Terri Schindler Schiavo dies

Words cannot express the rage I feel right now. An incredible injustice has been perpetrated on this country, and I do pray that God has mercy on this nation for having exterminated Terri. Thankfully, the Father has welcomed her away from this vile planet to His eternal paradise.

Some notes on the Terri matter:

1. See my previous entry about the online effort to impeach Judge Greer for ignoring state law in his activist ruling. Also, see this story (real short) about the Schindler's efforts to help push the impeachment forward.

2. Terri's "husband" Michael threw out the Schindler family from Terri's hospice room mere minutes before she died. Father Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, noted that Michael Schiavo flatly rejected the Schindlers' request to be with their daughter in her final moments...adding, "His heartless cruelty continued until the end." Story here.

3. Planned Parenthood is thanking spineless GOP legislators for doing the Pontius Pilate act and washing their hands of Terri's blood...and now, they're sending out letters asking people to do the same. Story here. As is pointed out in the article: "Apparently Planned Parenthood isn't content with killing 244,628 innocent children in the last year through abortion. Now the harmful organization is telling its advocates how to thank elected officials for voting against a measure aimed at saving the life of Terri Schiavo." Come on, libs! Tell me again how it's a stretch to call abortion a "slippery slope" towards court-ordered killing if disabled people! When the preeminent abortion group in the nation supported killing Terri (which had nothing to do with their day-to-day business of killing babies), that shot to Hell the liberal defense that no "slippery slope" will occur.

I'm sure I'll think of more later. But I'm pretty steamed right now. Angry, and so very sad.

Impeach Greer

An online petition, which gained more notoriety from the Washington Times newspaper and web site, is available to petition the state legislature of Florida to impeach judicial activist Judge Greer. For those of you who are legally inclined, the legal reasons for his impeachment are included in the petition (including specific Florida statute numbers for reference).

The petition is at http://www.petitiononline.com/ijg520/petition.html.

Pro-death protestors are typical liberals

There was a hit piece on the agonizing Schindler family (the parents of Terri Schiavo) yesterday, and I won't give it any play here. Let's just say, it wasn't flattering. Talk about kicking someone when they're down. Well, two protestors were interviewed on Fox News' Hannity and Colmes show. Hannity & Colmes were doing their show from outside the hospice facility in Florida where Terri rots, and they interviewed two protesters, Sensara Taylor and Deborah Sweet. These are people that are protesting the religious right appearance.

I'll let the transcript here speak for itself:

COLMES: There's also I understand very big money behind their side. (ed. - Colmes is citing this New York Times story yesterday that dumped on the Schindlers). There's a big interweb of connections and they also protest things like teaching evolution in schools and a whole lot of conservative issues with big money behind them, and some of those monies are the same monies from the same sources that went after Bill Clinton during the year of impeachment, for example.

SWEET: Exactly. And then they basically had a rolling coup. They stole an election in 2000. And now, what are they doing? They are subverting the whole historic relationship of the separation of powers.

(snip)

HANNITY: "Sensara, what kind of shirt is that? What does that say on your shirt there?"

TAYLOR: It says "the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade."

Is there anything more that needs to be added? Well, if there's anything Commies know a hell of a lot about, it's killing people. They've been practicing the art in China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc. (and formerly USSR...but hey! Communism did not fail there...the right people just weren't in charge!), for decades now.

So that's what this is about? It's about 2000 and 2004, and if Bush wants Terri alive, then the left wants her dead. Anything that can be perceived as a Bush loss is the left's gain.

At the risk of repeating myself: Is there no depth to liberals' perverse nature? Is there any wonder I dedicate a blog to exposing these sickos?

GOP can't win with Schiavo case?

I have a point to ponder, and feel free to weigh in with your own opinion:

Will the Terri Schiavo's situation hurt the GOP?

There are those who are upset with them for getting involved in the first place, mainly because average Americans have been push-polled with biased polls to think that Terri is dying peacefully...when she's suffering greatly in her starvation. But this group of Americans are mad at the Republicans (epsecially the Bush brothers) for getting involved to save her.

Then there are those who are upset at the GOP for not standing up to the piss-ant state court, who allowed a liberal judicial activist tell Congress, the governor of Florida, and the President to f### off. These are the party faithful, who are now steaming mad that the GOP just caved to the judiciary (when there are laws and precedents that they could have used) and let Terri die.

In other words, there are two groups of people: those who like Republicans, and those who don't. And right now, both look like they are mad at the GOP.

I'm playing devil's advocate here, of course. Any thoughts?

Sowell's "Random Thoughts"

Frequently, Thomas Sowell (black conservative economist, and thus an "Uncle Tom" to the left) has a column called "Random Thoughts." Like Neal Boortz says, Sowell's random thoughts are better than most people's organized thoughts. Here's the link to the full column, but the more poignant ones are here:

If people who commit sex crimes against children are so dangerous that they have to be registered for life after serving their sentences, why are they let out of prison in the first place?

(snip)

It is fascinating to hear teachers say that having to "teach to the test" reduces their ability to engage in good teaching. What they call "good teaching" is the very reason our students do so badly in international comparisons and why colleges have to have large numbers of remedial courses to teach students what they didn't learn in school.

One sign of the Democrats' desperation is that some of them continue to try to tar the Bush administration with innuendoes of racism, even though its Cabinet members have included people of Hispanic, Japanese American, Jewish, and Chinese American ancestry, as well as two consecutive black Secretaries of State.

(snip)

People on the political left not only have their own view of the world, they have a view of the world which they insist on attributing to others, regardless of what those others actually say. A classic example is the "trickle down theory," which no one has ever advocated, but which the left insists on fighting against.

Libs defy court orders they dislike, but GOP does not

I don't know if this is a compliment to liberals or not. But John Fund has a brilliant piece in Opinion Journal about how the Clinton Justice Department (led by the arsonist/murderer known as Janet Reno) subverted court rulings in order to send a child back to the Communist gulag hellhole known as Cuba.

Fund points out the patent hypocrisy of both conservatives and liberals in the Schiavo case, and how their positions are polar opposite of what they were five years ago when the trigger-happy jackbooted thugmistress ordered Elian deported back to a land that his mother died to get him away from.

As to the ruling of a FL state court, Fund observes the following:

If a state court had been allowed to hear the custody case, INS officials would not have been able to testify as to what Mr. Gonzalez told them to support his claim because it would have been hearsay. He would have had to come to the U.S. to testify on his own, subject to cross-examination. Even if the state court had granted him custody, it would have had to decide whether it was in the child's best interest to be returned to Cuba.

That's what Judge Rosa Rodriguez of Florida Family Court, complying with the original INS ruling, tried to do when she ruled in early January 2000 that her court had jurisdiction over the boy and gave Elian's great-uncle legal authority to represent him. Her order contravened an INS ruling that only Elian's father could speak for the boy and that he should be immediately returned to Cuba. Attorney General Janet Reno than promptly declared that Judge Rodriguez's ruling had "no force or effect." At the same time, INS officials assured reporters that under no circumstances did they intend to seize Elian by force.

Fund closes with this observation:

Of course, there are differences between the Gonzalez and Schiavo cases. But clearly many of the people who approved of dramatic federal intervention to return Elian to Cuba took a completely different tack when it came to the argument over saving Terri Schiavo. Rep. Frank makes a compelling argument that Congress took an extraordinary step when it met in special session to create a procedure whereby the federal courts could decide whether Ms. Schiavo's rights were being violated. He may have a point when he accuses Republicans of "trying to command judicial activism and dictate outcomes when they don't like" rulings. But where were Mr. Frank and other liberals when the Clinton administration decided to sidestep a federal appeals court and order an armed raid against Elian Gonzalez? While Mr. Frank allowed that the use of assault rifles in the Elian raid was "excessive" and "frightening," he also defended the Justice Department's view that "of course [agents] had to use force."

