"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

Thursday, June 30, 2005

Liberals and Losers: Leading the Charge to Defeat

Will Malven

“Run away! Run away!” Have you heard them? 

It’s hard not to, they rush to surrender to every camera crew the can find.  It’s beginning to sound like Monty Python and the Holy Grail around here.  Only this time the “vicious rabbit” is the islamo-terrorist that skulks around Iraq plotting the deaths of American and Iraqi soldiers and innocent civilians.

Some of the names have changed, the war has changed, but the Liberal song has remained the same.  “Un-winnable war!”  “Pull out!”  “We need a timetable for withdrawal!”  “We are the terrorists!”  “American Imperialism!”  “It’s a quagmire!”  “Fighting for corporate profits!”  “Is my slip showing?” 

Oops, ignore that last one.  I am old enough (unfortunately) to remember the Vietnam War.  I remember the riots, the protest marches, the hatred, it was the same Left that we have now.  Instead of Eugene McCarthy, we have Ralph Nader.  We have Dennis Kucinich now instead of George McGovern.  John Kerry has replaced Hubert Humphrey.  Besotted Ted Kennedy is still swimming around in the same river of hatred he was wallowing in back then.  Robert Byrd is still waxing grandiloquent in his vanity sessions. 

Well the saying is, “It takes a Democrat to lose a war; it takes a Republican to win it [mostly].”  The Liberals, led by the Kerry-ites are genuine devotees to the French philosophy of war-when confronted by an inferior force, and they have been badly hammered to the point near defeat, bravely face them, drop your weapon, and say very clearly “I surrender!”

Now I expect this sort of thing from the Left, it has been there constant plaint since Korea.  They, in concert with their ever-loyal MSM, even succeeded with the Viet Nam War; causing sufficient dissatisfaction in the general populous to cause us to abandon the South Vietnamese People and condemn them to a life of servitude within their own lands. 

Had the weasels in Congress simply supplied the South Vietnamese Army with the support promised them in the Paris Peace Agreement, the Thieu-ky government might have succeeded. 

They have the same goal in every war.  They were the unilateralists in the 1980’s urging us to disarm and surrender to the Soviet Union, even as Reagan was bringing about their defeat. 

Water under the bridge.  The constant cacophony of defeatism is de rigueur for Liberals.  I expect this from the Left, and it can be dealt with as we of the right have always dealt with it.  They are a small problem because the facts are always against them.

But they’re not alone; some Republicans have taken up the cry of Democrat party “Surrender at any cost!”  Representative Walter Jones a lukewarm conservative of North Carolina said that he would offer a bill calling on the President to set a timetable for the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. He said:

"I voted for the resolution to commit the troops, and I feel that we've done about as much as we can do...The reason of going in for weapons of mass destruction, the ability of the Iraqis to make a nuclear weapon, that's all been proven that it was never there,”  

Jones is the guy who coined the phrase "freedom fries" because the French opposed the Iraq invasion.  I always felt that was strange, neologisms are something I expect more from the Left.  Incidentally, on his website now Jones is backpedaling. He states that he’s not calling for an immediate pull out or a withdrawal date, merely a beginning date for the troop drawdown.  He’s a veritable “Man of Styrofoam,” crumbling his way toward indecisiveness in the face of criticism from his own party. 

Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, one of the “gang of seven” Republicans who surrendered to the Democrats in the judicial nominee battle stated,

"The insurgency is alive and well. We underestimated the viability of the insurgency. [The administration] has been slow to adjust when it comes to troop strength and supporting our troops.   [Recruiting suffers] because this war is going sour in terms of word of mouth from parents and grandparents...if we don't adjust, public opinion is going to keep slipping away."

 Nothing wrong with his spine, it’s pure jelly.  I hope he’s got election insurance, because he’s going to need it.

Speaking of Senator Hagel...nothing new about Hagel’s doubts in August of 2002 he warned against unilateral moves to attack Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein that they believe could undermine the war against terror, destabilize the Middle East and create an ungovernable post-war Iraq.  He’s continued to hew to that line, only periodically flashing his Republican credentials so he can still go to the free dinners.  Hagel is bridling now since MoveOnPac.org has been quoting him in one of their ads as saying:

“Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality. It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq.” 

He is now demanding that the ad be “pulled down...now!” stating:

“This ad is dishonest. I have never supported immediate removal of American troops from Iraq. I have said that to withdraw from Iraq now would have catastrophic consequences that would ripple across a generation of Americans, Iraqis, and the entire Middle East. I have said I believe we can succeed in Iraq. MoveOn neglects to mention that in their ad.

Well Senator Hagel, you know when you’re in politics, you really must pay attention to what you are saying in your efforts to further your political career by currying favor with the press.  These chickens invariably come home to roost.

