Tuesday, March 29, 2005


A Clear Condemnation

From The Australian:
A Question by Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney

“Lately there has been interest in the possibility of "Islamic democracy". These descriptors do not simply refer to how democracy might be constituted, but to the moral vision democracy is intended to serve. This is especially true in the case of secular democracy, which some insist is intended to serve no moral vision at all.

But think for a moment what it means to say that there can be no other form of democracy than secular democracy. Does democracy need a burgeoning billion-dollar pornography industry to be truly democratic? Does it need an abortion rate in the tens of millions? Does it need high levels of marriage breakdown, with the growing rates of family dysfunction that come with them? Does democracy (as in Holland's case) need legalised euthanasia, extending to children under the age of 12? Does democracy need assisted reproductive technology (such as IVF) and embryonic stem cell research?

Does democracy really need these things? What would democracy look like if you took some of these things out of the picture? Would it cease to be democracy? Or would it actually become more democratic?”

My opinion is that the USA has been a democratic republic since its foundation, but the modern failings in our society due to leftist ideas, such as is fostered by secular humanism and the left wing of the Democratic Party, have damaged us terribly. We do need to return to the fundamentals on which this nation was based, and clear away the useless and dangerous concepts the left, including activist judges, has hung around our necks.

Saturday, March 26, 2005



Living Wills or Directives Are a Must

There are two hard aspects to this case that I agonize over, as most people would:
1) that life is precious, and it is appropriate to do all you can to preserve it; and
2) once the judgement by competent medical experts is that their patient, after full testing has been done, is in a Persistent Vegetative State, then it is time to let go. Until that decision has been made, however, every effort to keep the patient alive and comfortable is warranted.

I encourage everyone to obtain a written Living Will or an Advanced Directive that sets forth your wishes about medical intervention when you cannot make the decision yourself. This is the overwhelming lesson of the case for the rest of us. It has been estimated that only 25% of the population of the US has such a will or directive.

Thursday, March 24, 2005



Some Thoughts on Leftist Blogs

Recently I had a chance to explore quite a few blogs. Besides the well-known right-leaning blogs I frequent, I found 20 or so left-leaning blogs with threads on all sorts of subjects of some interest. Most of them post an article or extract and link to introduce a topic, add a comment, and then wait for comments to roll in.

The very first thread I read was a hate piece, telling the world how badly America is thought of overseas, how Bush was terrible, and so on… The next thread was the same, just on a different topic, but focused on Bush. In fact, all of the threads I read that night on one site were purely negative on the US, and on Bush in particular. It was the same the following evening, and the evening after that…

When I began to post counter thoughts and ideas to some of the threads, I was immediately attacked for being all kinds of bad things. Of course, I had to say that one special thread was horribly hateful to America and Americans, and that opened up a flood of invective that is hard to believe. From that point on there was no sensible response to my posts: I was being “flamed.” as the web saying goes.

One example stands out for its idiotic statements. The poster said to the effect that: America will not learn from 9/11, and it will take a much larger attack for the US to wake up and mend its ways. This was standard fare on the site, and no one challenged this raw and bloodthirsty thought. So I did. In essence I said that another more massive attack on the US would cause us to mobilize and go for the Middle-East in total. (Muslim terrorists would lose their countries, their homes, and their financial support in retribution for the attack.) The response was to attack me, not the challenge, naturally!

The tactics used were patently obvious, and even childish. Before I left the other night, I had cataloged all of the possible attacks I could think of being used to drown out my voice. The first kind was simple invective: “you are an idiot… etc. “ Then, there was the: “who are you to say this and what is your source?” (they are hung up on sources: one’s own thoughts aren’t of any creditability). Then, if you do cite a source, guess what? The source is denigrated too. The point is to discourage anyone with differing views from posting on the site, especially rightists.

What I should have remembered is that virtually every right leaning author publishing in the US has been carefully explored, and any weakness they might exhibit is mercilessly used to discredit the author. Make one slip in a thousand pages, and these jackals are on it furiously! Since I have my Shunning List posted here, which amounts to an identification of leftists to ignore, I should not have been surprised that leftists have their own also.

Yet another type of attack was to call me a liar, and refuse to acknowledge any counter argument. One situation of this kind was set up when I commented to one poster that her words appeared to be inciting to revolution in the US, and that is treason. Her reply was to the effect that she wasn’t an American nor in America, so she was beyond the law! So be it, no point in further conversation.

