Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches

Newsweek became the first MSM rag to call for Presidential impeachment. You can be sure the rest of the leftist will begin to follow suit.

However, when the snowball of hyprocisy begins to roll down hill in leftist glee, the conservatives need to wait at the bottom of the hill to pelt the leftists with the snow balls of truth. President Clinton signed executive orders in 1994 to do the very same thing President Bush is doing now. It is a matter of public record that President Clinton did not back down to the contention that the office of the President has authority to act beyond the FISA courts.

I hope President Bush is wise enought to confront any and every twisting of the truth or information that is disseminated by the MSM and the Democratic Party.

Check out the Clinton stand for yourself:

----------------------------------------

By Byron York
December 20, 2005, 9:46 a.m.

Does anyone remember that?

In a little-remembered debate from 1994, the Clinton administration argued that the president has "inherent authority" to order physical searches — including break-ins at the homes of U.S. citizens — for foreign intelligence purposes without any warrant or permission from any outside body.

Even after the administration ultimately agreed with Congress's decision to place the authority to pre-approve such searches in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, President Clinton still maintained that he had sufficient authority to order such searches on his own.

"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, "and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General."

"It is important to understand," Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."
Executive Order 12333, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, provides for such warrantless searches directed against "a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power."

Reporting the day after Gorelick's testimony, the Washington Post's headline — on page A-19 — read, "Administration Backing No-Warrant Spy Searches." The story began, "The Clinton administration, in a little-noticed facet of the debate on intelligence reforms, is seeking congressional authorization for U.S. spies to continue conducting clandestine searches at foreign embassies in Washington and other cities without a federal court order. The administration's quiet lobbying effort is aimed at modifying draft legislation that would require U.S. counterintelligence officials to get a court order before secretly snooping inside the homes or workplaces of suspected foreign agents or foreign powers."
In her testimony, Gorelick made clear that the president believed he had the power to order warrantless searches for the purpose of gathering intelligence, even if there was no reason to believe that the search might uncover evidence of a crime. "Intelligence is often long range, its exact targets are more difficult to identify, and its focus is less precise," Gorelick said. "Information gathering for policy making and prevention, rather than prosecution, are its primary focus."

The debate over warrantless searches came up after the case of CIA spy Aldrich Ames. Authorities had searched Ames's house without a warrant, and the Justice Department feared that Ames's lawyers would challenge the search in court. Meanwhile, Congress began discussing a measure under which the authorization for break-ins would be handled like the authorization for wiretaps, that is, by the FISA court. In her testimony, Gorelick signaled that the administration would go along a congressional decision to place such searches under the court — if, as she testified, it "does not restrict the president's ability to collect foreign intelligence necessary for the national security." In the end, Congress placed the searches under the FISA court, but the Clinton administration did not back down from its contention that the president had the authority to act when necessary.

— Byron York, NR's White House correspondent, is the author of The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President — and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time.

Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp

CAIR: “Nothing Immoral” in Islamic Terror Murders

CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) is an NGO in America that promotes Mohammedanism. They often are tainted (yet rarely explicitly tied) by funding from terrorists or Wahabi interests. Terrorist most Americans understand since 911, but most Americans may not understand the Wahabi Mohammedan sect. For one that is the sect to which Osama Bin Laden belongs. CAIR is a fundamental threat to the American way of life simply due to the nature of Wahabi Mohammedanism.

------------------------------------------------

News & Analysis
035/05 December 18, 2005

Is the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), once again excusing terrorism carried out by Muslim terrorists?

It would seem so.In an article on the Americans Against Hate (AAH) web site, Joe Kaufman reports on comments made by Ahmed Bedier (CAIR-FL Communications Director).

http://www.americansagainsthate.com/releases/PR-BedierPIJ.htmDr.

Daniel Pipes, noted Mid-East scholar, also weighed in on this issue: http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/230 In response to the question, “If he was associating with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), doesn't that seem immoral, in your opinion?"

