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.
By Edward L. Daley
Owner of the Daley Times-Post