, while serving in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan’s Kunar province.

During his remarks, Jones said he remembered Anderson as “a young sergeant” when Jones commanded the 2nd Battalion, 3rd SFG in the early 1990s.

“Anderson was communications sergeant at the time,” said Jones. “But I knew from day one that this guy was the metal that we wanted for Special Forces.”

While deployed, Anderson directed a daring combat mission in treacherous mountain conditions against anti-coalition militia, resulting in the capture of nine high-value targets.

Leading a 25-vehicle convoy, which included Special Operations assets, Afghan Security Forces and Marines, Anderson’s unit was attacked by anti-coalition forces. He immediately provided command and control for the convoy, and called in close air support. Anderson exposed himself to the enemy while firing a light anti-tank weapon, which greatly suppressed enemy fire.

Moments later, the vehicle directly behind Anderson’s was disabled. Anderson immediately stopped his vehicle and engaged the enemy, while dispatching four Soldiers to recover the downed vehicle’s sensitive signal equipment. All the signal equipment was recovered.

“I am truly honored, but more importantly I am humbled by this award,” Anderson said. “I am humbled because the guys I work with - I’ve seen what they have done on a daily basis.”

Anderson said three other Soldiers that fought in the ambush received awards for their actions.

“It was a whole lot of guys doing what was necessary,” he said.

Anderson, 40, has been with 3rd SFG since 1991.

The Silver Star is awarded to a person who, while serving in any capacity with the U.S. Army, is cited for gallantry in action against an enemy of the United States while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force, or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.

The required gallantry, while of a lesser degree than that required for the Distinguished Service Cross, must nevertheless have been performed with marked distinction.


Thank you for your service Sergeant Major.
Here's another:

RELEASE NUMBER: 050628-02
DATE POSTED: JUNE 29, 2005

Steadfast SF Soldiers awarded Silver Star

By April Rowden
Paraglide

FORT BRAGG, N.C. (USASOC News Service, June 29, 2005) — A hesitant host-nation army, an unexpected leadership role and a gunshot wound to the abdomen didn’t stop three Special Forces Soldiers from protecting their comrades during enemy attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan last year.

Sgts. 1st Class Bradly M. Felix and Roger G. Watts, and Staff Sgt. David G. Colucci, all assigned to the 3rd Special Forces Group (Airborne), stood before more than 60 guests at a Valor Awards Ceremony June 28, 2005 at U. S. Army Special Operations Command here as Lt. General Philip Kensinger, USASOC commander, awarded each the Silver Star.

Listening to the retelling of their fearless actions was emotional for the Soldiers.

“It was humbling because I have two buddies not with me anymore,” Felix said of the Sept. 20, 2004 ambush in Afghanistan’s Paktika province, where he rallied Afghan National Army Soldiers to fire back on the ambushing anti-coalition militia. “But at the same time I’m honored.”

The award keeps the memory of his fallen comrades alive, Felix said.

For Watts, the ceremony was an opportunity to recall the May 12, 2004, firefight near Karbala, Iraq, where, while serving as the senior medical sergeant and assault cell leader, he left his own vehicle to administer life-saving aid while under intense mortar and small-arms fire to two crew members of a disabled tank. He then assumed command of the tank.

Modest about their awards, Felix and Watts, both instructors at Camp Mackall, said they have incorporated their combat experiences into the training scenarios used to indoctrinate potential Special Forces Soldiers.

Recognizing the importance of first-hand knowledge in this unconventional war, Watts said he “wants to make sure I can pass my experience to the junior guys.”

Telling the audience they were in the company of heroes, Col. Patrick M. Higgins, commander of the 3rd SFG, praised the men for braving hostile fire, repelling assaults, deflecting ambushes and being upstanding men.

The men, however, say they feel they did nothing extraordinary or worthy of receiving the fourth highest medal in the Army.

“It was instinctive,” asserts Felix, who has been in three near ambushes. “The training kicks in and you do what you need to do.”

“The medal means a lot to the team as a whole because it’s a reflection of the team,” said Watts, insisting his individual actions didn’t deserve an award. “If it wasn’t for their support, it could have been a different outcome that night.”

No lives were lost in the Karbala attack.

Colucci was awarded the Silver Star for his unwavering bravery during an ambush in Afghanistan June 25, 2004. He was serving as the senior engineer sergeant.

While conducting a recovery operation of an improvised explosive device, Colucci’s convoy came under attack. Although he suffered a gunshot wound to his abdomen, Colucci maneuvered his vehicle into a protective position and pulled security for his fellow Soldiers until reinforcements arrived. He then manned the door gunner machinegun while his element moved into a secure area to wait for medical evacuation.

The Silver Star is awarded to a person who, while serving in any capacity with the U.S. Army, is cited for gallantry in action against an enemy of the United States while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force, or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.

The required gallantry, while of a lesser degree than that required for the Distinguished Service Cross, must nevertheless have been performed with marked distinction.
Thank you Sergeants, you are a credit to the uniform.

What’s In a Name?

Andrew C. McCarthy

There was a good editorial in Friday's Dallas Morning News on the administration's latest foray into politically correct self-parody: namely, what to call the, y'know, er, the thing over there, um, like in Iraq and Afghanistan (i.e., the enterprise formerly known as "The War on Terror.")

The W-word is apparently out. Wouldn't want to refer to a war as a "war." After all, according to the head of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Richard Myers, "if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution." He is referring, of course, to people in military uniforms. Soldiers killing jihadists before they can blow up another U.S. embassy, or navy destroyer, or skyscraper. Surely you can see why that would not be a solution.


More at: What’s In a Name?

Great article!
I agree whole heartedly!

It is a war, not some politically correct euphemism that doesn't even come close to describing the "war on terror".

There is no way in hell that I will call it anything else other than the "war on Islamist extremism". I might call it that instead of the "war on terror".

Enjoy the article.

Here's another I thought you might enjoy!

J. D. Pendry
Hanoi Baghdad Jihad Jane (JJ)

"The image of Jane Fonda, Barbarella, Henry Fonda's daughter...sitting on an enemy aircraft gun was a betrayal...the largest lapse of judgment that I can even imagine," – Jane Fonda on 60 Minutes April 3, 2005
In the United States in August of 1972 if you flipped on the AM radio, which in those days still played popular music, you'd likely hear Gilbert O'Sullivan singing Alone Again (Naturally), the Three Dog Night singing Black and White or Mac Davis’ Baby Don’t Get Hooked on Me.

A 19-year-old soldier lucky enough to have down time from patrolling the jungle, sitting in his sandbag reinforced hooch way inside the concertina wire somewhere in South Vietnam, might have heard this coming from Radio Hanoi. “This is Jane Fonda, during my two week trip to Vietnam…” While sipping hot beer and longing for the day when he boarded the freedom bird, he was blessed with the voice of a cultural elitist. A privileged, rich, American glorifying his enemy while characterizing him as a murderer. Never mind that he knew what the Viet Cong were capable of doing and often did to the people of a village that might befriend Americans. ….” read Vietnamese history, particularly their poetry, and particularly the poetry written by Ho Chi Minh.”

More at: JD Pendry

Independence Day!

Happy Birthday America!

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation UNDER GOD, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

It is with great pride that I say this!
Being a Veteran of this great country it has more meaning to me than just a BBQ, or trip to the lake.
It isn't just another day off!

It's a day to celebrate freedom and to thank the many sacrifices made by the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines of this great country, both past and present.

Without their sacrifices, none of this would be possible.

I have friends that are currently serving in Iraq. I have friends that are in Afghanistan. My brother is serving in Kosovo. They are putting their lives on the line on a daily basis.

