Ford, Webb and Shuler conservative. So what?

If one more idiot tells me that Harold Ford, Jim Webb and Heath Shuler are conservatives  I'm gonna scream. 

My simple answer, though, is "so what if they are?"

People like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin, Charlie Rangel and Alcee Hastings run the Democrat party.  THEY are liberals.  No, they are anti-American leftists who are invested in America's defeat.

Candidates like Harold Ford, Jim Webb and Heath Shuler can claim to be conservative all day long, but the fact of the matter is that, EVEN IF ELECTED, they will have no power and be told to shut the f*ck up and follow their liberal masters. 

THAT is why what John Kerry said and what he repeatedly has shown he believes is so important.  Kerry was perfectly espousing the leftist elitist position of the leaders of the Democrat party.  Leaders that CANNOT be put in charge of our government during a time of war.

 

Liberals like Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, Durbin, Frank et al hate our military and alternately view them as victims or predators depending on what benefits their political goals.  They hate the idea of the United States fighting its enemies and create artificially narrow justifications for war.  They love to point out supposed war crimes and hope the American public is fooled into believing they are only talking about the Administration and not the troops they accuse. 

If leftists were only socialists, they could, at least be tolerated in a time of war.  They aren't.  They also want to see America defeated.  They talk about "arrogance" and "unilateralism" as if the United States were an enemy state.  Perhaps, to the Left, it is.

Sin and the Left

The American Left is giddy.  In fact, leftists haven't smiled like this since 1998 when the electorate spanked Newt and the Republicans for their half hearted attempt at impeachment.

To them, Mark Foley being exposed as a sanctimonious hypocrite is victory for tolerance and liberalism.  No, I'm not just talking about its significance to the possibility of a Democrat takeover of the House.  I'm talking about it being an affirmation, in their eyes, of everything Progressives, Leftists, Liberals believe.

Leftism has, as one of its core principles, hedonism.  Well, leftists believe in hedonistic behavior as long as it doesn't result in profits for big tobacco, big oil or big fast food. 

Traditional mores are considered repressive and discriminatory in the eyes of liberals and any mention of good vs. evil is enough to send them into fits of "enlightened" rage.

To see a champion of traditional morals fall, in the eyes of the liberals, is to PROVE that the values themselves are flawed.  To them, Mark Foley isn't merely a sinner or someone with a disease; he is evidence that the American Right has no moral authority to demand anything of anyone.

If a conservative commits adultery, then it isn't just the conservative who sins that is wrong; it is the entire conservative movement and its belief in sin that is wrong.  If a conservative has an abortion, then that proves, to leftists, that opposition to abortion is laughable.  To leftists, you are not permitted to moralize unless you are perfect and all those you associate with are perfect.

This leftist attitude isn't merely limited to domestic social issues such as abortion and homosexuality.  It permeates how left wingers view the United States and its place in the world.  The idea of American exceptionalism is an anathema to the Left.  How dare we, as a nation, be so arrogant as to believe that some ideologies or belief systems are evil.

You've seen the litany of sins and crimes that the Left recites in order to claim that the United States has no moral authority to stand up to evil regimes throughout the world.  Since we aren't perfect we lack the authority, in the eyes of the Left, to call other nations, ideologies, belief systems and regimes dangerous, evil or unacceptable.

The Left hates absolutes, except where global warming is concerned.  They hate the concepts of good and evil and right and wrong.  Such beliefs are simplistic and don't allow for nuance.

Sinners love to see a preacher fall.  It makes them feel better about themselves without requiring any self examination on their part.  The analogy requires no explanation.

Communism In Kindergarten

My daughter starts to kindergarten this year. I have worried about putting her in the public school system for some time, but we had some hope since we know most of the teachers at her school. Surely the government would hold off a year or two before they began assaulting our values, beliefs and ideals. What could they do in kindergarten to begin the brainwashing? That was before we got the supply list.

After listing the usual, pencils, paper, binders and crayons; there was a note on the bottom of the page: "All supplies will be shared by all students." In other words all the supplies we buy for our daughter become the property of the collective to be shared with every other student. Yes, my friends, the public school system is now teaching communism. I think Lenin himself said something about controlling the education system and controlling society.

