"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."
--Joseph Stalin

Tuesday, May 31, 2005

Limousine Liberals: Hypocrisy Made Manifest

Will Malven

For years now, my Liberal friends have told me that I am not rich enough to be a Republican. I take umbrage at such statements because I reject the premise of the statement. Somehow the myth has arisen that all Republicans are autocratic, rich, self-absorbed, greedy, cold, and uncaring, misers, whereas all Democrats are egalitarian, lower middle-class, compassionate, generous, altruistic, philanthropists. What utter balderdash.

The generalities:

The primary difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats believe in, to quote Judge Janice Rogers Brown, "human perfectibility...asserting that differences between the few and the many can, over time, be erased."

This results in a constant effort to "redistribute wealth" and even worse, talent, among the people; basically a socialist philosophy. It is a philosophy which eventually leads to bringing all people down to the "lowest common denominator." To paraphrase Karl Marx: to each as their needs dictate, from each as their ability allows.

This is a philosophy that groups people together as special interests, placing stereotypical limits on their abilities and makes stereotypical assumptions about their wants and needs. It is a philosophy that believes there is a limit to wealth, and if one person has a lot, someone else must suffer lack. It seeks to use that lack to engender a feeling of guilt in those who are successful, and therefore is able to "extort" money from them in the form of taxes, promising to redistribute that money to those in "need." It is a philosophy that is, at its core, antithetical to the concepts of freedom, responsibility, and generosity.

The Democrat philosophy is antithetical to freedom because in order to prevent wealth from accumulating in one person's hands, there has to be an autocratic bureaucracy to supervise the distribution of money, making sure that no one suffers lack. It is antithetical to responsibility because it assumes that if you don't have, you are incapable of getting, through no fault of your own, and so must be provided for. It is antithetical to generosity because if "excess" is taxed, and the state provides for those in need, there is no need for generosity. The eventual product of such a philosophy, the inescapable result, is an uncaring and unmotivated populous totally dependent upon the state.

Republicans believe that all people are different, and are responsible for taking advantage of the opportunities that society provides for them. It is a philosophy that allows each individual to rise as high as his abilities and drive allow. It makes no assumptions and applies no restrictions. In their eyes, you can become as rich as you want to be. The harder you work, the further you progress.

It is a philosophy that believes in the nobility of man; that, given the opportunity, he will aspire to be more. People will seek the opportunity to better themselves, and in so doing, improve the general welfare of the society. It believes that there is no limit on the generation of wealth, the more it is pursued, the more it is generated.

It encourages freedom, because only through freedom is one able to pursue his dreams. It encourages responsibility, because no one is automatically provided for unless they are truly unable to care for themselves. It encourages generosity, because the "haves" know that those who lack, are truly those who are unable to provide for themselves, and so, deserving of charity. It also encourages generosity, because giving, voluntarily, is an unselfish act that engenders a general sense of well being.

The eventual product of such a society is an empowered and enthusiastic populous, which supports their state out of a sense of pride.

The specifics:

Why is it that so many high profile Liberals are so wealthy? It would seem to me that if they truly believed in what they preached, they would eschew the trappings of wealth and live in modest means. Why do people like Barbara (“Put Out a Clothesline”) Streisand, Rob Reiner, Al Franken, George (Bank Buster) Soros ($ Billions), Teddy (Orca) Kennedy ($10 million—plus trusts), John (Lurch) Kerry ($620 million), John (Lassie) Edwards ($12 million), etc. need so much money?

If they truly believe that nobility derives from "modest means," and that rich people (read rich Republicans) are evil, why do they persist in retaining all of their money? Just think of all the people they could help if they lived on say...$100 thousand a year. That, by no means, is poor, in fact, by Democrat's definition, that is "upper class." Why do they need 25 room mansions in exclusive neighborhoods? Why do they need "vacation homes" at Martha's Vineyard, or in Miami Beach?

If they truly believed in the garbage they are spewing, they would take a vow of poverty and donate the vast sums of money they have accumulated to help the "downtrodden" they are so quick to point to as they encourage the rest of us submit to higher taxes and fight against "Bush's tax cut for the rich." Hypocrites!!

Wealthy Republicans? Sure there are plenty of them, so what? There's nothing wrong with that, they are merely practicing what they preach. Republicans believe in the generation and accumulation of wealth. They say no one who desires to be wealthy and is ready to work hard for it should be denied the right and opportunity to pursue it. They encourage capitalism, risk taking, and entrepreneurism. They offer us opportunity rather than dependence.

