Selection, Interpretation and Hypocrisy

You know where this is going, do you not!?!

Well, you know that it means more slaps at the looney left, although I might be trying to pull too many things together. Perhaps a better title would be "random thoughts".

Item 1 : telling the guy that wrote the law how to interpret it

Conservatives have, for years, complained about liberal activism in the courts. "Honest" liberals will actually stand up and tell the truth ... they want to change the Constitution because, after all, it is a "living document": basically it is subject to their (the judges') whims ... or at least it is OK as long as it is a liberal judge rewriting the Constitution. The more dangerous crew, of course, are the liberal clowns who actually pretend to be extracting their opinions from The Constitution, or more often the "intent" of the founders ... the latter (intent arguments) are required by the liberals more and more now, since much of the new liberal ideology is so far out of line with The Constitution that even the most creative fantasies of the judges cannot pass the smell test.

The key (for this discussion) is that you have the radical elements of the Court trying to convince us that they are actually getting into the heads of the founders of this nation. Yet, I have seen plenty of examples recently where Democrats cannot even get the right interpretation of "intent" when the guy is literally standing there in front of them, let alone some divinely inspired individuals that were born almost 300 years ago.

I saw a classic example yesterday evening of why this has gotten so out of hand over the last few years. John Kasich was filling in for Bill O'Reilly, and was discussing the situations of illegal aliens (or their children) being granted "In state" tuitions to state run universities, in complete violation of a federal law specifically written to ban such practices. The specifics of the law basically say that states cannot give illegals special breaks that are denied to US citizens and legal immigrants.

The "what planet are you from?" moment came when the idiot arguing on behalf of granting illegals special treatment asserted that Kasich's interpretation of the law was incorrect, to which Kasich replied "I wrote the law!" Now, later on in the discussion it was not as clear that Kasich was the original author, but at least he indicated that (if he did not write it) he played a key role in shaping the legislation and was a strong proponent ... the bottom line was that he knew a lot more about "intent" than this moron did. To cap it off, Kasich actually read the critical portion of the law which NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY, can honestly imply to mean anything other than the fact that states were being specifically banned from doing exactly what the defiant states were doing.

Note: I am not arguing the merits of the law here, or even whether or not the federal government has the constitutional authority to inflict such restrictions on state governments. If the states want to go to the mat on this issue, then this should be resolved on its merits. I am discussing the pure arrogance, blatant stupidity, and complete dishonesty of the position of this goofball liberal. Arrogance : that this buffoon came off like he knew more about it than the others in the discussion, or that he could lie through his teeth about what was really in the law ... stupidity : apparently not having a clue that one of his debate opponents was an author (i.e. the one who DEFINES the intent) of the law ... and dishonesty - that he simply lied through his teeth about what the implications of the law are.

Item 2 : Colmes chastises a Sheriff for actually doing his job

In a Hannity and Colmes segment, they had on a Sheriff from Alabama (not sure of the state, I was actually doing stuff around the house and could not focus on all of the details) who was forwarding information that his county has on illegal aliens to the feds. During the segment, Colmes actually suggested that (among other reasons) this is a bad thing to do because it might be distracting attention from more important things. Ignoring the fact that the guest blew that argument out of the water (it is a simple download off of their computers), I was fascinated at how stupid that argument was ... normally Colmes puts on a pretty good debate with reasonable points of discussion.

This argument Colmes advanced is just so stupid that I had to comment ... but to demonstrate, all you have to do is turn the table on some liberal idols ...

Why waste time insuring access to abortion clinics? ... the protesters are not hurting anybody and there are certainly far more important things for police to worry about than whether or not 2 or 3 women can dispose of their children

Why bother with the 'hate crimes' prosecutions? ... you already got the guy on the crime itself and the time in court could be used for better things

The whole DeLay thing ... doesn't this prosecutor have anything more important to do than fabricate charges? Are you telling me there is not a single "real" crime going on in his county?

You get my point. It appears the liberal stand that Colmes is pushing is that only the worst criminals (in the eyes of liberals) are worth going after.

