If Left Wingers Could Time Travel

I have always been fascinated by the idea of time travel.  I recently began thinking about what would happen if today's Cindy Sheehan, Nancy Pelosi, Michael Moore, John Kerry crowd went back in time to some important points in our history and were able to influence events.

For example, what if our modern peace loving leftists were the leaders of the colonies prior to the American Revolution?  Without question, fighting the Revolutionary War would be seen as a "war of choice"(one of their favorite terms).  It was nothing more than some rich white businessmen whining because King George and Parliament raised taxes to pay for the French and Indian War.  Your average subsistence farmer or indentured servant certainly was not going to benefit from a war for independence from England.  The same rich white people would run things just as before.  Why should the poor masses have to suffer, bleed and die just to help a bunch of white aristocrats who are going to keep them oppressed anyway?

If by some miracle, we were able to keep Cindy and Mikey's time machine from stopping the Revolutionary War, what would have happened if they had landed in 1861?  You might say, "oh these lovers of social justice would have been on the side of the abolitionists, demanding war with the South."  You would be wrong.  Remember how Cindy, Nancy, Mike, John and the rest feel about the United States.  In their eyes, war requires the moral authority to wage a "just" war.  The United States would never pass the test.  In Northern factories, the Irish and other ethnic minorities were treated little better than the slaves were in the South.  The factory owners in the North profitted from the cotton produced by the slaveowners.  What right would someone from Ohio have to force his views of right and wrong on someone from Alabama?  To paraphrase John Kerry's immortal testimony before Congress in 1971, "we can't fight slavery all over the world."

Fast forward to the World War II era.  Right off the bat, our modern enlightened leftist would have had a problem with us preventing Japan from importing petroleum, in response to its invasion of China.  First, what gives the United States the right to hold all the power over such a vital resource.  Second, Chiang Kai Shek was a right wing dictator, so we would be wrong to side with him.

Well, the use of our Navy to stop Japan from receiving oil led to its attack on Pearl Harbor.  Yes, that's right.  We brought it on ourselves with our selfish, arrogant foreign policy.  Japan responded as would any European power of the day.  Michael Moore could even use the same slogan.  "No blood for oil."  If our modern pacifist leftists had their way, we wouldn't have been able to respond to the attack, and we know they would have never permitted President Truman, in 1945, to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Do you think Hanoi and John and company would have behaved differently toward Hitler?  First, thanks to Lend Lease, Great Britain had made it almost impossible for Hitler to begin an invasion of the British Isles.  Mussolini had so botched up North Africa that any thought of expansion there by the Axis powers was a long shot at best.  What am I saying?  You've got it, good people.  Hitler was CONTAINED.  Russia was a buffer on the Eastern Front.  Invasion of England was only a fantasy, and there was little chance of moving from North Africa.

We were protected by two oceans from a madman who was in a box anyway.  It was Europe's war.  It wasn't our war.  Further, invading Fortress Europe would result in nearly 450,000 casualties on both sides, just to take Normandy.  Do you really think Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry would think that removing a contained dictator in someone else's war was worth that much bloodshed?  You know better.

There wouldn't be a United States today if the shrill modern Left had existed and had power back at the points in our history where survival depended upon the correct choice.  Why should we even consider listening to them today?  They haven't changed and our survival is still at stake.

Christ a leftist?

Merry Christmas fellow conservatives, libertarians, constitutionalists and free market advocates.  It's the time of year where we are repeatedly told by leftists how selfish we are for not supporting Jesus' message of socialized medicine, 70% top marginal tax rates and governmental nannyism.  You didn't know Jesus preached those things?  Just ask the nearest liberal and he or she will explain how government mandated social justice is the essence of the Messiah's mission on Earth.

The problem is that Jesus never advocated such positions.  Yes, Jesus wanted the poor fed, the widows and orphans cared for, the naked clothed, but he never demanded that either the local authorities or the Roman Empire institute such programs and certainly never advocated giving government the powerful bureaucracies necessary to do such noble things.

We have all heard Jesus' parable about the Good Samaritan who took it upon himself to see to the urgent needs of a stranger who had been beaten and robbed.  Jesus didn't have any government official provide the injured man's needs.  He had a compassionate individual take care of the situation and then Jesus finishes by telling us that everyone we come in contact with is our neighbor.