So who are these rich hypocrites? Aside from those mentioned above, according to public records, in 2000, 27 of 50 Democrat senators were millionaires. Of the super millionaires, worth over $10 million, were nine Democrats and five Republicans and of the top ten, nine were Democrats. Kerry was number one, the rest: 2- Herbert Kohl, Wisconsin ($300 million) 3- Jay Rockefeller, West Virginia ($200 million)4- Jon Corzine, New Jersey ($71 million) 5- Dianne Feinstein, California ($26 million) 7- Frank Lautenberg, New Jersey ($17 million) 9- John Edwards, North Carolina 10- Ted Kennedy, Massachusetts. Even more interesting than that, is that these are not just Democrats; these are some of the most Liberal Democrats.

Other wealthy Democrats; Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor and world's second-richest man, was John Kerry’s economic adviser. Billionaire George Soros gave over 15 million to MoveOn.org (now MoveOnPac.org). Soros stated prior to the election that he would spend whatever it took to get rid of George Bush. Apple Computer co-founder Steve Jobs is a Democrat also advising Kerry on economic issues and appointed Al Gore to the Board of Directors of Apple. Susie Tompkins Buell, co-founder of the fashion company Esprit, is a Democrat Party donor and activist. Bernard L. Schwartz was a principal character in Chinagate (selling advanced aerospace technology to China during the Clinton administration). He is CEO of Loral Space & Communications and a major Democrat donor. Former chairman of Comcast Corporation and Chinagate participant, C. Michael Armstrong, is major financial supporter of the DNC.

In California, Steve Kirsch (founder of Infoseek), Haim Saban (of Power Rangers fame), and Steve Bing (grandson of Leo Bing a New York real estate tycoon) together gave $20.2 million to Democrat Party committees in 2002. Then, of course, we have the Trial Lawyers Association. Trial lawyer Harry Jacobs, reportedly worth $42 million, earned in representing patients in malpractice suits against doctors and nursing homes, spent millions of his own money in a failed attempt to be a Florida Democrat Congressman. Another Florida trial lawyer, Wayne Hogan, earned $54 million by representing Florida against tobacco companies and spent at least $4 million in his failed bid to a Congressman.

In Redmond, Washington, since 1998, Bill Gates (Microsoft founder and chairman), the richest man in America, has contributed three times more money to Democrats than to Republicans and Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, America's 3rd richest man, has given over $150,000 to Democrats and no reported gifts to the GOP over the last three election cycles.

So next time you hear some Democrat blowhard spouting off about those rich Republicans and how evil they are, just gently remind them that there is more than enough money to go around, and that Republicans are just being true to their beliefs. Remind them of all those rich "Limousine Liberals" who live in the lap of luxury and want to help the indigent using your money and show them that the Democrats are hypocrites. Also tell them why. Oh, you don't know why? Well, let me enlighten you.

It's how they seek to gain and retain power over the rest of us. They envision a society in which they, who are wise and benevolent, can dispense material goods to those of us who "just don't get it," in accordance to our needs. They seek to assure that none of us will acquire sufficient wealth and power to challenge them. They envision an American version of Brezhnev's Soviet Union, in which the deserving (because of their wisdom and benevolence) rich and powerful can enjoy a life of wealth and luxury (because only they are sophisticated enough to appreciate it), while the rest of us are "granted" a life of pedestrian equality (for our own good).

Yes, Liberal hypocrisy is apparent all around us; it only requires open eyes and an open mind to see it.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

Friday, May 27, 2005

Bolton Debate: Reid Lies, Voinovich Cries, Frist Sighs

Will Malven

I hope that some of you were watching the Senate debate today. I think Senator Voinovich has some deep seated problems...DUH!

Senator Voinovich must have been yelled at by Wilfred Brimley when he was a kid. If you haven't a clue as to what I'm talking about, you missed it during the debate today. The "courageous" (Senator Dodd’s words not mine) Senator Voinovich broke down into tears in the well today during his railing against Bolton, as he called for "sniff, sniff," his fellow Republicans to "spend some time before they come to the well and vote on this appointment...I ran for a second term for my children."

Oh! Boohoohoo! Sniff. Bolton's such a big Meany! Oh, the humanity! I hear he once glared at Ronald McDonald. He was snooty with a waiter one night, at least from what I was told by a guy who knows the sister of the cousin of the waiter's best friend. Why, I bet he peeked at his Christmas presents once!

AAARRRGGGHHH! Give me a break!!!!  It's a good thing for Voinovich that the Senate is in recess until June 7th, that'll give him time to go see his therapist and get back on his Zoloft.

