Thursday, June 30, 2005

Happy Birthday Mr. Sowell

75 Years Old
Thomas Sowell - June 30, 2005 -
It is hard to believe that I am that old but arithmetic is uncompromising. This means that I have lived through nearly one-third of the entire history of the United States.

The changes in my life -- and still more so in the life of the country around me and in the world at large -- have been almost unbelievable.

Thomas Sowell. Economist, writer, educator, patriot. Thank you for sharing your great love of this nation and your belief in the future.

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

True Justice

David Souter is one of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices who decided that any local government can take your home if someone else offers to provide more tax revenue on the property. Justice Souter's home is at 34 Cilley Hill Road, Weare, New Hampshire. Now, in what is considered supreme irony by many, and delicious retribution by others, a developer has proposed taking Souter's home and building a hotel on the site.

Proposal: Replace Souter's home with 'Lost Liberty Hotel'
by Associated Press - June 29 2005 - Stamford Advocate

WEARE, N.H. -- Following a Supreme Court ruling last week that gave local governments power to seize private property, someone has suggested taking over Justice David Souter's New Hampshire farmhouse and turning it into a hotel.

"The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare," Logan Darrow Clements of California wrote in a letter faxed to town officials in Weare on Tuesday.

The following is in a press release from the developer

"The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

Blogs, both conservative and liberal, have been delighted with the idea of the hotel. Many are proposing that they take up a collection on the Internet to fund the museum part of the development. With this ruling the supreme court has alienated everbody, liberal and conservative alike. With the ruling allowing any rich person to seize the property of the poor, the justices seem to think that everyone in America wants them to take over control of all government decisions that support tax increases. All it really proves is how out of touch with America this court is.

Souter is almost certainly going to need to move. I love it!

Conceit of Government

by Peggy Noonan - Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - Wall Street Journal (
What's wrong with them? That's what I'm thinking more and more as I watch the news from Washington.

Great article by Peggy. Click above to read it.

Court Orders 4 Reporters to Reveal Sources

By Carol D. Leonnig - Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - Washington Post

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that although journalists have a qualified privilege to protect anonymous sources, it was outweighed by two key factors in Lee's case: The reporters had information central to his lawsuit, and Lee's attorneys had sufficiently exhausted their efforts to find the alleged leakers ...

The arrogance of journalists is imploding as the abuses they have long practiced under their proclaimed immunity from revealing sources is finally being addressed by the courts.

The reporters in the Wen Ho Lee case have not been sentenced yet, but their "contempt of court" sentence is unlikely to be much less than the sentences in a similar case.
Reporters in that case (the Victoria Plame investigation) implied that their leaks came from the White House while insisting they did not have to say where they came from. The Supreme Court has allowed to stand a lower court ruling that they must testify. They are facing 18 months in jail for contempt of court.

The Supreme Court is showing again that they alone will determine what rights anyone has, with little concern for the constitution or law. Even as they have shredded laws passed by the legislatures, and by the people of various states, they are now shredding their own previous rulings of what the Constitution means.

You may have heard of their idiot ruling allowing the Ten Commandments to be displayed or not displayed, based on the intent of the person intitiating the display, as divined by a judge reading the mind of that person. I am not sure why some conservatives are lauding this ruling. It is as mindlessly inconsistent. Who can honestly read anothers mind? This is the determination of what is legal, what someone is thinking when they take an act?

The problem we have today is that the courts are arrogantly seizing control of every aspect of life, and requiring that everyone come into court for permission to take any action, or face punishment for not guessing what the courts would have ruled.

I don't like reporters and am glad to see their powers to destroy others with false accusations curtailed. That does not mean that this ruling, essentially giving more power to courts that need to be slapped down themselves, is deserving of any respect.

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Supremely Absurd

by John Podhoretz - June 28th, 2005 - New York Post
Basically, says Justice David Souter, the only way to tell whether your Ten Commandments display is allowable is by putting it up in a state building, getting sued and having some judge make a ruling on it.

That is a correct assessment of these supreme court rulings on the Ten Commandments. That is the exact meaning of many of the rulings we have seen in recent years. The supreme court justices are not fools though. They have a clear and obvious intent to these rulings. It is not liberal. It is not conservative. It is totalitarian.

To think they truly meant these rulings to be anything else, you would have to think that they really meant the following to be possible; "Thus, along with all its many powers, the Supreme Court has now granted the American judiciary the power to read minds and discern feelings from a distance."