One of her buddies, however, and an American (he said), responded with: What’s the matter here, don’t you believe in the Declaration of Independence? Read these words! My reply was yes, the Declaration does what it does very well, but that the Congress, the Administration, and the SCOTUS have put into the US Code clear provisions for defining and punishing treason and sedition against the government. From that point on, this “American” could not do anything but sputter and attempt derision and the usual deflection tactics.

One site is not at all a problem. But by following links from one or two leftist sites, I found a fairly large network of them busily tearing down every facet of American life they could think of, or discover in the news feeds. The sum of these sites is truly depressing. A torrent of invective every hour is spewing forth against Bush, the Iraqi War, Terrorism (it doesn’t exist!), our foreign policies, our financial problems, daily life, loss of freedoms, and so on! Completely negative every time out.

They want the US to fail in its mission in Iraq, mostly by having the insurgents kill a lot more GIs. Then one person claimed we had killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and children. When challenged that the civilian casualty list was under 20,000 all told, there was no response.

This is the same tactic as was used by the Left during the War in Vietnam, which, when hyped by the captive leftwing media, caused our withdrawal just as we were on the threshold of winning the war, and the consequent fact that untold millions of people (some put the number at higher than 8 million) were executed in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia by the “victorious” communists. We didn’t lose the war in Nam: the Leftists gave it away to the communists.

Anyone who lost close friends in Nam, or Iraq, or even Korea, or who visited the memorials and saw the lists of the dead, all dishonored and defeated by weak-kneed Leftist and MSM trashing of the military, the war, our motives, and the administration, would react with absolute disgust and hatred of such actions and of the Leftists who caused it. This is especially true when we are at war.

Perhaps treason cannot be proved, and even sedition isn't easy to use, either. But some of these sites cruise very close to the line. In the end, I am saddened and ashamed to see near treason or sedition being preached.

Saturday, March 19, 2005


The United Nations

Tower of Babel and Corruption

As Jed Babbin said in his book, Inside the Asylum: “The United Nations and the European Union, despite their pretensions of superiority are, in fact, morally bankrupt.” Earlier in his book he states:

“The General Assembly is broken because its principal purpose has been shoved aside in favor of political polemics designed to degrade the influence of the United States and its allies.

The Security council is broken because the alliances upon which is was founded no longer exist, and the interests of the powers that have a veto over Security Council resolutions have diverged to a point where consensus and action cannot be achieved.

The secretary-general’s office is broken because the incumbent is more interested in increasing the authority of the UN than he is in aiding its members in fighting terrorism or real threats to peace. Supporting him in this, the bureaucracy of the Secretariat is dedicated to a third world agenda that mirrors the dysfunctional General Assembly.

Many of the most important UN agencies and programs have become so corrupt that they fail in their purpose, some even to the point that they aid terrorism.”

Truly a serious indictment from a man who has been at the heart of international affairs for decades. But it isn’t merely his indictment, it is a consensus from many world authorities: Paul Johnson, British Historian, joins the fray with: “The UN is now a central problem for the world, because we take too much notice of it.”

George MacDonald Fraser wrote: There’s a point you know, where treachery is so complete and unashamed that it becomes statesmanship” (Flashman and the Mountain of Light, Penguin, 1990). And on and on it goes.

The absolute demonstration for Americans of the treachery of the UN was the failure of France, Germany, and Russia to support the Iraqi resolution to use armed force if necessary to force Iraqi compliance with 18 UN resolutions. There was no moral dilemma here for them. It was crass and well-documented greed for the flow of money to Europeans via the Oil for Food program, and further lucrative oil contracts with Saddam in the offing. One merely has to follow the money to find out the why of their opposition.

What we have witnessed is the return to the diplomacy of the 1930s by France and Germany, and to a great extent, Russia. Put a local despot in control, keep him happy and willing to sign long-term contracts on favorable terms, and let him rule the people with an iron hand. Sound familiar? Immoral in the extreme for them to do. (No less immoral when we do the same thing, obviously.) It is exploitation in the most raw form and it directly accelerates the misery and poverty of the common people. Iraq has been a prime example of this.

Moral principles? Not in France. Not in Germany. Not in Russia. Not in the UN. It is beyond redemption.

Friday, March 18, 2005


Apologies all around

Fault in template!

It appears that there was a flaw in the comments section of my template. I never thought to test that! It was supposed to be one of the fixed templates. I suppose I tried out something and messed it up. My apologies.

Thursday, March 17, 2005


The Death Penalty

Justice demands that the penalty fits the crime.

Europe is aghast that many States in the US “still” have the death penalty. Many on the Left not only want the death penalty rescinded, but they also want the voting privilege restored to convicts the minute they are freed. Next, they will want all life sentences reviewed after 5 years of being jailed, with the objective of proving that these murderers have had a total reformation since conviction and are no longer a threat to society. (I suppose I’d try that dodge too if I were sitting in death row.)

