The following press release came to me though the Minuteman Project, and I was a bit surprised by the content of the release, and the implications contained herein. Before I comment, here it is for reference.

Why did President George W. Bush wait until after the mid-term elections to replace Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld? Why was there virtually no support from the White House for Republican candidates like Randy Graf and J.D. Hayworth in Arizona?

Most pundits agree that if Rumsfeld was to be replaced, it would have been much better for Republicans had the announcement been made before the elections. And with the razor-thin losses of key Republican candidates to supposedly “conservative” Democrats, it seems clear that a little more money or other support from the President or national GOP headquarters might have kept the House and Senate from turning over to Democrat control.

“Here you have conservative candidates and some incumbents who were solidly in favor of protecting our borders - a position with which the overwhelming American majority agrees,” commented Minuteman Founder Jim Gilchrist. “Bush has been unable to pass his amnesty program through the GOP-controlled Congress, but he won’t give up, so why wouldn’t he welcome a more compliant Democrat-led pro-illegal alien Congress, where he wouldn’t have effective opposition from his own party?”

Today’s speech by the President tends to confirm Gilchrist’s ruminations. When asked about the prospect of the Democrats cooperating with his amnesty proposals, Bush seemed almost delighted with the change of House leadership. Americans who question the open borders policies of this and previous administrations will have plenty to worry about in the coming months, if Gilchrist’s analysis proves accurate.

“This is a devastating blow to the security of the country,” said Gilchrist. “Every American is at greater risk than before the elections. Illegal aliens and terrorists are celebrating today, but our mission remains clear: we shall continue our surveillance and reporting operations in a continuing effort to inform and mobilize Americans to demand better border security.”

I respect and support the Minuteman Project, and feel their goal of secure boarders is the correct way to go. To distill down the core message of the press release, it is clear that the MMP is suggesting that President Bush “threw” the election in order to gain support for immigration reform proposals which include an Amnesty program – a program to which the MMP is opposed.

I am still a bit surprised that the MMP would be so direct, and I am sure that Bush sees the potential support for his Immigration reform agenda as a silver lining. However I cannot support the theory that Bush, with support from the national GOP, threw the election for any reason – even one as significant and close to his (and my) heart as immigration reform.

Although, that would go quite a distance to explain the smugness we still see on the face of Karl Rove…

But I digress. I would challenge the MMP to provide something more concrete than the list of assumptions they have thus far put forward. I would also suggest that the MMP pay a bit closer attention to which side their bread is buttered. It is the conservative base, who still mostly supports Bush, which provide the lions share of the funding.

I see the necessary link between a group like the MMP and politics. After all, the lobby is still king in Washington. However, having an active hand outside of the very limited scope to which the lobby has subscribed seems a bit reckless. Moreover there is nothing to be gained by MMP if this is true. Such is outside of their power, and a loss of focus as this critical stage could be very costly.

With that being said, I do agree that the MMP’s mission did just get significantly harder. The Democrats have specifically targeted Hispanic groups in efforts to gain minority votes. Moreover, where voter ID laws do not complicate things, they seemed unconcerned if these Hispanic groups where legal or not.

The MMP needs to keep their eye on the ball, so to speak. The road ahead promises to be long and grueling.

Add Hugo Chavez, Venezuela President to the growing list of support for our new Democratic Congress.

From The Conservative Voice:

Marxist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said that he was filled with optimism over the Democrats’ win on Tuesday. On Wednesday, Chavez said that the Democrat win was a “reprisal vote” against President Bush.
Chavez, who has announced in previous speeches that the US is a “terrorist nation”, said: “Of course, the citizens of the United States are humans with a conscience. It’s a reprisal vote against the war in Iraq, against the corruption. All this fills us with optimism.”

Chavez also referred to the Patriot Act against terrorist activities that passed under President Bush, as “terrorism against his own people.”

So lets see: The Terrorists Approve, The UN Approves, Chavez Approves, The ACLU approves. My mom always said that you can tell a persons quality by their friends…

As noted from my post yesterday, Rumsfeld has resigned from his position as Secretary of Defense. As if this honorable patriot was not under enough attack while Secretary of Defense, the vultures are coming out of the woodwork now to formalize their attack now that Rumsfeld is no longer under the protection of his office.

First, of course, is the ACLU:

The American Civil Liberties Union today applauded Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation from his post as Defense Secretary, and called on Congress to investigate the gross abuse of power committed under his watch.

“Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation is a step in the right direction,” said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director. “Rumsfeld is responsible for the torture and abuse of detainees in U. S. military custody and must be held accountable for the failures that occurred on his watch. He has placed the blame on junior military members and has been nothing but derelict in his duty. Congress must initiate an immediate and exhaustive investigation into his six-year-long record of unlawful activity, violations of the rule of law and complicity in the executive branch abuse of power.”

Pardon me, but that is a load of bull. Rumsfeld has served this country honorably, and with all the skill and capability he could bring to focus. Why is the ACLU so quick to criticize this man who has given much in a thankless job defending us while not uttering a word against the evil which seeks to destroy us?

Next, the ironically named Center for Constitutional Rights:

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation on November 8th represents a first step toward accountability for the Bush Administration’s widespread practices of torture and unlawful detention, said attorneys at the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR). Under Donald Rumsfeld’s direction–often under his direct orders–the Department of Defense adopted the practices of torture and indefinite detention that CCR is currently challenging in many court cases.

The Center will be filing a new case charging him with war crimes under Germany’s universal jurisdiction law together with the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH), the Republican Attorneys Association (RAV) and others next week. CCR attorneys called on his successor to close Guantánamo and put an end to the unlawful torture and detention of thousands in the so-called war on terror.

The Center for Constitutional Rights represents hundreds of men detained at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

Let that last sentence roll around in your head for a moment.

Assuming, as confirmed from CCRs website, the Constitutional Rights they are proposing to support are indeed American Rights - why are they so quick to involve a German court in this matter?

Finally Human Rights First:

Human Rights First welcomed the announcement today of the resignation of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

“This step is welcome, and long overdue,” said Human Rights First Executive Director Maureen Byrnes. “It should send an important message to the military, the intelligence community, and all engaged in the protection of U.S. national security that Americans will no longer tolerate torture in their name.”

Human Rights First, together with the ACLU and former senior officers in the U.S. military, filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of Defense in 2005 seeking a court ruling that policies of torture and abuse authorized by the Secretary violated U.S. and international law. Oral arguments in the suit, now pending in U.S. federal district court in Washington, D.C., are currently set for December 8.

As the President moves quickly to fill this important position, Byrnes cautioned: “We would expect the next Secretary of Defense to adhere to the letter and spirit of U.S. and international law that squarely prohibits torture and abuse.”

What the rights of the peaceful Iraqis and Americnas to live without terrorist threat? HRF is correct about one this, this dose send an important message to a battered military - “Do you job and we will pull you down anyway”.

Organizations like the ACLU, CCR, and HRF are boils on our society. It must be a comfortable world where you can throw stones at the men who hold up the banner of freedom you hide beneath. I have spoken before about the belief that torture has its place in the American arsenal, but despite that I do not believe that Rumsfeld has cross the line of American or International law.

We are at war, and our enemies are trying their best to kill us. While I am sure our enemies appreciate the help of of these organizations, I hope the American people do not confuse the liberal squeamishness with the moral and proper execution of a war.

H/T to Discerning Texan

From Fox:

Activist Cindy Sheehan was arrested Wednesday as she led about 50 protesters to a White House gate Wednesday to deliver anti-war petitions she said were signed by 80,000 Americans.

The Berkeley, Calif., woman, whose son was killed in Iraq more than two years ago, was arrested along with three other women on the sidewalk outside the White House gate, said Lt. Scott Fear, a U.S. Park Police spokesman. They were charged with interfering with a government function, he said.

Before she was arrested, she joined the protesters in hailing the outcome of Tuesday’s elections and chanting “Stop the War” outside the gate.

It is a crying shame when a good man like Rumsfeld is removed from office, and this wacko is permitted to spew her garbage.

What in the heck is this moonbat going to do when Congress forces the pull out of troops?

The below clip, from Cox and Forkum, is right on the money. The democrats won by swaing conservative in response to public opinion. Now that they are elected, they can show their true colors.

I have always enjoyed reading Ann Coulter – though her skills in satirical writing somewhat out way her political acumen, she still makes for a great read. She did have some specifically sarcastic insight to the midterm elections that I though well worth sharing.

You can read Ann’s complete article here.

Democrats support surrender in Iraq, higher taxes and the impeachment of President Bush. They just won an election by pretending to be against all three.

The democrats did win by putting forth conservative democrats for key contested races, in order to gather more of the conservative vote. In areas where they stuck to liberal guns, such as in Connecticut, the democratic liberal contender was soundly beaten – in this case by a pro-war ex-democrat.

