Have No Fear, Leakey Leahy is Here

Leahy vows to guard privacy rights

By Thomas Ferraro
Wed Dec 13, 9:44 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The incoming Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee promised on Wednesday to combat what he denounced as President George W. Bush's war-time trampling of American rights.

"We have a duty to repair real damage done to our system of government over the last few years," Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont said in outlining his panel's agenda for the 110th, Democratic-led Congress, which is set to convene on January 4.

"Americans' privacy is a price the Bush administration is willing to pay for the cavalier way it is spawning new databanks. But privacy rights belong to the people, not to the government," Leahy said.

Leahy made the comments in a speech entitled, "Ensuring Liberty and Security Through Checks and Balances," to be delivered at the Georgetown University Law Center.

Okay, my first question for Leahy is "Are you going to do this before or after you leak all the information to the press?"

You've got to be kidding, this guy was kicked off of the Senate Intelligence Committee for leaking top secret information to the press. Of course the "real damage" that has occurred to our system of government has been at the hands of the Democrats and their propaganda wing, the Paleo-media. When you leak top secret information that will help our enemies defeat us, that causes "very real damage to our system of government." When you place your desire for political power above the security interests of the nation, that causes "very real damage to our system of government." When you seek to undermine the morale of our troops engaged in a war overseas, that causes "very real damage to our system of government" as well as gives aid and comfort to our enemies.

The real threat to our government and our way of life is not from the current administration, it is from the Democrats. The overwhelming drive to attain and keep political power in this nation by those on the Left is the greatest threat to our freedom and security this nation faces.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Sic Semper Tyrannis

Will Malven
29 December 29, 2006

It’s 9:15 here in Houston and I am glad to say that, according to initial reports, Saddam Hussein has been dead for the past 17 minutes.

Rarely in history has there been a worse individual than Saddam Hussein. He was personally or by proxy responsible for the deaths, many by (real) torture, of an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 of his own citizens and Iranians [estimates currently run as high as 2 million dead]. During his reign of terror, the majority of Iraqi citizens suffered unrelenting oppression. Open criticism of his regime was a death sentence.

As predictable as the sunrise, those “loyal Americans” at dailyKos.com are lamenting the hanging of the “Butcher of Baghdad.” They seem to believe that hanging is somehow too barbaric. I wonder how they feel about feeding innocent Iraqi civilians into an industrial plastic grinder, feet first. I wonder how they feel about the use of poison gas on the Kurdish population of Iraq. I wonder if the dozens, if not hundreds of mass graves that were unearthed after the initial war would qualify as “barbaric.” Poor Saddam, don’t you feel sorry for him?

Of course, some at dailyKos.com simply console themselves by again claiming that President Bush has killed more Iraqi civilians than Saddam Hussein. There’s something just not quite normal about Liberals. I think maybe it’s their willingness to put their political agenda ahead of the needs and good of their fellow citizens and people throughout the world. They really are twisted in their thinking.

I, for one, will not lose any sleep over this event, unless it is in exuberance over the exacting of final justice on this most inhuman of men.

So I again repeat the words of John Wilkes Booth, but with justification:

Sic semper tyrannis! Thus be it ever to tyrants.

Long live the American Republic!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Liberal Journalists Have No Shame or Compassion

Will Malven
28 December 2006

It never ceases to amaze me the level of hubris in people like Woodward in misrepresenting what people they have interviewed said when the quotations are in the article. The claim that the late President Ford “‘very strongly’ disagreed with the current president’s justifications for invading Iraq,” is like most of the other editorial comments Woodward makes, either taken out of context or, in the way it’s presented, at best a half-truth. Simple proof, read the headline of the article below, then read the statements in context.

Liberals love to find some elder statesman of the Republican party who, to be charitable, is less than fully compos mentis, and goad them into making unguarded statements which may then be turned against whatever Republican policy the Liberal is attempting to discredit. It was done with Barry Goldwater, it was done with Newt Gingrich’s mother, and now thanks to a cold-blooded, money-grubbing, has been reporter, it has been done to the late President Ford. My contempt for Liberals grows daily…

Ford Disagreed With Bush About Invading Iraq
By Bob Woodward
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 28, 2006; Page A01

Former president Gerald R. Ford said in an embargoed interview in July 2004 that the Iraq war was not justified. "I don't think I would have gone to war," he said a little more than a year after President Bush launched the invasion advocated and carried out by prominent veterans of Ford's own administration.