Then of course, there’s John McCain.  Mr. “It’s all about me.”  What can I say about him?  If ever there was a self-serving, self-obsessed, politician it is he. Senator McCain is the consummate opportunist, sort of like a short, white, Jesse Jackson with bad hair and a temper.  If there’s a camera to be jumped in front of, Senator McCain is there.  All smiles and handshakes till someone contradicts him, then...Watch out!  The face turns red, the smile becomes a grimace, and the statements become intemperate.  Come to think of it, he’s more like a Republican Howard Dean...a time bomb with a broken timer, ready to explode at any moment.

These RINOs are more problematical than our true “blue” Democrat friends.  It is these somewhat less than stalwart Republicans that are the real threat.  The “politicians” within the party, the men who will abandon their ideals so as to be seen as “reasonable” by the New York Times or the Washington Post, they threaten to derail the war effort, and abandon our troops to the whims of the anti-American MSM. 

Some would say that I am out of line to question the patriotism of men like Hagel and McCain who served valiantly during the Viet Nam War.  That may be right, but when these war heroes begin to place their political ambitions above the welfare of our nation and our troops in combat, then I believe they have earned those questions. 

History is replete with “valiant” soldiers who have later betrayed their country.  Benedict Arnold is one of these.  A truly heroic figure in our nation’s history who, perceiving insult from charges trumped up against him and seeking advantage for himself, conspired to betray the American army and so became the black figure of history he is.

Now I am not accusing Hagel or McCain of betraying their country, I am merely questioning their dedication to the supremacy of America in the world, and to the victory of democracy in Iraq.  They have justly earned the grateful admiration of all Americans for their service in the military in a time of war, but they, by their words and deeds, have also earned scrutiny of their motives in their political machinations and their aspirations to become President of the United States.

“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”

John Stuart Mill

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

Friday, June 24, 2005

Supreme Court: Eminent Domain Includes Anything, 5th Amendment Protections Declared Dead

Will Malven

Well, I never thought that I would be asking this other than in a joking manner, but could it truly be time for all patriotic citizens to prepare to take arms against the government?  I have been guilty in the past of making fun of the “loony” gun-toting militias, or in declaiming them for endangering all “sane” gun owners’ rights.  It appears that I may owe them an apology.  As scary as the proposition is, they might, possibly, maybe, could, potentially (I can’t believe I’m saying this), have been right.  Yeesh!  It may be time for modern day “minute men” to assemble in cities like New London, Connecticut to assist the home owners there like Bill Von Winkle, whose working class home is endangered by this unbelievable expansion of eminent domain, in fighting the oppression of a government gone completely out of the control of its citizens. 

Has judicial activism gone so far as to rewrite the constitution out of whole cloth? How is it possible that Justices at the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), the self-appointed arbiters of what is or is not constitutional could so defile the Fifth Amendment?  These are people who have taken the following oath:
 “I [name] do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as Supreme Court Justice under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So, help me God”
The case was one of eminent domain, in which the city of New London, Connecticut sought to seize the private property of citizens and award it to a private contractor to build a commercial development including a riverfront hotel, health club and offices in hopes of attracting tourists to the Thames riverfront, potentially increasing tax revenues collected on the property. This is a ruling giving local governments broad powers to seize private property to generate tax revenue.  Justice Stevens said in writing the majority opinion, “Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government.”  Now, not only has our “wise and noble” Supreme Court expanded the meaning of “public use” to include “promoting economic development,” but in this ruling they found law to support giving that seized land to a private corporation for commercial use in hopes of increasing revenue!  There is not even any guarantee that the new development will actually generate those additional monies, just the potential.

The Fifth Amendment says:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except incases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger,; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
I see absolutely nothing about seizing private property for the use of a private party (in effect private use, not public use). 

Impeachment is a word that has been bandied about quite a lot recently in regards to President Bush for mythical charges which have any validity only in the minds of delusional Democrat politicians and conspiracy buffs.  Here we have a case of a judiciary very clearly going well beyond the limits of its powers as laid out in the constitution, and creating law where none exists.  This ruling violates the Bill of Rights’ most important protections as delineated in the Ninth and Tenth amendments.  For those of you not conversant with them, they state:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The court in this ruling has usurped those rights “retained” and “reserved” by and to the people in these amendments.  It is very clear to me that this ruling is a clear violation of the “good behavior” limitation on a federal judge’s term of service, and that impeachment proceedings can and should be immediately initiated against all five of these justices.  Because of the breadth of this ruling, and the implications towards all private property rights, they have demonstrated their immoderation and a complete disregard for the constitution.  They have displayed their arrogance in dismissing the words of the constitution in favor of their own. It is clearly incumbent on the members of the House of Representatives to act to correct this betrayal of trust.