In fact, if the Democrats’ pathetic gains in a sixth-year election are a statement about the war in Iraq, Americans must love the war! As Roll Call put it back when Clinton was president: “Simply put, the party controlling the White House nearly always loses House seats in midterm elections” — especially in the sixth year.

In Franklin D. Roosevelt’s sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate.

In Dwight Eisenhower’s sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate.

In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson’s sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate.

In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford’s sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats.

Even America’s greatest president, Ronald Reagan, lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office.

But in the middle of what the media tell us is a massively unpopular war, the Democrats picked up about 30 House seats and five to six Senate seats in a sixth-year election, with lots of seats still too close to call. Only for half-brights with absolutely no concept of yesterday is this a “tsunami” — as MSNBC calls it — rather than the death throes of a dying party.

During eight years of Clinton — the man Democrats tell us was the greatest campaigner ever, a political genius, a heartthrob, Elvis! — Republicans picked up a total of 49 House seats and nine Senate seats in two midterm elections. Also, when Clinton won the presidency in 1992, his party actually lost 10 seats in the House — only the second time in the 20th century that a party won the White House but lost seats in the House.

Meanwhile, the Democrats’ epic victory this week, about which songs will be sung for generations, means that in two midterm elections Democrats were only able to pick up about 30 seats in the House and four seats in the Senate — and that’s assuming they pick up every seat that is currently too close to call. (The Democrats’ total gain is less than this week’s gain because Bush won six House and two Senate seats in the first midterm election.)

So however you cut it, this midterm proves that the Iraq war is at least more popular than Bill Clinton was.

Interesting stats, and some I wish I had the benefit of before the mid-term election. It dose pain a picture of Americans yearning for change more than any other one thing. Either a testament to the fickleness of the species or a comment on need for fresh insight.

The Democrats certainly have their work cut out for them. They have only two years to release as many terrorists as possible and lock up as many Republicans as they can. Republicans better get that body armor for the troops the Democrats are always carping about — and fast. The troops are going to need it for their backs.

Ouch, but perhaps not far from accurate. A democratic congress will likely review and work to repeal the patriot act, and de-fund the war in Iraq in order to for the presidency to bring the troops back.

This is one of the many heart touching e-mails that work arround the internet passing from friend to friend. It is one of the better ones, so I though I would share it. I have no idea as to the validity of the source, but the sentiment is certainly valid. To bad it made no difference in the outcome of the last several days.

Yesterday John Kerry said, “You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well, and if you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq”

So I wrote him a letter:

I am a Sergeant in the United States Marine Corps. I am currently on my second tour in Iraq, a tour in which I volunteered for. I speak Arabic and Spanish and I plan to tackle Persian Farsi soon. I have a Bachelors and an Associates Degree and between deployments I am pursuing an M.B.A. In college I was a member of several academic honor societies, including the Golden Key Honor Society. I am not unique among the enlisted troops. Many of my enlisted colleagues include lawyers, teachers, mechanics, engineers, musicians and artists just to name a few. You say that your comments were directed towards the President and not us. If we were stupid Senator Kerry, we might have believed you.

I am not a victim of President Bush. I proudly serve him because he is my Commander and Chief. If it was you who was President, I would serve you just as faithfully. I serve America Senator Kerry, and I am also providing a service to the good people of Iraq. I have not terrorized them in the middle of the night, raped them or murdered them as you have accused me of before. I am doing my part to help them rebuild. My role is a simple one, but important. You see Senator Kerry, like it or not, we came here and removed a tyrant (who terrorized Iraqis in the middle of the night, and raped them and murdered them). And we have a responsibility to see to it that another one doesn’t take his place. The people of Iraq are recovering from an abusive relationship with a terrible government and it’s going to take some time to help them recover from that. We can’t treat this conflict like a microwave dinner and throw a temper tantrum because we feel like it’s taking too long.

Senator Kerry, you don’t have to agree with this war. You don’t have to say nice things about those of us who choose to make sacrifices for the rights of every American rather than sit back and simply feel entitled to it. But please Senator Kerry, if you’re going to call me a stupid murdering rapist, stick by what you say. Don’t tell me that I misunderstood or that you would never insult a veteran because you’re one too. Having been there and done that does not give you a free pass to insult me.

My suggestion for you, Senator Kerry, is to remember that your speeches are recorded, and broadcast to us simpletons over here. You may want to write down what you want to say before you say it, maybe have somebody look at it before you say it and tell you what others might hear. Remember that we can’t read your mind, if there are any misinterpretations in what you say, it’s because you didn’t communicate clearly.