Something else in that parable, when the Good Samaritan took the man to the inn to recuperate, he didn't put a sword to the innkeepers throat and demand that he care for the man without compensation.  The Good Samaritan paid for the care out of his own pocket.  In other words, Jesus taught us to GIVE.  He didn't teach us to create an entity with the power of jail and sword to TAKE from those unwilling to give.  Leftists don't seem to understand the distinction.

We, on the right, believe that there are only certain functions that should be performed by government.  We don't believe this out of selfishness or greed.  We believe this out of a deep seated love of liberty and the recognition that every time we give government power, we give up some liberty.  Liberty is a concept perfectly in line with Jesus' teachings.  Revelation 3:20 says, "Behold I stand at the door and knock..."  Jesus did not teach forced obedience.  It was to be our choice.  We have free will, liberty if you will.  Coerced giving isn't giving.  It is taking by force.  It is the complete opposite of liberty and the complete opposite of Jesus' plan of compassion.

Yes, we as Christian individuals and churches have a moral duty and heavenly obligation to take care of our fellow humans.  We are to provide shelter for the homeless.  We are to provide food and clothing where needed; even to the point of doing without ourselves.  We are not, though, supposed to abdicate that duty to a secular government.

The church and individual Christians are Christ's instruments on this earth.  Secular governments are not.  Secular governments are what they have always been, takers of liberty and enforcers of order.  Government is a necessary evil with certain specific jobs to perform.  Right wingers recognize that. 

So the next time some leftist calls you a greedy, selfish hypocrite, remind him or her about Christian duty and liberty.  It won't change their attitude, but they need to hear it anyway

America IS Exceptional

The differences between American leftists and American conservatives are many, but none are more pronounced than their differences regarding foreign policy and the role of the United States in the world.  In this area, the differences are as sharp as night and day.

American conservatives are strong believers in American exceptionalism.  American leftists cringe when they hear the term.  We believe that this nation is a peculiar entity in the world and that, through our ideals and our attempts to live up to those ideals, we are exceptional.  The model that other nations should aspire to emulate.  The Left sees us as, at best, simply one nation of 200, and at worst, the focus of evil in the modern world.

Leftists ignore the fact that we were the first modern nation to be founded on the ideas of freedom and the rights of man.  Were our Founders perfect?  No, but they stand head and shoulders above all others throughout history.  We've had our hiccups, like the Civil War, our treatment of Indians and Jim Crow, but no nation on earth has ever handled such a hodge podge of races and ethnicities, championed freedom and stayed strong.  See the Balkans.

Leftists ignore our history of championing the cause of freedom throughout the world.  Note to leftists, opposing Communist thugs masquerading as anti-colonialist revolutionaries IS championing the cause of freedom.  An individual enslaved by communism is no more free than a nation controlled by a colonial power.

Leftists just can't see the good where  this nation is concerned.  They don't even see us as better and more moral in comparison to Islamist terrorists.  Do you think I'm exaggerating?  Let's take a closer look.

In 1993, Samuel Huntington, around the time of the first World Trade Center bombing, put forth the idea that we, the United States and the West, were facing a "clash of civilizations" with the Islamic world.  Huntington, rightly, connected the dots of history of Islam, the words of the Qu'ran, the fatwas of the clerics, the targets of terrorism and the unfinished goals of the Islamic Crusaders to determine that a confrontation between the Islamic world and the Judeo-Christian secular West was inevitable.

The brilliant left wing minds of academia scoffed and ignored him until after September 11, 2001.  Was he embraced then?  Not by the "enlightened leftists".  In October of 2001, The Nation, now there's a publication that's unbiased, published an article called "The Clash of Ignorance", to dismiss Huntington's views.

The author, Edward Said, was quick to point out that we have had our own extremists, Jim Jones and Jonestown, etc.  Of course, the fact that none of these groups ever attempted to wipe out 3000 innocents, simply because of where they lived, was completely ignored.

Further, Said pointed out that it did no good to describe conflicts in terms of "good vs. evil", or to assume that WE, the United States, held the moral high ground.  He stated, "These are tense times, but it is better to think in terms of powerful and powerless communities, the secular politics of reason and ignorance, and universal principles of justice and injustice, than to wander off in search of vast abstractions that may give momentary satisfaction but little self-knowledge or informed analysis."

In other words, we need to understand what motivates them.  They ( the Islamofascist terrorists) have a point of view, too. 