If you believe that I am over reacting, then you need to pause a moment and think about the wording, the exact wording, of this ruling, and its implications on all of us.  “Property” does not just mean real estate, property, as defined in law includes everything you own.
  • If my car is paid for or if it is an older car, does the local government have the right to seize it and force me to buy a new one because it is no longer generating as much in tax revenue as the new one would?   
  • If I own a business, does the local government have the right to seize it and give it to another businessman because he “might” be more successful than I and therefore generate more tax revenue than I do?
You think I’m being extreme?  I don’t, just look at the lengths that some in our society are willing to go to stretch the meaning of the law in more mundane cases.  A simple examination of tort law cases should frighten any skeptic into at least taking a second look at this ruling. 

It is not an exaggeration to say that this is an expansion of governmental power that is breathtaking in its scope.  It is perhaps an even more egregious example of judicial activism than Roe v. Wade.  In Roe, the court merely found new law where none existed.  In Kelo v. New London, the court has not just invented new law; it has ruled in direct violation of the Constitution’s protections of private property. 

To our founders, private property was the paramount expression of our freedom.  It was held as a sacred right, one of the “natural rights” given us by our Creator.  It was for the right of private property every bit as much as religious freedom that our fore fathers left their home countries for the New World.   

We have, as their descendents, no right to abrogate those freedoms. We have a responsibility to them and the sacrifices they made for us and our children so that we could live in this glorious country. “Land of the Free, Home of the Brave,” those are not just words on a page; they describe this nation and its people.   

We are the government, and those people we sent to Washington work for us.  It is time that we made them remember that.  For two-hundred and thirteen years we have fought “against enemies both foreign and domestic” to preserve the rights guaranteed to us in the Constitution.  We even felt that this Nation was important enough to go to war with ourselves to preserve it and its freedoms. 

This violation, this rape of our constitutional rights cannot and must not be tolerated.  I urge all who read this to write their Senators and Representatives about this ruling.  It is time for our timid seemingly reluctant congress to take firm and resolute action.  

Tell them that the time for equivocating is over.  You are either a patriot who believes in the U. S. Constitution or you are a sniveling anti-American coward, undeserving of the title of American or Congressman.  Never has there been a stronger argument for approving all of President Bush’s judicial nominees as fast as possible.  A strong, conservative, originalist, judiciary is the only way to save this nation from its gradual decline into the abyss of communism and destruction in which the state holds power over your every breath.

“Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all convictions, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.”

W.B. Yeats-The Second Coming

God Help and Bless America.

Friday, June 17, 2005

Cindy Sheehan: Are Those Crocodile Tears?

Will Malven

Ordinarily I have a great deal of sympathy for the families of soldiers who die in combat defending our freedom.  I lose that sympathy, when I see those same family members using the death or injury of their loved one for political gain.

Cindy Sheehan is pursuing a vendetta of hate against the President that predates the loss of her son.  She hates George Bush, not because she believes that he is responsible for her son’s death, but because he “stole the election” in 2000 and again in 2004.  She is a willing participant in the campaign of hate that the Left has pursued against President Bush since his victory in 2000. 

She is currently an active participant in Representative Conyers’ impeachment campaign against the President.  This is a woman I watched recite an account of her son's sacrifice without shedding a tear, not a catch in her voice, or even a hesitation; no sign of grief whatsoever. His aunt who was also present was in tears as her sister read her son's story. 

Did she love her son?  Certainly she did, all mothers love their sons; the difference is that most mothers don’t exploit the death of their sons for political purposes.  They may, as in the case of MADD, use their tragedy to motivate them to pursue moral crusades to have laws passed, but these women have no political agenda prior to their loss.  They are spurred to action by their loss.  If Mizzz Sheehan was truly motivated by the loss of her son to pursue the ones who caused his death, she would be out for the head of Muqtada al Sadr, not President Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld

Who is Cindy Sheehan?  She is the mother of slain soldier Casey Sheehan. 

On 4/04/2004 Casey Sheehan along with seven of his fellow soldiers were killed in a series of ambushes in Sadr City.  A sewage pick up patrol consisting of sewage collection trucks, four humvees, and 19 men were on a routine mission when they were ambushed by a large number of gunmen.  As soon as they cam under fire, one of their compatriots, SFC Swope stayed with the radio and signaled for help.  Back at the base, the response was immediate.

First Sgt. Carson reported that “word got around [Camp War Eagle] fast that the patrol was in trouble.” They had guys who normally don't fight who volunteered to help their buddies. There were guys fighting to get on that convoy.