Instead of teaching personal responsibility and the importance of private ownership, my daughter’s school is teaching children to believe that all property belongs to the government and is distributed "from each according to his ability to each according to his need."

My daughter’s teacher had a reasonable benign reason for doing this. Something about controlling what is used during class time. The bottom line, though, is it teaches communism. It teaches government dependence. It discourages self reliance. It teaches that a forced equality should be the norm.

After a few years of this, European style socialism will seem like a good thing. Young malleable brains will be convinced that they should feel guilty if they have more than their neighbor. Pretty soon libertarian capitalism and individualism will be concepts as foreign to most students as Latin.

I quickly remembered why I hate government schools.

Has War Become Obsolete?

 

I truly believe that this is a world governed by the aggressive use of force.  I believe that the United States should do what is necessary to defeat its enemies.  I also believe that, after 9/11, if there is a one percent chance that a nation or group is a threat then we treat them as if that threat is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  Having said that, though, I am questioning my view of war in the modern world.

A liberal friend of mine says repeatedly that aggressive war is obsolete in the modern world.  I'm beginning to wonder if that is true.  The American Civil War was won by the North when they began employing tactics that "civilized" countries today would consider war crimes.  Sherman's march through Georgia was less a battle than it was a rape.  By the same token, World War II was won because by the end of the war, Germany and Japan were incapable of fighting back.  The Allies were more interested in winning and exacting revenge against the Axis than they were in avoiding civilian casualties.  Not only did we crush their armies, we so devastated their nations that they lost their will to fight.

After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, though, I'm not sure that's possible.  We pride ourselves on avoiding civilian casualties.  We engage in measured responses rather than "total war".  We attempt to be politically correct against enemies that blend into the scenery and do not share our concern for human life.

As a result, we put our own fighting men and women at more risk than they would be otherwise.  Such an approach to war makes complete victory almost impossible.  How do you achieve complete victory when you cannot, for fear of public opinion, crush your enemy?  Limited war only serves to further motivate our enemy and get our troops killed a few at a time.  It causes war to be neverending and the public loses patience.

 

However, the alternative is to engage in acts that would result in outrage here and abroad.  The United States has the military might to defeat any nation on the planet even without resorting to nuclear weapons.  We will never use that power, though.

 

Some may say that's a good thing.  I don't necessarily agree.  The point, though, remains.  Perhaps, in the modern world, for a nation that strives to be politically correct, war is obsolete.

 

 

Leftism and Amnesia

I suppose it's possible to be a liberal Democrat in America without amnesia, but significant memory loss sure makes your life easier.  Democrats seem to have this unfortunate disorder, causing them to believe that recorded history began somewhere between November of 2000 and January of 2001.

If you don't believe me, look at the Democrats number one talking point, "Bush lied!"  The Democrats' statements about the threat of Saddam Hussein and his WMD programs throughout the 1990s and up into this century has been spread over the web ad nauseum, so I won't repeat it.  What about the Democrats' claim, though, that Bush "lied" about Saddam's dealings with Al Qaeda.  Idiots like John Conyers and Nancy Pelosi repeatedly make the statement that Saddam had no ties to Al Qaeda and that Bush made the phony connection to justify "his" war.

Let's go back a few years, though.  Do you remember Bill Clinton blowing up an aspirin factory in Sudan in 1998?  What do you think the reason was?  It was because the Clinton Administration had evidence that Saddam's WMD experts were working with Al Qaeda to create weapons for terrorists to use.  You don't believe me?  Check Clinton's Defense Secretary, William Cohen's testimony before the 911 Commission.  Cohen is nominally a Republican and must not be affected by the amnesia.

Democrat amnesia is also exhibited in discussions about socialized medicine.  What is one of the main reasons that Democrats such as Teddy Kennedy give for saying the current system is broken?  Greedy HMOs.  Health maintenance organizations deny coverage, inflate costs and take medical decisions out of the hands of doctors.  You've heard all the complaints.  Guess who was the father of the HMO?  Yep, old Teddy himself.  In the early 1970s, the owner of Ted's Driving and Diving School, put together the legislation that led to HMOs.

As a side note, Ted also "fixed" the immigration problem in the mid 1960s.  I suspect he doesn't remember that either.

