'Senate's Leader Veers From Bush Over Stem Cells'
'Nancy Reagan hails top Republican's change of heart on stem cells'
It will be curious to see how this rift plays out. One of the domestic issues that President Bush holds dear is the 'right to life' initiatives. Though, on the other hand, President Bush has not always been the decisive leader on the domestic front. Of all the issues....is this to be Bill Frist's marquee issue?
Consistently, Democratic Party coffers are filled with larger donations than that of Republican Party coffers. Yes, statistically, it is fact (not an editorial opinion) that the average size of a donation per donee by a Republican is smaller than that of a Democrat. This due, in large part, to the consistent and un-dying support of the Democratic Party through union leadership.
This coming worry is highlighted this by Robert Novak in his editorial. The entire situation is somewhat anyway ironic with the standard practices of the union members versus their leaders; the constituents of a union are the traditional 'red-state,' blue-collar workers that comprise the soul of our heartland...and the unions' leadership pours funding into Democratic Party coffers. The illustrated map that outlines the county by county support for President Bush states emphatically that this is a dichotomy.
"The president and his right-wing Supreme Court think it is 'okay' to have the government take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your house is," Dean said, not mentioning that until he nominated John Roberts to the Supreme Court this week, Bush had not appointed anyone to the high court."
I have not heard a Democrat yet use this tactic. The most conservative members of the Court were in the dissent of that opinion. The judicial activists, and the only two Democratic appointees, stripped the 'little guy" of one his most basic rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution (private property). Silly me, I thought it was the Democrats and their activists judges that were out to be champions of the "little guy." Even if John Roberts were nominated beforehand, it would not have changed the outcome of this decision, Mr. Dean!
It is just so good to hear that the spokesman and leader for the Democrats is keeping up the stupendous job! With "enemies" like this, who needs "friends."
But, what is the solution? I wish I had the answer and hope you share your opinion.
Assuming that these figures are accurate; what is missing from this story? This story assumes that this number and the actions of deportation will be occurring in a vacuum. It skates the surface of the 'incentives' that will be created as illegals leave the country and those that will refrain from even attempting to enter the country; however this story leaves out countless other balances to the costs associated with illegal immigrants. Health care costs, college tuition for their children (if Sen. Hillary Clinton is elected in '08), costs associated with policing these individuals in our municipalities, etc. etc.
The $41billion figure does not look so daunting when it is offset by the costs that have already been heaved onto the back of this nation. Will it take another attack for our politicians to be snapped out of their euphoric state? Why do we sit idle with such porous borders?
"A UN treaty has been stalled for years over the definition of a terrorist."
This truly is beyond our realm, it is something past the realm of absurd.
Echoing in everyone's ear is the same liberal mantra...."we must repair our reputation throughout the world".....'we must reach out to these individuals who are wanting to destroy, there HAS to be a reason for this hatred" Why is there not a discussion engaged on this issue? This almighty UN is our protector and the be all, know all of world politics.....
....how long has it been since September 11. 2001? (this asserting that 9/11 happened in a vacuum without prior acts of terrorism) What, roughly 4 years ago? And this organization STILL cannot come up with a definition of what occurred on September 11, 2001? This story should be explored and shown just as much as the sights and pictures from that indescribable day should be shown. This organization, emphatically our world, if you will, cannot accurately put a definition to the word "terrorism." This is why this organization is irrelevant.......this was the same organization that was assuring us that Saddam posed no threat to western civilization. To this day, the United States is vehemently berated do in parcel to this organization and its own inept ability to decide. Did we wait for the definition of 'Japanese' or 'German' before World War II?
fil·i·bus·ter - (as defined by dictionary.com)
(1) The use of obstructionist tactics, especially prolonged speechmaking, for the purpose of delaying legislative action.
(2) An instance of the use of this delaying tactic.
I thought the grand statemen of our age, those brave, those bold, those band of 14 were our saviors? Is Mr. Bolton's nomination an extreme circumstance? I thought we were to move forward with President Bush's nominees but-for 'extraordinary' circumstances.
Bias? Do not construe this as the "be all, end all," to the argument pertaining to whether the mainstream media is biased; however, I find it quite curious that FOXnews, the 'bastion of conservative ideology' that it is, does not even shed light on a key element to this story. Though, to their credit, it is, in fact, an AP story.