Well, returning from the Twilight Zone . . . The Democrats were in their usual smear-attack mode today. I've said it before; they worship at the altar of the United Nations. They believe that this horrible country in which they are trapped can only be saved by submitting our liberties to their one world government.

The usual suspects were there, Theodore "Orca" Kennedy, Joe "the Plagiarist" Biden, Hateful Harry Reid, Paul Saaaaarbanes, and "Dodgy" Chris Dodd, all bemoaning the evil "Darth Bolton."

Their real fear about Bolton isn't that he's mean, it isn't that he looked at names on 17 intelligence intercepts (over 400 such requests were made by other people, and it is considered rather routine-except by Senator Plagiarist), it isn't even (though it certainly is a big part of it) that they want to damage President Bush and the Republicans; nope, it’s not any of those things, it’s that he will actually do the job for which the President is sending him there, reform.

President Bush is sending Bolton to the U.N. basically to "kick butt." Bolton's take on the U.N. is spot on; it is a mire of corruption and incompetence. The Oil For Food Program was rife with corruption and embezzlement and apparently it involved Koffi Annan's son and several of those governments who opposed our intervention in Iraq most stridently. Both France and Russia stood to lose, by our intervention, billions of dollars in income they were gleaning from the OFFP. Small wonder they opposed the President's Iraq initiative.

Then there is the absolute failure of the U.N. to intervene in places like Darfur where people have been being massacred by the tens of thousands. Of course we know how effective the U.N. "Peacekeepers" have proven to be in the past, they usually act like the French, and at the first gunshot, turn and "run away!"

Finally, there is the horrendous scandal of the child-rape and child-prostitution of the "Piece” keepers in the areas where they are currently deployed.

The height of hypocrisy is hearing these Democrats lashing out at Mr. Bolton's qualifications and smearing his reputation, then suggesting that his reputation is going to be so damaged that he will be unable to perform his job.

If ever there was an organization that needed reform, it is the U.N. For most Republicans, the U.N. has always been a mildly useful, mostly annoying, anti-American, hate-fest, more to be tolerated than embraced.

Well, “Quelle suprie!” (I knew those French lessons I took in college would come in handy someday); the whole damn thing was organized by Alger Hiss.

For those of you who don't remember him, or know about him, he was "the communist,” among many, during the Roosevelt/Truman Administrations. Hiss, along with Harry Dexter White and Henry Wallace, was the prime mover in the betrayal of Chiang Kai-shek by having an arms shipment, intended for the Nationalist Chinese Army, delayed until the forces of Mao Tse Tung were victorious.

For pretty much all of its sixty year history, America bashing has been the primary form of entertainment at the U.N.  Of course the Democrats love that, since they believe that America is generally wrong and needs to be corralled by the international community.

Israel bashing has been the second favorite sport there and on occasion has rivaled or even surpassed America bashing in popularity, but since we're allies, it makes little difference. I find it interesting that Europe has become one of the most vocal members of the Israel bashers, considering that anti-Semitism found its true voice there in NAZI Germany as the rest of that ineffectual and decadent community watched on in complete indifference.

Yes, that is one nasty, fly-infested, apple cart that desperately needs up-setting.

John Bolton is a man of superb intellect and proven ability is precisely the person President Bush needs to send.  Of course, the best laid plans…

Today in a triumph of perfidy and betrayal, the cloture vote on debate over Bolton’s nomination failed.  In spite of the fact that Bill Frist was promised by Hateful Harry that he would supply the votes necessary, he was lying, and did not deliver.  I am not surprised, are you?  You shouldn’t be, the Democrats never keep their word.  I knew before they even started voting, that they would not have enough votes for cloture. 

Of the seven Democrat “moderates,” only Mark Pryor, Ben Nelson, and Mary Landrieu voted for cloture.  The other four (I told you about Byrd) couldn’t even manage to avoid a filibuster for forty-eight hours.  The “new found spirit of good will” lasted just about two days.

So there’s Bill Frist, hung out to dry by the Democrats.  I don’t think that Hateful Harry thought the whole thing through very well, because I believe that Senator Frist was really hot.  I suspect that payback is coming for this betrayal, and as we all know, payback is a b____h.  I hope, and wouldn’t be surprised if, when the Senate comes back from Memorial Day vacation on June 7th, Senator Frist hasn’t called Vice President Cheney and arranged for him to be in the President of the Senate’s chair that day.  If I was Frist, I would have Cheney there, and call for each of the six remaining judicial nominees, and at the first sign of a filibuster, I would use the “Byrd” option and break the “back, neck, arms, and legs” of the filibuster, just as Senator Byrd did in 1979.

