Rightank

Here are comments by General Richard Meyers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Vice President Dick Cheney regarding the ridiculous allegations of torture asserted by Amnesty International:

General Myers:

I think [the Amnesty report] is irresponsible . . . absolutely irresponsible.

Vice President Cheney:

Frankly, I was offended by it, Cheney said in the videotaped interview. For Amnesty International to suggest that somehow the United States is a violator of human rights, I frankly just don’t take them seriously.

. . .

Occasionally there are allegations of mistreatment, Cheney said. But if you trace those back, in nearly every case, it turns out to come from somebody who had been inside and released to their home country and now are peddling lies about how they were treated.

Irresponsible, offensive, and lacking credibility. Amnesty International. Yep.

Memorial Day is one of my favorite holidays, increasingly so as I’ve grown older. We are at war right now, albeit a different war that those fought by our fathers and our fathers’ fathers.

I’m grateful and thankful for this Land of Liberty my family and I enjoy–thanks to the sweat, tears, and blood of those who have worn the Stars and Stripes proudly on their shirt-sleeve and died for our Nation.

God bless them this day–we are a grateful “One Nation, Under God.”

Looks like that rebellious-liberal, gay-loving mayor of New Paltz, New York is going to face 24 counts of violating New York domestic relations law after his 2004 “marrying” of gay and lesbian couples. His attorney, E. Joshua Rosenkranz (who happens to represent the gay-loving liberal academia elite who are challenging the Solomon Act) said the following:

Mayor West stood up for the constitutional rights of people being treated unfairly and unconstitutionally, said Mr. West’s attorney, E. Joshua Rosenkranz. If he is wrong about that judgment, of course he will stand trial and we’ll pay whatever penalty and he’s prepared to do so.

Good. I hope he pays a $100,000 fine for his sniveling, anarchist disobedience of the law and rots in jail for awhile (I’m sure he wouldn’t mind).

Here is a copy of the email (with some minor changes) I sent to the Federal Election Commission regarding proposed rule changes to campaign finance regulations with a particular emphasis on bloggers editorial and commentorial contributions during the federal election cycle. Enjoy:

To Mr. Brad C. Deutsch, Assistant General Counsel of the Federal Election Commission:

This electronic communication from a United States citizen addresses the Commission’s proposed changes to rules and regulations governing the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, commonly referred to as “McCain-Feingold.”

I desire to address the proposed rules and regulations from a blogger’s perspective. I operate a blog named “Rightank” located on the World Wide Web at http://rightank.com or http://www.rightank.com. I use the blogname “Tank” in posting content on my blog and responding to visitors to my site whether by electronic mail or through comments on my posts. My comments are as follows:

Part II.B

* The Commission should amend 11 CFR § 100.26 to explicitly state that “bloggers” are not included in the definition of “public communication.” Generally, I fear that some in both the main-stream media (particularly print or television) desire to limit the influence of the blogosphere among the general populace. Whether their motivation is financial (loss of advertisement revenue due to declining readership) or loss of political influence, their criticisms of bloggers are real. See Peggy Noonan, “The Blogs Must Be Crazy: Or Maybe the MSM is Just Suffering From Freedom Envy.” By explicitly inserting “bloggers,” it would protect a blogger from any concerted effort by a single media outlet or conglomerate to threaten the blogger into silencing himself or herself based on the notion that the blogger is acting unlawfully in his or her voluntary writing on behalf of a particular candidate or viewpoint that closely aligns with a “clearly identified candidate for Federal office.” See 2 USC 431(20)(A)(iii). Moreover, an explicit definition will prempt a court from judicially including “bloggers” (bloggers who receive renumeration and those who do not) as part of the definition of “public communication” as a means “of general public poltical advertising.” See 11 CFR § 100.26.

Part IV.B

* The Commission should require a blogger to disclose payments from a candidate, a campaign, or political committee if the payments are made to promote, attack, support, or oppose a Federal candidate. See 2 USC 431(20)(A)(iii) and 441i(b). While independent bloggers invigorate, inform, and enliven a robust public debate during election season, bloggers who receive monetary sums on behalf of their advocacy should disclose the source of their finananical gains. My rationale is two-fold: (1) The poltiical blogosphere might metamorphose similar to the 527 political action groups that enabled wealthy individuals to circumvent campaign finance law, rules, and regulations and exercise inordinate influence on the outcome of the campaign, hamstringing poltical parties and others who lawfully adhered to the rules; and (2) Disclosure would help the public would identify the financial source of the viewpoint in order to substantiate its validity and veracity.
* An exemption for smaller blogs might also be appropriate as some blogs are read more voraciously than others. For example, a blog whose readership is less than 1,000 hits a month and who receives a nominal amount (less than $100) would be exempted from the disclosure rule.

Part V.B

* The Commission should amend 11 CFR § 109.21(c)(2) to exempt all dissemination, distribution, or republication of campaign materials on the Internet generally and excise the reference in the regulation to “public communication.” Habitually and near-uniformly, bloggers link to each other’s blogs and link to other news and information sources when posting. Moreover, it is extremely unlikely that any independent blogger thinks about whether linking to an information source and thereby disseminating, distributing, or republishing that information source is a “public communication.” See 11 CFR § 100.26. A blanket exemption would actively promote a robust public debate “by the millions of individuals [who] daily . . .share [political] information and air their views on a variety of subjects” and prevent a squelching of informative discourse and differing viewpoints from reaching the public’s eye. See Internet Communications, 70 Fed. Reg. 16967, 16971 (proposed March 29, 2005) (to be codified at 11 CFR pts. 100, 110, & 114). In addition, an explicit exemption of all bloggers would eliminate the burdensome regulatory inquiry to determine whether a public communication has occured. For example, a determination whether multitudinous linking by “Group X” bloggers to a particular post by “X” blogger who received renumeration for his on-line entry was an impermissble “contribution.” See 2 USC 431(8)(A)(i).

Part VI

* The Commission should rule that bloggers are entitled to the “periodical publications” exemption for expenditures. See 2 USC 431(9)(B)(i). The exemption covers three types of informative output from traditional media sources: news stories, commentaries, or editorials. See 2 USC 431(9)(B)(i). Arguably, bloggers publish all three types of informative output or a combination of all three. See, e.g., Tank, “If I Were President . . .” (last visited May 29, 2005). Moreover, blogs are similar to on-line and print media sources in that they “provide direct access to poltical news and events and offer commentary on current affairs.” See Internet Communications, 70 Fed. Reg. 16967, 16975 (proposed March 29, 2005) (to be codified at 11 CFR pts. 100, 110, & 114). The exemption should not apply to bloggers who are compensated for editorials, news stories, or commentaries made on behalf of a poltical party. Such payments would constitute “control” by a candidate, political party, or political committee only if the blogger produced “multiple” editorials, news stories, or commentaries. The Commission should define “multiple” as “two or more on-line editorials, news stories, or commentaries within one week of on-line publication or archive.” This would balance the freedoms of the blogger in advocating for his or her candidate, poltical party, or political committee of choice and the regulatory aims of federal campaign fund disclosure and transparency.

Part VIII

* The Commission should enact the proposed rules on exceptions to the defintions of “contribution” and “expenditure” for individuals or volunteers (including “bloggers”) who act independently for the purpose of influencing a federal election. See Uncompensated Individual or Volunteer Activity That is not a Contribution, 70 Fed Reg. 16967, 16977-78 (proposed March 29, 2005) (to be codified at 11 CFR pt. 100); Uncompensated Individual or Volunteer Activity That is not an Expenditure, 70 Fed Reg. 16967, 16978 (proposed March 29, 2005) (to be codified at 11 CFR pt.100). A blogger should be able to independently advocate for the candidate, political party, or political commitee of his or her own choosing without regulatory repercussion. Anything less will inhibit robust debate and eliminate the requisite quantum of political discourse necessary to promote democracy and to protect and defend our Constitutional Republic.

In Federalist #1, Alexander Hamilton queried “whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice.” Thankfully, our Framers established such a goverment. Bloggers amplify the ability of our society to reflect and choose which candidates for Federal office best align with their values, interests, and beliefs. I strongly urge the implementation of the above comments and leave them for your thoughtful mediation and analysis. Thank you for your time and consideration and for your service to our country.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Tank
“Tank”
rightank@gmail.com

Well, all be darned: “Mohammad the Terrorist” recanted his prior allegation of the Koran flushing.

Michelle Malkin has excellent coverage of the MSM falling all over themselves to drum-up credibility for the Koran flush.

The torturemongers are out in full force defending the MSM. I believe “Mohammad the Terrorist” just flushed their argument down the toilet.

Torturemonger: Someone who believes that Abu Ghraib is official U.S. interrogation policy.