Item 3 : No matter how many times ...

In another of a long line of examples of the real lunatic fringe ... this guy gets on the Tony Snow (radio) show and is just spewing the Howard Dean lunatic rant talking points ... even dredging up the 2000 Florida thing: Supremes, suppress the black vote, brother is the governor (by the way, did you ever ask a liberal to explain exactly why that matters?), etc. etc. etc. I was not on long enough to know what the original subject was all about, but it was just a stream of the tired old Michael Mooronisms. Tony Snow just destroyed the clown ... I mean systematic destruction of EVERY point ... without even a flinch.

Two things struck me ...

1) doesn't the lunatic left realize that professionals are more than prepared for this? Ignoring the fact that most of the confirmation of how big a lie the left is living has actually been done by the major liberal (redundant) media outlets ... most recently the Chicago Trib blowing apart the Democrap misinformation campaign about "Bush lies on Iraq". It is one thing for a leftie to open the discussion amongst like minded (i.e. really stupid people living in denial) loons, but to actually call into a national show with a conservative host is just really dumb.

2) The second thing that struck me is sort of along the lines of the first ... taking on a professional and then trying the "hit and run" approach (perhaps more accurately defined as throwing a lot of manure on the wall and hoping some sticks): dropping ridiculous talking point lies as assertions and then trying to "change the subject" or pretend like the host brought it up or whatever. It was so pathetically childish and petty that Tony was never phased and never blinked ... heck he almost knew it was coming ... each lie was debunked and every dodge was smothered. I think the Democraps were fairly successful in this technique early on and just cling to it even though Rumsfeld (et al) have taught us the most powerful antidote ... destroy both the assertion and the debating point.

I guess the only way to wrap that up was to ask democrats/liberals to look at themselves to realize how stupid they look, but more importantly give consideration to the fact that the longer they stick to these lies, the more dangerous they look to an ever increasing number of people.

New Orleans Police Shooting and Thugs in Milwaukee

I return from my "JESUS CHRIST BIRTHDAY CELEBRATION" hiatus to cover some items that I just saw pop up on the radar over the last few days. This may seem like a weird pair of items to tie together, so I will do my best to do a good job.

For those of you unfamiliar with the situations:

1) there is (yet another) home video of a cops / robber situation ... this time showing dozens of New Orleans cops with guns drawn, surrounding a big, nasty dude with a knife. The video did not catch the end of the situation, where apparently the guy jumped at the cops and was killed by a whole bunch of bullets (one report had that there were at least 10 shells, but I did not see any press conferences indicating how many officers actually shot).

2) In Milwaukee, a 50-something year old black man lies near death after he was pummeled by some viscious thugs in broad daylight on a busy city street. Reports are that he was trying to drive down the road where a group of teenagers were lounging on the street. He honked to get them to move, and the mob got mad and pulled him from the car, beating him senseless.

Before going into this ... let me make sure to point out that I do not have all of the details as to what the alternatives were in the New Orleans case ... I do not know how or why certain methods were tried or not (Taser ??), etc. The few reports that I have heard seemed to indicate that they tried pepper spray, but not the "shock" type weapons. I also do not know if there are any rules or whatever that prevented them from trying.

We have reaped what we have sown

I have pointed out in numerous posts that, as a nation, we keep ignoring the unintended consequences of our actions. Some demand "anti-torture" laws, but they do not care to understand that this will result in more death and destruction (in both directions ... we limit our abilities to get information and we diminish the "usefulness" of attempting to capture combatants instead of just killing them). Another example is how we apply Geneva conventions to non-uniformed combatants (terrorists), ignoring the fact that it will inevitably lead to the death of countless civilians (since we cannot distinguish good guys from the bad).

So I have to honestly wonder how much the "softer gentler tone" that we have forced upon the police has resulted in these unfortunate events. In the New Orleans case, I have got to think that a supervisor on the scene should have simply ordered 2 cops to plug about 4 shots into the man's hips/butt/leg ... bringing him down but not killing him. In the Milwaukee case, I would offer up my own personal opinion that a steady string of soft and pathetically weak police chiefs have left that city in chaos: nothing like when Chief Harold Brier was known to have an extremely tough and nasty force behind him.

