Sunday, July 31, 2005

Dropping the "Big One"

The Weekly Standard has a facsinating article on the intelligence Pres. Truman used in determining whether or not to use the atomic bomb on Japan. As you likely know, there has been a debate raging for years whehter our use of the atomic bomb was justified or not.

This is an especially pertinent question for Catholics in that we need to reconcile our position with Church teaching on 'just war'. Moreover, this is not just an academic or historical question because we need to be well-informed on this subject because we our country is currently engaged in two (related) conflicts and could well be involved in other conflicts in the not too distant future.

It would be beneficial to consult the Catechism on this topic:

Paragraph 2309: The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

- there must be serious prospects of success;

- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.

The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

"Be Not Afraid!"

"I seem to see his smiling eyes and listen to his words, addressed to me especially at this moment: 'Do not be afraid.' " Pope Benedict XVI

Fr. John McCloskey writes a terrific article on John Paul II and the Culture of Life in the current issue of Celebrate Life, published by the American Life League. You can see the article on Fr. McCloskey's website McCloskey's Perspectives.

McCloskey writes:

The worldwide reaction to John Paul's final illness, death and funeral is unprecedented in time. Literally millions traveled to Rome, many who had no lodgings stood for long hours in lines that crept past the pope's body in St. Peter's Basilica, and attended his packed funeral in St. Peter's Square. Billions more turned to television, radio, the press and the internet to be united with this event. All of this took place in a world where only one in six people are Catholic. How can such an overwhelming testimony to the champion of life coexist with widespread contradiction? In the richest countries, babies are being aborted by the millions, other millions are dying of AIDS due to unnatural sexual promiscuity, epidemic levels of venereal disease plague developed nations, birth rates are below population replacement needs in much of the West, and many nations are pursuing for same-sex partners (with increasing success) a right to marry and adopt children. So what moved the inhabitants of such a world to honor the chief warrior against the Culture of Death?

We mourned this Vicar of Christ because holiness is irresistible. ... Almost everyone recognized sanctity in John Paul II, even if they did not share his faith. Only those with graceless souls or loveless hearts could fail to appreciate the super generous gift from God that was Karol Wojtyla. Yes, even the envious recognize him as the greatest man of our time, knowing that his legacy will be carried out long after the last of us who knew him has gone to judgment and received eternal reward or punishment.
'Nuff said.

(While you're there, check out some of the other great articles Fr. McCloskey has -- I particulary recommend "The Seven Daily Habits of Holy Apostolic People".)

Saturday, July 30, 2005

From the "Low Life" Files

Saw this story in the Chicago Sun-Times. This creep deserves to spend some time in jail, and then sent for electro-shock therapy.

You can get a sense of my disgust just from the article heading: "Pup Tossed into yard for dogs to maul, Peotone man charged".
Rush vs. Al Franken -- "Squashed Like a Bug"

Air America seems to be doing quite nicely in questionable financial deals, but when it comes to competing in the marketplace of ideas, things are doing so well.

The Phiadelphia Inquirer reports that Air America is mired in the bottom of the ratings in most of its markets -- so low in some that it doesn't even have enough listeners to register a pulse.

Air America's top liberal, Al Franken, in choosing the same time slot as Rush Limbaugh, appears to have made an ill-advised career decision according to the Inquirer article, because Rush, "with 14.75 million listeners on 600 stations, has squashed Franken like a bug". While "Franken's ratings have dropped 50 percent in Boston since spring 2004, and he is down 14 percent in New York, where his listeners now number fewer than 188,000."
UPDATE: Gunning for the Second Amendment

Yahoo! The liberal anti-gunners got "shot down" in the Senate yesterday.

I got this e-mail today (pasted below) from the NRA (which, despite the unrelentingly bad press coverage they get, do a lot more to protect the First Amendment via their defense of the Second Amendment than those idiots in the MSM will ever realize).

NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert Vol. 12, No. 30 7/29/05


Thanks to your efforts, today, the U.S. Senate passed S. 397 by a strong bipartisan vote of 65-31! While this doesn't assure the bill will be enacted into law, it represents a MAJOR first step toward ending the anti-gun lobby's reign of extortion through reckless lawsuits against the firearm industry. The fight now moves to the U.S. House of Representatives, so it is critical that you once again contact your U.S. Representative and urge him/her to pass S. 397--"The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act."

As reported yesterday, an amendment by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.) passed, which requires federally licensed dealers to provide a "secure gun storage or safety device" with the sale/transfer of every handgun (does not apply to long guns). It does not require gun owners to use the device, does not apply to private transfers, and does not create any new civil liability for gun owners who choose not to use these storage devices. Virtually all new handguns today are sold with some type of secure storage or safety device. The amendment has no significant impact on current law or S. 397 itself.

The U.S. Senate rejected a slew of anti-gun amendments to S. 397 including:

  • Special "carve out" amendments by Sens. Corzine (D-N.J.) and Lautenberg (D-N.J.) that would have permitted reckless lawsuits by law enforcement and juveniles to continue unabated. Both were soundly defeated;
  • A ban on "armor piercing" ammunition (Kennedy-D-Mass.) (by a vote of 31-64) that would have banned virtually all hunting ammunition. Similar efforts have been continuously defeated by Congress, and Sen. Kennedy's most recent attempt was nothing more than anti-gun political posturing. (The Senate did adopt an amendment by Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) calling for increased penalties if "armor piercing" handgun ammunition is used in the commission of a crime.), and;
  • A "gutting" amendment by Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) that sought to continue to allow the very types of suits S. 397 prohibits (by a vote of 33-63).

This long overdue victory marks the culmination of your tireless efforts--your phone calls, faxes, letters, e-mails, and personal meetings--over the past few days, and over the past many years. As critical as these efforts were, this victory also highlights your importance in volunteering and voting for pro-gun candidates running for office. Without your steadfast work in past election years to elect more pro-gun U.S. Senators, we simply would not have had enough votes to pass this bill in the Senate.

Defeating former Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) in the 2004 elections (Daschle, as you'll recall was the architect who last year allowed the bill to be loaded up with anti-gun amendments), and thus elevating Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), a consistent and longstanding supporter of S. 397, to that leadership position represented a major step toward guaranteeing we finally received a fair procedure to bring this measure up for a final vote, and carried out the will of a majority of the U.S. Senate. And of course, members should express their gratitude to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), Senator Minority Leader Harry Reid, and bill sponsors Sens. Larry Craig and Max Baucus (D-Mont.) for their leadership and stewardship on S. 397.

While this fight is far from over, the Senate's action today enabled us to overcome a major hurdle in enacting this legislation into law. All of us at NRA-ILA thank you from the bottoms of our hearts for your continued vigilance in seeing this bill through the U.S. Senate. You deserve a lion's share of the credit, and we know you will help us finish the job once and for all by now contacting your U.S. Representative and urging him/her to support "The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act."

(For a list of roll call votes on these amendments and final passage of S. 397, go to Take note of how your Senators voted, and please thank those who voted in support of gun owners and let those who voted against our rights know that you will keep their votes in mind when they are up for re-election. BE SURE TO ALSO ATTEND ANY OF YOUR U.S. REPRESENTATIVE'S TOWN HALL MEETINGS DURING THE "SUMMER DISTRICT WORK PERIOD" [Aug. 1-Sept. 5] and encourage him/her to bring up and pass S. 397 as soon as possible.)

