"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

Monday, November 28, 2005

Time to Allow the Iraqis to Take the Lead

Will Malven

In an earlier comment on the Houston Conservative webpage, I expressed the opinion that the Iraqis must the ultimate arbiters of what is or is not acceptable in the conduct of this war against the insurgents and terrorists who are killing their and our people.  The article was titled Shiite Urges U.S. to Give Iraqis Leeway In Rebel Fight.  It expressed the opinion of Abdul Aziz Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the Shiite Muslim religious party that leads the transitional government that,

"The more freedom given to Iraqis, the more chance for further progress there would be, particularly in fighting terror.”

I do not believe that it is the place of American diplomats to “instruct” the Iraqi military, the Iraqi provisional government, or the Iraqi people on how they should conduct the war in which they are engaged.  The differences between our two cultures vary both morally and culturally.  It is arrogance in the extreme for American political correctness to interfere with the leaders of the Iraqi nation, now taking their first fumbling but resolute steps toward a representative form of government, in conducting its war for survival.  And that is just exactly what they are doing.  The Iraqi nation is now fighting for its very existence.  The niceties of our own cultural views on how to conduct a war, impaired and corrupted as they are by the absurd belief that war can be conducted by rules agreed upon in another time and place by cultures which are alien to those currently involved, have no place in the Iraqi war for existence.  Just as we have been repeatedly instructed by those on the Left, that Christianity has no claim to moral superiority over Islam (a view with which I’m not entirely certain I agree), it must follow that Western cultural norms and mores have no claim to superiority over those of the Middle East.

The concerns of those in our nation like Extreme Liberal Democrat Senator Dick Durbin and former Attorney General and Erstwhile Betrayer of Our Nation Ramsey Clark over “torture” of the type which so horrified Extreme Liberal Democrat Senator Dick Durbin that he ceremoniously and without apology described our guards at the Guantanamo, Cuba holding facility as using tactics reminiscent of those used “in the Gulags” or “the death camps of Hitler,” are not the concerns of our allies in Iraq.  Our cultural standards are not those of our Iraqi allies or of their people.  It should be the exclusive province of the Iraqi government as to how the terrorists who are killing innocent Iraqi men, women, and children everyday should be treated, not American Congressmen back safe and sound in their leather bound chairs in their carefully protected offices.  We are in Iraq to give the Iraqi people a chance for self government, not to run their government for them.  American arm-chair generals who have been brainwashed by the constant bombardment from the left telling them how we must treat our enemy prisoners like honored house guests, believe that war should be clean rather than messy and apparently place no real value on the lives of our soldiers.  For them, better a thousand Americans die than one terrorist suffer humiliation. 

Each people must be free to choose their own path to freedom.  It is a moral imperative that those who enjoy the privileges of freedom should strive to help others to achieve the same.  However, once self-determination is achieved, it is not up to other nations to dictate how that nation should develop culturally or morally. In 1776 America was not constrained in our behavior by any outside influences.  How we conducted our war for freedom was a decision made by us. Our forefathers were constrained only by their personal beliefs in what was right and what was wrong. Our War for Independence was fought in the manner in which our forefathers chose, not our allies, the French, and certainly not that of our enemies, the British. In the end, this is what must happen in Iraq. They too must be allowed to resolve the conflict in their own way, with the logistical support of our military and with the support of our might where needed, but in a manner consistent with their own cultural standards. Some of their techniques may be questionable by our Western standards, but they are techniques invented by a culture and civilization which is centuries older than ours and may be more acceptable by those standards.  We are horrified that thieves in Saudi Arabia may have their right hands cut off.  We do not have the moral authority to declare such a punishment as wrong or right.  To be certain it is a deterrent to further theft by that individual.  Such a punishment is not mere brutality for the sake of brutality, but must be seen in its cultural context.  By chopping off a criminal’s right hand, he is ostracized from society.  An Arab’s left hand is viewed as “dirty” and socially unacceptable.  The threat of being ostracized for life, while it may appear brutal to us in the West, is a mighty deterrent in a tightly knit society bound by Sharia (Islamic Law).  Truthfully is such treatment any more “barbaric” than it is for our culture to slap those who would victimize others on the wrist with a 2 year sentence in prison and then return them to the same society to victimize more citizens, again and again?  Are we not then complicit in their assault against our own citizens?  Are we not then guilty of caring more for the criminal than for the victim of the crime?  You tell me which culture has the correct approach.