Do you think that such a view is a minority, even on the left?  Don't be so naive.  It's the same view that had John Kerry state to Congress, "we can't defeat communism everywhere".  It's the same view that caused Democrats to work for nothing more than a stalemate with the Soviet Union.  It's the same view that questions our right to liberate 27 million Iraqis.  It's the same view that causes Kerry and others to demand that we seek validation from the United Nation before acting.  It's the same view that causes Howard Dean to say we CAN'T win in Iraq.

Conservatives are called simpletons when they don't accept the leftist view.  Ronald Reagan calls the Soviet Union "the Evil Empire" and the Left faints like a Southern belle.  Reagan demands that Gorbachev tear down the Berlin Wall and he is viewed as a senile fool.  George W. Bush discusses spreading democracy throughout the world and he is termed "stupid", "arrogant" and a liar.

Thanks to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, Eastern Europe was liberated from the clutches of communist oppression.  The United States of America did that.  Thanks to George W. Bush, Afghanistan and Iraq are well on their way to freedom. 

This week, an enormous turnout, including Sunnis and Christians, voted in Iraq.  Terror and defeatism were crushed in a landslide of liberty.  The United States of America did that.  No, the fight isn't finished, but victory was proven to be attainable.

These things could have only been accomplished by the acts, determination, and ideals of an EXCEPTIONAL nation.  American exceptionalism stands triumphant again.  The Left will never get it.

 

Random Thoughts

My wife hit the nail on the head the other day while we were watching coverage of the bipolar man who was killed by an Air Marshal on an American Airlines flight in Florida.  Katherine teaches severely emotionally disturbed teenagers and said, "I tell my kids, all the time, the real world doesn't have the time or the inclination to feel sorry for you when you don't take your meds."

Left wing idiots like Katie Couric prove daily they shouldn't be in charge of foreign policy.  She asked why  the Air Marshal couldn't have shot him in the leg or something short of killing him.

This incident is a perfect analogy for why we were right to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power.  It turned out this guy didn't have a bomb.  After 9/11 and after shoe bomber, Richard Reid, we don't have the luxury of waiting for certainty anymore.

The economy keeps growing at a record pace and  the Democrats still want to act like it's 1932.  The New York Times, last week published an article singing the praises of the economy, only to reach the conclusion that it's all an illusion and the country is full of suffering and on really weak economic footing.

If I believed that things were as bad as the Democrats claim they are I would be suicidal.  To hear the Democrats tell it, we are under the control of an evil cabal that is capable of stealing multiple elections, trick leaders like Tony Blair of Great Britain to do its bidding, is determined to starve children and old people and WANTS to see the United States lose manufacturing jobs.  Everything, according to the current crop of Democrats, is the result of a nefarious conspiracy.  Yes, paranoid delusion is the platform of today's DNC.

Isn't it amazing how the mainstream media completely ignores Joe Lieberman, who has returned from Iraq with positive news, while it listens to John Kerry rehash his Winter Soldier testimony like he was the Oracle at Delphi?  Nah, the press isn't liberal.

Dan Rather's phony AWOL papers were going to destroy Bush.  The Downing Street Memo was going to destroy Bush.  Cindy Sheehan was going to destroy Bush.  Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation regarding Valerie Plame was going to destroy Bush.  Since 2001, the Democrats have had at least 40 pseudo scandals that was goingto get rid of "the arrogant little cowboy".  He's still President and they're still in disarray. 

I saw that Congressman Earl Pomeroy said that Howard Dean should "shut up" saying that the United States can't win in Iraq.  I hope Screamin Dean doesn't listen.  Howard Dean's idiocy is the best thing that can happen to the Republican Party between now and 2006.

I saw the vigils marking the 25th anniversary of John Lennon's murder.  While his murder was a tragedy, why would we honor a guy whose most famous song expresses a desire to see national borders eliminated, capitalism defeated, antagonism toward religion, and the complete outlawing of ownership and possesions?  Now that I think about it, "Imagine" is the ultimate leftist fantasy.

Winter Traitor...er ...Soldier Strikes Again

I have got to stop allowing him to get to me.  I was all set to write about something else, and the Senator from Hanoi says something so outrageous that I can't let it pass.  He commited treason in 1971 and sullied the reputations of an entire decade of American soldier.  Did it cause him to be an outcast?  Nope.  It fueled his political career.  In the 1980s he advocated a unilateral nuclear freeze and told the world that the pro-communist Sandinistas were nice guys.  Did his countrymen wake up and decide he was the enemy?  Nope, he parlayed his actions into a Senate seat from the People's Republic of Massachusetts.  Yes, I'm talking about John Kerry, and the sonofabitch is at it again.  Please forgive my profanity.

