Good Ruling, Bad Dissent from Conservatives

The Supreme Court ruling (6-3) that Oregon may continue to have Doctor-assisted suicide improves my humor, at least until I consider the fact that the ACLU is suing over wire-tapping, without an ounce of proof or even suspicion.

BUT BACK TO THE GOOD NEWS: Under The 10th Amendment, those subjects not defined by the Constitution are remanded to the States -- and I am deeply concerned that Justices Thomas, Scalia and Roberts all voted against the ruling.

They are SUPPOSED to be Constitutionalists, and while the subject of the Court challenge was a specific Congressional Act, the Constitution still rules.

Or at least it should!

The dissent should have CONSIDERED the 10th Amendment -- and on that issue, the "conservative" justices let their religious feelings overcome their Constitutional knowledge.

Too bad. But the results are good, nonetheless.

Ted Kennedy Ends John McCain's Career

There are so many subjects about the Democrats, that I simply cannot comprehend.

As an example, Ted Kennedy is REALLY exercised about Judge Alito's membership in some Princeton Alumni Group that forbids both women and minorities -- hell, West Point and Annapolis did that as well as I recall!

Not only that, but the Democrats have a leading Senator from West Virginia who was the Grand Poo-Bah of the Klu Klux Klan, and Democrats are worrying about some Princeton alumni association?

Hell, many of us belonged to groups that banned women when we were younger -- groups like Kiwanis, Rotary...and in my case, the U.S. Submarine Force!

Given Kennedy's standards, (Kennedy has standards?) Jimmy Carter should have been banned as President because he went to USNA AND served in the Submarine Force...hmmmm, perhaps the world would have been better served by applying the "Kennedy Standard" to Carter...)

(I argued while on submarines that we should not ban women in submarines...in fact, I argued that each of us should be ISSUED one...)

There is just so much that I can get my synapses to snap about.

The mind boggles...I guess we earlier gradfuates of Service Academies are all ineligible for selection to damn near anything using the Kennedy Standard since we belonged to organizations that banned women...and certainly that ends any consideration of John McCain for President!

There are Nuts, and There are NUTS!

We are getting old, but is it age or are the Old Democrats going over the edge?

Ramsey Clark…as kookie as they come…is a good example of age and International Democrat/Socialist speech and behavior as exists.

Clark was the Poster Child for the Over-the edge members of the Elderly Leftist Wing of the Democratic Party…at least until Harry Belefonte became the darling of the Castro/Hugo Chavez International Socialists.

Leftist Harry spoke to Hugo on TV and said, "No matter what the greatest tyrant in the world, the greatest terrorist in the world, George W. Bush says, we're here to tell you: Not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of the American people ... support your revolution."

Harry was in Venezuela with another Democratic Party Hollywood leftist, Danny Glover, to support the "Revolution."

Since at least those two (Harry and Ramsey) are wannabe replacements for Jane Fonda as representative of the far left edge – and yet as members of the National Democratic Party – perhaps it is less age than their comfort with the Democratic Party that these people identify with International Socialism.

Many national Democrats probably very accurately feel that these nuts do not represent their national aspirations…but they do not publicly condemn these nuts, nor do they reject association with the only Socialist in the Congress – Bernie Sanders, who is permitted to join the Democratic Senate Caucus.

Nuts exist in both Political Parties – witness Pat Robertson – who qualifies both as Republican Party politically-oriented "nut" and age-wise as "Over-the Hill and Over-the Edge" – but he gets constant criticism from Republicans, and so the "preponderance of Evidence" for "NUTS" goes to the Democrats.

Age is apparently not a necessary criteria – I give you Michael Moore – but not only was his message warmly embraced by the Democrats, but his persona was as well. He is an anti-capitalist socialist who was actually seated next to former President Jimmy Carter at the Democratic Convention.

Although Moore is being distanced by a chastened Democratic Party, the photo of Michael and Jimmy seated next to each other is better evidence than that of John Kerry seated two rows behind Jane Fonda since Michael had to be invited by Jimmy so as to clear Jimmy’s guards.