They don't really think judges can read minds or discern feelings. They just think we are so stupid we will believe they can. They aren't fools. They think we are.

Monday, June 27, 2005

Twisted ‘Tolerance’

By Diana West - June27, 2005 - Jewish World Review
Freedom dies not just at gunpoint

What is car-wreck fascinating here is Judge Michael Higgins' conclusion that simply pointing out what the Quran says now constitutes outlawed speech in Victoria. During court proceedings, when Mr. Scot began to read verses from the Muslim holy book that denigrate women, a lawyer for the Islamic Council of Victoria, the plaintiff, cut him off, explaining that reading such verses aloud is itself an act of vilification. "How," wondered Mr. Scot, "can it be vilifying to Muslims in the room when I am just reading from the Quran?"

There are things happening in the world that simply defy belief. Liberals all over the world are making it a crime to criticize Islam, not because they believe in Islam, but just because it enrages conservatives. They do not seem to think these laws will ever be applied to them.

Iraqi Insurgency Lacks Ingredients For Success

by Max Boot - June 27, 2005 - Christian Science Monitor
Support for the insurgency is confined to a minority within a minority - a small portion of Sunni Arabs, who make up less than 20 percent of the population. The only prominent non-Sunni rebel, Moqtada al-Sadr, has quietly joined the political process. The 80 percent of the population that is Shiite and Kurdish is implacably opposed to the rebellion, which is why most of the terrorism has been confined to four of 18 provinces.

Why are the American people starting to turn against the war? Have they forgotten 9/11? Are they unaware that the insurgency leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, is a Jordanian aligned with Osama Bin Laden? Zarwawi "has alienated most of the Iraqi population, even many Sunnis, with his indiscriminate attacks on civilians". Has America really reached a point where we would rather throw away victory than win a war if winning is tough?

Who are this 20% of our people who have decided that we should not be in Iraq in the last 30 days? According to the polls (if you can believe them) 20% (one in five Americans) is how many have changed from a supporter of the war to being opposed. Look around you and take notice of who these people are. Ask them if they have any idea of the consequences of pulling out now. Do they think that Osama Bin Laden will stop his war (declared in writing in 1990) because they advocate we quit in Iraq?

Thursday, June 23, 2005

High Court Expands Reach of Eminent Domain

Associated Press - June 23rd, 2005 - Fox News Channel
WASHINGTON — Cities may bulldoze people's homes to make way for shopping malls or other private development, a divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday, giving local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue.
If an economic incentive by a business is all that is required to sieze your home, then the limitation on the "takings clause" in our Constitution is meaningless. The limitation specifically stated is for "public use" only. "Public use" has now been defined as government saying "I want it". How corrupt is this court?

The Supreme Court has already agreed that it is not a violation of the equal protection clause for government to give tax breaks to a company or individual for intangible benefits to society that only that government can see and which no one else gets. Nor is their any recompense if the hypothesized benefits never occur. What is to stop government from taking your property for hypothesized tax benefits, and simultaneously giving the beneficiary of the seized property tax breaks for compensation of the higher taxes that they are paying on your former property?

Think this is not likely? They are already doing something similar. Check out the following article.

Couple Was Not Paid For Seized Land
By Kevin Leininger - June 16, 2005 - Fort Wayne News Sentinel
“The Fifth Amendment says the government can’t take your property without just compensation, but that’s exactly what the city is doing,” said Diana Kruse, who has lived at 6930 Rothman Road since 1967. “We (raised) seven kids here, and the property was to be passed down to them. Now I feel like my heart’s been cut out, like we’ve been raped and robbed.”
Because the Kruses have appealed the condemnation approved May 18 by the Board of Works, Allen Superior Court Judge Stanley Levine will decide whether things such as a new fence and the ability to trade a septic tank for city sewers is adequate compensation for nearly three-quarters of an acre of what is becoming prime real estate.
What the justices did not address is whether it is legal to seize your home if the economic incentive is simply a bribe to a government official by someone who wants your home. With the current ruling that is certainly going to happen at some point. However I am sure that that will be addressed in a future case and we will find out how corrupt our court system has become.