I have friends that are serving here in America, yes, their lives are put in jeopardy almost daily when they train for war.

It is because of them, and those that serve along side of them, that we celebrate America's 229th Birthday.

It is the Soldier, not the reporter, Who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the Soldier, not the poet, Who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the Soldier, not the organizer, Who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.
It is the Soldier, Who salutes the flag, Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag, Who allows the protestor to burn the flag.
Father Dennis Edward O'Brian, USMC
(Often incorrectly attributed to Charles M. Province)

New blog of note: Fried Baloney

Anti-American Leftist Idiots

In recent days the liberal media and left-wing politicians have disparaged the men and women of the United States Armed Forces who are stationed at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center, and the rest of the military, by accusing them of improper behavior and conduct.

These brazen people in the “Blame America First”crowd are providing aid and assistance to the enemies of the United States of America by suggesting that American troops are acting improperly and mistreating Islamic terrorists and suspected terrorists.
The truth is – the terrorists and suspected terrorists at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility are treated better than American prisoners who are incarcerated for minor offenses.

Let's look at what a typical meal for a terrorist detained at GITMO is:
• Orange Glazed Chicken
• Rice Pilaf
• Steamed Peas & Mushrooms
• Fruit Roupee

In contrast, our troops stationed at Guantanamo are served a MRE (Meal Ready to Eat). We can’t serve MRE’s to the terrorists. Because Congress has declared that if we were to serve an MRE to the terrorists and suspected terrorists held at GITMO, this would be “abuse.”

On Ramadan the terrorists and terrorist suspects being held at Guantanamo are given lamb with honey and dates, for breaking their fast. They are also given prayer beads and prayer oil. Each and every terrorist at Guantanamo is given a Koran, which by the way, is treated better than it should be.

ALL OF THIS PAID FOR BY U.S. TAXPAYERS

As Congressman Duncan Hunter noted, "if you did that for American GI's - if you had a call to prayer five times a day - the ACLU would sue on the basis that we violated the separation between church and state."

This is a travesty of the highest order! These terrorists are being treated better than our own GI’s. They are treated better than most prisoners of war have ever been treated in the history of warfare.

When the typical terrorist suspect is released because he is no longer considered a threat, he has gained weight! He is healthier than he was when he was caught, thanks to the multitude of medical staff that treats these murderers and conspirators on a daily basis.

The left wingers of this country that feel Guantanamo is a “gulag”, or “concentration camp”, or “the killing fields” of our time are so off the mark that is makes this Veteran sick.

I have had it up to my eyeballs with their whiney rhetoric that does nothing for this country, but everything for terrorism!
The gall of these leftist wacko terrorist sympathizing idiots is beyond the scope of this Veteran’s ability to understand.

It is high time that the forces at work against America be treated as they should… as enemies of the state!

Censure in the Senate is too good for Senator Dick Durban.

The anti-American leftist idiots of this country need to be held accountable for their slander, and outright lies they proclaim as truths.

The Sellout Seven

The seven Republicans that need to be removed from the Senate: John McCain of Arizona, Maine twins Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, Rhode Island’s Lincoln Chafee, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, John Warner of Virginia, and Mike DeWine of Ohio.

It is time that their constituents put them on notice. Their obstructionist tactics and outright undermining of the Republican Party’s efforts to bring an out of control judiciary back to the right, is a farce.

These seven Senators sabotaged the President, their 48 fellow Republican Senators, and the American people. Their actions reflect their weakness. Their actions show that they are more concerned with the liberal media giving them face time and pronouncing them “reformers”, than following the will of their constituants.

The November elections sent a message, that apparently, hasn’t been heard by some of the Senators in Congress. Not only was President Bush re-elected, but the Republican Party picked up more seats in the Senate.

The American people have spoken. It is time for these Senators to hear our voices once again. It is time to put them on notice. It is time to fire these seven Senators. They are closet liberals and need to be replaced by true conservatives.

Here are a few articles related to this:

Nuclear Option Still on the Table

McCain Helps Democrats Drive America Left

Call Them the Sellout Seven

Chafee’s Choices

PETA Kills Animals

Found a great website that hammers away at PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals).

Here's a sample from their website: PETA Kills Animals

From their site:

7 Things You Didn't Know About PETA


1) PETA president and co-founder Ingrid Newkirk has described her group’s overall goal as “total animal liberation.” This means no meat, no milk, no zoos, no circuses, no wool, no leather, no hunting, no fishing, and no pets (not even seeing-eye dogs). PETA is also against all medical research that requires the use of animals.
2) Despite its constant moralizing about the “unethical” treatment of animals by restaurant owners, grocers, farmers, scientists, anglers, and countless other Americans, PETA has killed over 10,000 dogs and cats at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. During 2003, PETA put to death over 85 percent of the animals it collected from members of the public.

3) PETA has given tens of thousands of dollars to convicted arsonists and other violent criminals. This includes a 2001 donation of $1,500 to the North American Earth Liberation Front (ELF), an FBI-certified “domestic terrorist” group responsible for dozens of firebombs and death threats. During the 1990s, PETA paid $70,200 to an Animal Liberation Front (ALF) activist convicted of burning down a Michigan State University research laboratory. In his sentencing recommendation, a federal prosecutor implicated PETA president Ingrid Newkirk in that crime. And PETA vegetarian campaign coordinator Bruce Friedrich told an animal rights convention in 2001 that “blowing stuff up and smashing windows” is “a great way to bring about animal liberation.”

4) PETA activists regularly target children as young as six years old with anti-meat and anti-milk propaganda, often waiting outside their schools to intercept them as they walk to and from class-without notifying parents. One piece of kid-targeted PETA literature tells small children: “Your Mommy Kills Animals!” PETA brags that its messages reach over 2 million children every year, including thousands reached by e-mail without the permission of their parents. One PETA vice president told the Fox News Channel’s audience: “Our campaigns are always geared towards children, and they always will be.”

5) PETA has used a related organization, the PETA Foundation, to fund the misnamed Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), a deceptive animal rights group that promotes itself as an unbiased source of medical and nutritional information. PCRM's president also serves as president of the PETA Foundation.

6) PETA runs campaigns seemingly calculated to offend religious believers. One entire PETA website is devoted to the claim-despite ample evidence to the contrary-that Jesus Christ was a vegetarian. PETA holds protests at houses of worship, even suing one church that tried to protect its members from Sunday-morning harassment. Its billboards taunt Christians with the message that hogs “died for their sins.” PETA insists, contrary to centuries of rabbinical teaching, that the Jewish ritual of kosher slaughter shouldn't be allowed. And its infamous “Holocaust on Your Plate” campaign crassly compares the Jewish victims of Nazi genocide with farm animals.

7) PETA has repeatedly attacked research foundations like the March of Dimes, the Pediatric AIDS Foundation, and the American Cancer Society, because they support animal-based research that might uncover cures for birth defects and life-threatening diseases. PETA president Ingrid Newkirk has said that “even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we would be against it.”

I support their effort to expose PETA for what they really are; domestic terrorists.

They are an organization that routinely advocates the breaking of laws and is guilty of hypocrisy as well.

Their tax exepmt status needs to be removed immediately!

Go here to sign a petition against PETA:
The Center for Consumer Freedom

Fight back! PETA is targeting your children!

Stop them now!

Another organization that claims to be for animal rights and is a sham is the Humane Society of the United States.

Check out this site:
ActivistCash.com

Newsweek Must be Held Accountable

Newsweek must be held accountable for their obvious anti-American, anti-military story that resulted in the deaths of 16 and injured 100.

The story published in the May 8 issue of Newsweek was a blatant lie that sparked anti-American protests across muslim countries around the world.