MSM Hypocrisy

Here is an insightful post from Power Line about Hugh Hewitt's encounters with the MSM and his refusal to allow them to twist and distort the news to fit their objectives.

Hugh Hewitt Has a Great Idea

Hugh has a lot of them, actually. But this one is especially revealing. He is getting requests from lots of "mainstream" media sources for interviews, because he worked with John Roberts long ago, in the White House counsel's office. Hugh's answer: sure, but only if we do it live on my radio show, so the public can hear the whole thing, and compare it to the excerpts you put in your article. Brilliant. But, strangely enough, the reporters have all declined his offer. Hugh writes:

How interesting to note that the Post is willing to use sources that insist on anonymity, but not sources that demand transparency.

She May Not Know Much About Computers ...

... but she's the smartest and most beautiful woman in the world and I love her.

Friday, July 29, 2005

MSM Hypocrisy

Did you see on the news the story about the liberal radio network Air America and it's shady financial dealings? No? The New York Times has had several fawning articles on the network, but somehow they managed to miss this story. Check out the editorial from the Washington Times.

Robin Hood and Air America
Published July 29, 2005
Did Al Franken’s liberal radio network Air America divert city money for the elderly and inner-city children to itself? That’s the question people should be asking this week after the revelation that the New York Department of Investigation is looking into whether hundreds of thousands of dollars were illegally transferred from a Bronx community center to Air America. Only a community paper and a few Internet bloggers seem interested in what could be an egregious case of illegal funneling of tax dollars to a private, partisan organization.

In late June, city officials designated the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club, a nonprofit organization that runs mentoring programs for children and day care for Alzheimer’s patients, a “non-responsible city contractor.” Investigators found “significant inappropriate transactions and falsified documents that were submitted to various City agencies.” The city subsequently suspended the club’s contracts, which run well into the millions.

It turns out, according to sources quoted anonymously by the Bronx News, that the mishandled money went to Air America. One source claims that $480,000 was wrongly transferred. The city investigation is concentrating on Charles Rosen, the club’s president for 15 years, and Evan Cohen, the development director, who is a former chairman of Air America. Mr. Cohen resigned from Air America in May after the network’s leasing plans in Chicago, San Francisco and elsewhere fell through.

No one has claimed that Messrs. Cohen or Rosen sought to profit personally from any transfers. The money was said to have been a “loan” from the community center to Air America, which Air America would repay with interest at some point in the future. But why the public till should be tapped to rescue a foundering news outlet was a question no one seemed to consider. Maybe Air America officers thought spending public funds on their network was a truly compelling public interest. It isn’t, of course, and if the allegations are true, they reveal a misuse of tax dollars to support a partisan organization.

Air America’s parent corporation Piquant LLC issued an “explanation” yesterday but did not deny the allegations. It instead tried to pin them on Air America’s previous owners, on whose watch the transfer is said to have occured. That won’t wash.

Most of the mainstream newspapers have ignored this story. We only found out about it through the reporting of Brian Maloney, who pieced a story together on his blog “The Radio Equalizer” which was picked up by syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin. The New York Daily News buried an item at the end of a column of news briefs. There was nothing in the New York Times, which has heaped flattering coverage on the flailing network.

Air America is struggling to find listeners, leaders and reliable funding. But should it take money from children and the ailing elderly? Al Franken and Randi Rhodes, ever the defenders of the “little guy,” should explain this one.

Thursday, July 28, 2005

Guns Save Lives

Police: Woman Shoots Intruder
Investigation Continues Into Shooting
POSTED: 7:43 am CDT July 18, 2005
UPDATED: 5:40 pm CDT July 18, 2005

Police said a woman shot an intruder after he broke into her home near 34th Street and Norton early Monday morning.

The man was shot in the head. He is in serious condition at a hospital.

KMBC's Brenda Washington reported that there were four young children inside the home at the time. The homeowner told a friend that she felt she had no choice but to shoot after the man started to break in the door of her infant daughter's bedroom.

"I don't know what happened after that, but she said she had to protect herself and the baby. I understand that," said a friend of the homeowner.

"I think I would have done the same thing if someone broke in on me and my kids. To protect us, I would do the same thing," neighbor Sharon Bedford said.

Neither the woman nor her children were hurt.

Friends told Washington that the intruder was a former boyfriend. The shooting is under investigation.
Coulter Makes Her Case

Ann Coulter has a new column setting forth her reasons for concern about Judge Roberts. I gotta tell you, after reading her column, I got a sinking feeling about Roberts -- I hope she's wrong, but she just might be right (gulp!).

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Gunning for the Second Amendment

The WSJ has an excellent editorial on liberal efforts to bankrupt gun manufacturers, which, if successful, would effectively undermine the Second Amendment. The piece can be seen at Opinion Journal.

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

Hanoi Jane Rides Again

Either she's the stupidest liberal on earth, or she's a glutton for punishment. Moonbat Central reports -- incredibly -- that Jane Fonda is embarking on another anti-war crusade:

Famous for posing, smiling, in a photo on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun, Fonda is now planning a national bus tour to oppose America’s role in Iraq."
Requiescat In Pace: Michael J. Shibe, Mike Lacroix, Ronald H. Bitzer, and Scott Edward Powell

Don't know these guys? Neither do I. They are the four Scout leaders who were killed yesterday while setting up a large tent for the National Scout Jamboree in Virginia.

Unlike many so-called "leaders" and "role models" in our country, these four men had taken time away from their jobs, homes and their families in order to help the Scouts put on their Jamboree. As you may know, the Scouts are one of the few organizations left in our country which refuse to buckle under to the anti-Christian, pro-homosexual activism engulfing our society.

Here is an excerpt from the statement issued by the head of the Boy Scouts, Roy Williams:
"We mourn their loss but also realize that we, their Scouting family, must honor and uphold what meant so much to them.

Their duty to God. Their duty to Country. And their duty to other people."
New Democratic Litmus Test

The Dems are so desperate to smear John Roberts that they're going after -- his wife. Check out this editorial from today's WSJ:

Nefarious Ties
July 26, 2005; Page A24
The reasons to worry about Supreme Court nominee John Roberts continue to accumulate. First we learned he attended Harvard, which is always suspicious. Then the New York Times informed us that his wife, who is also a Catholic lawyer, not only worked pro bono for Feminists for Life but has in the past "attended Mass several times a week." Holy mackerel.

Then yesterday brought the Washington Post's scoop that Judge Roberts may once have been a card-carrying member of the Federalist Society. Mr. Roberts has said that he doesn't recall belonging to the lawyers' outfit. But in the best tradition of Woodward and Bernstein, Post reporters dug through the society's "secret" enrollment lists and -- there it was, in black and white, the name of John Roberts, member 1997-98. This news actually made page one.

The Post's exposé continues: "The Federalist Society was founded in 1982 by conservatives who disagreed with what they saw as a leftist tilt in the nation's law schools. The group sponsors legal symposia and similar activities and serves as a network for rising conservative lawyers." That's a subversive group if there ever was one, not least because we've seen with our own eyes that representatives of the ACLU have sometimes attended these public "symposia," and without disguising their identities.