Wednesday, June 22, 2005

Change U.S. Law On Anchor Babies

By Al Knight - 06/22/2005 - Denver Post

Anchor babies, for those not yet familiar with the term, is the description given to babies of illegal immigrants who are delivered in the United States. These babies, under current interpretation of U.S. law, automatically become U.S. citizens and most qualify immediately for a variety of benefits, including Medicaid. Over time, they can open the door to citizenship to other family members.

The important word here is interpretation. As usual the courts have not "interpreted" the law, they have made new law by perverting the Constitution and granting "rights" to illegal aliens.

Proof is the following reality. If a child is born here to a citizen of a foreign country, and the parent was sent here by that country legally, their child is NOT a U.S. citizen. I repeat, the child of a Mexican diplomat born here does not become a citizen. However if the Mexican parent is here ILLEGALLY, then the child becomes a citizen .... according to democrat Judges. Even if it is the clear policy of that foreign country to invade us, the child is a citizen.

This "right" was created by a liberal judge from San Antonio Texas, who was an activist in granting rights to illegal aliens. He was a Mexican "immigrant" who was himself a racist hater of "gringos"

Whether the invasion is for economic reasons (and a slow motion "reconquista" as is happening) or open invasion should be an issue for political debate to decide. Granting these invaders citizenship should be a political decision, since the parents are here illegally. However our tyrannical judges have decided they are a totalitarian power and the legislature cannot decide the issue. The courts have removed this power from the legislature and seized it for their personal perogatives. It is in liberal judges interest to protect these illegals since they vote democrat.

This arrogant usurption of power is un-Constitutional. Since the legislatures are dominated by lawyers nothing will ever be done to stop the seizure of totalitarian power by the courts. As a citizen you are powerless. Only lawyers and judges have a say when the legislature is emasculated by judges and lawyers.

The writer of this article says that the law must be changed and the courts have ruled legislature cannot change it. Welcome to America 2005.

Tuesday, June 21, 2005

Why Restore Voting Rights To Felons?

To Win Elections!
By David Yepsen - Des Moines Register - June 21st, 2005
There's one reason Gov. Tom Vilsack is issuing a blanket order restoring voting rights to all Iowa felons who've completed their sentences.


It's an attempt to increase the number of Democratic voters in the state, thereby tipping close elections in 2006 and 2008.

In another study of this same issue reported a couple of weeks ago, 93% of felons said they were democrats. It is the reason that Hillary Clinton is backing the same issue, but she wants it for the entire nation. Democrats see criminals as a natural political constituency. They have long been the strongest proponents of our revolving door criminal justice system. They have long been the strongest proponents of limiting the ability of courts to order restitution to the victims. And they have long been the strongest proponents of letting anyone vote who wants to vote, even illegal aliens.

The only people democrats oppose having the right to vote (as proved by their lawsuits against them in Florida) are American citizens who are serving in the armed forces of our nation. I wonder why?

Monday, June 20, 2005

Supreme Court Sides With Government

.... In Second Land Rights Case
by Gina Holland - June 20th, 2005 - Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court said Monday that people who lose state lawsuits claiming the government improperly took their property cannot count on federal courts for help.

Land rights is a major issue at the high court this year, and so far the justices have made it tougher for people to win lawsuits claiming that local and state laws amount to an unconstitutional "taking."

Property rights are being eroded by our courts. Even as the Supreme Court finds unenumerated, hidden and unwritten rights to kill unborn children up to the last second before they take a breath, it ignores the rights specifically enumerated, not hidden and clearly written in our Constitution.

You no longer own your property. This case says that any local government can tell you what to do with your property and how much you can charge for that service. If you refuse to provide the service for the prices they require, they can punish you with huge fines until you comply. All that is required is for a plurality to get a law passed.

According to the U.S. Supreme Court this is not a "taking". According to the U.S. Supreme Court, this is not "slavery". According to the U.S. Superme Court, this is "justice".

"First they came for the Communists
.... but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Gypsies and the Trade Unionists
.... but I was neither, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Jews
.... but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me
.... there was no one left to speak out for me."
-- Martin Niemoller --

Sunday, June 19, 2005

Durbin Slanders His Own Country

by Mark Steyn - June 19th, 2005 - Chicago Sun-Times
"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings."

Er, well, your average low-wattage senator might. But I wouldn't. The "atrocities" he enumerated -- "Not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room" -- are not characteristic of the Nazis, the Soviets or Pol Pot, and, at the end, the body count in Gitmo was a lot lower. That's to say, it was zero, which would have been counted a poor day's work in Auschwitz or Siberia or the killing fields of Cambodia.

