Saturday, February 18, 2006
Impeaching Bush Is 'Cause Worth Fighting for,' Actor Says
(CNSNews.com) - Richard Dreyfuss, the actor who starred in movies ranging from "Jaws" to "Mr. Holland's Opus," told an audience in Washington, D.C., on Thursday that "there are causes worth fighting for," and one of those is the impeachment of President George W. Bush.
"There are causes worth fighting for even if you know that you will lose," Dreyfuss said during a speech at the National Press Club. "Unless you are willing to accept torture as part of a normal American political lexicon, unless you are willing to accept that leaving the Geneva Convention is fine and dandy, if you accept the expansion of wiretapping as business as usual, the only way to express this now is to embrace the difficult and perhaps embarrassing process of impeachment." See Video
Noting that the process was established by the country's "founders, who we revere to check executive abuse with congressional balance," Dreyfuss said impeachment "is a statement that we refuse to endorse bad behavior." See Video
"If we refuse to debate the appropriateness of the process of impeachment, we endorse that behavior, and we approve the enlargement of executive power," regardless of whoever may occupy the White House in the future, he said.
"And don't kid yourselves: No one ever gives up power, ever," Dreyfuss added.
"Now, it is not your job as the press to impeach George Bush," the actor stated. However, people in the media should "maintain the integrity of that debate" by not dismissing the topic out of hand as partisan or unpatriotic.
Granted, we all know that it's strictly about evening the score for Bill Clinton, but when will the Left finally understand just how stupid they look with all the continued impeach talk? First of all, the American public outside of the Left doesn't even buy into the idea that George W. Bush deserves to get impeached for anything. And the liberals still don't seem to understand that you can't impeach a President just because you disagree with his policy. Yet, rich, white liberals like Dreyfuss are quick to make asses out of themselves anyway.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Apparently, while the higher-ups at the Episcopalian church were surprised, but they're still supportive of their gay "minister". Which goes to show you just how morally bankrupt the Episcopalian church has gotten.
Concord, New Hampshire - The Episcopal Church's first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson, is being treated for alcoholism, a step that surprised friends and colleagues but seemed unlikely to threaten his position in the church. A key administrative committee said it stood by Robinson, whose 2003 election as bishop of New Hampshire caused a furor in worldwide Anglicanism because he lives with a same-sex partner.
"I am writing to you from an alcohol treatment centre where on February 1, with the encouragement and support of my partner, daughters and colleagues, I checked myself in to deal with my increasing dependence on alcohol," Robinson wrote in an email to clergy on Monday.
The glorification of a lifestyle that is clearly anti-God by a so-called "church" is beyond disgusting. Is it any wonder that the Episcopalian church has been losing members so rapidly of late?
Irony, irony, irony.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
In a case of legislative deja vu, Sen. Russell Feingold launched another lonely filibuster against the USA Patriot Act, but sponsors predicted enough support to overcome the objection and extend parts of the law set to expire March 10.
Feingold said protracted talks with the White House over the law's protections for civil liberties produced only a "fig leaf" to cover weaknesses that leave people vulnerable to government intrusion.
Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said he had the 60 votes required to overcome Feingold's filibuster, as soon as this week. He agreed, though, that any revisions to a House-Senate accord blocked last year were "cosmetic."
Specter added, "But sometimes cosmetics will make a beauty out of a beast and provide enough cover for senators to change their vote."
Indeed, the filibuster seemed doomed. No Democrats were expected to join Feingold, according to officials of both parties. Several senior senators of his party have said they would vote for the bill, including Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Richard Durbin of Illinois.
Still, Feingold said the new version provided only a modest new protection for civil liberties.
"What we are seeing is quite simply a capitulation to the intransigent and misleading rhetoric of a White House that sees any effort to protect civil liberties as a sign of weakness," Feingold said during a floor speech Wednesday that kicked off his latest filibuster.
To the contrary, says virtually every other senator, years of talks over the expiring 16 provisions of the terrorism-fighting law have produced tighter limits on government power when compared to the original version that was passed a few weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks.
"In an effort like this, no party ever gets everything that they want," said Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., who sided with Feingold last year when Democrats and a handful of Republicans blocked a GOP House-Senate renewal of the provisions. If not renewed, the 16 provisions of the original Patriot Act expire March 10.
This year, Sununu and Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, led talks with the White House in recent weeks that produced the compromise now being considered on the Senate floor.
Sununu and Craig argue that the new compromise makes several improvements to the law's civil liberties protections over previous versions.
For example, recipients of court-approved subpoenas for information in terrorist investigations would have the right to challenge a requirement that they refrain from telling anyone. Another new protection would remove a requirement that an individual provide the FBI with the name of an attorney consulted about a National Security Letter, which is a demand for records issued by administrators.
A third improvement, supporters say, makes clear that most libraries are not subject to National Security Letter demands for information about suspected terrorists.