Sen. John Kerry, not even a member of the Judiciary committee, has the gall to demand John Roberts release all memos and documents "in their entirety." This demand was levied by Sen. Kerry because the Senate "[could not] do our duty if either Judge Roberts or the Bush administration hides elements of his professional record." (emphasis added)
Please explain why the 'right-wing extremists' at FOXnews neglected to mention Kerry's failure to sign Form 180 releasing all of his documentation pertaining to his 'extensive' military career. Why were these same demands not levied in order for the American people to do their 'duty' in voting for the President of the United States? Surely, Sen. Kerry was not trying to hide anything from the American people.
"Rev. Wayne Perryman, a conservative minister of Mount Calvary Christian Center Church of God in Christ in Seattle, Wash., has filed a lawsuit against the Democratic Party. His lawsuit, filed in United States District Court in Seattle, charges "that because of their racist past practices the Democratic Party should be required to pay African Americans Reparations." Rev. Perryman's brief, citing abundant historical evidence, charges that the past racist policies and practices that were initiated against blacks by the Democratic Party -- were no different than the policies and practices that were initiated by the Nazi Party against the Jews."
"As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible. … The problem, I believe, is that it has little connection to the constitutional right it purportedly interpreted. A constitutional right to privacy broad enough to include abortion has no meaningful foundation in constitutional text, history or precedent."
It is somewhat amusing, a story made out of a non-story. The headline is deceiving for it is assumed that the Administrtion is unabashed in it's efforts to hide something. This became an issue for the nomination efforts of Estrada and Bolton. If the Administration truly wants this nominee to move forward, they had better take a different approach than they have done with the aforementioned or Roberts will succumb to the same fate.
Why is abortion the absolute litmus test for liberals? Out of all of the issues surrounding modern jurisprudence, of all the toils and strife this nation has endured and continues to endure in the ongoing war on terrorism, must we always fight the battle of abortion in our legal system? Is the issue of abortion that important? Why has it been so important in our judicial decisions since 1973?
Abortion's prominence directly correlates with its emotional, intimate connotations. Without delving into the issue, it is given and understood the intimate importance of pregnancy and what this event means in the lives of all of those involved. But those emotional issues should not cloud our intellect on this issue. Unfortunately, it does. Democrats of all stripes embrace this abortion-bastion as though it is a clear, black and white issue such as child molestation (dare I say murder?). Democrats go about believing the majority of Americans believe that abortion is justified in it's on-demand status. However, with a good-faith approach to this delicate issue, poll after poll illustrates that this issue is not embraced in this same light by all Americans. There is a great deal of 'gray.' Democrats/liberals tend to be dogmatic on the issue, just as there are dogmatic "pro-lifers," though I find it unfortunate that anyone somewhat against the on-demand issue, or for rolling back abortion is brandished as uncivilized with no rationale or credence given to their position. Therein lies the beauty of the abortion issue defining a nominee for liberal, most Americans wish to go about living their everyday routines and do not wish to engage the issues, to be in the trenches so to speak on political issues, then taken one step further with the intimacy of abortion, most people cringe wishing to forego the intimate aspects and the reality of what is actually being discussed. It is far easier to succumb than it is to take a position....
However, this 'gray' cannot easily be resolved, but-for an open and healthy debate amongst the citizens, not 9 individuals dressed in black robes. Personally, human life begins with conception and the basic tenets of this nation protect 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..." However, our founders envisioned a mode by which we, as a patient, understanding nation could work together to reach resolutions on intimate, and difficult matters. Justice Scalia aptly describes what Roe v. Wade has done to our process:
"'[B]y foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences,' the Court has profoundly disrupted the proper functioning of the American political system"
With an understanding that this 'gray' area cannot easily be resolved, would it not make more sense to subscribe to the same tenets that our founders did? Let us debate, let us petition, and then let our voice be heard. It should not be the will of nine individuals, it should be the collective will of those within a federalist system. It should not be advocated that abortion is to be overturned and banished completely. Let us restore what Roe took away, let the states on an individual basis decide.
Most importantly, let us stop engaging in an abortion debate every single time a nominee is brought forth for nomination. Is this the only issue that they will rule on or are their other matters that they will decide? The answer is contingent upon who you would ask...
