< /head > tags, as follows: < head > ---> insert code here <--- < /head > /* Content ----------------------------------------------- */ #content { width:975px; margin:0 auto; padding:0; text-align:left; } #main { width:715px; float:left; } #sidebar { width:240px; float:right; } /* Headings ----------------------------------------------- */ h2 { margin:1.5em 0 .75em; font:bold 78%/1.4em "Trebuchet MS",Trebuchet,Arial,Verdana,Sans-serif; text-transform:uppercase; letter-spacing:.2em; color:#777; } /* Posts ----------------------------------------------- */ .date-header { margin:1.5em 0 .5em; color:#B4C3CC; } .post { margin:.5em 0 1.5em; border-bottom:2px solid #B4C3CC; padding-bottom:1em; } .post-title { margin:.25em 0 0; padding:0 0 1px; font-size:150%; line-height:1.4em; .post-title a { text-decoration:none; color:#B4C3CC; font:bold } .post-title a:hover { color:#B4C3CC; } .post div { margin:0 0 .75em; line-height:1.6em; } p.post-footer { margin:-.25em 0 0; color:#357; } .post-footer em, .comment-link { font:78%/1.4em "Trebuchet MS",Trebuchet,Arial,Verdana,Sans-serif; text-transform:uppercase; letter-spacing:.1em; } .post-footer em { font-style:normal; color:#579; margin-right:.6em; } .comment-link { margin-left:.6em; } .post img { padding:4px; border:1px solid #222; } .post blockquote { margin:1em 20px; } .post blockquote p { margin:.75em 0; } /* Comments ----------------------------------------------- */ #comments h4 { margin:1em 0; font:bold 78%/1.6em "Trebuchet MS",Trebuchet,Arial,Verdana,Sans-serif; text-transform:uppercase; letter-spacing:.2em; color:#FFF195; } #comments h4 strong { font-size:130%; } #comments-block { margin:1em 0 1.5em; line-height:1.6em; } #comments-block dt { margin:.5em 0; } #comments-block dd { margin:.25em 0 0; } #comments-block dd.comment-timestamp { margin:-.25em 0 2em; font:78%/1.4em "Trebuchet MS",Trebuchet,Arial,Verdana,Sans-serif; text-transform:uppercase; letter-spacing:.1em; } #comments-block dd p { margin:0 0 .75em; } .deleted-comment { font-style:italic; color:gray; } /* Sidebar Content ----------------------------------------------- */ .sidebar-title { color:; text-align:center; font-size:120% } #sidebar ul { margin:0 0 1.5em; padding:0 0 1.5em; border-bottom:1px solid #634929; list-style:none; } #sidebar li { margin:0; /* padding:0 0 .25em 10px; */ text-indent:15px; font-weight:bold; /* line-height:1.5em; */ } #sidebar p { /* line-height:1.5em; */ } /* Profile ----------------------------------------------- */ #profile-container { margin:0 0 1.5em; border-bottom:1px solid #634929; padding-bottom:1.5em; } .profile-datablock { margin:.5em 0 .5em; } .profile-img { display:inline; } .profile-img img { float:left; padding:4px; border:1px solid #634929; margin:0 8px 3px 0; } .profile-data { margin:0; font:bold 78%/1.6em "Trebuchet MS",Trebuchet,Arial,Verdana,Sans-serif; text-transform:uppercase; letter-spacing:.1em; } .profile-data strong { display:none; } .profile-textblock { margin:0 0 .5em; } .profile-link { margin:0; font:78%/1.4em "Trebuchet MS",Trebuchet,Arial,Verdana,Sans-serif; text-transform:uppercase; letter-spacing:.1em; } /* Footer ----------------------------------------------- */ #footer { width:660px; clear:both; margin:0 auto; } #footer hr { display:none; } #footer p { margin:0; padding-top:15px; font:78%/1.6em "Trebuchet MS",Trebuchet,Verdana,Sans-serif; text-transform:uppercase; letter-spacing:.1em; }

Day By Day by Chris Muir.



"In response to Hurricane Katrina, the National Guard has been mobilized with troops coming from Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama to assist in the emergency response. But with National Guard troops already spread thin across Iraq and Afghanistan, how much more can the National Guard take?"

And, these comments are merely some of the tame rhetoric slowing gaining traction and momentum from the left.

"Bush was warned of something like this happening, and when it came time to give a paltry sum to prevent just such a disaster, the money wasn't there- it was being spent in Iraq. (side Note- the cash might have been there, even taking Iraq into consideration, had Bush not rammed his tax cuts for the richest 1% of our country through congress.) The hurricane was a natural disaster- but the flooding of New Orleans wasn't- it wouldn't have happened, had the levies held. The levies didn't hold because THEY WEREN'T COMPLETELY AND ADEQUATELY BUILT, for lack of funds.Funds withheld by Bush, so he could continue this illegal war in Iraq."

Unfortunately, it is a sad day in America for several reasons, those on the left never cease to amaze your humble pundit on the lengths they will endure to chastise our current President.

With all due respect to an opposing opinion from the left, let us for once put down our proverbial arms in this discourse, and engage a common enemy, mother nature. Yet, it would seem as though the devestation inflicted by Hurricane Katrina is not an act of God, but yet another of the left's devilish examples of how this Administration will not rest until we are all annihilated.

Sometimes, one's own words speak for themselves. I think my fellow Americans can make up their own individual minds on where our priorities should lie and what now is important.

Only a Matter of Time...

Somehow, one knew it would only take a matter of time before stories such as this would start circulating about the various media outlets. Though it is unforutnate and reprehensible, one should not just duck the obvious just because it is unpleasant to view and realize. Michelle Malkin & 'Red State Rant' do a thorough job highlighting some of the more obvious perceptions one should draw from this coverage of the looting taking place in New Orleans.

Lest we all forget in this discussion, much of the Gulf Coast is going through perilous and monumental times. Curiously, eerily close to the eve of the fourth anniversary of September 11, 2001, images making there way from the Deep South resurrect some of those same raw emotions experienced nearly four years ago. Personally, it has been quite difficult to take-in all of these images and stories of utter catastrophe and the accompanying heartbreak.

This should not be the time or place for such assertions and accusations of racism, yet there are individuals in this world who will not rest until everything that can be utilized in their own selfish desires is indeed used and accordingly cast aside. The images of those looting should not be seen in the black and white of any person's skin color, but should be seen in whatever color depicts the most evil in all of human race. Only parasites and pestilence prey off the wounded and sick, and for those locusts to be doing such now represents the worst of us in humanity. Though this is a stark reminder, it is illustrative of what we need not forget in our every day lives. Remembering such will aid us as we mature throughout our lives. However, for every story of such sinister behavior, one should know that their are countless acts of heroism and unselfish giving going on perpetually.....

This is the story, Americans helping their fellow Americans; just as this symbolism of the American spirit was what emanated from September 11, 2001, so shall this be the story throughout Hurrcane Katrina's devastation and aftermath. Americans being what we have always been will be the story to inevitably triumph. The American spirit will carry the day.