Political correctness in war is a disease which tells us that it is okay to blow someone up, but somehow it is unacceptable to humiliate or degrade him or his faith when in captivity in order to extract information which might be vital to saving lives.  Political correctness tell us that when captured enemy soldiers are “tortured,” the information obtained is useless, that the “victim” of this “torture” will make things up to tell his captors.  Yet they will simultaneously claim that there is a “nuclear scenario” in which it may be permissible to subject a prisoner to extreme torture to extract information which could save hundreds of thousands of lives.   This is a contradiction which cannot be reconciled, and our own recent experience teaches another lesson. 

As a simple example I will refer you to the case of Lt. Colonel Alan B. West, an African American officer who received news that his men had been targeted by a group of thugs associated with an Iraqi policeman named Yahya Jhodri Hamoodi. Hamoodi was apprehended and interrogated for several hours. Witnessing the failure of the interrogators to obtain results and growing frustrated at the risk to his men, Colonel West took Hamoodi outside, shoved his head into a sandbox and threatened to kill him. The Colonel then pulled out his sidearm and fired a warning shot into the sky. West then carefully held Hamoodi’s head aside and fired a shot over Hamoodi’s shoulder, into the Iraqi sand.  Hamoodi sand like a canary and the resulting information obtained prevented an ambush of West's troops and resulted in the capture of its intended perpetrators without the Iraqi prisoner being harmed.  For his efforts, the diplomatic and military PC police forced him to resign his command or face a court martial for violating the niceties of war, as they saw it.  He was cashiered out of the Army and was lucky to retain his pension. West’s crime was offending the sensibilities of our Left-wing media and our Extreme Left-wing Democrat Congressmen.  How the war in Iraq is conducted must ultimately fall to the decision of the Iraqi people and their government.

In the end, when “diplomats” and “do-gooders” interject themselves into war, the results are usually devastating.  Wars are longer and bloodier, more civilians are killed, the economies of the warring nations can be damaged almost beyond recall, and in the end, Criminal societies are allowed to flourish, because their leaders escape punishment.  Abdul Aziz Hakim is correct.  It is time for the diplomats to but out and allow the Iraqi soldiers to fight the war in their own manner with our soldiers their to support them and instruct them where needed, but they must be allowed to conduct combat operations by their own ethical standards, not ours.  After all, our goal is for them to be capable of protecting themselves without our help, is it not?

Sunday, November 27, 2005

The NRA and Gun Owners versus Brady Campaign and Gun Opponents: Who Serves America Better?

Will Malven

Which group has contributed more to America and our way of life?  Who has contributed more to our overall well-being?  Is it the National Rifle Association and the gun owners throughout America or the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and those who believe that gun ownership is dangerous for Americans?

The National Rifle Association

The National Rifle Association was formed in 1871 by two Union officers who were astounded at the poor marksmanship demonstrated by the Union troops.  Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate were granted a charter by the state of New York on November 17th, 1871 and General Ambrose Burnside, former Governor of Rhode Island became the first president of the NRA.  They obtained funding help from New York, and bought the Creed Farm on Long Island. 

The new firing range was named Creedmoor.  It was not long before opposition began to form and in 1892 the range was moved from Creedmoor to Sea Girt, New Jersey.  In 1903 the NRA Secretary, Albert S. Jones urged the establishment of rifle clubs at all major colleges, universities and military academies and began promoting shooting sports for youths, inspiring a new generation of Americans who would be able to defend our nation in the event of war. 