The bill should pass without question (and questions are welcome). With all of the rhetoric and grandstanding that goes with the immigration issue, common sense in areas should prevail. Though there are many prolific factors and nuances to this issue, we should agree collectively that there are indeed prominent issues warranting obsevance, that would allow us to move forward. Naturally, the passage of this bill would a tremendous first step, this would go to discourage those immigrants that illegally enter our land and are not serious about staying within the country and contributing to our society. I applaud those that want to make a better life for themselves, that is the American dream that we all seek; however, if you are to become a citizen of this great land, we should not be forced to adhere to your way of life as much as you shoud seek to become an American. Make no mistake, this is not to say that everyone should be completely assimilated; though, there are some American ideals that should be enshrined. One common language, one common voice, is a great place for us all to begin.
"John Kerry let slip the name of an undercover CIA officer in a question to John Bolton at his confirmation hearing, even as Mr. Bolton tried to cover up the gaffe by referring to the agent as ÂMr. SmithÂ in his reply."
This did receive some attention, albeit that it was a trifle week's worth of proverbial wrist slapping:
"And who, but Democrats, can forget former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, who who pled guilty to stealing and destroying classified material in advance of the 9/11 Commission report and then lied about the whole matter? Berger, who was a sure bet to receive a high cabinet post in the Kerry administration had there been one, was forced to leave his post as campaign advisor on matters of foreign police and national security."
The time to begin is never better as it is in the present. Conservatives grow wary of a party that continues to win election after election filing to move forward with the agenda that is promised. I hope what this editorial discusses somehow signals a beginning of what is to come, and in many ways catches traction. President George W. Bush has not had the gumption to do so in domestic matters for 5 years now. Maybe, just maybe, someone that can lead on both fronts, foreign and domestic, will emerge before 2008.
I do not understand the mentality that stipulates that we must negotiate and open diplomatic relations with people engaged in this activity. My only hope is that the people of England remain resolute. Throughout these bombings, the people of England have been an example to the world. Out prayers and thoughts should go out to them.
We Stand Together!
Say it ain't so........This editorial reads straight from the pages of George Orwell's classic 1984. Did the world not try the League of Nations? That noble, valiant effort directly led to World War II. Now, after emerging from World War II, the world tried anew in the United Nations; round 2, if you will. This organization has miserably failed in any and all of its endeavors as Gaffney highlights in this poignant editorial. FACT: This organization is directly responsible for the biggest embezzlement that the face of this planet has ever seen in the Oil-for-Food Program. Please explain, then, why the remedy to this preposterous, egregious debacle is to submit more and more money to the organization? Does this make any sense whatsoever? Surely, the Bush Administration will not let the countless failures go unchallenged and let go unnoticed this organization's inaptitude in handling the nourishment supposedly going to the children of Iraq. Surely, we will not let this stand, this is absurd. We must hold the nations of this world accountable for their actions.
Then, let us talk about this organization in the Sudan.......then we can discuss Somalia...then....
'China role in West worries Pentagon'
This, particularly, should be construed as a grave concern for America when China is threatening to overtake a significant part of an industry meaning so much to our National Security. Republicans? Democrats? Is anyone there to even acknowledge this? This ('Keep Communists Out Of American Boardrooms') should be a red flag to the reality that we now face with China, there heart (economy) is alive and well.
Can we expect more of the same from our respected Senators during the next go-around in the nomination process for (now) Judge John Roberts?
Many times I find myself agreeing with the premise of what Ms. Coulter has to say, but find that she could be a little more 'diplomatic' in her overall approach. Nonetheless, Ms. Coulter, here expounds upon a point that someone who frequents my sight brought to my attention. Who is this guy? Since last night, all I have heard lambasted is the line from his brief stating: "We continue to believe that Roe (v. Wade) was wrongly decided and should be overruled." However, amongst ourselves, we all know that he was employed by the government in the Solicitor General's office and this was his sworn duty; to advocate that which his client mandates. Here, his client being the government. Other than this mere line, his history is quite murky. As Ms. Coulter states "[a]apparently, Roberts decided early on that he wanted to be on the Supreme Court and that the way to do that was not to express a personal opinion on anything to anybody ever. It is as if he is from some space alien sleeper cell. Maybe the space aliens are trying to help us, but I wish we knew that." As a conservative, the most nerve-racking aspects of this process is the track record of the Court with 7 of the 9 justices being Republican appointees. Hopefully, as more and more information is gathered, pieces will fall into place.