We don't know whether these news stories illustrate the desperation of liberals who can't find any real mud to throw at Judge Roberts, or whether they've been planted by the White House to make liberals look silly. Come to think of it, liberals these days don't need any White House help.

Health Hypocrisy!

Had our church picnic last Sunday and it was a scorcher. Luckily Ellen brought lots of safe and healthy R.O. (reverse osmosis) water to drink. It doesn't matter where we are, or what the conditions are, Ellen makes sure our family is provided with pure, pristine liquid refreshment.

In fact, here's a picture of Ellen enjoying a cool, refreshing glass of .... HEY! What the heck is that!

Someone call Dr. Mercola and report this outrage!! :-)

Dr. Mercola on the dangers of soda pop: "In my mind there is absolutely no justification to drink soda. Both sugar and Nutrasweet™ are deadly to your health and will gradually rob you of it."
Swell Sowell

What can you say about Thomas Sowell -- except that he rocks!

Reading his columns and his books, the clear thinking and uncommon common sense coming through is like a breath of fresh air. His logic is so compelling, you just want to grab the nearest liberal and say "read this!".

I had to sit in on a 2 hour conference call today so I went on and printed out several Sowell columns to help me pass the time.

Even though this column is almost 2 months old, it is just terrific. Must reading (as is so much of his work).

Some excerpts:

How will people a century from now look back on our era? Fortunately, most of us will be long gone by then, so we will be spared the embarrassment of seeing ourselves judged.

What will future generations say about how we behaved when confronted by international terrorist organizations that have repeatedly demonstrated their cut-throat ruthlessness and now had the prospect of getting nuclear weapons from rogue nations like Iran and North Korea?

What will future generations think when they see the front pages of our leading newspapers repeatedly preoccupied with whether we are treating captured cut-throats nicely enough? What will they think when they see the Geneva Convention invoked to protect people who are excluded from protection by the Geneva Convention?

And this:

It is impossible to fight a war without heroism. Yet can you name a single American military hero acclaimed by the media for an act of courage in combat? Such courage is systematically ignored by most of the media.

If American troops kill a hundred terrorists in battle and lose ten of their own men doing it, the only headline will be: "Ten More Americans Killed in Iraq Today."

Those in the media who have carped at the military for years, and have repeatedly opposed military spending, are now claiming to be "honoring" our military by making a big production out of publishing the names of all those killed in Iraq. Will future generations see through this hypocrisy -- and wonder why we did not?

Saturday, July 23, 2005

To Love, Honor and Cherish ...

... as long as we both shall live

Er, make that “as long as we don’t get tired of each other”, or “meet someone new”, or “need some time to ‘find myself’ ".

Michelle Malkin has a post with a link to a Fox News story, "'Till Death Do Us Part' Is Dying Out", which discusses how some couples have dropped the words of permanent commitment from their wedding vows.

I guess I shouldn't be suprised. But I am. I think it's a pretty sad commentary on our society.

I believe a big part of what makes a marriage work is the knowledge that you're in for the 'long haul'. When you have problems, you know you've got to find a way to work it out because you've foregone the other options.

On the other hand, if you go into a marriage without that perspective, it's only a matter of time before one of the spouses decides it's not worth it and calls it quits.

Friday, July 22, 2005

Join the NRA

Got to thinking about the 2nd Amendment today, so I checked with the NRA on my membership. Even though I have about a year and a half to go on my current membership, I went ahead and renewed. In fact, while I was at it, I became a life member.

A couple of years ago, I got into a nasty argument with someone about self-defense. I had mentioned that I had a handgun which I had purchased in case it ever became necessary to defend myself or my family. This unnamed person parroted the liberal line that only the police should have guns and that anyone who owned a gun was some kind of a right-wing kook harboring Rambo delusions. Nothing I said had the least impact on this person. To the contrary, the more I tried to explain why I had chosen to buy a weapon, the angrier and more irrational they got.

It was at that point that I decided to join the NRA. Once I encountered this kind of unreasoning mentality, I knew I had to support my constitutional rights because if this person and other like-minded liberals had their way, they wouldn't hesitate to ban guns regardless of what the Constitution says.

"A well regualted Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

T-Shirt Update

I had intended to buy one the "Celebrate Diversity" t-shirts, but after shopping around I decided to get this one instead. I can't wait to wear it. For all I know, wearing it in public here in the socialist republic of Illinois, may get me arrested by Comrade Daley's storm troopers or Comrade Blowhardovich's anti-gun gestapo. ;-)

Thursday, July 21, 2005

Beam Me Up Scotty ...

... there's no intelligent life here.

I saw in my paper today that James Doohan (who played Scotty on Star Trek) and Gerry Thomas (the inventor of the TV dinner) died yesterday.

I'm sure their deaths are significant and sorrowful events for their respective families, but is their passing really news?

What does it say about our culture that we ignore the lives and contributions of so many others, but feel compelled to note and mourn the passing of a couple of people whose lives were defined by television?

Who is the Princess?

Well, actually there's two of them. I love them both.
Coulter Disses Roberts

By now, you've probably heard that Ann Coulter had a column yesterday dissing the Roberts nomination.

I don't know how extensive Roberts' "paper trail" is. If it is short, then Ann has a point (although I don't know if it is possible for Roberts to turn out to be as bad as Souter).

However, I do disagree with her assessment. While it's too early to tell (remember he hasn't even been confirmed yet), my take is that you can tell a lot about a person by who his friends and his enemies are.

Apart from Ann Coulter, conservatives have been elated by the Roberts nomination. And, equally important, liberals have wasted no time howling about the nomination. Without having the time to do my own investigation of Roberts' record, I'm willing to take these responses as good signs that Roberts will be a solid conservative.

Finally, let's not forget that Pres. Bush pledged to put solid constitutional constructionists on the Court. One thing we've learned is that Bush is a man of his word. While Ann Coulter is usually solid in her views, I think she needs to give Roberts -- and Pres. Bush -- the benefit of the doubt.

Who Protects the President?

Easy. The Secret Service -- right?

Well, yes, to an extent. I don't know how well it will show in this version of the picture, but look at the table in the background between Pres. Bush and Supreme Court nominee John Roberts.

On the table is an icon of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Now you know who's protecting our president. :-)

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Power Up Power Line

The indispensable Power Line blog has a nice piece entitled 'How Will They Attack Roberts?' examining the likely ways that Democrats and liberals (I know -- it's redundant) will try to smear John Roberts. As usual, it is good analysis.

I differ on a couple of points though:

Power Line: "Most of it [the opposition research issued by People for the American Way] deals with Roberts' tenure as deputy Solicitor General. In that capacity, for example, [Roberts] wrote a brief that argued that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be reversed. [The problem] with these attacks on Roberts' briefs. ... [T]he Solicitor General has a client: the President and his administration. He doesn't just make stuff up, he argues the position that is formulated by the President, the Attorney General and other policy makers."

This, of course, makes perfect sense. The role of an attorney is to be an effective advocate for your client, even if you don't necessarily like or agree with your client. The problem, which we'll soon see, is that it would take some integrity and honesty to acknowledge this point. These are qualities lacking in most liberals today -- and are non-existent in Kennedy, Leahy, Schumer, Kerry, Clinton, et al. So, look for the Dems on the Senate Judiciary Committee during the hearings and in the Senate as a whole during the confirmation process to attack Roberts incessantly as a rabid, "anti-choice" fanatic.