Repeated attacks on our Second Amendment rights led the NRA to form the Legislative Affairs Division in 1934. The NRA did not lobby directly at this time; rather it mailed out legislative facts and analyses to members so they could take action on their own.  Its main mission remained training of citizens in marksmanship and gun safety.

Serving America During Wartime

During World War Two, the NRA allowed the government to use its ranges and developed training materials in the use and care of firearms for the military.  NRA members were encouraged to volunteer as plant and home guard members.  The Association also developed training materials for industrial security and even reloaded ammunition for those guarding war plants.   

Internationally, the NRA recognized the desperate circumstances Britain had put itself in by effectively disarming itself through well intentioned but poorly considered gun laws enacted between WWI and WWII. The NRA collected and sent to Britain more than 7,000 firearms for their defense against potential invasion by Germany.

[In spite of this unprecedented generosity of a civilian group to a foreign nation, Britain remained such a staunch opponent of private gun ownership that instead of expressing their appreciation to the NRA members and returning those firearms, they were unceremoniously dumped into the ocean at wars end]. 
Currently members of the NRA are providing supplemental weapons training to our troops in preparation for their deployment in Iraq.

Serving America During Peacetime

Through the years, the NRA has provided firearms training to tens of thousands of policemen throughout America.  The NRA estimates that there are more than 10,000 NRA certified police and security instructors in America today.  Hundreds of thousands of police, sheriffs, state troopers, federal marshals, FBI, Treasury Agents, and various security agents owe their proficiency at arms either directly or indirectly to the efforts of the NRA.

There are over 50,000 Certified Instructors in the civilian population and according to the NRA these instructors train over 750,000 private gun owners each year.  They are provided training in how to use and maintain rifles, shotguns, and pistols as well as providing concealed carry training in those states which offer licensing.  Instruction in personal defense and competitions shooting are offered.  They also provide safety instruction to hunters of all ages. 

One of the most successful programs has been the “Eddie Eagle” program which educates children from pre-kindergarten to the sixth grade in how to behave when they come upon a firearm in an unsupervised situation.  They are taught quite simply “STOP. DON’T TOUCH. LEAVE THE AREA. TELL AN ADULT. So far more than 18,000,000 children have been given this training.  The sad thing is that far more children could have received this training had not the hate mongers in the anti-gun organizations lied about the intentions of the NRA.

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

The Brady Campaign began life as the National Council to Control Handguns, established in 1974 by Dr. Mark Borinsky, “a victim of gun violence.“  The Next year, following the murder of his son, DuPont executive Nelson "Pete" Shields took a leave of absence from his job to work for NCCH and in 1978 became the organizations chairman.  In 1980 NCCH was renamed HCI, Handgun Control, Inc.
In 1983, The Center to Prevent Handgun Violence (CPHV), an educational outreach organization dedicated to reducing gun violence, is founded as a sister organization to HCI. 

In 1985, four years after her husband Jim Brady, Ronald Reagan’s press secretary, was wounded in the assassination attempt by John Hinckley, Jr. Sarah Brady joined the anti-gun movement and in 1989 became the chair Handgun Control, Inc.  Later in 1991 she also became chair of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence.  

On June 14th, 2001 HCI was renamed the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the CPHV was renamed Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, both in honor of Jim and Sarah’s commitment to make America safer from gun violence.

Legislative Achievements of the Brady Campaign

With the high profile Sarah Brady at the head of their campaign, between 1985 and 1991 the HCI/CPHV had a number of legislative successes. They successfully lobbied Congress to ban Teflon coated armor-piercing, "cop-killer" bullets that can puncture bullet-proof vests worn by police officers and in Maryland they were able to pass a ban on the sale of so-called Saturday Night Specials.  Problem is, there were no “cop-killer” bullets.  The Teflon coating is common to most ammunition, because it causes less wear on the barrel, reduces ricochets from hard surfaces, and reduces air contamination from lead particles being shed from bullets in flight. 

As to “Saturday Night Special,” there has never been any evidence that these inexpensive guns are in anyway more dangerous to the user, or that they are used any more frequently in committing a crime than any other firearm. 