In a four-hour conversation at his house in Beaver Creek, Colo., Ford "very strongly" disagreed with the current president's justifications for invading Iraq and said he would have pushed alternatives, such as sanctions, much more vigorously. In the tape-recorded interview, Ford was critical not only of Bush but also of Vice President Cheney -- Ford's White House chief of staff -- and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who served as Ford's chief of staff and then his Pentagon chief.

"Rumsfeld and Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq. They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction," Ford said. "And now, I've never publicly said I thought they made a mistake, but I felt very strongly it was an error in how they should justify what they were going to do."

In a conversation that veered between the current realities of a war in the Middle East and the old complexities of the war in Vietnam whose bitter end he presided over as president, Ford took issue with the notion of the United States entering a conflict in service of the idea of spreading democracy.

First, President Ford could never have been considered a Conservative Republican. He was a Moderate at best. That is one reason that his choice as the replacement for Spiro T. Agnew as vice-president was so widely embraced. So if his views are at variance with current administration policies, it comes as no surprise.

Second, in spite of the way the former President’s statements are being presented, his disagreement hinged, as he states in the above quote, on “how they [President Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney] chose to justify” attacking Saddam’s regime and although Woodward claims that the former President states that he would have pushed for alternatives,” he never clearly says that invading Iraq was a mistake.

Third, his opinion, as he clearly stated, “based on the publicly available information at the time.” That, of course, means that his opinion, however nice a guy he was, was no more informed than that of any other regular citizen of the United States. Unlike some former Presidents, Jimmah Cahtah and Bubba Clinton to be specific, former President Ford refrained from sticking his nose into the business of subsequent presidents. Would that Democrats could demonstrate the same restraint and consideration.

Woodward also makes a big deal out of the Late President’s statement:

"And I just don't think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security."

Dutifully neglecting, as a spokesman for the Democrat Party, to mention the fact that the War in Iraq was deemed by most of Congress, and the current administration to be “directly related to our own national security.”

Most Americans, except for those Democrats who so full-heartedly backed their own beloved “Bubba” in his invasion of Bosnia, would agree with President Ford’s statement. Quite simply, the War in Iraq is in our national security interests, and the war in Bosnia was not in any way in our national security interests. Funny how Democrats seem to skip right over that point.

Oh, by the way. Did you hear that Cindy “I love Hugo Chavez” Sheehan has now blamed the late President Ford for her son’s death? Seems that the only people she resolutely refuses to blame are the ones who actually killed him. For Cindy, it’s all about her.

Liberals disappoint me in their ability to boorish, hateful, anti-American, traitors who value the right to commit infanticide and pursue political power more than they value their fellow citizens, or their nation.

Have you ever noticed what noble, highly moral, good people Republican Presidents have been, and what creatures of low ethical and moral standards Democrat Presidents have been? Lyndon Johnson-crooked as the day is long, corrupt and incompetent. Jimmy Carter-treasonous, lying, incompetent. Bill Clinton-do I need to say anything at all?

God save the American Republic!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Mistaking Wit for Intellect: A Childish Error

'The Real America,' Redefined

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006; Page A29

When a nation alters its philosophical direction and changes its assumptions, there is no press release to announce the shift, no news conference where The People declare that they have decided to move down a different path.

Yet 2006 is looking more and more like one of history's hinge years, a moment when old ideas are cast aside, new leaders emerge and old leaders decide to speak in new ways. The changes in politics and culture are visible in the many sudden and outright reversals of the conventional wisdom.

-------------------snip----------------

When the right seemed headed to dominance in the early 1990s, the hot political media trend was talk radio and the star was Rush Limbaugh, a smart entrepreneur who spawned imitators around the country and all across the AM dial.

Now the chic medium is televised political comedy and the cool commentators are Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Their brilliant ridicule of the Bush administration and conservative bloviators satisfies a political craving at least as great as the one Limbaugh once fed. Stewart and Colbert speak especially to young Americans who rely on their sensible take on the madness that surrounds us. The young helped drive their popularity, and the Droll Duo in turn shaped a new, anti-conservative skepticism.

Surprisingly, accidently, E.J. Dionne is correct. The Left has discovered a powerful new weapon to combat the reason and factual arguments of those on the Right. Well, he's partially right, to be completely accurate one must include the Left's very successful destruction of our education system.

The bulk of today's youth graduate from high-school with less than an eighth grade education. Young people are already inclined to react emotionally rather than rationally. When that is combined with an "education" which is more of an indoctrination into Leftist ideology and dogma than it is training in critical thinking and fact based education, the inevitable result is a youthful population that is vulnerable to the propaganda of the Left.

