A few days ago I quoted the Omega Letter article talking about a bill proposed by Rep. John Conyers that would make preachers think twice about preaching what’s in the Bible for fear of going to jail for hate-crimes or hate-speech.

Now comes word that President Bush will veto the legislation if it makes it to his desk.

This bill may not pass, but it’s good to know it won’t become law if it does pass.

Time Magazine has taken this opportunity to grace us with their choices for the 100 Most Influential People in the World.

If there ever was a question in my mind that my decision was correct years ago to discontinue my subscription to this publication, it was wiped away by their omission of President Bush from this list. Have we come to the point where the media blinded by their hatred for this man, simply wishes to demean the Office of the Presidency? It matters not the man or woman who occupies the Oval Office, the day Americans do not find them persuasive on the world stage, I believe we are headed for disaster.

Some might say this is laughable, I do not agree. When Osama bin Laden is more influential in the world than our Commander in Chief in the opinion of this publication, I see no reason to smile. Others would say this list has no actual meaning, again I respectfully do not concur. Time is distributed worldwide and I am certain has influence in regions which we cannot imagine. Are they to believe that the President of the United States of America has little or no influence in the world? According to Time, the answer is Yes.

Call me old fashioned if you like, but I would prefer to return to the days when even with our disagreements we were able to unite as a country behind our duly elected President. Given the difficult times we face ahead as a nation one would like to believe we could achieve that plateau once more. The press recognizing that there are two political parties in this country and they do not consist of “perfect” and “imperfect” might be a great start.

Update: Captain Ed says:

Let’s see if we can make sense of this. Two Senators who want to win a nomination for the next presidential election are more influential than the man who currently holds the position? I’m not saying that Hillary and Obama do not have influence — after all, they are the frontrunners for the Democrats. However, arguing that they have more influence than George Bush is simply unrealistic, and it betrays the bias of Time in its attempt to sell their list. Bush just demonstrated that he has equal influence as the entirety of Congress in vetoing the supplemental bill.

Love him, hate him, or feel indifferent, but one cannot deny that the President of the United States has a great deal of influence. This one in particular has toppled two brutal dictatorships and currently runs a controversial war in Iraq. He has worked with four other nations to isolate North Korea and pushed the UN Security Council to isolate Iran. Bush has, for better or worse, negotiated free-trade agreements with most of the rest of the world during his six years in office, and has even begun to attract nations like Canada to his policy on greenhouse gases.

This is the man the Speaker would have liked as second in command in the House of Representatives. Jack Murtha makes claims which are easily debunked as we see here this morning.

In what some might find to be a disgusting video at Hot Air, Jack ABSCAM Murtha claims that the head of Multinational Forces in Iraq, General David Patraeus is a political hack who talked to the media while in DC, but never addressed law makers.

Oh really? Maybe he should ask the many Democrats, and over 200 law makers, including Dems Hoyer, Levin, and Clyburn, who apparently managed to attend the briefing. I cannot believe Johnstown, PA continues to send this fool back to Congress.

All lawmakers were invited to the general’s briefing, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not attend nor did Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the committee responsible for defense appropriations.

Pelosi’s staff cited a scheduling conflict for her absence. However, she and Murtha spoke by phone with Petraeus for 30 minutes on Tuesday, which she said was sufficient.

For the Chair of the Defense Appropriations Committee and the Speaker of the House to not attend this meeting was an insult to taxpaying Americans.

Be sure to check out the video. Watch as Mr. Murtha back peddles in the interview after he or perhaps someone else realizes his first statement was an out and out fabrication.

We refer to our system of government erroneously as a democracy, when in fact it is a constitutional republic.

In a strict democracy the majority rules no matter how small and no matter what.

Our founding fathers wanted the minority to also have a voice so they set up a constitutional republic instead of a democracy.

The example of Congress passing a bill the president disagreed with shows us why they were so smart in what they did. In order to have forced the president to accept the bill our constitution spells out that both houses of congress must have a super-majority of two-thirds to override the executive’s veto.

Otherwise every bill congress passes would be law and the minority would have no say in how that law is written. This way congress has to go back to the drawing board with the executive branch and work out a compromise.

This is true of any legislation where there is such a dispute, but I’m using the Supplemental bill and veto as examples of how much thought the founders put into preserving our union.