The two organizations managed to get Congress to pass a bill to ban handguns that cannot be detected by airport x-ray machines ("plastic" handguns).  The only problem with these laws is that they were so-called feel good laws, which protected no one.  There have never been any “plastic” handguns.  The guns which so terrified the CPHV and HCI (the Glock) are now the most commonly used firearms by police in the nation.  The Glock was never “plastic” and was never “undetectable” by airport x-ray machines, being 80% metal as they are. 

The Glock was the victim, as are so many weapon systems, of hyperventilating by these Left-wing organizations.  The same, identical Glock, unchanged in any way, is still being marketed in the United States, and is one of the most popular firearms sold because of their inherent safety and reliability. 

Much More Ado About Nothing

After a schoolyard massacre in Stockton, California passes the first assault weapons ban in the nation, the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapon Act.  This act would later lead to the Violent Crime and Control Act of 1994, which includes the first-ever federal Assault Weapons Ban, banning the future manufacture and importation of military-style assault weapons. 

By admission of the authors of the bill, the criteria used in deciding whether or not a gun was included on the list were cosmetic.  If a gun “looked” dangerous or bad, it was included on the list.  Again, as is typical of Left-wing legislation, superficialities were the deciding factors. 

No effort was made to determine the functionality of firearms, so you could and did have cases in which one of two identically functioning guns which had different stocks or features would be on the ban and the other would be perfectly acceptable. 

In 1993, Virginia passed legislation limiting purchases of guns to "one per person per month," in response to claims by the anti-gun lobby that Virginia is a source state of crime guns trafficked up and down the East Coast. In spite of passing of this law, gun violence on the East Coast has shown no sign of lessening.
One of the few constructive and successful laws to come out of the Brady Campaign is the instant background check.  The Brady Bill, which requires a five-day waiting period and background checks on handgun purchases, was signed into law after a seven-year battle, and went into effect in the 32 states which had no background check system. 

The Brady Bill was sunsetted and while it was in effect, a system for instant background checks was set in place.  As the Brady five-day law came to an end, the instant check system was implemented.  In some states, there is now no waiting period. In most cases, this kind of success is absent. 

Most legislation lobbied for by the Anti-gun movement turns out to be ineffectual, superficial, and counter productive.  A lot of the efforts of the Brady Campaign revolve around what sounds good rather than what is true.  Much of the data supplied by the Brady campaign is apocryphal, assumed to be true with no supporting data, or just plane false presented as true using twisted data. 

Programs like Michael Moore’s Bowling for Columbine present a distorted view of gun owners, firearms manufacturers, and American culture.  The anti-gun faction continue to miss portray the NRA and its members as dangerous, supporting weapons systems which are dangerous for police and attempting to corrupt children through its Eddie Eagle Program.  The truth is that the Eddie Eagle Program expresses no opinion as to whether guns are good or bad or whether gun ownership is good or bad. 

In contrast the anti-gun lobby continually represents guns as more dangerous to owners than the criminals they are meant to deter.  Their STAR program does place the Campaigns own opinions on gun ownership in all of its literature.  No attempt at objectivism is made.

The Results of the Comparison

The NRA continues to represent a positive influence in our society.  It seeks to inform rather than sway.  Allegations by the Brady Campaign that the NRA promotes weapon systems dangerous to police and other government enforcement agencies don’t match the evidence. It is ludicrous to make such assertions, when so much of the NRA’s efforts are directed at supporting our law enforcement officers, providing them with training and information to assist them in the execution of their duties. 

The NRA projects a positive image of the gun owner, and documents its claims with news reports from the very media sources which attempt to undermine the organization.  Like most Liberal organizations, the Brady Campaign presents a negative image of gun owners and of guns in general.  They appear to be more concerned with the safety of the criminal than they are the victim and are pre-occupied by their fear and hatred for firearms. 

