16 June 2008
Bush Never Lied about Iraq
Please all read this important article in the Los Angeles Times, written by James Kirchick, assistant editor of The New Republic. This is hardly a conservative publication and cannot be accused of having succumbed to White House propaganda. It's an enlightening review of public reports by US Congress about the intelligence on Iraq.
12 June 2008
On Boumediene v. Bush (06-1195; 553 US 2008) Guantanamo Detainees Case
This was a close case, decided 5-4 by a liberal v. conservative split. The liberal majority (opinion by Justice Kennedy) decided that the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) did not adequately protect the right to habeas corpus of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The majority concluded that the limitation of habeas rights in that law was unconstitutional because, in the views of the Court, habeas protections can only be suspended by invoking the Constitution’s suspension provision, i.e. when the Commander in Chief declares a rebellion or invasion. The conservative dissenters, Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Scalia, and Thomas, rejected this argument in two separate dissenting opinions, one by the Chief Justice and one by Justice Scalia, in both of which the other conservative justices joined.
The Roberts dissent argued primarily that the DTA adequately protected whatever rights aliens detained as enemy combatants have. The right of habeas corpus is not an independent civil right in US law, according to the Chief Justice, but is first and foremost a “procedural right, a mechanism for contesting the legality of executive detention.” In other words, Roberts implies that it is not the exact formula of the writ of habeas corpus that is the protected civil right, but the intent or content of this writ, i.e. the test whether executive detention is legal. Thus, Roberts concludes that the DTA more than adequately provides for a protection of that essential right and that the discussion of habeas corpus should never even have been considered in this case.
Justice Scalia’s scathing and sarcastic dissent went into the specific question whether the Guantanamo detainees had the right of habeas corpus. He emphatically concludes that they do not because the detainees are held in Guantanamo Bay which is part of Cuba and not the United States. As alien detainees being held outside the sovereign territory of the United States they have no constitutional right to sue in civilian US court. Scalia also argued that the very reason President Bush decided to detain enemy combatants at the Guantanamo Bay facility was that he was advised by legal counsel that US civilian law does not extend to that facility.
As with any legal case, the question is an intricate one. Seen from a political point of view, I am not unsympathetic to the Court’s decision. The reason for this is that I do not agree with the ethical argument that enemy combatants “ought not to be be allowed to sue in civil court.” This seems to be at the bottom of Bush administration arguments, and Justice Scalia’s opinion strongly supports this notion. Hiding behind certain blank spots in the law because it is convenient to do so does not address the ethical question whether even enemy combatants ought not to have a certain minimum guarantee of due process. Scalia’s intricate argument regarding the sovereignty status of Guantanamo Bay is not only unconvincing, it is short-sighted and goal-oriented. He argues in effect that Guantanamo Bay is in no way part of US sovereign territory and that, ergo, the right to a writ of habeas corpus does not extend there, at least not to alien detainees. But his reasoning is somewhat tortured (pun intended) because he has to engage the majority’s argument that US sovereignty extends there at least de jure if not de facto. While this distinction, invented by the majority for this case, certainly is not extremely elegant, it does essentially describe the status of Guantanamo: US duties are imposed there by US agents (the US military and other federal agents) on the detainees and these US agents have to abide by executive directives. The majority’s conclusion that this implies US legal control of the area is not less than reasonable. Scalia’s dissent that there is no such term as de jure sovereignty and that its distinction from de facto sovereignty is contrived is unfair and wrong. His particular example that, in common law history, the English writ of habeas corpus was not issued in Scotland when the power of the English crown extended de facto to Scotland, is a legal non sequitur. After all, Scotland had and has its own law in a way not dissimilar to the way different US states have different and separate legal codes.
But this is mostly politics and not necessarily constitutionally sound reasoning. The Chief Justice’s dissent makes clear that even the alien detainees at Guantanamo Bay have a right to challenge their detention, but he deferred to the decision reached by both the executive and legislative branches in passing the DTA in 2005. This law, he argued not unpersuasively, protects the effective content of the detainees’ rights. Just because these rights are not exactly equal with civil habeas corpus rights that obtain for US citizens anywhere, and for legal resident aliens within the sovereign territory of the United States, this is no reason to declare the relevant provision in the DTA unconstitutional.
We must not fall into the trap of fixing this the quick way because the question is politically controversial. I have always disagreed with the Bush administration’s handling of the legal rights of Guantanamo detainees. I believe the limitations imposed on them are unethical because they contradict the very principles undergirding American law and democracy. Even enemy combatants should have some rights. The administration has claimed to agree with this position but the limitations they have imposed on these rights, as gleaned from the legal arguments employed in the various challenges in federal court to the detainees’ treatment, appear to exceed the standards of reasonableness.
On the other hand, the public at large has no right whatsoever to know anything about the way these enemy combatants are processed as this would clearly violate the national security interests of the United States. And unfortunately, the public, in the guise of journalists, pressure groups, and politicians, have muddied the debate by offering conclusions on the matter when they have no understanding of the facts. This decision by the Court’s liberal majority is clearly driven to appease these ill-informed public opinions. Chief Justice Roberts’ warning that the majority’s decision will create a legal confusion that is in no-one’s interest, neither that of the government nor that of the detainees, is quite correct. As members of the judicial branch of government, the justices have no calling except to look at what the pertinent laws say and then declare that. If this analysis of the law finds that the Bush administration has not violated any law then, no matter the political or ethical quibbles one may have with administration policy, too bad. It is simply not up to the judiciary to correct this situation. Judges are nothing but glorified legal consultants, trained in giving expert opinions on the cumulative effect of legislative and executive action.
Thus, even though I am not unsympathetic to the position or even the arguments taken by the Kennedy majority, the conclusion of that majority cannot be construed as anything but liberal judicial activism. I do not agree with all the arguments propounded by the two dissents, but their overriding redeeming quality is that both the Chief Justice and Justice Scalia understand much better than the liberal majority the position Supreme Court justices as well as other federal judges have in a constitutional democracy.
15 March 2008
Barack's "Pastoral" Problem
ABC News and other news outlets have recently highlighted Barack Obama's relationship to the pastor of his home church Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Rev. Jeremiah Wright's role in the Obama campaign has come under scrutiny and CNN reports that the pastor has now resigned from the campaign.
If you listen to the man's "sermons" (the quotation marks are used advisedly), you cannot but conclude that here is a violation of the tax code. The United Church of Christ (UCC), probably the most liberal denomination in the United States, has long left biblical Christianity. Rather than preach the gospel, this denomination prefers to revel in social activism and self-actualization messages. Ever since the forerunners of the UCC set biblical teaching aside in the 1930s, God has gotten little attention there.
Rev. Wright can be seen in Youtube videos (o.a. this one) fulminating against rich white people. In the video I linked to, Rev. Wright is displaying a ridiculous ignorance of the Bible and a scary disinterest in the Bible. Pointing at a Bible on the lectern, and which seems to be nothing but an ornament because he never apparently reads from the Holy Book, Rev. Wright concludes that "Jesus was black" and the "Romans were Italian, which means they were European, which means white." So, first-century Palestine turns into an allegory for Rev. Wright's view of Black America.
Jesus was not black. He was born to a Jewish woman by a mystical conception through the Holy Spirit. Since Jesus apparently did not stand out in society by an unusually dark skin, or the Gospels would surely have mentioned it, He was undoubtedly similar in appearance to modern Jews: i.e. white.
Rev. Wright can preach whatever he wants in his church, but let's not pretend that the speech on Youtube is either Christian or a sermon. Let's be clear about it: Rev. Wright's Christmas 'sermon' is a campaign speech. For it, the IRS ought to cancel the church's tax-exempt status.
And one can't help but wonder how Barack Obama benefited from the teaching at Trinity United Church of Christ. Christ certainly is preached there but rarely, if the reports are anything to go by. That is legitimate reason, at least, to doubt the depth of Mr. Obama's faith.
If you listen to the man's "sermons" (the quotation marks are used advisedly), you cannot but conclude that here is a violation of the tax code. The United Church of Christ (UCC), probably the most liberal denomination in the United States, has long left biblical Christianity. Rather than preach the gospel, this denomination prefers to revel in social activism and self-actualization messages. Ever since the forerunners of the UCC set biblical teaching aside in the 1930s, God has gotten little attention there.