In this nation, particularly in big cities ... the police have been neutered by countless accusations of brutality, endless second guessing, and hounding by politicians who seem to grant more leniency to the law breakers than the law enforcers. Shooting your gun at an armed, crazed assailant, even with dozens of other cops and video as witnesses, would likely have landed the New Orleans cop on (at best) administrative leave, more likely losing his badge. If a Milwaukee cop would have happened upon the thugs obstructing traffic and would have pulled out his baton and dented their skulls, we would see every poverty pimp in the country (Jesse, Al, Louie, etc) parading down Wisconsin Avenue for weeks on end. In either case, a parade of ambulance chasing weasels would have reaped a windfall of million dollar verdicts on behalf of "damaged" clients.

Yet, if we allowed the police to have more ability to be tough or even ruthless (by today's standards), both of these situations would likely have resulted in a far less violent conclusion. The guy with the knife (even if he was trying to get himself killed) would know he was going to end up with a bunch of bullets in his butt. The thugs in Milwaukee would not be "wilding" in the streets if they knew the likely result was a concussion. Having our officers live in fear results in far greater violence than forcing the criminals to live in fear.

The result is that we have a man who is dead, and one who is very near death.

Is there a good answer?

Those of you who read often know that I chastise liberals for doing a lot of whining without offering up answers. In this case, however, I do not know that I have a comprehensive answer.

I doubt we can go back in time to the days where the police could be tough without fear of reprisal. There has got to be a balance to give the police the ability to create that fear (in the bad guys) without allowing a "police state" existence where even law abiding citizens are scared. Regardless, we should all be able to agree that the pendulum has swung WAY too far against the good guys, and everybody is worse off.

We definitely need to look at levelling the field and creating a better environment for the police. This could include requiring a very high burden of proof for criminal court, including a much stronger ephasis on benefit of the doubt when it comes to split second emergency decisions. In addition, we have to put to an end the ability of the dregs of society (ambulance chasers, poverty pimps and their criminal constituency) to put the peace-keepers on trial in civil courts. Finally, and most importantly, we need to begin to put real and very serious constraints on those who seek to gain notoriety by jumping in the middle of these cases in vain attempts to draw attention to themselves ... generally distorting facts in the situation.

High 1832 guys ... where are all the polls now?

Sometimes I really do not know why I am such a nice guy ... time and time again I tell the lefties exactly how things are going to play out. I keep telling these people that if they persist in certain activities, they will lose big. I guess maybe I ain't so nice ... since I do realize that most of the folks I irritate are never going to listen to what I say.

The funny thing about getting things right a lot is ... it really is not all that hard.

Why?

Well, because I am the mainstream, and they are the fringe. I know how "normal" people think because "I is one". I am not so arrogant as to believe that I know more than everybody else. My predictions come through time and time and time again because I live in the real world, am very observant of the world around me, and I use plain, ol' fashioned common sense ... whereas the leftie crowd along with their pals in the liberal party and the press (redundant), always seem to be "surprised" by things.

Today's Application

I bring this up because I just heard something about President Bush's poll numbers bouncing back up into the upper forties. Funny, I don't see liberals quoting all the polls now ... I wonder why? Actually, that is not true ... the liberals keep quoting the polls that were taken months ago.
I will once again give any leftie goofs reading this some advice (which I am sure you will ignore) ... it did not work for John Kerry in the elections (quoting months old unemployment numbers), and it will not work for you now. Actually, it works in the opposite direction ... by calling attention to the numbers, Kerry actually focused people on the fact that the numbers were exploding in a positive direction ... making President Bush's point for him.