Virtually all of their claims are base on assumptions which are not supported by facts.  They have contributed little to protect the public let alone the Law enforcement agencies and their personnel.  They have done nothing to support our troops in combat situations, or our police in their day to day duties. 
By vilifying firearms rather than perpetrators, they undermine our efforts to combat criminals.  They distort or misconstrue the meaning of the Second Amendment to support their belief in the complete disarmament of American citizens.  They embrace the kind of restrictive gun ownership laws which can be found in Great Britain. 

There is an utter failure to address the glaring problems in their argument in favor of gun control, such as why the Swiss, who have the most liberal gun laws in Europe, including the possession by every able bodied citizen of a fully automatic “assault weapon,” has the lowest crime rate in Europe, and Britain which has the most restrictive laws, while having a low death rate, has one of the highest violent crime rates in the world.
Ultimately, the comparison is ludicrous.  The NRA has, since its inception, “moved mountains” in supporting American troops, in supporting our policemen, and in promoting and defending the freedoms of the American citizen. 

The anti-gun movement has sought to undermine one of our most basic freedoms and rights, the right to defend oneself, and has sought to impair, by indirect means, the ability of our nation to defend itself.  The Brady campaign, by vilifying millions of law abiding gun owners, by releasing propaganda based on faulty research, and by attempting to restrict access by law abiding citizens to firearms, has lent its name to efforts to destroy or at least weaken our Constitution and Bill of Rights. 

It is organizations like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence that represent the real threat to Americans and their freedom.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

Friday, November 18, 2005

Putting the “Chicken Hawk” Label to Bed

Will Malven

Next time you hear some idiot Liberal identify a Conservative as a “chicken hawk,” tell him or her to go buy a gun.  Yep, that’s right, tell him to go buy a gun and when next he needs the police to rescue him from a burglar, or robber, or mugger, or car-jacker, or angry neighbor, take care of it himself.  After all, Liberals wouldn’t want to ask somebody else’s “boy” to risk being killed unless they themselves were willing to put on a police uniform and do the job themselves.  That is essentially what they are telling those of us who support the war effort isn’t it?  They make that suggestion without any knowledge of our background or service status.  It is just a blanket epithet used by those on the left in an attempt to invalidate, in some way, the otherwise unanswerable arguments in favor of the war used by those of us who support it.

The Leftists have no reasoned arguments capable of withstanding our scrutiny, so they resort to name-calling like some fifth-grader.  “Chicken hawk!”  It comes out like, “Four eyes!”  “Retard!”  “Neocon!”  On second thought, maybe I’m insulting fifth-graders; it rings true more of third-or even second-graders.  Well that’s to be expected when the sources of these epithets are people who react to events out of emotion, as children usually do, rather than out of reason, like adults.

The additional assumption made by these reaction based insulters is that those of us who take a stand in support of our troops and the war in Iraq do so because we don’t have to run any risk to ourselves.  This of course is also an unreasoned assumption on their parts, again coming out of a complete lack of knowledge of the target’s background.  Now while it is a fair assumption that most critics of the war, both pro and con, have never been in uniform or fought in a military action, simply because there has been no draft since the mid ‘70s, the assumption that we know nothing of risk for that reason is a sure sign of ignorance.  If one is a fireman and never served in the military, for example, yet is pro-war is he a “chicken hawk?”  What about a pro-war policeman, is he a “chicken hawk” if he criticizes John Murtha?  One is immediately led to the realization that this term is a meaningless blanket insult intended to evoke an emotional response in the target, in hopes of preventing him from expressing a reasoned argument.