Rev. Wright can be seen in Youtube videos (o.a. this one) fulminating against rich white people. In the video I linked to, Rev. Wright is displaying a ridiculous ignorance of the Bible and a scary disinterest in the Bible. Pointing at a Bible on the lectern, and which seems to be nothing but an ornament because he never apparently reads from the Holy Book, Rev. Wright concludes that "Jesus was black" and the "Romans were Italian, which means they were European, which means white." So, first-century Palestine turns into an allegory for Rev. Wright's view of Black America.
Jesus was not black. He was born to a Jewish woman by a mystical conception through the Holy Spirit. Since Jesus apparently did not stand out in society by an unusually dark skin, or the Gospels would surely have mentioned it, He was undoubtedly similar in appearance to modern Jews: i.e. white.
Rev. Wright can preach whatever he wants in his church, but let's not pretend that the speech on Youtube is either Christian or a sermon. Let's be clear about it: Rev. Wright's Christmas 'sermon' is a campaign speech. For it, the IRS ought to cancel the church's tax-exempt status.
And one can't help but wonder how Barack Obama benefited from the teaching at Trinity United Church of Christ. Christ certainly is preached there but rarely, if the reports are anything to go by. That is legitimate reason, at least, to doubt the depth of Mr. Obama's faith.
11 July 2007
Branding Conservative Justices as Racists
It is hard to tell whether those who have decried the US Supreme Court decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 et al.really believe the nonsense they spout or whether they are just playing a disgusting political game. There can be no doubt that the conservative majority restored sanity and justice when they ruled that racial quotas in school admission policies were unconstitutional. After all, if these quotas were written to make sure black students were kept out of high-performing schools, the ACLU would be mounting lawsuits in every court of the land. School segregation, which was racism plain and simple, was ended by the landmark ruling Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. Black students were no longer barred (at least officially) from attending the ‘elite’ schools that racist school boards had manufactured for white kids only.
But all the liberal human rights groups, in particular the NAACP, are now crying foul because the Supreme Court did exactly the same thing as in that 1954 case: declaring that using race as the main factor in assigning students to schools is racism plain and simple. But this time, the conservative majority is made up of racists, who want to turn back the clock to before Brown. Eh, come again? Apparently, there is good racism and bad racism. The ‘bad’ racism is when non-whites are disadvantaged, ‘good’ racism is when whites are disadvantaged. Call me crazy, but I fail to understand this reasoning. Racism is racism is racism, no matter who is being disadvantaged.
The NAACP and other liberal groups are desperately trying to hold on to official, state-sanctioned racism. It would be one thing if it could be demonstrated that the constituency they represent—or purport to represent—benefited from these racist quotas, by improving school performance for African American students. I have yet to see evidence for that proposition. Thus, the love-affair with racist quotas seems to be perpetuated by these liberal groups simply for its own sake. Or is it because propounding the theory that non-whites need to be awarded unreasonable, illogical and unconstitutional advantages over white people is a valuable chip in the high-stakes poker game of liberal politics? Perhaps it is because playing the race card in this way gives them the money, influence, and self-importance they crave.
The idea that inequality for blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans and other minorities—the existence of which must be acknowledged—can only be remedied by making the white man pay (read: punish) for this state of affairs, is a favorite theory among liberal academics and their followers. The projection of hatred onto those who are not suffering like yourself is a common psychological device. However, in the mumbo-jumbo of liberal, post-rational, pseudo-scientific sociology and economics the same policy of granting special legal rights to the underprivileged becomes endowed with a special grandeur that makes it appear that to deny these rights would be unnatural, racist, and barbaric. This theory can even make it sound logical that white people alive now are morally culpable for the slavery and racism of their long-dead ancestors and should be made to pay for it.
These sentiments are certainly found in the NAACP’s reaction to the Parents Involved ruling. So, have they fallen for this liberal phantasm of reality or are they in on the act? Whatever the answer to this question, they and their ilk can hardly be taken seriously by grown-ups.
But all the liberal human rights groups, in particular the NAACP, are now crying foul because the Supreme Court did exactly the same thing as in that 1954 case: declaring that using race as the main factor in assigning students to schools is racism plain and simple. But this time, the conservative majority is made up of racists, who want to turn back the clock to before Brown. Eh, come again? Apparently, there is good racism and bad racism. The ‘bad’ racism is when non-whites are disadvantaged, ‘good’ racism is when whites are disadvantaged. Call me crazy, but I fail to understand this reasoning. Racism is racism is racism, no matter who is being disadvantaged.
The NAACP and other liberal groups are desperately trying to hold on to official, state-sanctioned racism. It would be one thing if it could be demonstrated that the constituency they represent—or purport to represent—benefited from these racist quotas, by improving school performance for African American students. I have yet to see evidence for that proposition. Thus, the love-affair with racist quotas seems to be perpetuated by these liberal groups simply for its own sake. Or is it because propounding the theory that non-whites need to be awarded unreasonable, illogical and unconstitutional advantages over white people is a valuable chip in the high-stakes poker game of liberal politics? Perhaps it is because playing the race card in this way gives them the money, influence, and self-importance they crave.
The idea that inequality for blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans and other minorities—the existence of which must be acknowledged—can only be remedied by making the white man pay (read: punish) for this state of affairs, is a favorite theory among liberal academics and their followers. The projection of hatred onto those who are not suffering like yourself is a common psychological device. However, in the mumbo-jumbo of liberal, post-rational, pseudo-scientific sociology and economics the same policy of granting special legal rights to the underprivileged becomes endowed with a special grandeur that makes it appear that to deny these rights would be unnatural, racist, and barbaric. This theory can even make it sound logical that white people alive now are morally culpable for the slavery and racism of their long-dead ancestors and should be made to pay for it.
These sentiments are certainly found in the NAACP’s reaction to the Parents Involved ruling. So, have they fallen for this liberal phantasm of reality or are they in on the act? Whatever the answer to this question, they and their ilk can hardly be taken seriously by grown-ups.
12 June 2007
Genarlow Wilson and the Law
Few people could argue, I believe, that Genarlow Wilson, the Georgia teen who was sent to prison for 10 years for having consensual sex with a 15-year old girl, has had justice. Shortly after he was convicted of a felony and thus branded a sexual predator for the rest of his life, Georgia changed the law that convicted him, turning his sort of crime into a misdemeanor. And rightly so. There is a world of difference between a 17-year old having sex with a girl only two years his junior and an adult who preys on immature teens and children.
Genarlow Wilson is not a model citizen. Drugs, alcohol, a party, and a camera were involved in the evening that got him into hot water. And even at seventeen, Genarlow Wilson needed to be punished for his misbehavior. As a Christian, I do not think premarital sex is ever a good idea, and this sort of lascivious willy-nilly loose “hooking up” is frankly immoral and revolting. I do not believe that God will thunder down and punish you to hell for it, but there is a much deeper moral and philosophical reason why God forbids it. It’s because it’s part of a lifestyle that leads away from wisdom and into foolishness. I can hardly find a better illustration for the kind of foolish life described in Proverbs chapters 1-9 than the Genarlow Wilson story.
But one thing that he is not is a sexual predator. At least not yet. He has spent two years in prison and somehow, I can believe that keeping him in the big house for another 8 years and then compelling him to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life might just crush his soul enough to actually turn him into one. The sooner he is out of prison, the better.
However, the Georgia attorney general is correct in his contention that judge Thomas Wilson does not have the jurisdiction to change the sentence. Some might think that this is a triviality—after all, justice is being restored. But do not forget that in America’s legal system, which is a common law system, every decision creates precedent. Next month or next year, another case might come up where things are similar, though slightly different, and then the Genarlow Wilson case will be invoked to justify release. Before you know it, you can drive a truck through the loophole of judicial jurisdiction.
The judiciary does not have the authority to let Genarlow Wilson go. He was properly convicted for a felony by a jury of his peers. The sentence cannot be modified by the courts in this way. The only ways out are: appeals of the original sentence (if any are still available), another legislative change by the Georgia legislature to include Genarlow Wilson’s situation (making him eligible for treatment under the new law, which he currently is not), or an official pardon by the governor. We must do things properly, or the consequences will be worse than the original problem. We cannot be too careful when it comes to sex crimes. No-one wants to give real sex offenders a way out of jail because of our blind compassion for one innocent kid.
