People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Sunday, March 18, 2007

You Mean There Were Pro-Americans There Too?

I read this news report from the New York Times this morning on the anti-war protest that took place in Washington yesterday and was disappointed to find out that the Gathering of Eagles rally to support the troops fighting for our freedom around the globe that was to have assembled at the same time at the same place, to protect America's cherished monuments from the depredations of the anti-war scum*, proved to be virtually nonexistent.

But wait.

The Washington Post paints a different picture. It appears America was well-represented after all. And the anti-America left was given a bit of its own medicine:

4 Years After Start of War, Anger Reigns
Demonstrators Brave Cold to Carry Message to Pentagon, as Counter-Protesters Battle Back
By Steve Vogel and Michael Alison Chandler, Washington Post Staff Writers

Thousands of demonstrators protesting the fourth anniversary of the war in Iraq marched on the Pentagon yesterday, jeered along the way by large numbers of angry counter-protesters.

Organizers billed the antiwar rally as marking the 40th anniversary of the 1967 march on the Pentagon. At times, verbal clashes during the cold and blustery day demonstrated that the bitter divisions of four decades ago sparked by Vietnam are very much alive in the debate over Iraq.

Much of the passion yesterday was supplied by thousands of counter-demonstrators, many of them veterans who mobilized from across the country to gather around the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Some said they came in response to appeals on the Internet to protect the Wall against what they feared would be acts of vandalism; no such acts were reported.

Some counter-protesters yelled obscenities and mocked the marchers as traitors.

The counter-demonstrators ringed the Lincoln Memorial and continued along portions of Arlington Memorial Bridge. "You've got no pride and no honor," yelled Kenneth Murphy, a Vietnam veteran from North Carolina.

When marchers reached the Virginia side of the bridge, they were greeted by more protesters at the traffic circle in front of Arlington National Cemetery, along with a banner that read in part: "You dishonor our dead on Hallowed ground." (link)

The New York Times reported those thousands of brave counterdemonstrators as numbering "several hundred," which speaks to the reliability of the rabidly liberal and anti-American bias of the Times.

A Gathering of Eagles indeed. It is reported here that the number of patriots who turned out in the bitter cold to voice their support for their country came to 30,000.

We're proud of you beyond words. America salutes you.

* Actually it was anti-capitalist scum, but most of those sucked into the anti-America demonstration were ignorant of the fact.

When It Becomes Personal

I have been fascinated by the saga that has unfolded in the aftermath of Roanoke Times columnist Christian Trejbal's decision to compile and release to the public the names and addresses of most, if not all, of Virginia's "concealed carry" permit holders (read up on it here).

I thought an interesting argument that came as an offshoot to his effort to champion openness, ostensibly anyway, was in the call for the Times to release Trejbal's home address and phone number - out of that same sense of openness.

I'll go on record and say that I don't consider that prudent. And to say that I wouldn't have a big problem with my address and phone number being released, having been permitted to carry a gun by the state.

But that's me.

What hits home, though, the hardest, is this bit of information that comes from an article appearing in today's Roanoke Times ("Should gun data lists be muzzled?"):

Among the hundreds of comments about Trejbal's column that followed [the] initial posting to roanoke.com's message board, there was this one from a woman identified only as "Not Wanted to be found":

"I've moved twice to get away from a violent ex. Now I have to move again. I really appreciate you publishing my address.

Gee, thanks."

A seemingly unobjectionable and unobtrusive exercise in providing "sunshine" by a newspaper editorial staffmember, with time on his hands, forces a tormented and frightened woman to flee her home.

Now it becomes harmful.


The story takes an ugly turn.

Why We Oppose The International Courts

This is revealing. The chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court thinks it's possible that he could indict President Bush for war crimes. Why would he do such a thing? Because Arab countries don't like us.

The story:
Hague court could try Bush, Blair
By Gethin Chamberlain, London Sunday Telegraph

The chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court said in an interview that he can envision a scenario in which President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair could one day face war-crimes charges at The Hague.

Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo said in an interview with the Sunday Telegraph that it was frustrating that the court was viewed in the Arab world as biased in favor of the West.

Some Muslim countries have criticized what they claim is the court's reluctance to address offenses committed by Western governments. (
A great reason to indict a President. Or any other human being, for that matter. To appease the blood-thirsty Arabs.

This guy's dangerous.

And there are many in this country (why does John Kerry come to mind?) who would gladly cede power and authority to him and his ilk.

I fear for my country, and all humankind.

The 'Yes, But' Constitutional Argument

From George Will, writing in today's Washington Post:
When Madison and others fashioned the Bill of Rights, they did not merely constitutionalize -- make fundamental -- the right to bear arms. They made the Second Amendment second only to the First, which protects the freedoms of speech, press, assembly and worship. They did that because individual dignity and self-respect, which are essential to self-government, are related to a readiness for self-defense -- the public's involvement in public safety.

Increasingly, however, some constitutional scholars and judicial rulings argue that several restraints the Bill of Rights puts on government can be disregarded if the worthiness -- as academics or judges assess that -- of government's purposes justifies ignoring those restraints. Erwin Chemerinsky, professor of law and political science at Duke University,
argued in The Post last week that even if the Second Amendment is cnstrued as creating an individual right to gun ownership, the D.C. law should still be constitutional because the city had a defensible intent (reducing violence) when it annihilated that right.

Sound familiar? Defenders of the McCain-Feingold law, which restricts the amount, timing and content of political campaign speech, say: Yes, yes, the First Amendment says there shall be "no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." But that proscription can be disregarded because the legislators' (professed) intent -- to prevent the "appearance" of corruption and to elevate political discourse -- is admirable.
Yes, the Bill of Rights protects our freedom to speak, but ...

Yes, the Bill of Rights protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms, but ...

Yes, we are a free people enjoying a breadth of liberty unknown to any civilization to have ever existed on this planet, but ...

Putting a Theory To The Test

Is it true that "money is the mother's milk of politics?" Can a person, no matter how detestable and unqualified, but with enough cash, buy an election?

We're about to find out:
Clintons $haking Tree For Cool Mil
By Michael Scholl, The New York Post

March 18, 2007 -- Hillary and Bill Clinton will party tonight with about 1,000 of their closest friends as the former president hosts a million-dollar fund-raiser for his wife's White House bid.

Among the well-heeled set to attend the gala at the Sheraton New York Hotel and Towers in Midtown were real-estate mogul Bill Rudin and venture capitalists Steven Rattner and Alan Patricof.

Supporters plunked down a minimum of $1,000 a ticket. Preferred seating was $2,300, the maximum amount an individual can donate to a presidential primary campaign. "Premium" seats were $4,600, the max an individual can donate to a combined primary and general election campaign.

Tonight's dinner is the first large-scale Hillary 2008 fund-raising event hosted by Bill Clinton ... (link)
Can her millions make Hillary likeable? Can they give her expertise she sorely lacks? Can her piles of cash make her President?

Sadly, ...

I fear for my country.

They Know No Shame

Ever read a favorable write-up in the New York Times about the service being performed for their country by the tens of thousands of women (not to mention the men) who have served - and are currently serving - proudly, effectively, thanklessly, heroically, in the military? 11,100 of whom are posted to Iraq currently?

No? Me either.

But we do get plenty of this:
The Women’s War
By Sara Corbett, The New York Times

On the morning of Monday, Jan. 9, 2006, a 21-year-old Army specialist named Suzanne Swift went AWOL. Her unit, the 54th Military Police Company, out of Fort Lewis, Wash., was two days away from leaving for Iraq. Swift and her platoon had been home less than a year, having completed one 12-month tour of duty in February 2005, and now the rumor was that they were headed to Baghdad to run a detention center.

Swift would later say that she had every intention of going back to Iraq. But in the weeks leading up to the departure date, she started to feel increasingly anxious. She was irritable, had trouble sleeping at night, picked fights with friends, drank heavily.

