Saturday, 16 February 2008
PRESIDENT BUSH'S RADIO ADDRESS ABOUT THE PROTECT AMERICA ACT (PAA)
This is the first time I have ever posted a Saturday radio address by
President Bush. Usually I think of them, and the Democratic responses, as
standard political fare and just move onto something else.
But today is different.
Following is President Bush's entire statement, which deals with the expiration of
the Protect America Act (PAA). Please read it carefully.
I will not comment on this speech afterwards. I do not want to steer
you in either direction regarding what Mr. Bush said. All I ask is
that you read and think about what the expiration of this law could mean:
RADIO ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. At the stroke of
midnight tonight, a vital intelligence law that is helping protect our nation
will expire. Congress had the power to prevent this from happening, but chose
The Senate passed a good bill that would have
given our intelligence professionals the tools they need to keep us safe. But
leaders in the House of Representatives blocked a House vote on the Senate bill,
and then left on a 10-day recess.
Some congressional leaders claim that this will
not affect our security. They are wrong. Because Congress failed to act, it will
be harder for our government to keep you safe from terrorist attack. At
midnight, the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence will be
stripped of their power to authorize new surveillance against terrorist threats
abroad. This means that as terrorists change their tactics to avoid our
surveillance, we may not have the tools we need to continue tracking them and
we may lose a vital lead that could prevent an attack on America.
In addition, Congress has put intelligence
activities at risk even when the terrorists dont change tactics. By failing to
act, Congress has created a question about whether private sector companies who
assist in our efforts to defend you from the terrorists could be sued for doing
the right thing. Now, these companies will be increasingly reluctant to provide
this vital cooperation, because of their uncertainty about the law and fear of
being sued by class-action trial lawyers.
For six months, I urged Congress to take action to
ensure this dangerous situation did not come to pass. I even signed a two-week
extension of the existing law, because members of Congress said they would use
that time to work out their differences. The Senate used this time productively
and passed a good bill with a strong, bipartisan super-majority of 68 votes.
Republicans and Democrats came together on legislation to ensure that we could
effectively monitor those seeking to harm our people. And they voted to provide
fair and just liability protection for companies that assisted in efforts to
protect America after the attacks of 9/11.
The Senate sent this bill to the House for its
approval. It was clear that if given a vote, the bill would have passed the
House with a bipartisan majority. I made every effort to work with the House to
secure passage of this law. I even offered to delay my trip to Africa if we
could come together and enact a good bill. But House leaders refused to let the
bill come to a vote. Instead, the House held partisan votes that do nothing to
keep our country safer. House leaders chose politics over protecting the country
and our country is at greater risk as a result.
House leaders have no excuse for this failure.
They knew all along that this deadline was approaching, because they set it
themselves. My administration will take every step within our power to minimize
the damage caused by the Houses irresponsible behavior. Yet it is still urgent
that Congress act. The Senate has shown the way by approving a good, bipartisan
bill. The House must pass that bill as soon as they return to Washington from
their latest recess.
At this moment, somewhere in the world, terrorists
are planning a new attack on America. And Congress has no higher responsibility
than ensuring we have the tools to stop them.
Thank you for listening.
"INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM IS A BUMPER STICKER SLOGAN" UDPDATE
Among the more famous imbecilities of John Edwards (and there were plenty to
choose from) the single most bothersome to me was that international terrorism
is nothing more than "a bumper sticker slogan".
I have no doubt at all that many of the LAMBs over at moveon.org and
thedailkos.com and crooksandliars.com, etc. etc. etc. were thrillled to hear
it. By contrast, most folks who still have electrolyte activity near
their cerebral area know that the threat of international terrorism is very
real, and a very great danger to the United States.
But just in case we have a lurking LAMB or two at hopelesslypartisan.com, let me give
you the latest example. This one comes to us from Josh Meyer of the Los
Angeles Times. You can read his entire article here, but its key excerpts are shown below:
FBI warns of possible Hezbollah revenge in
State and local law enforcement receive an intelligence
bulletin to watch for retaliation by the Lebanese militia group, which has
vowed to avenge the death of its leader.