Shows like those of Dionne's much revered Stewart and Colbert rely on snide, childish remarks rather than reasoned argument. For a population that has been "trained" (raised)by "teachers" (propagandists)to be incapable of critical thinking and brainwashed by a television culture that panders to their baser natures, reasoned arguments are of little value.

What Stewart and Colbert do is nothing new. Their choice of medium and style is novel, but their technique is as old as the hills; distract with glitz, seduce with humor. The youthful are often inclined to mistake clever repartee for intelligence.

The success of the Left in using programming like Stewart's and Colbert's is not a sign of growing awareness, it is a sign of a failing educational system.

The writers at the Post have never been known for their "weighty intellects" and just as youths mistaking wit for intellect is a sure sign of the failure of our educational system, the fact that Mr. Dionne sees what these two do as providing a "sensible take on the madness that surrounds us." is merely confirmation of the weak intellects of editorial writers in today's Paleo-media.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Where is the Liberal Outrage? Where Is President George W. Bush?

This comes to us from the MensNewsDaily Website...

Persecuting and Brutally Murdering Christians
December 14, 2006
Vox Populi
By Paul Ciniraj

Kottayam (India), SVM News, 14 December, 2006: An anti christian, claimed as a leader of an Islamic militant group threatened me by telephone with naughty words and gave me warning to count down the days of myself and my whole family. He was very angry and was shouting like anything.

“For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain” (Phil 1:21). My wife also have some courage. But all my three children, particularly the youngest son of 12 years old having so much fear in his mind. During the night time he sees bad dreams and waking up in a sudden with loudly crying. We try to give him hope, we pray for him by sealing the precious blood of Jesus and ask him to repeat ‘the Blood of Jesus is our Victory”. He does it, but still some fear ruling over him. He doesn’t allow my other children to sleep in seperate rooms. He wants all of the five members together in a room. When he cry, my daughter also start crying. I request the children of God to continue praying for us, especially my children Besly (18), Hepzy (17) and Lesly (12). The intercession of the children of God is our Fort.

Dr. Shameema Badru, one of the strong believer in Jesus from Islam seriously injured. Gunmen entered the home of Dr. Shameema and shot her at pointblank range. She got four bullets, which damaged vital organs like the kidney, liver and caused other major internal injuries. She is now fighting for her life in the hospital. Dr. Shameema is a mother of four, lost her husband Abdul Majeed Dar, who was the President of the dar Foundation was shot on November 28, 2003 at Srinagar by unidentified militants.

Aashir and Tahira are the missionaries in J&K. Pray for them and their new born baby Noorul Masih.

Pray for the family of Martyr Bashir Ahamed Tantray, who was killed two weeks in Jammu & Kashmir because of spreading the Gospel. Pray for his wife, daughters Shabnam (18) and Shakeena (14) and sons Ajas (16) and Adil (11).

Political and economic pressure should be brought to bear on the Indian government to stop these assaults. It is intolerable that anyone should have to live in fear because of their faith. Why is it that Liberals are so eager to point out Western so-called Oppression against Muslims, but seem completely oblivious to the persecution of Christians elsewhere in the world?

We are seeing further evidence of the attitude of those who follow "the Religion of Peace." What we are actually seeing is that Mohammed and his followers are a bunch of murdering bastards. If I am wrong, then it is way past time for the "moderate peace-loving" Muslims I keep hearing about to take a very public and strong stand in opposition to what others of their religion are doing around the world. Failing that, I believe that it is time to conclude that Muslims are an evil presence and that Islam is a religion of evil which needs to be wiped off the face of the Earth by whatever means necessary.

I hear a lot of these so-called peaceful Muslims whining about how their people are being treated at airports, but I have yet to have seen or heard any really hard verbal attacks against what is being done to innocent Jews and Christians throughout the world by people of their religion. Where are the voices of CAIR? Can it be that they don't...care, unless you're a Muslim?

As far as I can tell, Islam is a plague which needs to be nuked out of existence. If these people are incapable of adopting an attitude of "live and let live," then it is time for them to learn about death first hand.

I pray that Paul and his family and friends remain safe, and that the government of both our nation and that of the Indian nation will act to end this kind of violence against God.