The decision to flee, she says, happened in a split second on Sunday night. ''All my stuff was in the car,'' she recalls. ''My keys were in my hand, and then I looked at my mom and said: 'I can't do this. I can't go back there.'" (link)
So she fled. She defied the United States military. She thumbed her nose at Bush. And she makes the New York Times for, what is to them, her heroic action.

Shameful all the way around.

Can We Fire Them Twice?

Now I understand why President Bush wanted to fire those partisan U.S. attorneys:
G.O.P. Anger in Swing State Eased Attorney’s Exit
By Christopher Drew and Eric Lipton, The New York Times

Albuquerque, March 17 — The first whiff of something suspicious came when a 15-year-old boy received a voter registration card in the mail. Soon a second one arrived. Then his 13-year-old neighbor got one, too.

Neither boy had applied for the cards, and it looked as if their signatures and birthdates had been forged. It was August 2004, and the local authorities quickly traced the problems to a canvasser for a liberal group that had signed up tens of thousands of voters for the presidential election in this swing state.

State Republican leaders demanded a criminal investigation. And with the television cameras rolling, the United States attorney, David C. Iglesias, a boyish-looking Republican, promised a thorough one. “It appears that mischief is afoot,” Mr. Iglesias said, “and questions are lurking in the shadows.”

The inquiry he began, however, never resulted in charges, so frustrating Republican officials here that they began an extraordinary campaign to get rid of him that reached all the way to President Bush. (link)
This may be the common thread amongst the seven firings - attorneys who looked the other way when charges - and a considerable amount of evidence (here, here, or buy the book) - existed to show widespread, organized Democratic voter fraud.

If this is the case, then these politician-attorneys (Clinton appointees all?) should not only have been fired, they should have been dragged from the building and tossed on the sidewalk.

And let the Washington Post howl.

Then find out whatever happened to the investigation into that crooked Democrat in New Orleans who was found on videotape taking a $100,000 bribe, $90,000 of which was found in his freezer. That has been ignored as well.

While We Can't Get Them To Investigate Voter Fraud ...

... the government has plenty of time and resources to insert itself in this 1st Amendment issue up in Alaska:
Free-Speech Case Divides Bush and Religious Right
By Linda Greenhouse, The New York Times

Washington, March 17 — A Supreme Court case about the free-speech rights of high school students, to be argued on Monday, has opened an unexpected fissure between the Bush administration and its usual allies on the religious right.

On the surface, Joseph Frederick’s dispute with his principal, Deborah Morse, at the Juneau-Douglas High School in Alaska five years ago appeared to have little if anything to do with religion — or perhaps with much of anything beyond a bored senior’s attitude and a harried administrator’s impatience.

As the Olympic torch was carried through the streets of Juneau on its way to the 2002 winter games in Salt Lake City, students were allowed to leave the school grounds to watch. The school band and cheerleaders performed. With television cameras focused on the scene, Mr. Frederick and some friends unfurled a 14-foot-long banner with the inscription: “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.”

She demanded that he take the banner down. When he refused, she tore it down, ordered him to her office, and gave him a 10-day suspension.

Mr. Fredericks’s ensuing lawsuit and the free-speech court battle that resulted, in which he has prevailed so far, is one that, classically, pits official authority against student dissent.

While it is hardly surprising to find the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Coalition Against Censorship on Mr. Frederick’s side, it is the array of briefs from organizations that litigate and speak on behalf of the religious right that has lifted Morse v. Frederick out of the realm of the ordinary.

The groups include the American Center for Law and Justice, founded by the Rev. Pat Robertson; the Christian Legal Society; the ... (link)
It's not clear but it appears that the student wasn't on school grounds when he unfurled the banner, but he did perform the act during school hours and was ostensibly under school supervision.

I have a tendency to side with the student.

Of course, I wouldn't be bothered if his father took the kid over his knee and gave him a good spanking too.