Update:  Making this a weekend OTA post.  I have to work Sunday, so likely I will not have much to post.

In personal news, I spent much of today guitar amd amp shopping.  I just had to share that.  Wee this blog in a few weeks to see what I bought.

Open Trackback Friday Weekend

Leave a trackback of your best post for others to read.   Also, look at the trackbacks below to see what others are saying. 

And for my non-bloggin friends…feel free to look around and put your 2 cents in my comments…or if the mood strikes, cue up the band and give us a showtune.

For an explanation of a trackback, go here or here.

If your blog does not support Trackbacks (blogger is still in the dark ages in this regard), check out Haloscan, which I used to use on my old blogger site, or you may also just use The Wizbang Standalone Pinger to do so.

Just include this post’s permalink (right the post title and copy the short cut) in your post and use the Trackback URL at the end of the post for your trackback.

TGIF Folks!!!

For todays special Treason edition I am posting Oliver North and Ann Coulter’s opinion of the NY Times.  Enjoy.

"Show Me The Money!"

By: Oliver North

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In the movie, "Jerry Maguire," Tom Cruise, playing a sports agent in the title role, euphorically shouts, "Show me the money!" Until this week, when the editors of the New York Times decided to reveal highly classified details about the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, that’s exactly what the U.S. government has been doing to Al Qaeda. In an effort to prevent another Sept. 11, the CIA and Department of the Treasury — with the help of several U.S. and European financial institutions — have been secretly mapping terrorist networks through the use of financial data. It’s not a secret anymore.

For this weeks Stop the ACLU Blog Burst, I would like to tell you about a local case.

In this case, the issue is felons and voting rights.

Washington is one of many states that revoke the voting rights of felons.  The law in Washington allows for the eventual restoral of their voting rights, following their prison term, paying all fines and restitution, probation and parole.

In other words, satisfy the courts judgment first, and then you can vote.

Most of it is not really at issue.  The part that makes the ACLU see red is the aspect of the court ordered fines and restitution.  They contend this is an effective poll tax, whereby only the rich felons can vote, not the poor ones.  Since court ordered fines and or restitution can be large, it can take years for a felon to satisfy the court.  The felons argue that if they are making a good faith effort to make payments, they should be able to vote.

I personally don’t have an issue with them having to wait to satisfy the debt, but I can see their point.  At the same time though, no one forced them to commit a felony.  And if there is a price to be paid, let them pay it.  That is part of the sentence.  

And be clear, this is not what some call the minor ir petty criminals, the people convicted of misdemeanor possession or such, this is convicted felons only.  In theory, if the law is doing its job, they are the more hardcore of the criminals.

Now, that said, should their be a mechanism to deal with unreasonable fines and or penalties?  I think so.  But that is a local and legislative issue.  And in reality that is secondary from the felon who refuses to pay his restitution and still wants his or her voting rights restored.  I have no statistics, but it would be interesting to see how widespread this is.

And one can argue that the victims waiting restitution have a right to know the person who committed a crime against them is still having to suffer some fashion of restriction until that debt is paid.

Once again, as a public service only, I am reporting another dissenting voice against Al Gore and his documentary.

The fact is, as I have maintained, the scientific community is not united in regards to Global Warming and Climate Change.  There remains decades of research to determine causation and effect, and to establish what we can do, if anything to deal with it.

What this movie should do is spur more discussions and encourage research.

Instead it is being used as political hay to build another anti administration/anti republican strawman.  Using this information to inflame imaginations and encourage panic is obviously unscientific and, in my opinion, shameful.

AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE

The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy” by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP’s bias and methodology.

AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”

In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific “skeptics” they claim to have contacted.

The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President. In addition, Correll’s reported links as an “affiliate” of a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that provides “expert testimony” in trials and his reported sponsorship by the left-leaning Packard Foundation, were not disclosed by AP. See http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.htm

Today the Senate voted on and narrowly defeated the flag burning amendment to the US Constitution.

Flag-Burning Amendment Fails In Senate

constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration died in a Senate cliffhanger Tuesday, a single vote short of the support needed to send it to the states for ratification a week before Independence Day.

The 66-34 vote in favor of the amendment was one less than the two-thirds required. The House surpassed that threshold last year, 286-130.

Now right off the bat I am shocked.  There was much more support for it then I anticipated.  I excpected this to fail mostly on party lines, but instead it only failed by a single vote.  Obviously some Senators crossed the party lines somewhere. 

Voting "yes" were 52 Republicans and 14 Democrats.  I will post a roll call list below, but  notable (to me) were Sen Feinstein and Sen Reid who both voted yes.  I am not a big fan of Diane, so I am somewhat bemused by her vote.  Harry howver, I am just not a big fan.  Period.

The proposed amendment, sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, read: "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

It represented Congress’ response to Supreme Court rulings in 1989 and 1990 that burning and other desecrations of the flag are protected as free speech by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Senate supporters said the flag amounts to a national monument in cloth that represents freedom and the sacrifice of American troops

"Countless men and women have died defending that flag," said Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., closing two days of debate. "It is but a small humble act for us to defend it."