More evidence of this mass loss of memory is the Democrats' mantra that Vice President Cheney's Energy Task Force led to Enron's rape of California and the fraud committed by  Enron's officers and directors.  If you look at the calendar, you will see that Enron's price gouging in California began in 2000 and was over by the summer of 2001.  President Bush's energy proposals hadn't even come up for a vote.  Nothing that Cheney's group proposed had any actual effect on ANYTHING that Enron did or didn't do.  Apparently, though, the Democrats don't even remember who was President in 2000.

I know that someone is going to try to claim that Republicans suffer from this selective loss of memory as well.  No doubt, someone will say "what about statements by Cheney and Condoleeza Rice in early 2001, that Saddam was contained and no threat?"  That these officials changed their tune wasn't a result of memory loss.  It was a result of 9/11.  Oh yeah, I forgot, the Democrats don't even remember 9/11.  Hell, sometimes I wonder if they remember they're Americans.

Politicians Play On Voters' Ignorance

To paraphrase H. L. Mencken, no one has ever lost an election by underestimating the intelligence of the voting public.  This truism has once again been made apparent by the pandering of politicians in response to the recent jumps in oil prices.  There are several reasons why oil prices have increased, none of which seem to be able to penetrate the brain of the average American voter.

First, demand for oil worldwide has increased rapidly in recent years.  India and China have developed an insatiable thirst for petroleum and, as a result, altered the landscape of the oil buying marketplace.  Further, supply is down, no not primarily because of the war in Iraq, but because of other factors such as unrest in Nigeria and the damage to refining centers caused by Katrina.  Lower supply and higher demand equal higher prices whether you're talking about oil, food or cocaine.  Supply and demand is the basis of all economic theory, but the politicians know that the American public is oblivious to simple economics.

Enviroworshippers are also to blame for reduced supply.  Burdensome regulations enacted at the urging of tree huggers have succesfully stopped the building of new refineries for the past 30 years.  The kooks have also prevented oil companies from exploring for oil in and around the United States, not just in ANWR but also in the Gulf of Mexico.

In spite of all this, we have politicians getting on the news daily shrieking about "excessive", "outrageous", "uncontrolled" profits being made by the oil companies.  Memo to the American public (although I know you won't listen):  Oil is a commodity.  It is traded just like cattle futures, grain and the like.  There is no fat man in a smoke filled room named "Big Oil" unilaterally setting prices.

Additionally, profits aren't what the politicians are pretending they are.  Yes, Exxon/Mobil made gross profits of $36 billion last year.  So the hell what?  Who incurred the costs and risks required to drill for, refine and transport that oil?  The government?  Not hardly.  In any event, the actual net profit was less than ten cents on every dollar sold.  Hello ignorant American voter!  Check and see if that small a mark-up would be acceptable for most other businesses.  It won't.

In spite of truth, logic and common sense, we have Democrats wanting to stick it to "Big Oil" and Republicans afraid to tell the American people how stupid the Democrats are.  In the meantime, the willfully blind American voter falls for the propaganda.  The truth is that if the Federal government wants to stabilize energy costs, it needs to get the hell out of the way and allow the ingenuity and determination of the American people to take over combined with a healthy dose of profit incentive.  In other words, let the market handle this.

The United States has raised two or three generations of crybabies that expect the Federal government to kiss boo boos and wipe away tears.  The politicians pander to that mentality.  If it keeps up, in another generation or two, the United States won't be worth saving.  We need to fight the stupidity NOW.

Rational Thoughts on Immigration

Okay, after weeks of avoiding the issue, I'm finally going to talk about illegal immigration.  I want to start, though, by asking everyone to face the facts.  First, this nation is not going to round up twelve million illegals, put them on buses and dump them on the south banks of the Rio Grande.  It ain't gonna happen.  So quit thinking about it.

There is no political will in the government to do it.  The cost would make the cost of the Iraq war look like the cost of the smallest statue of Bobby Byrd in West Virginia, and the legal challenges would tie up the Federal courts for the next decade.

Additionally, even if the government got past all those hurdles, do you really think that Vicente Fox is going to allow those buses to cross the border into Mexico?  Heavily armed Federales would be standing there blocking any such attempt.

Am I suggesting that we give up and open our borders?  No, of course not.  I'm merely asking that we put aside the emotion and think about this issue rationally.