In 1979, Mr. Byrd broke a filibuster by threatening to force a rules change with a simple-majority vote, arguing that:

"the first Senate, which met in 1789, approved 19 rules by a majority vote. Those rules have been changed from time to time…my belief…upholding the power and right of a majority of the Senate to change the rules of the Senate at the beginning of a new Congress."

In spite of the super-majority rules previously adopted at Byrd’s behest, he asserted:

"This Congress is not obliged to be bound by the dead hand of the past." 

Quite a change from the nearly tearful plea made from the well of the floor on Tuesday by the old S.O.B. when he begged his colleagues to:

 “step back, step back, step back from the precipice…” 

That old phony.  I would have been more impressed with that speech decrying the adversarial climate in the Senate if I didn’t remember earlier speeches that carried all the venom he was whining about.

Yep, I think that there’s going to be Hell to pay in the Senate on June 7th, and I don’t plan on missing it for anything.  Either, Frist will make the Democrats and Hateful Harry Reid pay for their perfidy in spades, or Frist will pay for a lack of leadership and backbone in his run for the White House.  I believe it will be the former, ‘cause Frist looked awfully put out after the vote.

Long Live the American Republic!!!

Sunday, May 15, 2005

Proof That Liberals and Environmental Wackos Don't Know What They're Doing

Will Malven

Well here it is folks, hot off the presses.

The "brilliant" men who have cost us so many billions of dollars in unnecessary paper work, half-built, shutdown facilities, and regulations and put us so many years behind in nuclear technology, have now suddenly changed their minds. They have come to believe what some of us non-PhD.s have known for twenty-five years; Nuclear Energy is the best and only viable alternative to the carbon economy. Well DUH! Check this out in the New York Times [full story] of all places:

“Old Foes Soften to New Reactors


Published: May 15, 2005

WASHINGTON, May 14 - Several of the nation's most prominent environmentalists have gone public with the message that nuclear power, long taboo among environmental advocates, should be reconsidered as a remedy for global warming.

Their numbers are still small, but they represent growing cracks in what had been a virtually solid wall of opposition to nuclear power among most mainstream environmental groups. In the past few months, articles in publications like Technology Review, published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Wired magazine have openly espoused nuclear power, angering other environmental advocates...”

So, here we are all of the engineers who were capable of building nuclear power stations are now retired or nearing retirement, thanks entirely to the Liberals and their moronic anti-nuke campaigns of the '70s and ‘80s.

So brilliant are they. So farsighted they were.

These are the people who think they are qualified to run the country. Heck, they couldn't even get this one right, and it was one of the most logical and obvious facts in the whole energy paradigm. They wouldn't listen to conservatives, nope too damn smart (arrogant) for that. This is just another example of why liberals should never be trusted with the reins of government. They’re too emotionally driven.  They don’t stop to think what the long-term consequences might be.

Three Mile Island happens, and poof Chicken Liberal starts running around yelling “The sky is falling, the sky is falling!”  “Stop building, stop building, China Syndrome, China Syndrome!”

A few of us knew they were wrong. A few of us saw what was happening and predicted the ultimate consequences.  But no, don’t take time to really examine your actions, just run off and start protesting. Just run up and handcuff yourself to the gates and try to shut down the reactors.  Yep, if it sounds good, it must be true.  And now were supposed to believe them about global warming and how it is being caused by “greenhouse gasses.”  We’re supposed to spend hundreds of billions of dollars in the next couple of decades because of a theory espoused by the same guys who forced us to use carbon based fuels for heating our homes because nuclear energy was “evil.”

The topper in all of this is that we are probably going to have to import nuclear engineers from Europe to design all of these new power plants, and scientists from India and China to make up for all of those that America has failed to produce, thanks in a large part to the Liberal educators and their progressive education techniques that have left America’s school kids sorely lacking in education.

Yes, America owes so much to Liberals, and someday I’d like to see them all get what’s coming to them.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

Wednesday, May 11, 2005

Of Judicial Nominees and Educating Democrats

Democrat's Misunderstanding, or is it Misrepresenting? How Democracy Functions

Will Malven

I hear a whole lot of angry Democrat voices out there hysterically decrying the Republican Senate Majority Leader's decision to bring President Bush's judicial nominees to the floor and force a vote. This action will probably bring about the much dreaded filibuster and the resulting Senate rules change (the so-called "Nuclear Option"), allowing an historically traditional simple majority vote on each of the nominees. This in spite of the dire warnings by Democrats, and some Pundits of the Left and the Right, of cataclysmic results. This anger and fear, I believe, is because the Democrats feel powerless and, oddly enough considering the name of their party, because the Democrats don't understand how democracies function.

