July 21, 2006

Gun wielding citizen in Tennessee stops attacker who stabbed 8 people.

The attacker, chasing one victim into the store's parking lot, was subdued by Chris Cope, manager of a financial services office in the same small shopping center, Higgins said.

Cope said he grabbed a 9mm semiautomatic pistol from his pickup truck when he saw the attacker chasing the victim "like something in a serial killer movie."

"When he turned around and saw my pistol, he threw the knife away, put his hands up and got on the ground," Cope told The Associated Press. "He saw my gun and that was pretty much it."
[8 Grocery Employees Stabbed in Tennessee - AP - 07-21-06]

July 20, 2006

I don't know why he wasn't serious. Would most Republicans vote to defend marriage by banning divorce and criminalizing adultery? Either the institution of marriage is sacred enough to protect it from these real threats, or it's just another right to be exercised between willing and consenting adults.

Rep. Lincoln Davis was not being serious when he made comments on the House floor earlier this week suggesting that divorce and adultery should be against the law, his spokesman said today.

Tom Hayden, the spokesman, said Davis, a Democrat from Frentress County, made the over-the-top comments during a debate Tuesday on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage that the issue was being brought up by Republicans as an election year ploy.

"The intent of the Congressional speech was not to say that he intends to introduce legislation making divorce and adultery a felony," Hayden said. "Rather the intent was to point out the purely partisan nature and timing of the amendment."
[Rep. Davis not serious about outlawing divorce, spokesman says - Tennessee - 07-20-06]

May 18, 2006

Despite the effort having no chance of passing a Senate vote, Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) has scheduled a vote in the Senate on June 5, setting aside the American people's business for his own idea of America's priority.

The latest proposal from the Republican party to address the most important issues of intelligence gathering failures, emergency response failures, homeland defense, record deficit spending, a mismanaged war in Iraq, bribery scandals, criminal indictments of elected officials and ethics violations under the Congressional reign of Republicans is to add yet another disgrace to their legacy by attempting to write discrimination into the United States Constitution.

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman," reads the measure, which would require approval by two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states to take effect.

"Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman," it says.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has scheduled a vote the week of June 5.
[Specter to Feingold: 'Good Riddance' - Washington Post - 05-19-06]

May 11, 2006

President Bush asserts that his domestic spy orders are constitutional and only target the enemy and those who support their efforts.

"We're not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans," he said. Instead, the NSA's efforts "strictly target al-Qaeda and their known affiliates."
[Bush defends NSA data collection program - USAToday - 05-11-06]

The Bush Administration has already lumped political opponents with "the enemy" that President Bush today stated was the target of domestic spying.

Political opponents who dissent are committing treason by providing aid and comfort to the terrorists:

President Bush and leading Republicans are increasingly charging that Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry and others in his party are giving comfort to terrorists and undermining the war in Iraq -- a line of attack that tests the conventional bounds of political rhetoric.
[Tying Kerry to Terror Tests Rhetorical Limits - Washington Post - 09-24-04]

more

"Those who make such allegations about the revised version of USA Patriot are giving aid and comfort to the enemy and weakening American resolve."
[John Ashcroft - 09-18-03]

more

"To those who pit Americans against immigrants, citizens against non-citizens, to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve," Ashcroft told the Senate Judiciary Committee. "They give ammunition to America's enemies and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil.
[Ashcroft: Critics of new terror measures undermine effort - CNN - 12-07-01]

more

"Daschle's three years as Complainer-In-Chief have brought shame to the honor of his office, concern to our men and women in uniform, and comfort to America's enemies."
[Republican Party Chairman Randy Frederick - fundraising letter - 09-04]

more

"The Democrats are quitting, calling the war unwinnable while we have our men and women and their families sacrificing every day" charged Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam. Democrats are "basically giving aid and comfort to the enemy," echoed Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas.
['Unwinnable' comment draws GOP fire - CNN - 05-10-04]

The record shows Republicans have no problems associating American dissenters with terrorists. The concern of advocates for the Constitutional rule of law in America is that the Bush Administration has now created the means by which they can act against political opponents without anyone knowing and without any regard to the question of whether the American government has the right to spy on American citizens.

December 06, 2005

There are two ways to appear moderate to the American people. 1) pick up the flag of a few issues of your opponent's base and run it up the nearest flag pole with zeal, or 2) have some good old American common sense in everything you do and hope people pay attention. It looks like Hillary Clinton has chosen the first option.