On top of that, the SCOTUS has ordered that under 18’s be protected from the death penalty. That allows gangs to murder, knowing that they will not be put to death for it, and that they may well be out on parole in 5 or so years, and can vote, vote, vote! Oh glorious day!

That this decision was even partially influenced by European opinions, decisions and law is un-American, and anti-Constitutional. We should not draw upon foreign law to create our own. The only repair for these decisions is to be able to appoint better judges to the Supreme Court, which can’t come soon enough for me.

Many a 16- or 17-year-old boy today is over six feet high, weighs around 200 pounds, and has tremendous physical strength. Along with that they are in the prime age for hormone surges and almost unbelievable urges and fantasies, which, in the current social laissez faire world, shoves them more and more into unacceptable behavior. Their parents are often unable to control them.

These young men are perhaps juniors or seniors in high school, and have supposedly received most of a basic education. They are allowed to drive. Many got their driving license at 16. Quite a few work at odd jobs or at the local fast food place. Some even have their own autos, so we already trust them with a killing machine. At this point I contend that they are responsible for their own behavior and should be treated that way. If they kill someone deliberately they should suffer the just penalty for that crime.

Fear of death is a basic instinct of men, and the idea that some crimes are punishable by death is indeed a great deterrent, for instance, to murder or treason. Can this be proven? No. But it is the wisdom of the ages, the inner voice that says it is so, and it is the common sense belief of most people, despite what "enlightened" liberals try to say about it.

As Charles Colson said, “Take away the death penalty, and what you have done is to give murderers a life, yes in prison, but they can still think, dream, play, talk, write, study, and enjoy their time, watch TV, and even run businesses or marry, and can have a wide telephone network.” Some can aspire to getting out after a decade or two. That is insufficient punishment for brutal, and unfeeling murder.

Their victims have none of this: they are in the cold ground.

The only just penalty for murder in the first degree is death.

Tuesday, March 15, 2005


Books & Magazines

For the love of the word!

The paperless society has a long way to go. At least in my opinion. Perhaps I am biased by my age, or perhaps my eyes aren’t well-tuned to reading on a monitor screen. It just might be that grabbing a book off the shelf is so quick and easy, and since those books I have read are nicely tabbed at what I think are key sections or phrases, I can get to what I want very fast indeed. This goes for magazines too.

As a result of this high preference for the published word (a preference that for once my wife shares fully!), the house is rapidly becoming a mini-library, with shelves filled by our favorite authors and subjects. At last estimate, there are 7,000 books and about 18 boxes of magazines spread over five rooms of the house. My wife notices the cracks in the plaster every day, and wonders whether the house is going to fall down. Settlement cracks I said to her. Which was true enough, but this 100-year-old house has had its time for that. These are newly formed cracks and I am certain that they are due to the overload of books on the structure, especially in our two upstairs studies.

Some weeks ago, with sadness and pain I packed up eight boxes of my old textbooks and references and hauled them to the public library. These old friends may still see good use there. At least I hope so. They served me well for many years.

But when I collected up the new books I had bought and read from stacks all around my study, and put them into the empty spots on my bookcases, I was no better off than before. The bookcases were full again. And still the new books come in via UPS and frequent trips to the local bookstores.

Blogging has initiated another world of reference book purchases for such initials as HTML, CSS, XML, DHTML, CGS, JSCRIPT, and several others, most of which I haven’t read, much less mastered. This blogsite shows that very clearly I am sure! (The important thing is I am slowly getting what I want for the site!)

Another recent driver for more books has been the political scene, and the incredible battle between Left and Right for the votes of the electorate. Obviously, one of my motives for starting to blog came from my personal need to put my opinions out for all to see. Not that they are particularly profound opinions, but I hope they add to the battle at least one more vote for the Right.

Meanwhile, the wife has also been acquiring books at a frantic pace. She likes novels by women authors, and has read and kept most of the novel production of the last five or ten years, I don't know how long, really. Her other passion is psychology and sociology, and her library on those subjects grows weekly. And then there is her ten or twelve year collection of Gourmets, and six bookcases full of cookbooks…

There are two thoughts that haunt me now: 1) which of the many books I (we?) own must I try to give up to make room for more; and 2) if the present rate of book and magazine acquisition continues without giving up any books to the library again, or dumping the magazines, how long will it be before the house falls down just as the wife has predicted for months?



