In what has to be one of the soundest decisions from the judicial system in recent months, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling that descendents of slaves do not deserve reparations from U.S. companies, including banks, insurers, and transportation firms. This case should have been dismissed in its infancy on the lack of merit alone, but thankfully, the lower court and the appeals court both agreed the plaintiffs had no standing to sue any of the defendants.
The reparations argument has existed for years, with descendents claiming injury from products and services made by companies that had any interest in slavery or had previously benefited from it in the past. This is an absurd contention. Any injuries suffered by these individuals were figments of their own greedy imaginations. This is no different from sham mass tort litigation. Citing expired statues of limitations, the lower court correctly held reparations to be a political issue rather than a legal one, and subsequently the judge dismissed all claims. On appeal, the plaintiffs’ claims were again bounced out based on the same conclusions.
Reparations claims are nothing more than an attempt to rip off companies based on some ridiculous historical basis. So what if JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, and Aetna profited from slavery? It’s been 140 years since the end of the Civil War. If slaves’ families wanted redress, the time to sue and recover from any company earning profits from slavery related operations was in 1865. Allowing nearly a century and a half to pass before deciding to seek legal recourse effectively barred these descendents from pursuing their cases, and the courts agreed. “Statutes of limitations would be toothless if descendents could collect damages for wrongs against their ancestors,” cited Judge Posner of the 7th Circuit. No honest descendent of a slave could look me in the eye and expect me to believe they’ve suffered some wrong requiring repayment and maintain any credibility whatsoever. Reparations are just an extension of government-sponsored entitlement programs taken to the absurd while trying to extort funds from reputable corporations.
Kudos to the courts for showing what reparations really are – fraud, pure and simple, and hooray for the companies who decided to fight rather than settle, which is most likely what the plaintiffs’ lawyers were hoping for when they took these cases. Pending another appeal, all that’s left now is for the Supreme Court to deny writ of certiorari, and we can put this issue in the trash bin of history where it belongs.
Friday, December 15, 2006
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Our Own Neville Chamberlain
Once again, Sen. John Kerry is leading the appeasement lobby for the Middle East. According to the failed presidential candidate, "I think it's important to talk...but you don't give up your principles and you don't make deals that are against your larger interest." The talk in this instance is referring to those most pro-American of countries, Syria and Iran. Yes, Iran -- the same Iran who'd rather lob a nuke at Israel than sit down and "talk" with Jews. What exactly is he proposing we discuss with Mr. Whackjob? How the U.S. could completely sell out our only true ally in the region, or how about preventing Israel from participating in the Iraq Study Group's recommendations? Wow, those both seem like great suggestions to me. What I don’t hear is anything substantive coming from Senator Kerry, but then again, that’s no different from the entire 2004 presidential campaign. Democrats are quick to criticize, yet scared or unable to provide any concrete plans, other than say we need a new direction. Is the situation in Iraq a losing cause? It is if the administration fails to implement strategies leading to victory but instead opts for short-term solutions.
Kerry’s remarks come on the heels of Kofi Annan’s comments echoing the same sentiments. "Bush should talk to these two [Iraq and Syria] countries," the UN chief said to France Radio International (anyone else snickering now?), "but I have no idea about what form the discussion will take." That’s akin to a marriage counselor accepting a warring couple as clients, then telling them they’ll have to choose how they want to communicate during therapy. It’s amazing the UN accomplished anything productive the last 10 years with that kind of decisive leadership. Kind of leaves you scratching your head, doesn’t it? Given the UN’s track record in recent years, there’s nowhere to go but up with the new Secretary-General.
All this posturing lends credence to the liberals’ theory that the word is always mightier than the sword. I’m not advocating another Operation Rolling Thunder, but I think it’s pretty clear that America is not going to be able to talk its way out of the Iraq "situation." Trying to negotiate with opponents who are either overt (Iran) or covert (Syria) antagonists is not going to work. The U.S. is the Great Satan to these people. Read the Koran; it’s convert or die, and there is no middle ground. The appeasers from the American left are consistent in their assumption that we bring our own woes upon us and it’s up to the government to show the world we can change, admit our faults, and play nice. The machismo inherent in Islam regards weakness as behavior to be reviled. They understand strength, and expect as much in confrontations. With a new political party in power, I hope the Democrats recognize the same and move to protect America’s interests. Theodore Roosevelt’s big stick and soft speech would serve well in these times.
Kerry’s remarks come on the heels of Kofi Annan’s comments echoing the same sentiments. "Bush should talk to these two [Iraq and Syria] countries," the UN chief said to France Radio International (anyone else snickering now?), "but I have no idea about what form the discussion will take." That’s akin to a marriage counselor accepting a warring couple as clients, then telling them they’ll have to choose how they want to communicate during therapy. It’s amazing the UN accomplished anything productive the last 10 years with that kind of decisive leadership. Kind of leaves you scratching your head, doesn’t it? Given the UN’s track record in recent years, there’s nowhere to go but up with the new Secretary-General.
All this posturing lends credence to the liberals’ theory that the word is always mightier than the sword. I’m not advocating another Operation Rolling Thunder, but I think it’s pretty clear that America is not going to be able to talk its way out of the Iraq "situation." Trying to negotiate with opponents who are either overt (Iran) or covert (Syria) antagonists is not going to work. The U.S. is the Great Satan to these people. Read the Koran; it’s convert or die, and there is no middle ground. The appeasers from the American left are consistent in their assumption that we bring our own woes upon us and it’s up to the government to show the world we can change, admit our faults, and play nice. The machismo inherent in Islam regards weakness as behavior to be reviled. They understand strength, and expect as much in confrontations. With a new political party in power, I hope the Democrats recognize the same and move to protect America’s interests. Theodore Roosevelt’s big stick and soft speech would serve well in these times.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Global Warming Is Ruining Sports...
Recently, World Cup Skiing leaders and athletes have been bemoaning the cancellation of several competition events due to a lack of snow. You've read my title -- you know who their usual suspect is: global warming. Yes, this insidious geographic menace is now threatening the livelihood of the world's best snow skiers. According to SignonSanDiego.com, "The season-opening races in Soelden, Austria, in October were wiped out because of heavy rain, and the women's events set for St. Moritz, Switzerland, on Dec. 9-10 were canceled because of lack of snow and warm temperatures. The men's races in Val d'Isere, France, on the same weekend were scrapped on Wednesday." That's right, San Diego, the mecca of U.S. downhillers and giant slalom skiers. What's next, the Prague outlook for west coast surfing?
Something caused this aberrant weather. Hmmm, what could it be? My guess is that October, while perhaps a historically cold month in Europe, is a FALL month. So is December 9th, according to my calendar. Why not wait until winter? Blaming global warming for the canceled fall events would be like the New Delhi Cricket Association scheduling the championships during a monsoon month and blaming the weather for matches that get rained out. I confess this is a rather simplistic way of looking at this issue, but I have to draw the line somewhere. Besides, World Cup skiing probably has a smaller American audience than the ESPN Dominoes Championships anyway. No one watches skiing unless the Olympics are on, and that's only if the curling matches aren't televised. Also, there's no ball involved in skiing, and therefore (if I am paraphrasing George Carlin correctly), skiing isn't a sport but instead is an activity. Hey, he said it, not me.
What I don't intend to do is debate the pros and cons of global warming, or even if it actually exists. Al Gore claims it's the biggest threat to our national (ok, world) existence. His former boss echoed the same sentiment. What a convenient truth for them. Call me crazy, but I'll take World Terrorism for $400 Alex. I'm truly more afraid of some fanatic wearing a Dior dynamite vest (as opposed to a dynamite Dior vest...) ruining my day while I'm Christmas shopping at the mall than I am of an iceberg that's 6% smaller than a year ago. That's the world I live in, and Al can join me if he wants.
I just can't stand by and let the environmentalists use the global warming argument in sports as a way to make it more acceptable. I'm waiting for Yogi Berra to say something about climactic change. It's sure to be more believable than anything I've heard so far.
Something caused this aberrant weather. Hmmm, what could it be? My guess is that October, while perhaps a historically cold month in Europe, is a FALL month. So is December 9th, according to my calendar. Why not wait until winter? Blaming global warming for the canceled fall events would be like the New Delhi Cricket Association scheduling the championships during a monsoon month and blaming the weather for matches that get rained out. I confess this is a rather simplistic way of looking at this issue, but I have to draw the line somewhere. Besides, World Cup skiing probably has a smaller American audience than the ESPN Dominoes Championships anyway. No one watches skiing unless the Olympics are on, and that's only if the curling matches aren't televised. Also, there's no ball involved in skiing, and therefore (if I am paraphrasing George Carlin correctly), skiing isn't a sport but instead is an activity. Hey, he said it, not me.