Why do Mexican peasants climb fences and pack themselves into unventilated tractor trailers to get here?  It's simple economics.  The United States offers much higher wages and a social safety net that makes the risk worth the rewards.  Of course, my feelings about the social safety net are no secret.  I don't believe that the Federal government should be in the insurance business, the charity business or the hospital business.  It is, however, and all my griping isn't going to change that.  The illegals get the benefit of those social services.

Other than gasoline taxes and cigarette taxes, most illegals don't pay any Federal taxes.  They are paid in cash and their employers don't take out taxes.  As a result, when an undocumented worker takes advantage of the free stuff the government offers, he or she hasn't even put anything into the collective kitty.

What is the solution?  Proof of identification and status.  The Federal government is going to provide social services (damn it!), but they should only be for citizens.  If a person goes to the local government funded charity hospital, they should be required to prove that they belong here. 

But Steve, wouldn't that involve profiling?  So the hell what?  Profiling has gotten a bad rap in this politically correct culture in which we live.  Young Middle Eastern men are more likely to blow up planes than 70 year old WASP grandmothers.  That isn't a racist or bigoted statement, that's merely a fact.  Hispanics who have difficulty speaking English are more likely to be illegal immigrants than the redneck with the Confederate flag on his truck.  Eliminate the services that illegals can obtain, and crossing the border unlawfully becomes less attractive.

Now let's talk about the jobs issue.  I am here to say that there are some jobs that Americans, as a whole, won't do.  We have become too pampered, too lazy and too demanding as a society to do unskilled, hot sweaty low paying work.  Further, if I'm a farmer, I shouldn't have to pay you $20 an hour, provide insurance and a pension to get you to work in my watermelon patch or orange grove. 

We need low skilled and unskilled laborers who aren't afraid of grunge work.  That doesn't justify turning a blind eye to illegal immigration, though.  It would be a simple matter to increase the legal immigration quota from the Latin American countries that invariably provide these workers.  The labor unions wouldn't like it, but screw em.  They are part of the problem anyway.  While they may have been important to eliminate sweatshop conditions one hundred years ago, labor unions now would try to make us into France where employees whine if they have to work over 30 hours a week.

As a large part of my law practice, I represent Mexican nationals residing and working in the United States.  I've even represented some of them on issues with ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement).  I find most of them to be hard workers, wanting the best for their families and appreciative of what this country offers.  Additionally, unlike a lot of Americans, these people pay their bills.  None of that, though, changes the fact that illegal aliens are illegal. 

We claim that we are a nation of laws.  If that is so, then the rule of law must prevail.  We cannot ignore the fact that these people broke the law to come here.  We cannot grant amnesty because that rewards lawbreaking while punishing those who follow the rules.  With all due respect to President Bush, his guest worker proposal is amnesty.

The only solution that I see is to make this country less attractive by restricting access to social services and seriously guarding the borders to prevent new illegals from entering.  After getting those two things done, and we can prove that we have a handle on the situation, THEN we should probably increase the number of legal immigrants permitted from Mexico and Latin America.

I realize that my opinions and suggestions on this issue will satisfy few.  I'm sorry, there is no way to make most of you happy on this issue.  It's an emotional issue, and on emotional issues practicality takes a back seat.  I merely ask you to consider what I'm saying.

It's My Right

I don't know if I should blame this on the lousy education that most kids get in government schools or on politicians who depend upon more and more people to be hooked to the government IV or simply on the natural disintegration of "civilized" societies.  Regardless of the cause, though, most Americans have no clue when it comes to the subject of rights.

For example, when a hurricane hits a city, the victims act like they have a "right" to have the government; local, state and Federal, provide them with food, shelter, income, and use taxpayer funds to build back the damaged city.  I suspect that a substantial number of those reading this would agree.  If so, then you don't know what a "right" even is.

You hear politicians proclaiming that Americans have a "right" to affordable healthcare, a living wage, or suitable housing.  Childlike Americans believe the politicians and begin expecting the government (in reality, the productive, taxpaying members of society) to provide those things.

In truth, you don't have a "right" to any of those things.  For that matter, you don't even have a "right" to have safe streets.  You see, the entire concept of rights comes from the idea of self ownership.  The philosopher, John Locke, described it as "property in one's person".  In essence, pure liberty simply means, as Johnny and Donnie Van Zant sing, "...ain't nobody gonna tell me what to do..."