According to some reports, Gov. Jeb Bush considered seizing Mrs. Schiavo, à la Elian, and taking her to a hospital so she could be fed. But he did not do so. "I've consistently said that I can't go beyond what my powers are, and I'm not going to do it," the governor says. Janet Reno and the Clinton administration showed no such restraint when it came to Elian Gonzalez.

So to send an orphan to a poverty-stricken tyrannical dictator's land required using the armed force of the Imperial Federal Government, because a state court in FL had no jurisdiction and its ruling had "no force or effect." Yet when a state court in FL orders the dehydration and starvation death of a woman, liberals think that now the state court ruling trumps federal intervention?

Man...these people are sick!

LA Times smears Tom DeLay on his father's death

Tom DeLay's dad was in a coma in 1988. He couldn't breathe without life support. He had made his intentions known to his family that should a situation like that occur, he was to be removed from life support. His family collectively agreed to do it...no judges, emergency orders, acts of Congress, etc. He was not starved, nor was he killed by his family. Nature took its course.

Well, the LA Times has hit a new low in its reporting...as if it were any more possible. The same fishwrap that brought election-eve stories about the Governator's on-set groping (isn't the left always telling us that what happened eons ago is irrelevant?) has now brought another low (and analogically deficient) story to us. It seems as though the paper thinks that DeLay is a hypocrite because he wanted to fight to keep Terri Schiavo from starving to death...a death worse than that which is permitted for death row child murderers, household pets, or al Qaeda suicide camel jockeys.

From NewsMax:

Moreover, unlike Charles DeLay, Schiavo was not and has never been in a coma.

Most important, she has never required artificial life support systems such as the oxygen equipment sustaining the life of DeLay's father.

Almost all of the advocates supporting Terri's right to life and basic sustenance agree that artificial life support from machines is not required.

In the Schiavo case, Terri is not kept alive by any machines, such as a respirator. In fact, she breathes on her own, reacts to her surroundings and, according to testimony of nurses who treated her, was able to speak and otherwise communicate. Considering that she is now nine days into forced starvation and still alive, she was in considerably good health.

The facts are clear. In the case of Charles DeLay, nature was allowed to take its course. He was comatose and could not be kept alive without artificial equipment, including a respirator.

Terri Schiavo, to the contrary, has survived for 15 years without being hooked up to any machines and is only being fed, a natural need shared by all human beings.

Charles DeLay expired naturally. Terri Schiavo was condemned to death by a judge who demanded that she be dehydrated and starved.

She is being killed by the denial of basic sustenance - distinctions the Times chose to ignore in its effort to smear Tom DeLay.

Terri breathed just fine without a respirator. She was not kept alive by artificial means...food and water is hardly "artificial." The Times, naturally, doesn't let that little factoid get in the way of their hit piece on DeLay. And the LAT wonders why its circulation has been plummeting for years!

Jeb blinks

Woman-hating judge Greer ordered "every sheriff" to enforce his death warrant. He thumbed his nose at Congress, then he thumbed his nose at the governor. It seems that we almost had a showdown between state and local law enforcement agencies, but the state blinked.

From NewsMax:

The Miami Herald reported Saturday that Florida Gov. Jeb Bush sent a team of state agents Thursday to rescue Terri Schiavo - but it was stopped short by local police.

"We were ready to go," Bush spokesman Jacob DiPietre told the Herald.
Story Continues Below


Doctors say that unless her feeding tube is reinserted, Schiavo, 41, will die a week or two after March 18, when a judge ordered it removed after siding with her huband that Terri would have preffered it that way.
On Saturday, the Herald reported that local police in Pinellas Park, the small town where Schiavo lies at Hospice Woodside, were expecting "a showdown" between law enforcement agents.

But the squad from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the Department of Children & Families charged with taking custody of Schiavo and reinserting her feeding tube backed down after police told agents of the FDLE that they would enforce state judicial rulings preventing any actions to save Terri Schiavo.

"We told them that unless they had the judge with them when they came, they were not going to get in," a source with the local police told the Herald.

Apparently, the only showdown occured over the telephone.

"The FDLE called to say they were en route to the scene," an unnamed official with the city police told the Herald. "When the sheriff's department and our department told them they could not enforce their order, they backed off."

In ordering the move, Gov. Jeb Bush used state procedures allowing public agencies to freeze a judge's order whenever an agency appeals it. "We didn't want to break the law. There was a process in place and we were following the process," DePietre told the Herald.

On Wednesday, Pinellas-Pasco County Circuit Judge George W. Greer had signed an order forbidding DCF from taking the patient from the hospice, directing "each and every and singular sheriff of the state of Florida" to enforce the order.

But Thursday morning, DCF lawyers appealed Greer's order to judges at the Second District Court of Appeal in Lakeland, legally creating a window of opportunity to seize Schiavo, the Herald reported. The appeal created a stay in the judge's ruling.

It took nearly three hours before the judge found out and took steps to block that legal window, the Herald reported.

In the meantime, "there were two sets of law enforcement officers facing off, waiting for the other to blink," an unnamed official told the paper.

The Florida Department of Children and Families has been besiged by calls alleging Schiavo is the victim of abuse. On Wednesday, the governor and DCF chief Lucy Hadi made it known that they were considering sheltering Schiavo under the state's adult protection law.

Wow...it's the Alabama National Guard trying to prevent black school integration, all over again.

Max Boot has solution to oil problem

This is a well-reasoned solution to the oil problem we have in this country. It's a multi-faceted solution, but as Boot points out, politicians of both parties must have the political will to do it. Alas, I shan't hold my breath.

An excerpt from Boot's column:

Both Democrats and Republicans know this, but neither party is serious about solving this growing crisis. Democrats who couldn't tell the difference between a caribou and a cow grandstand about the sanctity of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, even though 70% of Alaskans are happy to see a bit of drilling in this remote tundra. Republicans, for their part, pretend that tapping ANWR will somehow solve all of our problems. If only. A government study finds that, with ANWR on line, the U.S. will be able to reduce its dependence on imported oil from 68% to 65% in 2025.

A group called Set America Free has introduced an ambitious agenda to achieve desired goals of reducing dependency on the oil sheiks who attempt to hold the world hostage by keeping their fingers on the oil spiggots.

Boot closes with the following observation:

There are many untapped sources of gasoline in North America, such as the tar sands of Alberta, Canada, and the shale of Utah, Wyoming and Colorado. But extracting oil from such sources costs at least three times more than pumping it out of the Arabian desert. Congress could make this more economically feasible by imposing a higher tax on oil that doesn't come from North America.

Needless to say, this runs smack dab into Republican orthodoxy that opposes new taxes and regulations, while the prospect of more drilling raises the hackles of Democratic environmentalists. Absent some political courage in both parties, we will continue to be at OPEC's mercy.

You should read the column. It's short, enlightening, plus will satisfy your curiosity in finding out the answer to this question: How do you get 500 miles-per-gallon? And no, it's not a "knock-knock" joke, or any other joke for that matter. Just read the damned thing, will ya?

GOP Senate memo forged by Democrat Senate staffers

And I'm just positive that they received NO direction from their bosses, right?

The Rathergate fiasco apparently did NOT serve as a lesson to the MSM. They're still as lazy and biased as ever. Story and observations by the American Spectator. Excerpt:

It's Rathergate all over again, and the same vigilant entities that brought about to the collapse of CBS News could now also cause heads to roll among Democratic Senate leadership staffers and further shame multiple news organizations that would appear to have fallen for another document hoax.

