In her most recent Human Events column titled 'This Is Why We Don't Trust
Democrats With National Security', Ann Coulter relates that "The
Democratic
Party has decided to express indignation at the idea that an American
citizen who happens to be a member of al Qaeda is not allowed to have a
private conversation with Osama bin Laden," adding that "If they run on
that
in 2008, it could be the first time in history a Republican president
takes
even the District of Columbia."

Once again Miss Coulter has managed to hit the nail squarely on the head,
so
to speak, just as she's done so many times in the past. Indeed, how
suicidal
do you have to be, both politically and actually, to argue that President
Bush doesn't have the right to order the interception of communications
between individuals in the U.S. and known terrorists overseas unless, as
Congressional Democrats require, he first asks some lawyer in a black robe
for permission?

In her most recent Human Events column titled 'This Is Why We Don't Trust
Democrats With National Security', Ann Coulter relates that "The Democratic
Party has decided to express indignation at the idea that an American
citizen who happens to be a member of al Qaeda is not allowed to have a
private conversation with Osama bin Laden," adding that "If they run on that
in 2008, it could be the first time in history a Republican president takes
even the District of Columbia."
Once again Miss Coulter has managed to hit the nail squarely on the head, so
to speak, just as she's done so many times in the past. Indeed, how suicidal
do you have to be, both politically and actually, to argue that President
Bush doesn't have the right to order the interception of communications
between individuals in the U.S. and known terrorists overseas unless, as
Congressional Democrats require, he first asks some lawyer in a black robe
for permission?

After all, do we really want a bunch of unelected, unaccountable judges in
charge of protecting America from the very Islamopathic (not a word - should
be) terrorists that their chums in the ACLU have gone out of their way to
defend all along? I think Ann drove home a very important point when she
wrote "In the 20 years preceding the attack of 9/11, the FISA court did not
modify - much less reject - one single warrant request," going on to relate
that "In the years 2003 and 2004, the court issued 173 substantive
modifications to warrant requests and rejected or deferred six warrant
requests outright."

Obviously many of these FISA judges are nothing but partisan political hacks
pretending to be unbiased arbiters of justice, and it's about time folks
started expressing a little outrage over their ideologically-driven rulings,
as well as the decisions of every other activist who sits on a federal
bench. If you ask me, we've put up with the shenanigans of rogue judges in
this country for far too long, and I'm getting damned sick of being told by
pointy-headed leftists in both the government and the press that I'm some
sort of Archie Bunker clone for suggesting that we finally begin to put
these people on the short leashes they deserve.

Frankly, I can't begin to fathom why anyone would want to hand over the
rightful authority of our most important elected official to a pack of
nameless, faceless jurists, but then I've never been able to make heads or
tails of liberal thought processes. Heck, at least the President can be held
accountable for the things he does while in office, by either the voting
public or its representatives in Congress, but when a federal judge does
something that we, the American people generally disagree with, who do we
turn to in order to rectify the situation? Clearly Congress has shown little
interest in challenging the questionable decisions of our federal judiciary
in years past, and there's no reason to assume that a substantial number of
it's members will suddenly begin to butt heads with any activist court in
the foreseeable future.

While the "mainstream" press relentlessly drills into our heads the
importance of "judicial independence" as it relates to the consideration of
issues such as abortion, property rights, and national security, people like
Ted Kennedy are busy polluting the air of our Senate chambers with similar
twaddle. Although I often refer to him as the senior, drunken, bloated, sod
from Massachusetts, there are still a lot of people in this country who
actually take his preposterous utterances seriously, a state of affairs that
I'd likely find truly comical if it wasn't so freakin' disturbing.

As far as the behavior of those who run the New York Times is concerned, can
someone please explain to me why exposing top secret U.S. counter-terrorism
programs to the entire world isn't an extremely bad thing to do? When Ann
Coulter referred to that news organization as the "Treason Times" earlier
this week, I have a feeling she wasn't just doing it for effect. If
activities such as this aren't treasonous, then the word has ceased to have
any real meaning in this day and age. Everyone knows it's a serious crime
for someone in our government to leak classified information to the press,
but for some reason a lot of folks seem to think it's perfectly ok for the
people who receive that information to shout it from the highest rooftops in
the land, regardless of the consequences.

