What would we do without our unbiased one party media to ferret out the truth?

Get a load of the contortions the terrorist enablers at Reuters perform to pretend this attack was not just the latest in a series of hundreds carried out by Indonesian Moslems upon Christians:

Bomb blast at Christian market kills 7 in Indonesia

Sat Dec 31, 9:02 AM ET

A bomb packed with nails exploded in a crowded Christian market selling pork ahead of New Year celebrations in eastern Indonesia on Saturday, killing at least seven people and wounding 53, police said.

The early morning blast in Palu, capital of volatile Central Sulawesi province, came after warnings of militant violence during the Christmas and New Year season in Indonesia. But it appeared to be linked to regional tensions, not international Islamic militancy.

Indonesia is predominantly Muslim but its east has large pockets of Christians, to whom pork is not forbidden.

Bystanders carried bleeding shoppers from the makeshift market to a road, putting them in passing cars to be taken to hospital. One man screamed as he held up his bloodied arms.

"Suddenly there was a flash of light and a really loud bang. We were all thrown to the ground," one wounded pork seller told El Shinta radio from his hospital bed.

"I saw many buyers who had lost their legs. We just tried to save ourselves by fleeing the market."

"It was a homemade bomb. It was full of nails," said police spokesman Major-General Paulus Purwoko in Jakarta.

Central Sulawesi police said seven of the 60 people reported injured had died, and that security was being tightened, especially in places of worship.

The official Antara news agency said another bomb had been found and defused near the market in Palu, 1,650 km (1,030 miles) northeast of Jakarta.

"This was done by outside perpetrators to create an unstable situation in Palu," Rusdi Masura, mayor of South Palu regency, told Metro television.

HISTORY OF VIOLENCE

Intercommunal violence has killed thousands since the downfall of longtime autocrat Suharto in 1998.

Fighting between Muslims and Christians in central Sulawesi from 1998-2001 killed 2,000 people, mainly around the Muslim town of Poso. Since then, violence has been sporadic.

Last October three teenage Christian girls were beheaded near Poso. Bomb attacks last May in the Christian town of Tentena killed 22 people.

The nation of 220 million people has experienced several bomb attacks on Western targets as well, mostly blamed on Jemaah Islamiah (JI), a group seen as al Qaeda's Southeast Asian arm.

The deadliest killed 202 people, mostly tourists, on the island of Bali in 2002.

But national police spokesman Purwoko said the Palu blast was not typical of those planned by Noordin M. Top, a Malaysian who is the most main identified JI leader still thought to be at large in Indonesia.

Last month police killed Azahari Husin, another alleged Jemaah Islamiah leader, in a shootout in East Java province.

In his New Year address, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said the country could not drop its guard on the security front:

"The situation last year was colored by conflict and terrorist acts. Although the main offender of the terrorist movement has been paralyzed, the big job is still not finished."

Security expert Ken Conboy, in Jakarta, said the Palu violence was unlikely to spread beyond the district.

"The greater terrorist scare has been more focused on Java, and specifically on Jakarta. And this is something separate.

"This was probably extremists because they targeted a part of a market that was selling pork, which would seem to indicate sectarian violence between the religions. Or an attempt at least to spark sectarian violence," he said.

"In the past few years, although there have been a lot a provocations, it doesn't seem to have much of a spillover effect, it seems to stay contained. It certainly doesn't go outside of Central Sulawesi."

(Additional reporting by Telly Nathalia, Muklis Ali and Sugita Katyal in Jakarta)

Yes, it was "regional tensions, not Islamic militancy" that inspired someone to blow up a bunch of Christians who were selling pork.

But it was not at all typical of those planned by Mr. Noordin M. Top, ergo it could not have been done by some other crazed jihadist.

Darn that "intercommuncal violence"!

As Mother Sheehan has so oft explained: if only those damn Jews would get out of Palestine, none of this would happen.

In case anyone was still wondering about GQ’s Person of the Year, Malik Rahim and his pretend Moslem Mosque Medical Center, "Common Criminals Ground," we have an end of year update from one of his moronic dupes heroic volunteers:

happy solstice
Monday, December 26, 2005

Today I’ve begun my new role as the go-to guy for all of Common Grounds hauling needs. The ball hitch on my truck will carry CG’s trailer so I spend my first day carrying cases of food from the distribution center to the community center.

Then someone tells of a down tree that has been bucked up by the women’s center and four of us go and load it up to feed the oil drum fire that bburns all night in the church courtyard. As night falls myself and another head to Lowe’s and load 30 pallets that will be used for everything from furniture to firewood.

I’ve learned a little of CG’s history today. After Katrina, when all the government agencies abandoned the city, Malik Rahim and others saw what was happening to their community and formed an organization to protect the people who had been hardest hit by the hurricane and the aftermath. As people returned to their homes they wre met by National Guard blockades, and extreme cases of policr bvrutaliity. As the violence escalated, a cop watch was formed to record police harrassment.

From this seed has grown a legal aid office that fights illegal evictions, a distribution center that hands out free food, clothes, toys; a Women’s Center. The community center is where the volunteers stay and work crews are organized. There is an information center, the House of Excellence, that provides free internet access to anyone who walks in the door. There is a tool lending library, and soon there will be an actual library. All staffed by volunteers from across the country who have come at their own expense to spend a few days or weeks doing work that none would do for pay.

They sleep on the floor, fight for the dirtiest jobs offered "everyone wants to gut houses", then eat meals of beans, broccolli, and quinoa. The shower is outside, cold water only. No one complains. Everyone seems to realize the gravity of what we are doing. This organization has saved lives, not just houses.

The upper ninth Ward is about 95% African American, with about 95% owning their own homes. A higher percentage than anywhere in the US. And despite the dangers of floodwaters returning, this is regarded as prime realestate, just blocks away from the Bywater and French Quarter. Most agree this is the reason for the severe treatment metered out by the police and national guard. In an attempt to make it so difficult and dangerous for the residents to return, the cops have beaten and arrested people.

The NG are at least not helpful, and at worst murderous. And where are the crews to gut the houses? Why are there boats and merridians and powerlines down across the sidewalks? How is it that the schools are not opened? The local stores dark and empty? If you wish for help, for compassion, do not seek it from the government. They have none to give. Do not ask for assistance. You will have to beg. And the begging will not help you. Go instead to Common Ground in the Ninth Ward where everything is free and no one is turned away.

posted by mojojer @ 8:52 PM

You’ll note Mr. Mojojer’s spelling is positively Gordon- esque. Why do they only attract the stupidest of the stupids to their noble cause?