Yesterday on Face the Nation, I didn't realize that show was still around, Mr. "we can't defeat communism" was discussing his "plan" for Iraq.  In  the midst of justifying his cut and run approach, Kerry accused American soldiers of "going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children...."  I couldn't believe it.  Well, for about five seconds I couldn't believe it; then I remembered who it was saying it.

Who could forget the "eloquent" young man speaking before Congress comparing your average American soldier to (J)enghis Khan?  When Kerry spoke before Congress after the Winter Soldier farce he made it clear that American atrocities weren't isolated incidents.  They were the typical behaviors of American soldiers in a foreign country.  He was one of the primary reasons that spitting became a common form of greeting returning GIs.

Now, here he is, supposedly the spokesman for the Democrat party, saying the same crap about today's GIs.  This is a man whose life's ambition is to be the Commander in Chief of our armed forces and he STILL believes they are monsters.  Worse than that, while we are fighting a war against Islamofascist  terrorists, he accuses our own fighting men and women of terrorism.

At some point, doesn't enough have to be enough?  At some point, don't we have to develop the gonads to call a traitor a traitor?  For 35 years we have allowed this lowlife piece of poodle excrement to make a career by trashing this nation.  Even politically correct conservatives are quick to say "I won't question his patriotism."  Question it?  Hell, I know he's a patriot.  Just pick the enemy of the United States and he's on their side without hesitation.

John Kerry is incapable of patriotism where the United States is concerned.  Apparently, he learned from his father too well.  Richard Kerry was an American diplomat who wrote a book criticizing American foreign policy, especially the idea of American exceptionalism.  Not only does John not believe in American exceptionalism, he believes that almost any other nation or group in the world is more moral than we are.

John Kerry keeps commiting treason and the mainstream media lets him get away with it, and the Democrat party either embraces it or ignores it.  This man picked up 48% of the vote last November.  48% that were either misinformed or disloyal themselves.  I hope they were merely misinformed.  I really, really hope that.

 

Winning By Giving In?

Yesterday, in response to President Bush's speech outlining a plan for victory in Iraq, Senator John Kerry, who served in Vietnam for the United States before he served in the United States for the North Vietnamese, announced that no Democrat had ever advocated a "get out now" or "cut and run" strategy in Iraq.  That, in and of itself, would be laughable given the statements of the past four weeks by John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi and others; but for John Kerry to make this statement is conclusive proof that he is either the biggest liar in Washington or suffering from multiple personality disorder.

As recently as October 26, at Georgetown University, Senator Kerry (D- Hanoi) stated, "To undermine the insurgency, we must instead simultaneously pursue both a political settlement and the withdrawal of American combat forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks. "  Yes, he means what he says.  He believes that in order to defeat the insurgency we must give the terrorists what they want.  They want us, as infidel kafir, to leave Iraq with our tails between our legs.  John Kerry says that if we let them win, then that is a good thing.

In other words, Neville Kerry, or is it John Chamberlain, believes that if we give Hitler the Sudetenland then we will have peace in our time.  Never mind that in the Middle East we have the reputation, as Osama Bin Laden stated, of being "a paper tiger".  Never mind that our withdrawal from Vietnam, thirty some years ago, under similar circumstances, led to an entire decade of America viewing itself as a defeated power, believing that we deserved whatever evil befell us.

Kerry and his band of comrades believe that if we walk on eggshells and don't make the Islamic terrorists mad, then they won't attack us.  Of course, appeasement didn't keep the German, Canadian and other pacifists safe.  Appeasing evil never works.  Yes, these terrorists are evil and we are the good guys.  Is that so hard for the Kerry and the rest of the Left to understand?

John Kerry, though, keeps talking about political solutions.  What he doesn't understand is that Al Zarqawi, Al Qaeda in Iraq, the Swords of Righteousness Brigade and all those who are committed to suicide bombing and the murder of Westerners are no different than Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer.  Would a political solution have helped their victims?

John Kerry and the majority of the Democrats want to see the Islamic terrorists as reasonable people with nothing more than a different view.  They believe that compromise with their goals is worth the effort.  Yes, the Democrats support giving in to terrorists but would never give Republicans the same courtesy.

Do they really think that giving in to the terrorists is the way to win?  Do they really think that admitting that we are a paper tiger will stop Islamic terror?  Do they really think that we cannot defeat this enemy?  Do they even want us to defeat this enemy?

I've asked the question.  I really want to know.  Do the John Kerrys of this nation even want us to win?