The set back that this rag has created is treasonous.

The writers and editors of this story should be brought up on charges of murder and treason.

It is high time that the media be held accountable for their overt anti-Americanism and when this results in the death of innocent people and puts our Soldiers in harms way, they should be brought up on charges, and fined at a minimum.

Their parent company should pay the families of those that died compensation for their losses, and they should pay every time a Soldier is killed due to their misconduct.

"We regret that we got any part of the story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in the midst," said Newsweek Editor Mark Whitaker in a note to readers.

This half-assed attempt at an apology, doesn't cut it.

"It's outrageous, I think it's accessory to murder," said Fox News military analyst Col. David Hunt, now retired from the Army.

"This is a lie. This is [a] criminal act as far as I'm concerned. People died," Hunt told Fox interviewer Geraldo Rivera. "A lot worse things should happen to Newsweek than ... making this half-assed apology."

"It's treasonous at worst," Hunt added. "How about not hurting the war? How about causing no harm? I think Newsweek should lose every reader it ever had."

A statement that they "may have erred" is outrageous! "We may have erred" isn't good enough. It isn't even close.

Democrat Hypocrisy

Showing the Democrat hypocrisy is an interesting and easy game to play.
Please feel free to find some of your own as well.

These quotes are from the Congressional Record.

•SEN. LEAHY: One of the things that most Republicans and Democrats ought to be able to agree on is what (then-)Governor Bush said: Do it and vote them up or down in 60 days. Let's make a decision. (7/25/00)

•SEN. DASCHLE: Among the constitutional responsibilities entrusted to the Senate, none is more critical to the well-being of our democracy than providing advice and consent on Presidential nominations. (3/8/00)

•SEN. LEAHY: No one will be here forever. All will leave at some time. When we leave, we can only look back and say: What kind of service did we give? Did we put the country's interests first? Or did we put partisan interest first? Did we put integrity first, or did we play behind the scenes and do things that were wrong? (9/21/99)

•SEN. KENNEDY: Over 200 years ago, the Framers of the Constitution created a system of checks and balances to ensure that excessive power is not concentrated in any branch of government. The President was given the authority to nominate federal judges with the advice and consent of the Senate. The clear intent was for the Senate to work with the President, not against him, in this process. (3/7/00)

•SEN. SCHUMER: By not filling vacancies, we hamper the judiciary's ability to fulfill its own constitutional duties. . . . This delay makes a mockery of the Constitution, makes a mockery of the fact that we are here working, and makes a mockery of the lives of very sincere people who have put themselves forward to be judges and then they hang out there in limbo. (3/7/00)

•SEN. LEAHY: I hope we will have a chance to vote on them, not just in committee . . . but on the floor of the Senate. That is what the Constitution speaks of in our advise and consent capacity. That is what these good and decent people have a right to expect. That is what our oath of office should compel Members to do - to vote for or against. I do not question the judgement or conscience of any man or woman in this Senate if they vote differently that I do, but vote. (9/21/99)

•SEN. REED: This is one of our enumerated duties in the Constitution. . . . I ask my colleagues to take their constitutional duty seriously and vote for these nominees on the basis of their objective qualifications, and not on the basis of petty politics. This process is much too important to the citizens of this great democracy to do otherwise. (3/9/00)

•SEN. LEAHY: One of our most important constitutional responsibilities as United States Senators is to advise and consent on the scores of judicial nominations sent to us to fill the vacancies on the federal courts around the country. I continue to urge the Senate to meet its responsibilities to all nominees. . . . We must redouble our efforts . . . . That is our constitutional responsibility. It should not be shirked. (7/25/00)

•SEN. LEAHY: There are only 100 of us who are elected to represent a quarter of a billion Americans. . . . Let us not play silly parliamentary games and tell the American people we do not have the guts to vote . . . (3/8/00)

•SEN. KENNEDY: Many of us have been concerned about the Senate's continuing delays in acting on President Clinton's nominees to the federal courts . . . . This kind of partisan, Republican stonewalling is irresponsible and unacceptable. It's hurting the courts and it's hurting the country. . . . The continuing delays are a gross perversion of the confirmation process that has served this country well for more than 200 years. When the Founders wrote the Constitution and gave the Senate the power of advice and consent on Presidential nominations, they never intended the Senate to work against the President. . . . (9/21/99)

•SEN. LEAHY: We are not being responsible. We are being dishonest, condescending, and arrogant toward the judiciary. It deserves better and the American people deserve better. . . . Nominees deserve to be treated with dignity and dispatch. . . . We are seeing outstanding nominees nitpicked and delayed to the point that good women and men are being deterred from seeking to serve as federal judges. (9/8/99)

•SEN. LEAHY: We should be the conscience of the Nation. On some occasions we have been. But we tarnish the conscience of this great Nation if we establish the precedence of partisanship and rancor that go against all precedents and set the Senate on a course of meanness and smallness . . . . For the last several years, I have been urging the Judiciary Committee and the Senate to proceed to consider and confirm judicial nominees more promptly, without the months of delay that now accompany so many nominations. (10/1/99)

•SEN. DASCHLE: I believe there is a time and a place for us to consider any nominee and, once having done so, we need to get on with it. I cannot imagine that anybody could justify, anybody could rationalize, anybody could explain why, in the name of public service, we would put anyone through the misery and the extraordinary anguish that these nominees have had to face for years. Why would anyone ever offer themselves for public service . . . ? (3/9/00)

•SEN. HARKIN: I hope the Judiciary Committee and the leadership on that side. . .will listen to the words of Texas Governor George Bush. He said he would call for a 60-day deadline for judges - once they are nominated, the Senate will have 60 days to hold a hearing, to report out of committee and vote on the Senate floor. . . . If he said he would call for a 60-day deadline, I ask my friends on the Republican side: Why don't we act accordingly? (10/3/2000)

•SEN. LEAHY: If I could make a recommendation, I would join an unusual ally in that. Gov. George W. Bush of Texas (stated that) presidential nominations should be acted upon by the Senate within 60 days. He said: 'The Constitution . . does not empower anyone to turn the process into a protracted ordeal of unreasonable delay and unrelenting investigation. Yet somewhere along the way, that is what Senate confirmations became - lengthy, partisan, and unpleasant. It has done enough harm, injured too many good people, and it must not happen again.' Governor Bush is right. . . . I have said the same thing. (7/21/2000)

•SEN. DASCHLE: The Republican majority should not be allowed to cherry-pick among nominees, allowing some to be confirmed in weeks, while letting other nominations languish for years. . . . Let the Senate vote on every nomination. (10/5/99)

•SEN. LEAHY: Either vote for them or vote against them. Don't leave people . . . just hanging forever with even getting a rollcall vote. That is wrong. It is not a responsible way and besmirches the Senate. . . . (10/5/00)

•SEN. DASCHLE: There is going to be no payback. We are not going to do to Republican nominees, whenever that happens, what they have done to Democratic nominees. Why? Because it is not right. Will we differ? Absolutely. Will we have votes and vote against nominees on the basis of whatever we choose? Absolutely. But are we going to make them wait for years and years to get their fair opportunity to be voted on and considered? Absolutely not. That is not right. I do not care who is in charge. I do not care which President is making the nomination. That is not right. (3/9/00)


More later.

Eric

Good News Articles for your Perusal

Illegal Alien Invasion

Test of Hispanic boycott fails in Arizona

Alleged cop killer an illegal immigrant

Bishops want legalization of illegals

Illegal aliens invading U.S.