A Brief Senatorial History/Civics Lesson:

First allow me to point out that the filibuster is not in the constitution. "What?" Yep, that's right folks, nowhere in the constitution is this Senatorial phenomenon to be found. It is not a "constitutional right." I just wanted to get that out front in case someone from the Left was tempted to take up this argument on constitutional grounds. The filibuster came about in 1806 when the rule allowing the Senators "to move the previous question" (a call to end all debate) was eliminated (Gee, isn't that a rules change?). From that time until 1917 there was no way to end debate at all. In that year, the Senate changed the rules (there's another one) to allow for a vote of cloture, a two-thirds vote of the Senate to end all debate. In brief, that rule was changed three more times in the Twentieth Century to allow for changing circumstances. The last change occurred in 1975 to allow for a cloture vote consisting of a "super majority" of three-fifths of the Senate (that's 60 votes for those of you on the Left Coast). One other point (sort of an aside), the House also had it's filibusters until 1842 when the procedural rules were changed to allow for a strict control of debate.

All of these rules changes occurred without any catastrophic effects on the legislative bodies, or on the government in general.

Now, having established that Republicans are not out to destroy the Constitution, let's discuss how democracies work. I'm not talking about democracy as in "one man, one vote" (something that has never been in the Constitution; we are a republic, in which the representatives are democratically elected. Yes, there is a big difference).

I am talking about democracy as in "the majority wins." It has long been known, in struggle for ideological dominance, the way to prevail is to convince a majority of the voting population that your ideals are superior to those of your opponents, so that the voters will support your side. If you are successful in your campaign, your side will win. Another aspect of democratic principles is that, as one side wins, the other side inevitably loses. The losing side then goes home, licks their wounds, and revises their strategies and concepts of governance. They then rally to present their new tenets on the field of honor at the next election. If they are wise in their choices then their constituents prevail, and they win.

What does this have to do with the upcoming Senate conflict over judicial nominees? A lot! The Democrats, still smarting over not being in control of the Senate, are playing the spoilers game. "I don't care that I lost, I still insist that you do it my way!" Rather than facing the reality that their ideals have been rejected repeatedly by the American Voter, revising their political offerings, and rejoining the battle. They still want to win with a losing hand.

They propose to do that by invoking the filibuster at a time and in a manner that is, after all of the blather from both sides fades away, unprecedented. You can twist and turn it however you want, the facts are stubborn in this case, whenever a majority of Senators wanted a judicial candidate to be approved, and that appointee was reported out of committee, he always received a vote, and if a simple majority (that's fifty-one votes) voted in his favor, he was approved. That's it, no ifs, ands, or buts.

So, if what the Democrats are doing is wrong (and it patently is), what should they do? Glad you asked that question. They should endeavor to win the battle of ideals. All that Senators Reid, Leahy, Kennedy, Byrd, and the rest have to do is convince six Republican Senators that these judicial nominees are beyond the pale; that they are out of the mainstream "right-wing extremists." If they are able to do that, then they will prevail, and the nominees will fade back into their former obscurity, regardless of anything that Senator Frist and the Republicans can do.

That is called winning a contest of competing ideals. It is the essence of what a democracy is all about. We already know that they don't have to worry about any Democrat Senators crossing over and supporting these nominees, because anyone who could conceivably lay claim to being called a "moderate Democrat" has already been eliminated from their ranks.

Of the Republican Senators, because they are not monolithic in their thinking, there are already several (the more liberal ones) that one would think could easily be swayed by Senator Reid and his coterie of Leftist followers. Surely, if their doubts and concerns are legitimate, and these controversial nominees (each having received the "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" from the ABA) are as "seriously flawed" as Democrats represent, they should be able to persuade those Senators to support their side and reject these "highly controversial and ill-suited judges" from being approved. If they cannot, then I suggest that they revise their positions, and re-examine their objections and motives.

Any intelligent, non-ideologically rigid person should be willing to do that when confronted by their own failures. It may be that they are letting their political agenda (a desire to take back the White House and hand President Bush a defeat-at any cost- to which they can point as a failure in 2006) to acquire greater importance to them than their obligation to serve the American people.

That is what our Founding Fathers envisioned, and how this system of government is supposed to work. The wrongly invoked concept of protecting minority rights, has nothing to do with votes in the Senate. The few times a two-thirds vote is required by the Constitution, it serves as a "check" on the President's powers and actions. It was not intended to defeat will of the majority within the legislative houses.