Hero Worship

Kurt Vonnegut has always been an enigma to me.  I knew enough of his biography to know that he is a leftist, not a Stalinist; but certainly an anti-American, anti-capitalist pacifist.  Slaughterhouse Five, for example was written because of the Allied bombing of Dresden in World War II.

However, this same author wrote the short story, Harrison Bergeron.  For those of you who don't know, this short story sings the praises of liberty and libertarianism as well as anything written by Ayn Rand.  In Harrison Bergeron a society exists where no one is smarter than anyone else.  No one is more talented.  No one is more beautiful.  Steps are taken to make the beautiful ugly, the smart dumb and the physically gifted handicapped.  It is the ultimate equal society.  No achievement but no losers either.  It is the perfect American leftist fantasy.  In college, it was the story that  turned me against modern liberalism and political correctness once and for all.

Vonnegut, though, now, has proven once and for all his anti-American soul.  In a recent interview, Vonnegut stated, regarding Islamic terrorists, "They are dying for their own self-respect. "It's a terrible thing to deprive someone of their self-respect. It's like your culture is nothing, your race is nothing, you're nothing."

Shocking, isn't it?  It shouldn't be.  This is how leftists think.  Remember when Michael Moore said that Al Zarqawi and the insurgents in Iraq were "minutemen"?  Remember when Chrissie Hynde of The Pretenders said that she hoped the Muslims won?

Go to any political message board on the internet.  The leftists will have messages talking about the terrorists in Iraq as defenders of their homeland; as if the Iraqis who support the Americans are somehow disloyal to their nation.  They will ask conservatives, "What would you do if your home was invaded?"  They will then follow it up with some cute comment about right wingers reminding them of the Tories who supported English rule in the American Revolution.

Yes, the leftists, despite their protestations, support the enemies of the United States.  Remember, these are the same people who wanted the Viet Cong to win in the1960s.  Don't say that's not  true.  Even liberals recently have had the guts to admit as much.  Michael Walzer being one of them, and most recently Kurt Andersen who said, "At a certain point during the Vietnam War, a majority of Americans--those of us who were in favor of unilateral U.S. withdrawal--were in a de facto alliance with the North Vietnamese, the Vietcong, and the Soviets. Unpleasant but true. . . ."

That's what today's leftists want in Iraq.  They want the US to withdraw.  By necessity, that means that the enemies of this nation win.  Not only do they not care about that, they really want that.  They want the "brave" "minutemen" to defeat the big bad United States. 

You probably need to ask a psychologist to give you the technical name for a psychosis that wants you to repeatedly see your country defeated.  It has to be a psychosis, though.  Yes, I said it.  Leftism is clearly a mental illness.  There can't be any other explanation.

The Rich and the Oppressed

How many of you have ever had a real discussion with a liberal, leftist, progressive etc. about economics?  The entire discussion eventually centers around one overriding theme.  The "rich" are bad and "workers" are oppressed.  The amazing thing, though, is that once you press the issue, the leftists have funny ideas about who comprises these two groups.

First, you aren't a "worker" unless you are a low skilled, underpaid employee of some exploitative corporation.  For example, the guy down the street who works twelve hours a day as an accountant in his own small firm is NOT a worker.  The person who gathers up the buggies at Walmart IS a worker.  Let's try it again.  The person who has a landscaping service and does most of the labor himself is NOT a  worker.  The guy who works on a GM assembly line in Atlanta IS a worker. 

Before you ask, let me clear a few things up for you.  Mary Kay Ash of Mary Kay Cosmetics, even though she built her empire from nothing, is NOT a worker.  Warren Bechtel, of Bechtel Construction cannot be a worker.  Why?  Because if you are an individualist, a success and have enough money to qualify as "rich" then you cannot be a worker in the dream world that is leftism.  Remember, Karl Marx said that when a worker becomes an entrepreneur he sacrifices his humanity.  Today's leftists, while publicly avoiding Marx, still believe this.

That brings us to the next class in the leftist lexicon, the "rich".  Ted Kennedy and John Kerry don't qualify as "rich" regardless of how much money they have.  They aren't currently engaged in any enterprises that "exploit" "workers", so they cannot be the evil "rich".  The Walton family, of course they are "rich".  They are slave owners and despoilers worthy of an abolitionist novel from the 1850s.

