Posted on 10/22/2005 9:19:11 AM PDT by Calpernia
For those of you promoting the agenda of NOT supporting Harriet Miers, take a look at where you are siding.
Domain Name:BUSHCOMMISSION.ORG
Created On:30-Sep-2005 19:41:00 UTC
Last Updated On:03-Oct-2005 20:48:38 UTC
Expiration Date:30-Sep-2006 19:41:00 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Tucows Inc. (R11-LROR)
Status:TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:tu65xuClzUJzqkgN
Registrant Name:Charles C. Kissinger
Registrant Organization: Not In Our Name Project
Registrant Street1: EDITED FOR POSTING
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Brooklyn
Registrant State/Province:NY
Registrant Postal Code:11217-1112
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.212-EDITED FOR POSTING
Not in Our Name project.
They are SDS/Weatherman.
From FBI Files:
Weatherman or Weather Underground Organization, is a "revolutionary organization of communist men and women" formed by members of the Students for a Democratic Society or SDS. They were originally called the Revolutionary Youth Movement. They advocated the overthrow of our government and capitalism. They carried out a campaign of bombings, jailbreaks, and riots in 1969-1976.
The group derived their name from Bob Dylan's song lyrics from "Subterranean Homesick Blues", which were, "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows", I use to see that quote at the bottom of their periodical, New Left Notes, when I use to work at a periodical distribution company.
Their first event, in 1969, was the "Days of Rage" in Chicago. They blew up a statue dedicated to police casualties in the 1886 Haymarket Riot. They announced at a convention that they supported Charles Manson. The rally failed to draw as many participants (300) as they had hoped. They did lead a riot through Chicago's business district, smashing windows and cars. 6 were shot and 70 arrested. The conflict went on for a few days.
1970, after the shooting by police of Black Panther Fred Hampton, the group issued a Declaration of War against the United States government, changing its name to the "weather underground organization", adopting fake IDs, and pursuing covert activities only. These initially included plans for a bombing of a US military noncommissioned officers' dance at Fort Dix. But when three Underground members died in an accidental explosion while preparing the bomb in a Greenwich Village, New York City safe house, other cells re-evaluated their plans and decided to pursue only non-lethal projects.
This group released a number of manifestos and declarations, while conducting a series of bombings. These attacked the U.S. Capitol, The Pentagon, police and prison buildings, and the rebuilt Haymarket statue again, among other targets. The group took measures to avoid any loss of life as a result of these bombings, issuing warnings to evacuate the building ahead of time via phone. They also took a $25,000 payment from a drugs group called The Brotherhood of Eternal Love to break LSD advocate Timothy Leary out of prison, transporting him to Algeria. They remained largely successful at avoiding the police and the FBI.
In the mid-to-late 1970s, the group began dissolving, as many members turned themselves in to the police, and others moved onto other armed revolutionary groups. Very few served prison sentences, since the evidence gathered against them, by the FBI's COINTELPRO program, was inadmissable in court, due to the illegal methods used to obtain it.
Famous members of the Weather Underground include Kathy Boudin, Mark Rudd, Terry Robbins, David Gilbert, and the still-married couple Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers.
Many former Weathermen have re-integrated into society, without necessarily repudiating their original intent. Bill Ayers, now a Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois, said in a September 11, 2001 New York Times profile "I don't regret setting bombs. I believe we didn't do enough."
---------------------------------------------------------
Searches on BUSHCOMMISSION.ORG Database and Files:
>>>>Harriet Miers' deep loyalty to George Bush could lead to her making dangerous interpretations of the Constitution.
>>>>Campaign Manager: Miers "Is On the Extreme End of the Anti-Choice Movement"
>>>Operation Rescue urged rejection of Ms. Miers' candidacy, calling her insufficiently conservative.
>>>>make this a ferocious confirmation battle in the Senate
>>>>show the conservative credentials insufficient for many on the right.
If you aren't supporting Harriet Miers, take some time to do a search of BUSHCOMMISSION.ORG. Not a site search. A search to see where info is pulled from:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22bushcommission.org%22&hl=en&lr=&filter=0
Make sure if you are not on the side of supporting Miers, it isn't information that came from SDS, Not In Our Name, MoveOn.org, of the NLG.
It didn't take a dissemination of talking points for people to see her as less than an exemplary nominee.
"during her tenure she and the board of directors went further, passing a resolution urging Texas law firms to set a goal of hiring one qualified minority lawyer for every 10 new associates."
====
That sounds like quotas to me. She supports quotas. Private organizations shouldn't support quotas. Her personal belief is that quotas are a good thing.
I don't support quotas, most businesses don't support quotas, they want the BEST and the brightest REGARDLESS of skin color, race or gender.
Sound as if you just described Congress...for that is the way they appear to conduct their business.
Goal isn't the same as the quotas set by the EOE.
Goal is a guideline for consideration.
He's great, isn't he? : )
I am one of President Bush's greatest supporters and always have been.
But with all that, and the best intentions, he is human, as and such, not infallible.
Back when he didn't stand up for Lott, and for such a minor thing he allowed himself pushed by the "conservatives" to replace him with Frist, I was concerned. I didn't think Frist had the experience and strength to keep the Republicans in line and be a LEADER. And unfortunately, history proved that President Bushw was wrong on that one.