Very quietly, Senate Republican leadership aides to both Sen. Rick Santorum and Sen. Mitch McConnell, as well as the Senate Republican Policy Committee, have been using the Senate recess break to reconstruct the purported distribution of a document that media outlets, including ABC News, the New York Times and a number of regional newspapers, identified as Senate "GOP talking points" on the Terri Schiavo fight that unfolded over the weekend.

"There is a process here for documents like this that are passed around down on the Senate floor, which is where the media claimed that the 'talking points' were being distributed last Thursday," says a Republican policy committee staffer. "There was a lot of stuff going on Thursday, but a document like this one was not being distributed. As far as we know, the only documents being handed out related to votes on a series of amendments being pushed through before the recess. Schiavo wasn't part of that package."

(snip)

Other Republican staffers blame not only Democrats but also the mainstream media which once again put out a story to embarrass Republicans before checking all the facts first.

What?!? You mean the MSM and the libs are in bed together like that?!? No WAY!!

GOP: porkmasters

You may have seen lately where the GOP was going to cut the rate of growth of Medicaid, to encourage states to slim it down and weed out fraud. Naturally, the left whined about the "cuts", which weren't even cuts in amounts spent...just the rate of growth. About the only thing the left ever wanted to "cut" was defense spending.

Well, the whining (and media coverage by the Dems' trusty allies in the MSM) worked. Republicans ran like scared dogs, and backed off.

So why can't they seem to cut the government's massively bloated size (and budget)? Well, because they're now intoxicated with power, and will spend billions on pork to keep it. Funny, since I thought the GOP was supposed to be the party of limited government and fiscal discipline! Geez, they're spending like drunken sailors at a Tijuana whorehouse!

Little wonder why I'm a Libertarian, huh?

Cal Thomas has a great column on the GOP betraying their vows in 1994 to restore fiscal sanity to D.C. Among such "federal spending priorities":

$100,000 of our tax dollars going to the Tiger Woods Foundation;
$75,000 for the sports halls of fame in Syracuse, N.Y;
$450,000 for "educational outreach", i.e. the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, N.Y.

These are federal responsibilities? Please read Cal's column (it's pretty short) to get the full appreciation on how the GOP has flushed the Contract with America (and six consecutive Congressional, along with two presidential, victories) down the toilet.

Coulter on Schiavo, plus Congress' supremacy over state courts

We had a spirited discussion on the Schiavo ruling by the Florida state court judge who told Congress to piss off with their federal subpoena. Well, this may get lively again. Coulter's column is brilliant, as usual. I've snipped excerpts from the column to keep it relevant to the topic at hand. Relevant excerpts follow:

Democrats have called out armed federal agents in order to: 1) prevent black children from attending a public school in Little Rock, Ark. (National Guard), 2) investigate an alleged violation of federal gun laws in Waco, Texas (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms), and 3) deport a small boy to Cuba (Immigration and Naturalization Service).

So how about a Republican governor sending in the National Guard to stop an innocent American woman from being starved to death in Florida? Republicans like the military. Democrats get excited about the use of military force only when it's against Americans.

In two of the three cases mentioned above, the Democrats' use of force was in direct contravention of court rulings. Admittedly, this was a very long time ago – back in U.S. history when the judiciary was only one of the three branches of our government.

(snip)

As important as it was to enforce the constitutional right to desegregated schools, isn't it also important to enforce Terri Schiavo's right to due process before she is killed by starvation?

Liberals' newfound respect for "federalism" is completely disingenuous. People who support a national policy on abortion are prohibited from ever using the word "federalism."

I note that whenever liberals talk about "federalism" or "states' rights," they are never talking about a state referendum or a law passed by the duly elected members of a state legislature – or anything voted on by the actual citizens of a state. What liberals mean by "federalism" is: a state court ruling. Just as "choice" refers to only one choice, "the rule of law" refers only to "the law as determined by a court."

(snip)

It would be chaotic if public officials made a habit of disregarding court rulings simply because they disagreed with them. But a practice borne of practicality has led the courts to greater and greater flights of arrogance. Sublimely confident that no one will ever call their bluff, courts are now regularly discovering secret legal provisions requiring abortion and gay marriage and prohibiting public prayer and Ten Commandments displays.

Just once, we need an elected official to stand up to a clearly incorrect ruling by a court. Any incorrect ruling will do, but my vote is for a state court that has ordered a disabled woman to be starved to death at the request of her adulterous husband.

Florida state court Judge George Greer – last heard from when he denied an order of protection to a woman weeks before her husband stabbed her to death – determined that Terri would have wanted to be starved to death based on the testimony of her husband, who was then living with another woman. (The judge also took judicial notice of the positions of O.J. Simpson, Scott Peterson and Robert Blake.) The husband also happened to be the only person present when the oxygen was cut off to Terri's brain in the first place. He now has two children with another woman.

Greer has refused to order the most basic medical tests for brain damage before condemning a woman to death. Despite all those years of important, searching litigation we keep hearing about, Terri has yet to receive either an MRI or a PET scan – although she may be allowed to join a support group for women whose husbands are trying to kill them.

Greer has cut off the legal rights of Terri's real family and made her husband (now with a different family) her sole guardian, citing as precedent the landmark "Fox v. Henhouse" ruling of 1893. Throughout the process that would result in her death sentence, Terri was never permitted her own legal counsel. Evidently, they were all tied up defending the right to life of child-molesting murderers.

Given the country's fetishism about court rulings, this may be a rash assumption, but I presume if Greer had ordered that Terri Schiavo be shot at her husband's request – a more humane death, by the way – the whole country would not sit idly by, claiming to be bound by the court's ruling because of the "rule of law" and "federalism." President Bush would order the FBI to protect her and Gov. Bush would send in the state police.

What was supposed to be the "least dangerous" branch has become the most dangerous – literally to the point of ordering an innocent American woman to die, and willfully disregarding congressional subpoenas. They can't be stopped – solely because the entire country has agreed to treat the pronouncements of former ambulance-chasers as the word of God. The only power courts have is that everyone jumps when they say "jump." (Also, people seem a little intimidated by the black robes. From now on we should make all judges wear lime-green leisure suits.)

President Andrew Jackson is supposed to have said of a Supreme Court ruling he opposed: "Well, John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." The court's ruling was ignored. And yet, somehow, the republic survived.

If Gov. Jeb Bush doesn't say something similar to the Florida courts that have ordered Terri Schiavo to die, he'll be the second Republican governor disgraced by the illiterate ramblings of a state judiciary. Gov. Mitt Romney will never recover from his acquiescence to the Massachusetts Supreme Court's miraculous discovery of a right to gay marriage. Neither will Gov. Bush if he doesn't stop the torture and murder of Terri Schiavo.

I had forgotten that Greer allowed Helene Ball to be killed by her husband in 1998. Liberty Post reminded me of that:

Imagine for a moment that you are a Circuit Court Judge. A terrified woman comes before your Court pleading for her life. She testifies, under oath, that her violent and demented husband raped her, set her clothes on fire and threatens to kill her. She needs your help and petitions your court for an Injunction for Protection. What would you do? Well, this is what a real Circuit Court Judge of the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida; by the name of Judge George W. Greer decided.

He actually had this exact case come before his bench seven years ago, when Helene Ball McGee, from Dunedin Florida pleaded with him to grant her an Injunction for Protection. Helene was in absolute fear for her life. Judge George W. Greer, however, refused to help her, because (according to him) she had not shown him enough proof that her husband was physically violent yet. Two weeks later her deranged husband, Bobby Lane McGee, stabbed her to death. Perhaps if Bobby Lane McGee, had raped Judge Greer first, he would have had a much better insight into the physically violent nature of her husband.

