The Ribs & Libs Blog

What No One Is Saying About AIG

2009-03-22T15:02:00.000-07:00

By now everyone should be aware about the “phony” outrage of the Washington political hacks over the AIG bonuses. Treasury officials, the President and of course Congress all knew about the bonuses and essentially approved them. Congress put it into the law that these bonuses were protected! The initial outrage was stirred out by the press, the very same press who failed to ask Obama a signal tough question during the campaign and did everything they possibly could to get him elected. So just for the sake of a good story, last weekend they decided to stir up a hornet’s nest by making a big deal about the bonuses. Initially they omitted the fact that AIG was contractually obligated to give the bonuses, or that all the soon-to-be-outraged political hacks actually knew about them and approved them.

The press is incredibly shameless and reprehensible. The L.A. Daily News ran a picture on its front page of the offices of a totally different division of AIG (totally different from the Financial Products division that got the bonuses and is the source of most of AIG’s financial woes) that is 3,000 miles away from the offices of the FP division. They superimposed Obama’s word’s “Recklessness and Greed” over the building, which even showed the address of the building. This is a profitable division of AIG which had nothing to do with the parent company’s problems and no one there received any large retention bonus. So why did the Daily News run such a photo? Because the offices of this division are walking distance from the offices of the Daily News and they are incredibly lazy. Now we hear about death threats to AIG employees. God forbid that any employees of this division are harassed or harmed, but if that happens, the blood will be on the hands of the editors and publishers of the L.A. Daily News, who are either evil or incompetent, or possibly both.

But the President and the Congress are the real villains here. What they are doing by verbally assaulting AIG is not only shameful and disgusting, it s incredibly counterproductive. They all say they want AIG to be able to pay back all that government AIG has borrowed, right? Isn’t that what they want? Will someone please explain to me how ripping AIG a new one on an hourly basis is going to do that? Every time AIG gets bad publicity, it diminishes the value of AIG as a company. This hurts AIG’s business, makes it less profitable (or more unprofitable) and reduces the sale price of any AIG asset (company) it is trying to sell in order to repay the loan.

Every single time you hear Obama or Fed Chairman Bernanke or the tax cheat Tim Geitner or those total buffoons in Congress rail against AIG, they are actually railing against a government asset, since the Feds famously own 80% of AIG. So this is like Obama going on national TV and saying, “You know, the U.S. Post Office a horribly run enterprise, it doesn’t deserve your support. You all would be much better off sending all your packages via UPS.” That’s how stupid these political hacks are! So when AIG finally goes bankrupt, and you as a US taxpayer are left holding the bag for the billions it defaults on, remember to send a thank you note to Obama, Bernanke, Geitner and all of Congress (and both Democrats and Republicans are to blame) for jawboning AIG into insolvency! Would AIG survived before this phony outrage? No one can say. But have our elected and appointed government officials made it much, much likelier that AIG fails and leaves the taxpayers holding the bag? Absolutely!

In reality, Congress and Obama should have had the guts to show some real leadership and explain to a public stirred up by a hysterical, incompetent press why the bonuses are not the crime they are being made out to be, that the government knew about them in advance and, whether or not they were the right thing to do, the government can’t go around mindless voiding contracts just because the press stirs up a phony story.

Of course, that would require that our politicians have some guts, some intestinal fortitude. How silly of me. I had forgotten that in the entirety of Washington, DC, there isn’t even one testicle left.

Sorry, But McCain is Not That Great for National Security

2008-02-03T14:51:00.001-08:00

The conventional wisdom is that John McCain is the best candidate if your issue is National Security. But that is just demonstrably false.

Sure, give McCain credit for his past military experience, and let me say that no one can claim that McCain is not a true American hero. Give him credit as well for calling for a surge type of strategy before anyone else. Of course you should also mention that the way he criticized Bush and especially Rumsfeld was not only extreme and nasty, it was helpful to the Democrats who were criticizing Bush and Rumsfeld from the left. And it probably wasn't the best method of getting what he wanted accomplished.

But does it follow that because he wanted a surge before Bush went that route, he is so stellar on National Security? It does not.

There's more to national defense than killing all the Islamo-fascists abroad. There's also protecting us at home. To wit:

McCain is for open borders, no matter how much he tries to deny it. He says now that he gets it, that we must the secure the borders before we grant amnesty. Do you believe him? I don't. Where has he been for the past 25 years? Fighting for amnesty, not for securing the borders. That's his career record! It's great that he wants to kill the terrorists in the Middle East, but he'll have to take some of the blame if a terrorist with a suitcase nuke sneaks across the southern border and sets it off in a major US city. In this age of terrorism, closing the borders is not just a question of culture and national sovereignty; it is a key security issue. And McCain is awful here.
Water boarding. This one should be a no-brainer. Water boarding works. Ask George Tenet, former head of the CIA. When this technique was used on key Al-Qaeda captives, they sung like canaries in just minutes. And it is not torture. That's what Democrats love to say, but they're just crazy liberals. We train our own CIA agents on this procedure. It does no permanent damage. It is simply extremely unpleasant and it scares the holy crap out of the bad guys. We should be using it more, not less. It is irresponsible to be against this procedure. What you are saying by opposing it is, the lives of thousands (or more) Americans are less important to you than some higher moral principal. Sorry, but that higher moral principal won't do me any good if I'm killed by some terrorist who could have been stopped if we'd water boarded a captured comrade of his. McCain equates this procedure with what the Viet Cong did to him, and he's just way off base here. He was not water boarded, what they did to him was a million times worse. McCain really doesn't care all that much about your life if he can't bring himself to water board the bad guys. He doesn't care enough about national security, either.
Closing Guantanamo. McCain is for it. So all the terrorists we are holding down there will be entered into our regular U.S. justice system and have the same access to lawyers and civil rights as U.S. citizens. If this happens, many detainees won't be prosecuted because doing so might reveal important U.S. security secrets. And others will just get acquitted and released due to the well known flaws of our justice system. Released to get another chance at killing you and your loved ones again. Closing Guantanamo is terrible for U.S. security and McCain is again on the wrong side of this issue.
Drilling in Anwar. Yes, this is a National Security issue! When so much of the world's oil comes from the Middle East, we need to drill for every last bit of oil we can find within the U.S. But McCain thinks that this barren, rarely visited land up in Alaska is the equivalent of the Grand Canyon, which hundreds of thousands people visit every year and which truly is a national treasure. We might be drilling there now, getting precious oil, if not for McCain. Anything we can do to make ourselves less dependent on Arab oil is a plus for us, security wise. McCain is wrong yet again, and he is making us more vulnerable to the Islamo-fascists by preventing us from getting this oil.