You don't have to have millions, though, to be considered the evil rich.  Any entrepreneur who has employees and is working to be rich qualifies.  Any achiever who doesn't see himself or herself as part of the "oppressed masses" qualifies.  Anyone who thinks that they know better how to spend their money than the government does qualifies as "rich".

Any of us who would be considered "well to do peasants", a phrase coined by Mao Zedong, would be considered "rich".  Mao said it like this, "There is a serious tendency towards capitalism among the well-to-do peasants. This tendency will become rampant if we in the slightest way neglect political work among the peasants during the co-operative movement and for a very long period after."

Basically, what Mao was saying is that once we "well to do peasants" stop thinking of ourselves as oppressed workers, we become a problem for the anti-capitalists.  Yes, today's American leftists are just as anti-capitalist as Karl and Mao ever were.

Their entire world view requires there to be an "us" and a "them".  However, to the leftist, these distinctions have nothing to do with national identity and everything to do with perceived economic class.  You notice that I said, "perceived" economic class.  I said that intentionally. Once we view ourselves as individuals with ambition, goals and dreams that WE, as individuals, intend on achieving, we cease to be helpful to the revolution.

Like Mao, the American Left can only win if a majority considers itself oppressed and poor.  The Left has to break our spirit in order for it to advance.  Isn't leftism a lovely ideology?

Democrats, Temper Tantrums Or Honesty

I'm sure you've heard Democrats whine that the Bush administration lied in order to take the nation to war against Iraq.  Don't forget.  Over half the Democrats in the Senate voted for the Iraq war resolution.  Oh, I know, the typical Democrat ignoramus will say that the Democrats believed the Bush administration's lies.

But that would mean that the Democrats simply acted as a rubber stamp for the Bush administration.  The Democrats in the Senate have told all of us since January of 2001 that they are a co-equal branch of government with oversight power.  Didn't they exercise that oversight power?  If they simply took the administration's claims at face value then they didn't.

The senators on the Intelligence committee had access to CIA Director George Tenet in closed door secret meetings and one on one conversations.  Yes, I know, Tenet was part of Bush's conspiracy and lied to the Senate too.  Anyway that's what the Democrat true believers claim.

Of course, a claim like that CONVENIENTLY forgets that Tenet was a Clinton holdover.  Also, Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation has revealed that there was a conflict between Vice President Cheney's neocons and Tenet's CIA.  So to claim that Tenet and other CIA officials would have lied to Jay Rockefeller and others in private closed door meetings to help the neocons make the case for war defies credulity.  Yet, that is what the room temperature IQ crowd of Cindy Sheehan and others want us to believe.

Now, Harry Reid and others want additional investigations into prewar intelligence.  They are going to stomp and hold their breath until they turn blue if they don't get them.  They demand investigations now, but in October of 2002, Harry Reid and his band of two year olds acknowledged that Saddam was a threat and that the best intelligence showed that Iraq had not complied with UN demands to disarm.

Now when it suits their political purposes, they want to claim that they were duped.  If they were as easily duped as they now claim, what gives them the right to lead?

Perhaps those of you backing Harry's diaper brigade should ask yourselves a few questions.  Does it really make sense that the Bush administration, as incompetent as you believe it to be, could have managed aconspiracy so wide ranging as to include Tony Blair and John Howard of Australia?  Does it really make sense that George Tenet's CIA, which was no fan of Dick Cheney and the neocons; would go along with that conspiracy, knowing that no WMDs would be found and he would be blamed too?  Does it make sense that the Democrat "leadership" on the Intelligence Committee would simply take a hated Republican President's word for the reason to go to war without checking things out themselves?  Do you have the guts and the intellectual honesty to really ask yourselves these questions?

Of course not.  If you did, then you wouldn't be Democrats.

Of Litmus Tests and Court Packing

In the wake of Harriet Miers asking to have her nomination to the Supreme Court withdrawn, Democrats have, with one voice, accused the radical right wing (of which I'm a proud member) of attempting to pack the Court and demanding a litmus test for Supreme Court justice.  You know what?  They are right.

I do want the Supreme Court packed.  I want an unbeatable majority of Justices who believe in the Constitution.  Not the living, breathing, evolving document of ever changing meanings and ever growing penumbras; but the timeless, amazingly relevant document that founded a nation based upon the up to then impossible idea of the rights of man and limited government.

I want nine justices who believe, as John Roberts recently articulated in his confirmation hearing, that outcomes are less important than faithfulness to the rule of law.  Roberts said, "Somebody asked me, you know, 'Are you going to be on the side of the little guy?' And you obviously want to give an immediate answer. But as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution. That's the oath. The oath that a judge takes is not that 'I'll look out for particular interests.' ....The oath is to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States and that's what I would do."