And, come to think of it, why is it we have never seen any persons of color ® amongst these volunteers? I thought this was all about "solidarity with the community"?

Also note, that even after all the money Rahim and his cohorts have scammed, their main (and probably sole) mode of transporting their largess is a cheesy little U-Haul trailer.

But most of all note how this fraud has immediately metastasized from being a bogus "clinic" into yet another "rights watch" lawsuit honey pot.

Sure, the National Guard did nothing–except kill black people. Malik and his thieving pals were the real heroes. They saved thousands of lives. Common Ground fed the multitudes with loaves and fishes and turned water into wine.

Remember those stirring shots of Rahim hoisting people up to safety in his helicopter? I don’t either. How tragic that none of their brave works have ever captured on film. And yet we’ve seen thousands of photos of the National Guard helping the Katrina victims.

It must be that evil racism at work again, preventing anybody from being able to see their noble deeds. The debil.

There is certainly nothing particularly newsworthy about a politician going to jail for lining his own pockets. But just as a thought experiment, try to find any mention of former Representative Ballance’s party affiliation.

It’s not mentioned in any of the half dozen or so articles that I have scanned about his departure for jail, including this typically upbeat story about what a great guy he is:

Former U.S. Congressman Frank Ballance, joined by his mother Alice, arrives at the “People’s Freedom Rally”, which was held in his honor Wednesday night.

Farewell rally for former Congressman heading to prison

Supporters of Frank Ballance say they will stand by him over the next four years

Laila Muhammad
WNCT-TV 9
Wednesday, December 28, 2005

A former Congressman is packing his bags for the big house. Frank Ballance is expected to show up to begin a four-year sentence for money laundering on Friday.

But Wednesday night supporters of Ballance threw him a farewell rally in Roanoke Rapids.

Organizers say they asked people to bring donations as another sign of support for Ballance. And the more than 80 supporters at the farewell say they plan to stand behind Ballance for the next four years.

There were cheers of support and songs of hope honoring former Congressman Frank Ballance.

"He was still a good man, he did a lot of good things so I choose to have the glass half full when it comes to frank not half empty," says supporter Dorothy White Cannon.

"Even though he’s had a tragedy here, that he’s made some mistakes, it doesn’t mean that all the good work that he’s done is forgotten," says Gary Grant, the rally organizer.

Many supporters like Gary Gant say they believe racism played a role in Ballance’s punishment.

"He should have never plead guilty, we also think that the sentencing is too harsh," says Grant.

"People who know me know that I am not a thief, I am not a crook, I’m a person who tries to help people," says Frank Balance.

Reporter: "What about the charges of money laundering, what you say to that?"

Ballance: "No such thing ever happened."

However Ballance says he admits that he did make some mistakes, like giving a grant to a church organization that his son oversaw.

"It was a mistake in hindsight to give that grant because my son was involved and if we had filed the 990’s (tax forms) in a timely fashion, that would have been disclosed and it would not have looked like something that was trying to be covered up," says Ballance.

For now, Ballance says it’s time to move forward and prepare for the next four years behind bars.

"You have to use comparative analysis and decide whether or not Frank Ballance what he did deserved a four-year jail term, so that’s my appeal, my appeal is to the public," says Ballance.

And for his supporters, it’s an appeal they’ve already decided to accept.

"We’re going to be here for him in jail and out of jail," says Cannon.

Ballance says his legal fees are already paid for and he will use his donations however he chooses.

Ballance will head to the federal prison in Butner on Friday to begin his four-year sentence. He says he hopes to use that time to mentor others and fight injustices in the federal prison system.

You would never know from this article or any of the others on him that Ballance had even done anything wrong. But in actual fact:

On September 2, 2004, Ballance was indicted on federal charges including, money laundering, mail fraud, and conspiracy to commit mail fraud with his son, Garey Ballance, a state district judge in Warren County, North Carolina. Garey Ballance is also charged in the indictment with income tax evasion.

The charges arose after allegations were made that the elder Ballance took $2.3 million in state funds he secured as a State Senator for the John A. Hyman Memorial Youth Foundation and used the cash for the enrichment of himself, his family, and his church.

On November 9, 2004, a plea agreement was reached under which Ballance pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and money laundering. In January, 2005, he was disbarred from the practice of law in the state of North Carolina. On October 12, 2005, he was sentenced to four years in prison, two years supervised release, and fined $10,000.

And of course you would never know from this or any of the other articles about him that Ballance is a lifelong Democrat, in case you hadn’t guessed it by now. But that is the only way you would know — by guessing.

Again, it is old news to mention, but it is clearly an unwritten law that our one party media must studiously avoid reporting party affiliation when Democrats get into trouble. Yet when there is a Republican involved in even the slightest trangression, the DNC/MSM never leave any doubt what party he belongs to. (Cf. Delay, Tom.)

But what media bias, right?

Finally, the Department Of Justice is taking on one of our most dangerous enemies in the war on terror, The New York Times.

Of course the DNC’s Associated Press try to spin this terrible news as best they can:

 

NY Times hero couple, Ethel And Julius Rosenberg - KGB codename "Liberal."

Justice Dept. Probing Domestic Spying Leak

Dec 30, 2:15 PM EST

By TONI LOCY
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department has opened an investigation into the leak of classified information about President Bush’s secret domestic spying program.

The inquiry focuses on disclosures to The New York Times about warrantless surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, officials said.

The Times revealed the existence of the program two weeks ago in a front-page story that acknowledged the news had been withheld from publication for a year, partly at the request of the administration and partly because the newspaper wanted more time to confirm various aspects of the program.

White House spokesman Trent Duffy said Justice undertook the action on its own, and the president was informed of it on Friday.

"The leaking of classified information is a serious issue. The fact is that al-Qaida’s playbook is not printed on Page One and when America’s is, it has serious ramifications," Duffy told reporters in Crawford, Texas, where Bush was spending the holidays.

Catherine Mathis, a spokeswoman for The Times, said the paper will not comment on the investigation.

Revelation of the secret spying program unleashed a firestorm of criticism of the administration. Some critics accused the president of breaking the law by authorizing intercepts of conversations - without prior court approval or oversight - of people inside the United States and abroad who had suspected ties to al-Qaida or its affiliates.

The surveillance program, which Bush acknowledged authorizing, bypassed a nearly 30-year-old secret court established to oversee highly sensitive investigations involving espionage and terrorism.

Administration officials insisted that Bush has the power to conduct the warrantless surveillance under the Constitution’s war powers provision. They also argued that Congress gave Bush the power to conduct such a secret program when it authorized the use of military force against terrorism in a resolution adopted within days of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The Justice Department’s investigation was being initiated after the agency received a request for the probe from the NSA.