Genarlow Wilson is not a model citizen. Drugs, alcohol, a party, and a camera were involved in the evening that got him into hot water. And even at seventeen, Genarlow Wilson needed to be punished for his misbehavior. As a Christian, I do not think premarital sex is ever a good idea, and this sort of lascivious willy-nilly loose “hooking up” is frankly immoral and revolting. I do not believe that God will thunder down and punish you to hell for it, but there is a much deeper moral and philosophical reason why God forbids it. It’s because it’s part of a lifestyle that leads away from wisdom and into foolishness. I can hardly find a better illustration for the kind of foolish life described in Proverbs chapters 1-9 than the Genarlow Wilson story.
But one thing that he is not is a sexual predator. At least not yet. He has spent two years in prison and somehow, I can believe that keeping him in the big house for another 8 years and then compelling him to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life might just crush his soul enough to actually turn him into one. The sooner he is out of prison, the better.
However, the Georgia attorney general is correct in his contention that judge Thomas Wilson does not have the jurisdiction to change the sentence. Some might think that this is a triviality—after all, justice is being restored. But do not forget that in America’s legal system, which is a common law system, every decision creates precedent. Next month or next year, another case might come up where things are similar, though slightly different, and then the Genarlow Wilson case will be invoked to justify release. Before you know it, you can drive a truck through the loophole of judicial jurisdiction.
The judiciary does not have the authority to let Genarlow Wilson go. He was properly convicted for a felony by a jury of his peers. The sentence cannot be modified by the courts in this way. The only ways out are: appeals of the original sentence (if any are still available), another legislative change by the Georgia legislature to include Genarlow Wilson’s situation (making him eligible for treatment under the new law, which he currently is not), or an official pardon by the governor. We must do things properly, or the consequences will be worse than the original problem. We cannot be too careful when it comes to sex crimes. No-one wants to give real sex offenders a way out of jail because of our blind compassion for one innocent kid.
03 May 2007
Rice talks to Syria
That elections have consequences is sadly illustrated by the meeting between Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the Syrian Foreign Minister Wallid al-Moallem. If the Democrats had not taken Congress, this meeting would never have happened. Instead, the Bush administration would have pursued the only logical course of action: isolating Syria more and more, applying diplomatic pressure to force the Syrians to quit supporting terrorists, convincing the UN and other international powers to support the isolation of Syria, and, finally, provide clear and robust military warnings.
What do Liberals think the US will gain from a meeting with a criminal regime? Did they send Rice merely to pick up the ransom note from Mr al-Moallem? Make no mistake, Syria is holding the US hostage and the demands are very clear: Get out of Iraq or we will send more foreign terrorists into Iraq to harm innocent women and children and the US will get the blame for all the bloodshed. Syria has nothing to offer, only demands to make. Ultimately, there will have to be regime change in Syria and I think it not unlikely that the US will invade Syria in the end, with or without international help.
But such gloomy thoughts should be left off for now. Just because Bush buckled under Congressional pressure and allowed Rice to talk to Syria does not mean that the White House is hanging out the white flag just yet. Shame on you, Mr Bush.
What do Liberals think the US will gain from a meeting with a criminal regime? Did they send Rice merely to pick up the ransom note from Mr al-Moallem? Make no mistake, Syria is holding the US hostage and the demands are very clear: Get out of Iraq or we will send more foreign terrorists into Iraq to harm innocent women and children and the US will get the blame for all the bloodshed. Syria has nothing to offer, only demands to make. Ultimately, there will have to be regime change in Syria and I think it not unlikely that the US will invade Syria in the end, with or without international help.
But such gloomy thoughts should be left off for now. Just because Bush buckled under Congressional pressure and allowed Rice to talk to Syria does not mean that the White House is hanging out the white flag just yet. Shame on you, Mr Bush.
11 April 2007
Is Pelosi's Syria Trip a Felony?
Just a few brief comments about Nancy Pelosi’s ill-conceived trip to Syria. First, the trip was ill-conceived. Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism and I cannot imagine what Nancy Pelosi thought to accomplish there. One cannot negotiate with terrorists and the Syrian regime is certainly made up of terrorists. There is nothing the US can offer Syria. Syria wants the US wiped of the map.
Second, since the president has declared it official policy to isolate Syria, Nancy Pelosi’s attempt to negotiate with the Syrian dictator Assad is a violation of the 200-year old Logan Act, which declares interference with the executive authority in foreign relations a felony. There can be no doubt that Nancy Pelosi committed a felony with her trip to Syria (see this article in the Wall Street Journal).
Third, I agree with Andrew McCarthy of National Review Online that Nancy Pelosi should not be prosecuted for this crime. His assessment that a criminal investigation of the House Speaker would be counterproductive is correct, I believe. Much better to turn the blatant violation of a criminal statute into a public relations triumph. Let’s hope the administration can keep itself to a higher standard than the Democrats who are playing every childish game they know to sabotage the president—regardless the consequences. That’s the kind of destructive policies America does not need.
Second, since the president has declared it official policy to isolate Syria, Nancy Pelosi’s attempt to negotiate with the Syrian dictator Assad is a violation of the 200-year old Logan Act, which declares interference with the executive authority in foreign relations a felony. There can be no doubt that Nancy Pelosi committed a felony with her trip to Syria (see this article in the Wall Street Journal).
Third, I agree with Andrew McCarthy of National Review Online that Nancy Pelosi should not be prosecuted for this crime. His assessment that a criminal investigation of the House Speaker would be counterproductive is correct, I believe. Much better to turn the blatant violation of a criminal statute into a public relations triumph. Let’s hope the administration can keep itself to a higher standard than the Democrats who are playing every childish game they know to sabotage the president—regardless the consequences. That’s the kind of destructive policies America does not need.
20 March 2007
Back at Blogger
After a brief stint over at townhall.com, I have decided to return to Blogger for my blog. Townhall, while an impressive gathering place for conservative thought, simply didn't offer the user-friendliness of Blogger. So, find my postings here again (soon).
06 November 2006
On the Eve of St. Nancy Pelosi Day
Tomorrow 100 million Americans or so will go to the polls in local, state and federal elections. The day after Nancy Pelosi stands to be the first woman Speaker of the House. I haven’t seen a poll out there that has the Republicans hold on to the House and only Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard among conservatives has predicted a strong showing of the Republicans.
It makes me wonder what kind of America we will wake up in on Wednesday. The unstinting enthusiasm of the Left and the media—a pleonasm if ever I saw one—seems to have a messianic outlook for Wednesday. They have done everything to reduce reality to one-liners. The election: It’s the War, stupid! (The one in Iraq, in case you’re wondering.) Or this one: It’s the War, stupid! Every time Howard Dean opened his mouth he sounded like he had a stick of dynamite up his rear end because he was much too careful in what he was saying. Could the same man who shouted “yaaaaaaaaaah!” so convincingly suddenly have turned into a sane politician? Doubt it. More likely, NARAL and the ACLU have their hands on the trigger to ignite that dynamite, if Mr Dean doesn’t do his best to steer clear of substantial topics such as abortion, gay marriage, constitutional rights. As long as he keeps bleating, “It’s the War, stupid!” he will live to see another edition of The Nation arrive in his mailbox.
Will America really be better off with a Democratic House (and, God forbid, Senate)? Will it really help to counterbalance the Bush White House? If there are still any conservatives out there who haven’t voted yet, anyone who believes in the Constitution as it was written, not as it is imagined by left-wing visionaries, consider well what you are doing on November 7. Split-ticket voting can seem like a good idea sometimes. And I certainly wouldn’t urge you to vote Republican if you’re more of a Constitution Party person. But you cannot, to my mind, justify strong conservative beliefs with a failure to vote. The two are mutually exclusive.
A Democratic win in Congress will lead to more bureaucracy, a leg-up for every anti-family policy Nancy Pelosi has jotted down in her little black book, more antagonism in politics (driven by the House’s sabotaging of every fart that tries to pass out of the White House) and more jobs for the likes of Joe Wilson at the expense of the American Taxpayer.
I’m quite pessimistic myself but I’m trying to tell myself that it’s just the liberal media’s hyping of these elections that’s making me a half-hearted believer in the opinion polls showing a 230 – 205 Democratic House and a 52 – 48 Democratic Senate. Personally, if I have to make a prediction, I would actually say that the House will be 220 – 215 Democratic (only a slight edge for the Dems) and that the Senate remains Republican by 51-49 seats.