That, my friends, is the extent of rights.  You have the right to control your own body and your own property as long as you do not actively harm someone else.  Now, man being a social animal, we consent to give up certain rights in order to coexist with others in our group.

For example, I would have the right to drive as fast as I want on the highway, but that puts other motorists at risk, so, we, as a society, through our representatives, have chosen to give up that right.  THAT is the key.  We must always remember that when we give government more authority to control behavior or intervene in a situation, we are giving up our rights.  That is true regardless of what the intervention is.

Government is incapable of granting the people new rights.  Government can take rights away and it can recognize the rights that are our birthright.  Take healthcare as an example.  Treatment by a physician is a service.  This service is provided by someone who chose to engage in the training necessary to become competent to do that service.  By the same token, repairing your television is a service.  That service is provided by someone who chose to engage in the training necessary to become competent to perform that service.

Now no one in their right mind would suggest that I had a right to have the government force my television repairman to perform that service without compensation.  Nor would anyone suggest that government should pay for that service to make my life easier.

The television repairman has a RIGHT to charge whatever he wants to perform his service.  We, as consumers, have the right to refuse to pay his price.  We might not get our TV repaired, but, hey, we don't have the right to have a repaired TV.

Guess what?  You don't have a right to have the government force your doctor to work for free.  You don't have the right to have the government pay your doctor's bill for you.

The bottom line is that if something depends upon an affirmative action by someone else on your behalf, then it isn't a right.  So the next time you hear someone screaming, "It's my right!", don't be so sure about that.

"Mommy" finally admits what Democrats think

I have finally seen it all.  Democrats are finally admitting who they are and what they believe.  Jeremy Zilber has written a book entitled "Why Mommy Is A Democrat".  It isn't a revelation to those of us that have understood the socialist nature of the Democrat party for a long time, but it is amazing that the Democrats would actually embrace this openly.

"Mommy" is a mother squirrel with several cute little kid squirrels.  The book shows these squirrels facing day to day trials and challenges and comparing it to the Democrat party and what a government run by that party would do.  For example, one page shows a homeless man sitting on a park bench with his hand out.  A rich couple walks by and does not help him, while in the foreground you see Mommy looking out the window while her two little squirrels play with blocks and let a mouse play with them too.  The page says, "Democrats make sure we all share our toys, just like Mommy does." 

Nope, I'm not making it up.  That is really what is on one of the pages of this book.  In fact there is another page that shows a giant elephant lumbering down a path, about to run over a homeless man, while the Mommy squirrel gets her little ones out of harm's way.  That page says, "Democrats make sure we are always safe, just like Mommy does."

In fact, "just like Mommy does" is a phrase that keeps gettng repeated in this book.  I have tried for years to tell everyone that would listen that the Democrat party considers the masses to be incompetent children in need of the protection and benevolence of a Democrat controlled nanny government.  Now here I have the Democrats saying it themselves.

The book's website states that this book "depicts the Democratic principles of fairness, tolerance, peace and concern for the well-being of others".  Apparently freedom isn't a Democratic principle.  Obviously, self reliance isn't a Democratic principle.  We already knew that patriotism wasn't a Democratic principle.

No, Democratic principles involve "Mommy" government removing risk from our lives and eliminating the consequences of our own actions.  Democratic principles involve gently scolding us when we don't coddle deviance.  And now we have in a cute little book the Democratic principle of brainwashing our children because Democratic ideas would never win in a fair fight.

The author says that the book reflects his "passion for progressive (read socialist) politics, (his) sense of humor and (his) academic training in fields such as political psychology and socialization."  In other words, Mao could have used him during the Cultural Revolution.

The Democrats can't win by embracing socialism with those of us that still understand the concepts of liberty and limited government.  But they can win in the future if they raise a generation that believes that government should assume the role of mother and nanny.

The next time some Democrat tries to tell you that Democrats don't believe in nanny government and socialism, tell them about "Mommy" and what she finally admitted.

 

Too Smart To Understand

Have you ever met someone that is too smart?  Someone that is so intelligent and has learned so much that they have lost all common sense and the ability to reason in real world ways?  These are the people who try to be too clever when playing logic games and completely miss the answer.