There are plenty of other reasons not to vote for McCain. Please see Mark Levin's great column for a more thorough list. But since many otherwise well-meaning Republicans seem to think that McCain is the best man to keep us safe, please consider what I've written here carefully. For fighting the war overseas, I don't see much if any difference between McCain and Mitt Romney. For everything else, including what I've written here, it's obvious that Romney is the far, far, far superior choice for anyone who calls themselves a conservative or a Republican.

Bush removes provision requiring back taxes from illegal immigrants

2007-05-20T15:34:00.000-07:00

The Illegal Immigration AMNESTY bill is a total disaster, but this is the last straw. If Bush wants to allow ILLEGAL ALIENS, who are of course CRIMINALS, to get off without paying their back taxes, I fucking demand that every single penny I've paid to the federal government in taxes in the past 30 plus years be refunded to me this very minute. I'll send you wiring instructions, Mr. President. Please see that the money is there Monday morning or I will sue you, the IRS, the Senate, the House of Representatives and the so-called Republican Party for every damn penny you have collectively stolen from the American people since 1776.

Jimmy Carter almost got it right. But as long as there's Carter, Bush will only be the SECOND WORST President in American history.

I no longer oppose the impeachment of George W. Bush. I DEMAND it. Then, he should be tried for treason, for putting the "rights" of criminals who broke into this country over the actual rights of its citizens.

This "John" Needs To Be Flushed

2007-03-23T22:43:00.000-07:00

Elizabeth Edwards’ cancer* is back, and John Edwards is back on the campaign trail. What do these two things have in common?

Elizabeth’s metastatic cancer has only spread to a rib bone which will likely turn out to be controllable with hormones, unlike the more devastating type of metastasis that could have spread to lung, liver, or brain which would have been fatal. Women can still live many years in good health while easily containing this type of recurrent cancer.

On the other hand, John Edwards’ return to haunt America in yet another bid for the White House will likely do irreparable damage to the country if HE is not contained. Edwards’ typical drivel concerns his vision of America as "Two Americas" where he imagines the poor downtrodden as exploited victims of a greedy upper class.

His solution is the same old tired socialist, divisive, class warfare of providing benefits to some while using taxes to strip earned income from others. This will result in a transfer of wealth from the productive to the non-productive, while simultaneously destroying the middle-class and damaging the nation’s business infrastructure.

John Edwards’ stock in trade is to steal money from the country’s top workers in the name of redistributing cash to the needy, yet managing to pocket enough of it along the way to ensconce himself among the cushiest crowds. He specializes in employing the lowest form of theatrics to accomplish his goals.

Witness the typical, cheap, cheezy ploy of Edwards displaying his wife before the press to declare her fit enough for him to continue in the race for President. Elizabeth, herself, related that they wanted to gawk in front of cameras rather than merely issue a press release.

This is another attempt for Edwards to make himself look stouthearted and simultaneously gain sympathy: Let’s all feel sorry for Edwards and his sick wife, boo hoo.*

This is NOT THE FIRST TIME JOHN EDWARDS HAS EXPLOITED THE SICK FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL GAIN. We are all aware of how Edwards made a career, and, in fact, extorted MILLIONS of dollars from medical doctors that he funneled into his own pocket.

In the most infamous case, Edwards "spiritually channeled" a dead baby to sway a gullible jury into convicting a doctor, only later to have science prove that the allegations were false. (Edwards got to keep the money.)

Ever wonder why medical care costs so much? It’s NOT because doctors make too much money. It’s because anytime anyone goes to a doctor with any complaint, the doctor feels compelled to order every test in the world rather than risk being accused of overlooking something.

It is a testament to the nobility of the medical profession that ANY doctor would be willing to touch Edwards or anybody he knows after what John Edwards did to screw their profession.
Forgetting about how Edwards screwed the profession, how would a doctor feel knowing that he is treating the wife of the world’s Number One malpractice attorney? If anything beyond the doctor’s control goes wrong, you have to be petrified Edwards will sue you!

John Edwards is a low-down, lying, greazy, ambulance-chasing, dirty, rotten, 12-sandwich eating, attorney scumbag. He is single-handedly responsible for screwing up the medical profession and the health care delivery system. He represents what is MOST REPREHENSIBLE about the legal profession.

And THIS is whom the Democrat Party chose to run for Vice-President in 2004??!!!!

Letting Edwards run for President is like sending your daughter out for a pleasant evening with a known date-rapist. The Nation cannot withstand another assault from this dirtball. Politics should flush this John once and for all.

*We all wish Elizabeth Edwards a speedy recovery; may she live in good health to a ripe old age, etc., etc. Blah, blah, blah, blah.

Election Results Mean Bush Must Dump Cheney

2006-11-07T21:41:00.000-08:00

It's tough to say this, but in the next few months, Dick Cheney will have to resign from the Vice Presidency. The election results make this mandatory.

With Nancy Pelosi about to become Speaker of the House, second in line for the Presidency, there's no other choice. Yes, I said second in line. Every time I hear the Speaker of the House referred to as being "third in line." I wince. As I do when I hear the VP referred to as "second in line." Let's get one thing straight. The President, whoever he or she may be, is not "first in line for the Presidency"---he's the President! The VP is therefore first in line, the Speaker is second in line.

Getting to my point, with a liberal Democrat next in line after the VP, we cannot afford to have a VP with major health issues as the only person standing in her way of becoming President if the unthinkable happened to George Bush. We must have a young and healthy VP for the next two years; Pelosi's position demands it.