As for Minnesota (where I’m located), I don’t think Mark Kennedy stands a chance to snatch Dayton’s senate seat from Amy Klobuchar. Emily’s List has done too much to bring this pro-abortion professional to the fore. Michele Bachman has a good shot at the congressional seat Mark Kennedy is vacating, though. That is a real toss-up and I sincerely hope that deluded woman Patty Wetterling does not prevail. I deplore the certain election of Nation of Islam minion Keith Ellison as the first Muslim Congressman for Minneapolis. It’s the bluest congressional district in the nation and so Alan Fine stands a chance like a snowball in H.E.7.7. I’m still putting my money (not really, pastor) on Tim Pawlenty for governor. Vote Jeff Johnson for Minnesota Attorney General.
We’ll see what kind of America we’ll wake up in on Wednesday. I hope I won’t feel too blue.
It makes me wonder what kind of America we will wake up in on Wednesday. The unstinting enthusiasm of the Left and the media—a pleonasm if ever I saw one—seems to have a messianic outlook for Wednesday. They have done everything to reduce reality to one-liners. The election: It’s the War, stupid! (The one in Iraq, in case you’re wondering.) Or this one: It’s the War, stupid! Every time Howard Dean opened his mouth he sounded like he had a stick of dynamite up his rear end because he was much too careful in what he was saying. Could the same man who shouted “yaaaaaaaaaah!” so convincingly suddenly have turned into a sane politician? Doubt it. More likely, NARAL and the ACLU have their hands on the trigger to ignite that dynamite, if Mr Dean doesn’t do his best to steer clear of substantial topics such as abortion, gay marriage, constitutional rights. As long as he keeps bleating, “It’s the War, stupid!” he will live to see another edition of The Nation arrive in his mailbox.
Will America really be better off with a Democratic House (and, God forbid, Senate)? Will it really help to counterbalance the Bush White House? If there are still any conservatives out there who haven’t voted yet, anyone who believes in the Constitution as it was written, not as it is imagined by left-wing visionaries, consider well what you are doing on November 7. Split-ticket voting can seem like a good idea sometimes. And I certainly wouldn’t urge you to vote Republican if you’re more of a Constitution Party person. But you cannot, to my mind, justify strong conservative beliefs with a failure to vote. The two are mutually exclusive.
A Democratic win in Congress will lead to more bureaucracy, a leg-up for every anti-family policy Nancy Pelosi has jotted down in her little black book, more antagonism in politics (driven by the House’s sabotaging of every fart that tries to pass out of the White House) and more jobs for the likes of Joe Wilson at the expense of the American Taxpayer.
I’m quite pessimistic myself but I’m trying to tell myself that it’s just the liberal media’s hyping of these elections that’s making me a half-hearted believer in the opinion polls showing a 230 – 205 Democratic House and a 52 – 48 Democratic Senate. Personally, if I have to make a prediction, I would actually say that the House will be 220 – 215 Democratic (only a slight edge for the Dems) and that the Senate remains Republican by 51-49 seats.
As for Minnesota (where I’m located), I don’t think Mark Kennedy stands a chance to snatch Dayton’s senate seat from Amy Klobuchar. Emily’s List has done too much to bring this pro-abortion professional to the fore. Michele Bachman has a good shot at the congressional seat Mark Kennedy is vacating, though. That is a real toss-up and I sincerely hope that deluded woman Patty Wetterling does not prevail. I deplore the certain election of Nation of Islam minion Keith Ellison as the first Muslim Congressman for Minneapolis. It’s the bluest congressional district in the nation and so Alan Fine stands a chance like a snowball in H.E.7.7. I’m still putting my money (not really, pastor) on Tim Pawlenty for governor. Vote Jeff Johnson for Minnesota Attorney General.
We’ll see what kind of America we’ll wake up in on Wednesday. I hope I won’t feel too blue.
02 September 2006
Outing Joe Wilson, Liar
Talk to the average American on the street and ask them about Ambassador Joe Wilson. Most likely, if you don’t count those brain dead individuals who will be on Jay Leno’s “Jaywalking” segment on The Tonight Show, the comments you will hear about Mr Wilson is that he is the guy who discovered that President Bush lied in the State of the Union. Or something along those lines.
Of course, the popular opinion distributed by the mainstream media and anti-war groups is that Bush lied the country into war when he claimed falsely that Iraq had sought to buy uranium in Niger. Joe Wilson is thought of as the independent diplomacy expert who went to Africa and found this claim to be a complete lie. Never mind that Mr Wilson did no such thing and that Mr Bush’s statement was probably true.
Nevertheless, the much easier, dumbed-down version of reality that is summed up as “Bush lied, people died” remains the one that is promulgated by the mainstream media. Despite the fact that the Washington Post admitted that Mr Wilson was the real liar, you can still go to their website and find sponsored advertisements inviting you to meet Mr Wilson on a cruise in December.
The facts that President Bush is so impopular, that the war in Iraq is so impopular and that the editors of the mainstream media are so left-wing all do a pretty good job of explaining why people like Fred Barnes, who in the Weekly Standard this week—again—completely discredited the national Joe Wilson fairy tale, can simply be dismissed as right-wing extremists who do not dignify a response.
Perhaps it must then be up to the blogosphere to finally get through to the average American with the message that the whole CIA leak scandal had nothing to do with an X-Files-type White House conspiracy to undermine the president’s opponents and institute a right-wing theocracy in the United States. All that happened was that one stupid underling (Armitage) blabbed unthinkingly to a reporter or two and these reporters printed the blab in their papers. Nobody knew, nobody schemed.
And as for Mr Wilson, the Senate Intelligence Committee long ago declared him to be a sloppy and untruthful worker. His trip to Niger uncovered nothing because Mr Wilson basically spent his time in Niger enjoying the hotel jacuzzi without bothering with the actual fact-finding he was supposed to be doing. And oops, he completely missed the fact that in 1999 Iraq did send a trade mission to Niger, headed by Iraq’s top uranium expert. But I’m sure that was just a coincidence: the trade mission probably came to enjoy that hotel jacuzzi they had heard about.
Of course, the popular opinion distributed by the mainstream media and anti-war groups is that Bush lied the country into war when he claimed falsely that Iraq had sought to buy uranium in Niger. Joe Wilson is thought of as the independent diplomacy expert who went to Africa and found this claim to be a complete lie. Never mind that Mr Wilson did no such thing and that Mr Bush’s statement was probably true.
Nevertheless, the much easier, dumbed-down version of reality that is summed up as “Bush lied, people died” remains the one that is promulgated by the mainstream media. Despite the fact that the Washington Post admitted that Mr Wilson was the real liar, you can still go to their website and find sponsored advertisements inviting you to meet Mr Wilson on a cruise in December.
The facts that President Bush is so impopular, that the war in Iraq is so impopular and that the editors of the mainstream media are so left-wing all do a pretty good job of explaining why people like Fred Barnes, who in the Weekly Standard this week—again—completely discredited the national Joe Wilson fairy tale, can simply be dismissed as right-wing extremists who do not dignify a response.
Perhaps it must then be up to the blogosphere to finally get through to the average American with the message that the whole CIA leak scandal had nothing to do with an X-Files-type White House conspiracy to undermine the president’s opponents and institute a right-wing theocracy in the United States. All that happened was that one stupid underling (Armitage) blabbed unthinkingly to a reporter or two and these reporters printed the blab in their papers. Nobody knew, nobody schemed.
And as for Mr Wilson, the Senate Intelligence Committee long ago declared him to be a sloppy and untruthful worker. His trip to Niger uncovered nothing because Mr Wilson basically spent his time in Niger enjoying the hotel jacuzzi without bothering with the actual fact-finding he was supposed to be doing. And oops, he completely missed the fact that in 1999 Iraq did send a trade mission to Niger, headed by Iraq’s top uranium expert. But I’m sure that was just a coincidence: the trade mission probably came to enjoy that hotel jacuzzi they had heard about.
10 August 2006
The Poster Boy of the Shallow Left
In a sense, I am not interested in the story that has dominated the media next to the Israel-Hezbollah conflict. After all, who cares what happens in a Democratic primary in a distant state? As a conservative one may well argue that Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman are—to use a vernacular expression—“the same difference.” And they are for the most part. As Senator Lieberman reminded us in his appearance on PBS’s News Hour with Jim Lehrer after he lost the primary, he has a very liberal voting record on taxes, environmental policy and social security reform, to name but a few issues. In other words, Lamont or Lieberman will make little difference in many respects.