Hey James Baker, why don't you and Lee Hamilton fly over to India and try "negotiating" with these animals? I'm sure you will meet with precisely the same success as we will have negotiating with Iran and Syria.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Charlie Rangel: The Taxman Cometh

With the results of the Fall Election, a new era begins in Congress. Charlie Rangel, decorated (Charlie appears to have been "the real deal" hero) Korean Veteran, former bag-man, street-fighter, and socialist by nature takes over the chairmanship of what some in D.C. believe to be the most powerful committee in Congress, the House Ways and Means Committee. What does this mean to most Americans, hold on to your wallets 'cause there's gonna be a whole lotta taxin' goin' on. In 1966, The Beatles released a song "Taxman" on the album Revolver, which might have been written about Charlie Rangel:

"Let me tell you how it will be;
There's one for you, nineteen for me.
'Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.

Should five per cent appear too small,
Be thankful I don't take it all.
'Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.

(if you drive a car, car;) - I’ll tax the street;
(if you try to sit, sit;) - I’ll tax your seat;
(if you get too cold, cold;) - I’ll tax the heat;
(if you take a walk, walk;) - I'll tax your feet.

Taxman!"

If you, like me, find those lyrics more than a little disturbing, then it is very likely you will find Charlie's tenure as Chairman more than a little disturbing.

Ways & Means
After 35 Years in the House, Charlie Rangel Has the Power. But There Are Still Taxing Times Ahead for the Man From Harlem.

By Wil Haygood
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 14, 2006; Page C01

Back then, on the streets of Harlem, he'd take a full swing at his foes. He was a high school dropout, a dead-end kid until he picked himself up and put on that military uniform. In the Korean War he fought like hell, brought back a couple of medals, too.

After he came home, he set himself on a course straight as a ruler: college, law school, assistant U.S. attorney, politics.

Charlie Rangel is 76 now and the dean of New York's congressional delegation. It's been more than 50 years since those days as a street fighter, but this fall's campaigns brought them back in a hurry.

"The American people don't trust Charlie Rangel and his tax-happy Democrat friends because they know Democrats will work overtime to raise their taxes," is how Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) put it.

This chairmanship could well prove disasterous to the economy by stifling growth and ultimately throwing the economy back into a recession. One can only hope that the new Chairman will exercise some restraint, or that President Bush will dust off his veto pen and set it to work.

Rangel has never been one to "work and play well with others," choosing instead to play "fast and loose" with the truth and on occasion, to be less than well considered in his choice of words, having called Vice-president Cheney "a real son-of-a-bitch, and compared President Bush to Bull Conner. He also has been championing reinstitution of the draft, claiming (to much deserved criticism) that:

"If a young fellow has an option of having a decent career, or joining the Army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq"

This statement echoes the typical Democrat contempt for the military, and the "joke" told by Senator John Forbes Kerry earlier this year. Seems Democrats just cannot understand why any self-respecting young man would choose to enter the military and defend his country. Apparently for Democrats, defending our nation is strictly a matter of coersion rather than patriotism. They believe that people who serve in the military are "chumps" who were unable either through breeding or education were unable to find better employment.

It is somewhat disturbing to find out that those charged with running the country don't understand the concept of patriotism. One must worry about their dedication to America and its governing principles.

Charlie has called the Iraq War, "immoral." He has been quoted by the President as having said that he "couldn't think of one of our tax cuts he would extend."

Charlie Rangel is the consumate Liberal when it comes to spending our money. He is a "true believer" in the necessity and ability of big government involving itself in every facet of American life. He sees government as the solution to all problems. People are poor, let the government take care of them. The people need healthcare, let the government do it. Those are among his favorite words, "let the government do it."

For Charlie, the people are incapable of taking care of themselves, nor are they particularly to blame for their plight. For Congressman Rangel, they are merely victims of inequity. It's not fair for some people to be rich and others to be poor. It doesn't matter to him that the rich worked hard to get that way, and the poor haven't availed themselves of the opportunities this nation offers anyone who is willing to better themselves and their lot in life.

This is the same old tired socialist rhetoric of the early twentieth century, and it is just as wrong today as it was eighty years ago. If we allow the Democrats to impose their ideals onto the nations economy, we will shortly be in as excellent a condition as the French or Germans.

I sure hope George "the Compassionate Conservative" is listening to the Conservatives and not Mr. Rangel.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Jackson Diehl: Naive, Dishonest, or Both?

Here we have a typical Democrat's...whoops I mean Washington Post reporter's attempted hatchet job on President Bush.

How Quickly Bush Forgot

By Jackson Diehl
Monday, December 11, 2006; Page A19

Some people suppose that President Bush's freedom agenda was buried last Wednesday by the report of the Iraq Study Group. In fact, history will show that the administration largely smothered its own baby, even before Iraq's descent into civil war propelled the resurrection of James Baker and other "realist" friends of Middle Eastern dictators.