The trouble is, it's too late to do this properly. If the VP resigns, Bush will choose his successor but that person must be approved by both Houses of Congress. And the Dems will be in no mood to be accommodating to the Republicans, you can be sure of that. The time to have done this was this past summer when the Republicans controlled the congress. Now it will be very difficult to get a good choice approved.

Nonetheless, there is no choice but to do this, the stakes are too high. A young, healthy VP is absolutely essential, there's no alternative.

So, who could Bush pick? The Dems will insist on two things--a "moderate" Republican (ie, a RINO) and someone who has no chance of getting (in their minds, anyway) of running a competitive race as the Republican's presidential nominee in 2008. So, forget about John McCain. Although he fits the RINO requirement, the Dems would never agree to this, they think he's the toughest opponent they could face. So they would prevent that at all costs. No skin off my nose, McCain's the last so-called Republican I'd want to see in the job.

I do have an idea. Proving that there is absolutely no justice in this world, the best Senator in Washington just lost his job tonight to a total non-entity. Of course I am talking about Rick Santorum. How about Bush picking him to replace Cheney? Now of course you are screaming at the screen that Santorum is anything but a "moderate Republican." True enough, he's one of the most conservative members of the party. But, it just may be possible for the Dems to approve Santorum as Veep.

For one thing, as a Senator, he's a member of the "club" and it's tough for Senators and Congressmen to reject one of their own. More importantly, the Dems may figure that Santorum would have no chance to beat them as the standard bearer in 2008. They would be sure they could beat them. Especially after the trouncing he just took in his home state of Pennsylvania. In their warped liberal eyes, they don't see much difference between Bush and Santorum politically, and they would love to face Santorum in 2008.

Whether it's Santorum or someone else, it has to be somebody. It's time for Dick Cheney to retire and let a younger, healthier VP take over.

Re-thinking MAS*H

2006-07-11T21:06:00.000-07:00

Now that North Korea is threatening the U.S. (and the World) with nuclear war, it should force us to re-examine the TV series MASH.

Every week for years, the peaceniks at CBS brought us another 30-minute episode of MASH in which they extolled the virtues of peace at any price, the supposed futility of war, general disrespect of our military (the cornerstone of Lib philosophy), and specific bias against the heroic, self-less attempt of the U.S. to rescue the Korean peninsula from the ravages and tyranny of Communism.

It is hard in 2006 to watch the re-runs of MASH where, in most episodes, they attempt to make the case for the moral superiority of allowing the Koreans to be overrun by Commies (another typical Lib ideal and dream come true).

Hawkeye's smug sense of moral indignation and limp-wristed idealism resulted in the Korean warlord threatening us today. Where is the Lib outrage at the Commies making nuclear threats?

Given the deplorable position in which we now find ourselves at the hands of the N. Koreans, we shoulda wiped them all out in the prior war, and ignore the threat of a Commie reaction. But no, we partitioned Korea instead of dealing with petty tyrants (like Kim today) in the only fashion possible.

Israel knows what it's like to try to co-exist peacefully next to a hostile neighbor in a partitioned land. It doesn't work.

Hostile nations abuse us for our inaction and overtures at peace, and the turncoat "enemies within" here at home call us the war-mongers if we attempt to defend freedom. Fuck 'em BOTH.

Grow some balls and do what needs to be done before the Axis of Evil slips a nuke to a terrorist and the enemy nukes L.A. or N.Y.

21 Ways To Be A Good Democrat (Wait, is that an oxymoron?)

2006-02-10T15:00:00.000-08:00

1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.

2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression, and governments create prosperity.

3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV's.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial, but being homosexual is natural.

7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.

8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists, who have never been outside of San Francisco, do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make The Passion Of The Christ for financial gain only.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Robert E. Lee, and Thomas Edison.

15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.

16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very nice person.

17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.

19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

20. You have to believe that illegal Democratic Party funding by the Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest to the United States.

21. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.

What's the Difference Between The Republican Senators and the French?

2005-11-15T17:57:00.000-08:00

Not a thing.

Not one damn thing.

Why Bush Needs to Withdraw Harriet Miers

2005-10-26T15:11:00.000-07:00

Other than being female, what do Paris Hilton and Harriet Miers have in common? Answer at the bottom of this post.

Regarding the current state of the Harriet Miers nomination, the President needs to learn the first rule of holes, which says, “When you’re in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.”

The president is hemorrhaging over this nomination and the sooner he withdraws it, the sooner the bleeding will stop. No neutral observer could deny that that the nomination has been total fiasco. Look at it this way: The main thing the President hoped to accomplish with the Miers pick was to get a (female) judicial conservative on the court without a big fight. Emphasis on the phrase, “without a big fight.” Even if it turns out that Harriet Miers is actually Antonin Scalia (or Clarence Thomas) in a skirt (and there’s no evidence whatsoever to indicate this) he still will have failed spectacularly in his goal. Because he’s not only getting a fight, he’s getting a much tougher one than he ever imagined, he’s getting a tougher one than he would have gotten with any known-quantity, truly conservative pick (including Janice Rogers Brown, Edith Jones or even Robert Bork, I dare say), and the very worse thing is, he’s getting it from his own party, his own base, from his very best and most loyal supporters. It would be hard to imagine a worse scenario for the President! Michael Moore couldn’t have written this any better for the Bush-haters!

The fact that he picked Miers almost entirely because he thought she’d be easily confirmable, and instead has a huge fight on his hands—again, with his very own supporters—is reason enough for Bush to cut his losses and withdraw Miers. The only thing she had in her favor at the outset was easy confirmability and instead she will be tougher to get confirmed than Clarence Thomas was, with or without the infamous can of Coke. And the fact that the battle is with his own supporters just proves how truly disastrous this selection was.