What I don't intend to do is debate the pros and cons of global warming, or even if it actually exists. Al Gore claims it's the biggest threat to our national (ok, world) existence. His former boss echoed the same sentiment. What a convenient truth for them. Call me crazy, but I'll take World Terrorism for $400 Alex. I'm truly more afraid of some fanatic wearing a Dior dynamite vest (as opposed to a dynamite Dior vest...) ruining my day while I'm Christmas shopping at the mall than I am of an iceberg that's 6% smaller than a year ago. That's the world I live in, and Al can join me if he wants.
I just can't stand by and let the environmentalists use the global warming argument in sports as a way to make it more acceptable. I'm waiting for Yogi Berra to say something about climactic change. It's sure to be more believable than anything I've heard so far.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Dems Win with "We're Not Them" - A New Plan
It is amazing how a national party can capture a congressional majority with no unified platform. Does anyone know what the Democrats advocated, other than, "We hate Bush," or "Hey, we aren't the Republicans, so vote for us!"? Granted the self-professed moderates in America handed the Pelosi-ites this election after sending the majority the clear message that whatever the Republicans were doing, it wasn't effective. I can't argue with that. If a party can win with that kind of strategy, more power to them, I guess. Personally, I vote for something or someone rather than against something or someone.
Repubs in late October, sensing the ship was sinking, distanced themselves from Bush (see Charlie Crist, FL), the war, and any appearance of being labeled "right wing" and tried to hold onto their seats. Many conservative pundits rightly point out that many new congressional delegates are "right of center" or outright conservative on several key issues like abortion and gun control (Heath Shuler, NC-11). Nancy Pelosi and Jack Murtha's jobs now will be to make sure there are no "maverick" House Democrats so they can push ahead with their leftist agenda. If you think the coming majority is going to be centrist, you've bought the Democrats' election rhetoric or you're standing in line to buy the Brooklyn Bridge.
So, what do we poor, downtrodden conservatives do now? I'd like to propose my own platform, although a few of these ideas have been around for some time:
(1) Streamline the Cabinet and Executive Branch, starting with eliminating the Department of Education. Maybe Labor too...
(2) Enact the Fair Tax. Do yourself a favor -- read this book!
(3) Enact enforceable immigration reform legislation, or enforce what we have now. No social security benefits for illegals, and no automatic citizenship for babies born to illegals. Contribute to our economy, but legally, please.
(4) Enact term limits. Half the problem are the "legislators for life" in Congress now, many believing their seat is some kind of birthright (Kennedy). Perhaps 4 to 5 terms in the House and no more than 3 terms as a Senator.
(5) Cut funding to Third World nations who don't deserve our largesse or are ungrateful for the assistance we do give them.
(6) Tell the United Nations to start looking for new real estate and force other nations to foot the bill for this ineffective institution. The U.N. has its place in the world community, it just needs to be somewhere else.
(7) Enact tort reform, and while we're at it, keep judges from legislating from the bench by prohibiting or limiting the courts' jurisdictions.
(8) Dump affirmative action. It's really discriminatory and negates the achievements of minority classes.
That's enough for now. I don't expect to actually hear some politician mouth these ideas in public, but a conservative can dream, right?
Repubs in late October, sensing the ship was sinking, distanced themselves from Bush (see Charlie Crist, FL), the war, and any appearance of being labeled "right wing" and tried to hold onto their seats. Many conservative pundits rightly point out that many new congressional delegates are "right of center" or outright conservative on several key issues like abortion and gun control (Heath Shuler, NC-11). Nancy Pelosi and Jack Murtha's jobs now will be to make sure there are no "maverick" House Democrats so they can push ahead with their leftist agenda. If you think the coming majority is going to be centrist, you've bought the Democrats' election rhetoric or you're standing in line to buy the Brooklyn Bridge.
So, what do we poor, downtrodden conservatives do now? I'd like to propose my own platform, although a few of these ideas have been around for some time:
(1) Streamline the Cabinet and Executive Branch, starting with eliminating the Department of Education. Maybe Labor too...
(2) Enact the Fair Tax. Do yourself a favor -- read this book!
(3) Enact enforceable immigration reform legislation, or enforce what we have now. No social security benefits for illegals, and no automatic citizenship for babies born to illegals. Contribute to our economy, but legally, please.
(4) Enact term limits. Half the problem are the "legislators for life" in Congress now, many believing their seat is some kind of birthright (Kennedy). Perhaps 4 to 5 terms in the House and no more than 3 terms as a Senator.
(5) Cut funding to Third World nations who don't deserve our largesse or are ungrateful for the assistance we do give them.
(6) Tell the United Nations to start looking for new real estate and force other nations to foot the bill for this ineffective institution. The U.N. has its place in the world community, it just needs to be somewhere else.
(7) Enact tort reform, and while we're at it, keep judges from legislating from the bench by prohibiting or limiting the courts' jurisdictions.
(8) Dump affirmative action. It's really discriminatory and negates the achievements of minority classes.
That's enough for now. I don't expect to actually hear some politician mouth these ideas in public, but a conservative can dream, right?
Thursday, November 09, 2006
The Silence Is Deafening
Ok, now that the smoke has cleared from Election '06, it's eerily silent throughout the country. Why? Because Republicans evidently can take a crushing defeat like adults and don't see the need to run to the nearest lawyer and file injunctions and lawsuits to bottle up the political process. Many of the House of Representatives races were exceptionally close, often 51%-49% or even tighter. Does anyone remember FL 2000? Petulant Democrats, having had their heads handed to them once again, screamed fraud and demanded recounts, not believing that the public chose someone other than them. "Let's get the courts to say we won -- that's the best thing to do. To heck with the actual election results. We deserve to be in power."
Evidently, the Republicans who were defeated accepted the losses as the will of the American electorate, despite the closeness of many of the races. Certainly, losing Republicans had the right to pitch tantrums like children whose favorite toy had been taken away, but thankfully that was not the case in Tuesday's vote. Now is the time to regroup and concentrate on running successful 2008 campaigns. If Republicans lose elections on issues, there's not much they can complain about. It's their fault that the conservative wave that has been building since 1994 has finally hit a seawall and scattered.
My hope is that someone rises to the occasion and assumes leadership of the movement not just the party. George Bush has been a dismal failure as a conservative leader. Over the six years of his presidency, it's been quite painful to watch the party drift leftward towards the center, often in the face of blatant partisanship exhibited by the left. With no coherent direction, the idelogical position suffers, unlike 1994, when coherence and focus made Republicans predictable, effective, and victorious. The coherence of 1994 showed that conservatism works when properly applied -- Republicans swept into power and held it twelve years. Perhaps the conservative base didn't show up for 2006 mid-terms, or maybe the majority of moderate voters wanted change and fell for the liberals' "New Direction" mantra. Whatever the reasons for the Republicans' defeat, there is undoubtedly a gaping hole in the party's leadership. Tuesday's results confirmed this. Until this void is filled by a leader committed to conservative ideals, you might as well get used to Speaker Pelosi and her new direction.
Evidently, the Republicans who were defeated accepted the losses as the will of the American electorate, despite the closeness of many of the races. Certainly, losing Republicans had the right to pitch tantrums like children whose favorite toy had been taken away, but thankfully that was not the case in Tuesday's vote. Now is the time to regroup and concentrate on running successful 2008 campaigns. If Republicans lose elections on issues, there's not much they can complain about. It's their fault that the conservative wave that has been building since 1994 has finally hit a seawall and scattered.
My hope is that someone rises to the occasion and assumes leadership of the movement not just the party. George Bush has been a dismal failure as a conservative leader. Over the six years of his presidency, it's been quite painful to watch the party drift leftward towards the center, often in the face of blatant partisanship exhibited by the left. With no coherent direction, the idelogical position suffers, unlike 1994, when coherence and focus made Republicans predictable, effective, and victorious. The coherence of 1994 showed that conservatism works when properly applied -- Republicans swept into power and held it twelve years. Perhaps the conservative base didn't show up for 2006 mid-terms, or maybe the majority of moderate voters wanted change and fell for the liberals' "New Direction" mantra. Whatever the reasons for the Republicans' defeat, there is undoubtedly a gaping hole in the party's leadership. Tuesday's results confirmed this. Until this void is filled by a leader committed to conservative ideals, you might as well get used to Speaker Pelosi and her new direction.