Now, I understand that if a member of the news media has been tipped off by
a government insider to what may prove to be a major story, one shouldn't
necessarily assume that the reporter knew the information he received was
classified. However, executives at the Times were told by the Bush
administration that what they possessed was indeed secret information, and
they had, at the very least, a moral obligation not to publish it for the
sake of preserving national security. In my opinion, anyone who
intentionally jeopardizes our security, especially during wartime, is a
traitor who should be severely punished no matter what his profession
happens to be, and if the laws we've created pertaining to this particular
subject do not reflect that sentiment, then I think it's about time we
changed those laws.

With respect to the Democratic party, which Miss Coulter tends to treat with
a level of courtesy usually reserved for pond scum (God bless her), all I
can say is that I find it hard to understand why any responsible person
would support the exclusively negativistic approach its moonbat leadership
takes to every major issue our nation faces today. If economic pessimism and
military defeatism were deadly viruses, each member of the liberal party in
Congress would have to replace the word Democrat on their campaign
literature with a more suitable descriptive... like TyphoidMarycrat.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=11286&o=ANN001

By Edward L. Daley
Owner of the Daley Times-Post
http://www.times-post.com









--
"Honesty, Integrity, Compassion, and Decency"

<snip cut and pasted tripe> By Edward L. Daley

In her most recent Human Events column titled 'This Is Why We Don't
Trust Democrats With National Security', Ann Coulter relates that
"The Democratic Party has decided to express indignation at the idea
that an American citizen who happens to be a member of al Qaeda is
not allowed to have a private conversation with Osama bin Laden,"
adding that "If they run on that in 2008, it could be the first time
in history a Republican president takes even the District of
Columbia."
Once again Miss Coulter has managed to hit the nail squarely on the
head,

In her most recent Human Events column titled 'This Is Why We Don't Trust
Democrats With National Security', Ann Coulter relates that "The Democratic
Party has decided to express indignation at the idea that an American
citizen who happens to be a member of al Qaeda is not allowed to have a
private conversation with Osama bin Laden," adding that "If they run on that
in 2008, it could be the first time in history a Republican president takes
even the District of Columbia."
Once again Miss Coulter has managed to hit the nail squarely on the head, so
to speak, just as she's done so many times in the past. Indeed, how suicidal
do you have to be, both politically and actually, to argue that President
Bush doesn't have the right to order the interception of communications
between individuals in the U.S. and known terrorists overseas unless, as
Congressional Democrats require, he first asks some lawyer in a black robe
for permission?

After all, do we really want a bunch of unelected, unaccountable judges in
charge of protecting America from the very Islamopathic (not a word - should
be) terrorists that their chums in the ACLU have gone out of their way to
defend all along? I think Ann drove home a very important point when she
wrote "In the 20 years preceding the attack of 9/11, the FISA court did not
modify - much less reject - one single warrant request," going on to relate
that "In the years 2003 and 2004, the court issued 173 substantive
modifications to warrant requests and rejected or deferred six warrant
requests outright."

Obviously many of these FISA judges are nothing but partisan political hacks
pretending to be unbiased arbiters of justice, and it's about time folks
started expressing a little outrage over their ideologically-driven rulings,
as well as the decisions of every other activist who sits on a federal
bench. If you ask me, we've put up with the shenanigans of rogue judges in
this country for far too long, and I'm getting damned sick of being told by
pointy-headed leftists in both the government and the press that I'm some
sort of Archie Bunker clone for suggesting that we finally begin to put
these people on the short leashes they deserve.

