Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Secret_Agent_Man]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/...eut/index.html

"Report: Miers said 'self-determination' should guide decisions"

A brief excerpt:

"Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, in speeches a decade ago, said 'self-determination' should guide decisions about abortion and also defended social activism, The Washington Post reported Wednesday.

"The speeches, which she provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee, offer some of the clearest insights yet into Miers' thinking on contentious social issues that could come before before the Supreme Court, the newspaper said.

"Miers talked about abortion, the separation of church and state, and how the issues play out in the legal system in a 1993 speech to a Dallas women's group, the newspaper said.

"'The underlying theme in most of these cases is the insistence of more self-determination,' Miers said in an excerpt reported by the Post. 'And the more I think about these issues, the more self-determination makes sense.'

"In speeches delivered when she was president of the Texas bar association, Miers also defended judges who order lawmakers to address social concerns, the newspaper said."

From a purely results-oriented perspective, I think the Dems would be fools to oppose Harriet Miers. She seems to be about the best we could possibly hope for from Bush II ideologically -- maybe even better.

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/...eut/index.html

"Report: Miers said 'self-determination' should guide decisions"

A brief excerpt:

"Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, in speeches a decade ago, said 'self-determination' should guide decisions about abortion and also defended social activism, The Washington Post reported Wednesday.

"The speeches, which she provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee, offer some of the clearest insights yet into Miers' thinking on contentious social issues that could come before before the Supreme Court, the newspaper said.

"Miers talked about abortion, the separation of church and state, and how the issues play out in the legal system in a 1993 speech to a Dallas women's group, the newspaper said.

"'The underlying theme in most of these cases is the insistence of more self-determination,' Miers said in an excerpt reported by the Post. 'And the more I think about these issues, the more self-determination makes sense.'

"In speeches delivered when she was president of the Texas bar association, Miers also defended judges who order lawmakers to address social concerns, the newspaper said."

From a purely results-oriented perspective, I think the Dems would be fools to oppose Harriet Miers. She seems to be about the best we could possibly hope for from Bush II ideologically -- maybe even better.

S_A_M

Sometimes when I try to figure out why these things get posted, I suspect there's some code, and you guys are sending each other messages. Jihad starts tongiht?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
What I find so interesting about the McCarthy era is:

1) The house of unamerican activities was originally started to ferret out Nazi and Nazi sympathysers. How come no ones has ever complained about any Nazis that were "Blacklisted".

2) The people that were investigated were never thrown in jail. When they were blacklisted that meant that certain employers, if they knew they were communist, would not employ them. But would anyone complain if they did that with Nazi's? Would Warner Brothers be condemned today if it had fired anyone it suspected of being a Nazi in the 1950s?

3) During WWII thousands of Germans were throwin into camps without trial because they might have ties to the German government. How come no one complains about that?

4) If it was OK to throw Nazi sympathysers in jail without a trial during WWII, why was it not OK for the US to throw communist sympathisers in jail during the Korean War when we were fighting communists?

In my mind the term Nazi and Communist are interchangeable. When people complain about Communist witch hunts, I won't ever take them seriously unless they also talk about Nazi witch hunts.

The Demos and the Communists share an ideological bond with their co-beliefs in Marxism.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man


S_A_M

DoA my friend. Nice try though.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
What I find so interesting about the McCarthy era is:

1) The house of unamerican activities was originally started to ferret out Nazi and Nazi sympathysers. How come no ones has ever complained about any Nazis that were "Blacklisted".

2) The people that were investigated were never thrown in jail. When they were blacklisted that meant that certain employers, if they knew they were communist, would not employ them. But would anyone complain if they did that with Nazi's? Would Warner Brothers be condemned today if it had fired anyone it suspected of being a Nazi in the 1950s?

3) During WWII thousands of Germans were throwin into camps without trial because they might have ties to the German government. How come no one complains about that?

4) If it was OK to throw Nazi sympathysers in jail without a trial during WWII, why was it not OK for the US to throw communist sympathisers in jail during the Korean War when we were fighting communists?

In my mind the term Nazi and Communist are interchangeable. When people complain about Communist witch hunts, I won't ever take them seriously unless they also talk about Nazi witch hunts.