Illegal drives wrong way on Interstate

Court: DMV can't revoke illegals' licenses

Bishops want legalization of illegals


John Bolton

The Borking of Bolton

The Disappearing Case Against John Bolton

Weld Weighs In for Bolton

The Best Man for the Job

Bolton for the U.N.

Republicans Need to Get Their Act Together.

It is time for the Republicans to get their act together.

One thing, the only thing, that I admire about the Democrat Party is their ability to show a united front, even when they are grossly wrong on any particular issue, and stick to their guns.

The namby-pamby, on the one hand, on the other hand, that the Republican Party (mostly rogue) Senators is damaging the Party's efforts to get their agenda passed in the Senate.

For far too long, the Republican Party's strategy to offer the "olive branch" to the Democrats, is not a viable option. It isn't working. It hasn't worked in the many years that they have been doing it.

Every time they do this, the Democrats get their way and the rest of us suffer for it.

Judicial nominees are a fine example of the obstructionist tactics that the Democrats continue to employ, while the Republicans continue to offer the "olive branch" and the Democrats continue getting their way.

The Constitutional option needs to be exercised now. The Republicans need to fight back in a manner that is beneficial to them and the rest of us who voted Republican.
We voted that way for a reason. The reason for our vote was to stop the liberal shenanigans that have continued to haunt America for far too long.

Are you listening? Hello? Republican Party are you home?

More later.
I am far from through with this one.
Eric

The Boxer Rebellion

Barbara Boxer is a liar, a fraud, and a hypocrite.
There is no other way to state it.
She is a liar, and I fear a pathological one at that.
She is a fraud in that she claims to represent her actions are in the filibuster madness is a historical precedent in the Senate.
She is a hypocrite in her dealings with judicial nominees.

Read on.

"Boxer would be barely qualified to manage a brassiere store if she had to earn a living."
-Rush Limbaugh

Photo: http://www.iowapresidentialwatch.com/cartoonarc/HystericalBoxer.htm

I'll give you some examples of these lies.

During the confirmation hearings for Dr. Rice for Secretary of State;
Boxer accused Dr. Rice of being a dishonest salesman for President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq. Boxer said during the Senate hearing:

"Your loyalty to the mission you were given, to sell this war, overwhelmed your respect for the truth.... I also will not shrink from questioning a war that was not built on the truth. Now, perhaps the most well known statement you've made was the one about Saddam Hussein launching a nuclear weapon on America with the image of quote, quoting you, a mushroom cloud. That image had to frighten every American into believing that Saddam Hussein was on the verge of annihilating them if he was not stopped. And I will be placing into the record a number of such statements you made which have not been consistent with the facts."

Boxer attacked Dr. Rice for the entire 10 minutes she was allotted for questioning the nominee, without once giving Dr. Rice a chance to respond, and tried to end the attack without giving Dr. Rice a chance to say ANYTHING with: "As a matter of fact, you've said more misstatements: that the territory of the terrorists has been shrinking when your own administration says it's now expanded to 60 countries. So I am deeply troubled. Thank you."

Dr. Rice then addressed Senator Lugar, the Republican Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with: "Senator, may I respond?"

Sen. Lugar said "Yes. Let me just say that I appreciate the importance of Senator Boxer's statement, that's why we allowed the statement to continue for several more minutes." Boxer had exceeded her allotted time. Lugar, addressing Dr. Rice went on to say: "But, clearly, you ought to have the right to respond. And then, at that point, we're going to have a recess. But will you please give your response?"

Rice responded:

"Senator, I have to say that I have never, ever lost respect for the truth in the service of anything. It is not my nature. It is not my character. And I would hope that we can have this conversation and discuss what happened before and what went on before and what I said, without impugning my credibility or my integrity. The fact is that we did face a very difficult intelligence challenge in trying to understand what Saddam Hussein had in terms of weapons of mass destruction. We knew something about him. We knew that we had gone to war with him twice in the past, in 1991 and in 1998. We knew that he continued to shoot at American aircraft in the no-fly zone as we tried to enforce the resolutions that the U.N. Security Council had passed. We knew that he continued to threaten his neighbors. We knew that he was an implacable enemy of the United States, who did cavort with terrorists. We knew that he was the world's most dangerous man in the world's most dangerous region. And we knew that in terms of weapons of mass destruction, he had sought them before, tried to build them before, that he had an undetected biological weapons program that we didn't learn of until 1995, that he was closer to a nuclear weapon in 1991 than anybody thought. And we knew, most importantly, that he had used weapons of mass destruction.

"That was a context that, frankly, made us awfully suspicious when he refused to account for his weapons of mass destruction programs, despite repeated Security Council resolutions and despite the fact that he was given one last chance to comply with Resolution 1441. Now, there were lots of data points about his weapons of mass destruction programs. Some were right and some were not. But what was right was that there was an unbreakable link between Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Boxer was given even more time for her attack, charging Dr. Rice with

"Well, you should you read what we voted on when we voted to support the war, which I did not, but most of my colleagues did. It was WMD, period. That was the reason and the causation for that particular vote."

Actually, the first authorization for the use of force in Iraq was made, not under President Bush, but under President Clinton when Barbara Boxer's pal, Madeleine Albright was Secretary of State. In 1998 the top reason for authorizing President CLINTON to use force in Iraq was: "that Iraq was then in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations and thereby threatened the vital interests of the United States and international peace and security." That resolution became Public Law 105-235."

The first resolution introduced to urge the president to take military action in Iraq was introduced by then Democrat Majority leader, Tom Daschle, on September 26, 2002 and the first reason given for taking military action was Public Law 105-235 passed in the Clinton administration. The resolution that finally did pass, Joint Resolution H.R. 114, referred to Public Law 105-235 and have 22 more reasons for authorizing military action against Iraq; that's 23 reasons that the Congress gave Clinton.

The liar here is not Condi Rice. The liar is Barbara Boxer and it is proven in the Congressional Record by her own arguments on the floor of the Senate.
=====================================================================================
Boxer Lies About War Dead
In the Condi Rice hearings, Barbara Boxer (one of just two votes against Condi, along with John Kerry) said 25% of US military fatalities in Iraq came from California. That would be 342 of California's finest, based on the then current count of 1,370 combat deaths.

The actual number of California soldiers who lost their lives in Iraq was 157, according to Iraqi Coalition Fatality Count. That's 11.5%, not 25%.

Boxer is exploiting the war dead for her own political ends. How disgusting. How typical.

The lies of the left continue to go unchecked in the media. In fact, the media does their very best not to portray the liberal left in this country as they should be. The MSM continues to cover up any and all transgressions that the left has as well as exploit any and all discrepancies, however minute, or false, they may be, of the Conservative right.

Barbara Boxer is a liar, a fraud, and above all a feminazi of the highest order.

Boxer on the filibuster:

For Years, Senator Barbara Boxer Demanded The Senate Debate All Judicial Nominations And Hold An "Up-Or-Down" Floor Vote. Under President Clinton, Boxer Went So Far As To Condemn The Potential Filibuster Of A Nomination.

Senator Boxer On Judicial Nominees:
Senator Barbara Boxer: Let These Names Come Up, Let Us Have Debate, Let Us Vote.

"Mr. President, I am very glad that we are moving forward with judges
today." We all hear, as we are growing up, that, "Justice delayed is justice
denied, and we have, in many of our courts, vacancies that have gone on for a
year, 2 years, and in many cases it is getting to the crisis level. So I am
pleased that we will be voting. I think, whether the delays are on the
Republican side or the Democratic side, let these names come up, let us have
debate, let us vote." (Senator Barbara Boxer, Congressional Record, January 28,
1998)

Boxer Told Her Fellow Senators That Nominees Deserve An Up Or Down Vote.