Evidence of that conclusion could be found in Washington on the same day Baker delivered his report, as administration officials, members of Congress and business executives gathered for a glittering dinner in honor of Mehriban Aliyeva, the visiting first lady of Azerbaijan.

Aliyeva's husband, Ilham, rules a Muslim country wedged between Russia and Iran that is on the cusp of becoming a major exporter of oil and gas, with strategic pipelines that offer Europe an alternative to Russian suppliers. It also is at a tipping point politically. Aliyev, who inherited power from his father -- a satrap of the Soviet Union -- has teetered between installing his own dictatorship and promising to liberalize the political system along Western lines.

For a year after Bush's soaring second inaugural speech, in which he pledged "to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation," the president seemed to be trying to act on his words in Azerbaijan. Through a letter and State Department envoys, he urged Aliyev to hold free and fair parliamentary elections and promised in return to "elevate our countries' relations to a new strategic level." Unfortunately, Aliyev called Bush's bluff. He staged a vote in October 2005 that even the sympathetic State Department said was marked by "major irregularities and fraud." Days before the election he arrested hundreds of political opponents or would-be rivals, including one of his most pro-Western ministers, Farhad Aliyev.

It is an unfortunate fact of life that sometimes principles must be put aside for a higher calling on the President's obligations. It would be nice if President Bush could have called Aliyev to task for his failures as a democrat, but the President's first obligation is to serve the needs of his own nation and its people. Not pretty, but true.

Let's see if we can project what Mr. Diehl would have written if President Bush had done as he suggests.

President Bush Presses His own Narrow Political Agenda
Causes Disruption in Oil Flow From Azerbaijan

by "Jaxon Deal"

President Bush snubbed one of our best allies in the War on Terror by attempting to force American values on an independent nation's President. By insisting that Azerbaijan ruler Ilham Aliyev institute a "western style democracy" and by snubbing Mehriban, the Azerbaijan First Lady, the President has endangered both our overall Middle East strategy and the free flow of oil and gas to our Western European Allies.

I'd say that's just about right. One must remember, that the Post's primary agenda is not to advocate for the good of the people of the world, nor to advocate for the good of the American people; their agenda is to attack President Bush no matter what he does. Their agenda is to enable the Democrat Party to capture not just the House and Senate, but the White House as well, and they will do anything and say anything to accomplish that goal.

Liberals don't care about the people, they only care about their socialist agenda. Reporting the truth, or "speaking truth to power" (as the Democrats claim to do) is irrelevent. Political power is their only goal and they don't care who gets harmed in their pursuit of it. They believe that "once they get in control" they can then remedy any damage they do to the people by giving them more Middle-class welfare and lying to them. Their contempt for the American people knows no bounds.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Hey Deborah, How About A Conservative for Diversity?

I love a Liberals definition of diversity...not enough women and minority Liberals writing the same claptrap as those "white guys." For them, diversity is all about outward appearances, not about thought.

A Diversity of Opinion

By Deborah Howell
Sunday, December 10, 2006; Page B06

The Post needs more opinion writers and columnists who are of the female persuasion or are minorities. Overwhelmingly, Post columnists are white guys. Some are among the paper's best columnists, but more diversity would make The Post a richer paper.

Numerical equality is not what readers look for, but women and minorities want to see themselves well represented in the news and opinion pages of The Post. This is a remarkably diverse region, and that should be better reflected in columnist jobs.

When it comes to columnists, figuring out whom to count is complicated. I'm only counting those who write at least twice a month; I'm not including critics, super-niche columnists or reporters who write Notebook columns.

You want diversity, try putting a couple of Conservative writers on your (rapidly diminishing staff). It would be refreshing to see some opinions coming from outside of the box. You know like...say...America is the greatest power operating for good in the world, or say maybe, those guys in robes and beards are called terrorists and they are trying to kill Americans and bring down Western Civilization, or perhaps someone who just doesn't care what the French think about us? How about someone who believes in free enterprise, and who doesn't believe that making a profit is a bad thing?