Well, one difference is that we were actual at war with Germany when that happened. Real war, with Germans shooting us, not an ideological struggle. Not to say that all of the wartime acts look so hot in hindsight (Korematsu, anyone?). Remember -- there were actual acts of sabatoge and attempted sabotage in the US by German spies during WWII. I don't think that Gus Hall tried to blow up anything in the 1950s.

Were there political witch-hunts for Nazis in the US outside of the December 1941 to May 1945 time range?

Should we have been concerned about spies in out government and military? Absolutely. Would it have been reasonable to say that a member of the CPUSA should not serve in a sensitive post? Absolutely. Did it matter that the writer of the Treasure of the Sierra Madre (or whatever) had been a communist in the 1930s? NFW.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Well, one difference is that we were actual at war with Germany when that happened. Real war, with Germans shooting us, not an ideological struggle. Not to say that all of the wartime acts look so hot in hindsight (Korematsu, anyone?). Remember -- there were actual acts of sabatoge and attempted sabotage in the US by German spies during WWII. I don't think that Gus Hall tried to blow up anything in the 1950s.

Were there political witch-hunts for Nazis in the US outside of the December 1941 to May 1945 time range?

Should we have been concerned about spies in out government and military? Absolutely. Would it have been reasonable to say that a member of the CPUSA should not serve in a sensitive post? Absolutely. Did it matter that the writer of the Treasure of the Sierra Madre (or whatever) had been a communist in the 1930s? NFW.

We were at actual war with the communists in Korea. Just like we were at war with the Nazis in Germany.

The House of Unamerican activities was set up in the 1930s to ferret out Nazis that were in the Bund.

Could the writer of the Treasure of the Sierra Madre be fired if he was a Nazi?

The communists using the Rosenbergs and other spies were giving Stalin secrets so he could kill millions of Americans.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
We were at war with the communists in Korea. Just like we were at war with the Nazis in Germany.

No, we were in a total global war (declared by Congress) with the German *nation* (or state. whichever). In Korea, we were there with the UN in a limited "police action" designed only to repel the North Korean invasion of South Korea. Granted, we expanded the mission a bit after the stunning success at Inchon, but even after the Chinese intervened, the combat (much to the chagrin of MacArthur) was limited to the Korean peninsula. We weren't bombing railroads in Manchuria, or "unleashing Chiang" from Taiwan. For crying out loud, there was an ambassador from the Soviet Union here, and we had one in Moscow. The Cold War was an ideological struggle, with limited military actions.

Originally posted by Spanky
The House of Unamerican activities was set up in the 1930s to ferret out Nazis that were in the Bund.

So? (actually, wikpedia disagrees with you somewhat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_U...ties_Committee)

Originally posted by Spanky
Could the writer of the Treasure of the Sierra Madre be fired if he was a Nazi?

Sure. Hell, he could be fired for being a Republican. My point is, do we need to chase down screenwriters when we aren't at war? In other words, if a German spy was a screenwriter for MGM, then arrest him.

Originally posted by Spanky
The communists using the Rosenbergs and other spies were giving Stalin secrets so he could kill millions of Americans.

Well, as it turned out, he didn't. Nonetheless, I agree that it wasn't a good idea to have a communist have access to sensitive materials.

[Southern Patriot]

Originally posted by Spanky
What I find so interesting about the McCarthy era is:

1) The house of unamerican activities was originally started to ferret out Nazi and Nazi sympathysers. How come no ones has ever complained about any Nazis that were "Blacklisted".

2) The people that were investigated were never thrown in jail. When they were blacklisted that meant that certain employers, if they knew they were communist, would not employ them. But would anyone complain if they did that with Nazi's? Would Warner Brothers be condemned today if it had fired anyone it suspected of being a Nazi in the 1950s?

3) During WWII thousands of Germans were throwin into camps without trial because they might have ties to the German government. How come no one complains about that?

4) If it was OK to throw Nazi sympathysers in jail without a trial during WWII, why was it not OK for the US to throw communist sympathisers in jail during the Korean War when we were fighting communists?

In my mind the term Nazi and Communist are interchangeable. When people complain about Communist witch hunts, I won't ever take them seriously unless they also talk about Nazi witch hunts.