And understand this: Even if, by some miracle, he wins the fight with his base (a fight he himself picked), he will then have to get the Democrats on board. He’s put himself in a position where the only chance to win over the Republicans is to convince them that Miers will be a vote to overturn Roe v Wade. Indeed she might be. But there are a lot of principled Republicans and conservatives, some of whom can even be found in the United States Senate, for whom this will not be enough to warrant voting to confirm her. And to the extent that he does convince them of this, he will lose any Democratic votes Miers might possibly get, because the Democratic Party right now stands for one thing and one thing only, and that is abortion. They should really change their name to the "Abortion Party" or the "Keep Roe V. Wade Party." So if you manage to convince Republican Senators to vote for her because of abortion, you lose the Democrats and you also lose the moderate Republicans who support abortion rights, like Snowe, Chaffee, Collins, Specter, et al. In other words, don’t count on passing the nuclear option for this nominee.

So if Bush somehow miraculously wins the battle with his own party, a more bruising battle than any he could have anticipated with the Dems, he will then have to have a second, equally bruising battle with the opposition party. It’s a lose-lose situation for him.

It is painfully obvious that this nominee will never get confirmed. If you have any doubt, listen to what Republican Senators are saying. It is hard to imagine a nominee by a Republican President getting worse reviews from a Republican Senate. Now, I love Brit Hume of FNC’s Special Report. He is a terrific journalist and his show is the best political show around. And he likes to point out that no Republican Senator has stated he or she is opposed to Miers as of now. But Brit is missing the point. Read what the senators are saying and read between the lines. Hear how uniformly unenthusiastic they are (except for Miers’ fellow Texans in the Senate). No Republican Senator wants to embarrass a President he or she basically supports and respects by coming out against the nomination. But their comments speak volumes—as does their frequent silence. I have to believe there are Republican Senators working behind the scenes to get the White House to see the light and end this. They are hoping to accomplish this without going public, for the President’s sake more than their own.

This nomination is finished and the sooner the White House realizes it, the sooner the President’s recovery begins. To say that Bush badly miscalculated how poorly this nomination would play with his base is to make the understatement of the year. In addition to withdrawing Miers, he should fire the person most responsible for the worst decision his administration ever made. If it was his own idea, then I assume that there is someone in his administration with enough power and enough of Bush’s respect that he or she has the ability to go up to the President when he is about to make a really horrific decision and grab the him by the shoulders and say to him, “With all due respect, Mr. President, you simply cannot do this!” Whoever should have done that and failed to do so needs to seek employment elsewhere. That’s how badly this has turned out.

And the answer to the question, what do Paris Hilton and Harriet Miers have in common? Neither one of them will ever serve on the Supreme Court. The sooner the President realizes this and acts upon this obvious fact, the better for everyone, especially him.

Republican Senators Should Demand Bush Withdraw Miers

2005-10-21T11:58:00.000-07:00

Awesome editorial from NRO. Nothing more needs to be said.

This is the only way Bush can recover from this fiasco.

The Republican Party is Dead

2005-10-04T21:05:00.000-07:00

It's true. There are now two Democratic Parties. The Democratic Party and the Democratic Party Light. The latter is all that's left of the Republicans.

I could be talking about illegal immigration or Congress and the President spending money like drunken sailors (with apologies to drunken sailors) but what I'm really talking about is the decision to nominate Harriet Miers as the next justice of the Supreme Court.

Read Edward Whelan's post linked above. If Whelan is correct, and I suspect he is, Bush felt forced to nominate a woman for the open seat. I thought the Republican Party was supposed to be the party opposed to quotas? Guess not. The First Yenta Laura Bush apparently told W he wasn't getting any until he picked a woman to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. And, as I noted below, even such hard-core, so-called conservatives as Senator Brownback also wanted a female for the post.

The three best candidates for the position were Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell and Samuel Alioto, all of whom happen to be, alas, white males. Thus they--and the country--are victims of the most blatant discrimination possible. They should jointly sue the President and his party for civil rights violations. In fact, the whole country, now faced with the possibility of Ms. Miers on the Supreme Court for the next 25 years, should sue as well. Anyone know a good lawyer?

So it had to be a woman. The two best of those candidates, Edith Jones and Janice Rogers Brown, had paper trails too long and too detailed to get past not only the Dems but the girly-girl moderate Republican Senators like Snowe, Collins, Chaffee, Specter and the bawling-like-a-baby Voinovich. They are not really Republicans but then at this point, I can say the same thing about Bush, can't I?

Here's what's frustrating. Democratic nominees can have paper trails but Republicans cannot. There's two reasons for this. One, Democrats play hardball and Republicans are gentlemen (or should I say "ladies" in deference to Snowe, Collins, Chaffee, Specter and Voinovich). Republicans know that elections matter but Dems act like they won the last election no matter how badly they got waxed.

But there's a bigger problem. Those pro-choice girls who call themselves Republican insist that no one who they even suspect would vote to override Roe vs. Wade be named to the court. They really do. Somehow, pro-life Dems like Harry Reid understand where their party is on the abortion issue and accept the fact that they have to swallow the party line on abortion. Not so our wonderful Republican chicks. Edith Jones, who has vowed to overturn Roe vs Wade if given the chance, would not get approval from Snowe, Collins and the rest...they'd probably even support a filibuster if they had to.

Thus, when President Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg, he had no qualms about calling her "Pro-Choice." If Bush were to nominate anyone and call him (or her) "pro-life," they wouldn't get approved because of the gals from Maine and their ilk. So Republicans have to nominate "stealth" candidates and hope for the best. Democrats don't have this worry.

The only solution is to purge the Republican Party of the militant pro-choice Republicans. I happen to be pro-choice myself but unlike Senators Snowe, Collins, et al, I am smart enough to realize two important things. One is that Roe vs. Wade was the most horrific Supreme Court decision since Plessy vs Ferguson. There is nothing in the Constitution that sanctions abortion and the ruling that took this issue out of the states where it belongs has been a legal abomination for over thirty years. The other thing I know is that when Roe vs Wade is finally overturned, as it surely will be one day, this will not ban abortion. It will return the decision to the states and most states will keep it legal with some restrictions and some will ban most abortions.