Sources are confirming that Judge John Roberts of the D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals will be nominated to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor this evening by President Bush at 8:00CST. (Personal Biography)
Judge Roberts on his personal judicial philosphy: 'My own judicial philosophy begins with an appreciation of the limited role of a judge in our system of divided powers. Judges are not to legislate and are not to execute the laws. . . . My judicial philosophy accordingly insists upon some rigor in ensuring that judges properly confine themselves to the adjudication of the case before them, and seek neither to legislate broadly not to administer the law generally in deciding that case.Deciding the case . . . . requires an essential humility grounded in the properly limited role of an undemocratic judiciary in a democratic republic, a humility reflected in doctrines of deference to legislative policy judgments and embodied in the often misunderstood term “judicial restraint.” That restraint does not mean that judges should not act against the popular will. . . .[T]he framers expected them to be discerning the law, not shaping policy. That means the judges should not look to their own personal views or preferences in deciding the cases before them. Their commission is no license to impose those preferences from the bench.'
Hearing Won't Be Until Late August
Bill Frist: Treat Roberts With 'Dignity, Respect'
Harry Reid: Roberts Has 'Suitable Legal Credentials'
Reaction to Roberts swift, disparate
Bravo on the Roberts Nomination
ROBERTS NOMINATION RAISES CONCERNS--NEEDS FULL REVIEW BY SENATE
Heritage Foundation Legal Experts Laud Bush's Choice for High Court
Advice and Consent: What the Constitution Says
In the first half-term of President Bush's second term, the Republican Party raised nearly $60million. In stark contrast, the Democratic Party raised under $30million. (See 'RNC Raised $59.4M in First Half of Year') I implore the Democratic Party to keep Howard Dean the Chairman. Though a lewd and offensive man, his comments and statements seer and thus, brand the Democratic Party as being a party having nothing to offer the general public. Please keep staying out of touch with the real 'mainstream' America. Mr. Chairman, you are doing a great service for this country.
In all seriousness, Democrats rationalize away this type of behavior by their own leaders in examples such as Dean and, in an aforementioned post, Paul Begala, a former Clinton strategist. Democrats state that it is merely rhetoric and should be taken as a jest when statements such as "[t]hey want to kill me and my children if they can." are not only tolerated, but embraced. This is all fine and good by me, but how long should it take one to realize that this rhetoric is resonating, and correspondingly, defining your own character. You always hear the statement: "Dean is not the leader of the party, he is there just to raise money." Please rationalize this linked story, then. Those misguided souls who are always outspoken and garner attention in the media by putting their feet in their mouths, if they are not your speakers, then who is? Who should the American people listen to as the ambassadors of where your party stands and where it should be moving?
Legalese for the Layperson
This editorial breaks down the legal aspects of what Karl Rove allegedly did. Of course, this does not matter in the least, he is already guilty in the minds of the mainstream press and the Democrats.
'Who 'Blew' Mrs. Wilson Cover?'
Neither Executive, Nor Legislative........
One would think that the American people have spoken. Democrats do not control the Executive Branch and they do not control either body of Congress, yet they still parade around as if they should be setting the agenda. The American people have spoken and the left knows that the judiciary is there last bastion to promulgate 'Progressivism.'
See 'The Left’s Key Players in the War Against Conservative Justices'
Try to imagine a situation in which a Republican/Conservative uttered these types of statements in a public fora.....
"...who shot him six times as [...] pleaded 'We can still talk about it! Don't do it!'....then cut his throat with a kitchen knife, severing his head all the way to his spine..."
I cannot fathom, nor do I want to consider such brutality that ensnares my fellow human beings. However, it should be something that I meditate upon every day. Why? The world in which we live is populated by individuals who state
"In court, turn[ing] to [...] grieving mother, and with infinite cruelty said to her, 'I do not feel your pain.'''