By Josh Meyer, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
February 16, 2008WASHINGTON -- The FBI and Department of Homeland Security sent a
bulletin Friday to state and local law enforcement authorities advising them
to watch for potential retaliatory strikes by Hezbollah, one day after the
Lebanese militia group vowed to avenge the death of a top commander by
attacking Israeli and Jewish targets around the world.
retaliation in the U.S. homeland is unlikely, Hezbollah has demonstrated a
capability to respond outside the Middle East to similar events in the past,"
said the intelligence bulletin sent to about 18,000 state and local law
enforcement officials late Friday afternoon.
U.S. authorities have
long described Hezbollah as the "A-Team" of terrorism, with far more
discipline than Al Qaeda, vast financing from the government of Iran, and a
global network of sleeper operatives who could be called on to launch an
attack at any time. Various federal investigations and prosecutions have
uncovered dozens of Hezbollah fundraisers and supporters in the United States,
but few people are believed to be actual "bomb throwers," according to a
senior FBI counter-terrorism official who focuses on Hezbollah.
they have no evidence of specific threats in the United States, officials said
that precautionary measures were warranted because of Mughniyah's stature
within Hezbollah and because the organization and its Iranian supporters had
publicly blamed his death on Israel and "Zionist forces."
Thursday, Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah told thousands of
fist-waving mourners in a videotaped eulogy in Beirut that the killing of
Mughniyah merited a violent response because it occurred outside the "natural
battlefield" of Israel and Lebanon. "You have crossed the borders," he said,
in a reference to Israel and supporters of the Jewish state. "With this
murder, its timing, location and method -- Zionists, if you want this kind of
open war, let the whole world listen: Let this war be open."
past, Hezbollah has not launched any attacks in the United States. The two FBI
officials and other experts said Friday that they believed that was because
the organization had raised so much money here from supporters of its
political and social services efforts in Lebanon that it did not want to risk
stepped-up enforcement actions.
But the calls for
retribution by Nasrallah and other prominent supporters of Hezbollah have been
unusually strident, if not unprecedented, according to current and former FBI
officials who have followed the organization over the years. They are equally
concerned, they said, about retaliation from others who merely sympathize with
Does that look like a bumper sticker slogan to you? Because it sure
looks like a real threat to me.
And what about hezbollah's demonstrated capability to strike outside the
Middle East? Does that, by any possible chance, coincide with
Information like this makes me both happy and
relieved that John Edwards has slunk back to political ghosthood (although I do
pity the doctors and hospitals he'll probably be suing out of existence again).
But I would be far more greatly reassured if either Ms. Clinton or Mr.
Obama would grace us with THEIR position on how real international terrorism
is. So far, I don't see a thing that would make me believe either one
feels any differently that Mr. Edwards does.
Whatever negatives I can list about John McCain, however, this is a man who
knows an international terrorist threat when he sees it.
Chalk one up for the Senator from Arizona.
BERKELEY BUSINESSES FEEL THE PINCH
What you are about to read has been pulled from www.freerepublic.com. It purports to be
an e-mail sent out by the Berkeley (CA) Chamber of Commerce. I do not know
if the e-mail is real, but it sure looks like it could be. You decide:
The Berkeley Chamber of Commerce has heard from
individuals far and wide regarding recent Berkeley City Council actions and we
appreciate that the American spirit is alive and robust.
The business community was not notified of pending
city council action, nor asked for input.
We ask everyone to try to separate the actions of
the City Council and not harm the good, hard-working small business owners -
most of whom do not live in Berkeley and therefore cannot vote in Berkeley.
Additionally, we believe that the Berkeley City
Council owes an apology to the community and others, whether they be a Marine or
a hard-working business owner, folks that are just trying to do their job in
this terrible economy, and which is now more difficult because their actions. We
feel that granting a parking space in front of the Marine's office is harassment
for them and their neighbors, and should be rescinded.