The Former Cindy Sheehan

The metamorphosis that has become the Cindy Sheehan phenomenon began with her being a rational, sorrowful mother being the quintessential example of what a dissenting American should, and, for that matter, has always been. Her unfortunate disposition could have been illustrative of the ideal means through which Americans should treat their fellow Americans when they disagree with their ideas and beliefs. She fundamentally disagreed with the war and with President Bush's decision to invade Iraq, but she stood with the President even after the unfortunate death of her son. However, something within the woman fundamentally changed. This evolution was nothing short of dynamic and it is now escalating into the realm of theatrics. She now must rely on her new statements to supersede her previously uttered sadistic statements to retain the attention she currently enjoys. Her statements must be exceedingly outrageous and her acts more damning in order for her to sustain the current audience she retains.

At first these rants were offensive and taken personally by supporters of this country and the troops that defend it. She unabashedly insulted our country and way of life even going as far as to embolden the actions of those we are fighting in Iraq. Ms. Sheehan began her short trek towards irrelevancy as she began lobbing barbs and accusations that a Jewish cabal was running this gambit; and in some form or fashion we have all been bamboozled into falling for this charade. With the arrival of Reverend Sharpton, her newest statements ensure that she has lost sight of a message that had the potential to resonate with Americans who mourned with a mother of a fallen hero. Somehow, this message of grief and misunderstanding has become poisoned by those who have their own selfish desires, and in their own minds the ends will justify these means. Alas, Ms. Sheehan has slipped past this outpouring of sympathy and scorned even those that would have given her an ounce of credence from which to build a story. These newest statements emanating from the ditches of Crawford, TX are nothing short of asinine; frankly, these statements do indeed invoke pity from your humble pundit for Ms. Sheehan cannot possibly be of sound mind by any stretch of anyone's imagination. Whether it be from grief or blind rage, it matters not because anyone that is now invoking some form of channeling to insult our Commander-in-chief does not deserve serious consideration for comment. Ms. Sheehan claims that her son is calling President Bush an 'idiot' and that the angels of Heaven are against this war....

Nevertheless, according to the mainstream press and those on the left, we are not supposed to question this woman's motives, nor are we supposed to demand a rational statement from her since she is a distraught, mourning mother who has nothing but the purest of intentions amidst the unbearable grief of losing her own flesh and blood. But, dare I say, what of the mother's who have lost sons and daughters to this war and remain steadfast behind our President? What of them? Are we not mandated to hear their plea as well? There should be absolutely no inclination of a double-standard amid such an important discourse, yet the unfortunate conclusion to be had is that this double-standard does indeed exist within our own mainstream media outlets and from those fervently on the left.

Their is no cohesive and manageable message emanating from the left and Ms. Sheehan's actions demonstrate this concept flawlessly. As seen throughout the blogoshphere, she is soon to begin her 'long, perilous journey' to Washington, D.C. to continue the protest of this war. As RightOn! has noted among many other bloggers, she will soon engage in actions “to protest the false god idolatry of the Blue Angels Air Show, whose “ooh-&-aah” performances have one purpose: to promote badly-lagging military recruitment to protest the obscene waste of American tax dollars to stage these Blue Angels’ multi-million dollar extravaganzas” - among other “war reissuesssues.”

Conclusively, we on the right are faced with blind rage and raw emotion from those on the left. This has become more than their rhetoric for it has become their mantra. Pure hatred has blinded those with enough cognitive ability to formulate a message. It is with such that we all should feel eternally grateful to Ms. Sheehan, she is illustrative of how Americans should not act, her message has lost any and all decency when she lashes out with selfish indignation. Americans should be united together in any cause after everyone has spoken and a decision was made. We have made that decision, let us move on.

To those on the left, bring us a resolution, bring us a solution, bring us something that could conceivably form a strategy for America's own interest. Do not bring us grief. America knows what war is about, we are not naive. Do not incessantly berate the American populace with the wails of a mother who derides us all at every chance a microphone or camera is thrown before her. For once, keep your perversion outside of our range of senses, this mother is being warped and used for any and every chance that you deem fitting. What happened diagram'sgreeing mother who grieved, but remained united behind her son's fallen comrades?

We on the right mourn the withering away of the former Cindy Sheehan...


New Orleans Braces

May our thoughts and prayers go out this evening to the residents of New Orleans.

As the accompanying links illustrate, New Orleans has not seen the likes of such a storm in many years. What awaits the 'Big Easy' is beyond most of our collective imaginations. Let us hope that these predictions now circulating the mainstream media are sensationalized; and most importantly that the lives of those individuals remaining in the city of New Orleans be spared.

Batten down the hatches, New Orleans, we are praying for you! God Bless!

Hurricane Katrina's Death Toll And Flooding Damage Mount
Dangerous Hurricane Katrina nearing the Gulf Coast
- video
Expert: What to expect from Katrina
Katrina Tracking Map -- See It Here
Praying for New Orleans
The Daily Blogster
Michelle Malkin - Hurricane Katrina Blogging
Miles O'Brien's Hurricane Blog
New Orleans Braces for Monster Hurricane
Mandatory Evacuation Ordered for New Orleans
Louisianans Rushing to Dodge Hurricane
Katrina Cuts Oil Output by a Third
Slideshow: Katrina's First Strike
The Violence Worker


Am I Alone?

Let me preface this post by saying fervently: I do not condone the methodology and logic through which Pat Robertson made his statements earlier this week. I do not condone activities that would have our renowned leaders of significant segments in America's mainstream to verbally, and in an utterly outright fashion call for an assassination of other nations' leaders. This is a dangerous proposition and it is one step down a slippery slope. Our clandestine services are best left for our entertainment in movies and for our elected leaders when this country faces dire times and desperate hours.

With such stated, it remains somewhat ironic that your humble pundit honestly understands why such backlash is occurring all the while remaining intrigued as to how far and how much this man is being persecuted. Let us take an intellectually honest walk to evaluate this phenomenon. Of course, those on the left side of the aisle immediately scorned Robertson and when such venom reached a crescendo, those on the right side of the aisle took heed to put a substantive distance between his statements and themselves. Though, it is promulgated here that this 'issue' should be seen from a different angle and a fundamentally different perspective. Hence, yours truly believes this 'issue' should be correlated in some form or fashion to what is going on in the UK as we speak. This, of course, referencing what the OliveOylo blog has done a thorough job of documenting; the UK's novel policy for deporting terrorists who speak out against the their struggle against terror. Elsewhere, it has been seen that this is generating a great deal of consternation from those on the left side of the aisle and their respective allies, who denounce such 'evil-intentioned' methods of handling terrorists on one's home soil.

I honestly understand why Robertson is drawing fire for I am not naive. He is a leader of a large, viable group of Americans who generate a great deal of respect in every election cycle. This is why his rhetoric was careless and borderlines danger. Make no mistake, he deserves the backlash that he has been receiving purely for the fact that this 'issue' should be outside of his forum. It is outside the fora of our Christian, moral leaders to be so engaged in rattling swords against foreign despots. Not only is is careless, it does nothing more than diminish what little legitimacy that he himself and his group have in the 'mainstream.' I urge Pat Robertson to refrain from such in the future.

However, what is somewhat troubling to yours truly on this issue and the surrounding backlash is the double-standard imposed upon Robertson. I do not think there were any major conservative pundits or any of our Republican leaders that came out to show their support and adoration for Robertson in these statements. No one has in any way come close to showing an inkling of support for such rhetoric. This contrasts other elements found in our discourse for it should be abundantly clear that amongst those on the right side of the aisle, a great distance was separated from Robertson and he was inevitably chastised in synonymous ways by the supporters of the right side of the aisle; not only in the blogoshpere but elsewhere. In other words, conservatives did not embrace his rhetoric, nor did they stand behind him from a distance thereby endorsing in any way his careless rhetoric. It was clearly ascertained that conservatives did not condone such rhetoric.