What will it matter if you get another Liberal on the staff just because they wear a skirt or have darker skin? They will still be selling the same anti-American propaganda. You Liberals truly crack me up. The most obvious minority on the editorial staff of the Washington Post is a Conservative.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

That's Right Great Lakes Residents, 9/11 Never Happened

Perhaps a better headline for this article is "Colloquial Idiots Don't Believe I Could Happen Here." Man the anti-military Liberals just completely amaze me sometimes. These same idiots (I can't really think of a more appropriate word for them) were probable the first to scream at the Bush administration for "not doing enough" to protect our nation. We're not "checking enough shipping containers," "the Iraq War has made us less safe," etc. Too bad 9/11 didn't happen to the Sears Tower, they might be more amenable to the Coast Guards efforts then. This from the Washington Post:

Great Lakes Area Tries To Dodge A Bullet
Guard Urged to Drop Target-Practice Plan

By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 10, 2006; Page A01

CHICAGO -- U.S. Coast Guard vessels staging machine-gun target practice in the peaceable Great Lakes? George Heartwell does not like the idea, not one little bit. He questions the need, the risk and the appearance.

"I think our Canadian friends see us as trigger-happy cowboys," said Heartwell, mayor of Grand Rapids, Mich. "There simply have to be other ways and better ways."

In the name of defending the United States against terrorists, the Coast Guard proposes live-fire zones in all five Great Lakes, where gunners could perfect their skills on M-240B machine guns to be mounted on Lakes vessels. The weapons can fire hundreds of 7.62mm rounds a minute and send lead 2.3 miles downrange.

The Coast Guard, at a series of public hearings this fall, defended the 34 proposed zones as essential to its mission. Each zone, located at least five miles offshore, would be used perhaps two or three times a year for a few hours. Civilian boaters would be warned to stay away.

First the distortion, the liklihood of a small vessel mounted M-240B sending "lead 2.3 miles downrange" is very small unless they are firing at geese. Second, I don't give a rat's a$$ what our so called Canadian friends to the north think about us. They are about as much of a friend to America as the French. Actually I think it would be a good thing for them to think of us as "trigger-happy cowboys," I think of them as "Marx loving socialists."

Should the unthinkable happen and some sort of small armed Muslim terrorist team successfully scoot across those same lakes, these whiners will be the first to want to point fingers at the Coast Guard or the President or anyone else but themselves for what happens.

I sometimes think it really is too bad we can't just divide this country in two, half for Liberal idiots to build their Utopian disaster, and the other half for those of us who take our freedom, liberty, and security seriously.

Yeah, yeah, I know. 9/11 was an inside job, it never happened, we are the bad guys and the world is right to fear us. The Muslims waging the Global Islamic Jihad just want to be friends, but big ole mean America just won't let them. You people make me sick!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Ooh! Those Awful Republicans, How Dare They? (I Didn't Know They Were 2/3 in the Senate)

It always amazes me how the press can turn a phrase. "Republicans push through..." "Republicans muscled through..." I see that the vote in the Senate was 79-9 and in the House it was 367-45. I thought that there were only 56 Republicans in the Senate including the 10 or so RINO's and only 230 or so in the House. I somehow have to believe that if this was a bill of which Liberals in the press approved, this would be called a "glorious bi-partisan victory for the people."

Republicans push tax and trade bill through Congress
By ANDREW TAYLOR
Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Rejected by voters and limping off stage, the Republican-led Congress muscled through a sweeping bill reviving expired tax breaks, extending trade benefits for developing countries and protecting doctors from a big cut in Medicare payments.

The Senate cleared the bill for President Bush's signature early today by a 79-9 vote. Final adjournment loomed.

But Republicans dumped an unfinished budget on the Democrats about to take power, with the Senate barely meeting a midnight deadline to pass a stopgap spending bill putting the government on autopilot until Feb. 15.

The failure to pass budget bills for domestic agencies, said Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., amounted to "a blatant admission of abject failure by the most useless Congress in modern times."

The House, also working late into the night, acted first, easily passing the tax and Medicare provisions — along with a plan to open 8.3 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico to oil and gas drilling. The vote was 367-45. It passed the trade legislation by a narrower 212-184.

I would have thought that Mr. Obey and his crew of Left-wing extremists would be thrilled at the prospect of passing the required budget bills. The Republicans have left the playing field and are allowing to Democrats to demonstrate their superior capabilities to solve all of the problems about which they have been so vocal in whining. Instead they express no gratitude at all for this act of generosity.

Could it be, now that the Democrats have to "put-up or shut-up" they are getting cold feet. Perhaps, as those among us who are Conservatives have been saying, they have nothing to offer but the tired old failed socialist ideals they have tried so many times before, and they know that they will not be able to do anything better than that which Republicans have done and probably much worse, given their antipathy for capitalism and private enterprise.