Bedier outrageously responded: “To a certain degree. Now, before 1995 there was nothing immoral about it.”Really? ACAIR invites our readers to view a chart of Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s “peaceful” work on behalf of humanity here:

http://www.ict.org.il/inter_ter/orgattack.cfm?orgid=28

For instance, below is a partial list of the PIJ’s terrorist actions in support of its version of Islam:

Feb, 94 Kidnapping Israel PIJ terrorists kidnap and murder a taxi driver.

Oct, 93 Bus Bombing IsraelPIJ Car bomb detonated near civilian public bus; 30 people injured.Oct, 91 Bus Attack IsraelPIJ terrorists, along with Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) terrorists attack a civilian bus, murdering 2 and injuring 3.

Bedier is making excuses to justify CAIR’s support for the PIJ, once again clearly demonstrating CAIR’s affinity for all things Islamic terrorism related. CAIR is unmistakeably in the Islamist camp and the evidence shows that there is no level that CAIR will not sink to in support of radical Islam.

What Bedier failed to explain was just how terror-murdering innocents in the name of god is “moral”. CAIR is a cancer which is eating away at the soul of North America…justifying the evil, intolerant, and despicable actions of the worse representatives of the Islamic faith.

Andrew Whitehead
Director Anti-CAIR (ACAIR)
ajwhitehead@anti-cair-net.org
http://www.anti-cair-net.org

The real America...

Consider the real America, this is a nation that is a success story that continues to unfold. The great experiment intitiated in 1776 moves on today. Inspite of the liberal MSM and the Democratic Party picture being painted America is looking good. We are winning the war and the economy is growing at the same time. We are living in a safe America, although that may change if the Democrats continue to filibuster on the Patriot Act renewal. Let's look at the perspective of the Federalist Patriot - The Conservative Journal of Record.

----------------------------
Over the course of the past year, this column has focused its analysis onpolicy matters or political malfeasance by both Democrats and Republicans.

We note the latter without apology. Democrats led by Harry Reid, NancyPelosi and Howard Dean have dealt treacherously with our military forcesin the field, never missing an opportunity to rally them with rhetoricabout "a war fought for a lie." Republicans, for their part, haveall too often abandoned their legacy as the party of constitutional government, buying into the notion that Washington holds the cure forall our nation's ills. Indeed, a Republican-controlled Congress recentlypassed a budget that brought the increase in discretionary spending to39 percent over the past three years, with overall spending topping$20,000 per household (constant dollars) for the first time ever,and they had the nerve to proclaim it "pork-free."

President George W. Bush apparently believed them; how else to explainhis signature?
As an advocate for federalism, constitutional constructionism, free-marketcapitalism and social conservatism, The Patriot has a duty to serveas a critical voice in defense of everything that's good and right aboutAmerica, which is to say, our focus is on the prize, while our content tackles those standing in its way. As we approach the end of the year,however, it seems appropriate to take a hiatus from the "critical" partof our mission and focus instead on what too many take for granted—the fact that we have the privilege to take the name "American."

Too many take for granted the fact that we have the privilege to takethe name "American."

Herewith, we invite you to take a moment to consider what is good and right about our great nation.

John Stuart Mill once penned, "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelingwhich thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. A man who has nothing whichhe cares more about than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at being free, unless made and kept so bythe exertions of better men than himself."

Perhaps the best thing about America in 2005 is those better men, serving on the frontlines of the war against Jihadistan, even as our more"miserable creatures" deride that service here at home.

Amid the political rancor about justifications for Operations EnduringFreedom and Iraqi Freedom, it is worth remembering the words of Admiral Jeremiah Denton: "It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given usfreedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given usfreedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who hasgiven us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag and whose coffin is draped by the flag,who allows the protester to burn the flag."

Hundreds of thousands of young Patriots in uniform, sworn to uphold our Constitution, serve in very inhospitable places that we may enjoy the peace and tranquility so many take for granted. Not only have theysuccessfully held the warfront on Jihadi turf, but they are winning stability in the midst of chaos in the Middle East—stability thatis well within the critical national-security interests of the United States. Contrast the joyful faces of millions of Iraqis citizens (nolonger Saddam's slaves) voting for their Parliament yesterday with thoseof American politicos protesting our policy in the region.

With so many of our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coastguardsmen serving in danger far from home at Christmas time, we would ask eachof you to enlist your friends and associates to join more than 145,000 other Patriots who have signed our Letter of thanks to America'sArmed Forces.