Clinton, D-N.Y., has agreed to co-sponsor a measure by Republican Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah, which has been written in hopes of surviving any constitutional challenge following a 2003 Supreme Court ruling on the subject. Her support of Bennett's bill follows her position in Congress last summer, when a constitutional ban on flag-burning was debated. Clinton said then she didn't support a constitutional ban, but did support federal legislation making it a crime to desecrate the flag.

In her public statements, she has compared the act of flag-burning to burning a cross, which can be considered a violation of federal civil rights law.
[Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law - Newsday - 12-05-05]

I don't have any desire to burn an American flag, but I don't want pandering politicians placing asterisks in our nation's constitutional protection of civil liberties, especially free speech.

This is a democracy, not a totalitarian regime where the government can haul individuals before a court claiming the government is the victim and has been violated by an individual's speech.

Sen. Clinton opposed a previous attempt to amend the constitution to ban flag burning.

"I support federal legislation that would outlaw flag desecration, much like laws that currently prohibit the burning of crosses, but I don't believe a constitutional amendment is the answer," said Clinton. Her aides said there was no contradiction in being against the flag-burning amendment and for a flag-burning law.
[Flag amendment may lack votes to pass Senate - First Amendment Center - 06-13-05]

Here is what the "Flag Protection Act of 2005" says.

`(b) ACTIONS PROMOTING VIOLENCE- Any person who destroys or damages a flag of the United States with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, and under circumstances in which the person knows that it is reasonably likely to produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

`(c) DAMAGING A FLAG BELONGING TO THE UNITED STATES- Any person who steals or knowingly converts to his or her use, or to the use of another, a flag of the United States belonging to the United States, and who intentionally destroys or damages that flag, shall be fined not more than $250,000, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

`(d) DAMAGING A FLAG OF ANOTHER ON FEDERAL LAND- Any person who, within any lands reserved for the use of the United States, or under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction of the United States, steals or knowingly converts to his or her use, or to the use of another, a flag of the United States belonging to another person, and who intentionally destroys or damages that flag, shall be fined not more than $250,000, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
[S 1370 IS "Flag Protection Act of 2005"]

Sen. Clinton doesn't want you to burn a flag for the purpose of inciting violence. She's totally against people burning someone else's flag. And she doesn't want you to burn that stolen flag on federal property. The last I checked, inciting violence, theft and disposing stolen goods is already criminal. Is this attempt to remain constitutional a joke?

Take a look at the "Flag Protection Act of 1989" which the Supreme Court of the United States said was unconstitutional.

Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
[Flag Protection Act of 1989]

December 05, 2005

It's the end of the world ... again. OK, so maybe they jumped the gun when they claimed the West would fall the day the "activist judges" ruled the Lovings were allowed to marry. They were right about one thing, though. If laws recognize marriage between blacks and whites, then it's a matter of time before we're all forced to let gays legally "support each other financially, even after the relationship ends."

Gay marriage is legal in Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and Canada. Britain has not gone that far, but civil partnership will be marriage in all but name, granting legal rights virtually identical to those enjoyed by married couples.

Gay couples who register as civil partners will take on the obligation to support each other financially, even after the relationship ends. To split, they will have to go through a "divorce" process, with the courts dividing up the assets regardless of ownership if they fail to reach a settlement. They will be exempt from inheritance tax when the first partner dies, and will have the same pension rights as married couples.
[Thousands prepare to tie the knot - Guardian - 12-05-05]

November 27, 2005

The Pentagon wants to expand powers of three year old Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA) with an exception to the Privacy Act.

The Pentagon has pushed legislation on Capitol Hill that would create an intelligence exception to the Privacy Act, allowing the FBI and others to share information gathered about U.S. citizens with the Pentagon, CIA and other intelligence agencies, as long as the data is deemed to be related to foreign intelligence. Backers say the measure is needed to strengthen investigations into terrorism or weapons of mass destruction.
[Pentagon Expanding Its Domestic Surveillance Activity - Washington Post - 11-27-05]

November 23, 2005

In discussing the recent Padilla indictment, conservative author Andrew Sullivan believes many in the White House simply don't care about liberty.

I have no brief for Padilla or any other al Qaeda mass-murderers. But he is an American citizen, presumed innocent, and it took the government three years even to charge him. Anyone who cares about liberty - which obviously does not include many members of the Bush administration, should be appalled by what has occurred and what it means for the future of freedom in this country.
[Padilla Charged - Andrew Sullivan - 11-22-05]