This report is substantiated by Cindy Sheehan, who reporte:, “And the sergeant said, ‘Sheehan, you don't have to go,' because my son was a mechanic.' And Casey  said, 'Where my chief goes, I go.'"

Thus Casey Sheehan became part of the first Quick Reaction Force sent in relief of the ambushed patrol.  This first QRF was also ambushed on its way to relieve the “honey wagon patrol.”  Sheehan was killed in the first few minutes of the second ambush.

So here we have a soldier new to Iraq trained as a humvee mechanic in the 1st Battalion, 82nd Field Artillery Regiment who knew where his duty lay.  Casey was a twenty-four year old re-upper, having just signed for a second tour of duty after successfully serving his first hitch. 

This was no wet behind the ears eighteen year-old recruit, this was a man who had already served in the Army for four years.  He should be honored for volunteering for a combat position in a patrol going into a hot combat zone. 

It is a horrible thing to have brave young men killed by the kind of monsters that Muqtada al Sadr led, but it is even worse when people with a very pronounced, pre-existing, political agenda are willing to exploit the death of their own relative to pursue that agenda. 

You think I’m too harsh?  This is what Cindy Sheehan said in her “Open Letter to George Bush.”

“It has been seven months since your ignorant and arrogant lack of planning for the peace murdered my oldest child. It has been two days since your dishonest campaign stole another election…but you all were way more subtle this time than in 2000, weren’t you? You hardly had to get the Supreme Court of the United States involved at all this week...”

“... You feel so proud of yourself for betraying the country again, don’t you? You think you are very clever because you pulled the wool over the eyes of some of the people again. You think that you have some mandate from God…that you can “spend your political capital” any way that you want. George you don’t care or even realize that 56,000,000 plus citizens of this country voted against you and your agenda. Still, you are going to continue your ruthless work of being a divider and not a uniter. George, in 2000 when you stole that election and the Democrats gave up, I gave up too. I had the most ironic thought of my life then: "Oh well, how much damage can he do in four years?" Well, now I know how much you have damaged my family, this country, and this world. If you think I am going to allow you another four years to do even more damage, then you truly are mistaken. I will fight for a true vote count and if that fails, your impeachment. Also, the impeachment of your Vice President...”

“...George, I must confess that I and my family worked very HARD to re-defeat you this time, but you refuse to stay defeated. Well, we are watching you very carefully. We are going to do everything in our power to have you impeached for misleading the American people into a disastrous war and for mis-using and abusing your power as Commander-in-Chief.”

Now folks, I don’t know about you, but that kind of hatred is a little un-nerving and perhaps a cause for concern. I understand the anger of a mother who has lost her child to what she believes is an unjust cause, but the kind of anger I detect in the above letter is an anger that seems to run far deeper.  It speaks to me of the typical Liberal anger and hatred of President Bush, compounded by the anger of a mother whose child has died. 

That she hated President Bush before her son was killed is obvious in the manner in which she refers to his victory in the 2000 election.  She also spouts the usual Liberal mantras of “abuse of power,” “stole the election,” “divider not a uniter,” all the usual garbage that the Liberals use in their attempts to delegitimize his presidency. 

She has called the American government:

“a morally repugnant system...We have no Constitution. We’re the only country with no checks and balances. We want our country back if we have to impeach George Bush down to the person who picks up the dog sh-t in Washington! Let George Bush send his two little party animals to die in Iraq. It’s OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons but we are waging nuclear war in Iraq, we have contaminated the entire country. It’s not OK for Syria to be in Lebanon. Hypocrites! But Israel can occupy Palestine?”


“They’re not waging a War on Terror but a War of Terror...The biggest terrorist is George W. Bush.”

You know, I have seen this before, we all have.  On March 30, 1981, President Reagan and James Brady were shot in an assassination attempt following an appearance at the Washington Hilton.  Brady suffered severe brain damage which left him in a wheel chair and caused his slurred speech.  In 1985 Sarah Brady, his wife, joined the Campaign for a Sane Gun Policy. 

I was always horrified the way Sarah paraded James around in his wheel chair to all of the anti-gun rallies she attended.  Now I have no way of knowing how much of this anti-gun campaign is at James Brady’s behest, but I do know that Sarah Brady pursued her own relentless campaign against gun owners.  And I do know that, as is typical of most Liberal campaigns, the truth has little relevance to what is being said by her organization.  I only know that she appears to have no problem exploiting her husband’s injuries and suffering in pursuit of her agenda.

Once again we see to what lengths Liberals are willing to go to carry forward their agenda.  I am surprised that Mizzzz Sheehan isn’t carrying her son’s dead body around with her. 