Let’s carry it a bit farther though.  Let’s consider those of us who are employed in one of the other favorite target industries of the Left, the oil industry.  Are the roughnecks out on the drilling and production rigs “chicken hawks” if they support the war?  Have you ever been on a drilling platform 120 miles out at sea in the Gulf of Mexico?  Have you ever stood on the drilling floor of a rig?  Have you ever worked as a derrick-hand, walking the finger-boards, slick with mud, sixty or eighty feet in the air on a night so cold that your hands cramp up in your gloves?  Have you ever stood on the shale shakers when the drill bit hits a gas pocket, and your drilling mud has so much gas in it that it comes up half as heavy as when it went down the hole, and the slightest spark could send the entire rig up into a ball of fire?  Are those the “chicken hawks” to which the Liberals are referring?  What about the guys in those “awful” refineries?  When they are out there opening and closing valves that restrict the flow of forty-thousand barrels of oil per day at 200 psi, or tightening a leaking flange on a gas line, or just sitting in the control room situated in the middle of half a million pounds of gasoline flowing through 700 degree pipes at 500 pounds of pressure, are they the “chicken hawks” to which you on the left are referring?  Maybe it’s the guy working high steel in construction, or maybe the guy who’s replacing a transformer on one of the electric company’s domestic lines, maybe they are the “chicken hawks” to which you on the Left are referring.

You see, once you begin to examine the original claim, it suddenly becomes apparent how hollow and irrelevant the label becomes.  No, not everyone in life performs high risk jobs like those to which I have alluded, but a lot of folks have and still do, and a lot of them support the war in Iraq, and the war on terror, and a lot of them support the President, in spite of what you Liberals in your little conclaves think.  It is a socialist myth that the measure of a man’s worth is the degree to which he risks his life or performs physical labor and it is a Left-wing myth that one can only declare his support for the war effort if he is in uniform.  It is an argument without substance, a chimera.  Of course that holds true of virtually all of the claims and arguments made by those on the Left.

Perhaps the better measure of a man (or woman) is how much he contributes to the success and well being of the nation.  Does the work that he does generate revenue?  Does the work that you do create jobs, or are you a drag on the country.  I would submit that someone like John Murtha is less qualified to criticize American policy than the owner of a hardware store.  As a Congressman, Murtha is a net drain on the nation, a leach drawing pay at the expense of taxpayers.  If he has voted for any pork, if he has voted for unnecessary legislation, if he has supported abortion rights and in voicing his desire to cut and run from Iraq, his credentials become questionable.  In providing Al Jazeera with its lead story he has furthered the cause of our enemies.

A certain over-the-hill, has been woman hack writer from Texas is fond of describing the President as “shrub” and “all hat, no cattle.”  That is a precise description of the arguments proffered to America by the Left, “all hat, no cattle.”  Their claims consist of lies (the President “cherry picked” the intelligence presented to the Congress and the American people to get us into a war with Iraq), insults (American voters are dupes, fooled, stupid, gullible, and the like), epithets (Neocon, Chicken hawk), and twisted half-truths ( the intelligence on WMD’s was wrong so the President lied to go to war) submitted to the American people by the Democrats and repeated uncritically by their cheerleaders in the press, in the guise of reasoned argument.   The Democrat “Leadership” attempts to pawn off theatrics (remember the special closed session or the Senate) for policy.  Their publicly stated policy is to divide and conquer the Republicans for the next election, a tacit acknowledgement that they have no policies, principles, or proposals to present to the electorate, only empty rhetoric.  I must say, that is not much of a platform for the Democrats to run on, “divide and conquer.”

So, I’ll end as I began, next time you hear a Liberal refer to someone as a “chicken hawk” kindly direct them to the next gun shop, that is unless you happen to be in San Francisco, in which case, just make sure they have paid up their funeral insurance so that the other tax-payers don’t have to foot the bill.

Wednesday, November 2, 2005

It’s Alito! Yay! So...Who’s This Alito?

Will Malven

Today President Bush announced that his new nominee to the Supreme Court Justice would be Samuel Alito-55, currently a sitting judge on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.

Candidate Alito, graduate from Princeton and Yale Law School is well known as a strongly conservative judge who is sometimes called “Scalito” for his conservative record and his Italian heritage.  He has been on the 3rd Circuit Court for 15 years.  He has a long record for the Senate Liberals to evaluate so there should be no whining complaints from them about a lack of information on his background.

Judge Alito has acquired a reputation as a strong and intelligent voice on the court.  He is considered to be as predictably Conservative as is Justice Scalia, but is considered to be less acerbic in demeanor, being generally less emotional and more polite than Scalia who is known for his sharp wit and stinging dissents.