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has been conducting a separate leak investigation to determine who in the administration leaked CIA operative Valerie Plame’s name to the media in 2003.

Several reporters have been called to testify before a grand jury or to give depositions. New York Times reporter Judith Miller spent 85 days in jail, refusing to reveal her source, before testifying in the probe.

The administration’s legal interpretation of the president’s powers allowed the government to avoid requirements under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in conducting the warrantless surveillance.

The act established procedures that an 11-member court used in 2004 to oversee nearly 1,800 government applications for secret surveillance or searches of foreigners and U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism or espionage.

Congressional leaders have said they were not briefed four years ago, when the secret program began, as thoroughly as the administration has since contended.

Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle said in an article printed last week on the op-ed page of The Washington Post that Congress explicitly denied a White House request for war-making authority in the United States.

"This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas … but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens," Daschle wrote.

Daschle was Senate Democratic leader at the time of the 2001 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington. He is now a fellow at the Center for American Progress, a liberal Washington think tank.

The administration formally defended its domestic spying program in a letter to Congress last week, saying the nation’s security outweighs privacy concerns of individuals who are monitored.

In a letter to the chairs of the House and Senate intelligence committees, the Justice Department said Bush authorized conducting electronic surveillance without first obtaining a warrant in an effort to thwart terrorist acts against the United States.

Assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella acknowledged "legitimate" privacy interests. But he said those interests "must be balanced" against national security.

I suspect nothing will come of it, because everyone, especially the GOP, is afraid of our one party media.

But this is the traditional time of year for renewed hope.

Of course it's the same old song of seditious lies, vicious smears and implicit threats. Mother Sheehan seems to be mentally incapable of saying anything new — or even slightly factual.

From that corpulent hypocrite who manages to be both a war and anti-war profiteer, Michael Moore's website:

2006: The Year the Chickenhawks Will Go Home to Roost

…a message from Cindy Sheehan

Since hot, hot Camp Casey in August, some amazing grass roots actions have taken place all over the country. People are starting to speak up and Congress has begun to take action against the criminal and neo-Fascist regime that tried to take over America.

From Camp Casey to Katrina to use of chemical weaponry and extraordinary rendition to illegally spying on American citizens without due process, Bushco has miserably failed our country and the world. We as Americans said "enough is enough." We sacrificed a lot when we showed up in DC and other cities around the country in the hundreds of thousands to protest against and show that we withdraw any consent to be governed by murderous thugs. We started to peacefully, but forcefully resist the notion that this government has any right to govern us when they have betrayed their offices and their sacred trusts as "defenders" of the Constitution so horribly.

This was also the year that we began to hold such Republicans in Democratic clothing like: Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, Joe Biden, and Diane Feinstein (list is by no means all inclusive) accountable for their support of what George is doing in Iraq. When we as Democrats elect our leaders we expect them to reject and loudly repudiate the murderous and corrupt policies of this administration — not support and defend them.

There are Camp Caseys in front of Hillary's and Chuck Schumer's offices in Long Island every Friday, as well as one in front of Diane Feinstein's Los Angeles office on Fridays. There has been a Camp Casey in front of Kay Bailey Hutchinson's office in Dallas since August. Several protesters have been arrested in Dallas exercising their First Amendment rights. We need to let these warmongers, as well as the Republican warmongers, know that we mean business when we say "bring them home now." Set up Camp Caseys in front of your Senator's or Congress person's office if they support George in his wars of aggression.

Gold Star Families for Peace (www.gsfp.org) is planning many activities for the first part of 2006. I would like to give you all a heads-up on them, so you can make your plans accordingly to support us and to join us if at all possible.

On January 31st, we will be in Washington, DC for the State of the Union address when George gets in front of Congress and the world and lies through his teeth about how great everything is going in Iraq and here at home. His idiotic policies have ruined Iraq and New Orleans and made the world a more dangerous place…allowing that terrorist attacks have tripled world wide since he decided to "fight them over there." He also may be laying the ground work for further acts of needless aggression against Syria and Iraq. GSFP and representatives from other peace organizations and refugees from New Orleans will be gathering in DC to give the "Real State of the Union." Check our website for place and time.

For the Love of God, Can't you Make Him Stop? Recently, it was revealed that George only interacts with four people: Laura, Condi, Karen Hughes and his Mom. His Mom, the Ice Queen who didn't want her "pretty mind" burdened with the images of flag draped coffins coming home, lives in Houston. On President's Day, (Feb. 20) we will be demonstrating in front of her house to implore her to forget about the obscene profits that her family and their friends are making off of this occupation and to beg her to finally do the right thing and make her son stop this insane war OF terror against the world. George and Dick are defiling the highest offices of the world and they need to resign. On President's Day, when we have the day off, we need to demonstrate against the ones who are illegitimately in power, anyway. If you can't make it to Houston, organize your own President's Day protest.

The Camp Casey Peace Foundation will hold its first annual Peace Festival and Concert on April 4, 2006. April 4th is the day Casey and Martin Luther King, Jr. were killed. We want to turn it into a true day for celebrating peace. The Camp Casey Peace Foundation will be awarding the Casey Sheehan Peace Prize, a cash prize, to a young peace activist every year. We want to foster the growth of solving problems non-violently and young people are the ones who get killed in the gray haired old men's wars. We are working on an exciting event and we will announce more details as the event draws closer.

Camp Casey Easter edition: We will be heading back to our leased land in Crawford April 11th to Easter, which is April 16th. Easter is a time of renewal and hopeful promises. Casey was killed on Palm Sunday and his body was returned to us in the cargo section of a United Airlines flight on Holy Saturday and we buried him two days after Easter. Last Easter Season was so painful to us. This Easter we will again be demonstrating in front of the man's home who is responsible for such pain and abject heartache in the world. But, we will be there with a renewed sense of hope that the Chickenhawks will be sent out to pasture this year. Like Michael Moore, I want to be a fly on the wall when Bush and company are hauled out of the White House in handcuffs. Impeachment is not necessary for people who never were elected…eviction is what is needed. If you can't join us in Crawford, set up your own Camp Casey near you.

In 2005, we learned that we have the power. We learned that we can't rely on the propaganda media or the empty promises of most of our elected leadership. We learned that we need to be the change that we desire to see.

We learned that one person can and does make a difference.