The Washington Beltway and academia are populated by people like this.  They pride themselves on being the smartest people in any room and engage in deep and convoluted analysis of every problem before them.  In addition, these people tend to be secularists, or if  they are religious, they are in the mold of the Deists of the 18th Century.  They believe that God might exist, but that he doesn't engage in life changing and world changing events.  Even worse, most of these people tend to view religion as a way for charismatic leaders to dupe the simple and keep them subservient while they operate for their own selfish motives.

For example, these people always dismiss the men who oppose abortion as wanting to keep women in slavery; and worse, dismiss the women who are pro life as submissive chattel who are afraid to be free.  If someone suggests to these enlightened intellectuals that pro life men and women believe the way they do because of strong religious conviction, that person is immediately given a look that says unenlightened opinions are not welcome.  The person is then told about the control mechanisms of a paternal society and how one must look at the underlying goals of the abortion opponents.

The enlightened ones view Muslims and Islam the same way.  First, look at how they see Osama Bin Laden's opposition to the United States having troops on Saudi soil.  The "smartest people in the room" say that it is because we are an imperialist power, propping up a corrupt regime that oppresses the people.  The simple answer, though, is that Osama opposes our presence in Saudi Arabia because we are "kafir" infidels. 

Osama wants the entire Muslim world governed in the same way that the Taliban governed Afghanistan.  You can't get any more oppressive than that.  It is completely ludicrous to think that Osama worries about "oppressed masses" in the same way that leftist academics do.  The word "Islam" doesn't mean "peace" regardless of what President Bush claimed after 9/11.  It means "submission". 

Osama opposes the United States because it is a non-Muslim power and its troops owe no allegiance to Islam.  Muslims oppose the United States because the United States supports Israel, and not because of nationalistic longings for the Palestinians.  Muslims for years have privately acknowledged that the Palestinian issue is a tool to sway the secular West.  Muslims oppose Israel because the idea of Jews in control of the Holy City of Jerusalem is an abomination to them.  The Beltway crowd and the Ivy League crowd are too smart to understand that, though.  They can't imagine religion controlling such matters.

The recent events regarding the burning of Danish embassies in the Middle East is another example of how the smart folks are incapable of getting it.  One after another, they keep saying that the publishing of sacriligious cartoons in European newspapers is only an excuse.  Many of them even blame Bush and the invasion of Iraq.  W isn't the president of Denmark.  Denmark certainly hasn't been guilty of an aggressive foreign policy against Arab peoples. "This must go much deeper," the smart people say, though.

The President of Iran publicly denies the Holocaust and calls for the destruction of Israel.  The smart people try to minimize the fact that he is following his deeply held religious beliefs. 

When Muslim cleric Sheikh Ibrahim Mudeiras says, “I say to you: You must look at our situation with an outlook of confidence in Allah's victory! If you help Allah [spread Islam], Allah will bring you victory. We once ruled the world and the day will come when, by god, we will rule the entire world," the elites in the West ignore it or pretend that he is merely using religious rhetoric to make a point.

When three Christian schoolgirls are murdered by Islamic radicals in Indonesia, the enlightened ones won't discuss it, or worse, try to pretend that President Bush has somehow inspired these attacks.

The bottom line is that the Beltway crowd and academia doesn't understand religion.  At least they don't understand fundamentalist type religions.  They don't understand millions of people truly feeling a cosmic duty to obey words that are considered divinely inspired.

No matter how many times the Islamist says that he is obeying the will of Allah, the smart crowd is going to look for other explanations.  No matter how many Mohammed Attas die as martyrs, seeking their reward in Paradise, the academics will try to explain away the clear evidence of religious faith in their acts of murder and suicide.

No matter how obvious it is that religion is the primary motivation in everything these people do, the secularists will be unable to see it.  I realize that this isn't a new phenomenon.  Marx wasn't the only intellectual of his day to view religion as "the opiate of the masses" or something similar.

The problem is, though, that until those fighting the Islamofascists recognize the real deep seated religious component of this evil, they will continue to misread the acts of terrorism and the statements of Middle Eastern leaders.  That could turn out to be fatal for the entire West. 

Our culture and their culture is completely incompatible.  Our dominant religions and theirs are only compatible, in their eyes, when we are subject to sharia law and accept our place as "kafir", with only the rights of second class citizens.