Now this same gender-biased Judge, with utter disdain for women, is the same Judge in charge of the Terri Schindler Schiavo Case. True to form, this Judge continues to ignore the Constitutional rights of Due Process for Terri Schindler Schiavo, in much the same way he did to Helene Ball McGee, who was violently murdered seven years ago this month. Terri who is physically disabled, has trouble swallowing food on her own and because of this Judge Greer has seen fit to order her feeding tube removed. Her Court appointed 'Guardian' husband who has since abandoned her for another woman, (with whom he has fathered two children) wants her dead and has asked Judge Greer's permission to use hundreds of thousands of dollars from her Medical Trust Fund Money to pay his blood-sucking lawyers to find a way to make this happen.

It worked. Judge George W. Greer has now ignored her parents plea for help and has ordered Terri's execution by starvation and dehydration to begin on March 18, 2005. This cruel, torturous, and horrifying death of yet another woman before his Court will take up to 10 days of horrific suffering to cause her to die. But Judge Greer is not without mercy, no sir; he will allow her parents permission to stay and watch their daughter starve to death.

Seems Greer has a shotty track record at protecting women's lives. Now add "judicial activist" to his resume.

By the way, my anonymous friend who complained of "Congressional activism" in the prior related post should understand that even though courts are increasingly thinking that they're supposed to create laws instead of interpreting them, it is the role of Congress to be activists...NOT judges. After all, Congress makes laws, which by definition IS activism! That's what they're supposed to do! If citizens don't like their Congressional activists, we have a system in place to eject them...they're called elections, and as little Tommy Daschle found out, they work quite efficiently at chucking Congressional activists to the weeds.

Also, one needs to read Article III of the Constitution, which gives Congress jurisdiction over ALL inferior courts! Therefore, when the Senate (part of Congress) subpoenaed Terri Schiavo, the state court went against the Constitution's Article III by telling its superior to stuff it. Therefore, Greer (in light of his horrendous court record, and defiance of the Constitution he was sworn to uphold) should be disbarred, fined, jailed, or some other punitive action.

France to scrap 35-hour work week

You mean they might have to work FORTY hours? Oh, the inhumanity of it!

From Neal Boortz:

French lawmakers abolished the 35-hour work week yesterday. They passed a bill allowing employers to increase working hours an additional 220 hours a year, which puts the new work week closer to 40 hours. The former Socialist government had swept into power with the 35-hour work week policy, and what happened as a result should come as no surprise.

Working only 35 hours per week, France was not competitive. Unemployment is high there...10.1 percent. But wait...by reducing the work week, that was supposed to create millions of jobs! It did not. Just like raising the minimum wage here, manipulating the market did not produce the intended result.

Besides, anyone who only works 40 hours, much less 35, is not going to be particularly successful in life. Hard work is how you get ahead in this world, and that includes working a lot....not sitting around bashing America and eating buttered snails.

You do have to pity the French, though.....with a longer work week, they're probably going to have to shower more than twice a month now.

Yikes. Did I really say that?

Yeah, Neal...you did. And I adore you for it! To quote Larry the Cable Guy: "That's funny right there! I don't care who you are, that's just funny!"

Dean quotes Bible to bash Republicans

If you're drinking water or milk or anything, put it down before you read this...else it will shoot out of your nose. Hilarity ensues: link

And these people wonder why they keep losing elections?

Canada's wonderful health care system: "Sorry if you die before we see you!"

There are those in America that think it would be just peachy if we had "free" health care like Canada does. The problem (and it's well documented) is that patients have to wait forever to see doctors. It seems that with health care being "free", anyone can go see a doctor if a fart gets stuck crosswise in their ass.

Check this out (full article here):

A letter from the Moncton Hospital to a New Brunswick heart patient in need of an electrocardiogram said the appointment would be in three months. It added: "If the person named on this computer-generated letter is deceased, please accept our sincere apologies."

Hey, that's sweet! "Sorry if you died waiting on us to get around to helping you...sucks for you!"

Senators threaten judicial activist judge with jail

Finally, a Senator or two with some balls to deal with these liberal ass judges!

By now, you're probably familiar with the Terri Schiavo case here in FL. A woman in a persistent vegetative state left no living will, yet her husband (who's since remarried and spawned more offspring with his new belle) wants her dead and has court rulings to back him up. Look, this is a complex case, and I've got mixed views on this. Reasonable people can reach reasonable conclusions either way. However, one judge has overstepped the line.

Basically, the Senate issued a subpoena for Terri Schiavo to appear. Naturally, she can't. But the legal process demands that the federal subpoena laws be followed. One big staple of the law is that no one can harm (directly or indirectly) the subpoenaed individual. It is a crime for anyone to do anything that keeps the witness from appearing.

Well, a state judge in Florida told the U.S. Congress to screw itself. He overstepped his authority by ordering Schiavo's tube removed anyway, though he was told that ordering that would be in direct conflict with federal law. He in essence said that federal law didn't apply to him.

From NewsMax:

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Friday that subpoenas issued by Sen. Mike Enzi compelling Terri Schiavo to appear at a March 28 congressional hearing made it a crime to disconnect her feeding tube - and threatened anyone who interfered with her testimony with jail.

In a statement issued by the majority leader's office, Frist said:

"Federal criminal law protects witnesses called before official Congressional committee proceedings from anyone who may obstruct or impede a witness’ attendance or testimony."

"More specifically," said the Senate's top Republican, "the law protects a witness from anyone who - by threats, force, or by any threatening letter or communication - influences, obstructs, or impedes an inquiry or investigation by Congress.

"Anyone who violates this law is subject to criminal fines and imprisonment," Frist said.

His comments appeared to be directed at Florida state judge George Greer, who brazenly defied the Enzi subpoena on Friday and ordered Schiavo's starvation to commence.

Frist's statement echoed comments by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who said late Friday that he intended to charge Greer with contempt of Congress.

"No little judge sitting in a state district court in Florida is going to usurp the authority of Congress," he complained.

Though legal experts disagree, Georgetown Law professor Paul Rothstein said the Schiavo subpoena was within the purview of Congress' authority.

"I think Judge Greer is making a legal mistake and is vulnerable," Rothstein told Newsday. "Provided that Congress is making legitimate investigations for making law, they have the power to seek evidence."

I don't care how you feel about the Schiavo case, or even if you think Congress should butt out. What we should agree on, though, is that we have a legal process in place, and an inferior judge cannot simply ignore laws he doesn't like. I know the left operates this way, but it doesn't make it legal.

And this judge may find out the hard way that there's a price to be paid for judicial activism. I hope he's jailed, or even worse, disbarred.

The left's culture of death

Let's see how the mind of a liberal works:

A baby can be killed at any stage of the pregnancy, pretty much up until he/she says "Mama"! And be quick about it!

A woman with no living will can be starved to death, despite the intervention efforts of governors and legislatures at state and federal levels. And be quick about it!

A convicted axe murderer who gleefully chops up a family and gets sentenced to death...should have his life spared at all costs! Why, just what is the hurry to kill this man anyway?!? Do we want America to devolve into barbarism when we can kill people like that?

A soldier who makes an al Qaeda terrorist wear the Israeli flag or don women's undergarments on camera, to the point of the terrorist being scared into a fatal heart attack...why, that's just reprehensible! Inflicting "torture" on a poor, defenseless terrorist like that!

So, in summary: Liberals think that it's OK to kill innocent people...just not guilty ones!

And you wonder why I dedicate a blog to crushing this sick, perverted, backwards, twisted way of thinking?

Democrats threaten shutdown

Please...PLEASE...let them do it! We should be so lucky! Story here.