The protection of minority rights is found in the Bill of Rights, and is aimed at protecting the people from being oppressed by a majority "ruling class." Hence we have such things as, "the right to petition the government,""the right of the people peaceably to assemble," "freedom of speech," "free exercise" of religion, "the right to keep and bear arms," protection against "unreasonable search and seizure," etc.

Those are the protections for minority rights so highly valued by our Forefathers, not the right to thwart the wishes of the majority in passing laws or in approving nominees. In fact, I would question whether or not the filibuster is constitutional at all.

The purpose of debate is supposed to be to convince one’s adversaries of the merit of his arguments on the issues. One method of winning your way, is to harangue continuously until the other side gives up out of sheer frustration, but it has very little to do with actual debate. It falls more under the label of boorishness.

It is unfortunate that Democrats prefer to put their own agenda before the good of the people, or even the wishes of the people. That is one reason that they have been on a losing streak, and in all probability will remain so.

Remember, that up until the nomination of Judge Bork (the single most qualified adjudicator ever to have been nominated to the Supreme Court), personal politics was never an acceptable reason to reject a nominee, and vicious personal attack in an attempt to give the appearance of impropriety, was never an acceptable tactic. The only restriction on whether a nominee was approved, was whether or not he was qualified academically and temperamentally to serve on the nations highest bench.

It was the Democrats who chose, out of petty political motives, to lower the prestige of the Supreme Court by subjecting the nominees to personal invective, and character assassination because of what they might do once they were on the bench.

As the Democrat's fall from power continues and grows, I fully expect this descent into petty, hate-filled politics in which the objective is not to win on the field of ideas, but to batter and berate the opposition into submission, no matter what the cost to the individual, or to the country, will worsen.

Following this course is sure to lead to the eventual demise of the Democrat party, either through the emergence of a new middle-left party, comparable to a more liberal version of the Republican Party, and relegating the Democrats to a fringe element supported by their beloved extreme leftist enthusiasts like those in Hollywood and in Washington D.C., or through attrition as disillusioned "true believers" wander away in disgust and apathy.

This I would actually hate to see, I do not believe that a one party government can be trusted to always do the right thing. I would rather see the party revitalized by the young up and coming politicos who, in re-examining the actions of this morally bankrupt Democrat party, will take up the mantle of leadership and marching in the footsteps of young Jack Kennedy, move the party back into the mainstream of American thought and ideals.

I love a good honest competition of ideas, and right now, the Democrats aren't really that much competition.

Copyright 2005 Will Malven

Sunday, May 8, 2005

Classless, Hateful Democrats: Harry’s Truth Comes Out

Will Malven

There was a time when the weighty affairs of state superseded in importance the petty grievances of politics, a time when the occupying of federal office required congressmen to comport themselves with some degree of decorum.

Yesterday the "Honorable" Senator Harry Reid let spill the true Democrat spirit of "bipartisanship" that the Democrats have been invoking, with almost dazzling monotony, as necessary for governing this nation since President George Bush won elected office in 2000.

In a cheap attack, for a cheap laugh from juniors at a Del Sol High School (Las Vegas) civics lesson, the "Honorable" Harry Reid said of President Bush:
"I think this guy is a loser . . . I think President Bush is doing a bad job. He's driving this country into bankruptcy . . . He's got us in this intractable war in Iraq where we now have about 1,600 American soldiers dead and another 15,000 injured."

This, as the President is visiting Europe, representing the nation as our head of state.

It really says a lot that the "Honorable" Harry Reid felt the need for a cheap ego stroke by playing to a bunch of children like a naughty little boy, talking about the teacher while he is out of the room. The "Honorable" Harry Reid has revealed himself, at once, to be a petty little man, full of petty little plots, engaged in petty little games at the expense of the Nation's and the President's reputation overseas and to be attempting to deceive the American people by claiming that he would work with the President if only he would be "reasonable."

The Democrat party has proven itself over and over again that they have no moral compass. Democrats are unable to subordinate their political agenda to the simple requirements of social discourse. We are repeatedly treated to reports of physical assaults against conservative speakers by members of the Left. Ann Coulter, all ninety-five pounds of her, has been attacked by big, brave, liberal pie-throwers at least twice during her speeches. Pat Buchanan was attacked by salad dressing wielding hate mongers during one of his speeches. Mind you, these are speeches given at the behest of the organizations hosting them.