The correlation should now come full-circle for those that will indulge in this intellectually honest walk....how is that we are supposed to accept and not come close to reject the venom and rhetoric of certain Muslim leaders? We cannot hold them accountable to standing behind their statements and also endorsing fellow statements made by their clerics by not fervently denouncing them for not admonishing these barbaric extremists. What is going in the UK now is nothing short of hypocrisy. The Islamic leaders have been literally preaching against our Western civilization for years and the UK has steadfastly ignored such vitriolic venom, but at the first signs of this rhetoric being espoused through actions of terror, the UK is finally aroused to demand they stop or leave. What ensues is nothing short of pure lunacy when the Muslim community denounces such tactics engaged to protect innocent civilians.

Furthermore, what would happen here in the United States? What if we engaged in some of this same tactics employed by the UK? As reported by 'Another Man's Meat,' a flyer being passed around the ditches of Crawford Texas clearly illustrates groups showing 'aid and comfort' to our enemies in Iraq. Why are the pundits not lining up to demand cessation of synonomous rhetoric from their colleagues. In the least, their bashing and transparent rhetoric is, at best, disingenuous. From the blogoshpere to the 'mainstream' this is carefully ignored.

The accompanying political cartoon is meant to be comical, but it also clearly illustrates that we on the conservative/libertarian side of the aisle do not take such rhetoric seriously when our leaders are careless enough to make them. Why then does the Cindy Sheehan orgy get a free pass when such rhetoric is continuously uttered? What makes them different? Endorsement of this rhetoric and any of the rhetoric being seen to fruition would destroy any and all progress made in the War on Terror.

This double standard that most of those on the left endorse is nothing short of a mockery of our privileges bestowed within our First Amendment and it is hypocrisy in every conceivable definition of the word. How far down this road must we travel before their eyes will be opened?

UPDATE: Does this not illustrate what this is about? Is it really about the death of her son anymore? Are her intentions pure? Alas, this may not be for you or I to decide lest we come across judgemental. However, it does not make it any easier as a human being when you see things such as this and this.


Keep Up the Great Work

The far-left continues to travel a road that will inevitably lead to the 'ash heap of history' where other irrelevant and unaccomplished ideologies eternally rest.

Protestors at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C. have sunk to what should be an unfathomable low in their efforts to bring about an end to the Iraq War. These shenanigans are definitively illustrative of what the far-left in this country has become. What has and what is currently transpiring is nothing short of a sickening display of antics and a selfish manipulation of suffering for their own personal cause. These protestors could not conceivably have any valid rational or plausible explanation as to how or why this activity should be continued.

What is to be gained from such blatant disrespect for soldiers of this country and a fervent lack of remorse for their own actions inflicting emotional harm on men and women attempting to recover from wounds suffered in unselfish sacrifice? What is to reasonably gained from such rhetoric as: "Maimed for a Lie" in front of a bustling hospital.....?! At what point is enough truly enough. The average American views such visceral rhetoric and becomes nauseated, yet these individuals remain steadfast in their efforts to win support for their cause all the while they are damning this cause. It is nearly common sensical to someone of reasonable intellect to attenuate that such rhetoric would assuredly push away those that may be willing to listen to their perspective.

However, do not misconstrue any of these aforementioned statements and assume that America should somehow stifle this rhetoric. Undeniably, this display is guaranteed by our constitution's first amendment. All in all, what should be taken from this pathetic display is that any American has a right to freedom of speech, but any American does not have the right to be heard.

What line must be crossed in order for the far-left to state that enough is enough? It would be in their own best interest for their own base to distance themselves from such displays stating all the while what their message truly is and how this is a perversion of that message. Sadly, as we all have grown accustomed to and realized, the far-left embraces such antics. From the escalation of exploiting Cindy Sheehan (and now Reverend Al Sharpton) to Walter Reed Hospital, the far-left continues their trek down the long road of irrelevancy. Cumulatively, it seems as though nothing is beyond the realms of basic human dignity for these individuals. Unfortunately, the arrogance of their own self-righteousness has blinded them of any and all dignity.

And, those in the center and far-right are supposed to be persuaded to follow this ideology from these statements and displays? What is a reasonably prudent person supposed to gather from this message? It is surely not compassion and it is quite disingenuous to assert that genuine peace should be taken away from this hateful message.

[As an individual that personally disagrees with your message, all I have to say is....Keep Up the Great Work! You are doing my job for me. I think these actions will swell my ranks before they work at gravitating any individual toward yours.]


A Mere Second of Your Precious Time....

The Right Track has linked to quite an interesting site that allow any individual to take the 'World's Smallest Political Quiz.' Take a moment of your time, whether interested in current events & politics or not, to find where you fall on the political spectrum. It will be curious to see how visitors of this site faired on the quiz. Take a second to leave us a comment on what your results reveal after you have taken the quiz.

(For those that are curious, Publius Rendezvous scored as a 'Conservative,' [Nothing surprising about this, as my readers I am sure know]; yet the results were much closer to Libertarian than what was personally expected. [See accompanying graph] This just goes to show how interesting this quiz really is.)

Guess Who's Back

"I'm coming back to Crawford for my son. As long as the president, who sent him
to die in a senseless war, is in Crawford, that is where I belong. I came here
two and a half weeks ago for one reason, to try and see the president and get an
answer to a very simple question: What is the noble cause that he says my son
died for?"

To hear more from this megalomaniac, follow this link for her own words.

It sounds quite harsh, but is this really about her own grief anymore? It is preposterous for any one person to make such a turnabout and expect such demands to be fulfilled. It is almost as if she has the intellect of a child and the selfishness to boot. What I find interesting to note is the growing movement of 'anti-' anti-war protesters. It seems as though fellow 'red-staters' grow weary of such foolhardy, hate-America-first, rhetoric.


Outside the Mainstream

An interesting article that one wonders will be worthy of mention this week in the 'mainstream' press. If it does not, it just goes to show how the stem-cell debate is not really about stem-cells. Most of the proponents for embryonic stem-cells derive from the crowd seeking abortion on demand. If any legitimacy to life is seen in embryos, then this undercuts the foundation on which abortions rests. Also, any divisiveness that can be exploited by the Democrats and their willing cohorts in the press amongst the Republicans would need to be buried on the back page of the headlines.

If the stem-cell debate is really about stem cells, should this not be a blocbuster story since both sides would then be appeased? We shall have to wait and see.

It will be interesting to see if this research is given a fair shake, or at least if it will garner as much publicity as Senator Frist's turnabout on an issue that, until recently, had him standing behind President Bush.


This editorial resonates with themes that are discussed here at Publius Rendezvous. A very poignant look at some of the issues that are currently in the news; Victor Davis Hanson's latest is a 'must-read' for this week.

Socially Insecure

An interesting perspective on an issue slowly slipping off the radar in the American political/current events forum. Why is the basic premise of the Social Security issue staunchly entrenched with the approach that me must keep the program viable? No party, on either side of the aisle, is proposing dismantling this inefficient program; we must endure the fact that both parties wish to 'tweak' the system in order to maintain the status quo. Should not Americans have the benefit of the facts being laid bare in order to make a fully informed decision? Without such a discussion the status qua ante remains what we must endure, depriving us of the efficiency of our own decisions or lack thereof. Americans are not forced to practice such in the private sector, then why must we be forced in the governmental sector?