Harry Reid has threatened to shut down all Senate activity not related to national security and defense, if the Senate GOP majority takes away their filibuster on judicial nominations. While Reid and the liberals in his party and in the mainstream media refer to the taking away of the filibuster as the "nuclear" option, I prefer to call it the "constitutional" option.

You see, the Constitution says that the Senate shall "advise and consent" on federal judicial appointments. That means the Senate has to approve judges. There's nothing in the Constitution that says that 60% or more of the Senate must approve of judges...a simple majority will suffice. Therefore, it's clear that the so-called "nuclear" option is nothing more than enforcing the Constitution. Period.

Let's assume that Harry has his way, and the Dems maneuver a government shutdown like the GOP did in 1995. The press blamed the GOP for the shutdown. If Dems succeed in a government shutdown, I'm not going out on a limb by predicting that the MSM will pin it all on the GOP for not dealing with the minority! How insane is that?

Look, we had elections in 2004. Democrats were roundly defeated damned near everywhere, and yet they say they need to be considered and consulted? Really? And Bush is the arrogant one? To the victors go the spoils, babe! Why in the hell should the majority ask chronic elections losers for advice or consent on ANYTHING?

By the way, notice how a few Senate Democrats are pretty weak-kneed about Reid's approach. Some, like Nebraska (i.e. red state) Democrat Ben Nelson, are up for re-election next year. Time will tell if the leftists in the Senate are that suicidal.

Danny Glover and others: US, not Castro, is human rights abuser

The more I hear from Danny Glover, the more I hate that son of a bitch. And that goes for that intellectually vacuous race-baiting poverty hooker Alice Walker.

Look, they hate Bush. Fine. Cool. Whatever. Lots of people do, though to the liberals' chagrin, less than half of America shares the sentiment. But in yet another stunning display of intellectual bankruptcy and moral apathy, these two idiots and their ilk have decided that Cuba is a bastion of human rights, while the U.S. is a chronic violator of those rights. Story here.

I just wanna know: Does hatred of Bush means that you have to sidle up next to this country's enemies? Here's how the sick, perverted mindset of liberals goes:

Any country that offers universal health care (i.e. not the U.S.) is a 100% de facto supreme bastion of human rights. Sure, they may live in third world conditions, jail (or torture or kill) political dissidents, kill innocents who wish to flee such a "paradise" for a better life (usually in that abusive U.S.)...but hey! At least they have free health care! And that's all you need to know about how wonderful a country is in terms of human rights.

This is how the twisted mind of a liberal works. Saddam Hussein gassed tens of thousands of his own people, including women, children, and babies. But there was universal health care! So in case you pissed him off and he lopped off your fingers, you could go to the "free" hospital to have them surgically reattached! Why, if that's not compassion for your fellow man, I don't know what is!

Ask yourself one question, people: How many people do you see year in and year out that are risking life and limb to get INTO Cuba? South Florida is teeming with people who risked the lives of themselves and their families, to come to America and leave Cuba...why is that? If Cuba is so damned wonderful (and thus, if America is do damned horrible), why does Castro have to put an iron curtain around the island and keep people from leaving?

And please...spare me the crap about how the U.S. embargo is crippling the island! The fact is that the island nation is based on a fatally flawed and unsustainable economic model that has been proven to be an abject failure: communism. If they were capitalism-based, they'd be creative enough to generate wealth and build better trading models with other countries...they wouldn't be affected by our embargo.

But ask yourself: When was the last time you saw a Communist country that had a leader other than a dictator? As long as Castro and communism rule Cuba, it shall be doomed to poverty and oppression. And no amount of kissy-face with the Cuban Devil is going to fix it!

Delay in my postings due to torture

My apologies for not having updated the blog in a couple of days. I was undergoing torture, all in the name of medicine.

I have had sciatica in my leg for four months now. My neurosurgeon requested three tests: Electromyogram (EMG), Nerve Conduction Study (NCS), and CAT scan. The EMG and NCS were done at the same time.

During the NCS, the technician literally shocks you dozens of times to gauge your body's reaction to it. It hurt like hell, and my reaction was to request to meet him in the parking lot after work! And I'm not talking about mild shocks or slight stinging or tingling...I'm talking about leg-flopping-on-the-table shocking!

When he was done, a doctor came in to perform the EMG. This is where I was poked with 6 - 10 needles, each about 1/4" long, from the small of my back down to the ankle. Those two injections hurt, but the rest did not...I guess because my leg was shocked into deadness!

I'm telling you, we need to use these two medical procedures on the Islamofascists in Gitmo in Cuba. Hook a couple of suicide camel jockeys to these things, and we'll get all kinds of plum info...until the ACLU comes in to break it up. I guess those bloodthirsty savages have more rights than I do.

As for the CAT scan, it was worse than I thought. They needed a contrast, so I had to drink two bottles of barium solution. Them, I had to get an IV with a dye squirted into my bloodstream. Not fun. After it was over, I had to stop four times on the way home to use the toilet. After all, it was barium I was drinking...yes, the same barium used in enemas, and thusly, the same "end" result!

Now with the tests out of the way, I can resume life again. I'll post more stuff on Thursday. Thanks for reading my whinefest! :)

NY Times: Saddam had WMD

I'll wait for you to pick yourself up off the floor. No, this is not an April Fool's joke 18 days early. Don't believe me? Read for yourself: link

In case you don't feel like reading it (or it makes you register to read it), here's the condensed version of the article:

The New York Times reported Sunday that when the U.S. attacked Iraq in March 2003, Saddam Hussein possessed "stockpiles of monitored chemicals and materials," as well as sophisticated equipment to manufacture nuclear and biological weapons, which was removed to "a neighboring state" before the U.S. could secure the weapons sites.

The U.N.'s Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission [UNMOVIC] "has filed regular reports to the Security Council since last May," the paper said, "about the dismantlement of important weapons installations and the export of dangerous materials to foreign states."

"Officials of the commission and the [International] Atomic Energy Agency have repeatedly called on the Iraqi government to report on what it knows of the fate of the thousands of pieces of monitored equipment and stockpiles of monitored chemicals and materials."

Normally, I'd be the last person quoting anything from a discredited partisan fish wrap like the NYT. And this article may be full of crap...who knows? All I know, though, is that if the biggest liberal rag in the country (if not the world) is reporting something that benefits Americans (and, by default, President Bush), life has just gone from bad to worse for today's leftists.

Eskimos roundly support ANWR drilling

Yeah, but what do those ice-dwelling peons know? I mean, they only LIVE there, for Pete's sake!

Story here: link

Two things of note in the article: (1) Eskimos' support based on need for economic vitality (and energy production) in order to bring sanitary conditions to their villages; and (2) the reality of drilling in other parts of Alaska.

What's more, it's not just dreams of an economic boom driving support for ANWR, according to Alaska State Sen. Dr. Donald Olson, a Democrat who represents the Inupiat village of Kaktovik.

"They do not have running water or a sewer system," he told columnist Deroy Murdock in 2001. "That means they are relegated to Third World conditions where people have to melt ice to bathe and to drink. They use five-gallon containers for sanitation."

The backward sanitation system is a breeding ground for sometimes-fatal cases of hepatitis A - and contributes to high infant mortality rates.

(snip)

But thanks to the success of the environmental lobby in keeping ANWR off limits, the Inupiat Indians have been forced to live in poverty.

See? Who says liberals can't win at something? So thanks to enviroweenies who have successfully lobbied Congress, people are dying. Oh, well, screw those snowy scavengers...at least Chevron isn't profiting (what a dirty word!) from Alaska!

In other areas of Alaska where the oil companies have been allowed to drill, the standard of living has increased dramatically, the locals say.