"I make an appeal: If we vote to indefinitely postpone a vote on these two nominees or one of these two nominees, that is denying them an up-or-down vote. That would be such a twisting of what cloture really means in these cases. It has never been done before for a judge, as far as we know--ever. Again, it would undermine what Senator Lott said when he said these people deserve an up-or-down vote." (Senator Barbara Boxer, Congressional Record, March 9, 2000)

Senator Boxer On Filibustering Presidential Nominees:

While Arguing That The Nomination Of Dr. Henry Foster For Surgeon General Deserved An Up-Or Down Senate Vote, Boxer Said That Senators Should Oppose Filibustering Nominations And Just Vote Their Conscience.

"He deserves his day. And filibustering this nomination is keeping him from his day. . . . Let us be fair. Let us stop the personal attack. Let us stop Presidential politics. Let us vote for cloture. Then let each and every Senator vote his or her conscience." (Senator Barbara Boxer, Congressional Record, June 21, 1995)

Only Three Years Ago, Boxer Condemned Republicans' Treatment Of Women And Minority Nominees, Calling It "Shameful":

At A Press Conference In 2000, Boxer Called The Treatment Of Women And Minorities For The Federal Judiciary A "Nightmare."

"I want to thank Senator Mikulski, I want to thank the American Association of University Women for organizing this effort to call attention to the shameful way that women nominees to the federal judiciary have been treated by this Republican Senate. Senator Mikulski has pointed out the long time that women and minorities have had to wait to get their day, if you will, in the Senate court, so they can take their seats on the judiciary. . . .

So we're here today to end that nightmare, to give the Republican Senate a
wake-up call, to let the people of America know how these fine women are being
treated, and we are here to say we are going to focus the light on this matter."
(Senator Barbara Mikulski and others, Press Conference, Washington, DC, September 14, 2000)

With A Republican President Nominating Judges, Boxer Has Changed Her Tune.

Instead Of Bringing Each Nomination To A Vote, Boxer Supports Partisan Democrat Filibusters Against Highly qualified Nominees. Boxer Even Opposes The Nomination Of Carolyn Kuhl, A Judge From Her Home State Of California.

Carolyn Kuhl

Judge Kuhl
Received A "Well-Qualified" Rating, The Highest Given By The American Bar
Association. (American Bar Association Website, http://www.abanet.org/, May 20, 2003)

Boxer On Judge Carolyn Kuhl:

Boxer Attacked Kuhl For Being "Outside The Mainstream."

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said she senses momentum has been building against Kuhl's nomination to the San Francisco-based court, which hears federal appeals for nine states in the West.
"She is so far outside the mainstream," said Boxer, who has provided her
colleagues with a detailed critique of Kuhl's record in California and in the
Reagan administration. (Paul Chavez, Rejection Urged For Bush Appellate Court
Nominee, The Associated Press, May 8, 2003)

Boxer Promised To Oppose Kuhl And Asked President Bush To Withdraw Her Nomination.

Boxer said in a statement Thursday that the White House should withdraw the nomination, promising "much opposition" if Kuhl's nomination is brought to a vote. "We can and should move beyond the Kuhl nomination and to consideration of a new nominee who is confirmable," Boxer said. (David Whitney, Committee Clears Controversial Court Nominee, Scripps Howard News Service, May 8, 2003)

Boxer Launched An Attack On Senator Hatch For Holding A Hearing On Kuhl.

Boxer and a host of liberal advocacy groups paint Kuhl as a right-wing
ideologue and a foe of abortion rights. In a letter to Judiciary Chairman Orrin
Hatch, R-Utah, Boxer blasted his decision to go ahead with the hearing. "I am
extremely disappointed that you would disregard my prerogatives as one of the
home-state senators, and overturn your own policy, by moving forward on this
nominee. Your blue slip policy is apparently guided more by who is in the White
House rather than by powers given to us as U.S. Senators by one of the greatest
documents in the world, the U.S. constitution," Boxer wrote. "‘This decision to
move forward without both home-state senators' approval will have ramifications
for years to come." (Jonathan Groner and Jason Hoppin, Senate Democrats Grill
9th Circuit Nominee, The Recorder, April 2, 2003)

Boxer Used Abortion As A Litmus Test For Kuhl’s Confirmation.

Judge Kuhl's nomination has been stalled for nearly two years because Sen. Barbara
Boxer, California Democrat, refused to return her blue slip to indicate that
she'd been consulted on the appointment. "Judge Kuhl is way out of the
mainstream on choice and privacy, with writings that call for the outright
repeal of Roe," Mrs. Boxer said in a press release, referring to the 1973 Roe v.
Wade decision on abortion. "I will oppose these nominations." (Charles Hunt,
Panel OKs Court Nominee Despite Negative "Blue Slip," The Washington Times,
April 2, 2003)

Judge Priscilla

Owen Judge
Priscilla Owen Also Received A "Well-Qualified" Rating, The Highest Rating Given
By The American Bar Association. (American Bar Association Website, http://www.abanet.org/, May 20, 2003)

Boxer On Judge Priscilla Owen:

Ironically, Boxer Complained That Owen Legislates From The Bench.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said of Owen, "In such important areas as reproductive rights and civil rights and consumer protection, this nominee has legislated from the bench -- and she has inserted her personal beliefs into the judicial process." Boxer also complained about reports that Republicans planned to run ads against those
fighting Owen and Estrada as opposing women and Hispanics to the bench -- and
said Democrats have led the fight for women's rights. (Lee Davidson, Hatch
Sees Red Over Demos Grilling, The [Salt Lake City, Utah] Deseret News, May 2,
2003)

Boxer Attacked Owen For Her Stances, Calling Her So Far Right From Center That She Is Almost Off.

"Let me say that is extraordinary because as someone who worked so hard to support qualified minorities and women, I have praised by many in my State for doing just that.
But I have to tell you, if you place on the bench a minority or a woman who has
animosity toward the goals of minorities and women, you are dealing a great
setback to both minorities and women. I will make that point when I have to. But
as for today, I point out I voted for well over 90 percent of the President's
appointees up to this point in time, but I cannot support this nomination. This
is why. President Bush pledged to govern from the center. Those were his words.
Yet this nominee is so far from the center that she is almost off, to the right.
She is barely on that line at all. That differs from the mainstream values of my
constituents and I believe of the majority of Americans." (Senator Barbara
Boxer, Congressional Record, May 1, 2003)

Miguel Estrada

Miguel Estrada Also Received A "Well-Qualified" Rating, The Highest Rating Given By The American Bar Association. (American Bar Association Website, http://www.abanet.org/, May 20, 2003)

Boxer On Miguel Estrada:

Boxer Recently Said She Would Not Filibuster Right-Wing Judges; She Simply Would Not Vote For Them.

"Frankly, from my perspective, if people are off the charts on the right
wing, I am not going to vote for them. I will not filibuster them. Once they
give us the information, I am ready to vote. I will retain my right for a
Supreme Court Justice, however, on that point on the filibuster. But, in
general, if people answer questions, I will vote no. But I want the answers. I
don't want a judicial selection process that excludes the Senate. It is the
worst thing that can happen in this country." (Senator Barbara Boxer,
Congressional Record, February 26, 2003)

Now Boxer Opposes Removing The Filibuster Because It Would Weaken "The Senate's Ability To Stop Radical Appointments."