In tandem with our Armed Forces, we can be grateful for their Commander in Chief, who has both the understanding and the resolve required to keep anation free and secure. In no small part thanks to the Bush Doctrineof Pre-emption, the United States has not suffered a terrorist attack onits own soil in more than four years—a circumstance all but unthinkable in the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001. Now, the President's "National Strategy for Victory inIraq" seeks to extend that condition by bringing security, stability andfreedom to the heart of the Middle East.


The nation's economy has logged its tenth straight quarter of growth.

Here at home, the nation's soaring economy just logged its tenth straightquarter of three-percent-or-better growth. Inflation remains in check,and after-tax income, household net worth and total employment are allat record highs. Three consecutive years of substantive tax cuts havemade America stronger and more competitive, and only the most hopelessof partisans can deny their effectiveness.

Equally important to America's economic future, our bloated entitlement programs are finally receiving some much-needed scrutiny. In 2005, the President focused on Social Security reform and then courageously introduced the only possible solution to the problem: privatization. Likewise, steps taken to restructure Medicare on moremarket-oriented principles and private Health Savings Accounts thatoffer an alternative to traditional medical insurance hold promise formore real reform in the future.
Thanks to a growing commitment to free and fair markets, the U.S. is still leading the way in technology and innovation. People from around the world are still coming to American universities, first and foremost, for their education. Despite its pervasive liberalism and political correctness, our system of higher education is still the finest and most accessibleof all: More than a third of Americans possess college degrees, while fewer than a quarter of Europeans do.

The bedrock of our Democracy is the American family, and, fortunately, most of them are still intact.

The American people reign as the most generous in the world, not only donating time and resources in their own neighborhoods, but also in disaster relief across the nation and around the globe. In spite of what we see on the nightly news, the vast majority of Americans are good-hearted, dedicated to their families and faithful to God. As Founding Father Benjamin Rush reminds us, all of what's good and right about America is based upon "Christianity as the strong ground of republicanism." The bedrock of that ground is the American family. Fortunately, most of them are still intact.

Finally, and most essentially, our 229-year-old experiment in democratic republicanism is still the freest, most opportunity-rich place in the history of the world. Indeed, the United States remains a bastion ofthe belief that Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are divinely bestowed inalienable rights, not "rights" granted by government.
As 2005 draws to a close, then, let each of us remember GeorgeWashington's Farewell charge: "The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations." May this be truer of us all in the year to come.

The Patriot will return to its police analysis and "critical"responsibilities next year, firm in our conviction that America's greatness lies in her heritage and her people, and unabashed in our belief that her best days are yet to come.

Source: FederalistPatriot.us Patriot No. 05-50 (Email)

Jihad and the CIA

The CIA has become adversarial to the Bush Administration rather than an implementer of Executive policy. I suspect part of this is a huge lack of understanding of Mohammedanism. Here is an article from jihadwatch.org.

-------------------------------
12/17/05

Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald suggests some courses of action for the intelligence community:

How fares the C.I.A. with the jihad?

Mr. Scheuer, he of pseudo-“Anonymous” fame, who was supposedly “in charge” of the Bin Laden desk, was clearly not up to the task. Instead of low cunning, he offered a kind of Boy Scoutish, or rather Cub Scoutish, simplemindedness, and clearly understood nothing about the theory and practice of Islam. His every remark showed this. Yet apparently he was kept on for many years. The C.I.A. needs to have a cadre created, or expanded, of people who will be given the necessary leisure to read widely in the history of Islam -- and particularly to learn something about its teachings, and about Jihad-conquest, and about the very similar treatment, through time and space, of non-Muslims under Muslim rule. They then need to be trained in the fissures, or disgruntlements, within Islam itself. They need to learn as well about the points of obvious weakness that can be emphasized to non-Muslims all over the world, who are grossly underinformed about the nature of Islam.