Yet, on the other hand, the fact that Connecticut Democrats selected Lamont, a prime representative of the Shallow Left, to represent their party on the November ballot indicates that the party as a whole is being tugged very much to the nutty left by what The Weekly Standard refers to as the “nutroots.” The involvement of organizations like The Daily Kos, popular stomping ground for left-wing pseudo-intellectuals, can hardly be overestimated.
The Connecticut primary was defaced by unfair and ad hominem attacks against Sen. Lieberman. Considering the heavy anti-Lieberman involvement from powerful liberal interest groups and their adept use of the always complicit liberal media, this primary was, as an election, much more of a sham than the last two general elections, which Democrats and other liberal movers love to refer to as a “stolen election.” Rather than a primary on the question which Democrat could best represent Connecticut, the Kos crowd turned it into a lynch party for Lieberman. Not the candidates’ platform counted, but the fact that Lieberman needed to be punished for his support for the War in Iraq.
Conservative commentators have been raising their eyebrows about this one for a while now. None of them—myself included—have a great liking for Lieberman. He is the wrong man to represent Connecticut because he goes in for what Senator Rick Santorum in his book It Takes a Family calls No-Fault Freedom.
Lamont is decidedly worse, even if only for the signal it sends to the national Democratic party. The selection of Ned Lamont is a coup by the Loonie Left which is finally trying to take the party. If even avowed liberals like Lieberman are considered too moderate by that crowd, one can only shudder what direction the Democratic Party is going in.
In addition, of course, Lamont represents the cut-and-run policy of those intellectually shallow Democrats who had rather win congressional seats by bringing back loved ones from the battlefield than listen to military experts and do what is necessary to extinguish a growing forest fire in the Middle East. Yes, Iraq is burning, but fires that are not put out tend to spread. Bringing the boys back now may be better for the boys and the families in the short run but will certainly—without a doubt—lead to more casualties in the medium and long-distance future.
So what are the consequences of Lieberman running as an Independent? Democratic Party officials are probably justified in their fears that Lieberman will take votes from Lamont and thus increase the chance that the Republican candidate will take Lieberman’s seat. But that is definitely not a given. The idea of a Republican carrying Connecticut is somewhat unlikely. Connecticut is firmly blue and will almost certainly stay blue.
Lieberman stands a chance, if those voters who did not go out to the primary show up and decide to prefer him over Lamont after all. Although I care for neither of these two, and would advise all conservatives to vote for the appropriate conservative candidate—even if he has no chance of being elected, such as third-party candidates—, it is imperative that Lamont not be elevated to a place where he can do great damage as the puppet of the Loonie Left. Even electing Lieberman would be a powerful rebuke to that dastardly group of conspirators.
Yet, on the other hand, the fact that Connecticut Democrats selected Lamont, a prime representative of the Shallow Left, to represent their party on the November ballot indicates that the party as a whole is being tugged very much to the nutty left by what The Weekly Standard refers to as the “nutroots.” The involvement of organizations like The Daily Kos, popular stomping ground for left-wing pseudo-intellectuals, can hardly be overestimated.
The Connecticut primary was defaced by unfair and ad hominem attacks against Sen. Lieberman. Considering the heavy anti-Lieberman involvement from powerful liberal interest groups and their adept use of the always complicit liberal media, this primary was, as an election, much more of a sham than the last two general elections, which Democrats and other liberal movers love to refer to as a “stolen election.” Rather than a primary on the question which Democrat could best represent Connecticut, the Kos crowd turned it into a lynch party for Lieberman. Not the candidates’ platform counted, but the fact that Lieberman needed to be punished for his support for the War in Iraq.
Conservative commentators have been raising their eyebrows about this one for a while now. None of them—myself included—have a great liking for Lieberman. He is the wrong man to represent Connecticut because he goes in for what Senator Rick Santorum in his book It Takes a Family calls No-Fault Freedom.
Lamont is decidedly worse, even if only for the signal it sends to the national Democratic party. The selection of Ned Lamont is a coup by the Loonie Left which is finally trying to take the party. If even avowed liberals like Lieberman are considered too moderate by that crowd, one can only shudder what direction the Democratic Party is going in.
In addition, of course, Lamont represents the cut-and-run policy of those intellectually shallow Democrats who had rather win congressional seats by bringing back loved ones from the battlefield than listen to military experts and do what is necessary to extinguish a growing forest fire in the Middle East. Yes, Iraq is burning, but fires that are not put out tend to spread. Bringing the boys back now may be better for the boys and the families in the short run but will certainly—without a doubt—lead to more casualties in the medium and long-distance future.
So what are the consequences of Lieberman running as an Independent? Democratic Party officials are probably justified in their fears that Lieberman will take votes from Lamont and thus increase the chance that the Republican candidate will take Lieberman’s seat. But that is definitely not a given. The idea of a Republican carrying Connecticut is somewhat unlikely. Connecticut is firmly blue and will almost certainly stay blue.
Lieberman stands a chance, if those voters who did not go out to the primary show up and decide to prefer him over Lamont after all. Although I care for neither of these two, and would advise all conservatives to vote for the appropriate conservative candidate—even if he has no chance of being elected, such as third-party candidates—, it is imperative that Lamont not be elevated to a place where he can do great damage as the puppet of the Loonie Left. Even electing Lieberman would be a powerful rebuke to that dastardly group of conspirators.
02 August 2006
The Crucifixion of Mel Gibson
Hollywood is outraged over Mel Gibson’s behavior. The orthodox Roman Catholic actor, already ostracized for his independent production of The Passion of the Christ, was arrested this past week for drunk driving. But what outraged the politically correct Left Coast Hollywood establishment even more was Mr Gibson’s anti-Semitic statements during his arrest. Together with what they consider the anti-Semitic nature of The Passion, Mr Gibson is now branded an anti-Semite. The media are talking of serious repercussions for the actor, such as becoming ineligible for awards.
I am the last one in the world to condone either the drunk driving or the anti-Semitic remarks, but it seems that Hollywood is a little too trigger happy here. Mr Gibson admits his bad behavior and is repentant. He does not deny his anti-Semitic remarks but has given the very plausible remark that the booze was doing the talking and that he disgraced his family by “saying things he does not believe to be true.”
Mr Gibson will be punished for the drunk driving by the proper authorities. Let’s not call for the public crucifixion of a drunk man merely on basis of the incoherent statements made by him in that state of intoxication, no matter how offensive they may have been. I certainly do not believe that we can now somehow piece together evidence that proves Mel Gibson is a congenital anti-Semite. All the arguments I have heard in favor of that proposal were based on the notion that The Passion of the Christ was offensive to Jews because it portrayed the Jews as guilty for Christ’s crucifixion.
I have not seen the movie (out of principle: I consider visual portrayals of God the Son as a violation of the second commandment), but neither have most of Mr Gibson’s accusers. Yet reading the New Testament account, I can only come to the conclusion that while the Romans did the actual crucifying, the Jewish crowd forced Pontius Pilate’s hand even while he was ready to acquit Jesus. Surely, it would not be disingenuous to attach some guilt to that behavior? That means that Mr Gibson’s portrayal of the events—at least in this respect—is merely biblical and factual and can lead to no conclusions about his personal views. Unless one wanted to accuse all Christians of being anti-Semites? Ah, there’s the rub with Hollywood liberals.
I am the last one in the world to condone either the drunk driving or the anti-Semitic remarks, but it seems that Hollywood is a little too trigger happy here. Mr Gibson admits his bad behavior and is repentant. He does not deny his anti-Semitic remarks but has given the very plausible remark that the booze was doing the talking and that he disgraced his family by “saying things he does not believe to be true.”
Mr Gibson will be punished for the drunk driving by the proper authorities. Let’s not call for the public crucifixion of a drunk man merely on basis of the incoherent statements made by him in that state of intoxication, no matter how offensive they may have been. I certainly do not believe that we can now somehow piece together evidence that proves Mel Gibson is a congenital anti-Semite. All the arguments I have heard in favor of that proposal were based on the notion that The Passion of the Christ was offensive to Jews because it portrayed the Jews as guilty for Christ’s crucifixion.