Pro-choice Republicans are welcome as long as they understand this. They should favor overturning Roe vs. Wade and be prepared to take their arguments as to why abortion should be legal to the state legislatures or to the people themselves where state referendums are allowed. If they can't do that, they need to leave the party, otherwise the Republicans will cease to be. Democrat Light isn't good enough. We need a real Republican Party. And we need it fast.

Bush Should Resign

2005-10-03T11:59:00.000-07:00

President Bush’s pick of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court sadly leads me to one conclusion, and that is that President Bush should resign from office.

Am I overreacting? I don’t think so. Let me state at the outset that no one knows what kind of Justice Miers will become if confirmed. She may turn out to be a Scalia in a dress. But there’s no reason to think that and the issue really is not what kind of Justice Miers becomes but what the decision to go with Miers says about Bush. And it’s not good.

Miers was chosen for two reasons. First, because she happened to be born without a penis. And secondly, and more frightfully, because Bush perceives his current position is so weak he is unwilling to take on any kind of fight whatsoever over a Supreme Court nominee. He has looked at his low approval ratings and decided he is too weak to take on the Chuck Schumers, Ted Kennedys, Patrick Leahys and Harry Reids of the world. And that being the case, he has also announced he is basically done being President of the United States.

We cannot afford to have the office open for another three years. If Bush is not willing to fight for a nominee now, he really is finished as a President. And this nomination is Bush admitting it.

Bush ran on the issue of the courts. He vowed to appoint judges who would not legislate from the bench. This is the moment all conservatives have been waiting for. A moderate swing-vote leaving the bench, this is the chance to actually move the court to the right. A recently re-elected President and a 55-45 majority in the Senate. There may never be a better time—there probably won’t be for another 50 years (and by then, it will be way too late to save the country). This was Bush’s chance. If he gets another appointment to make, who knows what the Senate will look like then. Or worse, it will be President Hillary Clinton making the next pick. Chuck Schumer won’t be calling for “balance” or a consensus pick then, you can be sure of that.

It’s very possible that the favorites of Bush’s most conservative supporters would not get enough support from the “moderate” Republicans (ie, the “RINO’s") to get confirmed. Janice Rogers Brown or Edith Jones would indeed be problematic. But surely there are other candidates (Mike Luttig, Michael McConnell, Samuel Alioto to name three) that would definitely move the court rightward and would likely be confirmed if Bush was willing to fight for them. To give in without even making the fight is inexcusable and unpardonable.

But if he’s unwilling to fight….not for Brown but for Luttig, then he is of no use to conservatives and frankly of no use to the country (he may, on the other hand, be of great use to the liberals). His presidency is finished and this nomination is his own admission of it.

If Vice President Cheney is not prepared to fight for conservative principles either, then he should resign as well, before President Bush, so that a suitable person can replace first Cheney and then Bush. I suggest Condoleeza Rice, as I’m quite sure she has more cajones than does the President. And one more thing…..before resigning Bush should withdraw the Miers nomination, and let his successor make a better choice.

I didn’t vote for President Bush, contribute money to his campaign and to the campaigns of about half a dozen Republican senatorial candidates in order to get Harriet Miers as a Supreme Court Justice. Where do I go to apply for a refund? I am disgusted, demoralized and dejected. President Bush has thrown in the towel on his Presidency and let us all down.

Dear Justice Ginsburg:

2005-09-22T20:34:00.000-07:00

Madame Justice, I was intrigued by your comments regarding the possiblility of President Bush appointing a woman to succeed Justice O'Connor. In particular, I note your comments that "any woman will not do" and that there are "some women who might be appointed who would not advance human rights or women's rights."

I realize that you are Justice on the United States Supreme Court, while I have never even set foot in a law school, but I'm really confused here. I didn't realize that the advancing "human rights or women's rights" was the responsibility of the Supreme Court, or of a Supreme Court Justice.

Could you please take a few moments to point out where in the Constitution this is spelled out?

Thanks ever so much.

With warmest regards,

Dr. H.

Free Trade Part II

2005-09-18T11:58:00.000-07:00

This is a true story:

The invention of the sewing machine kicked off the industrial revolution and allowed the common person to afford manufactured clothing for the first time in history. Further, the job creation from the "sewing machine innovation" was enormous. Up until the time of the invention of the sewing machine, people made clothing by hand, from the creation of the thread, weaving of the cloth, and hand sewing of garments.

The sewing machine was a major breakthrough in multiplying one person's efforts. It is analogous to one person driving a car as opposed to walking.

Here is the irony: The sewing machine was actually invented about 20 years before it was put into use.

What happened was that the sewing machine inventor told his daughter about his new sewing machine innovation. His daughter was alarmed and said that his "invention" would "put many seamstresses out of work". The inventor listened to his daughter and scrapped the invention.

The truth was that the "invention" led to the CREATION of thousands of new jobs and better lives for the common folks who could now afford clothing.

Free Trade is of the same nature as the sewing machine. Free Trade actually boosts prosperity and job creation even though it may not look like it on first glance.

In the early 1930's the US congress took a very damaging step toward limiting Free Trade with an act of congress called the Smoot Hawley Act. The result was a massive escalation of the depression and significant job loss all over the world.

Realize also that many high paying jobs today in the US are dependent on cheap labor in Asia. Our economy relies on cheap foreign labor as much as we rely on cheap foreign oil. The problem lately is that oil is not that cheap anymore! At least labor still is cheap for now.

Prosperity in the US is now largely supported by this cheap labor source in Asia. Common people have a considerably better life today because of this cheap labor. There will be adjustments in jobs in the US, but so far the unemployment rate is very low here despite the existence of cheap foreign labor.

FREE TRADE

2005-09-18T09:54:00.000-07:00

The truth is that the ONLY way to beat the liberals on the economic issues is with free and open trade. The leftism that is lumped (by liberals) on US manufacturers makes US products uncompetitive in relation to cross border competition.

The point is that manufacturers "have teeth in their arguments" to get the socialists off their backs once their products are uncompetitive and don't sell.