One hopes that the C.I.A. is not pulling any punches about Islam. If it echoes the nonsense from the government about the “extremists” in Islam, and continues to offer a sanitized version of Islam instead of the Ibn Warraq or Ali Sina version, then there is not much to expect from those on whom we rely for our own security, and from whom we have a right to expect at least as hard-eyed a view as was taken by the secret services of America and England with the Nazis and then with the Communists. All pieties, all vagueness, all denial of reality, really have no place, whatever role they may have in public diplomacy (and it has been a grave error to define the current, and continuing, and endless but manageable conflict as a “war on terrorism” instead of as a “war against the Jihad”). And even the latter formulation, while much saner and more realistic, needs to be amplified: the Jihad has many instruments, and the three D’s -- Da’wa, demography, and dhimmitude -- are more potent, in the end, than intermittent terrorism.

Does the C.I.A. possess a sufficient number of agents who understand this? Is it making use of those who have an intimate knowledge both of Islam, and of all the techniques of those who form the small army of apologists of Islam? What use is made of Maronite, Copt, or Jewish native speakers of Arabic? What use is made of other secret services with longer experience in the relevant areas, including the French and Russian and British and Israeli intelligence services?

Where is the John Roy Carlson (author of “Under Cover”) who will infiltrate various Muslim groups and write a story that will electrify a mass audience? Or are the mass audiences that once existed now so jaded, or so unused to reading, or so unwilling to recognize that a world war is now upon us that is quite unlike any that has ever before occurred? So unlike earlier wars, in fact, that it is difficult to recognize the fact that it has actually been underway for a long time -- but only since 1973 have a concatenation of events begun to bring the conflict to a head, although few realized in ’73 or thereafter what was really happening. These events include, but are not limited to: $8-$10 trillion in oil revenues to Muslim OPEC states; the large-scale unopposed movement of millions of Muslims into Infidel countries; the redefinition of the Arab siege of Israel as a “struggle between two tiny peoples, etc.” or, still worse, a “struggle” by the “Palestinian people” against “occupation.” (Not one of the words or phrases can withstand critical scrutiny, but repetition has pushed them into our hapless consciousnesses.)

Combine all that with the clever use of “islamochristian” Arabs as front men (Naim Ateek, Hilarion Cappucci, Hanan Ashrawi), who all help to obscure the real nature of the “Palestinian” and Arab and Muslim hatred of Israel, not as an “occupier” but rather, as an Infidel sovereign state -- and, what is more, one that is on land that was once clearly part of dar al-Islam (though that should not console those of us who live on land that never was dar al-Islam, for the entire world ultimately must belong to Allah and to his People; no other result is possible). Then there is the widespread use of Arab oil money to buy influence among politicians, diplomats, C.I.A. agents, journalists, public relations experts, and others, all of whom with great success have helped conceal from the peoples of Europe and America the tenets and history of Islam.

This money has helped to keep tied up in knots even the most modest of efforts to limit, for example, the use of Saudi money to pay for mosques and madrasas all over the Western world, and to promote the spread not only of Islam, but of that version which is even more virulent than the others (although this should not be interpreted, as some have, to suggest that “only” Wahhabi Islam is the problem, because we have only to look at the Shi’a in southern Lebanon or Iran to see otherwise).

One hopes that the C.I.A. itself has not been infiltrated. The most important task is that of pedagogy. The C.I.A. has to have people who will be able to fully inform themselves, and not to worry constantly about a lawsuit from CAIR or similar groups. Certain home truths have to be understood and communicated. Those entrusted with the task of protecting and instructing us cannot allow themselves to be inhibited in the slightest by those whose loyalties are with Islam and with the Jihad to spread the power and dominance of Islam, however it is pursued.

Posted by Robert at December 17, 2005 08:58 AM
Source: http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/009448.php

The Media's Incurable Myopia.

Before reading this article this quote from Thomas Sowell pretty much sums the whole thing up: "Utter ignorance of history enables any war with any casualties to be depicted in the media as an unmitigated disaster."

----------------------------------------

By Tom Bevan.
12/16/05

The coverage of the Iraqi election by the press has been extensive and generally positive, but as sure as the sun continues to rise in the east, by next week we will be back to a steady diet of chaos and carnage in the newspapers and on TV.