But this whole subject was occasioned by Harry Belafonte’ remarks…and I was just wondering if there are really of the "millions" who support Chavez’s Communist/Socialist Revolution?

Eavesdropping

Does that fact that an Al-Queda operative is plotting with an American citizen give the entire phone call immunity from eavesdropping?

There are tons of laws that pertain to eavesdropping, and at least one of them

U.S. Supreme Court
UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)
407 U.S. 297

You can read at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=407&invol=297

It is my opinion that the Court refused to address the issue of foreign intelligence, to wit: (Section IV)

We emphasize, before concluding this opinion, the scope of our decision. As stated at the outset, this case involves only the domestic aspects of national security. We have not addressed, and express no opinion [407 U.S. 297, 322] as to, the issues which may be involved with respect to activities of foreign powers or their agents. 20 Nor does our decision rest on the language of 2511 (3) or any other section of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.

That Act does not attempt to define or delineate the powers of the President to meet domestic threats to the national security. Further there is ample writing regarding the right of the Presidency to conduct war under the U.S. Constitution.

That was recognized at the start of the Opinion:

We begin the inquiry by noting that the President of the United States has the fundamental duty, under Art. II, 1, of the Constitution, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Implicit in that duty is the power to protect our Government against those who would subvert or overthrow it by unlawful means.

It seems to me that the actual debate is over whether a telephone call from an Al-Queda operative in Pakistan to an agent in San Diego constitutes a foreign intercept, or a domestic intercept.

That is why I phrased the initial question thusly: (does the specific above) grant IMMUNITY from surveillance simply because the agent in San Diego holds an American citizenship?

Yes, there may be a legal need for a warrant to intercept a call between two American citizens calling each other from American Mosque to American Mosque.

There is NO warrant necessary for two Pakistani citizens calling each other from Mosque to Mosque in Islamabad! Hard cases make bad law, but the question is about Al-Queda overseas calling an American citizen...

At least in wartime, when national security is provably at stake, the tie should go to the agent providing us security.

The NYT Continues to Stumble

Can any devotees of the NYT explain their actions on the publishing of the NSA intercept program of overseas to U.S.?

The NYT admits they held the story for an entire year – so obviously the NYT had made the decision that publishing the information was damaging to the security of the United States in 2004 – but suddenly in 2005 it was no longer damaging to U.S. security.

The NYT owes its readers, if not the U.S. citizenship at large, the answer to what happened!

(It will have to tell the Special Prosecutor what happened or some very high officials at the NYT will spend some serious time in jail!)

Apparently, the "Public Editor" for the NYT has been stymied by the leadership of the NYT in trying to get answers. In an editorial, the Public Editor says he is stonewalled by the major Owner and Editor.

You can read the Times Public Editor’s remarks at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/opinion/01publiceditor.html?ei=5090&en=73506e1ec61c1adb&ex=1293771600&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

There are a lot more questions than answers to this riddle…anyone wish to unravel it for us?

TV is NOT Getting better!

I know we are all getting older, and 100+ channels of TV eats up a lot of writing and acting talent – but surely NBC has got to get some writers off the joy juice and/or Maui Wowee –

I give you the new NBC Show, according to TV News (John Crook, writer) in the San Diego Union…

Book of Daniel

"He is a compassionate, if free-thinking Episcopal Minister who steadfastly believes in Jesus and frequently sees and chats with him. He needs a shoulder to lean on at work, clashes with his conservative Bishop…especially now that a fortune in Church funds has gone missing, along with his sister-in-law’s shady husband. Things are nearly as demanding on the home front, where loving wife… offers support bolstered by her own fondness for mid-day martinis. Their oldest child, 22 year old Peter, is a discretely gay medical student, still struggling with the death of his twin brother. Enterprising, 16 year old daughter, Grace, has started selling pot to finance a career in computer animation, and adopted Chinese son, Adam, is a handsome jock with a very full date book. Small wonder then, that Daniel is popping Vicodin under the disapproving eye of Jesus, a supportive and surprising witty companion who pops in regularly …"

And for this, people spend $4,000 on HDYV?

I guess not just for that, but also to see up-close shots of baseball players spitting…

Hello, Earth?