5 minutes and 56 seconds of common sense from Glenn Beck on Hugo Chavez and CITGO. I haven't bought from them in years. Neither should you.

A CAIR press release packaged as a "news" item in the Miami Herald (oh, what passes for news here) gets picked up the Christian Science Monitor... ONE YEAR LATER!!!!

Of course, this year "it's all the Republican's fault" ©

If soooo many US Hispanics are being drawn to Islam, couldn't they have at least come up with a new picture? The same lady?! I mean, really.

Apparently, the party leadership has finally figured it out:

"In a post 9/11 world, border security is a matter of national security. Securing our borders is not an insurmountable problem … but it has been a problem that too many have been willing to ignore for too long."

The Senate invoked cloture on the Secure Fence Act of 2006, in a 71:28 vote. Tomorrow it will vote on the bill itself, which the House has already approved, and will send this great first effort at border security to the President for a signature. Here, here!

Historical Revisionism by Bill Clinton, Yet Again

Check out Clinton unhinged, where he basically accuses the Bush administration of not trying to catch bin Laden:

"At least I tried. That's the difference between me and some...{some being who, sir?} They had eight months to try; they did not try."

Surely, Mr. Clinton is not referring to the current administration, who, as the historical record shows, radically changed the U.S.'s approach to bin Laden. Eight months, eight years; eight months, eight years...

But really, when did Clinton try? I mean, we know that he had a chance at bin Laden in Afghanistan, but Sandy "these stolen, relevant to the 9/11 commission investigation documents in my pants sure are heavy" Berger "kept" the President of the United States of America (the most powerful man in the world) from actually doing anything. And we also know that the Sudanese government offered to hand bin Laden over, but Mr. Clinton did not think we had a "legal justification" to grab him. So when, Mr. Clinton, did you try? Other than in your, no doubt constant, mental review of "what would I have done differently?"

Boycott CITGO

I said it back in February 2003, but it certainly bears repeating today:

"What many people do not know is that CITGO is a wholly-owned subsidiary of PDVSA, the Venezuelan state-owned oil company. Every dollar that you spend with CITGO translates into hard currency which continues to prop up the oppressive regime of Hugo Chavez."

GOP in the City has created some nice art work to go with what should be a nation-wide boycott of CITGO and Venezuela's Castro-puppet dictator, Chavez.

UPDATE: Check out the Boycott CITGO blog!

UPDATE: Florida state Representative Adam Hasner has called for CITGO to be removed from the Turnpike. I fully support this effort, and have contacted Rep. Hasner to express my appreciation. Make sure you contact his office to express your support!

192 Democrat Congressmen (and women) think that it is an "insurmountable burden on voters" to show ID to vote. Excuse me? To get on a plane, ID required. To cash a check, ID required. To open a bank account, ID required (Patriot Act anyone?). Drive a car, ID required. To rent a car, ID required. To use a credit card, ID required. To work legally in the United States, ID required (in fact, two forms of ID are generally required to work!). Buy alcohol, ID required. Buy a gun, ID required. Submit an affidavit, ID required (or personal knowledge).

The requirement of ID is a facet of many important daily activities. Surely the Democrats know this, otherwise why have they been insisting, for years now, that illegal immigrants face high burdens becoming normalized in American society due to their inability to obtain ID, and thus forcing the oft counterfeit, and easily forged, matricula consular on many border states? The notion that the cost of obtaining an ID (as if any significant number of citizens are current without an ID) represents some sort of "poll-tax" is a clear effort at creating racial animus, and simply unfounded. The Federal Elections Intergrity Act of 2006 includes an express payment provision for states to provide identifications.

So what are the Democrats really saying? They want to keep trying to steal elections through fraud.

AP vs. Malkin. Advantage: Malkin.
The AP just showed its stripes, in a very embrassing way.

World's Funniest Terrorist Outakes
Allahu snackbar, infidel! Make sure to check out the Infidel Bloggers Alliance Jihad Satire Video Contest.

Do terrorist enemy combatants have Miranda rights? Andrew McCarthy makes the argument.

"This Supreme Court has already gone out of its way to find that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which literally relates only to civil wars, somehow governs our patently international conflict with al Qaeda. To come to this conclusion, it had to ignore clear provisions that say Geneva rights, including Common Article 3, are supposed to be enforced diplomatically — i.e., not by courts. Moreover, the same Court has found that questioning which merely fails to alert a suspect that he has a right to counsel is constructively coercive and violates the Fifth Amendment.

