Friday, March 09, 2007

Gathering of Eagles: Mission Statement

The Gathering of Eagles is a defense, not an attack.
I know that a few US Army paratroopers and Marines from the Viet Nam war will be there at the Wall. If there's one thing, aside from love of country, that they share, it's knowing how to fight when surrounded.
1. Gathering of Eagles is non-partisan. While each member has his or her own political beliefs, our common love and respect for America and her heroes is what brings us together.
2. We are a non-violent, non-confrontational group. We look to defend, not attack. Our focus is guarding our memorials and their grounds.
3. We believe that the war memorials are sacred ground; as such, we will not allow them to be desecrated, used as props for political statements, or treated with anything less than the solemn and heartfelt respect they-and the heroes they honor-deserve.
4. We are wholly and forever committed to our brothers and sisters in uniform. As veterans, we understand their incredible and noble sacrifices, made of their own accord for a nation they love more than life itself. As family members, we stand by them, and as Americans, we thank God for them.
5. We believe in and would give our lives for the precious freedoms found in our Constitution. We believe that our freedom of speech is one of the greatest things our country espouses, and we absolutely hold that any American citizen has the right to express his or her approval or disapproval with any policy, law, or action of our nation and her government in a peaceful manner as afforded by the laws of our land.
6. However, we are adamantly opposed to the use of violence, vandalism, physical or verbal assaults on our veterans, and the destruction or desecration of our memorials. By defending and honoring these sacred places, we defend and honor those whose blood gave all of us the right to speak as freely as our minds think.
7. We vehemently oppose the notion that it is possible to "support the troops but not the war." We are opposed to those groups who would claim support for the troops yet engage in behavior that is demeaning and abusive to the men and women who wear our nation's uniform.
8. We believe in freedom at all costs, including our own lives. We served to protect the freedoms Americans enjoy, and we agree with Thomas Jefferson's assertion that "From time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
9. We will accept nothing less than total, unqualified victory in the current conflict. Surrender is not an option, nor is defeat.
10. We stand to challenge any group that seeks the destruction of our nation, its founding precepts of liberty and freedom, or those who have given of themselves to secure those things for another generation. We will be silent no more.
Silent no more!

I will see the Eagles as they ride from San Francisco to Washington, DC, as they pause on March 14th at the CNN Building in Atlanta.

As the Marines say: Semper Fi (Always Faithful)

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Libby: A Victim

Scooter Libby, former chief of staff for VP Cheney, found guilty of 4 of 5 charges stemming from the Federal Grand Jury investigation into the non-crime of leaking that Mrs Plame worked at the CIA.
Richard Armitage 'leaked' that she worked for the CIA, and that she arranged for her husband to go to Niger.
Her Husband, Joe Wilson, lied about what he learned in Niger. He goal was to undermine the Bush Administration.
Scooter Libby, who testified 7 times before the Grand Jury, was inconsistent in his testimony. What honest person wouldn't be somewhat inconsistent in recalling conversations which occurred more than 2 years prior.

A member of the jury, a former Washington Post reporter, stated he was looking for Rove, or Cheney...WAS THIS JURY BIAS AGAINST THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION?

Fact: It was known that no crime was committed, before the investigation was launched - Mrs. Plame was not a covert agent. She was simply a CIA employee.

Fact: It was known one month into investigation, that Richard Armitage leaked the information about Mrs Plame.

The charges need to be overturned on appeal because there was no underlying crime for the grand jury to investigation. This is a gross miscarriage of justice.

Monday, March 05, 2007

I Wish Ann Would Be Quiet

An Open Letter to CPAC Sponsors and Organizers Regarding Ann Coulter
Conservatism treats humans as they are, as moral creatures possessing rational minds and capable of discerning right from wrong. There comes a time when we must speak out in the defense of the conservative movement, and make a stand for political civility. This is one of those times.
Ann Coulter used to serve the movement well. She was telegenic, intelligent, and witty. She was also fearless: saying provocative things to inspire deeper thought and cutting through the haze of competing information has its uses. But Coulter’s fearlessness has become an addiction to shock value. She draws attention to herself, rather than placing the spotlight on conservative ideas.
At the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2006, Coulter referred to Iranians as “ragheads.” She is one of the most prominent women in the conservative movement; for her to employ such reckless language reinforces the stereotype that conservatives are racists.
At CPAC 2007 Coulter decided to turn up the volume by referring to John Edwards, a former U.S. Senator and current Presidential candidate, as a “faggot.” Such offensive language–and the cavalier attitude that lies behind it–is intolerable to us. It may be tolerated on liberal websites but not at the nation’s premier conservative gathering.
The legendary conservative thinker Richard Weaver wrote a book entitled Ideas Have Consequences. Rush Limbaugh has said again and again that “words mean things.” Both phrases apply to Coulter’s awful remarks.
Coulter’s vicious word choice tells the world she care little about the feelings of a large group that often feels marginalized and despised. Her word choice forces conservatives to waste time defending themselves against charges of homophobia rather than advancing conservative ideas.
Within a day of Coulter’s remark John Edwards sent out a fundraising email that used Coulter’s words to raise money for his faltering campaign. She is helping those she claims to oppose. How does that advance any of the causes we hold dear?
Denouncing Coulter is not enough. After her “raghead” remark in 2006 she took some heat. Yet she did not grow and learn. We should have been more forceful. This year she used a gay slur. What is next? If Senator Barack Obama is the de facto Democratic Presidential nominee next year will Coulter feel free to use a racial slur? How does that help conservatism?
One of the points of CPAC is the opportunity it gives college students to meet other young conservatives and learn from our leaders. Unlike on their campuses—where they often feel alone—at CPAC they know they are part of a vibrant political movement. What example is set when one highlight of the conference is finding out what shocking phrase will emerge from Ann Coulter’s mouth? How can we teach young conservatives to fight for their principles with civility and respect when Ann Coulter is allowed to address the conference? Coulter’s invective is a sign of weak thinking and unprincipled politicking.
CPAC sponsors, the Age of Ann has passed. We, the undersigned, request that CPAC speaking invitations no longer be extended to Ann Coulter. Her words and attitude
simply do too much damage.

* Credentialed CPAC 2007 Bloggers Sean Hackbarth, The American Mind
* James Joyner, Outside the Beltway
* BoiFromTroy, Boi From Troy
* Joy McCann, Little Miss Attila
* Kevin McCullough, Musclehead Revolution
* Fausta Werz, Fausta’s blog
* Patrick Hynes, Ankle Biting Pundits
* Ed Morrissey, Captain’s Quarters
* Jane Stewart, See Jane Mom

Other Right-of-Center Bloggers
* Owen Robinson, Boots and Sabres
* N.Z. Bear, The Truth Laid Bear
* Michael Demmons, Gay Orbit
* Mark Coffey, Decision ‘08
* Russell Newquist, The Philosopher’s Stone
* Marshall Manson, On Tap