How does this tie back to the opening remarks? Well, I told you that the poll numbers had nothing to do with the success of the "Misinformation campaign" being waged by Dean, Pelosi and Reid. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, believes anything coming out of these bozos. I also told you that a good amount of the bad numbers were coming from CONSERVATIVES who were pissed off at the Bush administration for various purposes, not the least of which was the fact that he was letting the Democraps get away with (what everybody knew) was total manure. Now that GW is standing up for the fight ... his numbers have returned very quickly to reflect the conservatives, and will steadily climb as the "non-committed" realize how far over the edge the Democrats have gone.

IED for the Democraps

The whole domestic spying debate is going to be a disaster for Democrats, once again the lefties are going to get their asses kicked by the voters ... and at this point there is little they can do about it exactly because they have committed themselves to another disasterous course. The whole NSA, domestic spy thing is going explode in their faces with neutron proportions ... there may be little left of the Democrap party except for the buildings. Ignoring the fact that the American people are all for granting the government unfettered access to "random" views of what is going on in the internet, over cell phones, etc ... and then going after "suspicious" terrorist situations without a warrant (because it is not possible to get the warrant until you nail down details). The worse that is going to happen is that there will be a demand for a modification to the laws to match the situation on the ground.

The real explosion, however, is going to be when the lies about domestic tracking being something new are revealed. The prior administration engaged in all sorts of domestic tracking for all sorts of reasons, one of which was to damage political foes. Remember the recordings of cell phone conversations by members of congress (Newt, if I am not mistaken)? Remember the FBI files by Hillary? We are going to have a situation here where we have clearcut examples of a "good" use of that tactic (trying to intervene against terrorists), and a "bad" use of that tactic (Bill Clinton's personal quest for power), and the Democraps come out in a bad way no matter what direction the argument goes. What is fascinating is that this will be a disaster at the very doorstep of der Hillary ... something where she cannot hide behind a "moderate" facade. She was up to her snivelling nose in these political spy scandals.

The Terrorist Bill of Rights

The world has changed ... no doubt. I reflect on the stories that I was told of the World War experiences ... from the soldiers who fought to "civilians" (as children) on both sides. At that time, "supporting" the effort was effectively law ... you would be arrested for protesting, and if you had any misgivings about the leadership, you certainly did so quietly. It would be safe to say that most of the liberal leadership of today would have likely been shot for acting the way they have (at least this is the visual I like to picture in my mind).

I reflect on this in light of RINO McCain, who found yet another cause to champion in "Anti-torture": and has produced legislation that will do for our soldiers (and others) what his campaign finance law did for (or, perhaps better stated, "what the law has done to") us in elections.

The Question we have to ask ourselves is: "Why should we try so hard to make life easy for the terrorists?"

The "Highcon" road: Think it through

This war of words is being fought out in 30 second sound bites ... torture, detainees, etc. That may make for sound political commercials, but it will have deadly consequences. Never mind the scenarios where we capture a major terrorist figure in the middle of a pending attack and now we have to have Jesse Jackson and F. Lee Bailey in the room to protect his rights.

Boom, there's the mushroom cloud ... but at least the terrorist had his rights and we can all be thankful the Constitution that we foolishly applied to him is protected by radiation proof glass!

To understand the situation (something the liberals, McCain included, do not want you to do) ... go back to the Geneva conventions, i.e. the laws of war. They specifically called out that the rules ONLY apply to uniformed soldiers. Why??? Think it through ... think about all the implications. The uniforms make it easier to figure out who is who ... it gives opposing forces a chance to spare civilians. It also protects the soldier POWs themselves for those who adhere to the constraints ... recognizing that the person is generally a "pawn" in a much bigger game and, while disabling a POW's ability to fight, prevents the soldier from having to suffer more than necessary.

I will ignore the fact that the US, for the most part, has consistently treated captured opposition forces fairly well, INCLUDING THE TERRORISTS; whereas we have only rarely been accorded the same level of concern (as McCain himself can attest) ... a jab at all those idiots that claim that if we are tough, our enemies will feel justified doing bad things. So, exactly when did they NOT, regardless of what we did?