Knowing all that, you want me to assume this same Court would find that a constitutional provision directed at coercive interrogation really has nothing to do with coercive interrogation? That it is not “cruel” or “inhumane” to coerce a confession?
...
In its 2000 Dickerson case, the Court held that its 1966 Miranda decision had so evolved that it was now part-and-parcel of the Fifth Amendment privilege. For 30-plus years before then, the Court had said that its judge-made Miranda rules were merely “prophylactic” — a protection around the Fifth Amendment guarantee against compulsory self-incrimination, but not really part of the Fifth Amendment.

Dickerson changed all that. With Dickerson, the Miranda warnings became part of the core Fifth Amendment guarantee. After Dickerson, the failure to give Miranda warnings is not just a “Miranda violation”; it is a violation of the Fifth Amendment right not to be subjected to coercive interrogation.

Thus, according to the Supreme Court, the failure to “Mirandize” a suspect is inherently coercive. That leads me to believe a majority of the current Supreme Court — and many, if not most, federal judges — would rule that coercive interrogation violates the McCain Amendment, the principal purpose of which was to bar coercive questioning."

It would appear that John McCain's personal experience as a prisoner of war in Vietnam may very well affect our ability to wage the current war on terror. Of course, after McCain-Feingold, we may not even be able to speak out about McCain's hijacking of the nation's war powers.

Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey in Chief, Jacques Chirac, has once again shown his treachery. Not content to merely step aside and allow actual leaders to craft a solution to Iran's nuclear ambitions, Chirac has now positioned France in direct opposition to the US's effort to impose sanctions for Iran's non-compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation agreement.

"President Jacques Chirac has broken ranks with the US and Britain by calling for the suspension of UN Security Council action against Iran during negotiations over its nuclear programme.

In a radio interview yesterday before flying to New York for the UN General Assembly, the French President provoked a diplomatic storm by backing Iran's demand that the Security Council should halt its involvement in the nuclear dossier."

Chirac is no ally of the United States. It is high time we recognize that fact. Moreover, it is well past time to end the UN charade, while Iran continues its quest for nuclear weapons unabated.

The Senate finally comes around?

"'It's time to secure the border with Mexico,' Majority Leader Bill Frist said last night before filing the parliamentary motions to force the House-passed bill onto the Senate floor in a final effort to get a major immigration bill on the president's desk before the elections."

Border security IS national security.

Over at Opinion Journal, James Taranto nails it!

"As a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, McCain suffered actual, brutal torture--not just aggressive questioning of the sort that the Bush administration seeks to legalize. America's adherence to the Geneva Conventions did not protect McCain--even though he, unlike the al Qaeda detainees, was a legitimate prisoner of war; and Hanoi, unlike al Qaeda, had ratified the Geneva Conventions and thus was legally bound by them.

The whole point of the Geneva Conventions is reciprocity: Nations agree that when they fight wars, they will do so in accordance with some civilized rules. Extending the conventions' protection to terrorists, who reject those rules, transforms Geneva into a suicide pact. John McCain is one of the Senate's true war heroes, but in this area his personal experience seems to be clouding, rather than clarifying, his views."

It's amazing what passes for news in Miami, especially where it involves the Democrat's whole "culture of corruption" campaign. Today, the Miami Herald had a puff piece on New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez. (He's a Democrat, hand picked by Gov. Corzine.) The article purports to focus on Menendez's Cuban heritage. But, rather curiously, there is almost no mention of his widely reported ethics troubles. The only mention of these rather serious ethical allegations appears in the 21st paragraph. [21st!!] Even then, the author attempts to divert attention from these allegations, by asserting that Menendez's opponent, Tom Kean Jr., is being opportunistic by pointing out that Menendez is under investigation.

"[Kean] seized on newspaper accounts that Menendez collected $300,000 in rent from a nonprofit agency he helped land federal money, accusing him of profiteering from a conflict of interest.

Menendez, accusing Kean of practicing the ''politics of personal destruction,'' says the arrangement was cleared by the House Ethics Committee.

The Star-Ledger of Newark, citing three unnamed sources, reported last week that federal investigators had subpoenaed the nonprofit agency's records, and Democrats accused the Republicans of playing dirty."

But the Star-Ledger reported ("Pair accuse Menendez of conflict" Aug. 29, 2006) much more than that. Specifically, they reported that "Two Republican state lawmakers filed an ethics complaint against U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez." No, it's not just three unnamed sources, but two elected state assemblymen, formally filing an ethics complaint! Big difference there, I'd say. But the Star-Ledger story goes a whole lot further, reporting that "Independent ethics watchdogs have said it was a conflict of interest for Menendez to help a tenant win federal funding."