Monday, September 18, 2006
Thanks from the Jihadists
To all of my loyal readers -- I've been absent for awhile, but today I have a guest contributor who's straight from the front lines of...Guantanamo Resort and Spa.
Greetings, infidels!
I am Mohammed bin Salad'n, but you can call me Mo Salad. As part of my UN-mandated "prisoner of war" benefits of Club Gitmo, I have access to the World Wide Web to spew...I mean expound on my thoughts as a jihadist in the war on the West. Carolina Conservative has asked me to offer some observations on the latest political developments in America.
I would first like to thank the U.S. Senate for opposing that most evil of men, George Bush. Who needs George Soros and his ilk when we have John McCain and Lindsey Graham mucking things up for your president? We jihadists have been moderately pleased with the useful idiots found on the American political left who apparently care more about my comfort than their own security. With the addition of these Libero-publicans (I coined that term!) we have more Americans making life easier for me and my murdering pals.
Gone, hopefully, are the darkened interrogation chambers, water boardings, cheerleader pyramids, and other assorted questionable tactics. Your leftists want us protected by Geneva Convention protections afforded all POWs. Hence, my opportunity to address you all today! Bush's opponents are obstructing his plan to try us by military tribunals or to extract what we know by nefarious methods. This plays perfectly into our hands, as we have no intention of following any convention, Geneva or otherwise, on the treatment of anyone. We're the holy warriors who drive TNT-loaded bicycles into buses loaded with civilians and children, remember? Wow...the thought of the 72 virgins really gets one's blood boiling sometimes, savvy? Beheading poor, kidnapped infidels is another of our favorite tactics. Anyway, don't expect us to play nice as this "war on terror" drags on. Go ahead, take the high moral ground and be the world's role model. I for one am happy for you to do just that.
Well, I must close now, as dinner time approaches. Our chef has prepared a nice roasted goat for our dining pleasure tonight. Mmmmm. Look for me soon to make the rounds on MSNBC and CNN talk shows. I'll be the one wearing the stylish orange jumpsuit and matching head scarf. Thanks, CC, for the chance to meet your readers.
Allah Akhbar!
Mo
Greetings, infidels!
I am Mohammed bin Salad'n, but you can call me Mo Salad. As part of my UN-mandated "prisoner of war" benefits of Club Gitmo, I have access to the World Wide Web to spew...I mean expound on my thoughts as a jihadist in the war on the West. Carolina Conservative has asked me to offer some observations on the latest political developments in America.
I would first like to thank the U.S. Senate for opposing that most evil of men, George Bush. Who needs George Soros and his ilk when we have John McCain and Lindsey Graham mucking things up for your president? We jihadists have been moderately pleased with the useful idiots found on the American political left who apparently care more about my comfort than their own security. With the addition of these Libero-publicans (I coined that term!) we have more Americans making life easier for me and my murdering pals.
Gone, hopefully, are the darkened interrogation chambers, water boardings, cheerleader pyramids, and other assorted questionable tactics. Your leftists want us protected by Geneva Convention protections afforded all POWs. Hence, my opportunity to address you all today! Bush's opponents are obstructing his plan to try us by military tribunals or to extract what we know by nefarious methods. This plays perfectly into our hands, as we have no intention of following any convention, Geneva or otherwise, on the treatment of anyone. We're the holy warriors who drive TNT-loaded bicycles into buses loaded with civilians and children, remember? Wow...the thought of the 72 virgins really gets one's blood boiling sometimes, savvy? Beheading poor, kidnapped infidels is another of our favorite tactics. Anyway, don't expect us to play nice as this "war on terror" drags on. Go ahead, take the high moral ground and be the world's role model. I for one am happy for you to do just that.
Well, I must close now, as dinner time approaches. Our chef has prepared a nice roasted goat for our dining pleasure tonight. Mmmmm. Look for me soon to make the rounds on MSNBC and CNN talk shows. I'll be the one wearing the stylish orange jumpsuit and matching head scarf. Thanks, CC, for the chance to meet your readers.
Allah Akhbar!
Mo
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
A Gallic Shrug and a Yellow Jersey
Does anyone else find it ironic that of all people asked to determine the level of testosterone in someone's body, this critical task fell on the French? Yes, France -- a place that's seen no such hormone in say, 70 years. OK, I'll concede French soccer superstar Zinedine Zidane showed some serious manly behavior in the 2006 World Cup by laying a vicious headbutt into an Italian defender that would have made Ric Flair weep with envy. This act drew a fine and a suspension, penalties usually associated with testosterone-induced infractions. But other than that isolated incident, can anyone tell me of a time when the French were chest-beating cavemen who made others fear for their lives? Perhaps not since Charles Martel in the Middle Ages; that guy was one bad warrior.
It's unfortunate that Floyd Landis may have to relinquish his Tour de France title if he's found to have "unnatural" levels of testosterone in his system. Gee, all this time I thought guys with lots of testosterone were either middle linebackers, Alaskan King Crab fishermen, or...winners of the most grueling cycling event in the world. Apparently, there's a standing order to investigate any American winner of a uniquely French sporting event. Well, French in the sense that the cyclists use French roads and stay in French hotels -- you get my meaning, n'est-ce pas?
Even if he is exonerated of being too manly, Landis will undoubtedly have to perpetually contend with a Roger Maris-like asterisk clouding his exceptional performance. Personally, I hope he's cleared. Winning that race is a truly awesome accomplishment. If he's guilty, then our French friends will have even more ammunition for their, "Je deteste les Americains" mentality. Hey Guillaume and Francois, it's the Tour de France and not the Tour of Germany for a reason, mes amis.
Certainment, my comments are tongue-in-cheek and not meant to be spiteful or demeaning to our European associates. I consider the ability to make a fabulous Bordeaux a quite manly pursuit, and I for one am grateful to the French for their expertise in grape smashing. It does make the filet mignon taste better. Oh well, c'est la vie. Pass the pommes frites, y'all.
Vive le France!!
It's unfortunate that Floyd Landis may have to relinquish his Tour de France title if he's found to have "unnatural" levels of testosterone in his system. Gee, all this time I thought guys with lots of testosterone were either middle linebackers, Alaskan King Crab fishermen, or...winners of the most grueling cycling event in the world. Apparently, there's a standing order to investigate any American winner of a uniquely French sporting event. Well, French in the sense that the cyclists use French roads and stay in French hotels -- you get my meaning, n'est-ce pas?
Even if he is exonerated of being too manly, Landis will undoubtedly have to perpetually contend with a Roger Maris-like asterisk clouding his exceptional performance. Personally, I hope he's cleared. Winning that race is a truly awesome accomplishment. If he's guilty, then our French friends will have even more ammunition for their, "Je deteste les Americains" mentality. Hey Guillaume and Francois, it's the Tour de France and not the Tour of Germany for a reason, mes amis.
Certainment, my comments are tongue-in-cheek and not meant to be spiteful or demeaning to our European associates. I consider the ability to make a fabulous Bordeaux a quite manly pursuit, and I for one am grateful to the French for their expertise in grape smashing. It does make the filet mignon taste better. Oh well, c'est la vie. Pass the pommes frites, y'all.
Vive le France!!
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Who Speaks for the Children?
OK, so it's been awhile since I last posted, but now that my muse returned, I wanted to throw out some thoughts on the Andrea Yates verdict that was just reported in the press. If you missed it, the jury found her not guilty by reason of insanity. The insanity here is that, despite the fact she'll be confined to the looney bin for a few years, doctors can (and probably will) release her when she's "no longer a threat." Yeah....the children she threatened are dead, so who's left to murder now?
I didn't hear testimony for the retrial and don't know what was going through the jurors' heads, but something obviously changed from the first trial where she was convicted of murder. The fact that some idiot of a witness offered testimony based upon a phantom "Law and Order" episode is what earned Mrs. Yates a new trial in the first place. This notwithstanding the tons of other evidence the prosecutors offered to prove her guilt in the first trial. I can't believe a judge gave that much weight to the original manufactured testimony to completely set aside the rest of the damning evidence and award a new trial.