Opponents said the amendment would violate the First Amendment right to free speech. And some Democrats complained that majority Republicans were exploiting people’s patriotism for political advantage in the midterm elections.

Apparently they missed the fact that 14 of their brethren agreed with the Republicans.

Miami bomb plot suspects "entrapped," lawyers say

Seven men charged with conspiring to bomb the Sears Tower in Chicago and the FBI building in Miami were entrapped by a federal informant, lawyers for two of the suspects said on Monday.

Oh please. 

An indictment issued last week accused the men of pledging loyalty to Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda and seeking the group’s support to "wage war" against the U.S. government.

The person they thought was an al Qaeda representative was actually an FBI informant, U.S. Justice Department officials said.

Albert Levin, the court-appointed attorney for suspect Patrick Abraham, said he believes his client was ensnared by the informant.

Sure…I bet it went like this:

• Suspect:  Are you with Al Qaeda?
• Agent:  Yep
• Suspect:  I wanna blow something UP, can you help me?
• Agent:  Sure, will you pledge your loyalty to Osama?
• Suspect:  You bet. (makes oath)
• Agent:  Congrats you are one of us now.  Praise Allah.
• Suspect:  Cool.  Can I have a bomb now?
• Agent:  Sure…I will bring one right over…I am dressed in a blue jacket that says FBI on it.
• Suspect:  Isn’t that the…
• Agent:  Yes, but it’s ok.  We use them to fool the cops.
• Suspect:  Man you guys are smart. 

Yea…twisted his arm out of the socket I betcha.

There was "a lot of talking going on by the informant and more listening by the defendant and or the defendants," Levin told Fox News Channel host Bill O’Reilly.

Nathan Clarke, a lawyer for another suspect Rotschild Augustine, agreed.

"With respect to my client, from what I can read in the indictment, there’s going to be a question of whether there’s even sufficient evidence to sustain the burden of proof on conviction," Clarke said.

"If by any chance there’s a scintilla of that then, of course, there’s going to be the entrapment issue," he said.

Ok, look.  I understand all the freedom of the press bleah bleah 1st Amendment justification BS, but there is a point where freeedom has a cost that is not worth it.  When that freedom endangers lives, I would consider it too costly.

In this case, a classified Pentagon briefing was plastered on the pages of the NY Slimes. 

The whole point of keeping these things a secret is that if the enemy (you know, the people in Iraq who are killing our troops) wants to know when we are leaving, so they can sit back, scale back and wait till we do and then overwhelm the remaining troops and obtain their objective.

Granted they could do that any way, but a time frame gives them a much better chance to solidify the plans for the best effectiveness.

It bears repeating how our culture has changed.   How little consideration the media has for the safety of the troops.

It pisses me off.

U.S. General in Iraq Outlines Troop Cuts

The top American commander in Iraq has drafted a plan that projects sharp reductions in the United States military presence there by the end of 2007, with the first cuts coming this September, American officials say.

According to a classified briefing at the Pentagon this week by the commander, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the number of American combat brigades in Iraq is projected to decrease to 5 or 6 from the current level of 14 by December 2007…

…General Casey’s briefing has remained a closely held secret, and it was described by American officials who agreed to discuss the details only on condition of anonymity.

I hope the classified leakers gets caught and go to jail.  This is ourageous.  We owe our troops so much better.

Here, also courtesy of Michelle Malkin (who is headlining the story), are a few more photoshops of old war posters.  My favorite is up above, but these are nice too.  And pretty much on target.

Today is my daughter’s sweet 16 birthday, so I will be rather occupied.  It happens to coincide with the warmest weekend in several months, so it should be a fun day. 

Feel free to open track this all weekend.  I will be back to blog later.

While you do so, here is a SCOTUS case round up, just for fun.

Enjoy your weekend! 

*****************************

List of Major High Court Cases

Some Supreme Court cases still to be decided and the issues involved:

GUANTANAMO TRIALS: Whether President Bush has overstepped his authority with military war-crimes trials for foreigners held at the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

TEXAS REDISTRICTING: Whether to throw out all or part of a 2003 congressional map promoted by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

INSANITY: Whether to strike down Arizona’s insanity defense law, in an appeal brought on behalf of a schizophrenic teenager who killed a police officer.

CAMPAIGN FINANCE: If Vermont and other states can limit how much money is contributed and spent in political campaigns.

FOREIGN SUSPECTS: If two foreigners convicted of violent crimes in the United States have to be given new trials because police did not tell them they could seek legal help from their countries’ governments, as required by a 1969 treaty.

INMATE NEWSPAPERS: Whether states can keep troublesome inmates from reading most ewspapers and magazines.

DEATH PENALTY: Whether Kansas’ death penalty law is constitutional.

LAWYERS: Whether criminal defendants who can afford a lawyer get to pick their own.

—

In some of the cases resolved this term, the court:

ASSISTED SUICIDE: Upheld on a 6-3 vote Oregon’s one-of-a-kind assisted-suicide law.

