The guards had made us dump all liquids, just like at the airport (though it was even more ludicrous in this situation). After sitting in the heat for a while, I reluctantly got in line to pay $3.00 for a bottle of water, which the vendor insisted on pouring into a cup.

Then I asked for some ice. “No,” I was told. “Security reasons.”

Security reasons?!? What possible threat could crushed ice in the water they’d just poured me pose to Obama? Even with C. C. Sabathia‘s arm, I don’t think I could have hit him with a fragment. Were they afraid I’d lurk in waiting and stuff ice down his shirt?

We’ve become sheep. People tell us something is for security and we passively accept it. Maybe that’s why there’s been next to no MSM coverage of the police-state repression tactics being used in Minneapolis/St. Paul.

What some of you might recognize, is that the voice of many beer commercials, which was also the voice of many Anti-Democratic smears during the 2004 Presidential campaigns, is the same voice behind this commercial.

The name of the organization funding the commercial, implying itself to be a Pro-Democracy group (Defense of Democracies), is anything but that.

Recent investigative reports, as well as a Bush Administration official, have admitted that the only reason to pass this bill, is to hold harmless, the telecom industry from lawsuits that are bound to be filed against them because of the illegal, unConstitutional nature of these illegal wiretaps, for any actions which they have taken in the past, or which they might take in the future. (That last piece was based on Bush’s own statement.)

There is no danger of any Al Qaida plots being missed, (as a result of the wiretaps no longer being in place – which is what the commercial implies), because the telecoms have all reported that they are continuing to provide this service to the Bush Administration and your government funded intelligence services, (at taxpayer expense), in spite of the fact that the legislation has not been reauthorized.

The only reason for the push for the reauthorization of this bill is to protect the telecoms from being sued for illegal activities. PERIOD.

Keith Olbermann – MSNBC reported on February 28th, that Republicans are puzzled that they aren’t getting large campaign donations from…THE TELECOM INDUSTRY!

Puzzled? Olbermann explains it by saying that the Telecom industry might possibly be upset with the Republicans by being forced into this situation in the first place, by the Republicans.

Well Thompson is out, having had her conviction overturned and Biskupic got a reprieve from the spate of US Attorney firings. We’ll note that it appears that the mass firings of US Attorney’s were due to them not injecting enough partisanship into their job by prosecuting democrats at times which would have benefitted Republicans. Since Biskupic prosecuted Thompson and attempted to connect her trumped up improprieties to Democratic Governor Jim Doyle in an election year, it’s no surprise that Biskupic’s name was removed from the “must fire” list.

All the same, Thompson is out a boatload of cash — what would be a life savings for most people. Patrick Marley of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel sums it up like this:

Thompson asked the state Claims Board to reimburse her $359,048. About $206,000 of that is for legal fees, and about $130,000 would cover taxes if she were to be reimbursed by the state. The remainder includes $4,200 in criminal fines and miscellaneous expenses.

So should Thompson be reimbursed? Of course. Thompson claims no partisan connections but whether she favors republicans or democrats, she was the pawn that was used in what very nearly can be called a “plot” to discredit a member of the opposite party of Biskupic.

Yes, it has the same ring to it that the (Senator Joseph) McCarthy trials had during the time of the red scare but this incident wasn’t motivated by a fear of communism — this appears to be pure politics and Biskupic’s overzealousness cost Thompson many months in jail, undue stress and the loss of her good reputation. Someone needs to ask Biskupic, ‘have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?’

This may come as a surprise to remember that it was not that long ago that another high profile case was overturned. State Assemblyman Mark Gundrum (R-New Berlin) came to the rescue and asked for that person to receive compensation. Where is Gundrum now?

Judicial candidates are supposed to be impartial and non-partisan but in reality it's not possible to be completely impartial.  You're a product of your surroundings and your collective experiences.  Unfortunately for Ziegler, that means that she's part of a family who has donated to GOP candidates like convicted felon Scott Jensen as well as former Guv Tommy Thompson.

Does this mean she's unqualified?  Of course not.  But if you look at judicial activism in the courts over the past decade or so, it has all been conservative (read republican) activism.  That activism is dangerous to those of us who value constitutional freedoms.

But do we know how Ziegler would vote on issues of constitutional freedom?  No. 

What we do know is that Ziegler's family contributed $5800 to then-GOP Governor Tommy Thompson's campaign before her judicial appointment.  We do know that an additional $7250 was sent to Thompson after he made good on the appointment.  We do know that after her swearing in ceremony, that Ziegler's father in law sent in a check for $500 to the Guv.  We also know that from 2000 to 2006 the Ziegler family sent nearly $120,000 to Republican candidates for office.

So do we know which way she leans on issues important to people who value constitutional protections?  It's a pretty safe bet that she's not with them.

###

Thanks to One Wisconsin Now for tipping us off to this story. 

That's what the second amendment to the Constitution says.  It doesn't say that anyone who wants to pack heat, anywhere and at any time can wear a holster or wear a gun under their suit coat.  But that's what many Republicans are saying it means.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is always conveniently omitted when gun extremists (not to be confused with hunters) talk about the constitution and the second amendment within the Bill of Rights.

No, they just like guns and they don't like the restrictions to their "rights". 

Here's the problem with that.  Those restrictions are constitutional restrictions.  They were built into the Bill of Rights.  These folks aren't part of a well regulated militia.  Quite the contrary — they oppose any regulation of their guns.  The want to shoot them off whenever they want.  That's called Anarchy.  Those "rights" they claim the have to pack heat wherever and whenever they want — it was not a right that was ever given to them by the framers of the constitution.

In short, they don't support the constitution.  They don't support the document which is the basis of our republic.  Now I'm no brain surgeon, but if they hate the document that makes us the United States of America, why do they stay?

Despite their flying of the flag, they don't love this country they do not love what it (and our constitution) stand for.  So why do they stay?

###

Jim McGuigan is a hunter, sportsman and gun owner who supports hunters rights. 

LINK: Not Welcome in Wisconsin: An Analysis of Conceal Carry Legislation

Marriage is “the cornerstone of our society.” -Sen. Bill Frist

Let’s look at a few other Republican leaders and how they have honored
marriage in their lives:

Ronald Reagan – divorced the mother of two of his children to marry Nancy Reagan, who bore him a daughter only 7 months after the marriage.

Bob Dole – divorced the mother of his child, who had nursed him through thelong recovery from his war wounds.

Newt Gingrich – divorced his wife who was dying of cancer.

Dick Armey – House Majority Leader – divorced

Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas – divorced

Gov. John Engler of Michigan – divorced

Gov. Pete Wilson of California – divorced

George Will – divorced

Sen. Lauch Faircloth – divorced

Rush Limbaugh – Rush and his current wife Marta have six marriages and four
divorces between them.

Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia – Barr, not yet 50 years old, has been married
three times. Barr had the audacity to author and push the “Defense of
Marriage Act.” The current joke making the rounds on Capitol Hill is “Bob
Barr…WHICH marriage are you defending?!?

Sen. Alfonse D’Amato of New York – divorced

Sen. John Warner of Virginia – divorced (once married to Liz Taylor.)

Gov. George Allen of Virginia – divorced

Henry Kissinger – divorced

Rep. Helen Chenoweth of Idaho – divorced

Sen. John McCain of Arizonia – divorced

Rep. John Kasich of Ohio – divorced

Rep. Susan Molinari of New York – Republican National Convention Keynote
Speaker – divorced

So … homosexuals are going to destroy the institution of marriage? Wait a minute, it seems the Christian Heterosexual Republicans are doing a fine job without anyone’s help!