I don't think there is anything else to say. With Howard Dean and Dick Durbin speaking for the democrats, what their party stands for is very clear. They miss no opportunity to malign our troops even as they insist they are supporting them. Their definition of support is bizarre.

Friday, June 17, 2005

What Is A Socialist?

From The Wall Street Journal - Review & Outlook - June 16, 2005
Tim Russert interviews Howard Dean.

Tim Russert: "In your home state of Vermont there is a vacancy for the United State Senate. Bernie Sanders wants to run for that seat. He is a self-described avowed socialist. Is there room in the Democratic Party for a socialist?"
Howard Dean: "Well, he's not a socialist really. . . . he is basically a liberal Democrat."
-----NBC's "Meet the Press," May 22

Amazing. Bernie Sanders says he is a socialist. Howard Dean, immediately insists that no, he is not a socialist, he is a "liberal democrat". Democrats always insist they are not socialists. The truth is, that is what a liberal democrat is .... a socialist. Denying it is their standard reaction. Dean just forgot he was talking about a man who doesn't hide his socialism like democrats.

Even if a particular liberal democrat is not completely a socialist, since they are aligned with socialists, and they vote for socialists, they are supporting socialism and the socialist's desire to stamp out free enterprise and American democracy. So the distinction between socialist and liberal democrat is meaningless.

This isn't your father's Democratic Party....... the Democratic leadership has arguably never been more overtly hostile to free markets, deregulation, tax reform and free trade than it is today. The National Taxpayers Union reports that last year the House Democrats recorded their lowest taxpayer rating ever, having voted just 13% of the time for smaller government and less taxes.

The Democratic Party is today's Socialist Party of America. It is that simple.

Thursday, June 16, 2005

The High Cost Of Nuances

Thomas Sowell - June 15, 2005 - Jewish World Review
Too many people today judge court decisions by whether the court is "for" or "against" this or that policy. It is not the court's job to be for or against any policy but to apply the law.
This tendency to allow the courts to control the public dialog, and decide the public agenda, is the greatest danger to freedom and prosperity that we face today. Thomas Sowell is the leading intelectual of our time. He repeatedly cuts to the heart of the problem of the courts.

An example of the problem is happening right here in our area.
I was having a discussion with a friend last night about the Judge that is controlling the court case over the schools in Bertie County. I don't care whether Judge Boyle is "Republican" or "Democrat". His involvement in this case is an example of judicial tyranny.

My frustration is that no judge, whether liberal or conservative, should be involved in this case today. Their very involvement is anathema to the concept of a representative republic. It implies that the people are so stupid and ignorant that deciding these issues must be left up to an elite who will rule from some olympian throne and dictate how we must solve our disagreements.

The basic premise at one point when the courts took over schools was that blacks had no say in government and that the courts had to step in and assure they had a representative for their views. Can anyone reasonably argue that blacks in Bertie County have not had a say in the structure of the government and our school system for many years? Does a quota system that triggers with pavlovian predictability a crushing of local desires really represent a free and democratic society? Is quota racism really the only solution?

What irony that the 3 strongest defenders of the structure of government that our founders created are Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas and Janice Rogers Brown. They recognize that freedom serves blacks and whites equally. There is no color in freedom. There is also nothing conservative about throwing out a system that has worked continously to spread freedom for so long. It was not perfect when it started but it has moved inexorably in the right direction.

A much bigger and more fundamental problem is that millions of ordinary citizens, without legal training, have a hard time figuring out when they are or are not breaking the law. Nuanced courts, instead of drawing a line in the sand, spread a lot of fog across the landscape.
Fog? I think Sowell is being generous here. Millions of ordinary citizens are getting sick of the elitist judges, both conservative and liberal, who change laws at their personal whim. I think millions of ordinary citizens are getting enraged. It is time to start throwing out some of the judges. Impeach them. Strip them of their power. Take away their fat pensions. Let's see if that wipes that smug arrogance off their faces. We have to make sure that the rest get the message and stop subverting our constitution.

I am tired of seeing judges on national TV denying they are "making law", while basking in the glow of insider lawyer and court magazines praising these same judges for "making law". Do these people think that citizens can't read?