Good luck to you Senator Kerry, if nothing else it’s always entertaining to watch you try and climb out of the holes that you constantly dig for yourself.

Sincerely,

Somebody who is watching his daughter grow up in photographs so that you can have the right to say whatever you want about him.

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU

So, America voted for change? They should be careful what they ask for because they will get it. For those that voted or stayed home in order to send the Republicans a message on election day…congratulations! Your all important “lesson” will now backfire in your face. You just cut off your nose to spite your face. Not only have you helped to give both Houses over to the left, put Nancy Pelosi in as the Speaker of the House, and completely destroyed any chance of getting a Constitutionalist majority in the Supreme Court, but groups like the ACLU seem to think this election was a mandate for their insanities. Look, you can’t say we didn’t warn you.

Yesterday voters nationwide rejected candidates who failed to uphold civil liberties and rejected ballot initiatives that undermine fundamental freedoms of all Americans.

“American voters have reinvigorated our system of checks and balances essential to stopping the abuse of power,” said Anthony D. Romero, American Civil Liberties Union Executive Director. “Voters finally had enough of the 109th Congress that repeatedly rubber-stamped legislation that violates our basic rights. Voters also rejected many state ballot initiatives designed to restrict civil liberties and meddle in our personal lives. The 110th Congress should take note - voters rejected political scare tactics and government power grabs in favor of civil liberties and policies that keep us safe and free.”

Ah, the old “Safe and Free” banner! Since when did the ACLU care about us being “safe”? So now the ACLU is promoting itself as a champion of both safety for our citizens and of freedom. What a joke! When 9-11 occurred what measures did the ACLU take to ensure our safety? None, zip, nada. This organization has done nothing to ensure our safety; in fact it has chosen to sue our government on behalf of terrorists outside of their legal jurisdiction while they were located in prisons on foreign soil.

They have since then demanded that the government release and make public top secret security information regarding not only the activities of our military, but also that of our intelligence forces. They have also initiated one lawsuit after another against the government to stop the searching of individuals for security purposes in mass transit situations, and to stop the government from detaining and questioning or interrogating individuals who have ties or contact with known terrorist individuals and organizations. That is just naming their actions off the top of my head. The fact is that the ACLU is making America less safe.

If what the ACLU means by political scare tactics are the warnings about the NSA surveillance program being put into jeopardy and other liberal techniques of surrender and stupidity then I must disagree. Perhaps the American people fell for the scare tactics of groups like the ACLU. It isn’t a scare tactic to state the truth about the threats we face from our enemies, and the threats still remain. The beat goes on.

In several congressional races voters rejected the strategy to paint national security as a polarizing issue. In Ohio, incumbent Senator Mike DeWine was defeated. DeWine sponsored legislation that condoned the president’s warrantless wiretapping program.

Looks like that is exactly what the ACLU is saying. America voted against effectively listening in our enemies plotting to destroy us. “Safe and Free” once again. Pundits and talking heads take note…it wasn’t about Iraq, the ACLU say it was civil liberties stupid!

As a non-partisan organization, the ACLU takes no official position in any race for elected office.

….except when they want to. Then they take out full page political ads opposing candidates that they do not like. They didn’t hide the fact they wanted a Democratic controlled Senate to kill the NSA program.

“The American people have spoken,” said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “The lame-duck session should not be used to ram through proposals that the American people have clearly rejected. The rule of law has been seriously compromised over the past five years, and lawmakers must now seek to reaffirm our commitment to fundamental freedoms.”

Oh, that isn’t the message you meant to send by staying home and pouting over overspending and the lack of immigration reform? Well, that is the message the left received as you handed them the power to speak on behalf of the majority. Their beloved ACLU says you clearly rejected the kind of proposals they wouldn’t like. You wanted immigration reform? Ha! You just kissed that goodbye to hell. Say hello to amnesty.

As Ace says so simply:

“Punishing” politicians doesn’t make sense when you wind up enacting the very policies that caused you to want to lash out in the first place.

Sure, the GOP are to blame for their many mistakes but the reaction to that was up to the individual voters at the end of the day. It looks like some Conservatives decided to punish themselves by punishing the GOP. The left’s voting I can understand. What doesn’t make sense to me that so many were willing to shoot themselves in the foot by empowering and emboldening the very party that will make sure the policies they were protesting continue and the ones they want will never happen. Well, the fight continues and now it we just have to fight that much harder.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst.