Mainstream?

As soon as President Bush announced his selection to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, Democrats and Liberal Special Interests reacted by bellowing that Judge John Roberts is outside the American mainstream. Of course, to "mainstream" spokesmen like Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer, Barbara Boxer and the National Abortion Rights Action League, "mainstream" means adherence to Liberal orthodoxy.

But the voters have already defined the American mainstream by electing a Conservative Republican President and large Republican majorities in both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, so the fact that Liberals clench their fists and yell louder than anyone else, "we are the mainstream" does not make them the mainstream.

By virtue of their electoral success, Conservative Republicans have been entrusted by the voters with filling judicial vacancies. If Liberal Democrats want to control judicial appointments they will eventually have to stop carping and try winning some elections.

Plame Game

Liberals wringing their hands over risks to U.S. national security is about as convincing as Hugh Hefner wringing his hands over an increase the incidence of marital infidelity.

Rove Hysteria

Evidently Democrats are too preoccupied with their blood sport to notice the irony of demanding summary dismissal for Karl Rove and due process for terrorist’s at GITMO.

Are Liberal Reporters Going to Jail to Protect Karl Rove???

Reporting on the jailing of NY Times reporter Judith Miller, The Washington Post's Carol Leonnig finds space to repeat Joe Wilson's familiar calumny against President Bush, yet in over a thousand words she fails to mention that Wilson's CIA report on Saddam's uranium shopping was discredited by The 9/11 Commission.

Moreover, the article fails to mention that the refusal to identify the source of the leak facilitated the insinuation that Wilson's CIA employee wife was outed by Karl Rove. Because the reporters would not reveal their true source Rove has had no one to corroborate his denials, so it was politically convenient for the NY Times and Time Magazine to stand on the principle of protecting confidential sources and leave intact Wilson's baseless and defamatory suggestion that Rove was the source of an illegal leak.

Now because Time's Matt Cooper has decided against a turn in the slammer, the Public will soon learn whether the Times and Time fought so tenaciously in order to protect Karl Rove or in order to smear him.

Mushroom Cloud Now!

With the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor from the U.S. Supreme Court President Bush has the opportunity to either fire up or thoroughly demoralize the Conservative base of the Republican Party, just in time for the 2006 Election Cycle.

If he chooses a Constitutionalist (as promised in both his election campaigns) Liberals will go even more berserk than they have been for the past five years, carry out their usual character assassination of the nominee, and try with all their resources to prevent confirmation.

On the other hand, if the President chooses a loyal but possibly squishy nominee, like Alberto Gonzalez, the Democrats will feign berserk-ness, still carry out character assassination, then allow a relatively swift confirmation vote to avert Republican action to break judicial filibusters, all the while laughing up their sleeve that the activist Court remains intact.

With that in mind, Bush should choose the best Constitutionalist he can find and be well prepared to defeat the Democrats in the Court of Public Opinion. The Republican Base will rally to the cause, and gladly open their pocketbooks.

Moreover, the nomination of a Constitutionalist would be likely to torpedo the treacherous "Gang of Fourteen" compromise that deferred a smackdown of Democrat filibusters by allowing confirmation votes for a few judges and shafting a few others.

With that worthless compromise out of the way, the pressure will be back on skittish GOP Senators to put an end to the minority blocking the Senate from voting and restore majority rule.

Bush's best pick for the Supreme Court will be any nominee that triggers the "Nuclear Option," because that will mean the swift filling of the Federal Courts with the President's nominees, an inspired and generous Republican base, and Democrats even more enraged and unhinged than they are today. So, why wait? Let the mushroom cloud roll, the sooner the better.

Greatest American

I cackled aloud with glee when I heard that Ronald Reagan is the winner of The Discovery Channel's poll to name The Greatest American.

Notwithstanding my delight -- and while I give place to no one in the intensity of my affection and admiration for Ronald Reagan-- I think The Discovery Channel's 3 million voters missed the mark. Reagan surely belongs on the short list of greatest Americans, but the ranking should have been 1. George Washington, 2. Abraham Lincoln, 3. Ronald Reagan. Number 3 in the greatest nation in human history is mighty impressive.

So, if the ranking wasn't quite right, why did the result make me giddy? Because it was a finger in the eye of the Leftist media, academic, political and cultural elites who despised Reagan and tried with all that was within them to persuade us commoners to do likewise.

It tickles me to think that the popular selection of Ronald Reagan as the Greatest American in the Discovery Channel's vote indicates that those Leftist elites have failed, and it tickles me more to think that when they hear the vote results they will know that they know that they know they have failed.

Political Genius

Karl Rove is a political genius. Rove knew that Democrats would rise to the bait, and they didn't disappoint him.

Rove's remarks at a Conservative Party of New York fundraiser would normally go completely unreported, so Rove decided to borrow the Floors of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, and the Mainstream Media airwaves to get his message out.

If there is anything that ignites Liberal ire it is blowing their cover on matters of National Security, and that is precisely what Rove did. He elegantly capsulized the difference between Conservatives and Liberals as follows: "after 9/11 Conservatives prepared for war, while Liberals prepared indictments and offered the terrorists therapy and understanding."