Apparently, the ACLU is trying to redeem Newsweek’s fall into the credibility quagmire by lauding another potential Koran flushing after reviewing documents recently released by the FBI in response to the ACLUers lawsuit against the DOD.

And what does the ACLU rely on inside the FBI reports? Not the conclusions of the FBI agent, but mere allegations made by the terrorist thugs (aka “detainees”) imprisoned at Guantánamo Bay:

According to the FBI documents, a detainee interviewed in August 2002 said that guards had flushed the Koran in the toilet. Others reported the Koran being kicked, withheld as punishment, and thrown on the floor, and said they were mocked during prayers.

. . .

In the documents released today, one detainee informs his FBI interviewers that using the Koran “as a reprisal or as an incentive for cooperation has failed,” and that the only result would be “the damage caused to the reputation of the United States once what had occurred was released to the world.” While another detainee acknowledged that there might be “a legitimate need to search the book for hidden items,” he objected to the abusive manner in which the searches were conducted.

So one detainee alleges a Koran was flushed down the toilet, another it was kicked, thrown, and “mocked.” Geez, I wonder what mocking means? A soldier reading the Bible during his watch duty? A soldier staring at the Koran?

Here is the redacted text of the FBI interview of the Gitmo terrorist thug that provides the evidentiary basis for “Koran flushing” allegation:

God tells Muslims to do a jihad against non-Muslims and countries that are not Muslim. Also, Muslims should fight a jihad against non-Muslims and countries who are not Muslim, who come to a Muslim country to start trouble. [Mohammad the Terrorist] is not currently in jihad.

Prior to his capture, [Mohammad the Terrorist] had no information against the United States. Personally, he has nothing against the United States. The guards in the detention facility do not treat him well. Their behavior is bad. About five months ago, the guards beat the detainees. They flushed a Koran down the toilet. [page 3878]

Are you convinced that “Mohammad the Terrorist’s” unsubstantiated allegation proves that U.S. soldiers flushed the Koran down the toilet? The ACLU is, but I think the detainee might have just a few credibility problems. One allegation does not prove abuse of the Koran. It’s just like the Newsweek story–an uncorroborated allegation.

Also, it is useful to read the documents to understand the ACLU’s spin of the detainees statements. The ACLU is very descriptive where advantageous to promote their agenda of torture (i.e., the toilet example) and creates vagaries where a detainee’s allegation of abuse is coupled with his expressed hatred of America. For example, the ACLU writes the following description of transcript pages 3957 and 3958: “Records detainee’s responses to questions.” Here’s an interesting statement by “Makfud the Terrorist” on page 3958:

He does not like how the detainees are being treated at Camp Delta, saying the strip searches are humiliating and the food is bad. He feels that the United States is making war on the Islamic religion. He says that by imprisoning him, the United States is making war [redacted] and if the United States makes war against them, they will make war against the United States.

Thus, an allegation of abuses are made (humilating strip searches, bad Froot Loops) coupled with his statement declaring war on America. Credible? Yeah right.

Newsweek is still defending its trashing of America and her troops–on Al Jazeera. Go figure.

Seven cowardly Republicans joined seven weak-hearted Democrats in opposing Senator Frist and 48 other Republicans (with possibily a few constitutionally-closeted Democrats) selfcongratulatorily signing a Memorandum of Understanding (”MOU”) preserving the judicial filibuster.

Interestingly, the 14 Senators who signed the MOU explicitly favor the Senate Rules over the U.S. Constitution:

We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators seek to uphold.

Notice that the 14 Senators did not say consistent with the U.S. Constitution. Authoritatively, it does not matter what the 14 Senators think the U.S. Constitution says what matters is what the Constitution does say. The Constitution does not require 60 votes (a supermajority) to confirm a judical appointment–only 51 are required. The following is a “constitutional” perspective (i.e., radicial and extra-constitutional) on the judicial confirmation process by one of the signatories Senator Joseph Lieberman (Democrat from Connecticut):

We are in much better shape as a country if we can look forward with much more of a sense of confidence and with a sense of pride that we have fulfilled the values and the purpose that the Founders of this country put in the judiciary if we require 60 votes. That is what is on the line. The nuclear option would blow that up and say it would require 51.

. . .