Since when do the greenie wackos let trivial things like facts and reality get in the way of their agenda? And again, just who do these locals think they are in trying to determine what's best for Alaska? That's what DC-based and California-based enviro-gestapos are for!

FAQ about Atlanta judgekiller Brian Nichols

Hat tip to Boortz for coming up with the timeline on this. From the Talkmaster:

How did Brian Nichols get the gun in the first place?

He overpowered a 51 year-old female deputy sheriff. Alone she escorted him into a holding where she took off his handcuffs so that he could change into street clothes for trial.

There seem to be a lot of details out there on how Nichols overpowered the deputy sheriff and got her gun.

That's because it was all caught on tape.

You mean there's a video?

Exactly. There was a surveillance camera in the holding area where the attack took place.

Was someone supposed to be monitoring the camera?

There were two officers in the command center who were supposed to be monitoring the surveillance cameras. If they were, they didn't see this attack. It would seem safe to assume that they weren't exactly paying close attention to the cameras.

Did the killer run from the courthouse after the shootings?

Now there's an interesting question. That's what everybody thought. After all, he did shoot an kill a Deputy Sheriff as he left the courthouse. Things got a big confusing though during a Friday afternoon press conference when Fulton County Sheriff Myron Freeman said that he "allegedly" ran from the courthouse. Allegedly? But then, the Sheriff used the "allegedly" word about six times in every sentence during his statements to the press. We may have questions about the abilities of the Sheriff of Fulton County and about his employees who protect the courthouse, but we now know that he sure does have a handle on the "allegedly" word.

Were citizens alerted to be on the lookout for a particular type of car?

Yes ... we were told all day Friday to be looking for a specific green Honda Accord.

Did they ever find the Honda?

Yup.

Where was the green Honda Accord?

It was right there in the parking garage next to the Courthouse. Right where the killer left it, and right smack in the middle of the largest concentration of law enforcement officers at that time in the entire Southeast. It took them 13 hours to find that Honda in the parking garage.

Did a police officer or sheriff's deputy finally find the Honda?

Nope. It was discovered by a co-worker of the Honda's owner late in the afternoon.

So, how did the killer flee the area?

Apparently he took MARTA, the rapid rail line, and headed North to Lenox Square.

Well, if he took MARTA, why didn't they catch him as he was getting on or getting off a train? Surely they took steps to watch MARTA stations for the killer as soon as the shootings happened, didn't they?

Uhhhhhh ... no, they didn't.

Why not?

Because they were too busy looking for the green Honda that was ...

...still parked in the courthouse parking garage, right?

Yup. The Honda seemed to be their entire focus. No need to be searching or watching MARTA stations. The Atlanta police chief, Richard Pennington, told the media: "We still thought he was still in the car. We had no reason to close down MARTA."

Where did Brian Nichols head then?

Apparently he got off the MARTA train at the Lenox Square Station. He certainly would have been a lot less conspicuous there than he would have been in Doraville.

What did he do next?

He accosted a woman on Lenox Road and forced her into her apartment. Her boyfriend was there. Nichols and the boyfriend got into a scuffle and Nichols ran.

Was this reported to police?

Yes, the woman and her boyfriend called 911 to report the incident.

And then?

Apparently the Atlanta police didn't make much of it. There's no indication that they made any connection to the courthouse murders. This incident happens within walking distance of a rapid rail station. Police could logically believe that a man, on foot, who accosts a resident near a rapid rail station might have arrived on a train from downtown. No special attention is paid to this report.

What does Nichols do next?

It would seem that he wandered around the Lenox Road area for a while until he came upon off-duty U.S. Customs Agent David Wilhelm. Wilhelm was working on a home he was building in the area. Nichols killed him and stole his truck.

When did police discover that Wilhelm had been killed?

A carpenter showed up at the house at 6:30 a.m., found the body and called the cops.

Where was Nichols at that point?

He had driven to Duluth, North of Atlanta, where, at two in the morning, he encountered Ashley Smith getting out of her car at an apartment complex. He forced her into her apartment. Ashley Smith, as it turns out, is a rather remarkable 26-year-old. Here's your link to read the remarkable story of what happened in Smith's apartment. In short, after almost eight hours he lets her go. As she is leaving the apartment Nichols hands Smith $40 he has in his pocket, telling her that he would be needing the money. He also asks here if there is anything he can do around the apartment, like hanging pictures or curtains, while she's gone. Smith leaves, calls 911, the SWAT team arrives, and Nichols surrenders.

Is there a reward for information leading to Nichol's arrest and conviction?

About $60,000, last I heard.

Who will get it?

Should it be anyone other than Ashley Smith? I don't think so.

Having family in law enforcement careers, I am usually loathe to second-guess officers in the course of doing their jobs. However, this looks like a monumental screw-up here, and I hope over the coming days, some law enforcement officers will attempt to come forward with some logical and rational explanations for what looks like a dropped ball.

"I need money for my TP!"

A liberal Florida Democrat in the state legislature wants to create a new tax. OK, nothing new there...that's like saying that Bill Clinton is looking to hire new interns.

But what is it that this liberal wants to tax? I swear, I'm not making this up: toilet paper. Yep...butt ribbon, TP, whatever you want to call it, he wants to tax it. Here's the article: link

Just when I thought that liberals couldn't get much dumber, they prove me wrong. Fortunately, look for this piece of crap legislation to get tanked by the GOP-controlled legislature! I'm glad I live in a red state, so I won't get bowled over my this turd. (Groan)...I know!

Another Clintonoid finds virtue in government dependence

Par for the course for liberals. Robert Reich, former wacked-out Labor Secretary for Bubba, recently wrote a point-counterpoint column on Social Security reform. I'm guessing you don't need a hint as to which side he takes.

Some of his quotes and implications give yet further insight into the mindset of liberals:

There should be no generational divide on Social Security. It's a good deal for everyone. I want our boys to be able to depend on Social Security when they retire, just as their grandparents and great-grandparents relied on it — and just as I'll depend on it in a few years.(emphasis added)

I don't believe Robert Reich is a tremendously wealthy man, but he's certainly not a poor one either. To claim that he will be "depending" on checks from Social Security to help sustain his retirement probably falls somewhere between a good-sized embellishment and a flat-out lie.

So why does Reich portray himself as someone who will be in need of Social Security even though he could probably get along just fine without it? One reason is to establish a sense of solidarity with readers ("we're all in this together") and another is to convince readers that dependence on Social Security is desirable ("it's a good deal for everyone").

Hat tip to the Real Clear Politics blog for the source.

No, I'm not bashing Social Security as a supplement for retirement. However, I get highly irritated at the notion that there is virtue on government dependence (welfare, Social Security as is, etc.). This notion is perpetuated by politicians (usually liberal) who want to permanently enslave the public into government dependence, so they can run campaign commercials portraying opponents as people who will take away "their" money...which was nothing more than fruits of labor confiscated from the producers to be given to the non-producers.

Like the old saying goes: "A politician who will rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul."

Cartoons on Rather's retirement

Sometimes, words just don't do justice like pictures do. By the way, if Rather turned in a written notice for his resignation, how do we know it's authentic?

John Leo: Can liberalism survive?

Hat tip to Steve-O for passing this on to me. An excellent column by John Leo of US News and World Report. Full column is here, excerpt is below:

Bitter. Liberals have been slow to grasp the mainstream reaction to the no-values culture, chalking it up to Karl Rove, sinister fundamentalists, racism, or the stupidity of the American voter. Since November 2, the withering contempt of liberals for ordinary Americans has been astonishing. Voting for Bush gave "quite average Americans a chance to feel superior," said Andrew Hacker, a prominent liberal professor at Queens College. We are seeing the bitterness of elites who wish to lead, confronted by multitudes who do not wish to follow. Liberals might one day conclude that while most Americans value autonomy, they do not want a procedural republic in which patriotism, religion, socialization, and traditional values are politically declared out of bounds. Many Americans notice that liberalism nowadays lacks a vocabulary of right and wrong, declines to discuss virtue except in snickering terms, and seems increasingly hostile to prevailing moral sentiments.