They are ever with you

Clothes was the subject of my last post. But I left out a significant part of the general problem – shoes. On examination, my closet or bedroom floor has about 20 pairs of shoes stored ready to wear. The best of the lot are in shoeboxes on the shelves. The next best are on the shoe rack I installed on the back of my closet door. Today’s shoes, and sometimes yesterday’s as well, are lying on the floor.

The shoes are of the usual types for men. One pair of shiny patent leather shoes for black tie affairs, business wingtips I can’t wear anymore, tassel loafers in black and brown, several pairs of hiking boots, a good pair of Ecco sandals, and three pairs of white or off-white sports shoes, two pairs of Dockers, one pair of penny loafers, and a few others I haven’t looked at for a long time. They probably don’t fit anymore. Oh, I forgot the galoshes, and rubber slipovers for really bad weather.

All of this is rather well-housed in my closet, but if I buy another pair, I will have to throw away an old pair. This bothers me a lot. Old shoes are comfortable! New shoes rarely are to begin with. So I buy few new shoes; perhaps one pair in a year. Not so with the wife.

Early on, I was taught the necessity for women to match shoes with outfits. This is a mysterious process that begins with the wife perusing fashion magazines to see what those unnaturally slim and angry-looking models are wearing. And somehow it turns out that the shoes that matched her outfit yesterday don’t match today. Something is wrong with them, perhaps the heels are too narrow, or too wide, or they are too colorful or something! Of course, when she buys a new outfit, naturally new shoes must be bought at the same time, along with purses, scarves and other accessories to complete the ensemble.

Over some time, the shoes have become a real problem. No more space to store them where they are conveniently accessible to her. I seldom probe in the bottom of my closet, it being somewhat dangerous to go very far in, what with litter and sharply pointed things lurking there, but the other day I discovered ten boxes of shoes stacked neatly in the far back, and it was clear that there would be another row stacked on top of these very soon. My protests were of no avail. She needed the space, and what should she do, throw good shoes away? She said that I don’t throw them away until they mold, so why should she? And besides, I had the room, and it wasn’t being used, was it?

The barrage went on until I retreated to my study much chastened. How is it that women can come up with irrefutable arguments at the drop of a …shoe? And it is our house, and our spaces, and our closets, isn’t that so?

The last time I looked, there were ten more boxes on top of the ones already there; a stack now five boxes long and four boxes high. When I suggested that she put them in the bottom of the basement zippered bags, I was blasted away with the fact that I didn’t understand how you have to try on shoes each day because your feet swell, and shoes that fit yesterday don’t fit today, or even in the same day for that matter. So travelling to the basement multiple times was out, period!

Shoes! They will take over yet! That stack in my closet simply cannot get higher than six boxes, and at the rate things are going, that will happen in about May. What then?

Sunday, March 13, 2005



On coping with the closets-full elsewhere!

For too many years I have struggled with the problem of clothes. Not exactly clothes, but the need to keep them around for long periods of time. A man has essentially two season’s worth of clothes: Summer and Winter. This is a simple problem. The working closet is filled with the season’s clothes of the moment, and the other season’s worth are stored elsewhere, or, if he is lucky, he has a double closet all his own.

A woman, however, has four seasons-worth: Spring, Summer, Fall, and Winter, not counting transitional items picked up to cover unexpected mid-season weather changes or travel. Her working closet has the current season’s clothes, plus transitional items, which is fine. But now “elsewhere’ has three full season’s worth to store.

Given that each season of wear must conform generally to the same number of outfits, we then have so many outfits for high fashion (4), so many for semi-high-fashion (5), so many for informal (6), so many for everyday wear (8), so many for casual wear (8), and then the odd jeans, pullovers and shirts for serious work around the home (7). This totals up to 32 outfits or equivalent for each season. And, of course, 96 outfits have to be stored “elsewhere.”

Several other factors come into play. The higher the quality of the clothes, the longer they last, and the more likely that they are still in fashion (wearable when being seen, that is.). The half-life of a good suit or dress must be somewhere around 10 years (but if you keep it for 20 or so, it comes back into fashion and is again perfectly wearable!). This stabilizing factor is directly offset by the factor of newness or “not seen in it before,” which is very important indeed to women. They must have new clothes rather often. (Men, naturally, can wear the same old suits , blazers, slacks and shirts for many years without even thinking about it.)

The driving factor, however, is none of the above. The one thing that causes more clothes to be bought, and the older ones kept, is weight gain or loss. Women can go up two or three dress sizes in a month or two. They can come back down to their original sizes too, but going down seems to take at lot longer that a month or two.