It really is great to see you defending ole tail gunner Joe. I always thought he was misunderstood. And even if some of those pinko ACLU types did stand up for some marchers at Skokie and some principaled types like Ezra Pound, they just can't stop this unjustified caterwailing about a few pinkos like the Hollywood 10, who, after all, got pretty short sentances, and the Rosenbergs who, even if they were executed, probably deserved it just because they were foreigners.

Now, could I ask you to do me a favor and defend George Wallace and Strom Thurmond, too?

And don't get me started about that Kennedy fellow-traveler sending troops down to protect trouble-makers trying to do subversive things like go to school at Ole Miss.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Outrunning fat girls, or winning arguments with SHP are NOT the equivalent of walking on water. Sorry.

Dammit, Hank, the Super Bowl pool was almost nine months ago, and the new season is well underway. If I'd known you'd react like this I would never have entered. Let. It. Go.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Not Bob
No, we were in a total global war (declared by Congress) with the German *nation* (or state. whichever). In Korea, we were there with the UN in a limited "police action" designed only to repel the North Korean invasion of South Korea. Granted, we expanded the mission a bit after the stunning success at Inchon, but even after the Chinese intervened, the combat (much to the chagrin of MacArthur) was limited to the Korean peninsula. We weren't bombing railroads in Manchuria, or "unleashing Chiang" from Taiwan. For crying out loud, there was an ambassador from the Soviet Union here, and we had one in Moscow. The Cold War was an ideological struggle, with limited military actions.

I am pretty sure the troops on the front lines were pretty sure we were in a war. Soviet Pilots were flying soviet made jets and were shooting down America planes. The communists in this country were aiding and abetting such activity. From the Korean War onward (technically we are still at war with Korea) there was every reason for the FBI to keep tabs on all communists. The FBI has kept tabs on Nazis and other "hate groups" ever since 1945 and we have not been at war with fascists and Nazis since 1945. So there was more of a reason to keep tab on communists than there was a reason to keep tabs on Nazis.

Originally posted by Not Bob So? (actually, wikpedia disagrees with you somewhat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_U...ties_Committee)

How does this differ from what I was saying:

It was called the Special Committee on Un-American Activities Authorized to Investigate Nazi Propaganda and Certain Other Propaganda Activities. In 1934, it held public and private hearings in six cities, questioned hundreds of witnesses and collected testimony filling 4,300 pages. Its mandate was to get “information on how foreign subversive propaganda entered the U.S. and the organizations that were spreading it.”

Originally posted by Not Bob Sure. Hell, he could be fired for being a Republican. My point is, do we need to chase down screenwriters when we aren't at war? In other words, if a German spy was a screenwriter for MGM, then arrest him.

The communist party wanted to implement the violent overthrow of the United States Government. If I am an employer that does not want to employ someone that belongs to such a group, shouldn't I be able to fire them. What was wrong with Studios letting people go who wanted the violent overthrow of the United State government? In addition, the communist party was run by Moscow. Why would I want to employ someone who was actively working in the interest of a foreign government? This was no "witch hunt". Enemies of the United States were exposed and Hollywood studios chose not to employ them. Why is that wrong?

Originally posted by Not Bob
Well, as it turned out, he didn't. Nonetheless, I agree that it wasn't a good idea to have a communist have access to sensitive materials.

Not if Castro had had his way.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Southern Patriot
It really is great to see you defending ole tail gunner Joe. I always thought he was misunderstood. And even if some of those pinko ACLU types did stand up for some marchers at Skokie and some principaled types like Ezra Pound, they just can't stop this unjustified caterwailing about a few pinkos like the

The ACLU's defense of the Skokie marchers was in line with their mission. Although seventy five percent of their membership was against it.

Originally posted by Southern Patriot Hollywood 10, who, after all, got pretty short sentances,

How much time did they get?

Originally posted by Southern Patriot and the Rosenbergs who, even if they were executed, probably deserved it just because they were foreigners.

According to the KGB archives they were paid agents of the Soviet Union.

Originally posted by Southern Patriot Now, could I ask you to do me a favor and defend George Wallace and Strom Thurmond, too? .

Sorry. Outside of communists spies they were the communists best friends. They gave the communists ammunition in their propaganda war.

Originally posted by Southern Patriot And don't get me started about that Kennedy fellow-traveler sending troops down to protect trouble-makers trying to do subversive things like go to school at Ole Miss.

I guess Eisenhauer and Johnson don't get any credit for this?