I have not seen the movie (out of principle: I consider visual portrayals of God the Son as a violation of the second commandment), but neither have most of Mr Gibson’s accusers. Yet reading the New Testament account, I can only come to the conclusion that while the Romans did the actual crucifying, the Jewish crowd forced Pontius Pilate’s hand even while he was ready to acquit Jesus. Surely, it would not be disingenuous to attach some guilt to that behavior? That means that Mr Gibson’s portrayal of the events—at least in this respect—is merely biblical and factual and can lead to no conclusions about his personal views. Unless one wanted to accuse all Christians of being anti-Semites? Ah, there’s the rub with Hollywood liberals.
26 July 2006
A Screaming (and False) NYT Headline on Abortion
I guess the Times article isn’t so bad, but the headline “Senate Removes Abortion Option for Young Girls” is a grave distortion of the facts. The law would not make abortions for young girls in any way illegal. In fact, the law has nothing to do with abortion as such. It is a law that protects the rights of parents not to have their children abducted across state lines. Considering that the real crime addressed is abduction, the proposed punishment for the kidnappers of up to one year in prison is lenient, since it is classified as a misdemeanor, rather than a felony.
But the New York Times thinks it is more important to pander to its extremist pro-abortion readership by producing such a screaming and patently false headline. Abortion remains legal—by judicial fiat—even for young girls for whom medical complications are much more likely. And NARAL can relax: these young girls can still go and have their babies killed, even if there are no truly medical complications because girls under 18 can always plead emotional or social hardship and have that declared a medical emergency. (Then again, so can women over 18.) They will then be rewarded by the general cheers of a bunch of crazy middle-aged feminists for this first step on feminist womanhood.
But the New York Times thinks it is more important to pander to its extremist pro-abortion readership by producing such a screaming and patently false headline. Abortion remains legal—by judicial fiat—even for young girls for whom medical complications are much more likely. And NARAL can relax: these young girls can still go and have their babies killed, even if there are no truly medical complications because girls under 18 can always plead emotional or social hardship and have that declared a medical emergency. (Then again, so can women over 18.) They will then be rewarded by the general cheers of a bunch of crazy middle-aged feminists for this first step on feminist womanhood.
25 July 2006
We Must Stand with Israel
Let there be no doubt about it: in the current conflict between Israel and various Arab groups in Gaza and Lebanon the blame lands squarely and exclusively with the Arab thugs. This is no reflection on other Israeli policies with which I may or may not agree.
The current conflict was triggered by open terrorism by Hizb’allah (commonly known as Hezbollah), Hamas and the puppet masters in Syria and Iran who control these groups. Nor do I believe that Israel’s reaction to the Arab provocations has been disproportionate. Whereas Hezbollah is sending rockets indiscriminately into Israel, hoping to kill and maim as many innocent Israelis as possible, Israel has targeted the infrastructure in places where there would be maximum inconvenience for the terrorists and minimum chance of civilian casualties. One prime example of this Israeli strategy is the bombing of fuel depots at Beirut airport: little chance of innocent civilians being in the way but it immediately disrupted air traffic in Lebanon. It underscores Israel’s measured response.
The US and the West should stand with Israel unconditionally. After all, Israel’s demands are no new demands. They want Hezbollah to be dismantled and disarmed. And it is not like they are being unreasonable in demanding this. The United Nations passed a resolution (Security Council Resolution 1559) to this effect years ago and no one has ever done anything about it. So now that Israel is finally enforcing this UN resolution, it is Israel that is supposed to be the aggressor? Come off it. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization and can be no partner in any conference or talk. It must be shunned by government leaders and its members should be hunted down and arrested or killed.
It is especially disheartening that many supposedly moderate regimes in the Middle East are supporting Hezbollah. Even Iraq’s fledgeling government has announced its support for Hezbollah and the Palestinians, blaming the Israelis for everything that is going on now. It is yet another dark cloud over the troubled attempts to set up a responsible democracy in a country wracked by internal strife and terrorism stirred up by foreign (read: Iranian and Syrian) agents.
There is no doubt in my mind that Israel will not solve the conflict “once and for all,” as many naive people phrase it. The Israelis will rattle many cages in the process and stir up trouble in new quarters. I refuse to accept this argument—which I acknowledge—as a reason for Israel to desist from its current actions. Israel has no choice but to stamp out this source of terrorism. Hezbollah’s only aim is to eradicate Israel and drive the Jews into the sea.
Though other anti-Semitic groups will undoubtedly be encouraged on other sides of the Israeli state by the determined military actions of the Israeli government, this brush fire must be extinguished before it becomes a forest fire. Conditions in the Middle East being as they are, this is the only sort of containment one can hope for. Any talk of “cease-fires” or “once and for all” solutions, and arguments based on these views are irresponsible, emotional slogans that will cost hundreds and thousands of lives. Secretary Rice is very correct in perceiving this and refusing to call Israel to stop fighting.
We must stand with Israel in its attempt to destroy Hezbollah, at least for the present. This hydra will return, no matter what, but it could take a while—even if only five or ten years—and this would buy the Middle East some important time to move forward with substantive peace negotiations. That should be the goal because only this route will lead to long-term containment of Islamo-fascist terrorism.
The current conflict was triggered by open terrorism by Hizb’allah (commonly known as Hezbollah), Hamas and the puppet masters in Syria and Iran who control these groups. Nor do I believe that Israel’s reaction to the Arab provocations has been disproportionate. Whereas Hezbollah is sending rockets indiscriminately into Israel, hoping to kill and maim as many innocent Israelis as possible, Israel has targeted the infrastructure in places where there would be maximum inconvenience for the terrorists and minimum chance of civilian casualties. One prime example of this Israeli strategy is the bombing of fuel depots at Beirut airport: little chance of innocent civilians being in the way but it immediately disrupted air traffic in Lebanon. It underscores Israel’s measured response.
The US and the West should stand with Israel unconditionally. After all, Israel’s demands are no new demands. They want Hezbollah to be dismantled and disarmed. And it is not like they are being unreasonable in demanding this. The United Nations passed a resolution (Security Council Resolution 1559) to this effect years ago and no one has ever done anything about it. So now that Israel is finally enforcing this UN resolution, it is Israel that is supposed to be the aggressor? Come off it. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization and can be no partner in any conference or talk. It must be shunned by government leaders and its members should be hunted down and arrested or killed.
It is especially disheartening that many supposedly moderate regimes in the Middle East are supporting Hezbollah. Even Iraq’s fledgeling government has announced its support for Hezbollah and the Palestinians, blaming the Israelis for everything that is going on now. It is yet another dark cloud over the troubled attempts to set up a responsible democracy in a country wracked by internal strife and terrorism stirred up by foreign (read: Iranian and Syrian) agents.
There is no doubt in my mind that Israel will not solve the conflict “once and for all,” as many naive people phrase it. The Israelis will rattle many cages in the process and stir up trouble in new quarters. I refuse to accept this argument—which I acknowledge—as a reason for Israel to desist from its current actions. Israel has no choice but to stamp out this source of terrorism. Hezbollah’s only aim is to eradicate Israel and drive the Jews into the sea.
Though other anti-Semitic groups will undoubtedly be encouraged on other sides of the Israeli state by the determined military actions of the Israeli government, this brush fire must be extinguished before it becomes a forest fire. Conditions in the Middle East being as they are, this is the only sort of containment one can hope for. Any talk of “cease-fires” or “once and for all” solutions, and arguments based on these views are irresponsible, emotional slogans that will cost hundreds and thousands of lives. Secretary Rice is very correct in perceiving this and refusing to call Israel to stop fighting.
We must stand with Israel in its attempt to destroy Hezbollah, at least for the present. This hydra will return, no matter what, but it could take a while—even if only five or ten years—and this would buy the Middle East some important time to move forward with substantive peace negotiations. That should be the goal because only this route will lead to long-term containment of Islamo-fascist terrorism.
21 July 2006
Stem Cells and the Presidential Veto
The New York Times published a letter of mine about this subject (third letter down). It is clear that my opinion is in the minority here and that the Times seems to think I and the president are in the minority in the country, too. Ah well, we’ll throw in a gratuitous reference to the War in Iraq to discredit the president and ridicule this incomprehensible trait he has that he calls “morality.” Now, what’s that again?
17 July 2006
The Courts and Guantanamo
Well, I have been busy for a while. No time to update the blog. But here is a link to an article I penned on the recent Hamdan ruling by the Supreme Court (you'll need Acrobat Reader). A Dutch translation of it was published in the Dutch daily newspaper Nederlands Dagblad on July 5.
Needless to say, I was not too impressed by all the grandstanding by Democrats and their allies in the media over the way the Supreme Court "disciplined" the bad little boy of the class, George W. Bush. I have my own cavils with W.'s treatment of detainees in Guantanamo, but one cannot help but wonder what is worse: attack by terrorists from abroad or an underhanded power grab by unelected judges. The country will just as much cease to be democratic and turn into a dictatorship either way.
Needless to say, I was not too impressed by all the grandstanding by Democrats and their allies in the media over the way the Supreme Court "disciplined" the bad little boy of the class, George W. Bush. I have my own cavils with W.'s treatment of detainees in Guantanamo, but one cannot help but wonder what is worse: attack by terrorists from abroad or an underhanded power grab by unelected judges. The country will just as much cease to be democratic and turn into a dictatorship either way.
10 June 2006
Hillary Shrillary
Ever wanted to read a good summary of where Hillary Clinton stands politically? Then don’t read The Washington Post’s May 30 article by Dan Balz about Senator Clinton. Instead, go ahead and read the thoughtful article by L. Brent Bozel III. Nope, Hillary really is not the centrist Democrat the mainstream media have pretended she is. She is at least as much a left extremist as John Kerry, possibly as bad as Ted Kennedy. Or worse. She will vote against anything rational and reasonable and will support any cause advanced by NARAL and the ACLU. You may well call her a puppet senator. Bought and paid for and others are pulling the strings. And people talk about electing her to the White House? I wonder who is the ventriloquist doing the talking here.
It is really baffling how people refuse to see the rampant liberal bias in the nation’s media. I recently looked at my browser bookmarks and noticed that the internet thugs had sneaked in a few free bookmarks with my latest browser update, so that the always crazy alternet.org soap box is now listed as one my preferred media outlets. Don’t you believe it. However, I think I’ll leave the bookmark in my list. I can always do with a laugh.
To make a short story long, when, curious what had driven AlterNet into the meanstream, I visited their marbled halls, I noticed the special coverage section on the rampant conservative bias in the nation’s media. I’m still laughing. In a long, very shrill article about the anti-Democratic bias of the media, specifically about the maltreatment of John Murtha, no mention is made of the fact that Rep. Murtha appeared on CNN three times in one day, each time being treated as if he were still a respected veteran instead of a dribbling senile old man who has completely lost his marbles. Ah well.
It is really baffling how people refuse to see the rampant liberal bias in the nation’s media. I recently looked at my browser bookmarks and noticed that the internet thugs had sneaked in a few free bookmarks with my latest browser update, so that the always crazy alternet.org soap box is now listed as one my preferred media outlets. Don’t you believe it. However, I think I’ll leave the bookmark in my list. I can always do with a laugh.
To make a short story long, when, curious what had driven AlterNet into the meanstream, I visited their marbled halls, I noticed the special coverage section on the rampant conservative bias in the nation’s media. I’m still laughing. In a long, very shrill article about the anti-Democratic bias of the media, specifically about the maltreatment of John Murtha, no mention is made of the fact that Rep. Murtha appeared on CNN three times in one day, each time being treated as if he were still a respected veteran instead of a dribbling senile old man who has completely lost his marbles. Ah well.
05 June 2006
Gay Marriage Amendment
It is almost unbearable to watch the discussions on TV news shows about the same-sex marriage amendment which is being debated in the Senate today. One gay activist after the other is paraded on the nation’s liberal media platforms, with a ‘liberal’ sprinkling of so-called ‘actual gay families,’ to underscore the evil of discrimination against a ‘whole class of people.’ I had to switch CNN off this afternoon.
In the meantime, Democratic senators huff and puff that the whole discussion is a waste of time because other, more important concerns (that are more politically convenient for liberals) are not on the agenda: the war in Iraq, illegal wiretapping of US citizens, immigration reform, etc. Of course, all these senators make sure they use up the full allotted speaking time. Just to make a point about exactly how much of a waste of time this marriage amendment is.
I heard Senator Leahy complain that under US law the question of marriage is a state matter and could never be brought to a federal court anyway. So why are the Republicans suddenly abandoning federalism to ram a federal law through the voters’ throats? Besides, he said, if the amendment passed, the same “Republican judges” (his actual words) of whom the Republicans are so afraid would have to do the judicial mopping up of lawsuits arising out of the amendment. Of course, Leahy had argued that since the majority of federal judges have been appointed by Republican presidents, these judges themselves are Republicans too. In your dreams.
I believe a constitutional amendment against gay marriage is necessary. I am not sure whether this amendment is the one to go for because it does not go far enough and does not rule out civil unions. And that is quite apart from the fact that the amendment will not pass. For constitutional amendments 67 votes are needed. There are barely 55 votes in the Senate. Yet it is clear that within a few years, judges will rule in favor of gay activists and rule existing state bans unconstitutional. That is not so much because these bans are in fact unconstitutional but because many judges, who are on the bench already, believe in the “living Constitution” theory, which teaches that the Constitution means what the ACLU decrees it means. So, if the First Amendment talks about the government not passing any laws infringing on the freedom of religion, this living Constitution theory clarifies this text for the modern American (thanks to the ACLU) to read that Christians can only worship if they do so behind closed doors in their church building and do not profess their religious beliefs in public.
As we can see, with this sort of irrational philosophy being swallowed whole—because politically convenient—by scores and droves of jurists, even a constitutional amendment is not safe. But there is no better defense against the hallucinations of the gay rights movement. Leahy’s argument that the federal courts have no jurisdiction is absolutely laudable. I agree with him. But while the ACLU might agree that now outdated theories of the Constitution (theories that hold to the idea that the text means what it says it means) do also lead to this conclusion, more evolved human beings know innately that federal judges have the moral duty to ignore such narrow legalistic views and come to the aid of suppressed minorities. A higher law trumps petty rules such as the Constitution.
This state of affairs is pathetic. It means that the Democrats are in essence right when they say the amendment is superfluous. Yet the amendment is necessary just to bolt the door against activist judges. As the old Latin saying goes, “Who will guard the guards?” so the modern American saying goes, “Who will keep judges’ fingers out of the law?” If everyone played by the rules, such draconian measures would not be necessary. But Liberalism has long thrown out the rule book and plays only by its own rules.
In the meantime, Democratic senators huff and puff that the whole discussion is a waste of time because other, more important concerns (that are more politically convenient for liberals) are not on the agenda: the war in Iraq, illegal wiretapping of US citizens, immigration reform, etc. Of course, all these senators make sure they use up the full allotted speaking time. Just to make a point about exactly how much of a waste of time this marriage amendment is.
I heard Senator Leahy complain that under US law the question of marriage is a state matter and could never be brought to a federal court anyway. So why are the Republicans suddenly abandoning federalism to ram a federal law through the voters’ throats? Besides, he said, if the amendment passed, the same “Republican judges” (his actual words) of whom the Republicans are so afraid would have to do the judicial mopping up of lawsuits arising out of the amendment. Of course, Leahy had argued that since the majority of federal judges have been appointed by Republican presidents, these judges themselves are Republicans too. In your dreams.
I believe a constitutional amendment against gay marriage is necessary. I am not sure whether this amendment is the one to go for because it does not go far enough and does not rule out civil unions. And that is quite apart from the fact that the amendment will not pass. For constitutional amendments 67 votes are needed. There are barely 55 votes in the Senate. Yet it is clear that within a few years, judges will rule in favor of gay activists and rule existing state bans unconstitutional. That is not so much because these bans are in fact unconstitutional but because many judges, who are on the bench already, believe in the “living Constitution” theory, which teaches that the Constitution means what the ACLU decrees it means. So, if the First Amendment talks about the government not passing any laws infringing on the freedom of religion, this living Constitution theory clarifies this text for the modern American (thanks to the ACLU) to read that Christians can only worship if they do so behind closed doors in their church building and do not profess their religious beliefs in public.
