No big shock here, but the media is in a tizzy over John Dean’s testimony on Capital Hill today.  Dean said, among other things, that the warrantless wiretapping is at least censurable.  Dean’s claim to fame is his testimony during the Watergate hearings that ended up with the impeachment of former President Richard Nixon.

What should come to no surprise is the relative silence regarding testimony given Wednesday by five former FISA court judges, all who said the President has the authority to issue wiretap orders in issues of national security.  Specifically, and from the words of Judge Allan Kornblum who wrote the 1978 FISA Act, “If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now.”

A quick search shows how little this news actually made it to the public.  The Associated Press wrote a story on it, or at least the article was circulated by the AP Wire, but the AP quoted Kornblum saying he is “very wary of inherent authority.”  As we all are, but the preliminary hearings should be concerned with the legality of the act and what measures, if any, should be taken into law to limit those powers.

What almost humorous is that the testimony of John Dean, who again doesn’t have specific knowlege related to the FISA Act considering his position within the Nixon White House ended before the FISA Act was written and signed into law, is more credible than, say, testimony from the person who actually wrote the bill or four other judges who presided over the FISA court.

I am certainly not against covering the testimony by Dean, in fact I am for it.  But the media as a whole is doing this entire nation a disservice by trumping Dean’s testimony yet all but silencing the testimony of Wednesday by former FISA court judges including the judge who actually wrote the 1978 FISA Act.  How can we as voters make a decision based upon incomplete information?  Sadly, I think that’s the point of trumping up one testimony critical of the program and hardly mentioning testimony that supports the President.

Unlike several other conservative bloggers who seem to believe the Cynthia McKinney punching an officer incident is a huge deal, I don’t. I think it’s funny, but hardly worth the time to discuss such an event. That is until her lawyer spoke.

Her lawyer, James W. Myart Jr., said, “Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, like thousands of average Americans across this country, is, too, a victim of the excessive use of force by law enforcement officials because of how she looks and the color of her skin.”

“Ms. McKinney is just a victim of being in Congress while black,” Myart said. “Congresswoman McKinney will be exonerated.”

“Congresswoman McKinney, in a hurry, was essentially chased and grabbed by the officer,” Myart said. “She reacted instinctively in an effort to defend herself.”

She either punched or slapped a Capital Police officer that did not recognize her and she wasn’t wearing a pin that would identify her as a member of Congress. What she did really doesn’t matter, or to me at least. Her reasoning that she is in a hurry therefore should get off though is a troublesome message to send to the youth of this nation. If you’re in a hurry and you have to get somewhere, you can break the law.

I think we all knew the whole racism card would be played. It usually does when it comes to McKinney who believes all of black society’s ills can be traced back to The Man. The Man in this case was the Capital Police who, frankly, was just doing their job.

I should also point out that McKinney might have had a decent defense in claiming she “reacted instinctively,” but she does what she always does and put race into every single incident.  In my opinion, she loses her possible valid point by making charges of racism.  Does anyone even know what color the Capital Police officer was?  I only ask because logically speaking, that could make a difference, but we are also continually told it is not the color of an officer’s skin that causes the officer to be racist or not, but it is the police institution itself that is somehow racist.

I’m so sick of this, really.  If McKinney truly wanted to be a champion against all forms of racism, she would stand up in the House and move to remove all instances of Affirmative Action.  She won’t, and she doesn’t actually believe there should not be any racism.  Her actions and inactions support that statement.

The new copy of the magazine entitled The New Individualist has on its cover, seen to the right, one of the 12 Danish cartoons of Mohammed that caused mass riots and protests. The cartoon the magazine chose to adorn the cover is supposedly one of the more inflamatory cartoons of the original 12.

Based upon the description on the cover, I am led to believe the magazine will discuss self-censorship and how first amendment rights have been thrown out the window over some stupid cartoons. Coincidentally this is exactly what the editor of Jyllands-Posten claims was the reasoning for publishing the cartoons in the first place, so maybe after all the fires, kidnappings, threats, boycotts, draggings of Ronald McDonald down the streets of Lahore and of course the bounties for the ‘head of the cartoonist’ we will finally discuss if the cartoons are a legitimate freedom of speech and freedom of expression issue. You all know where I am on that issue.

Don’t tell any of this to Borders though. They have decided not to carry the magazine because of the cover, a magazine the store normally carries. Why? Here’s their statement summed down to one line.

“For us, the safety and security of our customers and employees is a top priority, and we believe that carrying this issue could challenge that priority,” Borders Group Inc. spokeswoman Beth Bingham said Wednesday.