Tuesday, June 14, 2005

Confessions of a Dangerous Mind

By Christopher Hitchens - Monday, June 13, 2005 -
A favorite slice of reality TV in today's Iraq is the melodramatically named program Terrorism in the Grip of Justice. Aired on state-run Al Iraqiya, which doesn't require a satellite dish, it shows the confessions of captured "insurgents," mainly foreign fighters. When possible, it also shows the videos that these people have made, so that, for example, a man can be viewed as he slices a victim's throat and then viewed, looking much less brave, as he explains where he comes from, how he was taught to rehearse beheadings and throat-slittings on animals, and other insights into the trade.

Christopher Hitchens once again explains the importance of what we are doing in Iraq.

The Left's War For International Affection

David Limbaugh - June 14th, 2005 -

There is no small amount of irony in the fact that the people who are doing their level best to make sure the news is dominated by stories portraying America as imperialistic and inhumane are the same ones warning that we dare not permit our image to deteriorate.

Knee jerk disdainment of everything that America stands for seems to be the rule with democratic leadership these days. They then start claiming that anyone who argues against their positions is "questioning their patriotism".

Like their insistence that if you disagree with anything to do with their socialist policies it is because you are a racist, this attack is intended to change the subject from the efficacy of their arguments. After years of getting away with their "political correctness" gibberish, they have reached a point where their only counter argument is that their opponents are evil and cannot be allowed to "attack" them. In other words, they can say anything and you are not allowed to disagree.

Limbaugh calls it "irony". Somehow this does not seem nearly strong enough a characterization.

Monday, June 13, 2005

A Reminder Of Danger

By Jack Kelly - Sunday, June 12th, 2005 - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Media memories are short on Iraq

Without a hint of irony, Edith Lederer of The Associated Press reported June 3 that "U.N. satellite imagery experts have determined that material that could be used to make biological or chemical weapons and banned long-range missiles has been removed from 109 sites in Iraq."

We've been told repeatedly by those on the Left -- which includes most journalists -- that "Bush Lied" when he gave the danger posed by Saddam's WMD programs as one of the reasons for going to war with Iraq. Did the United Nations lie, too? Is it lying now?

Where are all the people who keep saying Saddam had no WMD program? It now appears that the U.N. is complaining that the WMD material which didn't exist (according to the media) has been removed from Iraq. How is that possible? How can you remove something that is not there?

Okay, I'll stop being sarcastic. I guess expecting the MSM to acknowledge they lied and Bush didn't is unreasonable.

This does not mean we will not see a nuclear, chemical or biological attack on an American city. It does mean that we still have time to stop it if we keep up pressure and stop Iran from getting the bomb. However with the growing demand we cut and run from Iraq, the chance of seeing a mushroom cloud over an American city is still great.

Sunday, June 12, 2005

Flow Of Immigrants Worries GOP

By Robert Novak - June 12, 2005 - Chicago Sun-Times

President Bush's statement Wednesday to Republican congressional leaders acknowledging that he should do a better job handling immigration followed a report to him by aides that the conservative base is deeply concerned about that issue.

Republican House members returning from the Memorial Day recess last week told the White House that their constituents are most concerned about two issues: fiscal responsibility and immigration. In both parties, elite leadership does not appreciate rank-and-file worries about the flood of immigrants and
government aid to them.

It is time that Republican leadership catch up with the grassroots Republican party. We are the party of SMALL business and middle class, though the leadership does not always reflect this. Big corporations, rich lawyers and unpatriotic farmers and restaurant owners are completely committed to open borders. Though mostly democratic supporters, there are enough of these in Republican Party leadership that the 80% of the party that opposes current plans to grant amnesty have until recently been ignored and thwarted.

This is finally changing. The American taxpayer is being gouged by money transfers to illegals. The illegals come here to work cheap (and off the record) because socialist Mexico cannot provide them with a way to make a living. They also want free health care, free food, free education ..... free legal assistance to sue our citizens for every perceived wrong in a land where they do not belong. They demand that we provide them all assistance in Spanish because they refuse to learn English. And they vote illlegally.

The "reconquista" effort is a serious plan to take by voting portions of America that they believe should be part of Mexico. The significance of this is not whether it will ever happen. The significance of this is how hatred for America inspires most of these invaders. They do not come here to be a part of the American dream. They come here to take from us, everything that they can get.

It is also clear that the next 9/11 will be the result of failure to secure our borders. At some point we are almost certain to see a nuclear 9/11. It is only a matter of time.