In the long term, we expect collaboration with the
Mayor and City Council when considering actions which may impact our local
businesses and community.
The Berkeley Chamber of Commerce believes in a
community where all voices are heard in a fair manner.
At the same time, we believe that it is NOT in the
spirit of free speech to grant favoritism to any viewpoint, whether we agree
with that viewpoint or not.
Unfortunately recent City Council actions coincide
with a very weak national economy.
As in many cities and towns across America,
hard-working business owners, (85% of Berkeleys businesses) have less than five
employees, operate on a thin margin, and rely heavily on their walk-in
customers. The housing and credit crisis have resulted in an unstable economy
and a risky business environment. Combined with recent council action, our
business community is painfully feeling the revenue loss.
The Berkeley Chamber of Commerce is proud that we
promote, connect and strengthen business and community. In short, we are all
here to help each other be successful, and to work together to create the best
Berkeley possible, one that is inviting and respectful for all.
Berkeley lauds itself as the birthplace of free
speech, a tremendous gift to America. We believe it works both ways, and in a
Berkeley Chamber of Commerce
Assuming this is real - and, again, it looks like what I
would have expected from the chamber of commerce - I admit to having mixed
feelings about it.
I sincerely feel for the small businesspeople of Berkeley. They
are suffering, and will probably continue to suffer, for the actions of their
lunatic city council - the one which finally at long last, found out what its
limits are when it comes to hating the USA and hating the military.
But I also recognize that the Berkeley city council did not sprout from
seeds. It was ELECTED by the people of Berkeley. And the mayor, with
his personal history of illegally suppressing free speech for his own
benefit (I've blogged about this previously), was elected by Berkeley
voters even after his illegal actions were known to them.
It seems to me that the problem Berkeley business owners have is, and
remains, the place that they chose to conduct business in.
I'm sorry for the individual business owners and strongly suspect that
not all of them agree with what Berkeley's idiot city council and idiot
voters have done. But, in the immortal words of Jimmy Durante, "Dem's is
da conditions dat prevail".
Maybe if a few of these business close down and a few others scale down, it
will give the city council and voters something think about the next time
they decide to prove how much they hate the country they are in. God knows
they could use the practice.
OBAMA AND BAIPA
Most people, I suspect, have no idea of what BAIPA is. But if Barack
Obama wins the Democratic nomination for President, I guarantee that everyone
will. So I'm going to tell you what it is now, as a prelude to one of the
most damning attacks that will be made against Mr. Obama - and one that you
won't hear at all during the primaries (I'll explain why shortly).
BAIPA is the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. In simplest terms, it
is legislation that prohibits the killing of live children if they survive an
abortion procedure. In other words, if the abortion fails and the child is
delivered live, the doctor has no right to kill that live child outside the
Let's stop right here and think about this. Is it just me, or does the
idea of killing a live child in your arms sound like something out of the
third reich playbook? Is it even imaginable that a licensed,
accredited doctor in the USA could legally kill a live child because
the child was SUPPOSED to die inside the woman it came from (I refuse to call
her a mother)?
Well it is imaginable. And it has been done. A lot.
This is why BAIPA legislation was created. To, literally, prevent the
killing of live children for the crime of surviving an earlier attempt on their
With the above in mind, please read the following account by Jean Stanek, a
nurse and pro-life advocate, of the procedure in action. And of then
-State Senator Barack Obama's efforts to prevent BAIPA from passing, so the baby
killings could continue. The curdling blood will be yours. The
bold print is mine:
As a nurse at an Illinois
hospital in 1999, I discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to
die in soiled utility rooms. I discovered infanticide.
Legislation was presented on
the federal level and in various states called the Born Alive Infants Protection
Act. It stated all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional
right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted.
BAIPA sailed through
the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote. Even Sens. Clinton, Kennedy and Kerry agreed
a mother's right to "choose" stopped at her baby's delivery.