Endlessly, the Left has accused the Right of being intolerant, intolerant of minorities, intolerant of differences, intolerant of change. The truth, however, is exactly the opposite.
  •  If you are pro-life, you haven’t got a chance of attaining an influential position within the Democrat party.
  • If you are pro-business, you are faced with insurmountable resistance to a Democrat candidacy.  
  • If you believe in personal responsibility rather than government entitlements, you won’t stand a chance as a Democrat.  
  • If you are in favor of the freeing of the Iraqi people rather than supporting the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein you will be regaled with “hate speech.” 
  • If you are a judge who believes in interpreting the Constitution as written rather than legislating from the bench, you will be filibustered and denied a chance to be voted on by the Senate as required by the Constitution.
The Democrats are fond of invoking the mantra of hate speech. They even attempted to get it classified as a crime.

It is a good thing for the “Honorable” Harry Reid that they failed. What the Majority Leader is guilty of is exactly that, “hate speech.”

The pettiness and shallowness of the Majority Leader’s attacks on President Bush prove my often stated point that the Democrat Party is a party bereft of any ideals beyond the old worn out ideals of the Socialist movements of the 1920’s. They are incapable of articulating what they actually believe because they know that their philosophy of redistribution of wealth and public ownership of property would be rejected out of hand and therefore they must resort to ad hominem attack against those they oppose.

Democrats are the poster children of “hate speech,” and they have always indulged in it. That the “Honorable” Harry Reid engaged in it, should not surprise anyone who has been observing the Left for any length of time.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

Friday, May 6, 2005

Democrats: Wrong on Taxes, Wrong on Economy, Just Plain Wrong!

Will Malven

The Treasury Department this week announced that tax revenues for the quarter are going to be $54 Billion higher than originally projected.

How can this be? I thought that this was the worst economy since the Great Depression. I thought that George Bush’s tax cuts were bankrupting the nation. I thought that our beloved Democrats told us that to re-elect President Bush would doom the nation. We would all be out on the street begging for a crust of bread from the few rich Republicans that were the only beneficiaries of these horrible, “unwarranted,” “ill-conceived,” “badly timed,” “dangerous, “disastrous,” “tax cuts for the rich.”

Where are all the soup kitchens?

Can it be that Terry McCauliffe, John Edwards, and John Kerry were wrong? Can it be that they were intentionally wrong? Can it be that the Democrats were trying to scare the American people into voting for the lugubrious Mr. John “The Gigolo” Kerry-Heinz?

Nooo! I can’t believe that the Democrats would try to deceive the voters. Why, next you’ll be saying that the Democrats weren’t telling the truth about Social Security, or the war in Iraq, or about Medicare. That’s impossible . . . isn’t it? They would never do something like that. That would be like saying that Bill Clinton and Hillary were not truthful with the American people about . . . say . . . ANYTHING!

The fact of the matter is that history has shown time and time again, if you cut federal taxes, revenues rise. This has happened every single time that taxes have been cut. It was the result of Harding’s “Return to Normalcy” in 1921, it continued through Coolidge’s Presidency. President Kennedy’s tax cut again resulted in increased revenues for federal coffers as did Ronald Reagan tax cuts. SURPRISE! It has happened again with President Bush’s tax cuts.

Folks, we are in the midst of a very robust economy. The Clinton recession, thanks to President Bush’s quick action in reducing the tax burden on the American economy, has been one of the shallowest, shortest lived recessions in the history of the nation, in spite of the fact that the American economy took a $ Trillion hit on 9/11.

Here are a couple of quotes from the DNC’s webpage:
“Bush's Deficit Plan: False Plan to Cut Deficit in Half in Five Years”
“Deficit Will Exceed $400 Billion Every Year For Next Ten Years: The deficit will exceed $400 billion every year through 2014. [Congressional Budget Office, 1/26/04; Center on Budget & Policy Priorities, 1/21/04]”
"The fear is... Interest rates will shoot up...Heavily indebted Americans will not be able to keep up with rising interest payments. Inflation, bankruptcies and economic malaise will follow." [Washington Post, 1/26/04]” 
Absolutely none of those dire predictions have come true.

The truth: this year’s projected deficit is $365-375 billion—way too much certainly— but well below what the Democrats were promising would happen if George Bush was re-elected.

This economic recovery and reduction of the deficit has occurred in spite of the terrorist attack on 9/11/01, the war in Afganistan, the war in Iraq, and the introduction of the outrageous Medicare drug benefit. Far from doing what the Democrats hyperventilated about:
Tax Cuts Will Cause 35% Of Projected Deficit -- Greater Impact Than Spending Increases: 35 percent of the fiscal decline over the next ten years is due to Bush's three tax cuts, combined with likely changes to the tax code proposed by Bush. Only 28 percent of the deterioration is due to spending legislation, with about two-thirds of that increased spending representing increased costs for defense, homeland security, and the war on terrorism. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 10/27/03, 1/28/04]
The tax cuts are having exactly the effect that President Bush said they would and that those of us who look at the history of the American economy rather than living in the fantasy world of the Democrat Party expected.