It is ironic that the democratic party which has led the way in giving illegals all of the free services they can, is now claiming that they want to stop illegal immigration. First they cause a problem, then they complain that Republicans haven't fixed it.

Until now, many Republican leaders were out of touch with the party's base on this issue. It is time they caught up.

Saturday, June 11, 2005

Why Liberal Ideas Are Counterproductive For The Poor

By Thomas Sowell - June 11, 2005 - Tech Central Station (RealClearPolitics)

Sometimes it seems as if liberals have a genius for producing an unending stream of ideas that are counterproductive for the poor, whom they claim to be helping. Few of these notions are more counterproductive than the idea of "menial work" or "dead-end jobs."

Think about it: Why do employers pay people to do "menial" work? Because the work has to be done. What useful purpose is served by stigmatizing work that someone is going to have to do anyway?

Thomas Sowell once again proves why he is one of America's authentic geniuses. His clear thinking and writing are always worthwhile.

The "money" quote in this article is; "The real chumps are those who refuse to start at the bottom for 'chump change.' Liberals who encourage such attitudes may think of themselves as friends of the poor but they do more harm than enemies."

It is time that liberals start helping the poor and stop enslaving them to a welfare state.

Friday, June 10, 2005

Schwarzenegger Speech Plans Cause Friction

By Michael R. Blood - Tuesday, June 7th, 2005 - The Associated Press

LOS ANGELES -- Long before making "The Terminator," Arnold Schwarzenegger was a young Austrian bodybuilder hitting the books at Santa Monica College in the early 1970s.

But the governor's planned return next week to deliver a commencement address at the two-year community college near the beach is turning into something less than a homecoming.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is a main target of left wing demonstrators because of his often professed and sincere hatred for socialism. As he puts it, "I grew up with socialism, and I know how bad it is". However there is a serious worldwide socialist movement. With the election of Howard Dean it has taken control of the democratic party. It is composed of groups that believe in demonstrating against anyone they oppose for the purpose of intimidation.

Demonstrations against Arnold started with his campaign for Governor. The left wing groups made sure that there was never a day they did not have a mob outside his campaign headquarters. They hassled campaign workers with loud chants and unscroupulous behavior (spitting on workers regularly).

The threatened attempts to keep Arnold from giving a speech at his former school by disrupting the procedure is typical democrat behavior now that they are controlled by socialists. It is generally true on all college campuses these days that only the left is permitted freedom of speech. All others are berated and intimidated by left wing extremists to stop their views from being heard.

They had little success intimidating the Terminator during his campaign, and are unlikely to intimidate him this time either.

Wednesday, June 08, 2005

Desecration Of Ground Zero

Michelle Malkin - June 8th, 2005 -

A Blame America Monument is not what we need or deserve. But it looks like one is already in the works.

In a startling op-ed printed in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday, Debra Burlingame exposed the “Great Ground Zero Heist.” Burlingame is on the board of directors of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation and the sister of Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame III, pilot of American Airlines fight 77, which terrorists crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11. She reports that the World Trade Center memorial will encompass a “cultural complex” whose primary tenant will be something called the “International Freedom Center.”

According to an IFC fact sheet, the project “will be an integral part of humanity’s response to September 11.” An educational and cultural center will host exhibits, lectures, debates, and films “that will nurture a global conversation on freedom in our world today.” Tellingly though, as Burlingame notes, early plans for the center that included a large mural of an Iraqi voter were scratched in favor of a photograph of Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson when the designs went public. So much for nurturing that global conversation.

Freedom to the socialists who are so active in opposing America means the end of free-enterprise. They are not impressed with the failure of every country that has tried socialism. They simple deny that socialism has been tried. The number of excuses they have for it's failure are amazing.

They love to couch their propaganda against America and free enterprise in lofty terms like "nurture a global conversation on freedom". The active efforts taken by every organization that socialists control to have a public "intention" that has nothing to do with socialism is a holdover from the secrecy that they have always practiced since the days of communist subversion during the 1950s.

They still attack anyone who trys to point out their true motivations. The challenge to name a single person that Joseph McCarthy erroneously called a communist has not been taken on by any of them. Now that we have the Soviet records we know McCarthy was not wrong about anyone. They know that. However they still denounce McCarthy for .... well .... essentially for having dared to be right about them.