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said "removing the filibuster would hurt the Senate's ability to stop radical appointments. The president should reread the Constitution and understand that the power to appoint judges is a shared power between the Senate and the president," Boxer said. Democrats say they are blocking the nomination because "Estrada has not been forthcoming about his views." (Jason Embry, Bush Urges Ban On Judicial Filibusters, The Atlanta-Journal Constitution, March 12, 2003) http://committeeforjustice.org/contents/reading/boxerjudges.pdf

The hypocrisy of the left and especially Senator Boxer is absolutely evident and prevalent in their dealings in the Senate.
It is time for this Senator to be voted out of office.
It is time for this Senator to be filibustered every time she tries to open her mouth.

The second she opens her mouth, the Republicans present should shout in unison "HYPOCRITE"!

Eventually she might get a clue, although I highly doubt it. I doubt any liberal can get a clue if it was handed to them on a silver platter.

Barbara Boxer is a liar, a fraud, and a hypocrite of the highest order.

It is time she is hounded in the press for her actions and misinformation campaign at every turn.

Mexican Army on Alert/Costs of Illegal Immigration

The Mexican Army is on alert!
They are on alert because of the Minuteman Project.
The Mexican Army is escorting Mexicans away from the section of border that the Minutemen are patrolling.

Border Patrol sources say the Mexican army recently moved about 1,000 troops to the Agua Prieta region, just south of where the Minutemen are. These troops, the sources say, are diverting all of the illegal alien and drug-smuggling traffic away from the Minutemen.


Yes, you read that correctly. They are diverting illegal alien and drug-smuggling traffic away from the Minutemen.

What that statement didn't say, is that they are likely diverting terrorists away from that area as well.

As the war in Iraq winds down, it is my opinion that the border states should activate their state National Guard to patrol the border. Static positions in areas of known traffic and mobile patrols along the entire border are called for.

The money that we would save by preventing illegal aliens, drug-traffickers and possible terrorists, would offset the cost.

"Illegal alien workers may increase profits for employers, but they are costly to the American taxpayer. Most illegal aliens have low educational attainment, few skills, and they work for low wages, often in the underground economy where they pay no taxes on their earnings. Since about three million illegal aliens gained legal status in the amnesty of 1986, the flow of illegal immigration has increased, and today that population is estimated at 9-11 million illegal alien residents in the country. The former Immigration and Naturalization Service estimated that the illegal alien population was increasing by about half a million aliens per year in 2000."
" The estimated fiscal cost of those illegal aliens to the federal, state and local governments was about $33 billion. This impact was partially offset by an estimated $12.6 billion in taxes paid to the federal, state and local governments, resulting in a net cost to the American taxpayer of about $20 billion every year. This estimate did not include indirect costs that result from unemployment payments to Americans who lost their jobs to illegal aliens willing to work for lower wages. Nor did it include lost tax collections from those American workers who became unemployed. The study estimated those indirect costs from illegal immigration at an additional $4.3 billion annually."
Source: Federation for American Immigration Reform

The costs mentioned above do not include the cost of education for those illegal alien children in K-12 schools, which is estimated to be at $7 billion annually.

"In 2003, according to the Arizona Department of Motor Vehicles, 57,600 cars were stolen in Phoenix. It is now the car-jacking capital of the world. Most were SUV’s and pickup trucks. At a conservative average of $15,000.00 per vehicle, owner losses exceeded $864 million. Insurance companies in the state suffered incredible claims from policyholders."

"Illegal aliens displaced American workers at a cost in excess of $133 billion dollars last year according to Harvard Professor George Borjas. College and high school kids cannot find a summer job in yard care, landscape, fast food or service jobs. Why? Illegal aliens work them at a third the wage and often, under the table."
Source: Frosty Wooldridge

The average head of household illegal alien costs you $2,700.00 in welfare money over and above any taxes he or she pays in their meager paying jobs. With 15 to 20 million illegal aliens in the USA, that figures exceeds $20 billion of your tax dollars. (Source: Center for Immigration Studies, August 2004)

Illegal immigration costs the taxpayers of California — which has the highest number of illegal aliens nationwide — $10.5 billion a year for education, health care and incarceration. The total cost of illegal immigration to the state's taxpayers would be considerably higher if other cost areas, such as special English instruction, school meal programs or welfare benefits for American workers displaced by illegal-alien workers were added into the equation.

Mass illegal immigration is costing Texas more than $4.65 billion a year.
Using a 1994 study published by the Urban Institute as a baseline, The Cost of Illegal Immigration to Texans looks at Census Bureau and other data to estimate the explosive growth in the size and cost of illegal immigration in the nation's second most populous state. In 2004, the annual fiscal burden of illegal immigration amounted to about $725 per Texas household headed by a native-born resident.

Convinced yet?
Pressure needs to be put on the politicians and the companies that advocate illegal immigrants and their ilk.
I urge you to write to your local and state politicians and urge them to enforce the current laws of the U.S. and increase law enforcement presence on the borders to include state National Guard if necessary, to stem the tide.

If the writing campaign does not work, then vote them out of office, regardless of their party affiliation.

Links:
World Net Daily
Find Law
Federation for American Immigration Reform
Frosty Wooldridge
Center for Immigration Studies
Illegal Aliens.US
Report Illegals

Radical Judges

It is high time that the judicial nominations that President Bush has set forth, get an up, or down vote.

The activism that is prevalent in the courts today, warrants close scrutiny.

The ninth circuit court is a prime example of activist judges that are out of control.
Of the 79 cases the Supreme Court decided this past term through published opinions, 68 arose from the federal appellate courts, two from the federal district courts, and nine from state courts. The court reversed or vacated the judgment of the lower court in 59 of these cases. Specifically, the justices overturned 54 of the 68 judgments arising from the federal appellate courts (or 79%), zero of the two judgments coming from the federal district courts (or 0%), and six of the nine judgments issued originally by state courts (or 67%).

Notably, 9th Circuit rulings constituted about 32 percent of both the cases (25 of 79) and the reversals (19 of 59) the Supreme Court decided by written slip opinions this term.

Source:Center for Individual Freedom

Another problem with the courts is that they are trying to be the legislative branch as well as the judicial branch of government.
The system set up by the founders of this great nation are being usurped by activism in the courts. It is high time that the Congress steps in and reigns these out of control judges in.

The courts feel that they are the controlling branch of the U.S. government. As things sit, they are.

When a court can willfully disobey a subpoena by the Congress and get away with it, then there is a problem that needs to be addressed with swift action.
The Congress should have held Judge Greer in contempt of Congress and impeached him on the spot. This is the only way to reign these judges in. After a couple have been impeached, the courts will undoubtedly think twice before trying to legislate from the bench.

Is there hope?
Maybe.
Representative Tom DeLay suggested such a review of judges last week in response to the Terri Schiavo case, words that Democrats interpret as a threat to impeach judges.
The Constitution gives Congress the task of judicial oversight, it is high time they use that oversite and start peeling back the onion that the Democrats have laid at out door steps through their activist judges.

"Should we look at situations where judges have decided to go off on their own tangent and disobey the statutes of the United States of America? I think that's a legitimate area for oversight," Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum told ABC's "This Week."

Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, told "Fox News Sunday" there are "legitimate concerns" in conservative circles that the judiciary has exceeded its power in cases involving the Pledge of Allegiance, same-sex "marriage" and other issues.

"This Week" host George Stephanopoulos asked Sen. Santorum whether Congress having authority over the courts "is a new interpretation of the separation of powers doctrine."

Sen. Santorum said, "We do have authority to set the jurisdiction of the court, and that's very clear. Article 3, Section 1 in the Constitution says that Congress has the authority to set the jurisdiction of the court."

I think a redistricting may be in order as well.
The 9th Circuit Court should be abolished and the states that are affected should be split up amongst the other courts.