Yes, I know, such a view is heresy to outcome obsessed activists.  Justices like Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Anthony Kennedy admit that they look at what the law should be.  They admit that they consider laws from other countries.

For example, when looking at affirmative action, or as I call it, reverse discrimination, Justice Ginsberg made this amazing statement from the bench:

"...we're part of a world, and this problem is a global problem. Other countries operating under the same equality norm have confronted it. Our neighbor to the north, Canada, has, the European Union, South Africa, and they have all approved this kind of, they call it positive discrimination. Do we -- they have rejected what you recited as the ills that follow from this. Should we shut that from our view at all or should we consider what judges in other places have said on this subject?"

Note to Justice Ginsberg.  You swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, NOT the Constitution of the European Union. 

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

 Justice Ginsberg, the brilliant legal scholar, seems to think that you have to treat some people unequally in order to prevent them from being denied equal protection under the law.  It is an insane, through the looking glass view of the Constitution but American Leftists love it.

Anyone who opposes that way of thinking, according to the leftists, is a dangerous extremist.  Imagine, someone who believes  that words mean what they say is an "extremist".  Someone who thinks that American judges should decide cases based upon the American Constitution is a "dangerous extremist".  Based upon the left wing definitions, I want a Supreme Court packed with dangerous extremists.

Leftists also claim we conservatives have a "litmus test" for judicial nominees.  They, wrongly, I might add, claim that we demand that any court appointee be willing to overturn Roe v. Wade.  What we demand is that a court appointee follow the Constitution.  If that is a litmus test, then so be it.

Strictly following the Constitution in deciding cases.  Anyone who loves the Constitution and what this nation stands for would want the Supreme Court packed with people passed that litmus test.

Plame, Delay Part Of Plan

Today's Democrat party is determined to recover the power it lost over the past twenty five years.  Not at the ballot box, but in the jury box.  Since 1980, the Democrats have been unable to win national elections.  No, I didn't sleep through Bill Clinton's eight years, but face it.  He didn't run as a Democrat.  Bill Clinton was a "new" Democrat.  He was a charter member of the DLC which was designed to push the Democrat party away from the Left and toward the center.

Democrats are leftists.  Moveon.org, Howard Dean, Al Franken and Janeane Garafalo are the real face of the Democrat party.  The 2005 version of Al Gore, not the 1984 version, is the real face of the Democrat party.  They are distrustful of capitalism, see individuals as powerless victims,

and consider Islamic terrorists to be less of a threat than corporate robber barons.  To them, America is not the land of the free and the home of the brave.  It is the land of the victim and the home of oppressed workers.

THAT is why Democrats consistently lose elections.  Americans don't see themselves as victims and, thus, don't identify with Democrats.  Americans, as a rule, are positive and see this nation as great and worthy of its blessed position in the world.  As a result, Democrats, instead of changing their message, have sought to change the image of Republicans.

In the eyes of Democrats, if they can prove Republicans to be criminals who only care about helping multinational thieves and slumlords, then the masses will feel victimized and run into the benign, caring arms of Democrat protectors.

That is why the Plame case really matters.  Do you think the Democrats want to protect the CIA?  If so, I urge you to Google "the Church Commission".  Do you think Tom Delay's actions are without precedent in Texas politics?  If so, check and see how Texas Democratic PACs were spending money in 2001, 2002 and 2003.

The bottom line is that Democrats have nothing to offer the American public, so they must eliminate their opponents or successfully demonize them.  It is a strategy based, not on moral outrage or strength, but on political desperation.

Since 2001, the Democrats have tried one pseudo-scandal after another.  So far, nothing has stuck, so they keep raising the stakes.  They can't help it.  These are the same people that turned a funeral into a cross between a tent revival and a professional wrestling event. Complete with bad guys to boo.

They are the students of the 1960s who can't accept that the nation didn't continue down their path to a worldwide commune.  Do they think that maybe their ideas were wrong?  No, they merely think the American people are too stupid to recognize their wisdom.

They have, though, finally recognized that the American people will never, in a battle of ideas, agree with them.  Therefore, they believe that if they create another Watergate, then the American people will hail them as saviors and restore them to their rightful place. 