What they really denounce him for is for challenging them to come out and present their case honestly. However they still will not be open after all these years. They still attack anyone who asks that they be open about their agenda. They intentionally changed their name from socialist to liberal and then from liberal to progressive to confuse people about what they really intend. Why do they avoid being honest about what they want?

The major reason is that they know they will lose if they are honest. If the majority of democrats who are aligned with these people knew their true intentions they would avoid them. It is imperative that more Americans be made aware of the duplictous way that these socialists work. Now that bloggers are a power in news coverage, it is becoming harder and harder for them to use their MSM cronies to lie to the people.

We do not want socialist George Soros using "Ground Zero" to spread his anti-American socialist drivel.

Friday, June 03, 2005

For He's a Jolly Good Felon

By John H. Fund - 6/3/2005 - The American Spectator
Hillary (Clinton is) moving front and center as lead sponsor of The Count Every Vote Act, which she says is designed to boost voter participation in future elections -- including the one she will be running in (2008).

Columnist George Will says that Hillary's bill might more aptly be termed the What's a Little Fraud Among Friends? Act.

There are times when you read an article and you just wonder, can this be true or is this a comedy article using satire poorly.

Well ..... a little research says this one really is true. Hillary Clinton has decided to make the democrats the party of "crime". I wonder whether this is going to sit well with local democrats or if they will swallow this like they have swallowed all the other moves by national leaders to make democrats the party of socialism?

Bush Poised to Nominate Dozens For Judgeships

By Peter Baker - Friday, June 3, 2005 - Washington Post
The Bush administration has been vetting candidates for 30 more federal district and appeals court vacancies that have been left open for months while the Senate battled over previous nominations stalled by Democrats. Now that Democrats have agreed not to filibuster any new candidates except in "extraordinary circumstances," Republicans are eager to test the proposition.

I predict the democrats will not let this happen. Get ready for more unconstitutional fillibusters. The democrats have declared war on the Republican party and will never allow these judges to be approved. Howard Dean has claimed the "Republicans .... have never made an honest living in their lives". This is in addition to his earlier claims that they are "evil" and "brain dead". "Nazi" and fascist" are just two of the terms regularly used to attack Republicans (even though both of these terms describe versions of socialists, not people who espouse free enterpise, an irony lost on the socialists who use the terms).

The number one goal of the democratic party is to assure that judges can make law on their behalf. They have become much more adamant about it now that they are losing elections. They realize that if Republicans control the legislature, the only way to implement their socialist agenda is through the courts. The viciousness of their attacks is driven by the fear that they will lose the ability to legislate from the bench. That this is illegal and undemocratic seems not to bother them at all.

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

Deep Throat And Genocide

By Ben Stein - 6/1/2005 - American Spectator

Re: The "news" that former FBI agent Mark Felt broke the law, broke his code of ethics, broke his oath and was the main source for Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward's articles that helped depose Richard Nixon, a few thoughts.

Can anyone even remember now what Nixon did that was so terrible? He ended the war in Vietnam, brought home the POW's, ended the war in the Mideast, opened relations with China, started the first nuclear weapons reduction treaty, saved Eretz Israel's life, started the Environmental Protection Administration. Does anyone remember what he did that was bad?

Oh, now I remember. He lied.

Nixon did not lie under oath. He lied to protect subordinates who had done something stupid and criminal. Not to protect himself from being charged with rape and sexual harrasment. He lied out of a sense of loyalty to subordinates.

Even though it is clear he did not know about the breakin at Watergate before it happened, no democrat will believe that. I have been told repeatedly over the years that he knew, it just wasn't proven. A little thing like compelling evidence they are wrong has never stood in the way of any democrat believing that Nixon was more evil than anyone else who ever lived.

Democrats believe he was just as evil as Reagan who they are sure should have been impeached for Oliver North's crimes since like Nixon, "He had to have known". Why do they believe this? Because they wanted him to have known. That is their evidence.

Woodward and Bernstein have always implied that "deep throat" was disgusted with how evil Nixon was. How much chance is there that we now know he was annoyed with Nixon for personal and political reasons will ever see the light of day in the MSM?

The only "crime" Nixon committed was convicting a communist of treason. For democrats that is the unforgiveable sin. Ben Stein has a worse indictment of the Nixon haters than has ever been leveled at Nixon. They caused genocide. Their actions certainly put a coverup done out of loyalty into a different perspective.