Power Line: "The Democrats also will want to talk about Hedgepeth v. Washington Metro Authority, in which a twelve-year-old girl was taken into custody, handcuffed, and driven to police headquarters because she ate a french fry in a Washington metro station. Roberts wrote the opinion for the D.C. Circuit, affirming a district court decision that dismissed the girl's complaint ... .


The Hedgepeth case may tug at certain heartstrings, but it plainly was decided correctly. Roberts wrote for a 3-0 panel affirming a district court decision, so the conclusion was unanimous. It's hard to paint a judge who is part of a unanimous consensus as "out of the mainstream." "

Again, this makes perfect sense. But, again, my point is that logic, reason, civility, etc. are not concepts we're going to see from the Democrats. In fact, I think the Hedgepeth case may be Exhibit #1 in the liberal attack strategy on Roberts.

1. Observers would have to listen carefully to understand the issues in this case. The case Roberts decided was not whether a twelve-year-old girl should have been arrested for eating french fries. It was to determine whether the lower court erred in upholding the girl's arrest.

2. This subtlety will likely be lost on most Americans. And the liberal activist groups and Democrats will rely on this. I suspect that by the time these folks are done spinning their lies and distortions, it will look to some people that Roberts was the judge who had this girl thrown in jail.

UPDATE: Let's Not Waste Any Time ...

Power Line notes that, while the Democrat lapdogs are obediently doing their masters' bidding, they don't seem too enthusiastic about it.

"Pop the champagne corks, conservatives. Roberts is a fantastic choice, a brilliant and bulletproof conservative. And it was fun to see Pat Leahy and Chuck Schumer on television tonight; they looked just awful. After President Bush's terrific, upbeat presentation of Roberts, and Roberts' graceful, brief talk, Leahy and Schumer sounded like they had just dropped in from another planet. They were dour, hateful, and came across as sad and pathetic minions who have been sent on a hopeless mission by their bosses at "People for the American Way." "

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

UPDATE: Let's Not Waste Any Time ...

Came across an interesting blog at FrontPage magazine called 'Moonbat Central'. They make a similar observation on the cynicism of the left and how they have no intention of conducting a civil nomination hearing.

"People for the American Way has hit the ground running with talking points obviously prepared in advance for use against any Bush Supreme Court nominee not endorsed by Ted Kennedy. Here’s the left’s core message: "Bush has chosen to gratify his extreme right-wing base rather than to protect the basic rights of all Americans. Bush has guaranteed that the confirmation process will be controversial because Judge Roberts is a controversial nominee…" "
Let's Not Waste Any Time ...

... and the poisonous slander from the left is already on the way.

After Pres. Bush's nomination, C-SPAN had Sens. Leahy and Schumer on. No surprise they wasted no time trashing John Roberts. The agti-prop machine of the left surely had a thick dossier on most/all the potential nominess and, when word started to leak out the the nominee would be John Roberts, the masters cracked their whips and the Senate Democrats started dancing the tune.

Just for laughs, let's look at some of the talking points Schumer and company are being spoon fed by their masters:

"President Bush’s nominee for Supreme Court Justice, John Roberts, is a divisive nominee with a record of seeking to impose a political agenda on the courts, rather than a unifier Americans could trust to preserve our personal freedoms like the right to privacy and a woman's right to choose."

National Abortion Rights Action League

People for the American Way is extremely disappointed that the President did not choose a consensus nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O’Connor. John Roberts’ record raises serious concerns as well as questions about where he stands on crucial legal and constitutional issues"

People for the American Way

Isn't it amazing how quickly these folks had their press releases issued and their attack dog Schumer snarling? Anyone who thinks this confirmation process will be "civil" is delusional.
Mr. Roberts

After faking out the libs all day with rumors that he was going to pick Edith Clement, Pres. Bush did a Texas Two-Step this evening and picked John Roberts of the DC Cir. Court of Appeals as his nominee to the Supreme Court.

Roberts appears to be an excellent pick. Great resume and professional credentials. Most imporantly, he's pro-life. Roberts has written of Roe v. Wade: "we continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled."

No matter who Pres. Bush chose, it was obvious that they would be slandered and smeared by the liberals and their bought-and-paid-for mouthpieces in the Senate. That being the case, I'm glad to see Bush choose someone who is worth fighting for.

And make no mistake, the fight is just beginning.
Edith Brown Clement to join the Supremes?

Power Line and National Review's "Bench Memos" (a quasi-blog) are both reporting rumors that Pres. Bush is going to nominate Edith Brown Clement to replace Justice O'Connor. (Clement is currently on the 5th Cir. Court of Appeals).

I could not access her bio from the 5th Circuit's web site (traffic on the court's site is at a crawl -- it appears other folks are checking up on Judge Celement as well!). Here is a short bio on her from the WaPo:

Edith Brown Clement, 57, is a judge on the New Orleans-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.

Judge Edith Brown Clement was nominated by President George H.W. Bush to serve as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in 1991 and was elevated to her current post by the current President Bush in 2001.

Clement, a graduate of the University of Alabama and Tulane University Law School, worked as a lawyer in private practice in New Orleans for 16 years before beginning her tenure on the federal bench. She specialized in civil litigation involving maritime law, representing oil companies, insurance companies and the marine services industry in cases before federal courts. She is a member of the Federalist Society, an influential conservative legal organization.

As a district judge, Clement presided over such high-profile cases as the 2000 trials of former Louisiana governor Edwin W. Edwards (D) and former state insurance commissioner Jim Brown (D) on fraud charges. Edwards was acquitted; Brown was convicted of lying to the FBI and sentenced to six months in prison.

Lawyers who know Clement or have tried cases before her describe her as a judicial conservative who leans toward the defense in civil cases, and as a no-nonsense judge who is strict about deadlines and insists on professionalism from lawyers.

Analysts say Clement has not attracted attention for her judicial opinions, so it is unclear which of her decisions, if any, might become the focus of a confirmation battle.

Monday, July 18, 2005

Luttig for the Supreme Court

I read in yesterday's Washington Post that J. Michael Luttig (a federal judge on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals) is on Bush's short list for the Supreme Court.

Luttig was a clerk under Justice Antonin Scalia when Scalia was an Appelate Court judge. In my view, Scalia is the best judge on the Supreme Court. There is a great deal of osmosis that goes on between a judge and his/her clerks. I suspect that Luttig's judicial thinking and philosophy are similar to and have been influenced and shaped by Scalia. We need more of that thinking and philosophy on the Supreme Court.

Some things to note about Luttig from the article:
  • "Those who know Luttig describe him as a warm and engaging but private man, who speaks in a Texas drawl and rarely goes to Washington social events." Luttig's been in DC for a while but hasn't been seduced by the "Beltway" atmosphere.
  • "Luttig is well known as one of the federal bench’s leading advocates of the view, also endorsed by Scalia, that the text of constitutional provisions and statutes should be interpreted as close to literally as possible." 'Nuff said! :-)
UPDATE: What's All this Bloviating About Karl Rove?