We cannot relax in 2006. We cannot slip back into the evil of apathy and complacency that the neocons rejoice in. We need to keep pounding, working, and fighting. We need to support organizations like Gold Star Families for Peace, Veterans for Peace (www.veteransforpeace.org), Code Pink (www.codepink4peace.org) and Iraq Veterans Against the War (www.ivaw.net), or the Peace organization of your choice so we can continue our struggle for peace with justice. We need to support true American patriots like John Conyers who is calling for an investigation and censure for the lies that have cost us so much of our national human treasure.

2006 will be a great year for the people of our country. I know it.

It won't be easy, but we will prevail and the struggle will be worth it.

Notice Peace Mom Sheehan keeps insisting she has made such a difference. I guess she has to claim this, since her latest book is going to be about how she made a difference. But has she really?

Honestly, what real difference has Mother Sheehan made? Have we surrendered to the jihadists? Are we pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan before the job is done? Have we thrown Israel to the wolves as she wants?

Have our duly elected representatives (aka "murderous thugs") been thrown out of office? Have the officials who were twice picked by 60 million voters been replaced by Cindy's choices?

Apart from giving some terrorists hope and the will to kill a few more US and Iraqi soldiers or Iraqi civilians — what real difference has Mother Sheehan made in the world?

Compare her (non) accomplishments to the people who prevented any further terrorist acts on our shores and brought about elections in Iraq and Afghanistan? The very people Cindy hates so vehemently.

I suspect what is fueling Mother Sheehan is her powerlessness.

Cindy is frustrated that she can't help her "freedom fighters" destroy Western Civilization. She resents that she can't consign those 50 million Afghanis and Iraqis back to despotism.

Most of all Mother Sheehan hates that she can't make the sacrifices of our brave soldiers, including her son's, to have been for nothing.

(Thanks to every vigilant, Zilla , for the heads up.)

How soon (and conveniently) the media forget.

Behold this passage from the May 2002 issue of the DNC organ,
Newsweek :

US District
Judge Royce C. Lamberth

WHAT WENT WRONG

The inside story of the missed signals and intelligence failures that
raise a chilling question: did September 11 have to happen?

By Michael Hirsh and Michael Isikoff
May 27/02

…NEWSWEEK has learned there was one other major complication as America
headed into that threat-spiked summer.

In Washington, Royce Lamberth,
chief judge of the special federal court [the FISA Court] that reviews
national-security wiretaps, erupted in anger when he found that an FBI
official was misrepresenting petitions for taps on terror suspects. Lamberth
prodded Ashcroft to launch an investigation, which reverberated throughout
the bureau.

From the summer of 2000 on into the following year, sources said, the
FBI was forced to shut down wiretaps of Qaeda-related suspects connected to
the 1998 African embassy bombing investigation.

“It was a major problem,”
said one source familiar with the case, who estimated that 10 to 20 Qaeda
wiretaps had to be shut down, as well as wiretaps into a separate New York
investigation of Hamas.

The effect was to stymie terror surveillance at exactly the moment it
was needed most…

And yet elsewhere Judge Lamberth has
bizarrely cited the African embassy wiretaps as proof of the importance of his
job:

An Interview with Judge Royce C. Lamberth

Judge Royce C. Lamberth, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia,
was appointed to the federal bench in 1987. Before joining the Judiciary he
was a U.S. Army Captain in the JAG Corps, an assistant U.S. attorney, and
Chief of the Department of Justice Civil Division. He recently completed a
term as presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Q: You’ve called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court "the least
known, but probably most important court in the war on terrorism?" Why?

A: The FISC has nationwide jurisdiction to authorize the United States
government to conduct electronic surveillances and physical searches for
national security purposes when the target is a foreign power or the
individual is acting as the agent of a foreign power. Major international
terrorist groups may be targeted by the FBI, CIA, NSA and other intelligence
agencies. Since 9-11, invaluable intelligence information has been sought
and obtained as a result of warrants and orders issued by this court.

There’s no question that every judge who has ever served on this court has
thought it was the most significant thing they’ve ever done as a judge.
When I did the hearings on the embassy bombings in Africa, we started the
hearings in my living room at 3:00 in the morning. And some of the taps I
did that night turned out to be very significant and were used in the New
York trials of the people indicted for the bombings.

These wiretaps were so "significant" that Lamberth stopped them and any
others like them in the year and a half prior to 9/11 — just because of a
personal snit.

Something to bear in mind when we hear it bewailed how Bush neglected to go
to the FISA court for permission to monitor al Qaeda phone calls.

From the Madison based Wisconsin State Journal:

Teacher pursues free speech lawsuit

DEE J. HALL

DEC 26, 2005

In the tense months before the United States invaded Iraq, elementary school teacher Deb Mayer was asked by one of her students whether she’d ever join an anti-war protest. The question was prompted by a Time For Kids magazine story that Mayer’s students had just read about a peace march in Washington, D.C.

Mayer, who had never been politically active, told her Bloomington, Ind., class that she sometimes blew her car horn to support demonstrators carrying "Honk for Peace" signs at the local courthouse. Mayer also told the class she thought it was important to seek out peaceful solutions before going to war.

That conversation in January 2003, which lasted all of five minutes, launched a nearly three-year odyssey for Mayer, who now lives in Madison as she awaits the outcome of her federal lawsuit against the Monroe County, Ind., school system for firing her.

Mayer and her son, Jake, share an apartment near the Veterans Hospital in Madison, where he is the chief resident for internal medicine. Mayer has two other sons, including one who is in the Army, deployed to Afghanistan.

Mayer, 56, insists her contract to teach at Clear Creek Elementary School was not renewed because administrators and the parents of one of her students strongly disagreed with her pro-peace statements. In her lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Mayer alleges the school District violated her constitutional right to free speech.

A call to the attorney for the Monroe County Community School Corp. wasn’t returned. But the district’s position is outlined in a 34-page court brief seeking dismissal of the case.

School officials contend Mayer was fired for poor performance in her alternative learning classroom, which included students in grades 4 through 6. They say Mayer’s statements concerning peace were just a small part of the problem.

"Ms. Mayer’s speech on the war was not the reason for her ultimate termination," the School District said. "Instead . . . the motivating factor for her termination was her poor classroom performance, the ongoing parental dissatisfaction and the allegations of harassment and threats toward students."

They allege that Mayer was rude and demeaning to students and their grades suffered as a result. They said six students asked to be transferred from the class, including the daughter of the parents who protested Mayer’s peace discussion. And after being told not to talk about the impending war, Mayer did it again, the brief said.

Mayer said she never talked about it after the "peace incident," for fear of losing her job. Her concerns were heightened by the school’s decision to cancel its annual Peace Month, a memo sent to teachers warning them "not to promote any particular view on foreign policy related to the situation in Iraq" and a note sent to her to "refrain from expressing your political views."