The unhappy result is that one must have outfits for two or three sizes as well, at least enough to get by for several months of frantic dieting to take full effect. A fair estimate of the duplication due to size changes would be about 2.3, which results in 2.3 x 32 = 73.6 outfits in the ready closet, and 2.3 x 96 = 220.8 outfits in the “elsewhere” storage.

Now, I have done a measurement of how many outfits can fit on a foot of hanging rod space on the average, and that is 10 outfits of all types (except coats, which present yet another problem entirely). Thus, the working closet must have at least 7.36 feet of hanging rod. The “elsewhere” store must have over 22.08 feet of rod space.

Normal closets, you may realize, are on the order of 3.5 feet wide, and double closets obviously are 7 feet wide. This largely takes care of the working closet needs of women very nicely, if one ignores the 0.36 feet not available. Builders usually provide two such closets in the master bedroom, so the man has enough room for his clothes also. All of his clothes!

We now have the problem of where the woman’s “elsewhere” is in fact going to come from. Where will we find over 22 feet of rod space that is dependably bug proof, humidity proof, and dirt proof? This is three double closets in length. Well, there is the basement, the attic, and the garage left over, and perhaps one single closet in the spare bedroom that could be “partially” used.

The garage is out on account of oil and gas smells from the autos. The attic in most homes is accessed from a pull-down ladder, which is most inconvenient for clothes storage. We are left with the basement. (The other solution, getting rid of some of the items, is unacceptable, so you might as well forget that right now!)

For the moment, then, we have a 22-foot long set of zippered polyester bags on metal frames running down the middle of the basement. Plans are afoot to redo the basement real soon now (her words!) in order to have a truly decent and accessible place for “elsewhere!”

Saturday, March 12, 2005


Unholy Alliances Plus One!

Adding Islam

into the Revolutionary Pot with Humanism/Socialism and Communism!

What a marriage of convenience! For the sake of bringing down the US over a decade or two, these three huge and savagely idealistic "religions", for that is what they all are, would join together, each thinking that it can dominate the others after the success of destroying America. Some seven million Muslims live in America. All told, this Pot represents about 8 to 9% of the electorate. That is a significant percentage when you consider that our elections usually result in a two or three percent margin for the winning party.

1. Religion: Islam will stand on its own, but can make such alliances it wants if it is seen as the right path to hegemony of Islam. Such alliances are with infidels, and can be violated at will.
The marriage of Humanism and Communism was discussed in an earlier post.

2. Sharing: All three demand forced sharing of wealth across the society and the world.

3. Elitism: All three require government by elite members seeped in the correct ideology.

4. Education: All three require indoctrination in schools for right thinking.

5. Morals: The Left rejects morality of religions, and supports moral relativism. Islam derives its moral code from the Koran and fatwas. But, the islamics can bend this to their will.

6. Children: All three want to have control of children from the earliest age.

7. Property: All three want to control property: it is merely a matter of degree between them.

8. Science: The Left base themselves on “Science”, especially “Soft Sciences”. Islam is weak in science, but could benefit from cooperation.

9. World: All three support a sovereign Planetary Government that follows their respective principles.

10. US: All three are anti-US in their every move as it stands now: anti-sovereignty, anti- the very existence of the US, and pro world government -- theirs.

11. Terrorism: All three are against the War on Terrorism, including the Iraqi War. But all three are dedicated to the proposition that the end justifies the means, and lies can be made to seem truths by repetition. The Islamic Fundamentalists continue to pursue jihad.

12. Naturalism: The Left believes in Scientism, evolution, and that only measurable things exist. Islam has the Koran. Again, Islam can bend to accomodate temporarily.

13. Constitution: All three want fundamental changes in our Constitution and Bill of Rights to benefit their plans for us.

14. Members: All three have a large constituency in the US: including the “Elites”.

15. Methods: All three are dedicated to change by subterfuge, hiding their real motivations.

16. Actions: All are active now in attempting to change the US: and have common cause!

Tuesday, March 08, 2005


Celebrating Ugliness

The Advertisements Penetrate Everywhere

It used to be standard that TV would interrupt for a commercial on the quarter hour, and take about 3 or 4 minutes of your time to tell you about soap or automobiles. We lost 12 to 16 minutes of each hour to these harangues, back in the 50s and 60s.

No more! Now, on the hour we lose about 8 minutes to close out the program with ads, and start up the next program with ads. Then every 7 and a half minutes there is another interruption for ads lasting 3 minutes or so, for a total of another 21 minutes of shampoo, money lenders, and real estate firms wanting you to buy that 21 acre estate on the river.