The intentional consequences of the limits placed upon Geneva conventions is to position non-uniformed combatants that hide among civilians in a "no-mans-land" ... pretty much open game to any forces that capture them. The reason ... these terrorists put civilians in the worst possible position, not to mention the leadership hierarchy of the forces (probably the bigger reason for the rules, but I digress). The conventions intentionally desire for there to be extreme consequences for terrorist activities simply because the opposition forces are effectively left with no choices but total annihilation of the population ... if I cannot figure out who the enemy is in a crowd, I will wipe out the whole crowd.

McCain's law is another in a long list of "feel good" measures that will not only put US citizens in danger but countless civilians. It will result in the direct slaughter of countless of civilians by forces who might have a desire to try to avoid civilian casualties. By lifting the possibility of severe repurcussions for non-uniformed combat, our enemies inf the future are simply going to go after us without uniforms ... after all, if you were our enemy and knew that we had to adhere to all sorts of rules that you do not have to follow, what would you do?

Again, this totally ignores the fact that the US Military is already not engaging in torture in an official capacity.

Just when we have them on the ropes ...

I am sorry, but Osama must read this garbage and just laugh hysterically ... we have been tearing his organization apart all over the place, we just come off of a major victory in Iraq, the terrorists screw up major by blowing up a Muslim wedding, the opposition and anti-war kooks suffer setback after setback; and this MORON McCain takes away the stage and paints America as the evil state that tortures and violates all sorts of human rights.

I beg the people of Arizona to put this ass out of our misery.

A lesson lost on the Democrat Party ...

A famous quote ... "those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them"

Well, it is hard to determine how the Democrat Party has done such a lousy job in history, given that most of these laughably rich and shameless attended prestigious private schools (albeit nearly flunking out, if the last two presidential offerings by the Dems is any indication). Nonetheless ... they should all be made to study Teddy R:

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."

The most important thing on Harry Reid's plate ...

Are you kidding me? Hairball Reid and Chuckie Schmuckie actually stood up yesterday, and demanded that Bush reveal who outed Valerie Plame.

I am just dumbfounded ... I really, really cannot believe that Democraps are this stupid. I mean, it would be one thing to say nothing about anything ... and this totally ignores the fact that Democrats, as Americans, should be cheering!

Earth to democrats ... if you do not destroy these people (figuratively ... as in pick new leaders), you are done ... dead ... over and out.

I mean ... oh, forget it ... I have no idea what I mean ... words cannot express how stupid it is to try to rekindle the Plame case during what could certainly turn out to be the biggest event in a century.

OK ... for you liberals ... please try this ... project yourself to 12 noon yesterday (15Dec2005) ... I want you to think about exactly what you would want to say ... what point you would want to articulate ... the position of your party. Imagine yourselves as the leaders of the out-of-power, but second most powerful party in the free world.

Does the outing of Valerie Plame come up in the top 5? Top 10? Nowhere on the planet? Most sane people (even liberals) would vote c). Most americans would vote c). Hairball and Chuckie voted something not even on the plate ... they voted it MOST IMPORTANT!

Now, is this right wing, radical crap (to you liberals)? Allright ... let me ask you this ... if Gore/Kerry/Clinton was president ... yes, yes, I know, conservative friends: "God forbid" ... but bear with me ... (back to liberals) what would be most important right now, today??? Nevermind that these cowards would NEVER have gotten Iraq to this point, but Kerry could have inherited this victory from Bush ... so what would you be talking about?

Now, take that farther ... if on a day like today ... Republicans brought up ... oh, I don't know ... travelgate ... what would you be saying?

Oh yeah? How exactly did you react when some radical nuts brought up Monica when Clinton bombed the baby formula factory? This is a thousand times more important ... a REAL ELECTION IN IRAQ ... and liberals are bringing up Plame?

Now, some conservative fun

OK ... first I have to admit that this idea is stolen from my liberal pals over at 1832. A few weeks ago they did an article parody on a couple of Republican candidates for governor of Wisconsin.

I want you all to imagine the conversation between Hairball and da Schmuckie before this press conference ...