I did not even realize, but I was naive not to, but this was the work of an Islamic assassin. Which is why it must be remembered for it could happen to any one of us. We represent all that they desire to destroy. Our country and our civilization represents an impediment to their god's 'ordained' desires. There is no negotiating with this wretched vermin. We must stand resolute. Why do I need the constant reminders? Why am I just as guilty as the next American when it comes to forgetting the barbaric nature of this pestilence? This story, as told, combined with the countless others, has become almost cliche. It convey a message that America must lock away in her heart, better yet, it is a message that our Western civilization should heed.
"Decadence is defined not by a civilization's art or music but ultimately by its willingness to simply defend itself."
(I find this quite fitting in the context of a re-occurring discussion that survives in one of my threads.) 9/11 did not occur in a vacuum, and these individuals cannot be sat down with in some multi-lateral talk to seek some peaceful co-existence. These fascists must be eradicated for they wish us to cessate our existence entirely, not to simply just leave them be. We did not create them. Nothing we did causes their existence to perpetuate. Why is that we must blame ourselves for evil when it the United States that has been on the correct side of history time and time again? We are not infallible, but we seek what is good and just in the world. If America were given one ounce of a benefit of doubt that is given to these terrorists, or if other countries reached out to us and 'understood' us like they do with these terrorists, there would be no question. Why is the burden of proof's threshold set so unrealistically high for us?
It is easy to lose faith, but before you do...
To think, this gentleman could have been in the position that Kennedy now sits.......with the opinions that Kennedy has concocted just in the last few years, what would the landscape of America look like with Bork standing in his place? Bork's work Slouching Towards Gommorah is an excellent tome, and this man's wisdom emanates with each page. With Bork and Scalia sitting to anchor the nine, the qualms and brewing storm facing our judiciary would probably not have reached this crescendo.
"Once the justices depart, as most of them have, from the original understanding of the principles of the Constitution, they lack any guidance other than their own attempts at moral philosophy, a task for which they have not even minimal skills. Yet when it rules in the name of the Constitution, whether it rules truly or not, the court is the most powerful branch of government in domestic policy. The combination of absolute power, disdain for the historic Constitution, and philosophical incompetence is lethal."
I just wish that I could have read this in my Constitutional Law class.
Are You an Originalist?
A Matter of Credibility
Case in point, this editorial, 'The Mother of All Connections,' illustrates the connection between Usama bin-Laden's terrorist network and the now extinct regime of Saddam Hussein. A snippet of quotes skims the surface of this plethora of evidence that would, with someone approaching the issue in good-faith and honesty, to come a rational conclusion.
Discussing an Iraqi operative involved with a plot to blow up US embassies, Hayes & Joscelyn identify:
"The alleged plot was to have taken place in August 1998, the same month that al Qaeda attacked two U.S. embassies in East Africa. And more interesting still: It was to have taken place in the same month that the Clinton administration publicly accused Iraq of supplying al Qaeda with chemical weapons expertise and material."
"We have been told by Jordan's King Abdullah that his government knew Abu Musab al Zarqawi was in Iraq before the war and requested that the former Iraqi regime deport him. We have been told by Time magazine that confidential documents from Zarqawi's group, recovered in recent raids, indicate other jihadists had joined him in Baghdad before the Hussein regime fell. We have been told by one of those jihadists that he was with Zarqawi in Baghdad before the war. We have been told by Ayad Allawi, former Iraqi prime minister and a longtime CIA source, that other Iraqi Intelligence documents indicate bin Laden's top deputy was in Iraq for a jihadist conference in September 1999.....Jay Rockefeller, the West Virginia Democrat who serves as vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, knows better. Before the war he pointed to Zarqawi's presence in Iraq as a "substantial connection between Iraq and al Qaeda." And yet he, too, now insists that Saddam Hussein's regime "had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden, it had nothing to do with al Qaeda."
Senator Rockefeller's situation clearly demonstrates the political nature through which these individuals operate and the skillful manipulation of such matters as our national security. This is not a game. It is not a matter of who has 'power.' It is the preservation of our way of life. These, and other statement, just go to show that some individuals, sadly cannot be trusted with the responsibility of protecting this great nation.
From the looks of the the nominees, it would seem that Bush is more receptive to the idea of being the first to nominate a Hispanic or pandering minorities through the political process. These potential nominees are what the 'mainstream' media considers 'moderate.'