Power Line, without doubt a "must read" blog, has some good insight on the Karl Rove non-story. In taking apart a story from the Seattle Times (see "Journalistic Malpractice. Again." (July 17, 2005)), Power Line puts forth two theories as to why the liberal MSM continues to push this story on the public:
"The quality of the reporting on the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame story has been appalling. It raises in stark form the question whether "mainstream" reporters get facts wrong because they are ill-informed, or because they are counting on their readers being ill-informed."

My vote is for the latter. It comports with the contempt (which is in some cases justified) the media has for the public. Unfortunately, too many Americans read a story in the paper, or listen to a story broadcast by the networks and accept it without question. Consequently, these media outlets become contemptous of their audience and sloppy in their work.

Friday, July 15, 2005

Celebrating Diversity.

You can get this t-shirt at I'm a diverse guy, I think I'll order me one. :-)
What's All this Bloviating About Karl Rove?

Usually, the ranting, raving. whining, anke-biting on the left is pretty understandable (once you skew your thinking and look at the world from a self-absorbed adolescent's point of view), but I am unable to fathom why the libs are foaming at the mouth over Karl Rove's supposed "outing" of Valerie Plame.

Sure, I understand that Democrats and Liberals (I know, it's redundant) hate and fear Rove because he is the "evil genius" behind Pres. Bush's two (WINNING) presidential campaigns. But, a congressional investigation has already shown that Joe Wilson is a bald-faced liar. In addition, these MSM outlets that are now screaming that Rove "outed" Wilson's wife were, not very long ago, spilling buckets of ink and filling the airwaves with protestations that Plame was not an undercover CIA operative. (Of course, that was when they were trying to keep liberal reporters out of jail for refusing to reveal who leaked Plame's name to them.) Now, however, when it appears that Rove had a role in this "outing" of a non-undercover CIA agent, they are screaming bloody murder about protecting secrets. Is there something here?

Of course not. Why then, are the MSM and their leftist allies, going out of their minds about this.

Do they really think Rove committed a crime? Do they really think Rove is going to be indicted? Do they really think Bush is going to cut and run -- throwing a loyal aide 'under the bus' in order to protect himself? Maybe they do (because that's the kind of loyalty liberals extend among themselves).

Anyway, it's Friday evening at the end of a long week. I think I'll do a little reading and see if I can get a handle on this. Stay tuned.

tick ...

tick ...

tick ...

Well, that didn't take long. I checked the Weekly Standard, but nothing jumped out at me. I got a hit at the next site, National Review. In a short piece, Rich Lowry confirms what I suspected: that the liberal left, in their fear and loathing of Rove, are willing to say or do anything to try and stick it to Rove. Lowry: "The newest position of liberalism as represented by the New York Times ... will be difficult to predict, except that it will be calculated to inflict maximum harm on Karl Rove."

David Limbaugh's take is that same. The libs are just aching to get Rove. Writing in, Limbaugh points out that for the Left, any chance to take him down, no matter how half-baked or delusional is to be embraced. Limbaugh: "The Left's underestimation of Bush and irrational fear of Rove distort their perception and drive them into a mouth-foaming feeding frenzy to devour this mad political scientist."

My recommendation to, et al. Call the doctor and get an early refill on that antidepressant prescription -- you're going to need it!
Live Long and Prosper

I just took this quiz and it said that I'm most like Star Trek's Mr. Spock.

Take the quiz yourself here:

Which Fantasy/SciFi Character Are You?

Thursday, July 14, 2005

Attention Cafeteria Catholics:

The cafeteria is CLOSED.
Even a Blind Hog ...

... finds an acorn once in a while.

The once-great Chicago Tribune makes the case for following the Constitution in an editorial today -- though I suspect they stumbled across the point inadvertently.

In addressing concerns about protecting the "right" to abortion should Pres. Bush nominate some solid pro-lifers to the Supreme Court, the Trib says:
But that [reversing Roe v. Wade] would not be the end of the matter. Those who think this procedure should remain legal would be free to urge Congress and state legislatures to allow it.

The same would be true of abortion in general in the event that Roe vs. Wade is someday reversed. Before that decision, states were free to decide for themselves whether to allow abortion, and some did. All a reversal would do is restore the latitude once enjoyed by elected officials.
Well, duh, that's been the whole point. Liberals don't want to have to go to their state legislatures to preserve abortion rights. Their ideas and philosophies can't win at the ballot box or in the halls of Congress. That's why they've turned to the courts to implement their agenda.

A significant majority of the American people were against abortion. It was illegal or significantly restricted in every state in the Union when the Supreme Court "found" the right to abortion 1973. Abortion advocates had been "urging Congress and state legislatures to allow" abortion and failed. They don't want a debate on the "merits" of abortion; they don't want to have to go out now and try and convince state legislatures (and voters) to preserve abortion.

That's why liberals are so desperate to prevent solid conservatives on the Court. An activist judiciary is thier only remaining source of power.
Before Roe v. Wade, "states were free to decide for themselves whether to allow abortion" and most didn't; nor are they likely to do so if given the opportunity in the future.

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

UPDATE: Admiral Stockdale

I assume that you read Power Line every day (if not, shame on you. :-) In case you "missed" it, Power Line has a regular correspondent, Major E, who writes from Baghdad and gives readers an unvarnished glimpse of the situation there without the liberal MSM (negative) spin.

Major E noted the passing of Admiral Stockdale and took the time to share his thoughts (which I'm pasting below).

I was sad to read of the passing of a truly great American patriot--Admiral Stockdale. I remember that as a service academy cadet, I studied his example from years in captivity during the Vietnam War. Stockdale is still used as the model for resistance efforts when captured, based on his heroism and defiance of the North Vietnamese while he spent years in captivity.

Ask any soldier, sailor, airman or marine to name the person who best personifies the Servicemember's Code of Conduct, and he or she will likely say "Stockdale." As John McCain was just quoted, "There are many of us who performed far better (in captivity) than we otherwise would have because of his leadership and example."

While Stockdale was captive in Vietnam, as if normal captivity were not bad enough, he was also the highest ranking POW at the infamous "Hanoi Hilton" POW camp in downtown Hanoi. This meant additional, extended torture sessions because the Vietnamese regularly sought to break the highest ranking prisoners in an attempt to undermine our chain-of-command and create division between captured American servicemembers.

He spent a total of seven-and-a-half years in confinement, four of those in solitary confinement. The Vietnamese were desparate to break the chain of command. Admiral Stockdale, however, resisted to the point of disfiguring himself and, on another occasion, cutting his wrists and passing out in his own blood so that he could not be filmed or exploited for propaganda purposes.

When I traveled to Vietnam several years ago, I visited the Hanoi Hilton, called the Hoa Lo prison, and saw Admiral Stockdale's photo displayed along with other prominent American POW's such as John McCain and Pete Peterson. Having studied his example then seeing Stockdale's photo in the prison made me swallow hard thinking of what he endured in the very same place.

Several years prior, though, I had an even more memorable experience involving the admiral when I met him unexpectedly at a restaurant near President Nixon's Library in Yorba Linda, California on the day of the presidential funeral in 1994. I was in dress uniform standing in line around lunch time and asked the grey-haired couple in front of me how the line was moving.

The gentleman turned to answer my question, and to this day I do not remember what struck me first: his piercing blue eyes or the blue Medal of Honor worn around his neck. "Oh, it should be about 15 minutes," he politely replied. I realized it was him.