Result: Liberal hysteria, ergo nationwide media attention, and a national debate about whether Democrats or Republicans are more fit to conduct a War against America's mortal Islamist enemies. That is an argument that Democrats just can't win. Karl Rove has baited Democrats into having that debate.

Rove should apologize...

Karl Rove said, "After 9/11 Republicans prepared for War, while Democrats prepared indictments and therapy for the terrorists."

A furious Senator Chuck Schumer responded, "Rove has taken something sacred to all New Yorkers and turned it political."

Rove should apologize . . . like this: "I have learned that speaking the truth can sometimes lead to misunderstandings. When I look into the eyes of Liberal Democrats, I'm reminded of my own sons and daughters (when they were about 14 months old). Anyone who knows me will know that I never intended any disrespect to pacifist, America-loathing, anti-military, terrorist-coddling, bleeding-heart, power-hungry, hyper-partisan Liberal Democrats. So if Senator Schumer was offended by my remarks, then I apologize."

Supremes consulting foreign law again?

In the Kelo et al v. City of New London decision the U.S. Supreme Court's floating Liberal majority ruled that the Constitutional protection of private property does not apply to homeowners whose homes are in the path of economic development.

The Fifth Amendment does allow governments, upon paying just compensation, to take private lands for public use; but the City of New London, Connecticut is taking private lands for private use, claiming that the Public Interest is served by the private economic development that will result.

Once again the Court is reaching outside the U.S. Constitution to foreign jurisprudence for guidance, and in this case the foreign jurisprudence must be coming from Zimbabwe.

Reality Check

Headlines across the nation report that Senator Dick Durbin apologized for comparing American Soldiers at Guantanamo Bay to Nazis, the Soviets and Pol Pot. Conservatives have pointed out that Durbin avoided admitting any wrongdoing and focused his remarks on his critics misunderstanding his intent. Liberals answer that Conservatives are being unfair and unforgiving to reject Durbin's "heartfelt apology."

Here is a reality check: if Durbin's so-called apology is acceptable, let's use it as the model for an apology for Slavery and see if Liberals still like it. Here we go: "The People of the United States of America have the most profound respect for black Africans, and if anyone was offended by the existence of legalized Slavery in the USA for nearly a century then we're sorry they were offended." Who among Durbin's defenders would accept such an "apology"?

Toward a better allocation of resources

When I saw the following news story it immediately motivated my passion to see people use their gifts to do what they are really best at. Here is the lead of the story:

"House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi joined other Democrats on Tuesday in calling for the creation of an independent commission to examine "evidence of abuse" of detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay...It is a disgrace that the matters relating to the treatment of detainees have not been meaningfully investigated by this House," Pelosi said."

With so much rancor in politics these days wouldn't it be pleasant if the our elected officials could all find the niche in governing where they could truly thrive? Here's my suggestion to let everybody do what they are best at:

From now on it will be the Republicans' job to fight America-hating Islamo-facist terrorists, and it will be the Democrats job to coddle them. There, now everyone should be much happier.

They're the best?

Dick Durbin says, “When you look into the eyes of those [American] soldiers, you see your son, you see your daughter – they’re the best.”

Senator, are our soldiers “the best” even if they turned the A/C up and down and cranked the Rap music at GITMO to give the old Nazi/Gulag/Pol Pot interrogation treatment to captured unlawful enemy combatants?

That's an apology? Don't try that one with your wife.

Headlines and News Leads across the nation declare that Dick Durbin apologized on the Senate Floor for comparing American military personnel to Nazis, etc...

Durbin said, "I have learned from my statement that historical parallels can be misused and misunderstood. I sincerely regret if what I said caused anyone to misunderstand my true feelings: our soldiers around the world and their families at home deserve our respect, admiration and total support."

An apology without admission of wrongdoing is no apology at all. Durbin addressed himself to those who may have taken his remarks amiss, when the actual offended parties were those against whom his remarks were directed, the members of the U.S. Armed Forces.

An “apology” like Durbin made confesses only that his critics were wrong, and that he was misunderstood, not that he was wrong. Would you accept such an apology even from a 5 year old? Would your wife accept such an apology from you?

If you didn't know...

Senator Dick Durbin has compared the American interrogation of a 9/11 conspirator to the evils of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. Mohammed al-Qahtani is a Saudi who attempted unsuccessfully to enter the U.S. in order to participate in the September 11, 2001 hijacking of UAL Flight 93, which al-Qaeda tried to crash into either the White House or the U.S. Capitol. Al Qahtani was later captured by U.S. forces on the battlefield in Afghanistan.

What horrors did al-Qahtani endure in his Guantanomo Bay interrogation which have so outraged Senator Durbin? Air Conditioning so cold that it made al-Qahtani shiver. Air Conditioning turned off to make him sweat. Durbin summed up by claiming that if we didn’t know this information had come from an FBI Report about American interrogations of terrorists, we might have concluded that it was a description of Nazi Concentration Camps, the Soviet Gulag or Pol Pot’s Killing Fields.