Translated that means they are afraid they might upset some Muslim hooligans who would turn their vengeance upon Borders for selling a magazine with one of the cartoons of Mohammed on its cover. Ironically this is exactly what the article in The New Individualist is likely over. Waldenbooks has also said they will not carry the magazine and I have yet to see the Waldenbooks statement as to why. But there’s more to the story concerning Borders in San Francisco. (more…)

The Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) has announced they have test-fired a missile capable of going undetected and one that could “evade anti-missile missiles.”  Also launched was a Shahab-2 in order “to show Iran’s desire for peace and friendship with neighbouring countries.”

In Iran though, you can’t have a military exercise or a missle test-fire without somehow tying the United States to it.

“Now, America knows that Muslims with their desires for martyrdom have discovered a new technology and are capable of technological production. This has made [the U.S.] fear them”, [General] Salami was quoted as saying by the state-run news agency ISNA.

I had no idea a desire to die actually increased scientific output.  Well no wonder why the West is lagging behind Iranian scientists who, I suppose, want to die.  Well, except that it isn’t.

Earlier this week Iran arrested two Swedes allegedly for taking photographs of Iranian navy yards.  Iran now believes the two Swedes were either U.S. or Israeli agents.

“Right now, many American and Israeli commanders operate on the Iranian territory to get the necessary information for potential military attacks against the Islamic Republic,” he told Fars. (source)

Paranoia is a disease.

Abu Jandal, a former bodyguard of Osama bin Laden, claims the alleged Al Qaida leader will never be taken alive. If OBL is close to be captured, he has a “special gun” for those close to him to kill him with. Well, get on with it.

The interview is scheduled to be aired this Sunday on 60 Minutes.

“There was a special gun to be used if Sheik Osama bin Laden was attacked and we were unable to save him, in which case I would have to kill him,” he said.

Jandal also believes Osama bin Laden is planning an attack within the United States.

“When Sheik Osama promises something, he does it,” he said. “So I believe Osama bin Laden is planning a new attack inside the United States, this is certain.”

You don’t have to know OBL to realize he is probably planning an operation. That’s what he does. Perhaps the most interesting part of what has been released of his interview though concerns how OBL evaded a cruise missile in 1998. According to Jandal, they reached a fork in the road and chose to go to Kabul as oppsed to where the missile hit, Khost.

On the same day Hamas took power in Palestine, a suicide bomber attacked Israeli citizens and killed three.

Army Radio said police suspect three Israelis, two women and a man, gave a ride to a Palestinian in their car, and the Palestinian blew himself up, killing all four. The report said the Palestinian was dressed as an ultra-Orthodox Jew.

The Palestinisn suicide bomber was the second hitchiker the elderly couple that owned the car picked up on their fateful last journey.  A group linked to the Fatah-run Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack, which means insert Hamas into the government and now Fatah starts to launch terrorist attacks all over again.

The New Editor links to a post on The American Prospect written by Greg Sargent where Sargent almost salivates over Hillary Clinton’s fundraising tour in Texas.

HILLARY RAISES BIG BUCKS IN TEXAS BUSH COUNTRY. Senator Clinton did a great deal of fundraising around the country in March, and her private fundraising schedule — which was passed along by a source — shows that she raked in big bucks in that most impenetrable of red-state strongholds: Texas.

The schedule lists a dozen events in four states, in the space of just two months, March and April. This is very significant, because all the activity shows just how determined Hillary’s advisers are to stockpile an enormous campaign warchest at a time when she is facing only token opposition for reelection in 2006 — something which of course will only fuel speculation that her fundraising right now is also about scaring off potential Dem challengers in 2008.

On March 21, the schedule shows, Hillary quietly slipped off to Texas for an unpublicized swing through that state, where the junior senator from the ultimate blue state raked in as much as $4,200-per-person in some of the most red-hued of venues. For instance, one event was a breakfast at, of all places, the Dallas Petroleum Club, a mahogany-festooned enclave whose president was once Ray Hunt, a top Bush fundraiser and oilman. She also had a fundraising event at a barbeque in San Antonio and an event crowded with high-tech entrepreneurs in Austin (the state capitol where Bush presided as Texas governor).