The Democratic Party has long used these judges to get their agenda through to the American people, despite their true will. The voters are inconsequential in the eyes of the Democrats. As long as they have a court system that will pass their legislative agenda, they don't need control of the Congress.

As long as the Republican Party continues to kowtow to the left in "fairness" then this problem will continue unabated.

MinuteMen At Work

This struck a chord with me!! Enjoy

In Defense Of The Minuteman Project
By Geoff Metcalf (04/11/05)
Much of the media coverage and virtually all of the 'government' comment on the Minuteman Project www.minutemanproject.com has been negative. Despite measurable success, the Main Stream Media and bureaucrats of all stripes continue to denigrate what is proving to be a good thing. A good thing however that personifies those who don’t want to be confused with facts that contradict a preconceived opinion or prejudice.Detractors say the MMP is successful only for the 24-mile stretch of border. Those not crossing where they had been are just moving east to more porous routes.The controversy surrounding the Minuteman Project is a poorly crafted red herring.The simple, empirical reality is the Minuteman Project has been hugely successful. Illegal border crossings along the stretch of Arizona/Mexico border have virtually been stopped.Notwithstanding the fears of vigilante violence and gap toothed redneck pick up truck marauders, the Minuteman Project is proving to be a well organized, effectively managed deterrent to a chronic travesty of neglect.It is interesting that local ranchers and victims of local and federal government malfeasance overwhelmingly support and appreciate the results of the Minuteman Project. It is equally interesting that 'officials' (who have been derelict and incompetent) not only resent these citizen border watchers, but have targeted THEM with petty harassment. Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano wrote them a letter saying they are on her 'blacklist' and state cops are targeting out-of-state plates with minor infraction tickets. Hopefully local ranchers will reward the Governor my voting her out of office.The Oakland Tribune got the whole Minuteman thing exactly WRONG.
http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/oped/ci_2648675
They wrote, "The Arizona hunters gathering in April for the so-called ‘Minuteman Project’ to search for undocumented immigrants along the border with Mexico aren't likely to have any success in stemming their migration to the United States." They are not "hunters" but a ‘neighborhood watch’ group with volunteers from numerous states.Reportedly there has been a steady stream of law enforcement ‘presence’…"a showing of border patrol helicopters, border patrol SUVs, sheriff vehicles, border patrol on scooters. In short, there was a steady stream of law enforcement on this normally deserted stretch of border land." Local ranchers claim they have never seen so many border patrol. However the show of force is not for illegals…it is for the MMP. The Tribune said, "It's simply a sham with racial implications." Bullfeathers! "They are hunters of hate." What a crock! The MMP organizers who have been doing a superb job of avoiding confrontation and providing a valuable service to the badge carrying Border Patrol agents rejected any potential ‘hunters of hate’.The ‘suits’ may be in persistent hissy-fit mode, but the Border Patrol agents walking the sand really appreciate the additional intelligence resourcesDetractors say, if you measure success in terms of "they ain’t crossin' here no more", the Minuteman Project is successful for only 24 miles of border. Naysayers claim this is a distraction for officials focused on watching the watchers.A rancher’s wife who lives on 800 acres of border property (the family has been there since the1880s) requested that Minutemen be stationed nearby. She used to hear gunshots every night. Since the Minutemen arrived, she claims the gunshots have stopped. Prior to the MMP her husband would report information the border patrol wouldn’t believe. When her husband reported counting over 200 illegals in a group, he was told that wasn’t possible. Who are you going to believe your eyes or an official chairborne bureaucrat?The locals love the volunteers. The officials hate them.Whereas the Oakland Tribune calls the MMP "Arizona hunters"…each team has been encouraged to fly their state flag. As a result, a volunteer reports, "a New York flag was flying from the team to our west and a Florida flag flying from the team to our east. Our team flew an American and a Californian flag combo." Border patrol supervisors drive around spinning the ‘official’ line: MMP bad/Government agents good. However, when the supervisors return to air-conditioned offices, the rank and file border patrol say they are delighted the volunteers are there.One volunteer noted, "I met some great people from New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, Kansas, lots of Texans and Californians. Most were just run of the mill, salt of the earth typical hard working American citizens."Everyone acknowledges the border is not adequately protected. In this war on terror, the border is an accident waiting to happen. If our government officials cannot or will not protect the border, they should embrace (and work WITH) citizen volunteers instead of crunching their cookies in some lame bureaucratic territorial whizzing match.

The simple truth is in an old joke: "Doctor, it hurts when I go like ‘that,’" said the patient. "Don’t go like ‘that’ said the doctor.

Shoe Bomber Sentencing

I am posting the sentencing of Richard Reid, the Shoe Bomber. His sentence seems to have been missed by the main stream media, no surprise there, but this is worth the post.
This judge is on the ball here!

Ruling by Judge William Young

U.S. District Court Judge William Young made the following statement in sentencing "shoe bomber" Richard Reid to prison. It is noteworthy, and deserves to be remembered far longer than he predicts. I commend it to you and to anyone you might wish to forward it to.



January 30, 2003 United States vs. Reid. Judge Young: Mr. Richard C. Reid, hearken now to the sentence the Court imposes upon you.

On counts 1, 5 and 6 the Court sentences you to life in prison in the custody of the United States Attorney General.

On counts 2, 3, 4 and 7, the Court sentences you to 20 years in prison on each count, the sentence on each count to run consecutive with the other. That's 80 years.

On count 8 the Court sentences you to the mandatory 30 years consecutive to the 80 years just imposed. The Court imposes upon you each of the eight counts a fine of $250,000 for the aggregate fine of $2 million.

The Court accepts the government's recommendation with respect to restitution and orders restitution in the amount of $298.17 to Andre Bousquet and $5,784 to American Airlines.

The Court imposes upon you the $800 special assessment.

The Court imposes upon you five years supervised release simply because the law requires it. But the life sentences are real life sentences so I need go no further.

This is the sentence that is provided for by our statues. It is a fair and just sentence. It is a righteous sentence. Let me explain this to you.

We are not afraid of any of your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr. Reid. We are Americans. We have been through the fire before. There is all too much war talk here. And I say that to everyone with the utmost respect.

Here in this court , where we deal with individuals as individuals, and care for individuals as individuals, as human beings we reach out for justice, you are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. You are a terrorist. To give you that reference, to call you a soldier gives you far too much stature. Whether it is the officers of government who do it or your attorney who does it, or that happens to be your view, you are a terrorist.

And we do not negotiate with terrorists. We do not treat with terrorists. We do not sign documents with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice.

So war talk is way out of line in this court. You are a big fellow. But you are not that big. You're no warrior. I know warriors. You are a terrorist. A species of criminal guilty of multiple attempted murders.

In a very real sense Trooper Santigo had it right when you first were taken off that plane and into custody and you wondered where the press and where the TV crews were and he said you're no big deal. You're no big deal.

What your counsel, what your able counsel and what the equally able United States attorneys have grappled with and what I have as honestly as I know how tried to grapple with, is why you did something so horrific. What was it that led you here to this courtroom today? I have listened respectfully to what you have to say. And I ask you to search your heart and ask yourself what sort of unfathomable hate led you to do what you are guilty and admit you are guilty of doing. And I have an answer for you. It may not satisfy you. But as I search this entire record it comes as close to understanding as I know.

It seems to me you hate the one thing that is most precious. You hate our freedom. Our individual freedom. Our individual freedom to live as we choose, to come and go as we choose, to believe or not believe as we individually choose.

Here, in this society, the very winds carry freedom. They carry it everywhere from sea to shining sea. It is because we prize individual freedom so much that you are here in this beautiful courtroom. So that everyone can see, truly see that justice is administered fairly, individually, and discretely.