Mayer said the allegations that she was demeaning and rude to students are "patently false." She said she heard the allegations for the first time this summer, more than two years after her contract was discontinued and only after she rejected the district’s offer of a $5,000 settlement.

"The school is really trying to prove that I was a bad teacher when I have never been known except as an excellent teacher," said Mayer, whose teaching career spanned more than 20 years, including at the university level and at The Key School, a well- respected public school run by teachers in Indianapolis.

Mayer believes the decision in her case, expected to go to trial March 6, could provide important guidance about what teachers can say to students.

"This is what I would call a classic First Amendment, free-speech case," said Mayer’s attorney, Michael Schultz of Indianapolis. "It tests the boundaries of what rights under the Constitution a teacher has to say things. It’s really hard to imagine a situation in which a teacher gives lessons about peace as an alternative to war, and she gets disciplined for it."

The Bloomington, Ind., School District argues that previous courts have ruled teachers have no constitutional right to choose their curriculum and therefore "Ms. Mayer’s classroom speech is not constitutionally protected." Mayer and Schultz counter that other court decisions hold that "neither students nor teachers ’shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.’"

In November, Madison had its own debate over the limits of political expression in the classroom. Allis Elementary School canceled a student project to write a series of letters to a variety of recipients urging an end to the war after the grandmother of a student complained. Superintendent Art Rainwater said the assignment violated a School Board policy against using students in any political activity.

John Matthews, president of Madison Teachers Inc., said the district’s collective bargaining agreement advises teachers to present controversial topics "only after careful study and planning" and to confer with the principal if there’s any doubt. Teachers also are advised to withhold expressing their personal opinions unless responding to a direct question.

"We’ve had zero problems if people follow this," Matthews said.

The statewide teachers union also gets very few inquiries from educators who feel their free-speech rights have been violated, said Bruce Meredith, general counsel for the Wisconsin Education Association Council.

Meredith said in most Wisconsin cases, disputes about what teachers can say in the classroom are worked out informally on the local level. Most teachers use common sense in determining what they should say to students and "most school districts, to use a phrase, don’t want to make a federal case of it," he said.

"Most teachers are pretty sensitive to their audience, and most school boards are sensitive to their teachers’ First-Amendment rights," Meredith said. "If you’re teaching a social- studies class, obviously you’ve got more leeway talking about the Iraq war than if you’re teaching a biology class."

Mayer said her experience has turned her, for the first time in her life, into a peace activist. Mayer moved to Vermont for a time in 2004 to work for Howard Dean, the anti-war Democratic presidential candidate. When Dean was knocked out of the race, she joined the John Kerry campaign in Madison.

This summer, Mayer camped with Cindy Sheehan in Crawford, Texas, outside President Bush’s ranch. And in September, she joined thousands of anti-war protesters at a march in Washington, D.C. She now heads a fledgling Madison-based group called Share the Sacrifice to help returning war veterans and to advocate for peace.

Mayer hopes her lawsuit will at least recoup the $60,000 she’s spent in legal fees fighting the black mark on her teaching career. And she hopes it will make it safer for teachers to talk about the important issues of the day.

Said Mayer: "I had $90,000 in the bank. I had a home. I had health insurance. I had all of that. And now that’s all gone - and all because I made one simple statement. It turned my life upside down."

Yeah, it sounds like she has been suffering non-stop and eating dirt sandwiches because she is so poor. Nevermind that she had the time and money to work for Dean and Kerry and camp out with Mother Sheehan.

Clearly she sees this lawsuit as her ticket to the big time. She could be rich and famous like Cindy.

Isn’t irony ironic?

Our oh-so-high-minded social commentator, Joel Krupnik, is now trying to make a buck off of his protest about the "commercialization of Christmas."

From those keepers of the faith at the DNC’s Associated Press:

Manhattan’s slasher-Santa display for sale

Dec 26, 12:09 AM EST

NEW YORK (AP) — For the man who has everything - or someone really desperate to find a last-minute gift - Joel Krupnik and Mildred Castellanos have an answer: Their red-suited Santa Claus figure, holding a bloody knife in one hand and a severed doll’s head in the other, went up for auction on Christmas Day.

Already, bidding had reached $200 and "might go higher, maybe even to $500," the New York Post quoted Krupnik as saying.

Lest anyone be offended - and some people were - Krupnik had explained earlier that the macabre holiday display outside the couple’s midtown Manhattan home was intended as a protest against the commercialization of Christmas.

The bids were to be deposited in a box next to the 5-foot tall Santa, to be opened after 3 p.m. Krupnik, whose telephone is unlisted, could not be reached late Sunday afternoon for a final accounting.

The auction proceeds would go to the highest bidder’s favorite charity, according to a sign next to the display, which also included a number of other Barbie doll heads.

As for any critics suggesting the display was sacrilegious, Krupnik said St. Nick "is not in the Bible. He’s not a religious symbol."

Did Mr. Krupnik ever explain why a non-Christian (in fact, a non-observant Jew) would care one way or the other if Christmas was commercialized?

Or was that just Krupnik’s handy excuse for this vicious attack on another religion?

Update!

Here is yet another uplifting story about tolerance from NBC5.com:

Homeowner Hangs Bound, Blindfolded Santa From Tree

MIAMI BEACH, Fla. — In one South Florida community, a man’s holiday decorations are causing holiday fear for local children instead of creating holiday cheer.

Residents called police and complained to the city that a house in Miami Beach had a life-sized, blindfolded Santa Claus doll hanging from a tree with its hands tied.

Some residents were furious and said their naughty neighbor put jolly old St. Nick in a position that is not too merry. But even police officers couldn’t save a Santa who was bound, gagged and hanging for the holidays.

The owner of the house said it’s freedom of speech. But his neighbors think it’s the start of a creepy Christmas.

"It’s not healthy. I mean, if somebody has something against Santa Claus or something, maybe express it in some other way," resident Lori Vega said.

Parents are afraid the decoration will cause a nightmare before Christmas for their children.

"I’m not sure what his reasoning is, but a lot of little kids are upset by it," one parent said.

The owner of the house said the Santa Claus was an artistic expression.

It looks like Clinton crony and DNC stooge, Ron Fournier, got a little extra something in his pay envelope this week from Santa Soros:

Democratic activist Dave Renzella, a member of MoveOn.org,

Internet gives rise to people-driven political movements

Saturday December 24, 2005
By RON FOURNIER

FORT MYERS, Fla. (AP) Frustrated by government and empowered by technology, Americans are filling needs and fighting causes through grass-roots organizations they built themselves some sophisticated, others quaintly ad hoc.