First off, good for Hillary to fundraise if that’s what she wants to do.  We all know she will run for president in 2008 so it is a strategically smart move for her to do.  Sargent’s knowledge of the state of Texas though is about as good as Google can provide.  His facts, I assume, are accurate, but he fails to take into fact the makeup of this vast state.  As a side note, President Bush has also held several fundraisers in Dallas and he has done quite well.  He has strong support in North Dallas, also where he has come for a few fundraisers.
Ace weighs in on this story mentioning election results in these districts.  Dallas, largely, is a Democratic city.  Austin is a Liberal mecca.  San Antonio, which is in Broward County, is considered a Republican city.  Dallas though has some very rich people that live within the area including a former DNC Chairman who used to be the CEO of a company called Goldman Sachs.  Sargent also takes into consideration this state used to be very blue, politically speaking.  This is also why I have a hard time believing the idea that an increase in Latino immigrants will bode well for the Democratic Party.  Latinos, as a general rule, are faithful.  The leadership of the Democratic Party isn’t exactly religious, and there’s nothing wrong with that either.
(more…)

The photographer that took the picture of Justice Antonin Scalia giving an “obscene gesture” (seen at right) speaks. Peter Smith claims Scalia’s insistence it was not an obscene gesure is inaccurate.  First from Scalia’s letter to the Boston Herald.

Your reporter, an up-and-coming “gotcha” star named Laurel J. Sweet, asked me (o-so-sweetly) what I said to those people who objected to my taking part in such public religious ceremonies as the Red Mass I had just attended. I responded, jocularly, with a gesture that consisted of fanning the fingers of my right hand under my chin. Seeing that she did not understand, I said “That’s Sicilian,” and explained its meaning - which was that I could not care less.

The original report of the entire incident, and as reported by Laurel Sweet of the Boston Herald, said the following occurred in the exchange: (more…)

The effecitveness of yesteday’s statement made by the United Nations Security Council will be measured on how it is perceived by the Iranian government.  In that case, the statement was a complete failure.

The state-run Iranian newspaper IRNA calls the statement “non-binding.”  The statement was in fact non-binding and was little more than a public scolding and an expectation Iran complies with the international community.  It was written primarily by England and France, though they had to make numerous changes to the statement because of Russian and Chinese pressure.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Iran has a right to pursue nuclear technology.  He doesn’t take into consideration the Security Council statement clearly said peaceful nuclear energy and technology was fine but that they could guarantee Iran was not trying to militarize the nation’s nuclear program.

The state-run news agency ISNA reported that the Iranian Foreign Minister rejected the 30-day deadline set by the Security Council for Iran to halt all enrichment activities as an “injustice” and a “double standard”.

There really isn’t a double standard, but when applied to how Iran has framed this entire debate there is.  Iran doesn’t see the strict wording of peaceful and military uses of nuclear technology and they have proceded through the negotiations only on the grounds their nuclear program is peaceful.  The IAEA remains unconvinced, and it is this doubt that cause the United Nations Security Council to act.  Iran cannot and will not remove any doubt not because they don’t believe they have to, but because doing so would partially vindicate what the IAEA and the international community has been saying all along, that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.

FLASHBACK to January 7, 2006: Iran has accused the United States of taking nine Iranian border guards hostage which on the surface would be a plausible scenario pending certain circumstances. There’s a problem though. It is believed those guards were taken hostage by Sunni terrorists linked with Al Qaida, meaning Iran is accusing the United States of collaborating with Al Qaida. Basically typical Iran.

Guess who opened his mouth today and made the same accusation the United States and Al Qaida are cooperating? A spokesman to radical Islamic cleric Muqtada al Sadr said on Iraqi and Iranian television the U.S. was cooperating with Al Qaida and he has the documents to prove it.

In an interview with a local TV network that was also re-transmitted by Iranian televison, Saheb Ameri, one of al-Sadr’s right-hand men, said he is “in possession of vital documents that disclose the close cooperation between al-Qaeda and the US occupation forces.”

“These documents prove without a shadow of doubt that groups linked to al-Qaeda and to al-Zarqawi are coordinating their attacks with the tacit consent of the US military command in Iraq,” said Ameri.

“This cooperation has reached worrying levels since Zalmai Khalilzad has been in charge of the American embassy in Baghdad,” he stated. Shiites have repeatedly accused the current US ambassador to Iraq, a diplomat of Afghan origins, of “sympathising with the Sunnis and the al-Qaeda insurgency,” Ameri said.

I sense a fake but accurate type of document trail on this one.  There is reason why Sadr and his group would blame the United States for supporting Al Qaida. Sadr is supported by Iran. He has traveled to Iran for secret meetings and argues the Iranian stance of most issues. He has also said he would declare war upon the Coation if Iran or Syria asked him to. The proposed talks between the United States and Iraq would center around Khalilzad who has been the targeted of an orchestrated attack on his reputation for the past few months. In other words, this slur was probably manufactured in Iran.