The USA PATRIOT Act; Maj. Tammy Duckworth
With modest changes, the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 was renewed by a whopping 89 - 10 vote in the United States Senate. My newspaper, the liberally extreme Boston Globe, buried the story in the middle of the A section. Since most of the print media is liberal, I suspect many of you might have missed the news as many of your papers undoubtedly buried the story as well. The liberal media hates the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001.
Anyway, check this out, 9 more Senators voted against this legislation that apparently had more civil liberty protections (what they all claim the legislation needed more of) than the original Act. How are these dopes going to explain their votes in 2001 to their constituencies? Oh, the liberal media will never ask them the question; I guess they won't have to say they were wrong in 2001. I guess they won't have to admit to voting for "feel good" legislation over principle. Great courage that!
One of the chameleons is liberal extremist, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D, VT). Senator Leahy was a co-sponsor of the original Act! (The others, just for the record: Akaka (HI), Bingaman (NM), Harkin (IA), Murray (WA), Wyden (OR), Byrd (also an ex-KKK member, WV), Levin (MI), and Jeffords (VT); Inouye (HI), a WWII war hero, did not vote.)
For the record, Sen. Hillary Clinton was also a co-sponsor of the original Act. Of course, she voted for the renewal.
When the liberals start complaining about the Act, I hope they save some criticism for my Sens. John F. Kerry and Ted Kennedy, who voted for the Act . . . again. I'm positive, the Great Equivocator will come out with some stupid statement in the future disavowing his vote. "I was duped." No, you're a dope.
The "uniter" in the White House with a 40% approval rating got 89 votes on controversial(?) legislation; remarkable! I wonder exactly how those stupid poll questions are being asked.
Don't miss my two immediate prior posts:
Mr. Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe did an outstanding column on freedom of thought; I cut and pasted it in its entirety so you wouldn't have to hunt around for it.
My post on Maj. Tammy Duckworth was extremely timely. The day after my post Sen. John F. Kerry circulated a fund-raising letter saying he was collecting money for military veterans that were running for congress as Democrats. You guessed it, he cites only three of the 55 (oops, there I go again, I keep forgetting Sen. Charles Schumer and the national Democrats jettisoned Iraq war veteran Maj. Paul Hackett), I mean, 54, such Democrats running and, yes, one of them is Maj. Duckworth. Sen. Kerry is not backing Maj. Duckworth because of her pro-abortion position (recall he believes life begins at conception yet still believes in abortion on demand; I know, he can't explain it either). It's possible he's supporting her because it sounds like they share the same "we support the troops but not with money and Saddam was a bad guy and he should have been removed but the President's doing it all wrong, I think the troops should leave immediately but I won't vote for that" position on Iraq. My bet, though, is Sen. Kerry is supporting her because she's a female that lost two legs in the war. When Republicans criticize her for anything, the national Democrats will demagogue, demagogue, demagogue; it is simply all they know how to do. The liberal media will accommodate all demagoguery.
In closing, the UAE ports thing is a big snooze for me. I don't write a blog for today's headlines or even tomorrow's. I can see further than the next news cycle. The tone deafness on the UAE port issue will come home to roost in the spring of 2008 when Hillary Clinton, the xenaphobic bigot, gets trounced in the Michigan Democratic primary by someone less bigoted. Trust me, I will be cutting and pasting this call into a post two years from now . . . well, provided I'm not a syndicated columnist for the Wall Street Journal.
With modest changes, the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 was renewed by a whopping 89 - 10 vote in the United States Senate. My newspaper, the liberally extreme Boston Globe, buried the story in the middle of the A section. Since most of the print media is liberal, I suspect many of you might have missed the news as many of your papers undoubtedly buried the story as well. The liberal media hates the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001.
Anyway, check this out, 9 more Senators voted against this legislation that apparently had more civil liberty protections (what they all claim the legislation needed more of) than the original Act. How are these dopes going to explain their votes in 2001 to their constituencies? Oh, the liberal media will never ask them the question; I guess they won't have to say they were wrong in 2001. I guess they won't have to admit to voting for "feel good" legislation over principle. Great courage that!
One of the chameleons is liberal extremist, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D, VT). Senator Leahy was a co-sponsor of the original Act! (The others, just for the record: Akaka (HI), Bingaman (NM), Harkin (IA), Murray (WA), Wyden (OR), Byrd (also an ex-KKK member, WV), Levin (MI), and Jeffords (VT); Inouye (HI), a WWII war hero, did not vote.)
For the record, Sen. Hillary Clinton was also a co-sponsor of the original Act. Of course, she voted for the renewal.
When the liberals start complaining about the Act, I hope they save some criticism for my Sens. John F. Kerry and Ted Kennedy, who voted for the Act . . . again. I'm positive, the Great Equivocator will come out with some stupid statement in the future disavowing his vote. "I was duped." No, you're a dope.
The "uniter" in the White House with a 40% approval rating got 89 votes on controversial(?) legislation; remarkable! I wonder exactly how those stupid poll questions are being asked.
Don't miss my two immediate prior posts:
Mr. Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe did an outstanding column on freedom of thought; I cut and pasted it in its entirety so you wouldn't have to hunt around for it.
My post on Maj. Tammy Duckworth was extremely timely. The day after my post Sen. John F. Kerry circulated a fund-raising letter saying he was collecting money for military veterans that were running for congress as Democrats. You guessed it, he cites only three of the 55 (oops, there I go again, I keep forgetting Sen. Charles Schumer and the national Democrats jettisoned Iraq war veteran Maj. Paul Hackett), I mean, 54, such Democrats running and, yes, one of them is Maj. Duckworth. Sen. Kerry is not backing Maj. Duckworth because of her pro-abortion position (recall he believes life begins at conception yet still believes in abortion on demand; I know, he can't explain it either). It's possible he's supporting her because it sounds like they share the same "we support the troops but not with money and Saddam was a bad guy and he should have been removed but the President's doing it all wrong, I think the troops should leave immediately but I won't vote for that" position on Iraq. My bet, though, is Sen. Kerry is supporting her because she's a female that lost two legs in the war. When Republicans criticize her for anything, the national Democrats will demagogue, demagogue, demagogue; it is simply all they know how to do. The liberal media will accommodate all demagoguery.
In closing, the UAE ports thing is a big snooze for me. I don't write a blog for today's headlines or even tomorrow's. I can see further than the next news cycle. The tone deafness on the UAE port issue will come home to roost in the spring of 2008 when Hillary Clinton, the xenaphobic bigot, gets trounced in the Michigan Democratic primary by someone less bigoted. Trust me, I will be cutting and pasting this call into a post two years from now . . . well, provided I'm not a syndicated columnist for the Wall Street Journal.
posted by Zack at 10:02 AM
2 Comments:
another home run!
Why Michigan?
Post a Comment
<< Home