But Feingold said the new deal only makes one, modest, improvement over the House-Senate compromise and current law: The deal makes clear that there would be judicial review of "gag orders" issued with court-ordered subpoenas for information, but sets several conditions. Under one, the review can only take place after a year and requires the recipient of the order to prove that the government has acted in bad faith, Feingold said.
"That is a virtually impossible standard to meet," he said. "What we have here is the illusion of judicial review."
My guess is that somewhere there's a direct link between Feingold and Michael Moore.
Listen, I know it was an accident and far be it from me to ever agree with liberals, but Dick Cheney needs to step out from wherever he's hiding now and speak to the American public. I mean, his pal just had a heart attack for chrissakes and all Cheney's doing by staying silent is not only providing more fodder for the wolves, but it makes him look bad, and worse, like he doesn't care.
I could care less that it took the White House a day to report this incident and in this case I could care less about politics. This is about doing what's right. When Dick Cheney accepted President Bush's offer to be his vice-president, he had to understand the magnitude of the enormous task at hand. He had to understand his role as second-in-command of the free world. He had to know that his every move would be magnified. He had to know that staying behind the scenes would no longer be an option. But he accepted the role and everything that comes with it, therefore, he owes the American public an explanation from his own lips about what happened on his hunting trip as well as show the country that he is sorry and remorseful.
Dan Quayle will forever be remembered for comparing himself to JFK and spelling "potatoe" instead of "potato". Al Gore will forever be remembered for fumbling the ball on a presidency that was virtually handed to him. God forbid, Harry Whittington dies, Dick Cheney will almost assuredly have to resign. But let's hope that it doesn't get that far and let's hope that Dick Cheney has the guts to show the American public a side to him that we rarely get to see.
His legacy depends on it.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Redford rues Paris pollution
Many years ago, Robert Redford had a dream: to turn a sleepy Utah resort town into a winter wonderland where exceptional indie cinema could get the attention it deserved. Alas, the Sundance Film Festival has degenerated into an orgy of gift-bag gropery and Laguna Beach cast sightings.
"To the outside world, it's a big, fat market where you have people like Paris Hilton going to parties. Now, she doesn't have anything to do with anything. I think the festival is close to being out of control," Redford tells Newsweek.
This concludes this edition of Paris Hilton Destroys The World.
Monday, February 13, 2006
So another suicide bomber comes of nowhere and kills 19 innocent Iraqi's yesterday, including children, more hostages are about to be murdered and our soldiers are continuing to die in Iraq, but I'm supposed to be upset with Ann Coulter calling terrorists "ragheads"? Regardless of the fact that she was clearly referring to the bad guys, some in the conservative blogosphere want to call out one of our own? I don't get it.
I mean, can we put things in the proper perspective here?
And does anyone even care that the blogger who started this latest anti-Coulter campaign is a liberal who's been hatin' on Coulter for like 4 years now? Have any of these bloggers calling out Coulter been to the popular Leftist blog the Daily Kos lately? So they can see liberals spew daily about their utter contempt and hatred for President Bush? Or maybe they're just the same extreme-right conservative bloggers who defend free speech when it comes to Danish newspapers printing inflammatory cartoons on Mohammed, but condemn Coulter for calling terrorists "ragheads".
Now there's a double-standard if I've ever seen one.
Ann Coulter is one of the best conservative pundits out there. She's smart, clever, funny and judging from the huge sales of her books, she matters. So much so that John Kerry, in his recent and desperate attempt to prevent Samuel Alito from getting on the Supreme Coulter, called out Coulter's name in trying to convince his liberal minions to rally around his hate for Alito. I don't always agree with what Coulter writes, but from my reading's of Coulter's columns, timidity is not something that exists in her world.
I respect that.
We know that liberals loathe Coulter because she pulls their cards by speaking directly to their blatant hypocrisies and immoral agenda. Conservatives should know that the more liberals throw their hate towards you, the more you need to keep doing your job. Besides that, I'd prefer to call a white liberal who exploits slavery and uses Black people for her own financial & political gain a "racist" way before I do Ann Coulter.
With that said, I reserve the right to call a terrorist any kind of derogatory name I want to. Same for suicide bombers who kill innocent people, including children. If it hurts their feelings, too bad. So too for calling them "ragheads".
Sunday, February 12, 2006
"Former President Jimmy Carter, who publicly rebuked President Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program this week during the funeral of Coretta Scott King and at a campaign event, used similar surveillance against suspected spies.
In 1977, Mr. Carter and his attorney general, Griffin B. Bell, authorized warrantless electronic surveillance used in the conviction of two men for spying on behalf of Vietnam."
And let's not forget that it was Robert F. Kennedy, a Democrat, who wiretapped Martin Luther King, back in the day.
Therefore, if we follow lunatic liberal logic, it's only permissable for Democrats to eavesdrop, not Republicans.