CAMPUS RECRUITERS: Ruled unanimously that the government can withhold funding from colleges that won’t open their campuses to military recruiters because of the Pentagon’s policy on gays.

DEATH PENALTY: Ruled 9-0 that condemned inmates can file special federal court claims that the chemicals used in executions cause unconstitutionally cruel pain; Ruled 5-3 that a Tennessee death row inmate could use new evidence to try to get his conviction overturned.

Open Trackback Friday

Leave a trackback of your best post for others to read.   Also, look at the trackbacks below to see what others are saying. 

And for my non-bloggin friends…feel free to look around and put your 2 cents in my comments…or if the mood strikes, cue up the band and give us a showtune.

For an explanation of a trackback, go here or here.

If your blog does not support Trackbacks (blogger is still in the dark ages in this regard), check out Haloscan, which I used to use on my old blogGER site, or you may ALSO JUST use The Wizbang Standalone Pinger to do so.

Just include this post’s permalink (right the post title and copy the short cut) in your post and use the Trackback URL at the end of the post for your trackback.

TGIF Folks!!!

I will include a link round up and more odds and ends later.

Michelle Malkin and Sister Toldjah discuss the latest example of the MSM’s desire to print a story vs National Security.

Sister Toldjah also mentions the scandal of Kosola 101, where Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, aka Kos of “Daily Kos” liberal blog infamy, is involved in an alleged ‘pay for favoritism’ scheme.

Read about the terror raid in Miami.

Click here to see how the Huffington Post banned of its own bloggers after he discovered an anonymous heckler on his blog was the Post’s technology manager

Looks like he is now officially in violation of the UCMJ,  Article 87, Missing Movement.  He also faces more serious charges, if the military decides to hammer him on this, which frankly I hope they do.

I have no problem with a person having an aversion to war.  Fine, then stay out of the military.  Don’t make an oath, train, bond with your unit then bail when the path strats to look tough.  He could have filed for Conscientious Objector status and had his out, but he insisted on making this a political issue by attaching his complaint to the one war.  And I hope he rots in prison for it.

Eh?  Unfair am I?  Harsh maybe?  Too bad.  I have no respect for him, at all.  He violated his oath and his honor and his trust.

The latest, from KOMO TV:

War Objector Lt. Watada Refuses To Go To Iraq 

 An Army lieutenant who has said he’d rather go to prison than Iraq did not deploy with his unit when it left Thursday for the Middle East, Army officials said.

1st Lt. Ehren Watada, 28, of Honolulu, who joined the Army in March 2003, has said he would be willing to serve in Afghanistan or elsewhere, but has concluded that the war in Iraq is illegal and immoral.

Watada stayed on base in his battalion’s headquarters while members of his unit left Fort Lewis by bus at 6:45 a.m., en route to their flight from nearby McChord Air Force Base, the Army said.

About 4,000 soldiers of Fort Lewis’ 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division were scheduled to be part of this deployment.

"1st Lt. Watada has been ordered to remain on duty at his unit, with some limitations on his pass privileges, pending further instructions from his chain of command," Fort Lewis officials said in a statement.

No charges had been filed against Watada as of Thursday. "None will be filed until the commander has had a chance to review all of the facts of the case and consult with the Staff Judge Advocate," the Army statement said.

For those not paying attention, a long running battle in San Diego has forced the city to defend itself from a disgruntled athiest who is demanding the city remove a 29-foot cross at the Mount Soledad National War Memorial.

This is one of those cases where I have to wonder why the person at the center of this, Philip Paulson is really doing this.

This is a war memorial, and if you honestly do not expect some sign of religious imagery, then you are being foolish.  The cross has stood there since 1913 for crying out loud.  Why is it such a threat to this guy?  Is it really worth all the fuss he has poured into this?

Since 1989 every attempt the city has made to preserve this memorial, all of which are supported overwhelmingly by the community has ended in a court with a judge overturning them.  It sickens me frankly.

Here is the latest chapter.

9th Circuit Court denies stay in Mt. Soledad cross lawsuit; supporters remain hopeful

Supporters of the 29-foot cross displayed at the Mount Soledad National War Memorial in San Diego picked up both a defeat and a victory June 21 as the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals chose not to suspend a $5,000 daily fine that a federal judge will impose if the cross is not moved, while California’s 4th District Court of Appeals said it will expedite a hearing on supporters’ behalf.

U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson Jr. ruled in May that the city of San Diego would be fined for each day the cross remains on public grounds after a 90-day period that is set to expire Aug. 1. The city, led by Mayor Jerry Sanders, appealed the ruling, but the 9th Circuit refused to step in and grant a stay until appeals currently pending in state courts can he heard.

But there is still hope:

On the same day, the 4th District informed Charles LiMandri, attorney for the group San Diegans for the Mount Soledad National War Memorial, that the court would soon grant a hearing of an appeal of a ruling by California Superior Court Judge Patricia Cowett which said a ballot measure approved by 76 percent of the city’s residents was unconstitutional.