Harsh?  Mean spirited?  Your damn right!  I am not disposed to be terribly sympathetic to a woman willing to exploit the death of her son for her own political agenda, dishonoring his service in the process.  This is not a woman consumed by grief at the loss of her son, this is a woman consumed by the objective of bringing down President Bush, a long standing objective, predating the death of her son.  His death was to her, apparently, just a lucky happenstance, to be used, as the left have used all American soldiers’ deaths, as a tool to aid them in their anti-Bush, anti-war, ultimately anti-American agenda.

The Left have no shame, no true concern for people, and no heart. 

There is an old adage, “If you aren’t a liberal when you are young, you have no heart and if you aren’t a conservative after you have matured, you have no brain.” 

I disagree, nowhere is there a colder, more calculating intent than in the “heart” of a Liberal.  They have proven themselves time and time again, willing to use people, their grief, and their fears, to promote their political agenda.  They are fully willing to exploit any situation, no matter how tragic, to promote their causes. 

I am proud of Casey Sheehan for his service to his nation.  He was a man of honor, a hero who deserves better than to be used as a tool for a hateful political agenda.  I honor his sacrifice and am saddened by his loss.  He knew the higher calling of his nation, a calling that rises above the petty politics of the moment. 

Too bad his mother doesn’t hear the same call.

That’s my opinion, and I don’t apologize for any of it.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

Copyright 2005  Will Malven

Liberals and Conservatives: Can’t We All Just Get Along? NOT A CHANCE!

Will Malven

“Be kind.”  “Be nice.”  “Be polite.”  “Don’t stoop to their level.”  “You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.” I get this in Conservative comments sometimes, and I hear it from the wagging tongues on television and radio continually.  This attitude stems from the mistaken belief by Conservatives that kindness begets kindness when dealing with the Left. 

I too used to believe this fallacy.  It would be nice if it was true, but when a conservative dares to expose his thoughts in a public venue, he will soon find himself in the crosshairs of the typical, highly vocal, wildly abusive, verbal sniping of the Left.  There is no kindness in their attacks, only hatred.  This is understandable, because verbal abuse is always the refuge of those who are incapable of defending their beliefs with reason and truly, Liberals rarely have a good reason for their opinions. 

A Liberal takes a position on a subject because they believe it is true.  The unfortunate truth about human nature is that quite often we hate what we do not understand, and Liberals do not understand Conservative thought.  The very concept which will arouse contempt in them when applied to God is the source of their beliefs in Liberalism, faith. 

Hint to Liberals: “Because I say so!” is rarely acceptable as a legitimate argument in the arena of debate.  It rarely convinces anyone to accept your side of an issue and usually will have the opposite effect. The same goes for these incessant ad hominem attacks you launch at your political opponents.  Calling someone an “a**hole” will rarely convince them to adopt a position sympathetic to your own.

In addressing this kind of Liberal approach one can take a lesson from the means by which one handles any kind of obnoxious person.  We know from history that the enemies of freedom see any kind of olive branch as a sign of weakness to be exploited to their advantage.  Six months after Hitler signed the 1938 Munich agreement (Chamberlain’s famous “peace for our times” agreement), he invaded Czechoslovakia. 

The Soviet Union repeatedly took advantage of our proffered olive branches to better their geopolitical position in the world.  The removal of the missiles in Cuba did not occur as the result of a proffered hand, but as the result of a proffered mailed fist. 

The end of the Cold War was not caused as the result of the ill advised, Leftist led, unilateral nuclear disarmament movement, but as the result of a concerted arms build up and an inflexible stand by America, led by the late President Ronald Reagan, in recognizing the Soviets for the evil they were.  The fall of the Soviet Union was precipitated by our determination to oppose them at every turn. 

For decades now, the Republicans have been playing the “nice guy” to the whiney left and getting sucker punched as a reward for their politeness.  One example is when President Bush (41) broke his “no new taxes” pledge in an agreement with the Democrats in Congress, in which they pledged control spending.  The ink wasn’t even dry on the agreement when the Democrats broke it. 

A more recent example comes from the United States Senate.  After brokering an “equitable power sharing agreement” with the Democrats in which the Republican, in an effort to be seen as fair and accommodating, surrendered a substantial amount of administrative power to the Democrats.  When, in June of 2001, Jim Jeffords “jumped ship” to become a Democrat leaning “Independent,” the Democrats took over control of the Senate and ran it as if they had a twenty vote margin. 

From historical examples, one can see that playing nice, nice, with the Democrats will get you nothing but contempt from them for being weak.  They fail to see the advantage in behaving equitably with their enemies (that is how they see us, as enemies, not as adversaries or competitors).  Their politics is cut-throat, and they see conservatism as an evil better eliminated from the playing field.  Their mission is as destroying angel intent on killing conservatism by any means fair or foul. 