Apparently Mr. Yates supports the new verdict, maintaining from the beginning that Andrea suffered from psychosis and that she didn't deserve to be convicted of murder. You could say that the fact her children are dead is punishment she'll live with the rest of her life, but she's crazy, remember? That small detail will undoubtedly remove all remorse she's supposed to suffer for her actions. Don't forget, she waited until her husband left for work to go insane and drown her children; she covered them with a sheet once the killings were completed; then in a moment of apparent clarity had the presence of mind to call 911 to report the emergency. Yup...sounds like the workings of a mind that's totally broke with reality to me. All that's left now are the book tours and interviews on "Oprah" and "The View" to round out the media circus that's sure to follow once she's deemed to have completed her time at Club Nuts.
Life goes on, the kids are still dead, and no one truly pays for this heinous crime. At least they're in a place with no more pain and suffering.
I didn't hear testimony for the retrial and don't know what was going through the jurors' heads, but something obviously changed from the first trial where she was convicted of murder. The fact that some idiot of a witness offered testimony based upon a phantom "Law and Order" episode is what earned Mrs. Yates a new trial in the first place. This notwithstanding the tons of other evidence the prosecutors offered to prove her guilt in the first trial. I can't believe a judge gave that much weight to the original manufactured testimony to completely set aside the rest of the damning evidence and award a new trial.
Apparently Mr. Yates supports the new verdict, maintaining from the beginning that Andrea suffered from psychosis and that she didn't deserve to be convicted of murder. You could say that the fact her children are dead is punishment she'll live with the rest of her life, but she's crazy, remember? That small detail will undoubtedly remove all remorse she's supposed to suffer for her actions. Don't forget, she waited until her husband left for work to go insane and drown her children; she covered them with a sheet once the killings were completed; then in a moment of apparent clarity had the presence of mind to call 911 to report the emergency. Yup...sounds like the workings of a mind that's totally broke with reality to me. All that's left now are the book tours and interviews on "Oprah" and "The View" to round out the media circus that's sure to follow once she's deemed to have completed her time at Club Nuts.
Life goes on, the kids are still dead, and no one truly pays for this heinous crime. At least they're in a place with no more pain and suffering.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Keep Up the Fight!
Today's news of the barbaric murders of two US servicemen -- heroes in my book -- is the last straw. If this doesn't shake the pansy, America-hating leftists in this country out of their 1960's induced stupor, then there is no hope for them. What will it take for these liberals to see what animals we are fighting over in Mohammed-land?
I've already heard one unnamed "non-partisan" reporter on the radio blather on about how this is revenge for the alleged non-combatants being killed in Haditha. I'm sorry, that's asinine logic and a thinly veiled attempt at disguising commentary as news. I for one am not buying it. The two events have absolutely nothing to do with each other. In one instance, we have the remains of soldiers who'd been tortured and murdered. In the other, bodies of Iraqis are mixed among terrorists. It is quite clear what happened to the two soldiers. It is yet to be determined what really happened at Haditha, although those poor Marines are being treated like war criminals and convicted in the anti-military media before getting any opportunity to defend themselves. That's another story, however.
There's a stark difference between our troops and these Islamic jihadists. US troops are constrained by the Laws of Armed Conflict. For example, that means we don't carry out random kidnappings, we take prisoners captured in combat and secure them in safe locations, we wear identifiable uniforms, and we avoid the use of bombs planted under cars, buses, and cafe tables. Do you see the difference now? Our enemies in this war refuse to acknowledge any type of legal structure for combat operations. I would expect nothing less from terrorists. Actually, the left prefers the term "insurgents," as if that makes these murderers more humane. Instead, we get decapitated civilian contractors, mutilated remains of innocent Iraqi citizens, American soldiers maimed by IEDs, and indiscriminate killing from an enemy that makes no distinction between warriors and non-combatants. And the liberals claim we're losing the moral high ground?
The US has made some great strides in "streamlining" the leadership structure of Al-Qaida in Iraq, courtesy of a few well-placed munitions. It is difficult to conduct traditional operations in a guerilla environment, but I am afraid our enemies won't reciprocate and adhere to any organized laws of war. If that's the case, we should declare open season on any Al-Qaida supporters and put them on notice that the next sound they hear will be a laser-guided bomb whistling through their front door in an effort to arrange the meeting between them and God. Paradise is pretty hot this time of year, I hear...
I've already heard one unnamed "non-partisan" reporter on the radio blather on about how this is revenge for the alleged non-combatants being killed in Haditha. I'm sorry, that's asinine logic and a thinly veiled attempt at disguising commentary as news. I for one am not buying it. The two events have absolutely nothing to do with each other. In one instance, we have the remains of soldiers who'd been tortured and murdered. In the other, bodies of Iraqis are mixed among terrorists. It is quite clear what happened to the two soldiers. It is yet to be determined what really happened at Haditha, although those poor Marines are being treated like war criminals and convicted in the anti-military media before getting any opportunity to defend themselves. That's another story, however.
There's a stark difference between our troops and these Islamic jihadists. US troops are constrained by the Laws of Armed Conflict. For example, that means we don't carry out random kidnappings, we take prisoners captured in combat and secure them in safe locations, we wear identifiable uniforms, and we avoid the use of bombs planted under cars, buses, and cafe tables. Do you see the difference now? Our enemies in this war refuse to acknowledge any type of legal structure for combat operations. I would expect nothing less from terrorists. Actually, the left prefers the term "insurgents," as if that makes these murderers more humane. Instead, we get decapitated civilian contractors, mutilated remains of innocent Iraqi citizens, American soldiers maimed by IEDs, and indiscriminate killing from an enemy that makes no distinction between warriors and non-combatants. And the liberals claim we're losing the moral high ground?
The US has made some great strides in "streamlining" the leadership structure of Al-Qaida in Iraq, courtesy of a few well-placed munitions. It is difficult to conduct traditional operations in a guerilla environment, but I am afraid our enemies won't reciprocate and adhere to any organized laws of war. If that's the case, we should declare open season on any Al-Qaida supporters and put them on notice that the next sound they hear will be a laser-guided bomb whistling through their front door in an effort to arrange the meeting between them and God. Paradise is pretty hot this time of year, I hear...
Monday, June 05, 2006
Love and Marriage, Love and Marriage...
According to most observers today, President Bush’s speech in support of a constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage smacked of a desperate attempt to mobilize the conservative base of the Republican Party with an issue near and dear to their hearts. Many religious conservatives have adopted prohibiting gay marriage as a legislative goal. Predictably, several Republican senators lined up to support the effort, despite an extremely small chance of the bill ever seeing the light of day.
I am somewhat torn between how best to argue my opposition to this amendment. As a conservative Christian, I find the homosexual lifestyle repugnant. Many conservatives, this author included, are tired of the radical gay agenda being forced upon society in the name of diversity or equality. Thanks to activist judges and the US Supreme Court, homosexual behavior is now constitutionally protected. What goes on behind closed doors between consenting homosexual adults is their own affair according to the law. Thus, I consider the moral argument compelling, yet moot for the sake of discussion.
I’d prefer to dissent based on general conservative principles. I doubt many will be fooled by the play to the conservative base today. Liberal senators like Chuck Schumer (D-NY) have already cried foul and quickly criticized the Bush administration. The US Senate, hamstrung by ineffective leadership, has produced an impotent immigration bill, neglected some desperately needed tax reform, and has wasted time and money on a mind-boggling scale.
Why make banning homosexual marriage a priority when there is so much more productive governing to be done? The goal of conservatism is to make government smaller and less invasive on the lives of American citizens. This is a fairly libertarian response to the gay marriage issue – primacy of a citizen’s private, personal activities with limited government interference. The time is now for conservative leaders to take control, stop the moderate waffling, eliminate bloated entitlements, and advance the agenda to which they were elected. Banning gay marriage, while agreeable on its face, ranks fairly low on the urgency scale. Has our society continued its drift into questionable morality? Absolutely. Look at the “wholesome” films spawned in Hollywood. If you think Brokeback Mountain was simply a gay cowboy movie, you’re naïve or completely missing the point. Ultimately, Conservatives should look locally to seek the results they desire.