"Damn, Chuckie ... I thought we had the world ... we owned the Iraq issue, oil prices were impossible, we hit the big 2000 ... seriously, I almost allowed myself to believe we could take back one of the houses."

"Yeah, Harry ... it was looking pretty good, eh? I mean, Bush refused to fight and we could say anything we want and get away with it ... almost like the good ol' days before blogs and Fox"

"Yeah ... I guess we kinda screwed up, though ... took a little too much from Moore and Move-On ... why the heck do we keep walking into that trap?"

"Well, you know, its that damn Rove, I'll bet ... He just tells everybody to shut up and we just keep talking and talking until we say something totally stupid"

"You know ... I just think we got so accustomed to our pals in New York covering for us when we say the totally stupid things and burying our old tapes. Where the heck are these blogs getting all our old stuff from? Every time I say something, 15 seconds later the internet is full of tapes from last year where I said the opposite."

"Dunno ... so what the hell are we going to do now? Dean keeps screwing us up, and Nancy set up John and now we all look like idiots ... how the hell are we going to position ourselves now?"

"Pretend like we're happy?"

"Are you nuts? No friggin' way are we going to be able to spin on that one ... the anti-war freaks are already crappin' all over Hillary ... we don't want them on our necks"

"So what?"

"Let's pretend like it isn't happening"
...

Go ahead ... play it out ... you'll get a great laugh.

Quick Takes on Iraq

If you want to really stick it to your lefty, liberal acquaintances ... earnestly beg them to try to be happy about the incredible success of the elections in Iraq. Then, when they simply cannot say anything good ... point out the bald-faced lie that Democrap leaders have been saying about how they really do want victory, support the troops, whatever ... the hell they do.

From a 77-year old grandma in Iraq regarding the elections ... I'm paraphrasing ... "If they don't want to support the Americans and thank the Americans, and Bush ... President George Bush ... then they can go to hell!". Ya gotta love the old folks, eh? She did not mention Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, John Murtagh or any of the other Surrendercrats by name ... but she knew it was only a soundbite!

In other news ... heard earlier this week ... and TOTALLY UNREPORTED as far as I can tell ... a bunch of Iraqi's walked into a police headquarters (I believe it was in Ramadi) dragging one of Al Queada's top people in Iraq, who had obviously seen better days. This was not the police, or military, or even Americans ... it was regular old Iraqi people who were sick of Al Queada's crap ... so instead of calling the police or turning in a tip to the Americans, they broke down the guys' door, kicked his butt and dragged him to the police!

Man ... you have got to love that! (unless, of course, you are a Democrat).

The Democrats keep trying to undermine the military and the war effort, keep underselling the Iraqis, and keep underestimating Bush. I have argued that they had some success because there was no response by Bush, but it had not been as successful as it could have been because the alternate media has kept a much larger portion of the population informed as to what is really going on (as has the military people returning from Iraq) than what has been possible in the past.

You can only win by lying so many times ... and under conditions where people feel safe. Eventually people get sick of your manure ... the major media outlets are finding this out far too late. Given that people refuse to forget 9-11 (which is the only chance that Democraps have of getting any kind of power), I do not think that people will feel safe enough to allow liberals any power anytime soon.

Tookie is dead ... and nothing has changed

Tookie is dead ... society has not changed one bit. The radical anti-death penalty kooks' argument about the all the good he could do is moot. The pro-death penalty side's argument that somehow this will deter crime is not quite as moot, it is just plain wrong.

The anti-death penalty crowd once again demonstrated why they probably will never be successful in ever winning the day, especially in the new world. The major news media did their best to paint ol' Tookie as this second incarnation of Christ Jesus, with big biceps; and once again were handed their ass by the "alternate media" broadcasting the brutal images of Tookie's victims. This guy ended up being the poster child FOR the death penalty ... and when honest, decent folks (even run-of-the-mill liberals) were presented with ALL of the facts, the radicals were marginalized all the more. Heck, even ol' Jesse thought he could squeeze some racism points on this one, scoring yet another embarassment in the long line of failures he has had over the last 5 years or so.