I was stunned and could not utter a single syllable. His wife started to smile at me, surely having seen before the phenomenon of a young military man, speechless, meeting her husband. He smoothly started to pick up the conversation until I gathered myself, sort of, and interuppted him a moment later.

"Admiral Stockdale, sir, it is an honor to meet you."

"Well, thank you, lieutenant, same to you."

He introduced me to his wife and invited me to join them for lunch. He was such a man of integrity and honor, wrapped in utter humility as well as love and respect for his wife. Unfortuantely, I never spoke to him after that but to this day, lunch with Admiral and Mrs. Stockdale ranks as one of the inspirational highlights of my military career.

Lord willing, my wife and I are expecting our first child, a boy, inOctober. As a future parent, I hope to raise a son who will understand and exhibit the qualities of faith, honor, and integrity. I hope and pray he will resist the pressures to idolize pop stars, Hollywood types, and athletes. Instead, I hope he chooses to learn the definition of character and the meaning of service from the example of Admiral James Stockdale.

Thank you, Power Line, for paying respects to this outstanding military officer and truly great American role model.


Major E.

Camp Victory, Baghdad

Sunday, July 10, 2005

Those Guys at IBD Must Be Real Smart -- Especially Seeing As How They Agree With Me. ;-)

The other day I wrote that I thought that the terrorists, recognizing they can't win on the battlefield, are using the techniques of the Communists and trying to win by eroding support for the war back home.

As they say, genius loves company, and Investor's Business Daily has an editorial in tomorrow's edition which tracks quite well with my post. An excerpt:

The cowardly car bombers that our enemies employ cannot hope to overcome our military, the mightiest the world has ever seen. But they do hope their horrific acts can discourage the American people and their elected representatives back home.

They are aided in this endeavor by certain political leaders bent on appeasement and a national press corps focused mainly on body counts.

This is exactly what our enemies want. They hope we'll lose our backbone and quit, so that enslavement, intimidation and blackmail can prevail over freedom, equality and democracy.

Steyn Comes Out Swinging

Boy, this guy is the best thing since Linda Bowles (R.I.P.). Mark Steyn follows up his great column on the attempted liberal hijacking of the World Trade Center memorial with this Chicago SunTimes column on why the West should go on the offensive and take the fight to the terrorists.
Supreme Court Rumors

Yesterday, while driving around running errands, I was listening to Tony Snow on WLS here in Chicago. Snow was saying he had heard rumors that, in addition to CJ Rehnquist, that John Paul Stevens was going to retire as well.

This morning I picked up the same rumor at Townhall's C-Log blog.

Stevens' retirement, like O'Connor's, could be a big win for conservatives. And here's why I think so:

A Rehnquist retirement is a big risk for conservatives. Rhenquist has been a solid conservative jurist. When/if he retires, Pres. Bush has to find another judge who will be as reliably conservative -- not an easy task (can you say David Souter). So, if Bush's replacement of Rehnquist is not a solid conservative, that's a net loss.

O'Connor and Stevens, however, have (to great disappointment) been anything but conservatives -- despite having been nominated by Republican presidents Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon (respectively). So, if Bush's replacement of either/both of these justices turns out to be a solid conservative, that is a (big, BIG) net gain for conservatives.

Stay tuned.

Saturday, July 09, 2005

Enemy Infiltrators at Ground Zero

The incomprable Mark Steyn has a great article on the attempts by liberals to hijack the planned memorial at the World Trade Center site (Ground Zero) and turn it into a hand-wringing, self-loathing, dispay by the 'blame-America-first' crowd.

Steyn's article is posted on the UK Spectator, which requires site registration. Here's a nice excerpt from the article, which should make it worth your while to take the time to log onto the site:

For a few brief weeks after 9/11, back when Americans were celebrating the heroism of the brave passengers who rose up against their hijackers on Flight 93, it seemed as if the last words of Tod Beamer — ‘Let’s roll!’ — might indeed roll back the enervated multiculti squishiness of the age. In those days Michael Moore was an irrelevant fringe figure, a ‘well-known crank, regarded with considerable distaste even on the Left’, as Jacob Weisberg, editor of Slate, assured us. Three years later, garlanded with Oscars and Palmes d’Or, Michael Moore was sitting alongside Jimmy Carter in the presidential box at the Democratic Convention.

The mainstreaming of ‘well-known cranks’ like Moore is one reason the Dems have become such reliable losers every other November. Reacting to Karl Rove’s recent assault on American liberals as unreliable on national security and war, big-time Democrats huffed indignantly that this was an outrage given their support over the Afghan campaign. OK, but even taking that at face value it was three and a half years ago: what have you done since? Bitched about Abu Ghraib and Gitmo and whined that Jacques Chirac doesn’t want to be friends any more. These days, heavyweight Dems lumber on to the Senate floor to do Noam Chomsky impressions: the other day it was Dick Durbin of Illinois comparing the US military at Guantanamo with Nazis and the Khmer Rouge.

But the co-option of Durbin, and Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean et al. (as in Gore) is small potatoes compared with the counter-tribalist Left’s most audacious appropriation yet. While the Bush administration and most of the rest of the country were focused on Afghanistan and Iraq, Ground Zero in New York got snaffled up for something called the ‘World Trade Center Memorial’. An unexceptional name that would lead you to expect ...what? The names of the dead? A tribute to the courageous firemen who died in their hundreds heading up the stairwells and into the flames? A recreation of the iconic image of the three rescue workers raising the flag and evoking Iwo Jima?

But somehow the World Trade Center Memorial Cultural Complex has wound up mostly in the hands of something called the ‘International Freedom Center’, on whom millions of taxpayers’ dollars have been lavished in return for a display that will place the events that took place on that ground in the ‘broader context’ of Native American genocide, black lynchings, Pinochet, the Holocaust, not to mention Gitmo and Abu Ghraib.

Friday, July 08, 2005

We Are Not Afraid.

This is a cool site out of the UK where folks from all over the world are sending in images which trigger a bunch of emotions. The primary message is that we will not be cowed by terrorists.

Some of the pictures are crude, but most are well-done; it reminds me of the photo montage of folks all over the world offering prayers and condolences to the U.S. back in 2001.

The picture posted above is my favorite from the We're Not Afraid site.

Let's Lose Two!

Gotta love those Cubbies. Year in and year out, with amazing consistency, they stink up the league. The only suspense the Cubbies hold out for us is what month will they tank?

Some years, the season's over before the end of April. Other years, they wait until August or September before folding the tent. With a mediocre record so far of 40-46, I think it's a pretty safe bet Cub fans won't have to worry about cashing in the kid's college fund for World Series tickets this year!

Following the immortal advice of Ernie Banks, they went out yesterday and lost two games -- both sides of a double header. Then to top it off, they finally recognized, to the utter lack of surprise to the rest of the league, that their center fielder, Corey Patterson, is an 'A' ball player masquerading as a major leaguer. To their credit, once the Cubbies were tipped off to the fraud, they shipped Corey off to Iowa.

Oh well, wait'll next year -- which will only be 98 years since the last World Series!
Sound the Advance

Osama bin Laden and his terrorist allies were paying attention in history class. They've recognized that they could never defeat the West, particularly the U.S., on the battlefield. They know the only way to "beat" us is to force us to give up and withdraw -- like we did in Vietnam.