Free Trade is addictive to consumers. For example:

Free trade lets the average consumer buy a shirt at Wal Mart for $4.00

If you take away Free Trade, that same shirt would cost perhaps $30.00

The point is that if you allow the consumers to taste Free Trade, the liberals lose their arguments for unions, workers comp, company paid for health care, open ended sexual harassment liability claims, environmental foolishness, taxes, etc. etc. etc.

My father has always made the point that "to be a liberal is to be a hypocrite". Liberals will vote socialism onto American companies thus raising their costs and their prices, but when it comes time for the liberal to spend his OWN money, he buys the foreign product! Show me a liberal who will avoid the $4.00 shirt at Wal Mart and go for the $30.00 shirt with the "union label". Also, liberals will vote democrat, and buy a Japanese car! This has to be the height of hypocrisy.

The American car makers can argue that to compete with the Japanese they either need socialist relief, or they too will invest in China (like the Japanese) and pay $3.00 per day wages. The car companies should argue that a China investment is the only way they can compete for the "liberal consumer" dollar! Amazing.

The Pledge & "Under God"

2005-09-14T20:21:00.000-07:00

I'm as big an atheist as you'll ever find, and I totally agree with Andy McCarthy's post from NRO. I wish we lived in a world where the biggest problem we had was that some non-believers had to say "Under God" when reciting the Pledge. Oh, how I would love to live in that world. But since there's easily a few thousand (million?) more important things to worry about, narcissist vermin like Michael Newdow are a luxury we cannot afford. That he would waste the court's time and all that tax-payer money with trivia like this makes me sick.

I'm old enough to have to gone to school for a few years when prayer in school was actually required. At that school, I was the only kid in my class who didn't celebrate Christmas and who took off for the Jewish Holidays. Despite that, I suffered no horrors as a result of having to recite a prayer to a God I didn't share with the other students. And it didn't prevent me from becoming an atheist.

The world doesn't revolve around you, Mr. Newdow. Isn't it about time you grew up?

E tu, Senator Brownback?

2005-09-05T12:13:00.000-07:00

I just heard Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) on Fox News Channel talking about the Supreme Court vacancy. He praised President Bush for the choice of John Roberts to succeed Rehnquist (expect Ann Coulter to be extremely upset). Then he went on to say that for the next nominee, who will now be O'Connor's successor, he hopes Bush picks a strong conservative and a woman.

Senator Brownback is considered one of the most conservative members of the Senate, if not the most conservative. He was among those questioning whether Roberts was conservative enough. When someone like him plays the gender game, and feels that anyone with a penis need not apply for the job, it makes me wonder if there is any hope at all for our nation. Must everything be looked at in terms of gender and race? Is that we are now? Is it no longer possible for the President to just pick the best person for the job, and if that person happens to be a woman/black/Hispanic/Jew/Scandinavian, that's fine, but if not, that's ok too?

I hate identity politics. For one of the leading conservative Republicans in the Senate to endorse them, it truly makes me ill.

If Michael Luttig agrees to have a sex-change operation, preferably to be performed on the Senate floor during his confirmation hearings, will that satisfy you, Senator Brownback?

BIBI IS BACK !!!!!

2005-08-31T17:49:00.000-07:00

Benjamin Netanyahu announced his candidacy for Likud’s party chairman. This is very good news. It may be too late now that Israel has been chopped even more (who could believe that was possible with so little of a country remaining). Take out a map of the Middle East. Check out the sliver of a country Israel and compare it to the Arab lands surrounding this tiny nation. Ponder how it would be to live with your archenemy living across the street from you. Think about giving back the land to Mexico, for example, that we won in any our own wars.

"Our country is facing difficult challenges regarding security, the war on corruption and the mending of the rift within the nation. I believe that only one party can face these challenges -- Likud," Bibi said. "The man who received our votes to lead the party in the Likud spirit has turned his back on us. Sharon has abandoned the Likud's principles and chose the way of the Left. He is threatening to destroy with his own two hands the home he helped build. This is why we must all protect the home, because we have no other. The Likud is in need of a leader that would lead it to victory and lead the country in the spirit of our principles," Netanyahu said. "We must return to the Likud the principles that Sharon trampled: Uncompromising security, in the sole hands of the IDF, and no concessions without compensation."

Bibi is so right. He goes on to say: "I have proven my ability to conduct stern negotiations with the Palestinians. I established the principle of reciprocity. If they give – they’ll get; they won't give -- they won’t get."

Sharon gave and gave and gave, the Palestinians received and received and received. But what did Israel receive? Nothing. On the contrary, Gaza is turning into a base for Hamas and al-Qaeda.

It's A Boy!

2005-08-03T20:10:00.000-07:00

Excellent column by NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez on the kerfuffle over John Roberts turning out to be, well, a man. It was two weeks ago that K-Lo called to our attention Senator Ken Salazar's moronic letter to President Bush criticizing Roberts' lack of estrogen. Upon reading Salazar's letter, I had no choice but to call him our nation's dumbest Senator (though he as some amazingly tough competition). Scroll down for my initial thoughts.

Now, K-Lo returns to Salazar's letter and echoes my own feelings. She then brilliantly reacts to some of the other silly reactions to Bush's failure to pick a female to succeed Sandra Day O'Connor. I do wonder though if "silly" isn't too mild a term. Great column, Ms. Lopez!

Ann Coulter Is Wrong

2005-07-20T20:16:00.000-07:00

There are few bigger fans of Ann Coulter than myself, but this time I believe she has it wrong. To compare John Roberts to Justice Souter, or call him a "stealth" nominee, is just absurd. For once, Ann has not done her homework.

David Souter was completely unknown when President George H.W. Bush selected him. No one in Washington, DC knew him, he had only served on the Appeals court there for a few months. Until then his entire career had been spent in virtual hiding in New Hampshire. He was pushed on Bush by two fellow New Hampsherites, Senator Warren Rudman and former Governor John Sununu, then Bush's Chief of Staff. Neither Rudman nor Sununi were ever considered true-blue conservatives. And they were pretty much the only two people on the planet who even knew the guy. Souter clearly was an unknown quantity, and it was huge mistake on Bush 41's part to trust Sununu and Rudman.