This is the era of people-driven politics.

From a homemaker-turned-kingmaker in Pittsburgh to dog owners in New York to a “gym rat” here in southwest Florida, people are using the Internet to do what politicians can’t or won’t do.

This is their story, but it’s also an American story because ordinary folks are doing the extraordinary to find people with similar interests, organize them and create causes and connections.

“People are just beginning to realize how much power they have,” said Chris Kofinis, a Democratic consultant who specializes in grass-roots organizing via the Internet.

“At a time when we are craving community and meaning in our lives, people are using these technologies to find others with the same complaints and organize them,” he said. “They don’t have to just sit in a coffee shop and gripe about politics. They can change politics.”

Mary Shull changed her life, if not politics.

A lonely and frustrated liberal, the stay-at-home mother of two joined the liberal online group MoveOn.org in 2004. Working from home, the Pittsburgh woman helped round up votes for presidential candidatised $60 million for liberal causes in 2004. The group put its organizing muscle behind Cindy Sheehan last summer and helped make the “Peace Mom” a symbol of the anti-war movement.

Political activist Tom Hayden believes that the anti-war movement in the 1960s, which he helped organize, could have gained steam sooner had the Internet existed.

“Movements happen so much faster today,” he said.

And they come in all shapes and sizes.

Shannon Sullivan’s 9-year-old son wanted to know why Mayor James E. West [a Republican] used a city computer to solicit gay men over the Internet, and why nobody was doing anything about it.

“He’s the mayor,” Sullivan replied.

“Mom, you better do something.”

So she did. A single mother with a high school education and no political experience, Sullivan launched a recall campaign that used an Internet site to organize rallies and media events. Turns out there were thousands of other people in Spokane, Wash., who wondered why nobody was doing anything about West.

“I was mad at people for not doing anything. I was mad at the system and I was mad at James West,” she said after her campaign succeeded in convincing voters and the mayor was recalled. “I’m not so mad anymore.”

Roberta Bailey likes Pugs the jowly, wrinkly faced breed of dog she keeps as a pet. She also likes punk rock and people. With the help of the Internet, the Manhattan photographer found a way to combine her interests: She organized a group of Pug owners who fought to save a legendary punk venue.

“I got off my butt and did something cool,” she said.

Ust. I’m a gym rat,” he said, “but the Internet makes it easy to combine an interest in people with an interest in politics.”

Eli Pariser, the 25-year-old executive director of MoveOn Political Action, said the people-driven trend is a good thing for democracy, a chance to “shift the balance of power from established interests that can raise of lot of money and lobby special interests to a bunch of bubble-up, bottom-up citizen campaigns.”

These newly empowered constituents are using technology to send a message to politicians. Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack [Democrat] frequently hears from citizens via e-mails on his Blackberry.

“It’s great because it reconnects people to government. It’s created a sense of community and a sense of belonging,” he said.

Politicians who pay little heed could find frustrated voters banding together and creating a third-party movement.

“At some point this has got to reach critical mass,” Kofinis said. “Nobody knows when that will happen or how that will happen, but it will literally explode into a movement.”

Funny, I see only Democrats mentioned.

The only "political movement" mentioned, MoveOn.org , is a multi-million dollar concern started by a multi-millionaire pea-brain (whose only contribution to humanity was the "Flying Toasters" screensaver) which is now bankrolled by the billionaire America-hating criminal (literally), George Soros.

Yeah, that’s the epitome of a grassroots political movement. Just like Mr. Fournier is the epitome of an unbiased reporter.

From this article you would never know there were any Republicans on the internet, would you? Just hitherto un-empowered liberal Democrats — and pug owners.

What one party media?

Since we have been on a Thomas Nast tear lately, it is only right and fitting that we should return to him at Christmas, as he is more or less the inventor of our Santa Claus.

Surprisingly, Nast's very first depiction of Santa Claus was a piece of political propaganda, done at the request of President Lincoln himself.

Lincoln thought a drawing showing Santa Claus in the Union camp would boost the North's morale and demoralize the South. It is reported to have accomplished both of these goals.

Shocking, isn't it? Our one party media's delicate sensibilities would not stand for such an outrage today. Unless of course it was done to further their agenda.

From the Son Of The South's Thomas Nast Collection:

Thomas Nast's Original Civil War "Santa Claus In Camp"

This is Thomas Nast's earliest published picture of Santa Claus. Nast is generally credited with creating our popular image of Santa. This illustration appeared in the January 3, 1863 edition of Harper's Weekly, and shows Santa Claus visiting a Civil War Camp. In the background, a sign can be seen that reads "Welcome Santa Claus."

The illustration shows Santa handing out gifts to Children and Soldiers. One soldier receives a new pair of socks, which would no doubt be one of the most wonderful things a soldier of the time could receive. Santa is pictured sitting on his sleigh, which is being pulled by reindeer. Santa is pictured with a long white beard, a furry hat, collar and belt. We can see that many of our modern perceptions of Santa Claus are demonstrated in the 140 year old print.

Perhaps most interesting about this print is the special gift in Santa's hand. Santa is holding a dancing puppet of none-other-than Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America. The likeness to Jefferson Davis is unmistakable. Even more interesting, Davis appears to have the string tied around his neck, so Santa appears to by Lynching Jefferson Davis!

And from the archives of Harper's Weekly :

While setting the national standard, Nast’s own depiction of Santa Claus changed over the years. He began his almost-annual contribution of Christmas illustrations when he joined the staff of Harper’s Weekly in 1862 during the Civil War.

His first Santa (in the postdated January 3, 1863 issue) is a small elf distributing Christmas presents to Union soldiers in camp. Santa dangles by the neck a comical jumping jack identified in accompanying text as Jefferson Davis, the Confederate president. There was no doubt in Nast’s illustration whose side Santa favors in the war.

Although other artists of the period sketched Santa Claus, Nast stands apart from the rest for his role in creating and popularizing the modern image of the Christmas figure. He contributed 33 Christmas drawings to Harper’s Weekly from 1863 through 1886, and Santa is seen or referenced in all but one.

Nast’s full-page illustration of Santa Claus in 1881 [below] quickly attained status akin to an official portrait, and is still widely reproduced today. Before Nast, different regions, ethnic groups, and artists in the United States presented Santa Claus in various ways. A sketch in Harper’s Weekly from 1858 shows a beardless Santa whose sleigh is pulled by a turkey.