[Penske_Account]

TEHRAN, Oct. 26 - Iran's new hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, told a group of students at an anti-Israel event today that Israel must be "wiped off the map" and that attacks by Palestinians will destroy it, the Iranian student news agency, ISNA, reported.

"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury," Mr. Ahmadinejad said. Any Islamic leader "who recognizes the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world."



Another of the strain of the elusive moderate Islamicist. This guy is a Friend of the dems and their liberal Eurotrash pals right?

Imagine if Sharon said the same thing about Iran?!?!? The left and the French would be howling. Thankfully the babyjesuschristsuperstar's dad covered this eventuality and Iran's fate is sealed per Ezekiel 38:22:

With pestilence and with blood will I enter into judgment with the radical Islamics; and I will rain on Mohammed, and on his hordes and descendants, and on the many peoples who are with him, like the French and the leftists, an overflowing shower, and great hailstones, fire, and sulfur.

A revised map of the ME after the above:

[Penske_Account]

Like far too many women in this country, all three of us have experienced the crime of sexual assault and the violation of sexual harassment by men in powerful positions. Each of us has battled with the shame, humiliation, and fear of coming forward to report the assault. Each of us has worried about how this sexual harassment and assault will affect our careers. Two of us, however, suffered this kind of experience at the hands of a United States president.

That president has never apologized for his vicious behavior. That president and his wife orchestrated frightening, retaliatory intimidation tactics against us for daring to tell the truth about the assaults against us. That president and his wife are held in high esteem by world leaders and much of the American public. And that president’s wife now seeks to become president herself. Because of this, Bill and Hillary Clinton continue to teach important lessons to victims and perpetrators of violence against women in this country.

Bill and Hillary Clinton are teaching rape and sexual harassment victims that if your assailant is popular and politically powerful, you will be punished more for daring to report the assault than for keeping silent. They are teaching perpetrators of violence against women that as long as you are pro-abortion enough to have the political support of the National Organization for Women, any crimes you commit against women in your “personal life” will be overlooked.

When we announced that we are touring the Clinton Library in Little Rock, Arkansas, this Wednesday, we were asked by friends, family, the press, and the public: Why do you keep dragging this issue up? Why can’t you just let it go? The Clinton Library is a multi-million dollar monument to the legacy of our forty-second president, but part of that legacy is being erased. Part of the true Clinton legacy is the cruel abuse that he and his inner circle committed against us. If we let it go, what does that say to the thousands of women victimized by sexual harassment and assault? Unless we have the courage to ask the American people to hold the Clintons accountable for their abuses against us, we are part of the problem rather than part of the solution. The problem of abuse against women is far too serious for us to sit quietly by while Bill and Hillary Clinton whitewash their reputations and escape all consequences for their actions.

Harassment and assault must be denounced no matter the status of victim or perpetrator. But harassment and assault committed by our leaders must be censored even more vigorously because these luminaries set the standards for acceptable behavior in our society. Bill Clinton’s sexual assaults against us, and Hillary Clinton’s active participation in persuading America that those assaults don’t matter, represent a breach of the trust we should place in our leaders. This is not a political vendetta on our part. The two of us assaulted by Bill Clinton were political supporters of the Clintons until Bill Clinton attacked us. This is about the truth, and the sad truth is that the Clintons have exhibited such callous treatment of women that they do not deserve our respect or our votes. Whether or not you agree with the Clintons’ political positions, there are certainly politicians out there who hold similar positions but who actually treat women with dignity and respect. It’s time for us to take abuse against women seriously, and that requires that we demand proper treatment of women from those in positions of power.

Our stories are on record, in painful detail. The Clintons have never even bothered to present any reasons why you should believe their denials and evasions regarding our accusations. They prefer to hope that we will let it go, and that all of us will move on and forget about their despicable behavior.

We will not let it go. For the sake of women everywhere whose lives are torn apart after being assaulted by powerful men, we will continue to press the Clintons to face up to the damage they have caused.

[sgtclub]

[USA caught photoshopping picture of Rice to make her look demonic]

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003780.htm

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sgtclub
[USA caught photoshopping picture of Rice to make her look demonic]

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003780.htm

The liberal media is apparently now taking their cues from me. Interesting. Maybe next they will start looking into the rape allegations against Bill Clinton.