We have a current example playing itself out in D.C. right now with the Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts.  The Left is unable to find any substantive reason to oppose him so they are going after his wife.  She is “pro-life” Oooh! (It is a sad state of affairs when the term pro-life becomes a derogatory epithet to those of the Left.  Of course the obvious corollary is that the Left is “anti-life.”). 

Robin Givhan has a hit piece in, of all places, the style section of the Washington Post. She is critical of the way the Roberts family was attired for the announcement of Roberts’ nomination.  Although she and her article are insignificant, they are reflective of the sneering arrogance of the left.  Sneer, deride, insult, and attack, that is the modus operandi of the Left.  Ask a Liberal for facts, and you will get opinions and blind faith in them.

When one is confronted by this kind of hatred and intransigence, the only reasonable response is one of firm opposition rather than appeasement.  “Fight fire with fire” goes the old adage.  This doesn’t mean that we necessarily lower ourselves to their iniquitous level; it simply means that we don’t shy away from using strong, opinion laden language. 

Orin Hatch this week gets my gold star for his description of Chuck Schumer’s list of questions for Nominee Roberts as “dumbass questions.”  When asked by Schumer if he would like to revise and extend his remarks, Hatch replied

"No, I am going to keep it exactly the way it is. I mean, I hate to say it. I mean, I feel badly saying it between you and me. But I do know dumbass questions when I see dumbass questions."

Bravo Senator Hatch.  It’s about time that we Republicans quit kowtowing to the niceties of mannered behavior and speech while the Democrats are allowed a free run to vilify and insult fine and decent people with impunity.  In that environment, kindness has little purchase.

When you have the Democrat Minority Leader Harry Reid in the Senate describing the President of the United States as a “loser” and the “Honorable” Senator Dick Durbin comparing our terrorist detention center at GTMO to the gulags of the Soviet Union, what is called for is not a reasoned, measured, response it is a quick, strong, slap down.

People who talk like that are not deserving of our respect, they are deserving of our contempt and rebuke.  It is astounding the depths of depraved language these Liberals will plumb in their effort to refute a Conservatives arguments.  Unable to compete on the field of fact and reason, they are forced to resort to obscenity and invective to support their argument. 

We need to confront this pitiful tactic by throwing it back in their faces. Forcing them to acknowledge their own language and calling them down on it in public is the first step to defeating them in the public fora.  We must make clear to the voting public the bankruptcy of their arguments and the absence of any real solutions to the problems confronting America. 

Hint to Democrats:  “We’ll do a better job!” is not a policy platform.

The time has long since come for Republicans to remove their gloves and prepare to do battle in the trenches (sewers in some cases) with these haters.  We must not give them a pass on their rude and unacceptable behavior.  When we see hypocrisy we must call it for what it is.  When we are confronted with lies (the preferred milieu of the Left) we must counter them with uncompromising truths. And when confronted with shadowy insult, we must respond to it as it deserves, with the back of our hands and the light of day. 

I am tired of the Republican legislators and candidates being polite and being steam rolled for it.  It is time to call liars, liars.  We can afford no more verbal niceties, no more polite deference to their honored positions as representatives of the people, by their conduct; they have already dishonored their roles as Members of Congress.  Respect must be earned and all the Left has earned is our contempt.  It is sad to say that “kindness has left the building.”  Let us hope that at some future date, it returns.
Nothing emboldens sin so much as mercy.~ William Shakespeare, Timon of Athens. Act III, scene v

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

Thursday, June 16, 2005

Is Treason the Only Policy the Democrats Have to Offer?

Will Malven

In America today, we have universities that suppress conservative organizations and views and promote Leftist socialist groups and ideals.  We have a great preponderance of university professors who are extremely Liberal, and a vast majority of whom support the Democrat party, and are intolerant of opposing views.  We have a large number of Left-wing organizations organizing protest marches against the war.  We have a large number of desperate Liberals stoking the fires of hatred because they feel that the nation is ignoring them and their calls for impeachment of the President. 

The majority of Americans still support the President and the policies his administration has pursued.  Sure, there are exceptions, the old Democrat/MSM cabal has managed to turn public opinion against the most reasonable revision of the Social Security system-private accounts-by their constant lies and fear mongering, aided by the highly partisan AARP which misses no opportunity to frighten the elderly in this nation by implying that President Bush’s plan would take away their Social Security checks, and have been successful in driving public opinion against some other administration policies.  But a majority of Americans still support President Bush.  Be that as it may, the anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-America drum-beat continues. The big question is; are we headed for, or already in, another culture clash such as we saw in the early ‘70s?  A lot of the signs are there, an irrational hatred of the President, a highly vocal anti-American anti-war protest movement, a complete refusal by the left to listen to, or even tolerate, opposing views, an abandonment of the moderate wing of the Democrat party, and a constant treasonous drumbeat of defeatism from the representatives of the Left in the congress aimed at undermining the American troops and the President. 