Although I oppose gay marriage, I don’t want my elected officials legislating for legislation’s sake, especially on issues that are ultimately symbolic. From a purely states’ rights perspective, what on earth do we need a constitutional amendment for when marriages are “regulated” (for lack of a better description) by the states themselves? Radical homosexuals want to redefine moral norms advocated by citizens that have lasted for several millennia. The extremist element of the gay lobby gets the press because they scream the loudest, and again, the useful idiots of the mainstream media are happy to oblige. Men should not be married to other men, nor women married to other women, and legally defining marriage as a permanent union between a man and a woman should certainly fall within the realm of an individual state’s powers. If Congress wants to support the states’ initiatives, it has the constitutional power to limit the lower courts’ jurisdiction on specific matters. Pass a law specifically addressing the desired definition of marriage, and protect that legislation from liberals whose sole means of advancing their agenda involves an end-run around the electoral will of the people by exploiting judicial activism. To keep the ACLU in check, legislators should avoid specific religious implications to hopefully preclude any establishment issue lawsuits.
What will become of this issue is uncertain. What is certain, however, is the need for our elected officials to produce tangible results that actually mean something to the public. Symbolic acts that pander to limited constituencies cloud the reality of a majority party whose accomplishments have been mediocre at best and ineffective at worst.
I am somewhat torn between how best to argue my opposition to this amendment. As a conservative Christian, I find the homosexual lifestyle repugnant. Many conservatives, this author included, are tired of the radical gay agenda being forced upon society in the name of diversity or equality. Thanks to activist judges and the US Supreme Court, homosexual behavior is now constitutionally protected. What goes on behind closed doors between consenting homosexual adults is their own affair according to the law. Thus, I consider the moral argument compelling, yet moot for the sake of discussion.
I’d prefer to dissent based on general conservative principles. I doubt many will be fooled by the play to the conservative base today. Liberal senators like Chuck Schumer (D-NY) have already cried foul and quickly criticized the Bush administration. The US Senate, hamstrung by ineffective leadership, has produced an impotent immigration bill, neglected some desperately needed tax reform, and has wasted time and money on a mind-boggling scale.
Why make banning homosexual marriage a priority when there is so much more productive governing to be done? The goal of conservatism is to make government smaller and less invasive on the lives of American citizens. This is a fairly libertarian response to the gay marriage issue – primacy of a citizen’s private, personal activities with limited government interference. The time is now for conservative leaders to take control, stop the moderate waffling, eliminate bloated entitlements, and advance the agenda to which they were elected. Banning gay marriage, while agreeable on its face, ranks fairly low on the urgency scale. Has our society continued its drift into questionable morality? Absolutely. Look at the “wholesome” films spawned in Hollywood. If you think Brokeback Mountain was simply a gay cowboy movie, you’re naïve or completely missing the point. Ultimately, Conservatives should look locally to seek the results they desire.
Although I oppose gay marriage, I don’t want my elected officials legislating for legislation’s sake, especially on issues that are ultimately symbolic. From a purely states’ rights perspective, what on earth do we need a constitutional amendment for when marriages are “regulated” (for lack of a better description) by the states themselves? Radical homosexuals want to redefine moral norms advocated by citizens that have lasted for several millennia. The extremist element of the gay lobby gets the press because they scream the loudest, and again, the useful idiots of the mainstream media are happy to oblige. Men should not be married to other men, nor women married to other women, and legally defining marriage as a permanent union between a man and a woman should certainly fall within the realm of an individual state’s powers. If Congress wants to support the states’ initiatives, it has the constitutional power to limit the lower courts’ jurisdiction on specific matters. Pass a law specifically addressing the desired definition of marriage, and protect that legislation from liberals whose sole means of advancing their agenda involves an end-run around the electoral will of the people by exploiting judicial activism. To keep the ACLU in check, legislators should avoid specific religious implications to hopefully preclude any establishment issue lawsuits.
What will become of this issue is uncertain. What is certain, however, is the need for our elected officials to produce tangible results that actually mean something to the public. Symbolic acts that pander to limited constituencies cloud the reality of a majority party whose accomplishments have been mediocre at best and ineffective at worst.
Monday, May 29, 2006
God Bless America....Thank A Vet Today...& Tomorrow
Watch the attached video (turn up your volume). There's nothing more I can add. Today, please say a prayer for a soldier, sailor, airman, marine, or coastie that you know.
http://www.iwo.com/heroes.htm
http://www.iwo.com/heroes.htm
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Time Magazine and My Black Labrador
Like a loyal Labrador Retriever, Time magazine followed the mandolin and banjo-infused melody and came trotting over to give the Dixie Chicks another fifteen minutes of fame for their latest public remarks about President Bush. The band's recent retraction of an obviously insincere apology issued several years ago for anti-American comments has rekindled another tempest.
If you aren't a country music fan and don't know the back story, here's a synopsis: The controversy over the band began awhile back during a concert in Europe when lead singer Natalie Maines expressed her shame that Mr. Bush was from her home state of Texas. What was probably meant as another general anti-war, anti-Bush wisecrack lit a storm of protest in the listener community. Country music fans are predominately conservative and quite overt in their support of our military. Maines' comment turned fans into CD-burning activists overnight, and the band's music was dropped from the playlists of many country stations nationwide. The band apologized, and the uproar faded. A meteoric career was instantly stonewalled, and the Dixie Chicks retreated from touring and performing for several years.
Fast forward to the most recent issue of Time, and you can see the Dixie Chicks on the cover, now suddenly unapologetic and ready to release their latest album, featuring the single "I'm Not Ready to Make Nice." Well, Natalie, people may not be ready to listen to you, either. The retraction -- something akin to "Bush doesn't deserve any respect" -- earned them a nice cover photo. I don't have an issue with what they said; the Dixie Chicks should enjoy First Amendment freedoms just as the rest of us. I'm amazed that Time found their remarks so profound as to warrant their placement on the cover. If that's the best the publishers can do with everything else going on in the world, what can you say? It must have been a slow day.
This entire episode isn't a free speech issue for me. Here is my gripe: Why does the mainstream media insist on being first in line to publicize the political speech of celebrities, now matter how erudite (not often, mind you) or asinine the comments are? What makes the ideologically charged rantings of famous people front page news? Does celebrity make one's opinions the conscience of a nation? Turn on any television and you're bound to hear Tim Robbins, Jeneane Garafalo, Alex Baldwin, or Sean Penn (yes, the Sean Penn whose john boat overturned in New Orleans in Katrina's aftermath -- THAT was news!) making some insulting, mean-spirited comment about W or Republicans. It's a shame the pandering media becomes useful idiots to these enlightened individuals by giving them a platform. Personally, I ignore them or change the channel and refuse to patronize any of their movies or buy their music. When's the last time a conservative celebrity (there are a few out there, right?) had a public forum to advocate their ideas?
I wish the Dixie Chicks luck in their "new" career. I used to like their music; maybe I'll give them another chance. I can't say the same for Time magazine. Where's my National Review?!!
If you aren't a country music fan and don't know the back story, here's a synopsis: The controversy over the band began awhile back during a concert in Europe when lead singer Natalie Maines expressed her shame that Mr. Bush was from her home state of Texas. What was probably meant as another general anti-war, anti-Bush wisecrack lit a storm of protest in the listener community. Country music fans are predominately conservative and quite overt in their support of our military. Maines' comment turned fans into CD-burning activists overnight, and the band's music was dropped from the playlists of many country stations nationwide. The band apologized, and the uproar faded. A meteoric career was instantly stonewalled, and the Dixie Chicks retreated from touring and performing for several years.
Fast forward to the most recent issue of Time, and you can see the Dixie Chicks on the cover, now suddenly unapologetic and ready to release their latest album, featuring the single "I'm Not Ready to Make Nice." Well, Natalie, people may not be ready to listen to you, either. The retraction -- something akin to "Bush doesn't deserve any respect" -- earned them a nice cover photo. I don't have an issue with what they said; the Dixie Chicks should enjoy First Amendment freedoms just as the rest of us. I'm amazed that Time found their remarks so profound as to warrant their placement on the cover. If that's the best the publishers can do with everything else going on in the world, what can you say? It must have been a slow day.
This entire episode isn't a free speech issue for me. Here is my gripe: Why does the mainstream media insist on being first in line to publicize the political speech of celebrities, now matter how erudite (not often, mind you) or asinine the comments are? What makes the ideologically charged rantings of famous people front page news? Does celebrity make one's opinions the conscience of a nation? Turn on any television and you're bound to hear Tim Robbins, Jeneane Garafalo, Alex Baldwin, or Sean Penn (yes, the Sean Penn whose john boat overturned in New Orleans in Katrina's aftermath -- THAT was news!) making some insulting, mean-spirited comment about W or Republicans. It's a shame the pandering media becomes useful idiots to these enlightened individuals by giving them a platform. Personally, I ignore them or change the channel and refuse to patronize any of their movies or buy their music. When's the last time a conservative celebrity (there are a few out there, right?) had a public forum to advocate their ideas?