However, look at the quote by Minority Leader Harry Reid who said President Bush "didn't give us any names." Just so we are on the same page, the headline states "Dems Leak Bush's Court Short List.' Comparing and contrasting the two does not make any sense whatsoever. How could the Dems leak Bush's potential list when he did not reveal any names? Could this be a strategeric move by the Democrats, i.e. leaking a list of names that they would approve of before Bush actually nominates anyone? (I thought Democrats were systematically against "preemptive" strikes...?!?!)
Just a Big Misunderstanding.......
'BBC edits out the word terrorist'
"[T]he word 'terrorist' itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding." On the contrary, I think we understand all too clearly. This is not a border dispute or merely a clash of cultures. These beasts are committed to the destruction of us, our way of life. There is not a dialogue to be opened. England should understand this all to well...via Neville Chamberlin.
Contrast Hillary with Bill
Hillary Clinton is invoking the strategies that have cost the Democratic Party 4 straight national elections. Bush-bashing and class warfare will not win elections. This is just second-class and beneath her. Honestly, she could do better than this. Alfred E. Newman, come on...! 'Hillary Clinton compares Bush to Alfred E Newman' I personally prefer the Rush Limbaugh take on these comments; if W is Newman, then Bill should be compared with Larry Flynt. 'If Bush is Alfred E. Newman, Your Husband Was Larry Flynt'
Jimmy Carter II?
'Clinton: Global warming an opportunity'
"Americans should be told that diseases long eradicated in this country — tuberculosis, leprosy, polio, for example — and other extremely contagious diseases have been linked directly to" illegal immigrants, Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.) told the Business Journal of Phoenix last month."
I would think a statement such as this would NOT fly under the radar. This is a United States Representative making some substantially damning claims. Yet, it goes ignored. It cannot be asserted that this is hovering below radar due to the Supreme Court nomination process since it was uttered last month. Are we at such a point of complacency with the immigration issue that statements such as this are buried and forgotten?
'The Real Extremists'
"Judicial philosophy vs. social philosophy"
"What we need is a nominee who has a judicial philosophy -- grounded in constitutional principles that provide legal guidelines that politicians and citizens can understand and live by. I happen to prefer conservative (``originalist'') to liberal constitutional principles. But either is preferable to none."
Why is the abortion issue elevated so?
The Next Generation?
This new generation should be scoffed and scorned in and by various outlets; however, it is treated as though we should just give up, tuck our tails and retreat back to suburbia because there is no way to win against these resolute cowards. Personally, this sounds the alarm that we have won the first phase of the War on Terror. [Given, Reagan was to busy fighting World War III to manage terrorists (though he did a pretty good job of doing such.....just ask Libya), Bush I handled Saddam and we all know President Clinton's record with our National Security (i.e. he was to busy sending our AG to burn compounds in Waco or send the AG out to Montana to harass our own citizens back in the 90s to worry about National Security)]. So, it is given and understood, we have not concerned ourselves with fighting the terrorists until 9/11. So, in as a little as 4 years, the United States has managed to decimate Al-Qaeda to the point that they are relying primarily on the "Next Generation." We should feel privileged and continue to feel blessed every day by having leaders such as President Bush and Prime Minister Blair. The attacks on 7/7 should serve as a reminder of our resolve. THe British understand, you could see the resolve in the British as has always been the case with that strong nation. Rest assured, that we shall stand with you, just as you have been with us in this fight. Let us bring about the Next Greatest Generation......
A quote from Edmund Burke is quite fitting for our present circumstances; "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."
Here are a handful of stories that I was referring to:
'Who's the Enemy Now?With al-Qaeda's leaders on the run, the terrorist threat is evolving—and getting scarier'
'Zarqawi 'the next generation of al-Qaeda'
'New Generation of Leaders Is Emerging for Al-Qaeda'
'New generation of al-Qaeda ready to terrorise West'
Under the Radar
This example reassures me that the old media cannot and should not be trusted. There presumptuous and pompous attitude does not give the American populace the full story in which to filter and siphon through to ascertain their own, independent decision. Decisions are made for what the American people should 'know' at the 'editorial level.' Let us decide for ourselves and quit sheltering your own darlings.