Forty five years ago, Nixon was the target of hatred by the Left for many reasons, even though he was, by most standards, a fairly liberal Republican.  The Left’s hatred for Nixon began in the fifties due to his successful pursuit of one of the left’s sacred cows, Alger Hiss (a confirmed Soviet agent who worked against the interests of America throughout his entire career).  With President Bush, the deep seated hatred appears to have a much more nebulous origin.  As far as I can tell the source of the hatred is two-fold, first he defeated the darling of the Texas Democrat party, Ann Richards, for Governor.  That alone is an unforgivable sin as far as the Left is concerned. 

Second, he defeated Al Gore for the presidency by electoral vote, not popular vote, and he had the temerity to stand up to the Democrat machine of Florida and their very biased State Supreme Court which abandoned the law as it was written not once, but twice.  Even after the U.S. Supreme Court told them that they couldn’t do it, they tried to force the state to continue counting votes in only a few counties thus forcing the U.S. Supreme Court to step in a second time and re-establish the rule of law and ending the tantrum thrown by the Democrats, allowing the State of Florida to certify the election results. For some reason, the fact that the Supreme Court required the lower court to adhere to the law as written outraged a large number of Democrats who apparently felt that the election should go their way regardless of both the vote count and the word of law.

With the Democrats, politics trumps all other concerns.  Their desire to defeat the Republicans takes precedent over all other concerns whether it be Homeland Security, Defense Expenditures, Social Security insolvency (you know the problem that didn’t exist for the Democrats until the Senate began debating judges and then leaped to the forefront of their concerns),  Medical liability reform, you name it, they’ll ignore it.  Proof:  where as Richard Nixon refused to challenge the election results “for the good of the nation” in the 1960 election (in spite of firm evidence of massive fraud by the Democrat Party apparatchiks), Al Gore felt no such affection for his nation; putting himself and his interests above those of the nation.  

As far as I am concerned, the Democrats must earn their bona fides and prove the legitimacy of their complaints. We all know from the “stolen” e-mails through which Dick “Dursban” and “Orca” Kennedy had been communicating, that the entire judiciary controversy was a politically motivated attack orchestrated by the Leftist special interest groups like People for the
American Way
, Common Cause, NARAL, NOW, and the Congressional Black Caucus, the goal of which was to damage President Bush’s re-election chances. 

Now we have the same Dick Durbin criticizing the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in a hateful and, possibly, treasonous manner—equating the prison at GITMO to a NAZI concentration camp and Pol Pot’s killing fields—strictly in an effort to undermine the President and the dominance of the Republican Party. 

It is time for the Democrat party to prove that they actually do care about the nation, and not just about gaining political points in anticipation of the 2006 elections.  They have lost the right to criticize the President and his policies free from questioning as to their motives.  We can no longer assume that there is any validity to their criticisms because they have proven that they are willing to use important American issues for their personal political gain.

These people, both Democrat politician and the special interest groups who are pulling their chains are individuals who hate for no other reason other than they are not in control of the government.  They are motivated by their assumptions.  They project their own beliefs on and attribute their own motives to their opponents.  They assume that because they would act in a certain way, everyone else would act the same.  They have from day one of President Bush’s administration sought to destroy him by any means, fair or foul.  They read the Downing Street Memo as a fait accompli.  The memo says “the intelligence is being fixed around the policy,” and they say, “Hah! Proof that Bush lied,” Q.E.D.  I look at the same quotation and say that this could be of concern if by “fixed around” he meant “altered in order to support,” a stretch in interpretation to be sure, or it could be nothing if he meant “set in place or concentrated,” a much more reasonable interpretation based on conventional word usage.  A quick trip to your local unabridged Webster’s, reveals the following:

“fix, v.t.; fixed or fixt (fikst), pt.,pp.; fixing, ppr. [Fr. Fixer, from ML. fixare, from fixus. pp. of figere, to fix, fasten, drive in.]

1.  to make stable, firm, or secure; to attach or fasten immovably.  2.  to established; to set; to arrange definitely; as, he fixed the rent at forty dollars.  3.   to set firmly in the mind.  4.  to set or direct steadily; to fasten intently; as, he fixed his eyes upon the judge.  5.  to direct one’s eyes steadily at.  6.  to transfix; to pierce. [Obs.]  7.  to make rigid.  8.  to make permanent or lasting; as, color is fixed in dyeing.  9.  to reach a decision about; find out with certainty; as, the city of Homer’s birth has never been fixed.  10.  to arrange properly; set in order, adjust.  11.  to repair; mend...”