They have been talking down the economy for the past five years without pause, now let's see them do better, or even half as well. I've already noticed how all the conversation about how bad the economy is doing has quietly shifted to "it's really not all that bad" and "perhaps we shouldn't move too fast in making changes."

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Tired of the Prima Donnas: Good Riddance Randy Pettitte

So Randy Pettitte is going to the Yankees for $16 million and an option, and it was a "difficult decision." Well tough! If loyalty to Houston fans was so important, this multi-multi millionaire would have accepted his paltry $12 million offer and stayed here. Surely he wouldn't starve on $4 million less. This in the Chronicle:

Pettitte heading back to Yankees

Pitcher to receive $16 million for '07; Astros deterred by player option for '08
By JOSE DE JESUS ORTIZ
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

Andy Pettitte chose to leave the Astros and return to the New York Yankees on Friday, getting a commitment for more money and years than the Astros were willing to give him.

Now, owner Drayton McLane must wonder if the team's refusal to give
Pettitte $14 million also will push away Roger Clemens.

After three seasons with his hometown Astros, Pettitte reached a one-year, $16 million deal for 2007 with a player option for another $16 million in 2008. The deal
is pending a physical. If he gets hurt next season, Pettitte won't take his option.

Pettitte would have re-signed with the Astros for $14 million and an option, but the Astros never budged from their $12 million offer for the man whose initial signing with the Astros pushed the franchise to the most exciting era in Texas baseball history.These guys are just a bunch of prima donnas with egos the size of Texas and no loyalty to anything but who gets the most money.

Now that's fine with me, and I applaud their getting as much money as they can get from these owners, but I get real tired of these tearful "Oh I wish I could stay but they just won't offer enough money," routines. Spare me, please! If it was really that important to play for the home crowd, they'd shut up, take the millions offered and thank God that they have been so blessed that they can earn more money than 99% of Americans will ever see and get to play for their home fans, who will never see that kind of money.

Clemmons is another of these whiney, cry baby, prima donnas. I blame his foot-dragging, "I will, I won't," money grubbing, game playing partially for our mediocre mid-season performance. If Clemmons wants to go, I say "Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out."

Like I said, I don't have any problem with greed and the desire to maximize your net worth, but once you have accrued $10 or 20 million in income, truthfully, how much more money do you need?

I hate to see the Astros lose a couple of good pitchers, but they paid Clemmons far too much for a mediocre performance, and as far as Petitte goes, his performance for the 2006 season was anything but stellar.

Go! Take you money, your family, and your Crocodile tears and leave. God Bless you and may you choke on the extra $4 million.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Washington D.C. vs. the Constitution of the United States and the 2nd Amendment

Well all of you gun owners out there, gear up for the next all out assault against your rights, now that the Democrats have taken over the asylum. This comes from Yahoo News:

Scope of 2nd Amendment's questioned

By MATT APUZZO
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys for the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals.

The city defended as constitutional its long-standing ban on handguns, a law that some gun opponents have advocated elsewhere. Civil liberties groups and pro-gun organizations say the ban in unconstitutional.

At issue in the case before a federal appeals court is whether the 2nd Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" applies to all people or only to "a well regulated militia." The Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue.

If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case in nearly 70 years to address the amendment's scope. The court disappointed gun owner groups in 2003 when it refused to take up a challenge to California's ban on high-powered weapons.

In the Washington, D.C. case, a lower-court judge told six city residents in 2004 that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who want guns for protection.

I would rather wait for the Supreme Court to gain another Justice who believes in the Constitution before they address this issue, but given the results of the last election, that seems to be highly improbable.

It is about time for the Supremes to earn their keep by restoring the Bill of Rights to it’s pre-Roosevelt status, as a inviolable limitation on the powers of the government, rather than the “just a list of preferences of our founders” to which it has been reduced by the six decades of judicio-legislative venturism engaged in by over-zealous justices who believe themselves to be greater and smarter than were our founding fathers. Such arrogance in those who sit on the bench is not unusual, merely uncalled for. We hire our judges and justices to interpret law, not make it.

Whether or not the SCOTUS will take this case is very much in question. As stated in the article, they refused to take up the question of the 2003 California ban on high-powered weapons. The SCOTUS has a long history of being reticent in addressing this issue…it’s in the Constitution somewhere about Justices having to be spineless jellyfish or something like that, I can’t seem to find it in there, but judging from the way the Justices behave, I know it’s there.