They also know the way to force our withdrawl is to erode support for the war on terror at home. In the Tet Offensive, the Communists lost the battle but won the war. The battle was a huge military defeat for them, but the American public, persuaded by Walter Cronkite and the rest of the MSM, turned tail and sounded the retreat. These Islamist terrorists have learned that history well and have been trying the same tactic. The seemingly unending attacks in Iraq (and now London), with the seemingly endless casulties, are designed to erode support for the war on terror in the MSM, the halls of Congress -- and in our living rooms.

That's why Americans need to grit their teeth, stiffen their spines and renew their resolve to stay the course. To do otherwise is to aid and abet the terrorists. And that's why I think Ted Kennedy, Dick Turban, Howard Dean, et al, with their incessant criticism of the president and military are either outright traitors or willing dupes of the terrorists.

One "good" that can come from the horrific terrorist attack in London would be for the whining, ankle-biting, "blame America first" crowd to JUST SHUT UP and allow freedom fighters, led by Pres. Bush and Prime Minister Blair to once again sound the advance and take the fight to the terrorists.

Thursday, July 07, 2005

"We are all Britons today"

Blogger Captain's Quarters sums up my feelings quite well.

"On July 7, 2005, let it be known that the world united behind our British brothers and sisters as fellow members of Western Civilization under attack by the forces of tyranny and oppression. We stand with our friends who have suffered a terrible act of war on their civilian population, a cowardly and shameful act that amply demonstrates the depths of depravity of the enemies of freedom and liberty.

We are all Britons today."

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

Requiescat In Pace: Admiral James Stockdale

Admiral Stockdale passed away yesterday. Unfortunately for me, my primary memory of him was his awkward debate performance in 1992.

The Washington Post has a nice story on him; and in reading it I see that he deserves to be remembered for his heroic service.

Almighty God and Father, by the mystery of the cross, you have made us strong; by the sacrament of the resurrection you have sealed us as your own. Look kindly upon your servants, now freed from the bonds of mortality, and count them among your saints in heaven.

We ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Tuesday, July 05, 2005

What is a Liberal?

This is a couple of months old, but definitely worth reading, or re-reading as the case may be. In fact, it's so good I'm going to post it in its entirety.


Pathology of the Left

Mark Alexander, 2/25/2005
(Executive Editor and Publisher of The Federalist Patriot (

In 2003 the American Psychological Association printed a study by a few academicians from Cal-Berkeley and the University of Maryland. The study, entitled "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," purported to have identified some determinants that are common to those holding a "conservative" worldview.

As one reads the report, it becomes readily apparent that their "norm" -- that is, their control group -- was somewhere to the left of SanFranNan Pelosi and her Ya Ya sisters, Babs Boxer and Di Feinstein -- but then, what are we to expect from Cal-Berkeley and UM, or just about any of our nation's "leading" academic institutions?

The authors received more than 1.2 million of your hard-earned tax dollars from the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation in order to, by their own account, "consider evidence for and against the hypotheses that political conservatism is significantly associated with (1) mental rigidity and closed-mindedness; (2) lowered self-esteem; (3) fear, anger, and aggression; (4) pessimism, disgust, and contempt; (5) loss prevention; (6) fear of death; (7) threat arising from social and economic deprivation; and (8) threat to the stability of the social system."

In other words, if you (1) have an opinion; and are (2) humble; (3) assertive; (4) a realist; (5) a conservationist; (6) not suicidal; (7) from modest means; and (8) a constitutional constructionist, or worse, a Christian, then you're probably a wacky conservative.

Actually, what taxpayers got was re-warmed 1950-vintage rhetoric on what the authors call "authoritarianism and the fascist potential in personality.'' They assert that "one is justified in referring to Hitler, Mussolini, Reagan, and Limbaugh as right-wing conservatives..." (Is it just us, or is that a rather tendentious juxtaposition of murderous tyrants and conservative icons?) All in all, this research stands as a sterling example of academic twaddle, providing "an integrative, meta-analytic review of research on epistemic, existential, and ideological bases of conservatism." The authors' ultimate finding -- for what it's worth -- is that conservatives tend to "arrive at premature conclusions and impose simplistic clichés and stereotypes," which, ironically, is precisely what the authors have done.

For two long years, The Patriot's editorial staff waited for conservative behaviorist academicians to respond to this farcical pseudo-scholarly diatribe with a brief essay outlining the pathology of liberalism (contemporary, not classical). However, most conservative behaviorist left the academy a long time ago, and forgot to turn out the lights. That being the case, what follows is a rebuttal to this Leftist invective in the most general terms -- sans the $1.2 million in confiscated wages and a forest of pulp for reprinting in "scholarly journals."

Now then, what, in the broadest terms, constitutes a contemporary liberal -- and why?

Liberals are almost uniformly defined by their hypocrisy and dissociation from reality. For example, the wealthiest U.S. senators -- among them Kerry, Kennedy, Corzine, Kohl, Rockefeller, Feinstein, and Rhode Island RINO Lincoln Chaffee -- fancy themselves as defenders of the poor, but they have no idea of what it's like to live without a bloated trust fund. Liberals speak of unity, but they appeal to the worst in human nature by dividing Americans into dependent constituencies. Just who are these liberal constituencies? They support freedom of thought, unless your thoughts don't comport with theirs. They feign tolerance while practicing intolerance. They resist open discussion and debate of their views, yet seek to silence dissenters. They insist that they care more about protecting habitat than those who hunt and fish. They protest for nature conservation while advocating homosexuality. They denounce capital punishment for the most heinous of criminals, while ardently supporting the killing of the most innocent among us -- children prior to birth. They hate private-gun ownership, but they wink and nod when it comes to WMD in the hands of tyrants. They advocate for big government but want to restrain free enterprise.

Liberals constantly assert their First Amendment rights, except, of course, when it comes to religion. Here, they firmly impose the doctrines of secular atheism on everyone else. They believe that second-hand smoke is more dangerous than marijuana smoke. They believe that one nut accused of bombing an Alabama abortion clinic deserves far more law-enforcement attention than Jihadi cells planning the 9/11 attacks. They call 9/11 victims "Hitlerian" while calling their murderers "oppressed." They hate SUVs, unless imported and driven by soccer moms. They believe trial lawyers save lives and doctors kill people. They believe the solution to racism is to treat people differently on the basis of their skin color. They deride moral clarity because they can't survive its scrutiny. They promote peace but foment division and hate -- ad infinitum.

Why do liberals believe what they believe -- and act the way they act? Psychopathology dictates, or frames, worldview, and worldview manifests in such things as political affiliation. Liberal pathology is very transparent and, thus, well defined.

Generally, liberals tend to be mentally rigid and closed-minded because they are insecure, the result of low self-esteem associated, predominantly, with fatherless households or critically dysfunctional families in which they were not adequately affirmed. (For Leftist over-achievers like Bill Clinton, see narcissistic boderline personality disorder.) They exhibit fear, anger, and aggression -- the behavioral consequences of arrested emotional development associated with childhood trauma (primarily rejection by a significant family member of origin as noted above). Liberals display pessimism, disgust, and contempt for much the same reason. They focus on loss prevention because they have suffered significant loss. They fear death because they have little or no meaningful connection with their Heavenly Father -- often the result of the disconnect with their earthly fathers. They often come from socially and/or economically deprived homes, but those who are inheritance-welfare trust-babies (see Kennedy, et al.) manifest similar expectations about being helpless without external sustenance. Liberals reject individual responsibility and social stability because these were not modeled for them as children -- the generational implications of pathology.