One of my biggest beefs about liberalism (and there are plenty of beefs to have) is their arrogance and condescending attitude towards normal America. Funny...aren't they always accusing Bush of being arrogant? They should know true arrogance when they see it.

Liberal insanity typified

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter wants to advance William Myers (blocked by Senate Democrat filibusters last year) to the floor of the senate because he thought him the best chance to get 60 votes. Always the "bipartisan" chap, Specter was allured by the bait-and-switch tactics used by liberal Democrat Ken Salazar last year to win a Senate seat from the pale "Red" state of Colorado. As state attorney general, Salazar strongly endorsed Idaho lawyer Myers for the heavily liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

As a senator, Salazar joined Democratic colleagues asking Bush to withdraw Myers's name. So ol' Sal liked Myers, until he realized that Bush did too. And what are today's Democrats saying? "Anything that Bush is for, we're against!" It seems that Salazar was enthusiastic about Myers, until ol' Sal was sucked into the national Democratic Party abyss that blows common sense all to hell, once in Washington. Careful, Sal...look what it did to Little Tommy Daschle!

This is a "Ken Salazar for Senate 2010" campaign commercial, a la John Kerry: "I actually did vote for William Myers...before I voted against him!"

Bill Clinton blames US for Iranian hostage crisis

Bill Clinton, while pandering to the anti-American international elitists to whom he aspires to be, basically blamed American foreign policy for the Iranian hostage crisis while he was at World Economic Forum in Davos. This is the same place he made his feelings known about being a liberal and the state of liberalism in America today.

Funny, though, because he blamed the roots of the Iranian hostage crisis on policy set in motion in the 1950's (Republican president Eisenhower), rather than the Carter administration (Democrat president). His quote:

“Iran is a whole different kettle of fish. It’s a sad story that really began in the 1950s when the United States deposed Mr. [Mohammed] Mossadegh, [Prime Minister of Iran] who was an elected parliamentary democrat and brought the Shah back in … and then he was overturned by the Ayatollah Khomeni, driving us into the arms of one Saddam Hussein. Most of the terrible things Saddam Hussein did in the 1980s he did with the full knowing support of the United States government.

Because he wasn’t Iran, and Iran was what it was, because we got rid of the parliamentary democracy back in the fifties. At least that’s my belief. I know it’s not popular for an American to ever say anything like this but I think it’s true. (The Davos audience applauds at that moment - ed.)

And I apologized when President Khatami was elected, I publicly acknowledged that the United States had actively overthrown Mossadegh and I apologized for it. And I hope that we could have some reapproachment with Iran.”

National Review's reaction?

Considering how useless the Iranian elections have proven in moderating the regime’s crackdown on the Iranian people, in liberating free expression in that country, ties to terrorism, or its nuclear weapons program, one wonders why President Clinton feels compelled to talk about how inspiring it is that the Iran progressives win 60 to 70 percent of the vote.

Clinton’s earlier remarks also sound suspiciously like blaming U.S. foreign policy for the Iranian revolution (guess our embassy employees had it coming, huh, Mr. President?) and for Saddam’s crimes of the 1980s. Obviously, that played well with the Davos elites. But one wonders if President Clinton would make the same remarks if he were, say, on the campaign trail with Senator Clinton in 2006? (to hell with 2006...what about 2008? - ed.)

One wonders if Senator Clinton agrees with the former president’s foreign policy analysis, and huzzahs for the Iran elections process.

UPDATE: John at Powerline writes in to say they blogged some about Clinton's remarks this weekend. The key point: "Bill Clinton's infatuation with Khatami and the Iranian "moderates" can only be understood as an instance of American liberals' projection of their own concepts of virtue onto just about any anti-Americans in foreign countries."

This, though, I think is the most poignant thought of all:

Clinton, the first modern president who didn't have to deal with the USSR, put a great deal of energy into apologizing for the mistakes of his predecessors, and perhaps not enough energy into avoiding and/or learning from his own foreign policy mistakes - the Somalia retreat, inaction over Rwanda, insufficient responses to al-Qaeda terrorism, pinprick responses to Saddam Hussein's defiance, a delayed and clumsy reaction to ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, treating Yassir Arafat like a trustworthy peacemaker, and trusting the North Koreans to not develop nukes.

Perhaps some folks on the right have been too quick to make moral compromises in the name of fighting a enemy, be it communism or Islamist terrorism. Some folks on the left are less willing to make those moral compromises... but one can't help but wonder if that stems from an opposition to moral compromises, or an opposition to the fight in the first place.

I'd say the latter. Seldom have liberals ever found a fight worth fighting, as if hugs (and our nuke technology and secrets) will make evil men less evil.

The L Word

Hat tip to a friend of the family who sent this to me.

Million Mom March activist caught with illegal handgun

According to the Florida Times-Union editorial staff:

It was the ultimate paradox last week when a gun-control activist was arrested for possession of an illegal firearm.

After her son was shot dead nearly three years ago, according to the State Journal-Register of Springfield, Ill., Annette Stevens became active in the anti-gun Million Mom March's Springfield chapter.

There has been a series of drive-by shootings in Stevens' neighborhood lately, the newspaper reports -- and police, acting on information that she had close connections with one of the feuding groups believed responsible -- obtained a warrant to search her house. Inside, they found a handgun with its serial number scratched off..

"Good enough for me, but not for thee", eh liberals? She did offer up an explanation, though...

Stevens says the gun belonged to her dead son -- and, once she found it, she never got around to disposing of it.

But if guns are as dangerous in the hands of others as her organization believes, it seems odd that she was so indifferent about having one in her own house.

A more rational explanation, assuming her innocence, would be that Stevens -- with her son in his grave and bullets flying in her neighborhood -- simply wanted a fighting chance to protect herself, in case there was a problem and the police couldn't get there in time.

If that were the case, a lot of people would understand and sympathize with her.

Reality sometimes is incompatible with idealism.

I'm sorry to hear about her son. As a parent, I can envision no greater tragic loss. However, emotional suffering does not good public policy make. The Founding Fathers did not make the Bill of Rights to pertain to individual rights, but exclude the Second Amendment in order to reserve some group rights. And they damned sure didn't say that we had the right to keep and bear arms "unless we lose a kid to gun violence."

Bill Clinton admits he's a liberal

Isn't it funny that in 1992, Bill Clinton ran for president as a "centrist" Democrat? The press dutifully parroted his "centrist" policies and tendencies, though those of us with half a brain or more could see through his charade. The man was a dyed-in-the-wool liberal.

I personally know and befriend a number of liberals. These folks that are my friends are good people...just misguided as hell. Few of them think Clinton was or is a centrist, and they chuckle at the assertion that he is. They think it's kind of funny that their icon was able to hoodwink America twice with his phony centrist label. "Hey, whatever it takes to win!" Whatever, indeed.

Well, in case anyone (a) thinks Clinton (and Shrillary, too) is a centrist, or (b) wants to shut up anyone who thinks the Clintons are centrists, listen to der Schlickmeister himself here:

“Iran is the only country in the world that has now had six elections since the first election of President Khatami (in 1997). (It is) the only one with elections, including the United States, including Israel, including you name it, where the liberals, or the progressives, have won two-thirds to 70 percent of the vote in six elections: Two for president; two for the Parliament, the Majlis; two for the mayoralties. In every single election, the guys I identify with got two-thirds to 70 percent of the vote. There is no other country in the world I can say that about, certainly not my own.”