So why is it that some in America still believe what the Democrats tell them? They have been proven wrong time and time again. I can only assume it is because they are willfully ignorant, choosing party loyalty and to believe what their Congressmen tell them over informing themselves. It’s either that or they’re just plain stupid.

Does it surprise you that-after all of the haranguing, all of the whining, all of the fear mongering of the left, the dire predictions of economic disaster looming ahead of a Bush victory-the economy is in great shape? If it does, you haven’t been paying attention.

The Democrat Party is a bankrupt party. They have no ideas, nothing to offer except the stale, old, failed, socialist ideals of a party frozen in the 1930’s. To the Democrats:
  • big business is bad, big labor is good
  • capitalism is bad, socialism is good
  • private property is bad, redistribution of wealth is good
  • Prayer should be outlawed on public occasions, and any display of faith in God is to be despised. Even displays of great historic significance are not to be tolerated. A cross on a municipal flag is intolerable even if it has been on the flag for centuries.
Yes Democrats are a truly tolerant group, NOT!
So now the Democrats have a new dilemma, how to be at least partially relevant for the next election. Right now, they’re like a broken record:
  • John Bolton’s nomination-against it
  • Social security reform-against it
  • Inheritance tax cut-against it
  • War in Iraq-against it
  • Vouchers for school students-against it
  • Patriot act-against it
  • No child left behind-against it
  • Medicare drug bill-against it
  • Elimination of the marriage penalty-against it
  • Nomination of Terrence W, Boyle (4th Circuit)-against it
  • Nomination of Priscilla Richman Owen (5th Circuit)-against it
  • Nomination of David W, McKeague (6th Circuit)-against it
  • Nomination of Susan Bieke Neilson (6th Circuit)-against it
  • Nomination of Henry W. Saad (6th Circuit)-against it
  • Nomination of Richard A. Griffin (6th Circuit)-against it
  • Nomination of William H. Pryor (11th Circuit)-against it
  • Nomination of William Gerry Myers III (9th Circuit)-against it
  • Nomination of Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit)-against it
  • Nomination of Brett M. Kavanaugh (D.C. Circuit)-against it
  • Nomination of William James Haynes II (4th Circuit)-against it
  • Nomination of Thomas B. Griffith (D.C. Circuit)-against it
  • Against it
  • Against it
They sound like Groucho Marx in Horsefeathers!

I don't know what they have to say,
It makes no difference anyway-
Whatever it is I'm against it!
No matter what it is or who commenced it,
I’m against it!

Your proposition may be good,
But let’s have one thing understood-
Whatever it is I’m against it!
And even when you’ve changed it or condensed it,
I’m against it!

For months before my son was born,
I used to yell from night to morn-
“Whatever it is, I’m against it!”
And I’ve kept yelling since I first commenced it,
“I’m against it!”

Okay, enough Democrat bashing; it’s just too easy.

Does this unexpected windfall mean we are out of the woods as far as the deficit is concerned? Not even close, but what it does mean is that if the Congress exercises a modicum of restraint (I know, I have yet to see that too), we could see the deficit begin to decline fairly rapidly over the next four years.

Therein lays the problem. Republicans have proven themselves just as resistant to spending restraint as the Democrats have always been. This is one place in which I find myself in agreement with John McCain. Congress has got to reign in its pork-barrel spending and they need to stop spending like drunken sailors.

As much as I get nervous about giving any future Democrat President such power, the line item veto would help a great deal in controlling Congress’ proclivity to spend America into destitution.

America has a long way to go to balance the budget, but one thing is certain, the tax cuts, which will too soon begin to sunset, need to be made permanent. It is always better for money to be in the hands of the private economy than it is in the hands of our government.

Let’s hope that our congressmen have the backbone and foresight to make the necessary changes to our tax code. I’m talking, of course, of Republican congressmen. The Democrats are too busy marching lock-step to the hypnotic piping of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to be reasoned in their evaluation of the facts. For the Democrat Party, wresting control of the House and Senate are far more important matters than anything as mundane as helping the American people.

For Democrats, the people are just votes to be wooed or swayed by bribery (middle-class welfare) or deception and fear mongering (Republicans will take away your social security).

As for raising taxes as the Democrats wish, to paraphrase Groucho

The Democrats, they have no wit,
And saying that I must admit,
If it’s a tax, I’m against it!
And when they’ve newly written and re-tensed it,

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

Copyright 2005 Will Malven