We end up with 29 minutes of salesmen, and at best 31 minutes of show time. I am not looking forward to the progression all this implies: the 50-50 barrier is soon to be broken, giving us more advertisement than entertainment per hour.

My hope is that the product people will make more entertaining ads now, since we don’t get much of the real thing we tuned in for anymore. When I think about it, however, that hope is crushed instantly by the massive number of products that must be put on the air to build volume sales.

Products are shown that either shouldn’t be on TV at all, or that should be reserved for after hours when adults are around – mostly. Here are a few things that show up at dinner time to make meal preparation, eating and cleaning up more pleasant:

Do you have gas? Take our Degasser: it works (on pigs)

Are you constipated? Two of our pills, and tomorrow morning you will…have to take two more…and wait. Repeat until satisfied.

Be dainty with our feminine douche. (not exactly sure where one uses this!)

Gaining weight? We have this pill for $200 a bottle that we guarantee will melt your excess weight off in 30 days. Sign up and we will send you another bottle each month for the rest of your life.

Don’t be embarrassed by incontinence. Wear our panties that can hold two quarts of urine with no smell. Sloshing? We’re working on it for our marathon version.

For incontinent men, here is our rubber cap and tube apparatus with a form-fitting bottle for your leg that holds a quart, and it won’t interfere with your sports activities at all. Lets you play through one urge, or two urges if you use our switch-over two bottle system, say, in the huddle. Of course, if you do play something like football or rugby, try not to get tackled.

Tonight, go to bed knowing that you will have a huge erection at just the time you need it. Our little pill works in minutes, and you can take a second one soon after you have …ah…exhausted the first one. For the women in your life, our powder works magic in bed, and you will be delighted to take more and more of our little erection pills.

After strenuous activity, you must use our blood sugar meter to track how it is doing. To calm you down, the meter helps you to play the guitar as well as BB King.

Do you have: dry eyes, eczema, ear wax, poor deodorant, baldness, itches, scratches, burns, or crooked toes? Get in touch with us! We are open 24/7, except when you are desperate and show up at the door.

After this bombardment. I race out of the house, get in my car, and drive fast to my quiet place overlooking the city. I put the top down and rest my head on the …head rest. Only to be assaulted soon after by a rapper from the booming car radio down the way from me praising some kind of lubricant for condoms, I think.

Monday, March 07, 2005


Constitutional Rule Change

The “Nuclear Option” Threat

(My Opinion)

The battle of the 21st century appears to be looming in The Senate over Senator Bill Frist’s (R-Tenn.) threat to change the rules for cloture in the case of filibusters against judicial nominees of the President. Already Democratic supporters have gone on record as 100% against the measure. The scream “Nazi Tactics” on the Senate floor by Senator Robert Byrd (D-Ky.) has raised the pitch and volume of the debate a hundred fold.

The main question is, given that Byrd himself has succeeded in doing the same thing earlier on, what is at stake here that would cause such rhetoric? One can read scholarly articles claiming that such a rule change is impossible, and other highly regarded scholars claiming the exact opposite. It takes a legislative and judicial mind to sort this out. The Republican legal advisory group claims the rules can be changed by a simple majority vote in the Senate.

Whatever the truth of those claims, we are most likely going to see the nuclear option selected if the next Supreme Court nominee is held up by Democratic Senators – which is an odds-on proposition. It is certain that the President will appoint a conservative to the Court, as best he can determine. (More that once, however, Justices have changed their views after receiving a lifetime appointment.)

The reason behind the Democratic opposition is clear. They want to ensure that the Supreme Court does not become more conservative, so that their agenda for judicial fiats is not jeopardized. In turn, the Republicans want to be able to appoint conservative judges to roll back the liberal agenda that the Court has been following for years.

The Republicans also see the opposition as usurping the prerogatives of the President to appoint justices, with advice and consent from the Congress, but with no “litmus tests” designed to thwart conservative judicial appointments.

If it takes a rule change to get the advice and consent in the Senate by a simple 51-vote majority in favor of a Supreme Court nominee, so be it. We are long overdue for a constructive and conservative change in the Court. For a more in-depth view of this issue, go to:


Saturday, March 05, 2005


What Can We Do?

A Call to Action

Many conservative citizens are appalled at what is going on, but they have little or no idea how they can resist, fight, and help rollback the evils we face. Here is a starter list of things anyone can do to promote the conservative agenda:

1. Vote! Vote for the Conservative agenda whenever you can.

2. Read! Become informed about the issues on both sides of the political debate, and solidify your own opinion.

3. Discuss! Talk with friends and acquaintances about the issues, and support the conservative view. Develop your ability to be a strong advocate for this view.