I wish the Dixie Chicks luck in their "new" career. I used to like their music; maybe I'll give them another chance. I can't say the same for Time magazine. Where's my National Review?!!
Monday, May 15, 2006
Catch and Release....We Talking Marlins or Mexicans?
Ok, so President Bush's immigration reform speech is over, and like me, there are thousands of bloggers, pundits, wags, and wonks lining up to toss their two cents into the opinion pool. The evening talk shows are providing support, spin, or opposition. Sounds like every other day in Washington....
Regardless, it was mildly encouraging to hear the president admit that America can't control its borders. Sort of like the first step in a 12-step program: "Hi, I'm America, and I've lost control of my borders." Yes, admitting you have a problem is the first step towards recovery. If only it was that easy! At least Mr. Bush acknowledged the quasi-criminality of the illegal immigrants: "...[illegals] are beyond the reach and protection of American laws." This was a pretty good start to the speech, in my opinion.
First and foremost, any solution to the immigration problem must address border security, and President Bush made this apparent in his first point. Shutting the border to illegal entrants is a key aspect of a successful program. Easier said than done. Increasing the Border Patrol force by 6,000 agents will provide for greater coverage of key areas. Additionally, using technology as a force multiplier sounds like a great idea. Infra-red cameras and unmanned aerial vehicles will give our security personnel valuable tools to catch more of these pesky border hoppers. Obviously, the White House released some of the talking points prior to the speech tonight, and earlier today the nation got a glimpse of the plan to use the National Guard to supplement the Border Security forces. Another 6,000 soldiers is a step in the right direction, but I think that's not going to be enough, even if they aren't providing direct law enforcement support, which would violate posse comitatus. Deploying the Guard is a good idea, as long as there is a clear and well-defined mission. Throwing those soldiers on border duty with no purposeful objective is a recipe for trouble and wasted money.
As a true believer in the ability of the individual states to determine what is in their own best interests, I was glad to hear the president propose additional funding for local law enforcement. Hey, maybe we can cut the Department of Education or slash some other wasteful entitlement program to free up some extra cash....But I digress. Certainly, the federal government has a constitutional duty to protect our sovereign borders. Allowing localized decisions will help limit the scope of federal involvement. You didn't expect me to support a bigger federal bureaucracy again, did you?
The Federal Catch and Release Program, which evidently has been applied to immigrants as well as trout, salmon, and marlin will end, according to President Bush. This country's been too nice in trusting these illegals to return for their day in court to be out-processed from the USA. Rather than follow the law, the aliens caught by authorities are no-shows and blend into society as yet another illegal who has slipped through our porous security net. The president didn't elaborate on how this will work, and my guess is some other administrative body will have to get involved, but he's on the right track.
President Bush wants a temporary worker program with specific limits and restrictions on immigrants who enter the country. He proposed an identification card as a means of keeping track of those who come to the U.S. My question is which federal agency will be responsible for administering and tracking these cards? Using biometric information is a great plan to avoid fraud, but will the ICE, police, or some other group run this part of the immigration program?
Finally, Mr. Bush, in his own words, opposes amnesty. Granted, anything less than outright deportation or prosecution of illegal immigrants will sound like amnesty to supporters on the far right of this issue, but it's time for a sanity check. 12 million, 20 million....whatever the number -- it will be impossible to round these individuals up for the next train south. I absolutely oppose blanket amnesty. Those here illegally must be made to earn their right to stay. Paying taxes and learning English is a start. I also would advocate that the social welfare spigot be closed off from now on. Eliminating the incentive for illegally immigrating would stem the flow in conjunction with the proposed reforms. Too many financial resources are wasted on social services for illegals. If you cannot prove you immigrated legally, you will be denied welfare and social benefits. By the way, English as a Foreign Language classes meet Monday, Wednesday and Thursday. Sign up or hit the road.
The last issue is one Mr. Bush completely ignored. He failed to mention Mexico's role in this process. President Fox must be held accountable for his citizens, especially when he blatantly advocates that Mexican citizens attempt to get to the U.S. any way they can. Hey, why spend welfare pesos when George W. will pick up the tab? Well Vicente, the buck stops here, mi amigo. Perhaps some trade talks are necessary to get some compliance from our neighbors to the south. President Bush should demand a plan of action from Mexico, and hold them responsible.
Perhaps Mr. Bush quieted his critics from the conservative base, perhaps not. I hope his plan isn't too little, too late. Those who placed him in office have been waiting too long for some real action on this issue. Congress and the president must act quickly and decisively. I'm watching closely and will use my vote to express my happiness or displeasure with our government. I urge you to do the same.
Regardless, it was mildly encouraging to hear the president admit that America can't control its borders. Sort of like the first step in a 12-step program: "Hi, I'm America, and I've lost control of my borders." Yes, admitting you have a problem is the first step towards recovery. If only it was that easy! At least Mr. Bush acknowledged the quasi-criminality of the illegal immigrants: "...[illegals] are beyond the reach and protection of American laws." This was a pretty good start to the speech, in my opinion.
First and foremost, any solution to the immigration problem must address border security, and President Bush made this apparent in his first point. Shutting the border to illegal entrants is a key aspect of a successful program. Easier said than done. Increasing the Border Patrol force by 6,000 agents will provide for greater coverage of key areas. Additionally, using technology as a force multiplier sounds like a great idea. Infra-red cameras and unmanned aerial vehicles will give our security personnel valuable tools to catch more of these pesky border hoppers. Obviously, the White House released some of the talking points prior to the speech tonight, and earlier today the nation got a glimpse of the plan to use the National Guard to supplement the Border Security forces. Another 6,000 soldiers is a step in the right direction, but I think that's not going to be enough, even if they aren't providing direct law enforcement support, which would violate posse comitatus. Deploying the Guard is a good idea, as long as there is a clear and well-defined mission. Throwing those soldiers on border duty with no purposeful objective is a recipe for trouble and wasted money.
As a true believer in the ability of the individual states to determine what is in their own best interests, I was glad to hear the president propose additional funding for local law enforcement. Hey, maybe we can cut the Department of Education or slash some other wasteful entitlement program to free up some extra cash....But I digress. Certainly, the federal government has a constitutional duty to protect our sovereign borders. Allowing localized decisions will help limit the scope of federal involvement. You didn't expect me to support a bigger federal bureaucracy again, did you?
The Federal Catch and Release Program, which evidently has been applied to immigrants as well as trout, salmon, and marlin will end, according to President Bush. This country's been too nice in trusting these illegals to return for their day in court to be out-processed from the USA. Rather than follow the law, the aliens caught by authorities are no-shows and blend into society as yet another illegal who has slipped through our porous security net. The president didn't elaborate on how this will work, and my guess is some other administrative body will have to get involved, but he's on the right track.
President Bush wants a temporary worker program with specific limits and restrictions on immigrants who enter the country. He proposed an identification card as a means of keeping track of those who come to the U.S. My question is which federal agency will be responsible for administering and tracking these cards? Using biometric information is a great plan to avoid fraud, but will the ICE, police, or some other group run this part of the immigration program?
Finally, Mr. Bush, in his own words, opposes amnesty. Granted, anything less than outright deportation or prosecution of illegal immigrants will sound like amnesty to supporters on the far right of this issue, but it's time for a sanity check. 12 million, 20 million....whatever the number -- it will be impossible to round these individuals up for the next train south. I absolutely oppose blanket amnesty. Those here illegally must be made to earn their right to stay. Paying taxes and learning English is a start. I also would advocate that the social welfare spigot be closed off from now on. Eliminating the incentive for illegally immigrating would stem the flow in conjunction with the proposed reforms. Too many financial resources are wasted on social services for illegals. If you cannot prove you immigrated legally, you will be denied welfare and social benefits. By the way, English as a Foreign Language classes meet Monday, Wednesday and Thursday. Sign up or hit the road.
The last issue is one Mr. Bush completely ignored. He failed to mention Mexico's role in this process. President Fox must be held accountable for his citizens, especially when he blatantly advocates that Mexican citizens attempt to get to the U.S. any way they can. Hey, why spend welfare pesos when George W. will pick up the tab? Well Vicente, the buck stops here, mi amigo. Perhaps some trade talks are necessary to get some compliance from our neighbors to the south. President Bush should demand a plan of action from Mexico, and hold them responsible.