The politicians can posture all they want, but in the end, none got what he or she wanted and will have to settle for less than they wished to get.

The only thing we should gloat over is the fact our government can disagree and still stay intact. In other countries this would have overthrown the congress or the president in a coup of some kind—bloody or bloodless.

The longer I live the more I appreciate our founding fathers and their wisdom and dedication to this new country they founded.

This just might be the straw that breaks the Iraqi camel’s back.

Congress may be divided on whether to keep U.S. troops in Iraq, but there is one area where lawmakers are finding common ground: They are furious that Iraqi politicians are considering a lengthy break this summer.

“If they go off on vacation for two months while our troops fight — that would be the outrage of outrages,” said Rep. Chris Shays, a Republican.

The Iraq parliament’s recess, starting this July, would likely come without Baghdad politicians reaching agreements considered key to easing sectarian tensions. Examples include regulating distribution of the country’s oil wealth and reversing measures that have excluded many Sunnis from jobs and government positions because of Baath party membership.

Talk of the adjournment comes amid a heated debate in Congress on the pullout of U.S. troops in Iraq.

President George W. Bush this week vetoed $124.2 billion legislation ordering troops to begin leaving Oct. 1. Failing on Wednesday to gain a two-thirds majority needed to override the veto, Democrats were expected to begin negotiations Thursday with top White House aides on the next step.

(more…)

I am a little late to this issue due to a busy day and an internet connection which was less than stable all day.

Being the strong supporter of the United States Military that I am, I was dismayed and disappointed when I read several articles which stated that the US Army had literally put the heel of the boot on Military blogs. These blogs are a so important as they counter the bulk of the MSM and their negative take on any military action taken under this administration. Certainly there is an occasional positive article but to unearth it sometimes is rather difficult. When was the last story you read about the children we have saved or the schools rebuilt or the medical care we provide not only to our own but the Iraq and Afghanistan citizens and yes, even our enemies. We could go on and on but those of us who follow carefully know the successes.

The news from today was unsettling at best and I am hoping this article in the Washington Post casts a bit of a different light on these new regulations.

Please read past the typical heading on this piece to the meat of the article and an interview with Maj.Ray M. Ceralde.

Army Maj. Ray M. Ceralde, who worked on the new regulations, said Wednesday the intention of the 2007 rule is not to have soldiers clear every public posting with commanders.

“Not only is that impractical, but we are trusting the soldiers to protect critical information,” he said.

He said there is no effort to block soldiers from setting up or posting comments to blogs. “We’re not looking for them to seek approval each time a blog entry is posted,” Ceralde said.

The rules, he said, do not affect personal, private e-mails that soldiers send. “Soldiers have a right to private communications with their families,” he said.

Instead, Ceralde said, soldiers are expected to consult or clear with commanders when they start a blog, in part so they can be warned about information they cannot publish.

Ceralde said Army leaders wanted to emphasize the importance of maintaining operational security. Soldiers will be punished if they publicly reveal sensitive information, such as troop movements, planned raids, travel itineraries of senior leaders, or photographs of casualties, new technology or other material that could compromise their location.

The rules say solders can be charged with violating a lawful order under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The Military blogs I frequent have never, to my knowledge divulged any sensitive or operational information as the owners and writers know the consequences of doing so. Perhaps there have been those who have broken the law and they should be prosecuted but it makes no sense to penalize those who have been a positive voice for our soldiers and their mission. For better or for worse, we are in Iraq and Afghanistan and I pray that these words above will mean a continuation of the wonderful work these blogs have afforded those of us who are readers.

HT: Patterico for pointing to this WaPo article.

He has since also posted an update ..this is going to be a real hot potato and I hope the US Army is not the one to come out half baked.

Update: A take from a man who has been there. While I appreciate his entire piece, this drew my attention:

I’m sure this won’t be the last word on the subject. Some bloggers like Michelle Malkin have posted info on writing your congressman and other government officials, but I would suggest you not do that. We’ve got too many politicians running this war from the get go - that’s part of the problem - let them get it figured out.

Please let’s keep the politicians at bay. All owners of blogs should be concerned if they become involved as they will turn this issue like all others into endless hearings and sound bites.