As we can see, with this sort of irrational philosophy being swallowed whole—because politically convenient—by scores and droves of jurists, even a constitutional amendment is not safe. But there is no better defense against the hallucinations of the gay rights movement. Leahy’s argument that the federal courts have no jurisdiction is absolutely laudable. I agree with him. But while the ACLU might agree that now outdated theories of the Constitution (theories that hold to the idea that the text means what it says it means) do also lead to this conclusion, more evolved human beings know innately that federal judges have the moral duty to ignore such narrow legalistic views and come to the aid of suppressed minorities. A higher law trumps petty rules such as the Constitution.
This state of affairs is pathetic. It means that the Democrats are in essence right when they say the amendment is superfluous. Yet the amendment is necessary just to bolt the door against activist judges. As the old Latin saying goes, “Who will guard the guards?” so the modern American saying goes, “Who will keep judges’ fingers out of the law?” If everyone played by the rules, such draconian measures would not be necessary. But Liberalism has long thrown out the rule book and plays only by its own rules.
13 May 2006
The Brewing Gay Power Grab
It is a sad time we live in when one has to start with this announcement: I know and have known quite a few gay people and get along with almost all of them.
I say this merely to forestall the accusation of homophobia from those on the loonie left fringe. Disagreeing with the gay rights’ movement is not a crime yet but it most likely will be soon, judging by recent developments in society. The thought police over at the Human Rights Campaign and their agents across the political establishment have now managed to squeeze Boston Catholic Charities out of the adoption business. Their method is as shocking as the headlines announcing the charity’s withdrawal as an adoption agency: by imposing pro-gay compliance laws on society.
A highly recommended feature article by Maggie Gallagher in the May 15 issue of Weekly Standard explains exactly how Boston Catholic Charities were forced to throw in the towel. Needless to say, the judicial tyranny that reigns in Massachussetts has much to do with it. When that state’s Supreme Court ruled that restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples was unconstitutional homophobia, it automatically granted gay couples the right to adopt. The Catholic charity, which excludes such couples from their adoption services, thereby came to be in violation of Massachussetts’ non-discrimination laws. Rather than wait for the first lawsuit to be brought against them, they decided to save the money and disband the adoption service altogether. A sad but wise move because already the gay rights’ movement is so powerful that a court case would have been a long drawn out affair and almost certainly have led to a gay victory in yet another court.
At the same time, gay rights activists elected to the California state Senate have managed to push a bill through the legislature that would make gay indoctrination mandatory in California’s schools. The state assembly is less likely to follow orders from the gay rights lobby, but chances that the bill is approved are not so slim as to laugh it off as another stunt. If it is approved and Gov. Schwarzenegger cannot find the backbone to veto it, children as young as primary school age could be taught the virtues of the same-sex lifestyle as soon as 2012—by government decree.
These are very scary developments. In the name of equality, the gay rights movement is twisting more and more political and judicial arms to impose dictatorial laws requiring compliance with the gay goose step on more and more parts of the country. Make no mistake, the California bill and the Massachussetts gay marriage ruling are as much symptoms of the breakdown of democracy as any other example of dictatorial repression you can think of.
Of course, what gay rights activists are saying is that gays are persecuted by unjust laws in the same way that black people were persecuted by Jim Crow. It’s a despicable accusation. African Americans were denied equal rights in equal situations. This is not the case with gay people. It is already illegal to discriminate against gay people in situations where sexual preference is irrelevant. Gay people already have the right to marry—just as soon as they find an opposite-sex partner they can go to any justice of the peace to get married, like any heterosexual person. Gay people are not denied anything that heterosexual people are not denied also.
It is important to realize that gay rights activists want extra and new rights specifically for them. Not only do they want to live together with their same-sex lover (against which there are no laws), they also want to have the state-recognized rights and benefits of heterosexual marriage, despite the fact that they do not qualify for the terms and conditions of marriage. Already many states and corporations award health benefits to unmarried couples of the same sex. Interestingly enough, these same institutions deny these same benefits to unmarried couples of the opposite sex. Special privileges for special people.
It seems that, in the words of George Orwell, the gay rights movement believes that “some animals are more equal than others” after all.
I say this merely to forestall the accusation of homophobia from those on the loonie left fringe. Disagreeing with the gay rights’ movement is not a crime yet but it most likely will be soon, judging by recent developments in society. The thought police over at the Human Rights Campaign and their agents across the political establishment have now managed to squeeze Boston Catholic Charities out of the adoption business. Their method is as shocking as the headlines announcing the charity’s withdrawal as an adoption agency: by imposing pro-gay compliance laws on society.
A highly recommended feature article by Maggie Gallagher in the May 15 issue of Weekly Standard explains exactly how Boston Catholic Charities were forced to throw in the towel. Needless to say, the judicial tyranny that reigns in Massachussetts has much to do with it. When that state’s Supreme Court ruled that restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples was unconstitutional homophobia, it automatically granted gay couples the right to adopt. The Catholic charity, which excludes such couples from their adoption services, thereby came to be in violation of Massachussetts’ non-discrimination laws. Rather than wait for the first lawsuit to be brought against them, they decided to save the money and disband the adoption service altogether. A sad but wise move because already the gay rights’ movement is so powerful that a court case would have been a long drawn out affair and almost certainly have led to a gay victory in yet another court.
At the same time, gay rights activists elected to the California state Senate have managed to push a bill through the legislature that would make gay indoctrination mandatory in California’s schools. The state assembly is less likely to follow orders from the gay rights lobby, but chances that the bill is approved are not so slim as to laugh it off as another stunt. If it is approved and Gov. Schwarzenegger cannot find the backbone to veto it, children as young as primary school age could be taught the virtues of the same-sex lifestyle as soon as 2012—by government decree.
These are very scary developments. In the name of equality, the gay rights movement is twisting more and more political and judicial arms to impose dictatorial laws requiring compliance with the gay goose step on more and more parts of the country. Make no mistake, the California bill and the Massachussetts gay marriage ruling are as much symptoms of the breakdown of democracy as any other example of dictatorial repression you can think of.
Of course, what gay rights activists are saying is that gays are persecuted by unjust laws in the same way that black people were persecuted by Jim Crow. It’s a despicable accusation. African Americans were denied equal rights in equal situations. This is not the case with gay people. It is already illegal to discriminate against gay people in situations where sexual preference is irrelevant. Gay people already have the right to marry—just as soon as they find an opposite-sex partner they can go to any justice of the peace to get married, like any heterosexual person. Gay people are not denied anything that heterosexual people are not denied also.
It is important to realize that gay rights activists want extra and new rights specifically for them. Not only do they want to live together with their same-sex lover (against which there are no laws), they also want to have the state-recognized rights and benefits of heterosexual marriage, despite the fact that they do not qualify for the terms and conditions of marriage. Already many states and corporations award health benefits to unmarried couples of the same sex. Interestingly enough, these same institutions deny these same benefits to unmarried couples of the opposite sex. Special privileges for special people.
It seems that, in the words of George Orwell, the gay rights movement believes that “some animals are more equal than others” after all.
11 May 2006
‘Othercott’ the “Da Vinci Code” Movie: See “Over the Hedge”
I will be brief about this issue. On May 19 The Da Vinci Code movie opens in theaters across the United States. The book and the movie are a monument of America’s anti-Christian elite. Billed as a spy thriller, the story describes Christianity as one big conspiracy concocted in AD 325. For those of you who don’t worry about this (yet), let me inform you that the story is not considered fiction by most scholars on America’s campuses. In fact, the three prevailing theories used to interpret the New Testament rest on exactly the same premise as The Da Vinci Code. Scholars merely bicker and argue about what parts of the New Testament were written by whom and at what time—naturally ruling out a priori that the authors identified as such in the various Scriptures were the real authors. Anything to debunk the most powerful religion of America, because thumbnosing Christians is very important to the anti-Christian, pro-gay, pro-choice, pro-New Age spirituality liberal elite.
I believe the best way to sink this movie is not to boycott it but to ‘othercott’ it. That is to say, don’t stay home on May 19 and don’t merely protest the movie. Go out to the movie theater and see another movie. Highly recommended is “Over the Hedge,” an animated family movie. Or pick another acceptable movie, to make sure that the Da Vinci Code move does not rank high in the box office results.
I believe the best way to sink this movie is not to boycott it but to ‘othercott’ it. That is to say, don’t stay home on May 19 and don’t merely protest the movie. Go out to the movie theater and see another movie. Highly recommended is “Over the Hedge,” an animated family movie. Or pick another acceptable movie, to make sure that the Da Vinci Code move does not rank high in the box office results.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