One has to go all the way to the tenth definition provided to find a definition that could possibly be construed to mean that the intelligence was altered.  That, my friends, is a long way to go for water. 

I for one don’t find it reasonable to search so diligently for a reason to impugn the policies of our government just because I might not like our principals.  That is the sort of action that I would expect from our enemies, not our own Congressmen, Senators, and citizens. 

The definition of treason, given in the Constitution is “levying war against them [the United States] or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”  That is precisely what we now see happening on several fronts.  Senator Durbin, the number two Democrat in the Senate, and his fellows who either support or defend him, has through his statements comparing the U.S. to the repressive regimes of Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot provided cover for our enemy’s actions. 

The Congressmen (and women) who attended the “Democrat Judiciary Committee panel hearing on Impeachment:  John Conyers, Sheila Jackson Lee, Barbara Lee, Jim McDermott, Barney Franks, Charles Rangel, Lynn Wolsey, Jerry Nadler, Maxine Waters, Maurice Hinchey, Zoe Lofgren, Hilda Solis, George Miller, Marcy Kaptur, Gregory Meeks, Jan Shakowsky, John Tierney, Bobby Scott, Jay Inslee, John Tierney, Donald Payne, and Jim Moran have, in their actions against this President and our war effort, adhered to our enemies and taken up their arguments for them.  The witnesses attending:  Ray McGovern (former CIA agent), Joe Wilson (former Ambassador to Niger), John Bonifaz, Cindy Sheehan (mother of slain American soldier) have through their testimony, given aid and comfort to our enemies.  All of these people are guilty of treason to one extent or another.  They are grandstanding for political reasons on the backs of our soldiers. 

Further treasonous speech occurs with these straw men that the Left keeps bringing up, about how occurrences like those alleged to have occurred at GITMO are recruiting more terrorists than we have imprisoned. This complaint is contingent on one thing, the amount of propaganda the Democrats provide to the terrorists in their continuous carping about the behavior of our American soldiers.  Between the Terrorist sympathizers represented by the most vocal war critics within the Democrat party (you know, those who are being repeatedly quoted by al Jazeera and other anti-American propaganda outlets) and their cheerleaders in the MSM, I would be surprised if there wasn’t an increase in the number of people overseas and specifically in the Middle East who hate Americans.

Giving “aide and comfort” to the enemy takes many forms, one of which is providing political ammunition for the very people with whom we are at war. 

Very much the same thing is occurring with the John Bolton nomination.  Biden, among others is very fond of talking about how Bolton’s reputation will be so damaged that he will be unable to do his job. 

Well “Plagiarizer,” if it is so, you and your buddies in the Democrat party will be at fault for it.  Of course this is no surprise to you because that has been your only goal from the very start.  You and the others who worship at the alter of U.N. are deathly afraid that this last bastion of World Government-Think may at last be turned into a useful tool for resolving international disputes while respecting national sovereignty rather than moving to the imposition of a One World Government dominated by a socialist economic model.

Yes, in answer to all of those who ask the question, “Is it treason simply to speak out against the current administration and its Iraq policy?”  In a time of war, it is treasonous to do so.  According to the Constitution any action that gives “aid and comfort” to the enemy is treason.  That’s it, pure and simple. 

The time for these questions and investigations is after the conclusion of the war, or prior to the onset of hostilities.  Once the war has begun, any actions initiated against our government’s policies are treason.  The fact that this “war on terror” is a very prolonged conflict perhaps lasting beyond this administration is irrelevant. 

Of course the fact that this war has not been officially declared by the Congress does give those of you who are traitors to your country legal cover, but not moral cover.  You have the legal and even constitutional right to speak out, but I would rather be with the good guys than the bad.  And I would rather support our troop’s efforts than seek to undermine them and endanger their lives.

You see, I love this country, warts and all.  I see it for the good that it is.  I believe in the rightness of our cause.  I know that no country in history has done more good, given more of its blood and money to help other nations than America. America is the best, most generous, most selfless nation in history.  We have never sought to dominate a nation for our own financial gain.  We have never colonized any other nation. 

As to those nations in which we have maintained strategic military bases, when asked by their government to leave, we have abandoned those bases without hesitation.  No other nation in history has done so voluntarily.  We are the “good guys” and I for not going to forget that.

If indeed we are headed for a repetition of the division of the nation like that which occurred in the 70’s, I know on which side I fall.  If you disagree, I respect your right to do so, but I don’t respect your opinion and deny its legitimacy.  In my eyes you will remain anti-American and treasonous in your actions.

The enemy within, from the Cold War era, has not been vanquished, he has merely been driven further underground and must eventually be dealt with.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!