As to the major issues, from his past court decisions:

  • Roe v. Wade-He was the lone dissenter in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992.  In which the 3rd Circuit Court struck down a Pennsylvania law requiring a married woman to notify her husband prior to having an abortion. The court’s decision was upheld by the SCOTUS in a 6-3 decision.  The Justices supporting the decision were, O’Conner, Souter, Kennedy, Stevens, Blackmun, with Rehnquist concurring some and Scalia, White, and Thomas dissenting in part, and concurring in part. 
  •  Civil Rights-In a sex-discrimination case Sheridan v. DuPont he dissented in his opinion by objecting only in the use of an absolute restriction: the majority here holds that when the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case and has offered enough evidence to support a finding that the explanation was pretextual, a defense motion for summary judgment or judgment as a matter of law must always be denied.”  Judge Alito disagreed, stating that there are some occasions (by stare decisis) which contradict the use of the word always. 
  • Civil Rights-In Fatin v. INS he wrote the majority opinion stating that an Iranian woman could establish a valid claim for asylum by showing that she might be persecuted because of her gender, belief in feminism, membership in a feminist group, or failure to follow gender-specific laws such as those mandating she wear a veil in public.
  • Civil Rights-In a freedom of speech case Saxe v. State College Area School District, he wrote the majority opinion striking down the schools anti-harassment rule restricting non-vulgar, non-school-sponsored speech posing no realistic threat of disruption to the learning environment. 
  • Civil Rights-In a sexual harassment/disabilities case, Shore Regional High School Board of Education v. P.S Alito wrote the majority opinion ruling that by not protecting a student from “severe and prolonged harassment” for not being athletically inclined, and because of his perceived sexual orientation the school failed to provide free access to education. 
  • Church-State “Separation”-He wrote a dissenting opinion in ACLU v. Schundler, supporting the right of a municipality to display a crèche and a menorah did not violate the Establishment Clause because it also incorporated secular features such as Frosty The Snowman and a banner proclaiming commitment to diversity.

Judge Alito has argued 12 cases before the Supreme Court. In his earlier career, Samuel Alito, Jr. began as a Law Clerk for Judge Leonard I. Garth of the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals 1976-77.  He was named Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, 1977-81.  He was then Assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General for the Reagan Department of Justice ’81-85 and then was named as the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, again for the Reagan Justice Department ’85-87. From 1987 until he was seated on the bench of the 3rd Circuit Court in 1990, he was the U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey.

Basically what all this means is that Judge Samuel Alito, Jr. is imminently qualified to ascend to the Supreme Court of the United States.  For the Democrats, this nomination is a nightmare.  Why is that?  Because he was unanimously approved by the Senate, including the extremists on the Left like Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Patrick Leahy, Chris Dodd, and Harry Reid.  So what are they going to object to now?  We know that they will object to him and vote against him, they have already come out whining.  Edward (the Killer) Kennedy said:

Rather than selecting a nominee for the good of the nation and the court, President Bush has picked a nominee whom he hopes will stop the massive hemorrhaging of support on his right wing. This is a nomination based on weakness, not on strength...
“Although he is clearly intelligent and experienced on the bench, that is only the beginning of our inquiry. If confirmed, Alito could very well fundamentally alter the balance of the court and push it dangerously to the right, placing at risk decades of American progress in safeguarding our fundamental rights and freedoms...”

So now, Conservatives are not just “heartless” and “uncaring,” but now, according to “the Killer,” we’re actually “dangerous.”  Funny how different his opinion was in 1990:

“You Have Obviously Had A Very Distinguished Record, And I Certainly Commend You For Long Service In The Public Interest. I Think It Is A Very Commendable Career And I Am Sure You Will Have A Successful One As A Judge.”