Since when are reporters at one newspaper so skeptical about the reporting of another? Particularly when the paper conducting the investigation is the local area paper--you know, the one that actually follows local politics. And especially where the story has been widely picked up in the national press. (For example, see today's WSJ, "New Jersey Switcheroo.") It's almost as if the Herald reporter didn't think these allegations warranted mention. But, not content to simply paper over the allegations, the author then permits Menendez to play the race card:

"Menendez says his campaign is ''looking carefully'' at statements by Kean and other Republicans, suggesting they're thinly veiled attempts to underscore Menendez's Hispanic roots."

As if it were racist to point out that Menendez is struggling with ethical problems. Is the author, or Senator Menendez, suggesting that different ethical standards should apply to people of different racial backgrounds? Does race define ethics at the Miami Herald? Or perhaps the issue is party affiliation? It might help to explain why almost every article in the Herald that so much as mentions Katherine Harris (a white Republican) includes allegations about questionable campaign contributions, generally in the initial paragraphs. For example, see here ("Nelson avoids harsh words - for now." Sept. 11, 2006), here ("Feds interview Harris' ex-manager" Sept. 10, 2006), and here ("Harris' GOP Senate nomination secure" Sept. 5, 2006). And that's just this month!! One can't help but get the impression the Herald has some very different standards for white Republicans. I can't wait to see how the Herald will spin to "report" should Menendez follow the Democrat's proud tradition in New Jersey, and pull a Torricelli. My guess is that they wont cover the story at all, unless they new Lautenberg is Hispanic.

After reading Richard Miniter's observations from Gitmo, only one conclusion can be drawn -- our government is not serious about winning the war on terror.

The high-minded critics who complain about torture are wrong. We are far too soft on these guys - and, as a result, aren't getting the valuable intelligence we need to save American lives.

The politically correct regulations are unbelievable. Detainees are entitled to a full eight hours sleep and can't be woken up for interrogations. They enjoy three meals and five prayers per day, without interruption. They are entitled to a minimum of two hours of outdoor recreation per day.

Interrogations are limited to four hours, usually running two - and (of course) are interrupted for prayers. One interrogator actually bakes cookies for detainees, while another serves them Subway or McDonald's sandwiches. Both are available on base. (Filet o' Fish is an al Qaeda favorite.)

Interrogations are not video or audio taped, perhaps to preserve detainee privacy.

Call it excessive compassion by a nation devoted to therapy, but it's dangerous. Adm. Harris admitted to me that a multi-cell al Qaeda network has developed in the camp. Military intelligence can't yet identify their leaders, but notes that they have cells for monitoring the movements and identities of guards and doctors, cells dedicated to training, others for making weapons and so on.

And they can make weapons from almost anything. Guards have been attacked with springs taken from inside faucets, broken fluorescent light bulbs and fan blades. Some are more elaborate. "These folks are MacGyvers," Harris said.

Other cells pass messages from leaders in one camp to followers in others. How? Detainees use the envelopes sent to them by their attorneys to pass messages. (Some 1,000 lawyers represent 440 prisoners, all on a pro bono basis, with more than 18,500 letters in and out of Gitmo in the past year.) Guards are not allowed to look inside these envelopes because of "attorney-client privilege" - even if they know the document inside is an Arabic-language note written by a prisoner to another prisoner and not a letter to or from a lawyer. [Unbelievable!!!]

That's right: Accidentally or not, American lawyers are helping al Qaeda prisoners continue to plot.
...
What if a detainee confesses a weakness (like fear of the dark) to a doctor that might be useful to interrogators, I asked the doctor in charge, would he share that information with them? "My job is not to make interrogations more efficient," he said firmly. He cited doctor-patient privacy. (He also asked that his name not be printed, citing the potential for al Qaeda retaliation.)
...
Much has been written about the elaborate and unprecedented appeal process. Detainees have their cases reviewed once a year and get rights roughly equivalent to criminals held in domestic prisons. I asked a military legal adviser: In what previous war were captured enemy combatants eligible for review before the war ended? None, he said.

America has never faced an enemy who has so ruthlessly broken all of the rules of war - yet never has an enemy been treated so well.

In America today, law abiding citizens cannot fly with liquid or make-up in their carry-on bags. The Senate refuses to secure our porous borders. A Predator drone recently had a clear shot a massing of Taliban, but the "rules of engagement" wouldn't allow the military to kill our enemies. And likely Republican Presidential candidate McCain claims that he'll risk his candidacy for even "better" treatment of the terrorists at Gitmo. It is a national disgrace how this war is being prosecuted. It's small wonder that many in the Democrat party refuse to recognize that the war on terror is even a war. Heck, our own President isn't even taking the war seriously.

I will not submit. Lan astaslem.