Perhaps Mr. Bush quieted his critics from the conservative base, perhaps not. I hope his plan isn't too little, too late. Those who placed him in office have been waiting too long for some real action on this issue. Congress and the president must act quickly and decisively. I'm watching closely and will use my vote to express my happiness or displeasure with our government. I urge you to do the same.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Well Said, Mr. Sowell
"Some people say it is 'name-calling' if you refer to someone as a liberal. There is nothing inherently negative about the word 'liberal.' If it has acquired negative overtones, that is because of what liberals have done and the consequences that followed." -- Thomas Sowell
I ran across this quote on another website. What a perfect definition for those who avoid the word "liberal" like the plague, yet prove from their actions and policies, replete with factless, America-hating, emotionalized arguments, that indeed this is the proper nomenclature. Or, to paraphrase one unnamed senator, "I decided to be a liberal before I decided not to be a liberal."
When Howie Dean & Co. develop a coherent platform that makes it worthwhile for rank-and-file Democrats (that's everyone outside of moveon.org) to support, then the liberals might have a fighting chance. It will at least make the debate more interesting than the current mantra -- Bush lied, people died... No war for oil....You have to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything...like interns, I suppose.
I ran across this quote on another website. What a perfect definition for those who avoid the word "liberal" like the plague, yet prove from their actions and policies, replete with factless, America-hating, emotionalized arguments, that indeed this is the proper nomenclature. Or, to paraphrase one unnamed senator, "I decided to be a liberal before I decided not to be a liberal."
When Howie Dean & Co. develop a coherent platform that makes it worthwhile for rank-and-file Democrats (that's everyone outside of moveon.org) to support, then the liberals might have a fighting chance. It will at least make the debate more interesting than the current mantra -- Bush lied, people died... No war for oil....You have to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything...like interns, I suppose.
Monday, May 08, 2006
Did I Wake Up and It's November Already?
If I have to hear another liberal...Ok...Democratic wonk gush longingly about "Speaker Nancy Pelosi" one more time, I'm moving to my secret, undisclosed bunker in Montana to plan the government takeover. Wow, if I had the foresight these heavy intellectuals evidently possess, I'd be predicting more productive things like....interest rates......football scores...lottery numbers...rather than waxing hopeful about my party's electoral future. George Stephanopolous and Tim Russert apparently don't even see the need for an election in six months implying in recent weekend comments that Republicans should capitulate and return to the minority. This, despite the fact the Republicans have been acting like the minority party for years now. I for one have not lost faith. It ain't over till it's over, to quote one eminently more insightful than these liberal media darlings.
Today's conventional wisdom has the Republicans facing a daunting uphill battle to maintain control of Congress. Although they maintain a 15-seat advantage in the house, as many as 40 seats may be in play, depending on the source one cites. As for the Senate, your guess is as good as mine, my friend. I even observed some conservatives tonight jumping on the doom and gloom bandwagon, predicting the Republicans' base will either abandon the party or simply refuse to show up on election day out of apathy.
It's a sad fact that the Bush administration has not acted like true conservatives. Government spending, even before the Iraqi war, has increased at levels that would make FDR smile. Many conservatives feel betrayed by Bush's moderate stance on the illegal immigration problems. Certainly, this has given pundits fodder to feed the recent speculations on the midterm elections.
Regardless, I think when the reality sets in that Democrats could actually win back Congress, conservatives currently disenchanted with the Republican party will show up, perhaps voting for the lesser of two evils, but acknowledging the fact that a weak administration failing to follow a conservative agenda is infinitely better than hearing, "Today on Meet the Press, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi."
Today's conventional wisdom has the Republicans facing a daunting uphill battle to maintain control of Congress. Although they maintain a 15-seat advantage in the house, as many as 40 seats may be in play, depending on the source one cites. As for the Senate, your guess is as good as mine, my friend. I even observed some conservatives tonight jumping on the doom and gloom bandwagon, predicting the Republicans' base will either abandon the party or simply refuse to show up on election day out of apathy.
It's a sad fact that the Bush administration has not acted like true conservatives. Government spending, even before the Iraqi war, has increased at levels that would make FDR smile. Many conservatives feel betrayed by Bush's moderate stance on the illegal immigration problems. Certainly, this has given pundits fodder to feed the recent speculations on the midterm elections.
Regardless, I think when the reality sets in that Democrats could actually win back Congress, conservatives currently disenchanted with the Republican party will show up, perhaps voting for the lesser of two evils, but acknowledging the fact that a weak administration failing to follow a conservative agenda is infinitely better than hearing, "Today on Meet the Press, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi."
Thursday, May 04, 2006
I Hear Colorado's Nice This Time of Year, Zacarias
Many Americans have expressed outrage at Zacarias Moussaoui's life sentence, preferring instead that he be executed. As one who supports the death penalty, I fully expected the jury to sentence him to death. The tremendous loss of American life during the 9/11 attacks absolutely justified Moussaoui's execution. Why then, would this man receive a life sentence instead? Perhaps the jurors will speak out at some point. It would be interesting to hear their rationales for deciding as they did, especially since the same jury voted to make him eligible for the death penalty last month. A curious verdict yesterday, for certain.
Personally, I'm not as outraged as many seem to be. His trial should transcend political agendas on both sides. Given the fact that any terrorist remotely connected with the 9/11 attacks deserves an I.V. in the arm courtesy of the Department of Justice, what spared Moussaoui's life?
It appears that the jury bought the argument that he was really a bit player in the attacks, suffering from some delusion of self-importance as the supposed pilot of the plane that was planning to attack the White House. Never proven, perhaps this was a tactic to incite the American people. His idiotic outbursts during the sentencing obviously were made to further enrage those watching. Moussaoui didn't care what he said, and if he's a true believer, then he's going to have to wait for his 72 virgins in paradise a bit longer. Ironically, I bet there might be 72 inmates waiting on a new virgin's arrival in paradise.
Rather than separate this cretin from the general population, I think a fitting job for Moussaoui in his new federal resort condominium should be as the chief bacon preparer. Perhaps there's some pigs he can tend as a side duty. Now we really have a chance to make this nutjob's life on earth a living hell as he defiles himself playing with Babe and his friends. No prayer mat, no Koran, and no comforts...Wait, I forgot the ACLU will most likely watch his incarceration with eagle eyes, ready to jump at the slightest opportunity to display sympathy for the devil once again. His bunk mate should be some strapping hunk of burning love, ready, willing, and able to hold poor Zacarias' hand during the long, cold nights. Or how about a game of naked inmate pyramid, made famous by his fellow jihadists at Club Abu Ghraib? The possibilities are limitless to make sure he's never heard from again. Enjoy the good life, Zack!
Personally, I'm not as outraged as many seem to be. His trial should transcend political agendas on both sides. Given the fact that any terrorist remotely connected with the 9/11 attacks deserves an I.V. in the arm courtesy of the Department of Justice, what spared Moussaoui's life?
It appears that the jury bought the argument that he was really a bit player in the attacks, suffering from some delusion of self-importance as the supposed pilot of the plane that was planning to attack the White House. Never proven, perhaps this was a tactic to incite the American people. His idiotic outbursts during the sentencing obviously were made to further enrage those watching. Moussaoui didn't care what he said, and if he's a true believer, then he's going to have to wait for his 72 virgins in paradise a bit longer. Ironically, I bet there might be 72 inmates waiting on a new virgin's arrival in paradise.
Rather than separate this cretin from the general population, I think a fitting job for Moussaoui in his new federal resort condominium should be as the chief bacon preparer. Perhaps there's some pigs he can tend as a side duty. Now we really have a chance to make this nutjob's life on earth a living hell as he defiles himself playing with Babe and his friends. No prayer mat, no Koran, and no comforts...Wait, I forgot the ACLU will most likely watch his incarceration with eagle eyes, ready to jump at the slightest opportunity to display sympathy for the devil once again. His bunk mate should be some strapping hunk of burning love, ready, willing, and able to hold poor Zacarias' hand during the long, cold nights. Or how about a game of naked inmate pyramid, made famous by his fellow jihadists at Club Abu Ghraib? The possibilities are limitless to make sure he's never heard from again. Enjoy the good life, Zack!
Thursday, April 27, 2006
God Save This Court...From Justice Stevens et. al.