The bill also passed
overwhelmingly in the House. NARAL went neutral on it. Abortion enthusiasts
publicly agreed that fighting BAIPA would appear extreme. President Bush signed
BAIPA into law in 2002.
But in Illinois, the
state version of BAIPA repeatedly failed, thanks in large part to then-state
Sen. Barack Obama. It only passed in 2005, after Obama left.
I testified in 2001 and 2002
before a committee of which Obama was a member.
worried that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on
women's rights or abortionists' rights. Obama's clinical discourse, his lack of
mercy, shocked me. I was naive back then. Obama voted against the measure,
twice. It ultimately failed.
In 2003, as chairman of the
next Senate committee to which BAIPA was sent, Obama stopped it from even
getting a hearing, shelving it to die much like babies were still being shelved
to die in Illinois hospitals and abortion clinics.
If you are horrified by this information, I'm glad. You should be.
If you are not horrified by this information I'm appalled. You should
Earlier I noted that this has not been a part of the primary campaign between
Senators Clinton and Obama.
The reason, in my opinion, is that if Ms. Clinton goes after Mr. Obama on
BAIPA the Lunatic-left and Mega-moonbat Brigade within her own party will
attempt to characterize her, not as pro-life (that would be impossible), but
as more towards a pro-life position than Mr. Obama. And in the
LAMB-dominated hardline Democratic base, any vestige of being pro-life,
however reasonable or minimal, constitutes a net loss of votes.
But now picture a general election. One in which candidates are not
competing for the Democratic party's hardline base, but for all voters in both
parties as well as independents. How do you suppose Obama's opposition to
BAIPA will play then?
The answer, self-evidently, is that it will be a political disaster.
Why? Because the position Mr. Obama took was (and is) sick and
I read a Chicago Tribune blog from 2004 about this,
written during Obama's run for the US Senate. The writer, Eric Zorn,
was very sympathetic to Obama's votes against BAIPA because the Illinois
state version did not have a declarative statement that it would not infiringe
on abortion rights. This is probably the tack Obama will take as a
presidential nominee. (See update below)
But it is a bunch of baloney that will not fly among even minimally
intelligent voters. The added statement was nothing other than
political window dressing to reassure the pro-choice crowd. With
or without it, the Illinois BAIPA legislation made no mention of infringing
on any abortion procedure. Only the killing of live babies
outside the womb.
So I ask you again: Do you think that Barack Obama's votes against
BAIPA will hurt him in a general election? Some questions just plain
answer themselves, don't they?
(UPDATE ADDED AUGUST 12: IT TURNS
OUT THAT THE DECLARATIVE STATEMENT WAS ADDED, AND OBAMA
VOTED AGAINST IT ANYWAY. CLICK HERE TO
SEE FOR YOURSELF. WHEN OBAMA SAID HE VOTED
AGAINST BAIPA BECAUSE THE ABORTION LANGUAGE WASN'T THERE, HE WAS
MEDIA'S LOVE AFFAIR WITH OBAMA
I don't mean this to be "dump on Obama" day, but, by happenstance, that's how
it is turning out.
Please read the following article by Mark Finkelstein of www.newsbusters.org, about just how
intense media's love affair with Mr. Obama really is:
ABC's Obamacan: 'Lashing Out'
Hillary 'Brazenly' Attacks Barack
This is too perfect!
Barely an hour after Pat Buchanan proclaimed on NBC
that the MSM is full of "out-of-the-closet Obamacans," ABC's David Wright
provided a perfect illustration of the genre.
In fact, I'm nominating the GMA segment Wright
narrated this morning as the single most slanted episode of the MSM primary
season. The screen graphic "On the Attack," set the theme: Hillary is unfairly
attacking Obama, and to the extent Barack's gone negative, it's only to rebut
Clinton's unfair criticism. Oh, and Hillary's demographic is crumbling. And by
the way, Bill's dissing Obama supporters.
View video here.