Frist's lack of leadership and lack of ability to twist arms as necessary was what allowed the RINO-s to joint the Dems and scuttle the Constitutional Option. I would be willing to bet anything, that this would never have happened under Lott, who knew how to keep the Republicans in line. If they had passed it, President Bush wouldn't have to resort to nominate stealth candidate, he could openly nominate someone he should, as solid conservative.
It can all be traced back to that poor choice of putting Frist in as majority leader, when we already have a strong one, that's why the Dems wanted Lott out, and the conservatives obliged. Now we are seeing the fruits of that.
The point is that this nomination is extremely important, because if Miers turns out to be moderate to liberal leaning, the next president is a Democrat and she will replace the next retiring judge or two with leftist liberals, we will have a leftist liberal court for the next 50 years. We cannot afford the gamble.
"I think private business should be left to hire those they feel are best qualified to fill open positions."
Of course they should.
But I can see arguments for wanting diversity in a company. In Atlanta a law firm is likely to have so well off black clients - in the Southwest I can see where having some Latino lawyers might help present a better face to Latino clients.
In the computer hardware industry it's very helpful to have people who are native Chinese speakers.
"Yes, you are misunderstanding me. I posted this for all to evaluate where they may be getting their talking points from.
Read the last paragraph of my post."
Then I would like to apologize for misunderstanding.
I went back and checked all my pings, and can't find where you stated if you would have voted for the Dallas Bar Association resolution, supported by Miers, calling on firms to establish a goal of one minority hire for every ten openings.
So humor me, either point me to where you answered, or answer here unequivocally. Would you have voted 'yes' or 'no'?
A implies C
B implies C
Does not mean that A implies B.
We did a support the enemy of our enemy in the middle east when Russia was there... and look where it got us.
Rather than drinking some more koolaid for the WH, try thinking just a bit.
>>>It didn't take a dissemination of talking points for people to see her as less than an exemplary nominee.
Read my last paragraph:
If you aren't supporting Harriet Miers, take some time to do a search of BUSHCOMMISSION.ORG. Not a site search. A search to see where info is pulled from:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22bushcommission.org%22&hl=en&lr=&filter=0
Make sure if you are not on the side of supporting Miers, it isn't information that came from SDS, Not In Our Name, MoveOn.org, of the NLG.
"LOL. Well, judging from what's been made public, it does seem that Miers writes . . . by sense of smell ;-)"
LMAO!
">>>>Harriet Miers' deep loyalty to George Bush could lead to her making dangerous interpretations of the Constitution."
I'm agreeing with you. I believe that I support Miers too. My prayers are with her and I want her to be able to stand the pressures that will be put on her. The people that have fears of what she would do because of that quote above, I feel are on the left. Compared to what some of those other Justices do by using laws from Europe to make their descisions, If she uses the U. S Constitution that has Freedoms and Liberties given to us by God and put into writing by the Founding Fathers; she will be okay by me. I believe that's what scares them is that she would use the U. S. Constitution like Scalia and Thomas do and that will be okay for me. God Bless America and all who have and will defend Her.
Yes indeed!!!!
BTTT
Lame, lame, lame.
Sorry. She is a poor choice on the part of this administration. Period. The people elected GWB to pursue certain goals. One of the top two is to nominate judges that have profound respect for the Constitution. And will rule on that basis.
It is not a personal insult to Ms. Miers to say that Bush has shown profound disrespect to those that elected him.
I don't make up my mind based on whether or not some addle brained leftie agrees or disagrees with me.
No problem. This is an unusual post to make ;)
Look. Let's put the cards on the table:
1) Our hardcore types on FR object to Miers mostly because what she is not, rather than what she is. She is not one of the supposed rock-and-roll stars that these folks hoped would be nominated.
2) There is the occasional exclamation of displeasure that goes something like: Why doesn't Bush pound on the RINOs to get them to accept a conservative extremist rather than pound on us to get us to accept an unknown? Now we do complain here about use of terminology in the media so let's rephrase "conservative extremist" to be "clearly and explicitly conservative".
I can almost stop there because almost all other arguments are ancillary. For example:
"She's not a scholar of impeccable constitutional law writings" is a meaningless objection because Ginsburg would pass that test and no one here would approve of Bush nominating her.
"We don't trust Bush" is similarly meaningless because if he'd nominated an FR rockstar the anti Miers crowd would suddenly trust him.
Bush didn't want to fight, he wussed out. This is, of course, meaningless because it is conservatives who are the failures in the matter. We have failed to elect conservative Senators from Delaware, Vermont, Massachussets, Wisconsin and . . . pick any blue state . . . Illinois. The failure is ours, not Bush's and not the GOP's.
So . . . the complaint really does come down to those first two items. It's not about who she is; it's about who she is not. And, of course, the Stevens Precedent renders even that meaningless because a long paper trail is proven to mean just about nothing. The Justices often change.
Given that we know little or nothing of her, there really is no choice other than to wait for the hearings. And from those hearings best we be aware that we are not going to hear what we want to hear -- because nominees can't be explicit about such things. What we are going to hear is an absence of anything overt and explicit that we would hate.
That, plus the Stevens Precedent, may be the best that can happen from any nominee in a hearing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.