An intellectually honest approach to the debate illustrates that universally, Social Security leaves much to be desired in the results it yields to its patrons. IS this fair to all of us when considering what is at stake? Why must this issue be spun until the point where it morphs into something that it is not? Herein, we have a governmental program not accomplishing what it was intended to do. The American people deserve better, to say the least. It is not that one party wishes to rob the system and desire ill on others, it is that this party is demanding that American people get what they rightfully deserve. In such, this party is not even going far enough; instead of scrapping the program, we must readjust our rationale to fix a 70-year-old problem.

It is absurd, and unfortunate that nothing can be discussed lest it be spun out of proportion. No one is attempting to, nor would want to 'rob' anyone of their deserved and earned payment, but this is what is being promulgated. In fact, it should be asserted and demanded that the factually correct statements be allowed. Americans should not be utilized as pawns in a simple game pitting raw emotion versus fact & reason. Americans are brighter than this, and with such, deserve better than mere political antics. Let us have a true discussion, save the grandstanding.



"This retreat does not mean the end of our battle, but it is the beginning..."

Yes, alas, this was stated by one of the 'peaceful' members from the military-wing of Hamas. It is unfortunate Israelis must go through such consternation and strife just to illustrate the uncivilized nature of these barbarians. With a good faith effort, Israel has made one of her most noble and extensive sacrifices since her move home to the holy land. Pray that it is just rhetoric coming from extremists, but it appears that this effort made by the Israelis may all be in vain. The correlation with the United States is strong for these are these are barbarians of the same stripe that we deal with in Iraq in an ongoing basis; and it further illustrates that if you approach a bargaining table and satisfy their selfish desires that they still will not be satisfied. But, as other have noted, will it ever be quenched, will these selfish desires know no bounds?


Disabled Commission

"I desperately wish, that I had been president when the FBI and CIA finally confirmed, officially, that bin Laden was responsible for the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. Then we could have launched an attack on Afghanistan early."

These statements seemed out of place and surely did not fit the normal rhetoric concerning the current events of the day. However, these statements coupled with the traction gaining momentum surrounding 'Able Danger' illustrate why President Clinton uttered them in the first place. 'Able Danger' was a special intelligence group that discovered some of the terrorist cells that inevitably carried out the 9/11 attacks. Jamie Gerelick's now infamous 'wall' between domestic crime fighting agencies and foreign intelligence services prevented the army from passing along this information; thus, conceivably leading to events unfolding on 9/11. Though, in all fairness, the blame cannot and should not be beholden upon one individual. It was the culmination of many mantras and attitudes pervasive throughout this country before our eyes were opened.

Should not conspiracy theorists leap at this instance, though? Here, we have definitive proof that the 9/11 commission specifically chose to ignore this information, or at least the staff members of the respective members. Furthermore, specifically a former Clinton Administration official's own edict denounces a crucial link to apprehend the 9/11 terrorists before they could carry out the atrocities. Days ago it was asked here: 'What if this were President Bush?' Would the same reaction be garnered if the respective party designations were rearranged?

This piece, by no stretch of the imagination, is meant to turn this issue into a partisan tirade where the Clinton Administration's legacy is debated. Really, this is meant to open a dialogue and to ascertain why such vehement hatred is promulgated to destroy any effort made on behalf of the Bush Administration to counter our national security threat. Dare it be stated that this is no less than basic human hypocrisy by those on the left?

Stories such as the following deserved to be reconciled. If 'Bush took us to war for oil' then why do you not legitimately embrace 'Clinton was too busy with Monica?' Why are there two different standards by the 'mainstream' media and the liberal fringe when it comes to the War on Terror? Is foreign policy and national security issues where politics should be fair game? This forum is here, why are there two very different standards? In light of this information just now making its way to the surface, the discourse should be open without finger pointing. America needs to learn what is the best way to prevent 9/11 from happening again. We are not playing games but it seems that we are when it is convenient for some.

Many others outside the 'mainstream' are asking some of the same questions. We may not be all of the same accord, but the discussion needs to begin.
QandO linked - Wish in one hand, read the 9/11 report in the other...
In the Bullpen - Clinton warned of bin Laden threat in 1996, new documents show
Iowa Voice - Able Danger And 9/11 Pt III
Mark in Mexico - Wall falls on 9/11 commission
MontereyJohn linked - I Give Clinton a (conditional) Pass
A Dusty Life - NYT: State Warned Clinton In '96 To Stop Bin Laden
Rip & Read Blogger - Rip & Read #137 - 2005-08-17
The Jawa Report - Clinton and the Sleeping Giant
voices.in.my.head - What do Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky and Bin Laden have in common?
In Search Of Utopia - Bang, Bang....
OliveOylO - Coverup?


Just Do It, Already!

Methinks that the media should just act on these complaints of their constituents. They seem widespread and of genuine merit. should not our concerns be their concerns as well? Are they, the media, not responsible to all of us or are they a class unto their own? Left & Right?

An interesting article, to say the least....

These Times, They Are A Changing...

"I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,' she said in the story. "I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith.'

"[F]or all our brave souls (American or Iraqi) who have been murdered by the Bush crime family. I told my Congressman that he needs to speak out against the lies and murder."
"You tell me the truth. You tell me that my son died for oil. You tell me that my son died to make your friends rich. You tell me my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East."

Maybe Rich Lowry is correct, maybe President George W. Bush has been merely lucky in who his opponents have been; from Vice-President Al Gore all the way to Senator John Kerry. I would personally go further promulgating that these very themes and ideals are how many in the Democratic Party actually feel. This woman, Ms. Cindy Sheehan, is expressing the very same rhetoric many Democrats and Liberals in America misguidedly cling to: that President Bush is indeed a killer and he should spend the rest of his life rotting in the Hague.....

This explains the methodology behind her expression and her escalation into shrill, careless rhetoric about our nation's leaders. She has been seduced, blinded by her grief, by fringe elements that continuously degraded the War in Iraq. In reading her story from her first meeting with the president, it was not widely known that she disagreed then with President Bush in the rationale for going to war. However, as the accompanied link illustrates, she opined that he was a genuine individual who comforted her in her time of need. There disagreements were cast aside for an element more worthy of attention, the grieving of her son. With this expression of courage shown by Mrs. Sheehan; she illustrated all of what is great about America. In dire time she put aside her differences and focused on our nation's task whether she personally agreed or not. Fast forward to the present, and the mutated form of what she has now become illustrates the very worst in America.

Her actions now are accomplishing nothing and doing no less than tarnishing the memory of her son. Her son was one of our best and brightest in a generation. He knowingly sacrificed his livelihood to join the ranks of serving for our defense; and, with valor, died defending a noble and just cause against a barbaric enemy.

Any family, any mother, any father, any person with heart, any American, grieves the loss of such life, and America should provide comfort and support to the parents and families of our fallen men and women. Though it is not personally known in the fullest extent, such a loss is surely incomprehensible, and no parent should out live their own. Though, Americans are used to this challenge. Nearly every generation of Americans have been called to sacrifice in some form or fashion to preserve the costly freedom so that our children may enjoy this very same freedom in their own lives.