Emphasis mine. See? Clinton identifies himself as a "liberal" and "progressive" (which is today's buzzword for liberal, since the tag "liberal" seems to be an albatross at the ballot box). He identifies like-minded people the same way. He acknowledges that liberals don't win in America. He brags that they win at least somewhere!I sure hope that while Shrillary is trying to pose as a centrist for 2008, the GOP nominee uses this quote to expose her for the leftist that she is.

U.S. Supreme Court declares death penalty unconstitutional for minors

In my view, this ruling is horrific, and it has little to do with the death penalty. We can agree or disagree on the merits of the death penalty, be it for minors or adults. What we should all agree on, though, is the rule of law in this country, and how our constitutional republic is built on a foundation of federalism: the role of the federal government is to be limited, and the states can be as big and bloated (or as small and anemic) as they wish to be.

States are to set their own laws that do not run afoul of rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution. There are 38 states in this country that allow the death penalty, though many (such as California and Tennessee) seldom implement it. Some states, such as Mass. and Wisconsin, do not have the death penalty. I don't think any fair-minded adult among us would suggest that a court should force these states to have the death penalty...the Constitution allows the states to have it or not.

Of the 38 states that have the death penalty, 17 have laws that forbid the execution of minors. Again, whether we agree or disagree is immaterial...these states have chosen to take this course of punishment, and no one suggests that a court should force them to do otherwise. After all, if the will of the people of a certain state is reflected, so be it. If not, then legislatures can always change the laws.

Though I did attend Florida State University, my math is still pretty solid! 18 of 38 states that allow the death penalty is 47%...in other words, less than half of death penalty states prohibit execution of minors. Those that do allow it require a great burden of proof, usually so great that prosecutors opt for life sentences.

So, what seems to be the problem? The problem is that the Supreme Court, on a 5-4 ruling, declared that the minority of death penalty states could impose its will on the entire republic! That's right, the concept of states' rights in meting punishment just got blown to hell because the libs on the USSC (with an assist from "moderate" (ha!) Anthony Kennedy) simply imposed their personal viewpoints on all 50 states! There is nothing in the Constitution that gave legal footing to their ruling. Dammit, people, we are a country of laws, NOT of feelings!

Opinion Journal has some great observations about Justice Kennedy and his scary judicial activist temperament:

Justice Anthony Kennedy has many attributes, but judicial modesty isn't one of them. His latest legislative diktat in the guise of a legal decision--issued yesterday in Roper v. Simmons--overturns 19 state laws on behalf of a "national consensus" that he alone seems to have defined.

(snip...)

Justice Kennedy rests his decision on his assertion that American society has reached a "national consensus" against capital punishment for juveniles, and that laws allowing it contravene modern "standards of decency." His evidence for this "consensus" is that of the 38 states that permit capital punishment, 18 have laws prohibiting the execution of murderers under the age of 18. As we do the math, that's a minority of 47% of those states. The dozen states that have no death penalty offer no views about special immunity for juveniles--and all 12 permit 16- and 17-year-olds to be treated as adults when charged with non-capital offenses.

This idea of invoking state laws to define a "consensus" also runs up against any number of notable Supreme Court precedents, including Roe v. Wade. When Roe was decided in 1973, all 50 states had some prohibition against abortion on the books. But never mind.

Even weaker is the Roper majority's selective reliance on scientific and sociological "evidence"--the kind that legislatures (and juries) are used to weighing. The American Psychological Association claims in this case that killers under the age of 18 are incapable of making appropriate moral judgments. But this is the same organization that has told the Court in the past that teen-age girls are mature enough to decide whether to have an abortion without parental input. Which is it?

Emphasis mine. So Roe overturned the laws of 50 states that had some type of restriction by finding somewhere in Constitution a "right" to an abortion? No, I'm not making a judgment on whether abortion should be legal or not...simply that there's nothing in the Constitution that specifically states or implies that it is every woman's constitutional right to have one. That right should be left to legislatures, and I believe that most, if not all, of the 50 states would have enacted legislation to match the will of the people of those states...which by and large believe abortion should be legal in at least some capacity.

And isn't downright sick that the liberal APA says that a 17-year-old isn't mature enough to make a moral judgment about murdering a person, but that same 17-year-old is definitely mature enough to make a moral judgment about aborting a baby without parental input? Hell, let's just absolve ALL teens of ANY responsibility of ANY kind...that's what the left has been working on for years! My God, the left is sick, evil, and perverted!

More from Opinion Journal, and this part's the one that really steams my hide:

Perhaps the most troubling feature of Roper is that it extends the High Court's recent habit of invoking foreign opinion in order to overrule American laws. "It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty," Justice Kennedy writes. We thought the Constitution was the final arbiter of U.S. law, but apparently that's passé.
In invoking international "opinion," however, the majority also seems rather selective. Justice Kennedy cites the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which outlaws the juvenile death penalty. But that Convention also prohibits imprisonment without parole for juvenile offenders--a penalty favored by some, if not all, 50 states. Is the Court ready to sign on to that international standard too?

A USSC Justice is quoting international freakin' law...a UN rule?!? In the name of God and all that is holy! It's scary enough that we have four USSC justices who think that's a good idea...but now we have a majority who do?

And Op. Journal is right...how can you base your reasoning on this UN rule, which prohibits execution of teens, yet be in definace of this SAME rule that you quote, which prohibits life sentences for teens? Kennedy thinks life in prison is OK, execution is not, and selectively quotes the SAME UN rule that prohibits both! Consistency is a trait that is an absolute must on the USSC, yet Kennedy lacks it and sees no problem with it.

After Justice Kennedy used five pages of his logically incoherent majority opinion to cite a hodge podge of foreign laws, he limply and defensively concluded his opinion: "It does not lessen our fidelity to the Constitution or our pride in its origins to acknowledge that the express affirmation of certain fundamental rights by other nations and people simply underscores the centrality of those same rights within our own heritage of freedom." When a Supreme Court justice feels it necessary to write as the closing words of his opinion that he still holds fidelity to the Constitution, it is more than reasonable to assume he knows he has just betrayed that sacred document.

Oh, yeah...how could I forget? The crime itself!

The convicted, then-17-yr-old Simmons, proposed to commit burglary and murder by breaking and entering, tying up a victim, and throwing the victim off a bridge. A few hours later he proceeded to do just that, breaking into a home, covering the victim's head in a towel, wrapping her up in duct tape and tying her hands and legs together with electrical wire. Then he drove her to a bridge and threw her off into the water, where helpless, she drowned.

Simmons assured his friends they could "get away with it" because they were minors. Texas said "No, you cannot and will not get away with this!" Justice Kennedy and the liberals, quoting international laws and using Swiss cheese logic, said "Oh yes, you will get away with this! The UN and Euroweenies say so, and thusly, so do we!"

Again, folks, this isn't even really about the death penalty. Reasonable people disagree on it. What's inexcusable, though, is that the USSC used the flimsiest of legal pretexts to back up their views, which they were determined to impose on us all. If the 8th Amendment (the right against "cruel and unusual punishment") cannot be used to declare the death penalty unconstitutional against adults, it also cannot be used to rule it unconstitutional against teens. Maybe other facets of our scared document can, but NOT the inconsistent application of the 8th Amendment! And we damned sure cannot use international law or opinion as a basis to completely and categorically ignore our own governing document!

In short, the USSC wanted to impose its views on America in direct violation of constitutional law. And they did so, with no regard for the law, prior rulings, consistency, or states' rights. Does it matter if it's the death penalty? Tomorrow, it could be your property, abortion, marriage, your money...anything they damned well please!