Compromise is impossible.  Appeasement is impossible.  God doesn't permit partial obedience.  THAT is the biggest thing that the secularists and academics don't get. 

After Two Years, We Still Don't Know

On December 30, 2003, Deputy Attorney General of the United States, James Comey, wrote a letter to U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, authorizing him to investigate "the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity."  Thus, the Valerie Plame investigation became the latest in a long line of political tempests given to an independent counsel.

Over two years later, the only indictment from this investigation is the indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby for the peripheral charges of perjury, false statement and obstruction of justice.  In essence, what Libby told Fitzgerald, his investigators and the grand jury was different than what someone else said and different than what some records implied.

Libby was not indicted for outing a covert CIA agent.  Libby was not indicted for leaking classified information.  Supposedly, Libby said that he learned about Plame's employment with the CIA from NBC's Tim Russert when actually he learned about it from government sources a month earlier than his conversation with Russert.  The offense of perjury requires that someone lie about a material fact.  Whether who told Libby about Plame is even a material fact or not is a discussion for another day.  But he certainly has some issues to argue.

Libby's attorneys have begun trying to obtain discovery from Fitzgerald.  "Discovery" is a legal term describing documents, statements and other evidence that one side is to turn over to the other side in a court case in preparation for trial.

According to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Fitzgerald is required to turn over certain tangible evidence in his control whether he intends to use it at trial or not.  Further, pursuant to the case of Brady v. Maryland, Fitzgerald is supposed to turn over evidence that might be exculpatory.  This is where the parties are in the process.

Libby's attorneys requested, among other things, an assessment of the harm, if any, the revelation of Ms. Plame's employment caused.  A perfectly reasonable request, one would think, given the fact that such harm was the reason that Mr. Fitzgerald was doing this investigation.

Mr. Fitzgerald, though, wrote back to the defense attorneys, "A formal assessment has not been done of the damage caused by the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, and thus we possess no such document."

If this were April 1st, I would think that the next sentence would be "April Fools!"  That has to be Pat Fitzgerald's attempt at humor.  Right?

The entire reason for the investigation was because there was some harm caused by the outing of a "covert operative".  Right?  But here we have the special prosecutor saying that no formal assessment of what harm, if any occurred, and further using the term "CIA employee", instead of "agent", "operative", etc.

Mr. Fitzgerald, other than spending taxpayer dollars and fueling the speculation of leftist bloggers, what the hell have you been doing for the past two years?

As a former prosecutor myself, I have been involved in grand jury investigations.  The first assessment that is routinely made is whether the complained of conduct even constitutes a crime.  In other words, Mr. Fitzgerald and his team should have, from the beginning, evaluated the relevant statutes, determine whether Ms. Plame's status is covered and THEN make a determination if some harm occurred from the conduct in question.

Apparently, none of that mattered to Mr. Fitzgerald.  He doesn't know if any harm has occurred.  He hasn't even evaluated to see if any harm has occurred and apparently, hasn't determined whether she was even a covert operative or not on the dates in question.

Again I am forced to ask, what the hell have you been doing for the past two years?

After two years, millions of dollars and one BS indictment, we still don't know if Valerie Plame was a covert operative with the CIA.  We still don't know if the revelation of her employment to the world caused any real harm.  We do know, however, that her husband is a shameless self promoter who has talked out of both sides of his mouth concerning Iraq, Niger and his wife.  We do know, however, that other sources confirmed that Iraq was trying to resume trade with Niger.  We do know, however, that the only thing of value that Niger had to sell to Iraq was uranium.  Those things are without question.

Mr. Fitzgerald, perhaps it's time you answered some questions.

Hollywood Elites Out Of Touch

Last night, Hollywood put on fancy dresses and tuxedos and told the people of the United States that the greatest love affair of the year was between two gay cowboys, one of whom was cheating on his wife; that Islamic terrorists are sympathetic figures while Americans are selfish fascists who have few redeeming qualities and that we should be forced to accept in your face transgender identity.

The Golden Globe Awards, yesterday evening, honored "Brokeback Mountain", "Syriana" and "Transamerica" as the best that Hollywood has to offer; once again proving that anti-Americanism and a rejection of traditional morality are positives in the glitter capital of the world.