I am fascinated at how dumb liberals continue to be in terms of totally overestimating their control of the information flow. How many times do they need to lose before they finally realize they no longer have absolute control of the information people have access to? Do they not realize that at least a good percentage of Americans get pissed off when they are lied to (like being told Tookie is this big, lovable teddy bear right before people see his victim, a picture of a woman with half her head blown off)? If you really want to have an impact on abolishing execution as a punishment, you need to stop rallying behind brutal, detestable scum like Tookie.

The pro-death penalty crowd at best is break even, with perhaps some points scored in victory because of how dumb the anti-execution crowd played this. The pro-death crowd scores best when the argument comes up while the crime is still fresh on the minds of the public, not 20+ years later when most folks cannot even tell you the criminal's name, let alone the victims.

My view

Despite my strong conservative views, or maybe because of them, I am opposed to the death penalty. I believe that my views are consistent ... I want "smaller" government because I generally distrust government and assume it is either corrupt or incompetent. If I think this way about government in general, why would the justice department wing be the exception? So as far as I am concerned, these should not be the ones who have the capacity to hold life/death of "We the People". Actually, the justice department has its problems, but is on one side of the issue and are probably the best of the lot. The other guys in this game are defense lawyers, judges, and ultimately politicians ... so the levels keep dropping lower and lower and lower.

No doubt there are "poster children" for the death penalty ... Tookie being a prime example. However, there are many more "poster children" within the ranks of elected officials and other government operatives which should cause anyone to reasonably question whether capital punishment should be in their hands. I am not arguing that we need a "perfect" system to be able to justly apply this punishment, just that it has to be a helluva lot more perfect than it is now.

For crying out loud, we just had the supreme court rule that it is OK for the government to throw people out of their houses so that the rich and shameless can build themselves bigger and better yacht clubs.

Un-righteous Indignation

Was driving yet another moving van cross the desert and on to DFW, and flipped on the Sunday morning news programs on the radio (I assume a rebroadcast of the TV shows). I ended up yelling at the radio ... man do these lefties even have a clue how out of touch they are?

The "Meet the Press" interview had the moderator ... Tim Russert ... talking to the second worst Secretary of State in US History, Madeline Albright, with "the shadow of the Maverick" Lyndsey Graham (hopefully soon-to-be ex-Senator from South Carolina). The conversation got onto the "tone of the debate" ... basically talking about how ugly it was getting, with the poster child for this segment being the idiot head of the DNC, Howard "Surrender" Dean. Both guests basically talked about how unfortunate it was that the tone was so ugly ...

but then the truth comes out.

Russert put Sen. Graham on the spot, confronting him with the "White Flag" ad on the RNC site. Never mind the fact that this ONLY appears on the RNC site, as far as I know ... not national TV, newspapers, radio, etc. In any case ... Graham effectively says pull it down, that the RNC is out of bounds (more on that later). All-in-all, this is an easy one for Graham to hit out of the park ... half the reason he is on TV is because he is willing to sell out his own.

So how does Albright respond to this outreach? She calls for the Democrats to tone down their rhetoric and engage in a reasonable debate, right? Hell no ... she immediately begins the justification of Democrat tactics ... blame Bush, Bush/Cheney must be investigated, blah blah blah. This in the face of Russert literally quoting Albright to herself (a few minutes earlier, the quote coming from an interview in 2004) with taking the exact opposite position that the defeatist lefties are now pushing for.

Thank God that Bush and the Republicans are finally engaging the ideologically bankrupt Democraps on these issues, and the American people are responding. Take note, "moderate" RINOs who keep calling for (what ends up being unilateral) toning down of the rhetoric ... Albright had a chance to step away from the nutcase rhetoric of the leaders of that party, but instead stepped right in the manure ... Republican outreaches continue to be met with backhanded bitch-slaps (and this from a "diplomat"?).

The Democrats, under the wonderful leadership of Dr. Demento ... have painted themselves into the "losers" corner, and they are going to pay the price.