Nast was instrumental in standardizing and nationalizing the image of a jolly, kind, and portly Santa in a red, fur-trimmed suit delivering toys from his North Pole workshop.

Our "watchdog" media is at it again. Trumpeting a secret and legalprogram that was put in place to try to protect our safety.

Well, what is more important, catching a dirty bomb before it can go off, or the people’s right to know?

Luckily, US New & World Report has its priorities straight:

Nuclear Monitoring of Muslims Done Without Search Warrants

By David E. Kaplan

In search of a terrorist nuclear bomb, the federal government since 9/11 has run a far-reaching, top secret program to monitor radiation levels at over a hundred Muslim sites in the Washington, D.C., area, including mosques, homes, businesses, and warehouses, plus similar sites in at least five other cities, U.S. Newshas learned. In numerous cases, the monitoring required investigators to go on to the property under surveillance, although no search warrants or court orders were ever obtained, according to those with knowledge of the program. Some participants were threatened with loss of their jobs when they questioned the legality of the operation, according to these accounts.

Federal officials familiar with the program maintain that warrants are unneeded for the kind of radiation sampling the operation entails, but some legal scholars disagree. News of the program comes in the wake of revelations last week that, after 9/11, the Bush White House approved electronic surveillance of U.S. targets by the National Security Agency without court orders. These and other developments suggest that the federal government’s domestic spying programs since 9/11 have been far broader than previously thought.

The nuclear surveillance program began in early 2002 and has been run by the FBI and the Department of Energy’s Nuclear Emergency Support Team (NEST). Two individuals, who declined to be named because the program is highly classified, spoke to U.S. Newsbecause of their concerns about the legality of the program. At its peak, they say, the effort involved three vehicles in Washington, D.C., monitoring 120 sites per day, nearly all of them Muslim targets drawn up by the FBI. For some ten months, officials conducted daily monitoring, and they have resumed daily checks during periods of high threat. The program has also operated in at least five other cities when threat levels there have risen: Chicago, Detroit, Las Vegas, New York, and Seattle.

FBI officials expressed concern that discussion of the program would expose sensitive methods used in counterterrorism. Although NEST staffers have demonstrated their techniques on national television as recently as October, U.S. Newshas omitted details of how the monitoring is conducted. Officials from four different agencies declined to respond on the record about the classified program: the FBI, Energy Department, Justice Department, and National Security Council. "We don’t ever comment on deployments," said Bryan Wilkes, a spokesman for DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration, which manages NEST.

In Washington, the sites monitored have included prominent mosques and office buildings in suburban Maryland and Virginia. One source close to the program said that participants "were tasked on a daily and nightly basis," and that FBI and Energy Department officials held regular meetings to update the monitoring list. "The targets were almost all U.S. citizens," says the source. "A lot of us thought it was questionable, but people who complained nearly lost their jobs. We were told it was perfectly legal."

The question of search warrants is controversial, however. To ensure accurate readings, in up to 15 percent of the cases the monitoring needed to take place on private property, sources say, such as on mosque parking lots and private driveways. Government officials familiar with the program insist it is legal; warrants are unneeded for monitoring from public property, they say, as well as from publicly accessible driveways and parking lots. "If a delivery man can access it, so can we," says one.

Georgetown University Professor David Cole, a constitutional law expert, disagrees. Surveillance of public spaces such as mosques or public businesses might well be allowable without a court order, he argues, but not private offices or homes: "They don’t need a warrant to drive onto the property — the issue isn’t where they are, but whether they’re using a tactic to intrude on privacy. It seems to me that they are, and that they would need a warrant or probable cause."

Cole points to a 2001 Supreme Court decision, U.S. vs. Kyllo, which looked at police use — without a search warrant — of thermal imaging technology to search for marijuana-growing lamps in a home. The court, in a ruling written by Justice Antonin Scalia, ruled that authorities did in fact need a warrant — that the heat sensors violated the Fourth Amendment’s clause against unreasonable search and seizure. But officials familiar with the FBI/NEST program say the radiation sensors are different and are only sampling the surrounding air. "This kind of program only detects particles in the air, it’s non directional," says one knowledgeable official. "It’s not a whole lot different from smelling marijuana."

Officials also reject any notion that the program specifically has targeted Muslims. "We categorically do not target places of worship or entities solely based on ethnicity or religious affiliation," says one. "Our investigations are intelligence driven and based on a criminal predicate."

Among those said to be briefed on the monitoring program were Vice President Richard Cheney; Michael Brown, then-director of the Federal Emergency Management Administration; and Richard Clarke, then a top counterterrorism official at the National Security Council. After 9/11, top officials grew increasingly concerned over the prospect of nuclear terrorism. Just weeks after the World Trade Center attacks, a dubious informant named Dragonfire warned that al Qaeda had smuggled a nuclear device into New York City; NEST teams swept the city and found nothing. But as evidence seized from Afghan camps confirmed al Qaeda’s interest in nuclear technology, radiation detectors were temporarily installed along Washington, D.C., highways and the Muslim monitoring program began.

Most staff for the monitoring came from NEST, which draws from nearly 1,000 nuclear scientists and technicians based largely at the country’s national laboratories. For 30 years, NEST undercover teams have combed suspected sites looking for radioactive material, using high-tech detection gear fitted onto various aircraft, vehicles, and even backpacks and attaché cases. No dirty bombs or nuclear devices have ever been found - and that includes the post-9/11 program. "There were a lot of false positives, and one or two were alarming," says one source. "But in the end we found nothing."

Isn’t the world a better place now that you have been informed of this dastardly program?

Can you believe the jackbooted fascists ® in the Bush administration would deny US citizens their Constitutional right to make nuclear bombs?

The nerve.

Despite being married to uber peacenik Congressman, John Conyers (D-Iraq) and, this being the season of "Peace On Earth," there is this bit of news from the DNC's Associated Press :

Wife of Congressman Involved in Bar Fight

Fri Dec 23

The wife of Democratic U.S. Rep. John Conyers has been accused of punching a woman in the eye during a bar fight.

A spokesman for Monica Conyers, a city councilwoman-elect, confirmed Friday that she was involved in an altercation. But he said Conyers merely defended herself after being attacked by another woman.

The spokesman said Rebecca Mews became upset Tuesday during a birthday celebration for an attorney, who Mews says was her date. While Conyers was speaking with the man, Mews "came over and literally started spewing obscene names," and shoved Conyers, said Conyers' chief of staff, Sam Riddle.

"This woman was obviously drunk, and the councilwoman vigorously defended herself," he said.