Amazingly, Hollywood has also spent the past few weeks wondering why Americans don’t go to the movies anymore. Attendance at movies is down 10% from last year, continuing a trend of the past few years.

If you read any of the trade publications or columns by movie critics, they offer a multitude of excuses for this trend, and without exception, they reject the idea that content and subject matter have anything to do with it. That’s right, Hollywood insiders appear to be incapable of self examination.

Hollywood elites fly from coast to coast and throughout Europe, and despite their worldliness, live rather insulated lives. They share their political and cultural values with Northeastern liberals from the East Coast and urban European secular socialists. To them, fly-over country, the Red States, consist of toothless morons playing banjos.

They believe they have a responsibility to re-educate us and our children. They believe that it is up to them to dilute the influence of typical American values, which they view as parochial and unenlightened, and replace them with secular anti-Americanism and sexual license without consequence.

In the wake of the 2004 election, you would have thought that they, the Hollywood elites, would have examined themselves and how they were out of touch with the American people. They didn’t. They simply decided that we in the Red States were stupid and in need of their influence.

I realize that Hollywood believes movies like "Brokeback Mountain" and "Transamerica" perform a valuable service by forcing Americans to face aberrant sexuality; but how do you explain "Syriana" and its sympathetic portrayal of Islamofascists?

I know Hollywood thinks the Red States are unenlightened when it comes to homosexuals and transgenders, but do they really think that those kind sympathetic Islamofascists would embrace a movie about two gay camel herders?

Yeah, Hollywood put on its tuxedos and fancy dresses last night and reminded the rest of us just how out of touch they really are.

 

What is an originalist, anyway?

Justice Antonin Scalia once stated, "If you think the Constitution is some exhortation to give effect to the most fundamental values of the society as those values change from year to year... If you think it is simply meant to reflect the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society - if that is what you think it is, then why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers? What do I know about the evolving standards of decency of American society? I’m afraid to ask." 

Justice Scalia is one of the Supreme Court's most vocal originalists.  Originalists are sometimes called "textualists" or "literalists".  They believe that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the original intent of the Framers.  For some reason, such a view horrifies liberals.   In fact, liberals are scared to death that Judge Samuel Alito might turn out to be an originalist.

Judge Alito, President Bush's latest Supreme Court nominee, begins his inquisition this week; with Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy and Patrick Leahy playing the role of collective Torquemados.  Of course, they will be attempting to trip up Judge Alito on the issue of abortion, NSA wiretapping and the like; but underlying that whole line of assault is the question of whether Judge Alito is an originalist.

Why does that word frighten liberals so?  Justice Stephen Breyer, a liberal's liberal if there ever was one, explained in a speech given at Harvard Law School.  He said,  "...textualist and originalist doctrines may themselves produce seriously harmful consequences...."

Seriously harmful consequences according to whom?  Why the leftist elites who know what is best for us, that's who.  You see, leftists believe the law is nothing more than a tool for them to achieve the social objectives they believe should control society.

That is why, when they talk in terms of judges, they talk about whether the judge ruled in favor of the government, big corporations, "the little guy" etc.  Everything to them is about furthering the agenda, and they believe everyone else operates in the same way.  In fact, leftists didn't know what to make of Chief Justice Roberts' statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee when he said, "If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy's going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy's going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution."

That is what an originalist believes.  The Constitution is paramount.  His obligation is to the Constitution, the actual words, as written.  Where the Constitution says that the executive power lies with the President, the executive power lies with the President.  Since the Constitution grants the power to legislate to the Congress, originalists believe that courts shouldn't legislate. 

Originalists don't make allowances for liberal elites to engage in social engineering.  Originalists don't care what the law in France or Belgium is when the case involves the law of the United States.

Leftist elites don't trust the masses they profess to love.  You see the masses do stupid things like vote for Republicans, support tax cuts, oppose gay marriage and believe that parents should be told if  their minor daughter is about to have an abortion.  Liberals can't allow that.  Enlightened elites must make the rules.

You see, the Framers believed in limited government, state's rights and community control of values and standards.  The essence of original intent is trust in the people and distrust of the Federal government.  Of course, to people like Justice Breyer, that is asking for "harmful consequences".

For those of us who believe in originalist thinking, trusting the Constitution and trusting the people is the essence of who we are as Americans.  We're a scary bunch.  Aren't we?