Now, if we didn’t know these remarks had been made by a prominent U.S. Senator, we might have concluded that they were the words of a moral idiot.

Compromisers protected their disproportionate influence

The reason Judge Janice Rogers Brown received a confirmation vote in the U.S. Senate (after four years of waiting) is not because of the vaunted statesmanship of McCain, et al., but because the threatened "Nuclear Option" promised a crushing defeat for the Dems, who cagily retreated in order to fight another day, counting on the GOP to weaken and unravel in the meantime.

As for the seven Republican traitors, their motivation for compromise was not comity, collegiality, the traditions of the Senate, nor even saving the Republic; rather they undermined the President, the GOP Leadership, 40+ fellow Republican Senators, and millions of Republican voters, because they realized that if 51 votes can confirm an executive appointment, then nobody needs Republican "Moderates"? McCain and his fellow Nitwits were selfishly protecting their own disproportionate power and influence in the U.S. Senate.

GITMO and Gulag

The bad news is that Amnesty International has criticized the American Terrorist Detention Center at Guantanomo Bay Cuba as “the Gulag of our time.” The good news is that Amnesty International has finally noticed The Gulag.

Nuclear Prediction

My prediction on the “nuclear showdown” in the Senate is that the Dems will not be able to line up enough Republican traitors to defeat the Cloture Rule Clarification (although those whom they have enlisted to betray the GOP should -- but probably won’t -- have their names recorded on RNC, NRSC and Senate Leadership Excrement-Lists, which should result in the cutting off of Republican donor dollars, active recruitment of Primary opponents, committee re-assignments and revoked chairmanships); therefore the Democrats, recognizing an imminent and crippling defeat, will assume the passive-aggressive behavior, learned from such mentors as Lenin, Mao Tse Tung, Ho Chi Mihn, Breshnev and Bill Clinton, and cave -- or rather, execute a strategic retreat – with the purpose of wearing down the Republicans' resolve, and continuing to work on unraveling the Republicans' unity.

Whichever nominee is brought to the floor first, will not face a "filibuster," and therefore will be confirmed with 50-59 votes. Meanwhile, the Democrats will continue a war of attrition against Republican resolve, continuing with a well-coordinated PR campaign on tap as soon as the nuclear showdown is averted, complete with Mainstream Media tactical air-support.

In short a successful nuclear option would be a huge winner for the Republicans, and a huge loser for the Democrats. Therefore, the Democrats will fight and run away, so that they can live to fight another day, rather than lose decisively to the Nuclear Option. All the more reason that the GOP should have smacked down this filibuster nonsense on the day they organized the new Senate in January 2005. Nobody outside the beltway gives a rat’s rear-end about the venerable Senate Rules, but lot’s of people on both sides care intensely about judicial appointments, and as six election cycles have demonstrated, there are more of us than there are of them.

If this is comity and collegiality . . .

Timorous Republican Senators, like Hagel, McCain, Voinovich and Specter, fret that using the elected Republican Majority forcefully, to confirm Executive appointments, will disturb the “comity” and “collegiality” of the Senate. The first flaw in this line of thinking is that these Senators are suffering from the delusion that the voters sent them to Washington so that they could enjoy a pleasant working environment. It is remarkable how quickly, upon arrival at The Capitol, these Senators forget the substance of their job interview. In fact, not a single Republican Senator campaigned on the promise that, if elected, he would avoid upsetting the Democrats.

Exposing the second flaw requires me to engage in the bad manners of noticing that The Emperor has no clothes, so at the risk of being impolite I have to ask, what comity? What collegiality? If harmonious relations among members of the Senate means that every nominee who shares the President’s Conservative philosophy will be subjected to character assassination by Liberal Democrats, then why should Republicans desire to maintain such “harmony,” even if Democrats couch their slanders in “my esteemed colleague,” and “this honorable body”? If the Democrats’ abusive treatment of President Bush’s nominees defines “comity” and “collegiality” in the Senate, then I shudder to think what rancor and backstabbing would look like.

It is long past time for Republicans to use the majority that the voters have affirmed in six consecutive elections to confirm the Presidnet’s appointments. Whatever temper tantrum the Democrats throw in response will still be swaddled in “my esteemed colleague from the great State of ________,” so the members of “the greatest deliberative body in the World” can still have their precious show of comity and collegiality, with the refreshing difference that the will of the majority will be allowed to prevail.

Wither the Protestors?

I must have missed the MoveOn.org protestors, bearing signs reading, "NEWSWEEK LIED, PEOPLE DIED," and demanding the resignations of reporter Michael Isakoff and all the Editors of Newsweek.

Breshnev Doctrine
What the Democrat temper tantrums and filibusters over every Bush legislative proposal and nominee demonstrates, is that Liberals have adopted their own version of the Breshnev Doctrine: i.e. once a policy becomes Liberal, it can never go back.

Republicans could take a lesson from Ronald Reagan on the strategy that will succeed against that doctrine, namely "we win, they lose."