It is for freedom's sake that your lawyers are striving so vigorously on your behalf and have filed appeals, will go on in their, their representation of you before other judges. We are about it. Because we all know that the way we treat you, Mr. Reid, is the measure of our own liberties. Make no mistake though. It is yet true that we will bear any burden, pay any price, to preserve our freedoms.

Look around this courtroom. Mark it well. The world is not going to long remember what you or I say here. Day after tomorrow it will be forgotten. But this, however, will long endure. Here in this courtroom and courtrooms all across America, the American people will gather to see that justice, individual justice, justice, not war, individual justice is in fact being done.

The very President of the United States through his officers will have to come into courtrooms and lay out evidence on which specific matters can be judged, and juries of citizens will gather to sit and judge that evidence democratically, to mold and shape and refine our sense of justice.

See that flag, Mr. Reid? That's the flag of the United States of America. That flag will fly there long after this is all forgotten. That flag stands for freedom. You know it always will.

EJS

Time to Lose the Kerry/Edwards Bumperstickers

This article is so on the mark, I had to post it in its entirety.
I can't agree more.
One word sums it up: Losers!

EJS

by Christopher Flickinger
Posted Mar 8, 2005

For the love of God, please remove those "Kerry/Edwards" bumper stickers from your cars and trucks! In case you didn't get the memo, your side lost! It's like you're walking around with a big "L" on your forehead -- Loser!

I'm not sure why you still have that sticker on your bumper. Maybe it's been too cold outside for you to remove it. Maybe your post-election depression is so deep you can't bring yourself to take it off. Maybe you're living in denial. Maybe you've been too busy spreading lies and rumors about the future of Social Security and judicial nominations that you haven't had enough time to get it off your vehicle.

Or maybe it's even worse than I thought. Maybe you've tried, you've scrubbed, you've scratched, you've pulled and it just won't come off. It's stuck to the back of your Volvo or Voltswagen like a bloodthirsty parasite. But, then again, we are talking about John Kerry and John Edwards, two men who would have acted like ravaging bloodsuckers on the back of every U.S. citizen had they been elected.

Honestly, for your own self-dignity, it's time to remove the Kerry/Edwards bumper stickers. Personally, I'm glad so many of you have left them on your vehicles. It's makes it so much easier for me to point out and identify the idiots. If I pull-up to the drive-thru pharmacy and get cut-off by another car, normally I'd get upset. But, if I see they have a Kerry/Edwards sticker on their car, I immediately calm down and remind myself, "This person didn't mean to cut me off. It's just that they feel they're entitled to health care." On the highway, when I get behind someone who's going less than 50 M.P.H. and they're causing a tie-up, I'd normally lay on the horn. But, if I see their Kerry/Edwards sticker, I pause, take my hand away from the horn, and remind myself, "It's not that they don't know how to drive, it's that they're trying to conserve gas and preserve our environment by traveling at a slower speed."

I mean, really, you're doing me a public service by announcing your stupidity, but it still can't be good for your own mental well-being and possibly your very own safety. Hardened criminals must also enjoy seeing who still proudly sports the sign of the jackass. Thugs can immediately identify which citizens don't own a gun and won't hold them responsible for their actions.

Simply put -- the election is over. You lost. Get over it. Move on. Live in the "now." Your candidates were wrong about the state of our economy. They were wrong when they said the Iraqi elections would fail. They were wrong about the war on terrorism. If it were up to them, our troops would be packing-up and moving-out in another three months. Do you think the war on terrorism will be over in three months?

Maybe a better question is, "Do you think three months from now people will still be driving around with Kerry/Edwards bumper stickers on their cars and trucks?" Yep, I think so, and it makes life a lot easier. Now, I don't have to wonder, "What's wrong with this guy?" I already know.

The Supreme Court is out of Control

The Supreme Court of the United States has lost its collective mind.
The recent ruling that they handed down in regards to the death penalty is completely wrong.

They are telling us that a 17 year old is not mature enough to know the heinousness of their crimes.
Siting foreign countries in their ruling.

So, if a 17 year old is not mature enough to know that murder is wrong and what the consequences of this action is, then how can a 13 year old be mature enough to get an abortion without parental consent?

What they have effectively said to America, is that 17 year olds don't know that their actions have consequences, but at the age of 18, all of a sudden they know.

A 13 year old can murder an unborn baby in the womb. They have the maturity for making that decision, but don't know that murder is wrong?

The Constitution of the United States is being torn apart, piece by piece, by these radical judges on the bench.


From the major opinion of Justice Kennedy:

The overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty is not controlling here, but provides respected and significant confirmation for the Court’s determination that the penalty is disproportionate punishment for offenders under 18. See, e.g., Thompson, supra, at 830–831, and n. 31. The United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile penalty. It does not lessen fidelity to the Constitution or pride in its origins to acknowledge that the express affirmation of certain fundamental rights by other nations and peoples underscores
the centrality of those same rights within our own heritage of freedom.
Pp. 21–25.

Dissenting:

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, dissenting.
The Court’s decision today establishes a categorical rule forbidding the execution of any offender for any crime committed before his 18th birthday, no matter how deliberate, wanton, or cruel the offense. Neither the objective evidence of contemporary societal values, nor the Court’s moral proportionality analysis, nor the two in tandem suffice to justify this ruling.

SCALIA, J., dissenting.
In urging approval of a constitution that gave lifetenured judges the power to nullify laws enacted by the people’s representatives, Alexander Hamilton assured the citizens of New York that there was little risk in this, since “[t]he judiciary . . . ha[s] neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).
What a mockery today’s opinion makes of Hamilton’s expectation, announcing the Court’s conclusion that the meaning of our Constitution has changed over the past 15 years—not, mind you, that this Court’s decision 15 years ago was wrong, but that the
Constitution has changed. The Court reaches this implausible result by purporting to advert, not to the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment, but to “the evolving
standards of decency,” ante, at 6 (internal quotation marks omitted), of our national society. It then finds, on the flimsiest of grounds, that a national consensus which could not be perceived in our people’s laws barely 15 years
ago now solidly exists. Worse still, the Court says in so many words that what our people’s laws say about the issue does not, in the last analysis, matter: “[I]n the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment.”.....Consulting States that bar the death penalty concerning the necessity of making an exception to the penalty for offenders under 18 is rather like including old-order Amishmen in a consumer-
preference poll on the electric car. Of course they don’t like it, but that sheds no light whatever on the point at issue. That 12 States favor no executions says something about consensus against the death penalty, but nothing—absolutely nothing—about consensus that offenders under 18 deserve special immunity from such a
penalty....
In other words, all the Court has done today, to borrow from another context, is to look over the heads of the crowd and pick out its friends....
We need not look far to find studies contradicting the Court’s conclusions. As petitioner points out, the American Psychological Association (APA), which claims in this case that scientific evidence shows persons under 18 lack the ability to take moral responsibility for their decisions, has previously taken precisely the opposite position before this very Court. In its brief in Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U. S. 417 (1990), the APA found a “rich body of research” showing that juveniles are mature enough to decide whether to obtain an abortion without parental involvement.

For the complete opinion of the court, go here.


There are a couple Justices that serve on the Supreme Court who actually understand the Constitution.
This very issue was brought to the court in 1989.
The ruling then?
The death penalty is not cruel and unusual punishment.

Siting international anything, in reference to the United States and our Constitution is tyranny. Judges that use their morality and look to foreign countries to affirm their opinion should be removed from the bench.

There needs to be a referendum by the people of the United States to limit the powers of the Supreme Court to that of law opinion and not changing the Constitution of the United States to suit their needs at that particular time the whim hits them.

E.J. Smith