The US Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments about the application of lethal injection as a means to execute condemned criminals. At issue is whether the chemicals injected into the victim -- no, wait a minute -- victim would describe the person no longer living because of the inmate's criminal actions -- cause pain while they're waiting to die. Gosh, we just couldn't have the poor prisoner feeling pain on his deathbed now, could we?
As expected, our most liberal justices didn't let us down. Justice Stevens commented that animals would not be euthanized in such a manner. Good heavens, Justice Stevens -- are you actually comparing convicted murderers and rapists lawfully sentenced to dogs and cats? What does this say about his concern for the rights of the victims' families? Can't you see the exchange between the judge and the grieving mother? "Gee, Mrs. Smith, too bad about your teenage daughter's brutal murder (that she bled to death scared and alone, actually), but her killer might feel a bit of discomfort as he passes from this life. This concerns me..... " It's time for this man to retire.
Bleeding Heart Breyer questioned the need for more pain medication. The issue here, Mr. Justice, is that the execution works, not that the condemned man hurts some. Again, did his murder victim get any anesthesia as this monster sliced her throat? I doubt it.
Justice Ginsburg questioned attorneys about the risk of prisoners dying an excruciating death with the current mix of chemicals. At the risk of repeating myself, SOMEONE ALREADY DIED AN EXCRUCIATING DEATH, thanks to this criminal. This lack of regard for victims' rights is detestable.
Thank God Justice Scalia is a voice of reason in this sea of liberalism. Pointing out that the Supreme Court has never held that a state must use a method that causes the least amount of pain, he nailed the issue by stating, "Hanging was not a quick and easy way to go." Amen!
Hopefully a majority of the court will see that the only thing cruel and unusual here is the fact that families must continue their lives without their loved ones, and rule accordingly.
As expected, our most liberal justices didn't let us down. Justice Stevens commented that animals would not be euthanized in such a manner. Good heavens, Justice Stevens -- are you actually comparing convicted murderers and rapists lawfully sentenced to dogs and cats? What does this say about his concern for the rights of the victims' families? Can't you see the exchange between the judge and the grieving mother? "Gee, Mrs. Smith, too bad about your teenage daughter's brutal murder (that she bled to death scared and alone, actually), but her killer might feel a bit of discomfort as he passes from this life. This concerns me..... " It's time for this man to retire.
Bleeding Heart Breyer questioned the need for more pain medication. The issue here, Mr. Justice, is that the execution works, not that the condemned man hurts some. Again, did his murder victim get any anesthesia as this monster sliced her throat? I doubt it.
Justice Ginsburg questioned attorneys about the risk of prisoners dying an excruciating death with the current mix of chemicals. At the risk of repeating myself, SOMEONE ALREADY DIED AN EXCRUCIATING DEATH, thanks to this criminal. This lack of regard for victims' rights is detestable.
Thank God Justice Scalia is a voice of reason in this sea of liberalism. Pointing out that the Supreme Court has never held that a state must use a method that causes the least amount of pain, he nailed the issue by stating, "Hanging was not a quick and easy way to go." Amen!
Hopefully a majority of the court will see that the only thing cruel and unusual here is the fact that families must continue their lives without their loved ones, and rule accordingly.
May 1, 2006 - Go Gringos!
Boycott Everything Gringo Day seems to be moving towards us full steam ahead. It seems these protestors and immigration activists would like the US to wave a magic wand and bestow citizenship on those who've broken our laws and are living on US soil illegally. This wonderful policy is otherwise known as amnesty. Right....grant amnesty again and spit in the face of all immigrants who have come to America legally, learned our language, paid their way, and maintained productive lives. It's the American Dream, and anyone willing to follow our established procedures to obtain US citizenship is welcome to it. Honestly. Citizenship is not a reward for crossing a river, traversing a desert, and evading law enforcement authorities.
So you want to be treated like Americans? Here's my suggestion: If you skip work in support of this protest, you get FIRED, just like Joe Q. Public would be if he decided, "Hmm, today I think I'll stay home and watch the soap operas." For the students who feel some solidarity with the protest organizers and plan to be truants, you should be suspended if you fail to attend school Monday. You should reap what you sow.
Meanwhile, the machinery of capitalism will churn on as your boycott has virtually no effect on our economy. If the protestors avoid all things Gringo, that means: no driving (Henry Ford, Gringo); no use of electricity (Thomas Edison, Gringo); no email or computer use (IBM, full of Gringos, and Bill Gates, too); no travel by airplane (Wright Brothers, Gringos). Everyone getting the picture? So go ahead, boycott. What about turning these energies into constructive solutions to this issue? I'd like to see those illegal immigrants live here legally if that's their desire. Everyone may benefit as a result.
So you want to be treated like Americans? Here's my suggestion: If you skip work in support of this protest, you get FIRED, just like Joe Q. Public would be if he decided, "Hmm, today I think I'll stay home and watch the soap operas." For the students who feel some solidarity with the protest organizers and plan to be truants, you should be suspended if you fail to attend school Monday. You should reap what you sow.
Meanwhile, the machinery of capitalism will churn on as your boycott has virtually no effect on our economy. If the protestors avoid all things Gringo, that means: no driving (Henry Ford, Gringo); no use of electricity (Thomas Edison, Gringo); no email or computer use (IBM, full of Gringos, and Bill Gates, too); no travel by airplane (Wright Brothers, Gringos). Everyone getting the picture? So go ahead, boycott. What about turning these energies into constructive solutions to this issue? I'd like to see those illegal immigrants live here legally if that's their desire. Everyone may benefit as a result.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Now W, Shut That Barn Door.....The Horse Left Already
Anyone else find it amusing or perhaps exasperating that our executive branch is finally getting around to doing something about the gas price situation? I'm not harping on the reality of paying (today, anyway) $2.79 for a gallon of gas. Hey, have you seen the price of gas in Finland lately?
All of the Chicken Littles whose sky is falling parrot the liberals' favorite talking point on this issue: there's some evil conspiracy between the President and Veep and "Big Oil." That's right y'all, Bush is lining his pockets with funds siphoned out of ExxonMobil while you are paying $100 to fill up your Hummer. And before you go there, NO, I am absolutely not anti-SUV. Buy what car you need or want -- it's s free country. If I'm an ExxonMobil stockholder (I'm not currently) and they're making "obscene" (liberals' words, not mine) profits, and the stock price reflects the same, well hooray for me and my IRA portfolio. And they claim it's a vast right-wing conspiracy...geez.
As for suspending deposits for the strategic petroleum reserves (held in a secret, undisclosed location...), I disagree with that from a, well...strategic viewpoint. In the interest of national security, our government should continue these deposits, or risk real shortages when the time becomes critical. Granted, the deposits President Bush is suspending do not amount to much on the grand scale, but I don't think it's the best option.
It really gets down to supply and demand, Economics 101, remember? As long as we demand, demand, and demand some more, then our OPEC suppliers will gladly supply us, albeit at a price meeting the market equilibrium. If the US suddenly decided to tap into the Alaskan National reserves, the resulting shift in supply would most likely force prices down. What about shale oil deposits in the Western US? Several options exist for America. Our total dependence on Arab and other foreign oil shouldn't be one of them.
All of the Chicken Littles whose sky is falling parrot the liberals' favorite talking point on this issue: there's some evil conspiracy between the President and Veep and "Big Oil." That's right y'all, Bush is lining his pockets with funds siphoned out of ExxonMobil while you are paying $100 to fill up your Hummer. And before you go there, NO, I am absolutely not anti-SUV. Buy what car you need or want -- it's s free country. If I'm an ExxonMobil stockholder (I'm not currently) and they're making "obscene" (liberals' words, not mine) profits, and the stock price reflects the same, well hooray for me and my IRA portfolio. And they claim it's a vast right-wing conspiracy...geez.
As for suspending deposits for the strategic petroleum reserves (held in a secret, undisclosed location...), I disagree with that from a, well...strategic viewpoint. In the interest of national security, our government should continue these deposits, or risk real shortages when the time becomes critical. Granted, the deposits President Bush is suspending do not amount to much on the grand scale, but I don't think it's the best option.
It really gets down to supply and demand, Economics 101, remember? As long as we demand, demand, and demand some more, then our OPEC suppliers will gladly supply us, albeit at a price meeting the market equilibrium. If the US suddenly decided to tap into the Alaskan National reserves, the resulting shift in supply would most likely force prices down. What about shale oil deposits in the Western US? Several options exist for America. Our total dependence on Arab and other foreign oil shouldn't be one of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)