Why is it that the court, when it is balanced slightly toward the “originalist side, seems unwilling to address these cases, and when it is balanced to the Left, seem so eager to impose their will on the people? I suppose the answer lies within the question, but how are we ever to return this nation’s laws to sanity if no “originalist court is ever willing to redress the errors of prior over-zealous activist courts?

Anyway as to the particulars of the case, were it not for the afore mentioned over-zealous lower court judges and Justices who have populated the Supreme Court in the past, there would be no need for concern as to the eventual outcome of it. There is no real question as to what the Bill of Rights says, or as to what the Framers intended in their words. I guess at this point, I am going to be forced to repeat that which I have already said so often:

The Bill of Rights is not an enumeration of the Rights granted to the people of the United States by their government, it is an enumeration of the limits of power granted to the government by the people of the United States of America. The Framers of the Constitution were quite clear in their various writings that certain Unalienable Rights are endowed to the people by their Creator. Those rights include, but are not limited to, Life Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (Liberals please take note that the word is “Pursuit” not “Attainment”). As the “People” have all the rights, and the government none, only the People have the ability to grant power to their government.

With the knowledge that a government must have certain powers if it is to govern, our forefathers very carefully laid them out, along with how the government was to be structured, in the Constitution. Knowing the natural proclivity of governments to seek greater and greater power “for the good of the people,” and after much doubt and debate, they added a “bill of rights” so that those in government would always be aware of the limits our Founders placed on their powers. Some of our Forefathers, Alexander Hamilton for one, questioned the wisdom including a bill of rights and thereby of forbidding government from doing that for which they had no power to do in the first place, in Federalist Paper #84. He correctly foresaw that those “who would usurp” would argue that “if the government has no power to abridge a certain right, why would the Framers have expressly forbidden it to do so?”

That is precisely what the City of Washington D.C. is arguing in this case. “Why would the 2nd Amendment contain the words ‘a well regulated militia’ if the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right of the people?” The responses to these idiotic questions have been repeated endlessly to the inattentive ears of those whose lives are ruled by fear of their fellow citizens. People like Senators Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein, as well as those involved in the various campaigns to disarm the American citizen know them well and yet choose to ignore them, preferring their own twisted opinions over those of our Founding Fathers.

1. “Well regulated” at the time of writing meant “well ordered,” or “orderly and efficient,” not “under the authority of a governmental entity.”
2. “Militia” as it was then defined (and still is) is a force composed of all of the citizens thus it was (and arguably still is) necessary for our citizens to have free and unfettered access to weapons capable of effectively fighting a “contemporary military conflict,” i.e. any and all “small arms” as defined by the military.
3. Our forefathers knew that an armed citizenry, as described above, would be the ultimate insurance against a government, or individuals in government, seeking to usurp all power and abridge all citizens’ rights.
4. “Life,” being one of those “unalienable rights,” the people must have at hand the means to preserve their lives from hostile acts. If anything, this is more true of America today than it was in colonial days.
5. The Courts have already ruled in numerous cases that the police have “no Constitutional obligation” to protect individual citizens, thus if a citizen is going to be protected, he (or she) must be armed in a manner so as to be capable of doing so. The restrictions as laid out in Washington D.C. violate that fundamental right by forcing citizens to be at the mercy of those who would do them harm, and render them dependent on a police force which as we have already been told has no obligation to protect them.

It is time for the Justices of our Supreme Court to stand up and confirm the wisdom of our constitution’s framers, or just go ahead and wad the old sheet of parchment up and toss it in the trash can. I know that some Justices like Bryer, Souter, and Ginsberg would prefer to write their own version which would fall in line with their internationalist’s opinion of what a constitution should be.

If for no other reason than his Federal Judiciary appointments, I can say “Thank God for President Bush. There are many things in the President’s agenda with which I take exception, but thanks to his efforts, the current federal bench is as close as it has ever been (in my lifetime) to an “originalist” or “constitutionalist” bench. There is still a long way to go, but any aspirations towards that goal must now await a Republican victory (hopefully in 2008). Until that day, gun owners will be at the mercy of our President’s willingness to use his veto power, and our SCOTUS’s willingness to abide by the Constitution rather than create their own.

Quotations from our Founding Fathers supporting our right as citizens to “keep and bear arms,” abound, as they were not hesitant to make their opinion of centralized government known.

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. ---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

We established however some, although not all its [self-government’s] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; ---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...[where] the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. ---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it. ---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers.--George Mason, Virginia Constitutional Convention, 1788

[All quotations courtesy of GunCite]

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below