Mews, who appeared on WDIV-TV on Thursday with a black eye, denied she was intoxicated. Mews said that when Conyers began speaking to her date with her back to her, she tapped her on the shoulder and said, "Pardon me."

"She turned around and began yelling at me," Mews said. "When I began yelling back at her, she punches me in my left eye several times," Mews said. "I never struck her. Never once did I hit her."

A message seeking comment was left Friday at a telephone listing for Mews.

Both women filed police reports. A message left with police Friday was not immediately returned.

Here is the pugilist, Madam Conyers, with her America hating peace loving husband, in happier times:

Here is an instructive letter from the Department Of Justice in response to the Democrats' latest ginned-up agit-prop about "spying":

U. S. Department of Justice
Office of Legislative Affairs

December 22, 2005

The Honorable Pat Roberts
Chairman
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

The Honorable John D. Rockefeller, IV
Vice Chairman
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

The Honorable Peter Hoekstra
Chairman
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Jane Harman
Ranking Minority Member
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairmen Roberts and Hoekstra. Vice Chairman Rockefeller, and Ranking Member Harman:

As you know, in response to unauthorized disclosures in the media, the President has described certain activities of the National Security Agency ("NSA") that he has authorized since shortly after September 11, 2001 . As described by the President, the NSA intercepts certain international communications into and out of the United States of people linked to al Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist organization. The purpose of these intercepts is to establish an early warning system to detect and prevent another catastrophic terrorist attack on the United States. The President has made clear that he will use his constitutional and statutory authorities to protect the Amer~can people from further terrorist attacks, and the NSA activities the President described are part of that effort. Leaders of the Congress were briefed on these activities more than a dozen times.

The purpose of this letter is to provide an additional brief summary of the legal authority supporting the NSA activities described by the President.

As an initial matter, I emphasize a few points. The President stated that these activities are crucial to our national security." The President further explained that "the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country." These critical national security activities remain classified. All United States laws and policies governing the protection and nondisclosure of national security information. including the information relating to the activities described by the President, remain in full force and effect. The unauthorized disclosure of classified information violates federal criminal law. The Government may provide further classified briefings to the Congress on these activities in an appropriate manner. Any such briefings will be conducted in a manner that will not endanger national security.

Under Article 11 of the Constitution, including in his capacity as Commander in Chief, the President has the responsibility to protect the Nation from further attacks, and the Constitution gives him all necessary authority to fulfill that duty. See, e.g., Prize Cases, 67 U.S. (2 Black) 635, 668 (1863) (stressing that if the Nation is invaded, "the President is not only authorized but hound to resist by force . . . . without waiting for any special legislative authority"); Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19,27 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (Silberman, J., concurring) ("[T]he Prize Cases. . . stand for the proposition that the President has independent authority to repel aggressive acts by third parties even without specific congressional authorization, and courts may not review the level of force selected."); id.at 40 (Tatel, J., concurring). The Congress recognized this constitutional authority in the preamble to the Authorization for the Use of Military Force ("AUMF") of September 18, 2001, 115 Stat. 224 (2001) ("[T]he President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States."), and in the War Powers Resolution, see 50 U.S.C. 8 1541(c) ("The constitutional powers of the President as Commander in Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities[] . . . [extend to] a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.").

This constitutional authority includes the authority to order warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance within the United States, as all federal appellate courts, including at least four circuits, to have addressed the issue have concluded. See, e.g., In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 7 17, 742 (FISA Ct. of Review 2002) ("[A]ll the other courts to have decided the issue [have] held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority. . . ."). The Supreme Court has said that warrants are generally required in the context of purely domesticthreats. hut it expressly distinguished, foreignthreats. See United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297,308 (1972). As Justice Byron White recognized almost 40 years ago, Presidents have long exercised the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance for national security purposes, and a warrant is unnecessary "if the President of the United States or his chief legal officer, the Attorney General, has considered the requirements of national security and authorized electronic surveillance as reasonable." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 363-64 (1967) (White, J., concurring).

The President's constitutional authority to direct the NSA to conduct the activities he described is supplemented by statutory authority under the AUMF. The AUMF authorizes the President "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, . . . in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States." § 2(a), The AUMF clearly contemplates action within the United States, See also id.pmbl. (the attacks of September 11 "render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad"). The AUMF cannot be read as limited to authorizing the use of force against Afghanistan, as some have argued. Indeed, those who directly "committed" the attacks of September 11 resided in the United States for months before those attacks. The reality of the September 11 plot demonstrates that the authorization of force covers activities both on foreign soil and in America.

In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), the Supreme Court addressed the scope of the AUMF. At least five Justices concluded that the AUMF authorized the President to detain a U.S. citizen in the United States because "detention to prevent a combatant's return to the battlefield is a fundamental incident of waging war" and is therefore included in the "necessary and appropriate force" authorized by the Congress. Id.at 518-19 (plurality opinion of O'Connor, J.); see id.at 587 (Thomas, J., dissenting). These five Justices concluded that the AUMF "clearly and unmistakably authorize[s]" the "fundamental incident[s] of waging war." Id.at 518-19 (plurality opinion); see id.at 587 (Thomas, J., dissenting).

Communications intelligence targeted at the enemy is a fundamental incident of the use of military force. Indeed, throughout history, signals intelligence has formed a critical part of waging war. In the Civil War, each side tapped the telegraph lines of the other. In the World Wars, the United States intercepted telegrams into and out of the country. The AUMF cannot be read to exclude this long-recognized and essential authority to conduct communications intelligence targeted at the enemy. We cannot fight a war blind. Because communications intelligence activities constitute, to use the language of Hamdi, a fundamental incident of waging war, the AUMF clearly and unmistakably authorizessuch activities directed against the communications of our enemy. Accordingly, the President's "authority is at its maximum." Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring); see Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654, 668 (1981); cf: Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 585 (noting the absence of a statute "from which [the asserted authority] c[ould] be fairly implied").

The President's authorization of targeted electronic surveillance by the NSA is also consistent with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA"). Section 2511(2)(f) of title 18 provides, relevant here, that the procedures of FISA and two chapters of title 18 "shall be the as exclusive means by which electronic surveillance… may be conducted." Section 109 of FISA, in turn, makes it unlawful to conduct electronic surveillance, "except as authorized by statute." 50 U.S.C. 1809(a)(1). Importantly, section 109's exception for electronic surveillance "authorized by statute" is broad, especially considered in the context of surrounding provisions. See18 U.S.C. § 2511(l) ("Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapterany person who –(a) intentionally intercepts . . . any wire, oral, or electronic communication[] . . . shall be punished . . .