. . . Over the years, and I must say my attitude has changed on this as I have watched the Senate become more partisan and polarized, it seems to me, and now I am speaking more broadly than the judicial nominations which will be the focus of the nuclear option if the button is pushed, that in a Senate that is increasingly partisan and polarized–and therefore, unproductive–that the institutional requirement for 60 votes is one of the last best hopes of bipartisanship in moderation because to not only confirm a judicial nominee but to pass legislation, if you have the right to demand 60 votes, and the President proposes legislation, individual Members of the Senate do so, you have to go beyond the Members of your own party.

Is this the voice of the Constitutional text? Is a 60 vote requirement found in the Constitution? Hardly. Senator Lieberman’s historical stretch (one that he admits is a change in “attitude”) usurps his right as Senator to modify the Constitution (the procedure to amend the Constitution is found in Article V not the stark interpolations buzzing inside your head, Senator). Moreover, this perspective is extremely dangerous given that a 60 vote requirement could one day turn into a 65 vote requirement if another Senator expressed similar concerns of “bipartisanship.”

The Constitution is a written monument carved in black ink that if properly read and adhered to difuses the present Constutitional Crisis regarding the filibustering of presidentially-nominated judicial nominees. However, a cabal of 14 carries with them a different constitution–a MOU–in their pocket. Time will then what kind of poltical price will be paid by these extra-constitutionalist Senators.

I’m sure we all remember John Kerry’s disenchanting drone during the 2004 Presidential Election “If I were President I would make sure that every single American had adequate health care and a dozen Krispy Kreme doughnuts each week.” Aren’t presidential election memories grand? Senatory Kerry was at his hopeful 2004 presidential candidate best (and hopeful 2008 presidential candidate best) yesterday on the Senate floor.

Senator Kerry droned the following as he was complaining about the Republican’s threat to constitutionally break the Democrats judicial filibuster of President Bush’s judicial nominees:

There is nothing in our Constitution or our history to suggest that the nominee of any President is so special as to be excused from the scrutiny of the minority or granted immunity from the tools of democracy that protect that minority.

I didn’t win, but I can guarantee this: Had I been President, I would not have contemplated supporting or sending a request to change what I have viewed as something of value in the entire time I have been here in the Senate. Never would have occurred to me. It would have occurred to me to send people up here who could win the support of people on both sides. It would have occurred to me to bring the members of the Judiciary Committee together and sit them down and work together to come to a common understanding of what sort of standard we ought to apply and let the American people share that standard.

This is great stuff, Senator. Not only do you admit you LOST, but you have given us Americans another sore loser jeremiad that pangs our hearts with regret that you LOST. Well, forget the regret part. Kerry is still suffering from Goreophrenia: a delusional mental disorder that prompts the Presidential Election loser to fantasize and pretend that he or she actually is President of the United States. I wonder what else John Kerry would have done if he were President . . .?

If I were President, I wouldn’t have told Newsweek to retract their story about U.S. soldiers flushing the Muslim Bible down the toilet, I would have got Newsweek on the phone and we would have discussed the issue. After agreeing that it was an unfortunate mistake, I would have held a press conference praising the Muslim Holy Book and then canceling my subscription (which Teresa pays for) to Newsweek. Did I mention I read Newsweek while serving in Vietnam?

Yeah, something like that.

Here’s Ian Ayres take on the Nebraska decision denying the people’s voice in defining marriage and its rights: “Last week’s [decision] is an extraordinary use of the federal constitution to promote continuing legislative deliberation.”

So, basically Ayres and libs like him are saying that promoting continuing legislative deliberation trumps 70% of Nebraskans who lawfully amended their CONSTITUTION to define marriage between one man and one woman. Let’s analyze that just for a moment:

In an absolutely unbelieveable and racist statement, Mexican President Vicente Fox praised the Mexican illegals work ethic and value to America:

There is no doubt that Mexicans, filled with dignity, willingness and ability to work are doing jobs that not even blacks want to do there in the United States.

Geez Vicente, did you have a little too much to drink before your great oratory? At best, Fox implies that blacks have moved upward in the economic and social hierarchy in America that low-rung jobs do not placate their professional career desires and choices. At worst, Fox’s statement implies that blacks are the bottom of the American society and are too lazy to perform the jobs that illegals are filling in America.

Mark Kirkorian retorts: “Fox’s statement . . . [is really] outrageous–imagine our president telling visiting Mexican businessmen that they need Guatemalan illegals to do the work that even Mexico’s Indians won’t do. That’s putting aside the fact that Mexico tends to treat its Indians like it’s Mississippi in 1890.”

Absolutely unbelievable. Fox will eat his words.