So many times Bush/Rove have handed the Dems their ass (pardon the pun), and I have questioned what the heck they are up to before the amazing victories ... why would they not fight back. Time and time again the "tactic" of not responding and allowing the libs to become ever more frantic and lunatic in their attacts, has worked. Hopefully I was wrong on this one as well, and the good guys will reap yet another major victory.

I mentioned in a much earlier post how I thought the Dems should actually gain some seats back in the mid-terms, for no other reason than this idea in the American psyche about "balance" ... besides this has been the history of many generations that Bush has so far completely blown away. However, I also added that the Democrats are so screwed up, so out-of-touch with reality, that the American people may not even be able to hold their noses and vote for these jerks. While it is obviously too soon to speculate ... the trend seems to be that the lunatic liberals have not learned anything and continue to alienate the Democrats from the rest of the country.

We'll see.

RNC "Defeat" ad

One thing that bothers me about Sen. Graham's RINO call for pulling down the defeat ad ... the vast majority of the dialogue in the ad is the direct recordings of the Democrap leadership! I mean, WE are getting THEIR message out, and they are whining and crying about this being dirty pool? What this proves is that the Democrap leftie kooks which has become their leadership, are so out of touch with the American people that when they hear themselves talk it sounds like radical garbage!!!

CIA "outing"

No, not the joke that is being perpetrated against Karl Rove and pals, but the NY Slimes, et al, revealing critical information on who is working with us.

A very good question that must be asked ... exactly who is over at the CIA giving out this information?

Rush and the like often times comment about the "below the line" people in the federal government ... the major players who are supposed to work for the administration. They argue that a lot of these guys are lefties, and actively work against a Republican administration, lying Joe Wilson and Plame amongst the most recent.

In these situations, however, it seems like it is being pulled off in the CIA ... which should scare the heck out of everybody given how critical this function is in this type of war. First you have Wilson ... questions about why a flunkie loser would be sent on a mission like they did under some ridiculously loose conditions ... and now you have reporters printing information on CIA operations around the world.

What the heck is going on over there?

When does free speech end and treason start?

Note: I am fully aware that the term "treason" has a legal definition, and if I have it correct the term applies during declared war only. Nonetheless, I use the term to underscore the seriousness of the actions and moreso to underscore the fact that we are in totally uncharted waters here ... how exactly does Congress declare "war" against an ideology?

The New York Times, in a blatent and aggressive act against America and her allies, revealed information about CIA operations in European countries. There is NO explanation for this other than the Slimes wants to undermine US intelligence gathering operations by putting pressure on these countries to end their cooperation with us. This totally ignores the fact that these bastards just painted a huge target for terrorists on the lives of any operatives working in the identified operations, let alone the citizens of the countries that are working with us.

If you talk to anybody that actually tries to defend this action, here is the question you have to ask ... exactly how is it in the interest of the readership of the Slimes (with the possible exception of their friends in terrorist circles) to know which countries are allowing CIA operations?

As an aside, it will be VERY interesting to watch the Democrat / liberal (redundant) response to this story. Given their asinine pretense of indignation over the so-called "outing" of Valerie Plame ... remember all the accusations about how Karl Rove put a covert operative's life in danger (nevermind the fact that Valerie had not actually been part of anything secret in years, and all the D.C. types knew who she was and who she worked for). In this case, you have the NY Slimes painting a big target on millions of citizens of these countries for Al Queda ... putting their lives on the line. It also makes it a lot easier for terrorists to improve the possibility of shooting down one of our jets, given that the Slimes pinpointed the locations where they are operating.

I doubt that there are too many legal mechanisms that the Federal government can invoke against the Times ... perhaps a deep investigation to see if any classified information was released and, more importantly, a seizure of all of their systems to see if they hold any additional information that they should not have. However, at the very least the Federal Government can revoke any and all "press passes" to any of the employees of this wretched organization. We may not be able to shut them up completely, but the least we can do is to make it a lot more difficult for them to undermine our efforts.