 

Fundamentalists Waiting For The Rapture

Leftists and Bush haters have spent the better part of two years praying to St. John (brotherhood of man) Lennon, or is it Lenin; clutching their medallions of St. Joseph and St. Valerie, Wilson and Plame, believing that every day might finally be the day when the benign pacifist socialist coincidence of the universe rewards their faithfulness and takes down the demon Rove once and for all.  Every mention of Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury sends them into a religious fervor worthy of a backwoods Holiness meeting complete with rattlesnakes.  

Rumormongers and date setters excited the faithful with predictions of how many and when the indictments might come.  Each new prediction causes the true believers to forget the inaccuracies of the predictions before it.  For you see, we aren't talking about people thinking rationally.  We are talking about faith.   

The leftists and Bush haters have given up rationality, and instead, have become cultists of hate so strong that they make the Aryan Brotherhood pale by comparison.  And as all good cultists, they have a day of Rapture.  For the leftists and Bush haters, that day is the day that Karl Rove is indicted in the Valerie Plame case.  The reason is because on that day, it will be a sign, a prophetic fulfillment if you will, that the Bush presidency and the neocons have finally crumbled and a millenia of peace, brotherhood, harmony and national healthcare will arise from those ashes.  

Rove's appearance, yesterday, at the grand jury for a fourth time, was hailed as the parting of the eastern sky.  The cultists knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that this meant that Fitzgerald was ready to hand down indictments and Rove's name was going to be first on the list.    Maybe not.  When Rove left the grand jury, his attorney stated, 

"The special counsel has not advised Mr. Rove that he is a target of the investigation and affirmed that he has made no decision concerning charges," Rove's attorney Robert Luskin said in a statement. 

"The special counsel has indicated that he does not anticipate the need for Mr. Rove's further cooperation," the statement said.

Not exactly the wails and gnashing of teeth one would expect from a demon consigned to the lowest pits of Hell.

It's still to early to tell, but what if the prophecies are wrong?  What if no indictments are handed down?  Just the thought is enough to make a true believing leftist and Bush hater mix up a batch of Jonestown Kool Aid.

Nah, America couldn't be that lucky.

The Problem With Miers

 
The problem with President Bush's appointment of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court has nothing to do with the fact that she's a woman.  If President Bush had selected Janice Rogers Brown, conservatives would be thrilled.

It has nothing to do with the fact that she's not a graduate of an Ivy League school.  Priscilla Owen graduated from Baylor Law School and conservatives have defended her for years.

It has nothing to do with the fact that she's not a judge.  William Rehnquist was not a judge when he was appointed.   It really has nothing to do with Roe v. Wade.  The 1973 decision by the court is merely a symptom.  It isn't the problem.   The problem with Harriet Miers is that she hasn't taken a solid well founded position on the Constitution that is able to withstand "growth" and "evolution".   The Constitution is not a changing document.  It isn't an evolving document.  It says what it says and America needs judges who recognize that.  It can only be changed by AMENDMENTS, not by judicial whims related to desired outcomes.   Take Roe for instance.  There is very little Constitutional law contained in Roe, but there is an abundance of achieving a desired outcome.    As far as Constitutional law is concerned, THE OUTCOME AND EFFECT ON PEOPLE IS IRRELEVANT.  The only thing that should matter is whether the Constitution was followed.   For example, the First Amendment clearly states "Congress shall make NO LAW..."  Campaign Finance Reform might be a desirable thing.  Taking big money donors out of politics might be a desirable thing, but the Constitution says "NO LAW".  Yet enlightened elites on the Supreme Court, including some EVOLVED "conservatives" upheld McCain Feingold even though the Constitution said otherwise.  It is that philosophy that cannot be permitted to stand.   By the same token, the Second Amendment prohibits Congress from interfering with the peoples' right to bear arms.  Stopping me from owning a fully automatic AK-47 might be a desirable outcome, but it is not a correct one underthe Constitution.   The reason conservatives like me are fans of Justices Thomas and Scalia have less to do with particular votes than it does their philosophy.  They believe the Constitution is paramount.  Outcomes and foreign laws should not outweigh the Constitution.  These men have been attacked for those beliefs since even before they took the bench and have held firm.   Harriet Miers has no such foundation.  She has no such visible firmness.  She has no such enunciated philosophy that says the Constitution must prevail regardless of who it helps or hurts.  That is why we oppose her.

If you want desired outcomes, then "We The People" should AMEND the Constitution, not have nine pseudo-philospher kings do it for us.  THAT is why we want strong Constitutionalists on the bench.  We want the Constitution followed as written and changes only accomplished by "We The People".