4. Web! Get on the web to read about the issues, and post to weblogs on your views. The Web is the greatest tool imaginable to find out in depth about any topic you can think of. Encourage others to "blog" as well. Start a "blog" of your own! Go buy a book on blogging. It is easy to do!

5. Write! Write to your Congressmen to express your views. Let them know politely but firmly how you stand. Write to others that are involved. Argue coherently for your position to anyone you believe has a role to play. Do not express yourself in hate-filled terms. That kind of letter or email will not be read. Write letters to the editor of your paper.

6. Join! Join a conservative group or two. Find a local group that you can participate in personally. Join national conservative organizations, and participate.

7. Ask! Ask your friends what they are doing. Ask them to help you learn how to use your computer, and get on the web. Ask them what organizations they have joined.

These simple actions can make a huge difference as election time comes around. You can influence people.

(To be continued)


The Liberals I Know

Evil Intentions Shown Daily

Liberals I know are against war, period. Never mind who, when, why, or how, they will war to prevent war. Having failed to prevent war, and death, they will then war to stop war. I believe the concept of a "just war" is alien to liberals. So, fundamentally, they are against anyone who propels us into a shooting war: Bush in particular.

It is also true that the Left abhors the thought of pouring "their" money into the sands of Iraq, instead of into programs that benefit their causes at home.They are fighting their rearguard action to get us out of it as soon as possible.

This moral and idealistic aversion to war is admirable on purely humanitarian grounds, but totally unrealistic in the real world. All of history attests to the fact that mankind is too often at war for whatever reason of the moment. This rearguard action they have been and are now undertaking gives great aid and comfort to the enemy, either intentionally or not.

I think most Liberals are quite aware of that fact, since they are not stupid. The game plan is strikingly like that of the home front and MSM during the Vietnam era. Thus, I have to believe there is a huge ulterior motive the Left has in persisting with their negativism and seeming hatred of America and her motives in the midst of a war.

If I begin with the historical ideas of the Liberal mind, I come to a simple conclusion: Marxism, and the defeat of America, is their ultimate objective. At this time, I suggest that the Liberal Elite see common cause with Islamic Fundamentalists, in that the clash with Islam will weaken and hasten the demise of the USA as we know it. The Left will be there at the end of the day to put some brand of totalitarian Communism into play that their program is fostering.



The Death Penalty

Europe is aghast that many States in the US “still” have the death penalty. Many on the Left not only want the death penalty rescinded, but they also want the voting privilege restored to convicts the minute they are freed. Next, they will want all life sentences reviewed after 5 years of being jailed, with the objective of proving that these murderers have had a total reformation since conviction and are no longer a threat to society. I suppose I’d try that dodge too if I were sitting in death row.

On top of that, the SCOTUS has ordered that under 18s be protected from the death penalty. That allows gangs to murder, knowing that they will not be put to death for it, and that they may well be out on parole in 5 or so years, and can vote, vote, vote! Oh glorious day!

That this decision was even partially influenced by European decisions and law is un-American, and anti-Constitutional. We should not draw upon foreign law to create our own simply because it is the fashon of the day in EU Land. The only repair for these decisions is to be able to appoint better judges to the Supreme Court, which can’t come soon enough for me.

As Charles Colson said, “Take away the death penalty, and what you have done is to give murderers a life, yes in prison, but they can still think, dream, play, talk, write, study, and enjoy their time, even run businesses, and have a wide telephone network.” That is insufficient punishment for brutally, and unfeelingly taking another’s life.

Their victims have none of this: they are in the ground. The taxpayer must then support these murderers for the rest of their lives. No thank you!

Friday, March 04, 2005


The Real Name of This Group is: Communists!

Troubling questions for you and me!

Why does every action of the US draw the fire of Leftists in our midst…in our cities and the Left Coast, in all of the Blue areas?

Why does every action of the Russians, and the USSR before them, NOT draw fire from Leftists (calling themselves Progressives)?

Why do Leftists support literally every nostrum that would tear down the fabric of American society? Legalized drugs, for instance.

Why is the family subverted and held as antiquated and defunct?

Why do Leftists want us to fail in Iraq?

Why do Leftists want complete gun control? Is it because an armed citizenry would be far harder to overthrow?

Why did Leftists oppose American intervention in Nicaragua, Panama, Grenada, Somalia, and Afghanistan too?

Why do leftists support emasculating the CIA?

Why do Leftists support reducing the Armed Forces to a shadow of what they should be, and must be?