All this said in preface, for Ms. Sheehan's actions now are nothing less than selfish and undeniably cruel to the legacy of not only her son, but of each soldier that serves and has made the ultimate sacrifice. Her rhetoric is careless, in the least, and her credibility slips further and further away with each passing moment. Sympathy should be met with compassion, but this does not mean that carelessness should be accepted as well. Her son is not the only fallen soldier, and her story is not the only to be told. Ranting and raving about the Jews causing terrorism and that she will not pay taxes because Bush is a 'murderer' does nothing for her son, nor does it bode well for her son's brothers and sisters in arms. They are still giving of themselves to preserve our freedoms. We understand her grief, but the sympathies subside when you trample a cause that is worthy of our support. The war, and the loss, can be a topic sparking disagreement, but a decision was made and we must move forward.

It should be understandable to disagree, but dissent does not mean that one can say what they wish without consequences. Others have that very same right of expression, and this should be crystal clear to any view found upon the spectrum. Americans are sympathetic to a grieving mother, but a grieving mother becomes transparent when her actions pervert a noble cause and shatter the dignity of any public discourse. I sympathize and wish that I could quench her pain, but she deserves scold when she tarnishes the memory of those that have made the ultimate sacrifice. Stating that this war was illegal and that our president is a murderer for oil does nothing more than trivialize the life of her own flesh and blood.


SpotLight: Howard Dean

“It Looks Like Today, And This Could Change, As Of Today It Looks Like Women Will Be Worse Off In Iraq Than They Were When Saddam Hussein Was President Of Iraq.”
-Howard Dean

Publius Rendezvous continues its support and appreciation of such asinine statements by Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean. With such rhetoric, it only further ensures the irrelevancy of the party he leads and stifles the potential for development of ideals for which they could formulate. As a Conservative and member of the GOP, it is greatly appreciated, this extracurricular aid to our efforts.


What We Fight

This frustration stems from the observation. The disagreement develops from the core. It is not seen inasmuch in the methodology as much as it is a divergence from its inception.

Liberals and Conservatives trade many barbs, but herein the observations of the mind, or the culture that is Islamofascism provokes what should, unquestionably be an easily reconcilable debate. Victor Davis Hanson poignantly tackles this issue in a recent editorial, and it is seen as well on Fundamentally Right's 'In The Terrorist's Nest.' Sadly, both of these observations are yet more examples of what has become a pathetic quagmire. The debate surrounding the terrorists motives.

Since September 11, 2001, it has been sickening to continuously hear the insinuation and, many times, the out-and-out statements that somehow the terrorists are morally justified in their actions for atrocities we as Americans somehow committed. What foolishness and simplemindedness this posture connotes. As Hanson states,

'Throughout this war we have an understandable, if ethnocentric, habit of ignoring what our enemies actually say. Instead we chatter on, don’t listen, and in self-absorbed fashion impart our own motives for their hatred. We live on the principles of the Enlightenment and so worship our god Reason, thus assuming that even our adversaries accept such rational protocols as their own. So they talk on and on of beheading, suicide bombing, another holocaust, and blowing thousands of us up, while we snooze, now and again waking in the midst of a war to regurgitate Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, flushed Korans, the abusive Patriot Act, and the latest quip of Donald Rumsfeld.'

Since its inception this country has persistently attempted, and quite a few more times than most, and has successfully stayed on the correct side of history. Maybe, just maybe, it is somehow inherently good to question our motives, and to question the motives of others before we proceed. This country has an almost phobic condition of wanting to ensure that it acts with pure and just motivations. But therein lies theconundrumm, which is this: at what point must you leave this constant questioning and realize that some things in life are black & white, right & wrong and so forth?

The consternation felt by most Conservatives of this country is that the consistent bickering is, in the least, counterproductive, and in many circumstances it should be construed as providing 'shelter' to the enemy. This brings the discussion full circle; should not illustrations as the ones cited here lean in the way of establishing a foundation for what these animals seek? They want the destruction of our western civilization and will stop at nothing to bring about their perverted goals to fruition.

Where Credit is Due

Though quite unfortunate in enduring the circumstances and being placed into this predicament, the issue revolving around Judge Roberts' confirmation to the Supreme Court took a turn for the better this past week. However, the road traveled was a crooked bend marked with an egregious smear and a flat-out lie. Linking this candidate to a bombing and apologizing for our misinterpretation; both insult the intelligence of those that have what is called common sense. The fallout of these shenanigans actually completely backfiring on the perpetrators. And, the entire fallout is still unfolding.

NARAL's ill-conceived advertisement of this week linking Judge Roberts with an abortion bombing in Birmingham, Alabama is nothing less than abominable. There is no rationality to this assertion, which is based on complete disinformation. It arouses every ounce of detest to advocates on both sides of the aisle and further instills the notion of why most Americans do not follow current political events. NARAL's advertisement went well beyond what is construed as 'normal' spin that by pushing the boundaries of what America has grown quite accustomed to. Linking Roberts' with a bombing is, at best, nothing that should spawn any form of a serious discussion in a robust, healthy political debate.

With such, it is interesting to note that many Democrats and pro-choice advocates were some of the first to denounce the advertisement. It goes without saying that conservatives in the form of the blogosphere were some of the first to denounce this vitriolic rhetoric, yet Democrats and some in the pro-choice establishment were on top of the issue as well. With all optimism, perhaps this may be expected as we move into late August and September when the confirmation hearings will be transpiring. What will become of these hearings remains to be seen. Due credit should be given to the pro-choice constituents for denouncing these lies. Let us hope that this spirit of cooperation will continue.


Stolen Honor

"[If] a black is a tyrant, he is first and foremost a tyrant, then he incidentally is black. Bush is a tyrant and if he gathers around him black tyrants, they all have to be treated as they are being treated," he added. When asked specifically who was a "black tyrant" in the Bush administration, Belafonte responded to this reporter, "You." When this reporter noted that he was a Caucasian and attempted to ask another question, Belafonte abruptly ended the interview by saying, "That's it."

It is a sorrowful day in American politics when babblings and rants such as this warrant any form of recognition. Why must Republicans even dignify this type of rant with a dignified response?

Unfortunately, these statements warrant 'merit' since a significant percentage of the African-American minority consistently stand fast with this belief. It is ludicrous, but African-Americans allows themselves to be manipulated by their own leaders; ergo, this same form of asinine rhetoric and rationale is promulgated within the African-American community. Dysfunctional as though it may seem to anyone else, it is tolerated within this minority. Why is that leaders of the African-American community believe that success of one of 'their own' means that a fellow African-American is some type of traitor, and now, according to Mr. Belafonte, a 'tyrant' of some form or fashion. This is preposterous, but it is resoundingly evident in this rhetoric that rears its ugly head from time to time that the leaders of the African-American community are feeling less relevant with each passing election. African-Americans are beginning to see that the world awaits them if they will only think for themselves, and not rely on the hateful bigotry of some of their most significant leaders.


Scorched Earth

If the tables were turned, and Republicans engaged in this scorched earth tactic, there would be vehemently screaming by our colleagues on the left.

This should be equated to the rhetoric of Howard Dean; meaning that liberals and democrats state that 'he does not represent us' but when it comes down to it, he is the leader of the party. Separate yourselves. Let us hear the true representations if this is not your leader. What do you stand for? All the American people hear is similar rhetoric and shenanigans that we see in these attack ads.

Here, the burden is definitively on liberals and democrats, if this does not represent them, the burden of proof lies with them.....These type of tactics are a sad discourse in what the Democratic Party has become. In the party of 'NO;' the ends have come to justify the means...

If it were President Bush...