The problem isn't necessarily that the press covers car bombs and kidnappings, or that it is composed of bad people who want to see the U.S. fail in Iraq - though it's undeniable there are plenty of members of the mainstream media who dislike this president and don't approve of the war. The more general problem, however, which is part institutional and part individual, is that the press is either unwilling or unable to put events in Iraq in any sort of historical context.

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld chastised the media for this is his speech last week, and yesterday the estimable Thomas P.M. Barnett piled on:

The press always wants a quick and easy answer to the question: Who wins and when does it happen? Either the U.S. is winning or the enemy is winning, and it has to be done by Tuesday. If Bush speaks to the long fight and says we'll always pursue victory even as it takes years and decades to unfold, then he must be speaking illogically. The Second World War should have been over by 1943. The Cold War should have ended in 1953. If the GWOT isn't done by 2005, then we've lost and we must retreat from the world.
We lost over 20k* in Iwo Jima and we won. If we lose 2k-plus in almost three years in Iraq, then we must be losing.

Where are the wise men? Hell, where are the journalists with any sense of history?
Karl Zinsmeister drives the point home even further by questioning how historical events might be viewed in today's environment:

I’ve been looking back at World War II recently and remembering, for instance, the Battle of the Bulge. In the Battle of the Bulge, American soldiers were sent to fight in waist-deep snow with no winter clothing, and I’m thinking to myself, “today, that would be reason to hang somebody. What commission is going to attack them for that?”
Look at Iwo Jima. I believe 7,000 men were killed at Iwo Jima. It's a four-mile by two-mile island in the middle of nowhere with no resources. I wonder, would we, in our contemporary worldview be able to look at that and say, "that’s a glorious triumph for the US Marine Corps," or would we say, "somebody’s got to be court-martialed over that screw-up?"

There is just an insane amount of handwringing today, all driven by the deluge of round-the-clock media coverage. News organizations can't get the cameras to the flames in Iraq fast enough and day after day the public reacts emotionally to the images put before them through the lens of a soda straw. How many times have we heard people come back from Iraq and talk about how different reality is from what they've seen on TV and read in the papers?

And how many times have we heard members of the press talk about their duty to inform and educate the citizenry about issues? In the matter of Iraq, that means news organizations have an obligation to their readers and viewers to put events in perspective and provide historical context. They have failed the public miserably in that obligation.
The public bears its share of the burden, too. As Thomas Sowell wrote earlier this week: "Utter ignorance of history enables any war with any casualties to be depicted in the media as an unmitigated disaster."

Iraq is tough, to be sure, but it's far from a disaster. The only thing missing from the picture today is knowledge of history and context.

*Barnett seems to have confused the number of U.S. casualties suffered at Iwo Jima (26,000) with the number of combat deaths (6,800).

---------------------------
Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/2005/12/the_medias_incurable_myopia.html

Australia Tells Shari’a Muslims to Get Out

This needs to happen in America. Mohammedans that call for Shari'a law standards need to leave America and to a nation where Shari'a law is recognized. America's foundation and cultural roots are Judeo/Christian. Mohammedans that wish to assimilate to the American way is fine, however to demand that Americans honor Shari'a law out of political correctness or religious liberty dishonors American heritage.

It is time to honor religious liberty and establish an Amendment to the US Constitution that proclaims our religious heritage. Enable the Amendment to reiterate religious liberty as long as Judeo/Christianity as a generality is pre-imminent. Those that choose atheism also have the liberty to be atheistic, without calling into dishonor Judeo/Christian heritage. This is true disestablishmentarianism.
---------------
TCV News
December 15, 2005 10:41 AM EST

By Sher Zieve – After Muslim riots began over last weekend, Australia has decided to push back. Prime Minister John Howard and his Administration have made it clear that they will not put up with Muslim extremists.

In order to avoid terrorist attacks, the Australian government is now targeting and cracking down on Islamic radicals. Treasurer Peter Costello said that radical Muslim clerics will be asked to leave and deported if they do not accept Australian values and parliamentary law. Costello said to the Islamic radical contingent: "If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Shari’a law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you. I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia, one the Australian law and another the Islamic law, that this is false. If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Shari’a law, and have the opportunity to go to another country which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option."Education Minister Brendan Nelson followed with: "Basically, people who don't want to be Australians, and they don't want to live by Australian values and understand them, well—then they can basically clear off.”