Frankly, I can't begin to fathom why anyone would want to hand over the
rightful authority of our most important elected official to a pack of
nameless, faceless jurists, but then I've never been able to make heads or
tails of liberal thought processes. Heck, at least the President can be held
accountable for the things he does while in office, by either the voting
public or its representatives in Congress, but when a federal judge does
something that we, the American people generally disagree with, who do we
turn to in order to rectify the situation? Clearly Congress has shown little
interest in challenging the questionable decisions of our federal judiciary
in years past, and there's no reason to assume that a substantial number of
it's members will suddenly begin to butt heads with any activist court in
the foreseeable future.

While the "mainstream" press relentlessly drills into our heads the
importance of "judicial independence" as it relates to the consideration of
issues such as abortion, property rights, and national security, people like
Ted Kennedy are busy polluting the air of our Senate chambers with similar
twaddle. Although I often refer to him as the senior, drunken, bloated, sod
from Massachusetts, there are still a lot of people in this country who
actually take his preposterous utterances seriously, a state of affairs that
I'd likely find truly comical if it wasn't so freakin' disturbing.

As far as the behavior of those who run the New York Times is concerned, can
someone please explain to me why exposing top secret U.S. counter-terrorism
programs to the entire world isn't an extremely bad thing to do? When Ann
Coulter referred to that news organization as the "Treason Times" earlier
this week, I have a feeling she wasn't just doing it for effect. If
activities such as this aren't treasonous, then the word has ceased to have
any real meaning in this day and age. Everyone knows it's a serious crime
for someone in our government to leak classified information to the press,
but for some reason a lot of folks seem to think it's perfectly ok for the
people who receive that information to shout it from the highest rooftops in
the land, regardless of the consequences.

Now, I understand that if a member of the news media has been tipped off by
a government insider to what may prove to be a major story, one shouldn't
necessarily assume that the reporter knew the information he received was
classified. However, executives at the Times were told by the Bush
administration that what they possessed was indeed secret information, and
they had, at the very least, a moral obligation not to publish it for the
sake of preserving national security. In my opinion, anyone who
intentionally jeopardizes our security, especially during wartime, is a
traitor who should be severely punished no matter what his profession
happens to be, and if the laws we've created pertaining to this particular
subject do not reflect that sentiment, then I think it's about time we
changed those laws.

With respect to the Democratic party, which Miss Coulter tends to treat with
a level of courtesy usually reserved for pond scum (God bless her), all I
can say is that I find it hard to understand why any responsible person
would support the exclusively negativistic approach its moonbat leadership
takes to every major issue our nation faces today. If economic pessimism and
military defeatism were deadly viruses, each member of the liberal party in
Congress would have to replace the word Democrat on their campaign
literature with a more suitable descriptive... like TyphoidMarycrat.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=11286&o=ANN001

By Edward L. Daley
Owner of the Daley Times-Post
http://www.times-post.com

In her most recent Human Events column titled 'This Is Why We Don't Trust
Democrats With National Security'

In her most recent Human Events column titled 'This Is Why We Don't Trust
Democrats With National Security', Ann Coulter relates that "The Democratic
Party has decided to express indignation at the idea that an American
citizen who happens to be a member of al Qaeda is not allowed to have a
private conversation with Osama bin Laden," adding that "If they run on that
in 2008, it could be the first time in history a Republican president takes
even the District of Columbia."

In her most recent Human Events column titled 'This Is Why We Don't Trust
Democrats With National Security', Ann Coulter relates that "The Democratic
Party has decided to express indignation at the idea that an American
citizen who happens to be a member of al Qaeda is not allowed to have a
private conversation with Osama bin Laden," adding that "If they run on that
in 2008, it could be the first time in history a Republican president takes
even the District of Columbia."
Once again Miss Coulter has managed to hit the nail squarely on the head, so
to speak, just as she's done so many times in the past. Indeed, how suicidal
do you have to be, both politically and actually, to argue that President
Bush doesn't have the right to order the interception of communications
between individuals in the U.S. and known terrorists overseas unless, as
Congressional Democrats require, he first asks some lawyer in a black robe
for permission?