"The single greatest structural cause for September 11 was the wall that segregated criminal investigators and intelligence agents"

Again, I am thrilled that Ms. Jamie Gorelick sat on the 9/11 commission and I am so proud that Senator Hillary Clinton would consider her for our Attorney General.

She has done great work for this country.

God vs. Darwin

The credence of argument is swept away by the condescending nature in which the information of this editorial is presented. Particularly, the quote,

"Intelligent design" boils down to the claim sarcastically summed up by aerospace engineer and science consultant Rand Simberg on his blog, Transterrestrial Musings: "I'm not smart enough to figure out how this structure could evolve, therefore there must have been a designer." Simberg, a political conservative, concludes that this argument "doesn't belong in a science classroom, except as an example of what's not science."

Included, though, in this debate is an interesting twist that is not discussed frequently. This assertion being that the theory of evolution falls in line with conservative ideology more than it does with liberal ideology. This is one of the 'choice' issues that always seems to revolve around the merit of the argument before the 'choice' can be proffered. Herein, the statement:

"A scientific hypothesis must be testable meaning that, if it is wrong, there should be a way to disprove it. (That's why assertions that there is no conclusive proof of evolution are basically pointless.) "

But, should this not be reciprocal. All the 'Intelligent Design' movement is asking for is a 'fair' seat at the table. More individual scholars and scientists believe in ID, it is assumed that they by and far believe in evolution. Should this not be reciprocated in what we put forth in our curriculums? No one is stating that everyone must believe the dogma, we are just heretics to the evolutionary doctrine.



Hidden Religion

David Limbaugh's column this week discusses a subject that has been frequented lately. What is the proper role through which Judge Roberts' faith should or should not play on the bench. Most of the speculation seems to gravitate back to the behemoth that is Roe v. Wade.

But it is axiomatic that those who don't play by the rules are always suspicious
that the other side won't either. Since liberals have routinely exploited the
judiciary to implement their policy agenda they fear conservative-oriented
judges might do the same. Actually, they're horrified at the prospect that
conservative judges might simply reverse precedent established through liberal
activism, such as Roe.

It is unfortunate that the sole criteria for this justice must be seen through this solitary issue. Without going through the discussion again, it has been noted that there are a plethora of issues that judges must wrestle with throughout their careers. The Democrats are becoming the party of the extreme, and the party of one issue. Does their entire base represent the abortion movement? It is interesting to watch this as it plays out. In upcoming weeks, I am sure the issue will be churned relentlessly, but it seems as though the vacancy on the court is not the controversy that everyone thought it would be.


2006 and 2008

It is somewhat nauseating to speculate on the '08 election since we just elected President Bush to his second term, but sometimes it is irresistible. This story has repercussions that will be felt in 2008 no matter how 2006 turns out....

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has not announced she will be running for the presidency in 2008; however, most everyone that follows politics and knows the slightest about her personally knows she will be running for president. It is with such that the announcement of popular Westchester County District Attorney Jeanine Pirro, that she will be vying for the Republican senatorial ticket comes as welcome news for most (Republican) New Yorkers. Undoubtedly, this will be an interesting race to watch unfold if the two women are paired against one another, for as we all know Senator Hillary Clinton has become very well-known as a master of politics in her own right. What will make this worthy of interest is that she will not be able to persuade voters with her invocation of sympathy as she is quite fond of doing. She will not be able to pull some of the same 'feminist' shenanigans on Pirro as she did with Republican candidate Rick Lazio in 2000.

Worthy of notation as this story unfolds is the recent polling data streaming out of New York. Most of her constituency, and many Democrats are seeking her commitment to fulfill her full duties through 6 years before they wish to commit to vote for her in 2006. Should this not be construed as a mere facade since everyone is quite familiar with the 'commitment' from a Clinton?

Though, all in all, whether Pirro wins or loses, it is of no substantial consequence. It would be extremely beneficial for the Republicans to pick-up an additional Senate chair, but the stylistic nature of Pirro indicates that she will give Mrs. Clinton all that she can handle in this campaign. It has been rumored that Republican Party Chairman Ken Melhman himself has expressed a desire for Pirro to run for this senate seat just so it might cripple Senator Clinton's 2008 presidential bid.

All this, in 2005.....


Wasn't It Just Yesterday....

As the accompanied link illustrates, President Bush is confident in the direction that the United States economy is traveling. He is justified in his belief for one of the few ways that a president can have a direct effect on the economy via his policies is through any implemented tax cuts/increases. President Bush's tax cuts, though miniscule, further illustrate that supply-side economics indeed works.

It was just under a year ago that one of the fundamental issues promulgated by the Democratic Party through Senator John Kerry was that we had the worst economy since the Great Depression (Is this not always the case when a Republican is in the White House?). Where are those same cynics and critics now? What has changed? An economy such as the gargantuan one we have here in the United States takes a longer time to absorb the ebbs and flows, to absorb any shitfts in policy. President Bush's tax cuts from before 9/11 are just now yielding their benefits. Now is the time to make these tax cuts permanent so that Americans do not have to sacrifice any more of their own. It will be interesting to hear the spin on this issue now that the tax-cut benefits are finally seeing fruition.

Also, it should not be forgotten that this President's plan is working through terrorists attacks, a two-fronted war, corporate scandals.......But, wasn't it just yesterday that we heard that this was the worst economy since the Great Depression?


Crossing the Spectrum

What is amazing about the Kelo decision is that it has turned the political spectrum upside down. Conservatives are accusing liberals of being 'behind' the decision, with the same rhetoric emanating from liberals towards conservatives. Howard Dean's comments accusing the 'conservative' court of being behind the decision were highlighted here in this blog; however, it should be noted that all of the 'conservative' justices were in the dissent, so Mr. Dean was flat-out mistaken in his statement. This entire issue is amusingly similar to the old comedy bit 'Who's on First?' Though amusing may not be the most apt description when discussing the heart of the matter, the takings power. Illustrative of this national phenomenon is the accompanied editorial by Rich Lowry of National Review. Lowry discusses his recent interview of Representative Maxine Waters (D-Cal.). Known as a stalwart liberal in the House of Representatives, it is quite ironic to hear her and Milton Friedman discussed in the same light, expressing concern for property rights.

With all of the consternation involved; what can be and should be done to reverse this ominous Supreme Court precedent? Currently, it seems as though nothing is beginning to gain traction on a federal level. Many states, though, have begun the process of limiting the power of eminent domain as seen by the move Alabama made this past week marking it the first state to make such a move thus far. Unfortunately, this story and any other state activity seems to be flying under the radar.

What will become of this on a federal level, we shall only have to wait and see.

National Collegiate Athletic(?) Association

The recent 'sideline' in many newscasts over the weekend has included the NCAA's recently passed rules & regulations.

"Colleges and universities may adopt any mascot that they wish, as that is an institutional matter," said Walter Harrison, chair of the Executive Committee and president at the University of Hartford. "But as a national association, we believe that mascots, nicknames or images deemed hostile or abusive in terms of race, ethnicity or national origin should not be visible at the championship events that we control."

How is this 'hostile' or 'abusive?'