"'It is a wide-open field,' Reid said. 'The person who is leading at this stage is Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton, of course, has lots of money. She comes from a state with lots of people in it, but she still has a few ties to Arkansas. I think she is the person to beat, but that does not necessarily mean she is the best candidate.'"
'Senator urges moderate pick for high court'
We Stand Together
That whisper in my ear of realism continues to grow louder. This report, if true, would prove to be utter heartbreak for Republican constituents who have been longing for the opportunity to change the balance of power.
"Bush is biggest obstacle to a conservative court"
The Minority-Majority Party
If we conservatives stay on this course, then we as conservatives will receive our own desires. ("Ye shall reap what you...ask for?") We will become a minority party, praying that the Democratic majority shows the very same 'restraint' and cowardice that we now show. Two points have arisen lately that have undeniably highlighted this troubling mentality.
- Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.)- Personally, I think this gentleman deserves a great deal of respect and should be lauded for his dedication to conservative principles and values. Senator Santorum is being discussed as a viable candidate for the Republican ticket in '08. Where I grow weary is an article, and though this may be one example that I am rushing to judgment on, nonetheless, I find it should be of concern. In 'Santorum Criticizes Views of Sen. Clinton', the article discusses Sen. Santorum's views, which are great in that they are diametrically opposite to Sen. Clinton. However, do you see how Sen. Clinton set the tone for discussion? Her original ideas are what promulgated the discussion. Though this may not be the case at all, a critical eye ascertains that Sen. Santorum has a lack of vision and must reflexively and reactively play by the ground rules laid by the opposition. Conservatives deserve leaders that will set an agenda to be followed, not react to an agenda that is already established.
- Alberto Gonzalez - All I should need to say is that Mr. Gonzalez is being lauded by the media right now. This should be all of the indicia needed by any person who, in good-faith, understands the modern state of politics. Though, I, again see similarities in a lack of vision on the part of our Commander-in-Chief. President Bush has made it fairly well-known that he wishes to be the first President to nominate a Hispanic to the bench. That would be great if this coincided with what President Bush has promised to his followers in both elections regarding 'orginalists.' Gonzalez, in no way, resembles or attempts to be an 'originalists.' His track record speaks for itself. Again, Bush, for the sake of patronizing minorities, is floating this idea as a way to garner votes in the Hispanic community.
Why is that Republicans and Conservatives feel the need to pander and patronize? Have vision, and lead....Americans have always craved, and unconditionally followed great leaders who clearly outline their vision of what the this Shining City on a Hill should be. If this fundamental caveat is not heeded, Conservatives will be granted their wish. They will be patronized indeed. We should not attempt to emulate our opposition. The opposition should emulate us.
This story is not amazing, it is not surprising and it is not astonishing in the least. Though, it still feels like I am on the receiving end of a precise kick to the gut. I knew it was a sad (pathetic) day in the Senate when some of our 'great' leaders invoked the 21st Century's version of the Great Compromise. Honestly, was there anyone out there that thought that the free love and happy days would last? But, this was 'statesmanship,' right? I find it perfect that Senator Schumer mocked one of the 'compromised' and not minutes later telephoned him regarding a mutual photo-opportunity. It is poetic, you could not script a movie any better for fear of being a little over the top...is this not what happened to the American people throughout the entire process?
"Why Are Conservatives Nervous About The President's Supreme Court Pick?"
Still Communicating Greatly
There should be no surprise or trouble in grasping why some of these former Eastern-bloc countries are some of our most staunch allies in the War on Terror. Though, in reading this story, what strikes me the most would be the fact that this initiative crossed all party lines. I hearken back to the old adage: "Politics stops at the water's edge." However, just as President Reagan endured, so must President Bush.
"Former Soviet Bloc Capital Officially Honors Reagan"
Despite the domino-like series of corporate scandals, despite 9/11, despite the War on Terror, despite being presently engaged in a theater of war, etc. etc. the Washington Post is still skeptical. For all of the comparisons between Vietnam and the War in Iraq, why can't there be any comparisons of the War in Iraq and World War II. How would Roosevelt have capitalized on an economy such as the one we have today?
"Economic Growth, Tax Receipts Combine to Reduce Deficit"
Happy 4th of July!