Why do Leftists support such activities as suing school systems over prayer, and forbidding the display of Christian symbols and phrases (and not others) in public places? Their cynical atheism and desire to wreck the religious underpinnings of the citizens is the reason. Over 85% of the citizens of the US are Christian. On what grounds are we letting these Moonbats attack Christianity?

Why are we faced every day with activist judges who are subverting the Constitution with their decisions and fiats? What is their agenda for us? Why are they applying international criteria in interpreting law in America?

Why are our children not taught American History truthfully and competently? Or any other subject for that matter! Math and science are taught by those who don’t know the subjects. How to think is not taught, rather rote memorization of anti-American facts or how to put on a condom seems to be the norm in many schools.

Why are our colleges dominated by Leftwing Moonbats?

Why are there Politically Correct speech codes on university campuses?

Why are we still supporting the UN? It isn’t a peacekeeping force. It is a bunch of thieves. It is a bunch of sexists. It is by majority a collection of nations that should not have any say in what we do. “One nation: one vote” is a prescription for disaster for the US.

How is it that at least 48% of voters bought into the Kerry anti-pro-anti-pro “nuanced”, flip flop approach to everything, while he was voting in the Senate with a record of perfect Far-Left Liberal positions? Do the Democratic voters believe that the President could be “controlled” once in office? I doubt it!

Taken as a whole, these attacks on our moral values, our religions, our education, our children, our form of government and our foreign policies add up to, not merely anti-Americanism, but to full agreement with the Marxist/socialist mantra of subversion of America from within. Marx clearly stated that we must tear down the old societies and their institutions in order to rebuild Communist societies -- everywhere.

He also said that one must pass through a period of totalitarianism to be able to install socialism by authority. We know with great certainty that this is the big stumbling block to achieving a utopian society. The elite do not relinquish their power, once they have obtained it. Yet we appear to stand by here in America and let these people have their way. They hide behind the Constitution as they plot its demise. And, oh yes! They hide behind the label Progressive. (as in the Progressive Communist Party).

By chipping away piecemeal at our institutions, our traditions, our systems for education, and our government, the Leftists have succeeded beyond their dreams in subverting us. Moral relativism is rampant when animal activists equate raising and killing chickens with the killing ovens of the Holocaust.

When a Liberal agonizes publicly because he sees his individual freedoms being constrained by law, it isn’t a bleeding heart reaction to the effects of such restrictions on you and me. He is reacting because it comes closer to stopping him and his ilk from achieving the ultimate Liberal agenda for us all: Communism, with them, the (Liberal) (Progressive) Communists, in control.

I intend to explore in follow-on writings what individuals can do to stop this movement toward Neocommunism in the USA.

Wednesday, March 02, 2005


Nuclear and Other Rogue States

Today, Iraq

North Korea is a rogue nuclear-capable state. Iran is a rogue nuclear-building state. Syria is a rogue state. Cuba is a rogue state. Indonesia is a rogue state. Pakistan is a rogue nuclear-capable state, but it is, perhaps perilously, less so now. Palestine under Arafat was a rogue state, but it seems now to be coming around. Iraq and Afghanistan were rogue states, but are now more or less "fixed" and improving daily.

Who has shown the guts, fortitude, and might to even begin to influence and yes, fight, to turn this situation around? The USA, under Bush leadership. Freedom is in the hearts of the people of these countries, but they have all been suppressed under tyrants. With a strong push, they start the process toward freedom.

No country, including America, has the military power to "fix" these remaining problem states all at once, and bring their own chosen forms of democracy to the people.

One at a time, however, is a different story. The Left as usual wants to ignore the nuclear threat, and try to talk, talk, talk themselves out at the walls of indifference and greed rogue states present. Witness Iran and North Korea.

So, let the talks go on and on, but at the end of the day...what rogue states listen to is the believable threat of military force. (witness Libya, and, hesitantly, Egypt) That is unfortunate, but true.

It is obvious that the only countries willing to show force to these rogue states, and to turn them towards democracy and freedom, is a US-led coalition, however small it is or might become. Old Europe looks inward, mesmerized by the construction of the EU, scared to move internationally, perhaps because it is so very, very weak militarily and financially, and it has been robbed of the will to do good by pacifists and political opportunists. I see them as paralyzed by their overly-nuanced thinking and pseudo-intellectual pretentions.

Perhaps some truly believe that the US wants an empire. They are wrong. Who in their right mind would want that problem? The US does not want an empire, and never has wanted one. Empire is a false and delusional idea. But it will persist in the minds of those who want to denigrate the US and Bush. Leftists to be sure!

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?