Now look at Roberts. True, he does not have a huge paper trail to examine (which makes it tougher for the Dems to "Bork" him). But unlike Souter, he is a long-time Washington insider. He is well known in Republican and conservative circles. All the Republican and conservative insiders who know him vouch for him. Could it be possible for him to have them all fooled? Not likely.

As the Washington Post pointed out, Roberts has contributed financially to Republican candidates. He served in two Republican adminstrations, including the most conservative of all, Ronald Reagan's. He worked for Kenneth Starr, not exactly a flaming liberal. Starr cannot speak highly enough of the guy.

He clerked for Chief Justice Rehnquist when he was an Associate Justice. Reports are that Rehnquist loves Roberts and was his choice to be named for the court. Last time I checked, Rehnquist was one of the three members of the court's "conservative block." I don't think that Rehnquist would be in favor of adding another Souter to the court. He may know Roberts' mind better than anyone.

The small paper trail he does have seems to suggest he is the strict constructionalist we are hoping for. Research the "French Fry" case if you like.

The kind of guaranteed, in your face, hard core conservative that Ann Coulter would like Bush to nominate (like my suggestion, Ms. Coulter herself), might actually get stopped not by the Democrats but by the so-called "moderate" Republicans (RINO's) like Senators Snowe, Collins, Specter and Chaffee who would be hyperventilating at the thought of Roe V. Wade being overturned. Roberts seems like a wonderful selection to me.

Sure, it is possible that Roberts could disappoint, and turn out to be a moderate or even worse, a liberal. But I would say the odds of that happening are less than the odds of Ann Coulter appearing on Fox News Channel in an ankle-length skirt any time soon.

Ken Salazar, The Nation's Dumbest Senator!

2005-07-20T19:36:00.000-07:00

I know, I know, how can Ken Salazar (D-Colorado) be the nation's dumbest Senator as long as California's gift to the U.S.A., Barbara Boxer, is still in office? Alas, our beloved Ms. Boxer must now settle for runner-up, leaving Patty Murray (D-Washington) a distant third (sorry, Ms. Murray, you'll just have to try harder). What has caused this cosmic shift?

Click on the link and read the moronic letter Senator Salazar sent to President Bush after the announcement of John Roberts for the Supreme Court. The line that just clinches it for me is this one:

"However, I want to express my disappointment that you have missed an opportunity to help create an America that includes women at all levels of our nation’s government."

Please tell me that someone who could get elected to the United States Senate could not actually believe such lunacy. Please? Since Bush didn't replace one of the two women on the Supreme Court with another woman, we do not have an America that includes women at all levels of our nation's government? The minimum for this is at least two females on the Court? Female Governors, Senators, and members of Congress are not good enough? Are you kidding me?

I'm sorry, but that's got to be the single dumbest thing an elected government official has ever signed his name to. Not only is anyone who could actually say this unqualified to be a United States Senator, he is clearly not qualified to be let ouf his house alone. Surely, he is so incapable of mental thought that he cannot be trusted to feed or dress himself.

How in the world did the voters of Colorado elect this nincompoop? In California, we have an excuse; we are hopelessly a blue state. But Colorado is a red state which Bush carried handily. What the heck were the voters of Colorado thinking when they elected this mental midget?

The L.A. Times Does Not Disappoint

2005-07-20T12:38:00.000-07:00

Check out the banner headline in today's edition of The Los Angeles Times reporting on the John Roberts pick. "Bush Leans Right on Court Pick." Well, that's hopefully not just The Times' opinion, but one would hope it is indeed a fact. Still, it is quite obvious that with such a headline, the Times is not so subtly trying to sway the reader's view of Bush's decision.

My question is, assuming that this is a true statement, does this qualify as "news"? The "news" is the name of the man chosen, not that he is a man of the right. Bush is a conservative President who campaigned on the issue of appointing like-minded judges to the courts. If he had not picked someone from the right, that indeed would have been very big news. This is more like "Dog Bites Man." In other words, not worthy of a front page story. The news is who the man is and his superb credentials.

Accusing the L.A. Times of liberal bias is roughly the same as accusing Tiger Woods of being a good golfer, or accusing water of being wet. But the Times can prove me wrong by simply reprinting the front page they had the day after President Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I'm sure the headline then said, in equally large letters, "Clinton Leans Left on Court Pick." Didn't it? Didn't it?

Bush Picks John Roberts

2005-07-19T21:06:00.000-07:00

With the pick of John Roberts for the Supreme Court, President Bush has served his base, as well as the country, well. From all indications this is an outstanding choice. Roberts appears to be an originalist, a conservative and a brilliant legal mind. His credentials are superb.

I am so pleased that President Bush resisted two temptations in making this choice. First, he resisted the temptation to put his good friend, Alberto Gonzales, on the court. Second, he resisted the call to play gender/racial/identity politics with this pick. I feared that Bush would listen to the pleas of so many (including, sadly, his wife) to put a woman on the court, or put a member of some minority group (Hispanic being the one most prominently mentioned). Instead, Bush took the now all-too rare action of picking the absolute best person for job, at least in his mind. Thank you, Mr. President.

All indications are that the Democrats will have absolutely nothing to complain about regarding Roberts, which won't stop them from making asses of themselves and trying anyway.

Let the fun begin!

Ruffini: Outcomes Over Process

2005-07-12T21:37:00.000-07:00

Excellent thoughts by Patrick Ruffini on how the Republicans ought to fight the upcoming Supreme Court battle. It is a matter of the direction of the court, and the Republicans shouldn't shy away from it, especially since they are in the right. Let's make it a battle between Ted Kennedy's philosophy and George Bush's and see which side the public favors!

The BBC Makes Me Ill

2005-07-10T15:50:00.000-07:00

Freedom is not by accident. It doesn’t just happen out of thin air. It is formed, nurtured and preserved through concerted efforts by the people … not by running away and hiding our heads in the sand weary that we will upset the enemy. I am so sick and tired of how the liberals not only are afraid to fight terrorism but won’t even acknowledge it ... rather they use labels such as ‘freedom fighters’. I’ve read comments on the recent London bombings such as: “the so called war on terror has if anything fueled terrorism and this attack is almost wholly due to our invasion of Iraq.”