Sen. Ted Kennedy, Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate. Hearing-4/5/90

Patrick Leahy stated:  

“This is a needlessly provocative nomination.  Instead of uniting the country through his choice, the President has chosen to reward one faction of his party, at the risk of dividing the country.  Instead he should have rewarded the American people.  America could have done better through consultation to select one of the many consensus conservative Republican candidates who could have been overwhelmingly approved by the Senate...”

What’s that Patrick?  “Blah, blah, blah, talking points, talking points, blah, blah, blah.  President Bush didn’t do what we told him to do!”  Well what do you expect; they are just parroting what their extreme Left-wing bosses like Nan Aron of Alliance for Justice [If you’re a Liberal], Kim Gandy of National Organization of Women, Ralph Neas of People for the American Way told them to say.
Ralph Neas’ version of it:

“President Bush put the demands of his far-right political base above Americans’ constitutional rights and legal protections by nominating federal appeals court Judge Samuel Alito to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor...

“Replacing a mainstream conservative like Justice O’Connor with a far-right activist like Samuel Alito would threaten Americans’ rights and legal protections for decades.  Justice O’Connor had a pivotal role at the center of the Court, often providing a crucial vote to protect privacy, civil rights, and so much more.  All that would be at risk if she were replaced with Judge Alito, who has a record of ideological activism against privacy rights, civil rights, workers’ rights, and more...”

Kim Gandy’s version:

“On Halloween George W. Bush handed ultra-conservatives a treat with his nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, but he won't trick women and girls with a nominee who opposes our rights. While NOW is disappointed that Bush proposes to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor with yet another white male conservative, we are most concerned by Alito's position on the far right of the judicial spectrum, distinctly outside the mainstream. If Alito is confirmed by the U.S. Senate, many of our fundamental rights will be at great risk.”

Barbara Boxer...er..The Brilliant Barbara Boxer stated:

“I believe this nomination is aimed at appeasing the most right wing elements of the President's political base, and in so doing the President turns his back on the hopes and dreams, and the rights and freedoms of the majority of the American People. 

“Judge Alito may be soft spoken but if many of his opinions had prevailed the hard reality of his views would have hurt our families... 

“It is especially ironic that at a time when all of America is honoring Rosa Parks that the President would send us a nominee whose decisions could jeopardize the principle of equality for all Americans.” 

They have definitely been drinking the same kool-aid.  Democrat talking points?

To the attention of all Democrat Spokespeople:


All members please use the following phrases (in your own words, of course) when you write your response to the President’s nomination of Judge Samuel Alito, Jr.

  • Put our rights or families at risk 
  • Appeasing Extreme right-wing conservatives 
  • Replacing Sandra Day O’Conner, a mainstream conservative 
 Alliance for Independent Justice

Did they use them?

Kennedy-“...push it dangerously to the right”  “placing at risk decades of progress...”

Leahy-“...one faction of his party, at the risk of dividing the country...” 

Neas-“...the demands of his far-right political base”  “[privacy rights, civil rights, workers rights] would be at risk if she [O’Conner] were replaced by Alito...”

Kim Gandy-“...handed the ultra-conservatives a treat”  “many of our fundamental rights will be at great risk...”

The Brilliant Barbara Boxer-“the most right-wing elements”  “could jeopardize the principle of equality...”

This is the same garbage the extremists of the Left tried to fling at Roberts, and I predict it will have the same result.  The Left can come up with no arguments to detract form Judge Alito’s qualifications; he is entirely qualified as to temperament and experience.  Even Ted (the Killer) Kennedy couldn’t help admitting “he is clearly intelligent and experienced on the bench.”   Alito’s hearings will probably sound like Roberts Redux.   They hope to stop his nomination be lying about his record as they have already begun to do on the People for the American Way webpage.  Their only weapons are those with which we have become so familiar, lies, half-truths, twisted words, and personal attacks on him and his family.  I hope this to be so because the more they show their true nature, the more they will alienate the American voters.

My prediction is a Senate Judiciary Committee Approval, probably along party lines maybe with a couple of Democrat votes.  That will be followed by a filibuster by the most extreme liberals in the Democrat Left-wing which will be broken by the “nuclear option.”