Who is getting upset about these mascots? Native Americans are not being bantered about the newscasts, granting and free-wielding interviews for every available reporter; it is always some special interest group's spokesperson. It would be quite logical to think that there would be protests of enormous magnitude by various ethnic groups such as Native Americans if they truly felt that this was 'hostile' or 'abusive.' Native Americans generally laud universities decisions to use such mascots, but this caveat is seemingly ignored as this overall (non-) issue is forced upon the populace. It is nothing less than asinine to actively seek ways illuminating the potential for 'hostile[ity]' or 'abuse' occurring. Why must tradition be forsaken for the pleasure of a barely significant few number of special interest groups? This minority of interest groups is illustrative of the overall forced and somewhat hostile agenda promulgated upon the general will repetitiously here in our country. Herein, only for the sake of an athletic organization making a unilateral move is the 'validity' of the movement ascertained. Why is it not a factor that only a handful of schools have these 'hostile' and 'abusive' forms of mascots and that they made the personal decision themselves? The NCAA does not endorse their decisions, just their own, they should simply allow the schools to make personal choices; after all, should not the NCAA have an open mind about this process?

All in all, the names are not derogatory; and they are, in fact, a compliment to the ethnic groups that these mascots collectively portray. For a moment, for the sake of argument, indulge this example: does this now mean that these ethnic group's fighting spirit should be shunned? The very rationale behind the mascots is to embrace a fighting spirit; and this spirit is manifested from the fight against oppression spawned by the 'European-Americans' settling the continent and their revulsion and uprising against this treachery. 'European-Americans' are castigated as the dirge of North America for uprooting these people from their ancestral lands, and the politically correct rationale is, by taking away these mascots, that this spirit cannot be respected. Of course, this logic is absurd, but is it not the counterargument that should be used? On any given day, any statement or act can be considered 'hostile' or 'abusive.' It is all a matter of chance, and an extension of the 'tyranny of the minority' induced oppression. If a particular ideal is that far out of the mainstream, then it will inevitably die, intuitively, if this same idea is collectively agreed upon, then it will give rise to its utilization. It should not be for monopolistic groups and organizations such as the NCAA to make unilateral decisions for what is best for the collective body.

Should we not follow this trail to it's logical end?
(If we begin this journey, let us seek the inevitable fruition of this argument)
What about the University of Mississippi Rebels?
What about the Notre Dame Fighting Irish?
What about the University of Pennsylvania Quakers?
What about the New England Patriots?
What happens when PETA gets involved?

These examples may be a little over the top to invoke; however, the same could have been said of this issue faced to today in retrospect. The same could have been said about many of our 'traditions' before the 'logic' of political correctness did away such 'hostile' or 'abusive' notions.


Just an Idea

'The best way to have a good idea is to have lots of ideas.'
-J. Sig Paulson

In each and every discussion of putting creation science back into the classroom, the debate must rage regarding the merit of such competing theories. As David Limbaugh states in his latest column, "Our secular popular culture is throwing a fit over President Bush's endorsement of teaching in public schools the controversies surrounding Darwinian theory." It is almost 'common sensical' to approach it this way, yet you only see this rationale in blogs, it as yet, to catch traction in the 'mainstream' media.

This consternation over President Bush's statements is quite perplexing; for the very point of understanding ideals and theories is to have your mind exposed to competing ideas.

While refraining from a long tome on economics and political theory; this competition of ideals postulation is instilled at the heart of our capitalistic society and of our federalist system. Yet, with the competing ideas of "Darwinism" and "Intelligent Design," there cannot be a valid source and explanation for a proper, ordered education, it must be an acceptance of the 'superior' over the 'inferior.' This is requisite with our 'Popular Culture.'

Personal feelings aside, what makes the theory of evolution so much more profound that it is the theory to be forced on the minds of the impressionable. This movement is still, as yet, a theory, no less and no more, yet we are to dogmatically accept it as undeniable......

'Political freedom means the absence of coercion of a man by his fellow men.'
-Milton Friedman

Just an Idea....



Finally, Alabama is first in something that they can actually be proud of....

Again, the forum is open for any liberal/judicial activists to explain why this decision was and is good for America. We are all ears.

Poor Ann Coulter

It is a given that everyone on the left chastises Ann Coulter for her harsh, yet poignant rhetoric on every issue falling along the political spectrum. Her style is somewhat blunt. She indeed tosses a great deal of red meat to the conservative base.

What is odd is seeing people on the right chastise her. It does not occur that often, most of the right shrugs their shoulders and simply absorbs all of her commentary. Now, the 'right' is either perplexed with the entire scenario or they are lashing out at anyone who doubts President Bush. Though, curiously, since the nomination of John Roberts, the right has been vehemently chastising Ann Coulter for her thoughts and comments regarding President Bush's nomination.

What should strike the conservative base as unnerving is that her claims cannot be easily refuted. Her editorial of last week was quite illuminating, particularly the erie resemblance of what pundits were saying about Justice David Souter and what pundits are now saying about nominee Judge John Roberts.

Her editorial of this week is no different, for it relentlessly points out that this nominee is far from what the conservative base deserves in fighting for the second term of President Bush. Conservatives have been consistently let down in this process many, many times. It has been pointed out that 7 of the 9 current justices are Republican appointees. Conservatives are taking it out on Ann for in their heart of hearts, they know what she speaks is plausible.....

Stories such as this do not ease the tensions on the right side of the aisle.

Fair & Balanced

Liberals love to steadfastly berate FOXnews for there (supposed) conservative bias; however, it should be noted that, even if, FOX were conservative in tilt, how does this conceivably outweigh every other major media outlet in America? Where is the pure outrage for the shenanigans of Air America's callous, self-serving ploy in 'borrowing' [stealing] from inner-city children? It is absurd, and intellectually dishonest to state that there is a non-story here and that it merits no attention. God Bless America and the capitalism she embraces or creating alternative forums of communications.

This occurence clearly illustrates the bias of our 'mainstream' press for it does not get any worse. The liberal radio flagship gets an undeniable free pass on this questionable situation, dare I say, crime. Unbelievable. (Before liberals start to answer, what would happen to the Excellence in Broadcast Network if this same activity were to occur)

How is this Plausible?

I will add commentary as time passes, but wanted to post something regarding Matt Drudge's headline at this hour. Please explain to me how the adoption of children is prudent for our determination of why John Roberts should or should not sit on the Supreme Court.

Has our nation gone this far down this road where we 'need the dirt' on our nominee's children?

If anyone can put forth a plausible rationale for this investigation, the forum is yours, and we are all listening.

No Respect for the Court

"While the deep concern of a woman bearing an unwanted child merits consideration and sympathy, it is my personal feeling that the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life. Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized – the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old.
"On the question of the individual's freedom of choice there are easily available birth-control methods and information which women may employ to prevent or postpone pregnancy. But once life has begun, no matter at what stage of growth, it is my belief that termination should not be decided merely by desire. ...
"When history looks back to this era it should recognize this generation as one which cared about human beings enough to halt the practice of war, to provide a decent living for every family, and to fulfill its responsibility to its children from the very moment of conception."

Democrats argue that such rhetoric does not deserve merit or place in our modern parlance. Far be it for anyone on the Supreme Court to deserve any ounce of consideration for such dastardly, ill-will aimed at America's women. These statements are at the least callous, and irresponsible. They do not represent the 'mainstream.' Am I not correct?

However, it is fine for them to flip-flop on the issue: how convenient. Follow the link and you will see how the master taught his pupil.


Grasping at Straws: Some Things Never Change

Why is President Bush (just like President Reagan) berated when they 'vacation?' Is the President of the United States ever 'off' from work? Why do you always hear these stories during Republican Administrations and not during the, well, the one Democratic Administration in the last 25 years?