Source: http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=10799

WHY CAN'T I GET ARRESTED?

Ann Coulter hammers at the liberals that are part of prosecuterial offices accross the nation. It is obvious about their agenda to discredit Republicans but have come up with nothing, the big donut, zip and nada. With the liberals it is all smoke and mirrors and no substance. Talk about the waste of tax payers money, this are invesitgations that have taken years and hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars.

--------------
by Ann Coulter
December 14, 2005 06:41 PM EST

I'm getting a little insulted that no Democratic prosecutor has indicted me. Liberals bring trumped-up criminal charges against all the most dangerous conservatives. Why not me?
Democrat prosecutor Barry Krischer has spent two years and hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to find some criminal charge to bring against Rush Limbaugh. Political hack Ronnie Earle spent three years and went through six grand juries to indict Tom DeLay. Liberals spent the last two years fantasizing in public about Karl Rove being indicted. Newt Gingrich was under criminal investigation for 3 1/2 years back in the '90s when liberals were afraid of him. Final result: No crime.

And of course, everybody cool in the Reagan administration was indicted. Or at least investigated and persecuted. Reagan's sainted attorney general Ed Meese was criminally investigated for 14 months before the prosecutor announced that he didn't have anything (but denounced Meese as a crook anyway).

I note that nobody ever wanted to indict Bob Dole or Gerald Ford (except, of course, other Republicans).

In the Nixon administration, liberals even brought "Deep Throat" up on charges -- and he was one of you people! What, now I'm not even as hip as "Deep Throat"?

I've done a lot for my country. I think I deserve to be indicted, too. How am I supposed to show my face around Washington if I haven't been "frog-marched" out of my office by some liberal D.A. looking to move to D.C. for the next Democratic administration? What's a girl have to do to become a "person of interest" around here? Mr. Krischer, where do I go to get rid of my reputation?

Barry Krischer has been going around calling El Rushbo a criminal for more than two years but has yet to bring any charges. Last month, Krischer's assistant, James Martz, told the court that his office has "no idea" if Limbaugh has even committed a crime. I'm no lawyer -- hey, wait a minute, yes I am! -- but it sounds like maybe Krischer's maid has been out scoring him stupid pills again.

These liberals are fanatics about privacy when it comes to man-boy sex and stabbing forks into partially-born children. But a maid alleges that she bought Rush Limbaugh a few Percodans, and suddenly the government has declared a war on prescription painkillers.

Liberals are more optimistic about the charges against Tom DeLay than they are about the charges against Saddam Hussein -- and the only living things Tom DeLay ever exterminated were rats and bugs.

In the remaining money-laundering case against DeLay, the prosecutors have acknowledged that they cannot produce the actual list of candidates who allegedly gained from the purported money-laundering scheme. But they hope to introduce a facsimile cobbled together from someone's memory.

In other words, during Rathergate, the case against the president consisted of a faked memo, whereas the case against Tom DeLay consists of an imaginary one.
Charges like these are not brought at random. They are brought against people who pose the greatest threat to liberals. (What am I? Miss Congeniality?)

The only difference between the Stalin-era prosecutions -- also enthusiastically defended by liberals -- and these prosecutions is that it's possible to get acquitted here. But the validity of the charges is about the same.

The only way to stop the left's criminalization of conservatism is to start indicting liberals.

It wasn't calm persuasion that convinced liberals the independent counsel law was a bad idea. It was an independent prosecutor investigating Bill Clinton (who actually was a felon!).

It wasn't logical argument that got them to admit that -- sometimes -- women do lie about sexual harassment. It was half a dozen women accusing Bill Clinton of groping, flashing or raping them.

It wasn't the plain facts that got liberals to admit that, sometimes, "objective" news reports can be biased. It was the appearance of Fox News Channel.

Can't we rustle up a right-wing prosecutor to indict Teddy Kennedy for Mary Jo Kopechne's drowning? Unlike the cases against Limbaugh and DeLay, Mary Jo's death was arguably a crime, and we could probably prove it in court.

COPYRIGHT 2005 ANN COULTER DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE---->

Source: http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=10776