Sound familiar -- apparently the profs at Cal-Berkeley and Maryland attributed their own pathological traits to their opposition. It's called projection -- or, yes indeed, hypocrisy.
While the aforementioned environmental and behavioral factors are not universally causal in the emergence of a liberal worldview, they certainly are predominant. Close examination of the early childhood of most liberals will reveal they were "victims" of many of these circumstances, which is, in part, the basis for their "victim mentality."

Of course, there are many conservatives who were raised by a single parent or in critically dysfunctional and impoverished homes. However, somewhere along the way, they were lifted out of their misery by the grace of God -- often in the form of a significant mentor who modeled hope and responsibility for them. As a result, they have the courage to internalize their locus of responsibility, unlike liberals, who externalize responsibility for problems and solutions, holding others (read "conservatives") to blame for their ills, and bestowing upon the state the duty for arbitrating proper conduct -- even proper thought.

On a final note, it's no coincidence that conservative political bases tend to be suburban or rural, while liberal political bases tend to be urban (see http://FederalistPatriot.US/map.asp). The social, cultural and economic blight in many urban settings are the catalysts for producing generations of liberals. Many urbanites no longer have a connection with "the land" (self-sufficiency) and, thus, tend to be largely dependent on the state for all manner of their welfare, protection and sustenance -- "It Takes a Village" after all.

Just a Reminder ...

... of how close elections can be -- and what the consequences can be.

Lyndon Johnson stole his election to the Senate.

John Kennedy likely stole his election to the presidency.

In the 2000 election dispute, Al Gore promptly hired Bill Daley to run his Florida operations. (For you non-Chicagoans, check your reference guide: Daley, William, son of Richard J. Daley, former mayor of Chicago; sat on his father's knee and learned how to stuff ballot boxes and teach the dead how to cast multiple ballots.)

It wouldn't have taken that many votes last year for America to have a different president.

The point being (yes, there is a point) is that, but for a couple votes (well, 3 million -- but percentage-wise not a lot), John Kerry would be choosing our next Supreme Court justice.
Top 100 Worst Americans.

Michael Moore is the #1 Worst American. I didn't have to read more; the author of the book mentioned in this article should win the Pulitzer Prize -- heck, make it a Nobel!
UPDATE: Watch as Agitprop Groups Wind Up their Favorite Senators

Michael Barone also has a piece on the liberal agitprop group tactics over at Real Clear Politics.

An excerpt:

As for Democratic senators, they have almost unanimously accepted direction from these groups. As independent-minded and candid a senator as Russ Feingold of Wisconsin was seen reading questions to a Bush nominee off the papers supplied by these groups. A major Democratic constituency, the feminist left, expects a fight against any Bush nominee. The Democratic senators surely will not disappoint."

Watch as Agitprop Groups Wind Up their Favorite Senators

Way back when (Sunday I think), I noted that we could look forward to seeing the liberal agitprop groups pulling the strings (sorry for the mixed metaphors) and seeing Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, et al mouthing the smears and slanders dredged up (and made up) by these groups during the confirmation hearing of whoever Pres. Bush nominates.

Mark Levin details this tactic in a National Review piece.

An excerpt:

"The left-wing groups made detailed demands on Senators Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, Patrick Leahy, Chuck Schumer, and Harry Reid, to name some, to institute a variety of delay and smear tactics against numerous appellate-court nominees — many of whom were already sitting federal or state judges with outstanding records for professionalism and high character."

I'm glad to see Mark Levin is reading my blog -- however, he forgot to acknowledge me in his article. :-)

Coincidence? I Think Not

I just got an e-mail from my manager looking for volunteers to develop a new policy for our firm on blogging.

(I must admit that when I got the e-mail entitled "Blogging Issue and Policy", I thought I was being reprimanded for working on my blog using my company pc. :-)

I think I'll volunteer. I suspect I am one of the few, if not the only, lawyer in our firm with a blog. I can help shape history here!

Not really. Like most of our policies, I suspect this one will go unread by everyone but those who put it together. No matter. It could be an interesting exercise and -- more importantly -- volunteering always looks good to higher management. The key is volunteering for interesting and painless projects.

Monday, July 04, 2005

UPDATE: A Deficit of Decency

Update: One of my highly-placed sources tells me that Miller still considers himself to be a Democrat. This would appear to conflict with my point (below) that there are no prominent Democrats of principle in that party.

I believe, however, that the two positions are not inconsistent. In his previous book, A National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat, Miller wrote that he did not leave the Democratic party, the Democratic party left him. Zell is a member of another Democratic party, the party that had members like Hancock, Harry Truman, John Glenn (it's still a pretty short list :-). Today's Democratic party, the party of Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, et al has been hijacked by special interest groups. It may have the same name, but it is not the same party.

While we're on the subject, you should get A National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat at the same time you order A Deficit of Decency.

A Deficit of Decency

I have nothing to say about this book, other than get it!
Who Was the Hero of Gettysburg?

It wasn't Confederate Gen. George E. Pickett, leader of the memorable, doomed charge on the Union center along Cemetery Ridge. It wasn't Robert E. Lee, leader of the Confederate army. And it wasn't Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, who held the Union line on Little Round Top. It was a Union general, Winfield Scott Hancock, who commanded the troops who held the Union line against "Pickett's Charge". Here's an inspiring short article on Hancock.

After the war, as military govenor of Texas and Louisiana, Hancock treated the locals humanely rather than punitively as was common in most of the post-war South. Because he stood by his principles in governing his district rather than dispensing the harsh treatment expected by Congress, Hancock was forced out as govenor after six months.

Thereafter, Hancock was the Democrat's nominee for President in 1876. He lost the election to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes by only 9,400 votes; and many felt that his refusal to accept campaign contributions was the deciding factor in his defeat.

I can't help but wonder what's happened to the Democrats over these last couple of decades. Can you imagine Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean -- any prominent Democratic -- taking a principled stand on any prominent issue? How many prominent Democrats are pro-life? How many prominent Democrats support the Second Amendment? How many prominent Democrats defend traditional marriage?

Don't waste too much time trying to think of one -- there aren't any. The fundamental problem with the Democratic party today is that it is totally dominated by special interest groups: People for the American Way, Banned Parenthood,, PETA, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance, etc., etc. Even if there are Democrats who are pro-life, or pro-freedom, or pro-family, their views are suppressed because the Democratic party is beholden to these special interests.

And don't just take my word for it. The work of these agitprop pressure groups are already gearing up to smear and slander whoever Pres. Bush nominates for the Supreme Court. During the hearings you'll hear the talking points prepared by Banned Parenthood as Ted Kennedy trashes the nominee on his/her pro-life views; you'll be listening to research done by the Gay & Lesbian Alliance as John Kerry smears the nominee for "homophobic" statements in support of traditional families (btw, why do we feel compelled to say "traditional family" -- is there a non-traditional family? isn't really a small group and not a family?).

Today, Winfield Scott Hancock wouldn't even recognize what's now the Democratic party.


Blog Archive