As always, Ronald Reagan said it best in his 'Address to the Nation on Independence Day 1984.'
May you have a Happy 4th of July and may God continue blessing the United States of America!
'Possible Supreme Court Canidates'
'Possible Supreme Court Canidates'
'The Bork Precedent'
Cut and Paste
Culling through thousands of documents and scores of reports regarding America's treatment of prisoners at Guantanemo Bay, Durbing found a solitary document that disparaged the treatment of those prisoners. These pieces of information amongst the mass of counterveiling data were presumed fact. Yet, this burdens changes whith each new production of evidence, which explains the thousands of documents and scores of investigations....
Rove cited one mode of proposed response to the attacks on this country on September 11, 2001. This proposition was manifested by liberals and has seen reverberations in each way we fight the war on terrorism. Recently, this is highlighted by the proposed methodologies for treatment of prisoners.
I find it comical how Democrats can utter comments out of both sides of their mouth and still have respect in themselves, and one another. The approach proposed by MoveOn.org immediately after September 11, 2001 has been the same approach, and position consistently proposed throughout each endeavor in this war. And, when this approach is spotlighted, it is chastised and those that cling to it, let go....for the time being.
"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to… submit a petition. I am not joking. Submitting a petition is precisely what Moveon.org did. It was a petition imploring the powers that
President George W. Bush's Remarks On Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's Resignation
PRESIDENT BUSH: Good morning. A short time ago I had a warm conversation with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has decided to retire from the Supreme Court of the United States. America is proud of Justice O'Connor's distinguished service and I'm proud to know her. Today, she has the gratitude of her fellow citizens, and she and John and their family have our respect and good wishes.
Sandra Day O'Connor joined the nation's highest court in 1981 as the first woman ever appointed to that position. Throughout her tenure she has been a discerning and conscientious judge, and a public servant of complete integrity. Justice O'Connor's great intellect, wisdom and personal decency have won her the esteem of her colleagues and our country.
Under the Constitution, I am responsible for nominating a successor to Justice O'Connor. I take this responsibility seriously. I will be deliberate and thorough in this process. I have directed my staff, in cooperation with the Department of Justice, to compile information and recommend for my review potential nominees who meet a high standard of legal ability, judgment and integrity and who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our country.
As well, I will continue to consult, as will my advisors, with members of the United States Senate. The nation deserves, and I will select, a Supreme Court Justice that Americans can be proud of. The nation also deserves a dignified process of confirmation in the United States Senate, characterized by fair treatment, a fair hearing and a fair vote. I will choose a nominee in a timely manner so that the hearing and the vote can be completed before the new Supreme Court term begins.
Today, however, is a day to honor the contributions of a fine citizen and a great patriot. Many years ago, Sandra Day O'Connor chose the path of public service, and she served with distinction as a legislator and a judge in Arizona before joining the Supreme Court. When President Ronald Reagan appointed Justice O'Connor 24 years ago, Americans had high expectations of her -- and she has surpassed those expectations in the performance of her duties.
This great lady, born in El Paso, Texas, rose above the obstacles of an earlier time and became one of the most admired Americans of our time. She leaves an outstanding record of service to the United States and our nation is deeply grateful.
Authority: Presumptuous Assumptions
Generally, individuals do not gravitate towards and shy away from presumption, particularly those that act in a presumptuous manner. In a similar vein, the old adage of what happens when you assume is applicable. Specifically, making too many assumptions leads one to making incorrect decisions from time to time.
Why is it then, in some of the most important circumstances of our daily existence, do individuals assume statements by presumptuous people?
The announcement of Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement highlights this phenomenon. Commentators in newspapers, on radio talk-shows, visiting as 'talking-heads' and countless other media outlets presumptuously proclaim the assumed answers. (and, yes; both left and right side of the aisle are proactively engaged in this campaign) One would think that the general populace would take a moment to find answers on their own.
Maybe this stems from my legal background, but it is somewhat disturbing to hear factually incorrect answers to straightforward inquiries warranting a fact-based response. Questions that do not even warrant spin systematically are being spun to fit someone's agenda. Why must everyone interpret everything for the general public?
I find it somewhat presumptuous that it is always assumed that we do not know the answers, or cannot find them for ourselves...