Is not Congress vacationing now, as well? Why do we not hear stories of how Congress really is neglecting the American people? How much time they work? I demand the statistical breakdown of work-play time analyzed on our Congress......



Common Sense: A Second Look

Yesterday, this issue spawned a great deal of angst and consternation, which, of course piqued your humble correspondent's interest. Originally, this story derived from England, where the British are experiencing first-hand what we experienced nearly 4 years ago this coming September 11, 2005. It is easy to forget the tragedy, and those forces of evil bent on our destruction because we are not continuing the fight here at home on a daily basis. The sleeping giant was stirred, and, fortunately had a great leader who took the fight to the animal's lair. Therein lies the danger, without fighting this war here on our own soil, it is easy to forget the carnage and what evil the terrorists are capable of producing, which is why what statements British Transport Police Chief Constable Ian Johnston made yesterday,

"Intelligence-led stop-and-searches have got to be the way....[w]e should not waste time searching old white ladies."

These types of statements stir the "blame America first" mentality within the liberals. Though, un-politically correct, the statement "All terrorists are Muslim, but not all Muslims are terrorists" is emphatically true. However, it is promulgated that we should not target the innocent? Why label all the innocent in the same way? Yesterday, I made this statement,

"[T]he burden is on my religion to state what we are diametrically opposed to. Fact is, if Muslims in the US and Great Britain were not so indignant since 9/11, many of these 'profiles' would not be so prominent."

In coming across Charles Krauthammer's editorial this week, he stated more eloquently than I could ever imagine why this statement is undeniably true,

"Six percent of British Muslims -- more than 100,000 citizens -- thought the July 7 London terror attacks were justified. A quarter of British Muslims merely sympathize with the bombers. Even more shocking, nearly one-fifth of British Muslims say they feel little or no loyalty to Britain. Yet the most disturbing news from the July 23 London Telegraph poll is that these trends are worse among younger British Muslims."

These numbers are quite staggering, and further illustrate why the burden of proof is placed upon Muslims the world over to prove to civilized nations whether and to with whom they stand....


Something for both sides of the aisle to enjoy:

The Draconian Methodology

"Let’s pretend, for just a moment, that the ghost of the bloody Greek King Dracon is not laughing hysterically at the idea that being deported home in an air-conditioned bus is now considered “draconian.” And while we’re in fantasyland, let us also pretend that the $41 billion per year figure is even remotely accurate. The Federal Government has an annual budget of $2.34 trillion per year. Our Gross Domestic Product is a staggering $12 trillion per year. $41 billion would be just 1.7% of the Federal budget, and a miniscule 0.34% of our GDP."


"Yet the Center for American Progress would have us believe that this sum is so far beyond us that we should instead surrender our country to whomever shows up in whatever numbers, rather than pay it. To put it in perspective, 0.34% would be $148 for someone earning $43,527 per year, the median family income in America. Unless you have really bad taste, this is probably what you paid for the locksets in your home. "

Did we not have this discussion here? Is someone listening to us?

Publius and Jesse: Match Made in Heaven?

'Weak, Fuzzy Ideology' - That is about right

Yes, the Reverend Jesse Jackson and I have found common ground. I believe this to be the subject of several of my posts in recent weeks. Again, I will state that I believe the only reason that Republicans are in power stems from their ability to communicate some form of message, albeit this blog berates their ability to do so on numerous occasions. By and far, the Republicans do a much better job than the Democrats have been doing for 4 or 5 election cycles.

Will the news get any better for Democrats? The esteemed leadership of Howard Dean does not help a great deal. The breaking up of major unions was a tremendous monetary and organizational blow. Now, we have a significant size of their base rumbling.......what next?

Hillary, can you help us? (!)

I am glad that Hillary can bring the American people a substantive debate on the issues.


"Senator Dick Durbin is demanding that Roberts’ assure him that his Catholic views will have no impact on any cases that might come before him. During a meeting with Roberts, Durbin asked him what he would do if a law required a decision that conflicted with his religion."

Democrats should strongly reconsider the viability of this this gauntlet. This will resonate further and deeper than they could anticipate. This demand is nothing short of despicable and should not even be given an ounce of rational credence in the American political forum. It this the precedent we want to establish? Are all who hold religious beliefs to be castigated? Should these candidates have a higher burden in establishing their credentials to hold office? Senator Durbin's ploy is beyond preposterous. Yet again, this is a clear illustration of have far out of touch the Democrats are with Americans.

The Spin Starts Here

'For young conservatives such as Roberts, many of whom had spent the years of the Carter presidency in elite schools or cooling their political heels, the first two years of Ronald Reagan's presidency were a heady period. Civil rights was an issue of enormous importance to the Republican Party's fortunes and to businesses and local or state governments frustrated by what they regarded as decades of judicial intrusion into their activities.'

Leave it to the Washington Post to be 'fair and balanced' in their reporting. They might as well be forthright, and just state that all Republicans were out to roll-back civil rights during the Reagan Administration.

Could it be that the struggle for civil rights in this country had achieved what it needed from the courts? No respectable conservative I know of is attempting to state that no individual deserves a day in court or that ideas cannot be triumphed in court. What should be gleamed here is that conservatives see the need to place the power in the hands of the voter. Thus, again furthering the illustration of the rift between conservatives and liberals in going about dispersing their ideological standpoints. Here, it seems as though John Roberts was striving to lessen the crutch of using the judiciary as a means of moving forward with an agenda. It is unfortunate that this may be used as some ammunition to derail is nomination. It is merely ply a difference of opinion. Conservatives believe choices should me made by voters, not by courts. The proper place for an agenda is not the judiciary.

Gore TV Network Launches

'Current' - "[W]e want to be the television home page for the Internet generation." -Al Gore (inventor of the internet)

Any 'take' on how long this network will be around?

It is About Time (for common sense)!

"Political correctness won't keep New Yorkers safe from terrorists, a state assemblyman said Sunday — promising to introduce legislation allowing cops to use racial profiling to target Middle Easterners when they search bags."

I actually did not think that we would see this day.

"Dov Hikind charged that it's "insane" to look for bombs in the bags of "75-year-old grandmothers," adding, "The FBI and authorities have a good idea of who is going to commit terrorism. They all look similar, but everyone is terrified of using the word 'racial.' "

It is about time.

He said what?

This is just more red meat for Democrats. Most of this is understood by conservatives, but you do not give the mainstream press talking points to grind on....What is he doing?

Surely, You Jest...

File this editorial in the same vein as the "Howard Dean Chronicles." Republicans should encourage this 'strategery' to implemented by their counterparts. This 'strategery' has directly correlated with Democrats losing the House of Representatives, the Senate and the Presidency for the last assorted number of elections. With such, it is somewhat easy to ascertain why Democrats are so scared of the American people when they vote on issues. Instead of having 9 individuals decide the fate of 300 million Americans, let each individual state decide. Our Constitution mandates that we, as Americans, vote; and correspondingly those that we vote into office decide. The current modus operandi of the high court is directly opposed to any reasonable interpreatation of what is the constitutional-form of our Supreme Court.

Making Georgia Proud

Am I the only one that finds ex-President Jimmy Carter "unnecessary and unjust?" ex-President Bill Clinton has more respect for his former office than does Carter. Why is this man taken seriously in matters of foreign diplomacy when it was his administration that led to the Islamofascist state that now rules Iran? (just to name one instance)

Powered by Blogger

Locations of visitors to this page