DAVID WRIGHT: Good morning,
Kate. Hillary Clinton doesn't even get here in Wisconsin until later today but
already she's on the attack. The polls now show that Barack Obama is in
the lead here, and Clinton is trying desperately to change
Cut to clip of Hillary ad accusing Obama of
refusing to accept debates.
WRIGHT: Lashing out in her second
attack ad this week, Clinton brazenly accuses Obama of going
Cut to additional Hillary ad clip that speaks of
an Obama "false attack ad," and a clip from that Obama ad.
WRIGHT: But Obama's so-called "false
attack ad" is a response to Clinton's first negative ad.
Cut to clip of Obama: "I think it's just a
distraction. I think that most voters know it."
Wright is then shown speaking with a middle-aged
WRIGHT: That's certainly Dale Lehrer's
impression. Obama inspired her to attend her very first political
DALE LEHRER: I know I'm the demographic that
should be voting for Hillary. I feel strongly about Obama, because I don't
think it's, he doesn't have the long, entrenched party politics behind him.
Cut to clip of Bill Clinton addressing a
BILL CLINTON: If you believe that, I
got some land I wanna sell ya.
WRIGHT: Speaking in Tyler, Texas,
President Clinton appeared to dismiss Obama supporters as a bunch of
CLINTON: People who want something fresh and new
and they find it inspiring that we might like to elect a president who
literally was not part of any of the good things that happened or any bad
things that were stopped before.
Cut to clip of Obama, presumably responding to
Clinton's remarks: "We don't need that kind of approach. We don't need the same
old slash-and-burn politics of the past."
LEHRER: Obama shrugs off the attacks. Many of
his voters do, too.
Such a saint, that Barack, turning the other
cheek. Back to the nice lady from Hillary's demographic.
LEHRER: I think there's a lot of people like
me who are sick the negative politics and it's the same old stuff.
WRIGHT: But it is all together possible
that some of Obama's voters may well be swayed by it and that is what Clinton
is banking on, even if by going negative she risks driving up her own
negative ratings as well.
Driving her negative ratings up . . . with a
little assist from Obamacans like David Wright. Let's review some of the
highlights of his language:
- Already she's on the attack.
- Obama is in the lead here, and Clinton is
trying desperately to change that.
- Lashing out in her second attack ad this week,
Clinton brazenly accuses Obama
- Obama's so-called "false attack ad" is a
response to Clinton's first negative ad.
- President Clinton appeared to dismiss Obama
supporters as a bunch of suckers.
- Obama shrugs off the attacks.
And let's not forget the voter hand-picked by
Wright, the woman from Hillary's demo who now supports Obama because she's sick
of the negativity.
Barack just can't buy coverage like this. Luckily
for him, he doesn't have to -- so long as the MSM is filled with Obamacans like
Oh, and for good measure, back in the studio Kate
Snow and Bill Weir played --twice-- a clip from last night's Leno of a Hillary
look-alike shoving a Snow impersonator to the ground after she asked a tough
Snow assured viewers that Hillary has a really
good sense of humor, and that if she was watching, "I'm sure she's laughing."
Look, I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton's. And I confess to a certain
enjoyment in seeing media bias working against rather than in favor of her for
But the fact remains that media bias, whomever it benefits or damages,
is unseemly, unfair and unprofessional.
As things now look, November will not be a happy month for me:
-My choice on the Democratic side is going to be an unqualified,
unprincipled wife of a President I didn't like either, or an unqualified
man who doesn't appear to like Jews or support Israel (I am and do), and
who has positions I find not only unpresidential but ignorant,
destructive and even anti-USA.
-My choice on the Republican side is a man who may well be mentally
unstable (albeit for very honorable reasons - his years as a P.O.W. in
Vietnam), and who has a history of being gullible enough for strong
Democrats like Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold to dupe him into supporting bad
But whomever I wind up settling for, I want it to be based on a fair
accounting of who and what that candidate is. Not a cheering section that
calls itself journalists.