Unbelievable. How the BBC in particular is reluctant to use the word terrorism or terrorists describing the recent murder and carnage in London is unconscionable. I just shake my head and try not to think about it.

Never forget September 11th.

Gonzales for the Supreme Court? Please do not do this, President Bush!

2005-07-10T12:28:00.000-07:00

William Kristol, who actually correctly predicted that O'Connor, not Rehnquist, would be the first justice to step down, had a scary prediction this morning on Fox News Sunday. He agrees with the speculation that Rehnquist will step down this week. And he says that Bush is committed to naming Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as the new Chief Justice. The other seat would be filled by a true-blue conservative.

This would be a disaster and something that I could not support. President Bush campaigned twice on judicial nominees, promising to nominate strict constructionalists who will not legislate from the bench. He said his model would be Justices Scalia and Thomas. People like me who supported voted for him and contributed to his campaign did so, in part, with the hope that he would live up to his promise and start moving the court away from its current insanity, to the right.

Replacing Rehnquist with the most conservative person on the planet would not change the composition one iota. And replacing O'Connor with a seeming moderate like Gonzales would not change anything either. There is no evidence that Gonzales is a strict-constructionalist or anything other than a slightly right-leaning moderate. In other words, a Sandra Day O'Connor with a y-chromosome. We cannot afford to lose this opportunity to try to move the court in the right direction. President Bush would be selling his conservative base down the river if he makes that colossal blunder. His refusal to close our borders is bad enough; good luck to the Republican Party getting any more contributions from me if this happens! President Bush, we didn't elect you to maintain the current extremist left-wing tilt to the Supreme Court!

There's another, perhaps more compelling reason not to nominate Gonzales. As pointed out in on National Review Online (a must-read website as we maneuver through the confirmation process), many cases about to come before the court involve actions the Bush administration has taken, in the War on Terror and elsewhere. A Justice Gonzales would have to recuse himself from these cases, and the Bush Administration would probably lose, because most would be decided 5-4. You can't afford to give away one of nine votes and replace it with a vote to abstain. This would be a total disaster. See here for a great summary:

Partial Justice, Alberto Gonzales’s recusal problem.

I hope somebody with his ear can talk the President out of this nightmare.

Pyrrhic Terror

2005-07-10T12:02:00.000-07:00

Another great opinion piece by Ralph Peters, this time on the London bombers. Sadly, the liberals will never get it.

Great Prager Column on the Supreme Court Selection!

2005-07-05T21:21:00.000-07:00

Not only does Dennis Prager explain what is about to happen when Bush picks a nominee, but in one simple column he does a terrific job of completely summing up the pathetic state of modern day liberalism. A must read.

Will the Democrats Remember how the Republicans Treated Them......

2005-07-01T23:34:00.000-07:00

When the shoe was on the other foot? Sure they will. Check out Byron York's great history lesson.

What about Ann?

2005-07-01T13:31:00.000-07:00

My suggestion to replace O'Connor? Ann Coulter! She is a constitutional lawyer, after all. The downside would be that we wouldn't have her weekly column to enjoy, and there would be few--if any--short-skirted appearances on the Fox News Channel. And it would be a shame to cover that figure with judicial robes.

But imagine how entertaining official court opinions would become. Imagine how much liberals would howl and scream! Besides, she's right 99.7% of the time. And you would satisfy the feminists who insist that one woman replace another on the court (yeah, right). And she's young, she'd influence the judicial system for over a generation.

Go for it, Mr. President!

More on O'Connor

2005-07-01T12:44:00.000-07:00

In addition to hopefully getting more of a strict constructionist on the court, the other good thing about O'Connor's retirement is the timing of it. As brutal as this confirmation battle will be, this is the year to do it. Next year is an election year, that would only make the battle a thousand times nastier and more political. And after the mid-term elections in 2006, all bets are off. It's certainly possible there will be less Republicans in the Senate in 2007. Or worse, that the Dems will get control back. So now is the best time in the foreseeable future for this battle.

By the same logic, I hope Chief Justice Rehnquist takes this opportunity to resign now as well. He has served his country honorably for a long time, but he is old and seriously ill. Now would be the time to step down while Bush has the best possible chance to name a worthy successor.

O'Connor Resigns

2005-07-01T08:25:00.000-07:00

Terrific news. She was one of the two dangerous "swing-votes" on the court (along with Kennedy). President Bush absolutely must appoint a truly hard-core conservative to replace her, then we will see the most contentious nominee fight in history. The nominee needs to be far to the right of Scalia and Thomas. Someone who makes them look like Ginsburg. More later.

A new low for Teddy

2005-06-23T20:42:00.000-07:00

I am completely appalled at the fashion in which that rat Ted Kennedy assaulted my hero, Rummy, today in the Senate.
This shocking and debased incident marks a new low in rank, partisan politics. This is particularly wretched when one considers we are at war with an enemy that seeks to undermine and destroy all of our freedoms, not to mention Western Civilization.
Rumsfeld showed tremendous class in his response, never sounding ruffled, even when Kennedy threw in his face that he thought he should resign.

I, for one, would have responded:
"Come on, Ted. No matter what you think I've done that's so bad, it's not like I drove off a bridge and killed my mistress."

Gitmo Cocktail

2005-06-16T15:32:00.000-07:00

Great opinion piece by Ralph Peters in today's New York Post, responding to all the hand-wringing over Guantanamo (you need to be registered on the site in order to read it). My favorite line, of many: "Oh, and thanks to the "mainstream" media for assuming that our country's always wrong."

When I get a chance, I need to read up on what qualifies under the legal definition of "sedition." It's hard to believe how strongly the mainstream press (with a few exceptions) wants the terrorists to win this war. Unbelievable.

Liberal Fantasies ... revisited

2005-06-13T09:01:00.000-07:00

Dr. Hackenbush,

I'd love to see a few more links such as "Liberal Fantasies" that cover major topics of interest in general ... and that I can reference at any time (as well as perhaps add to)! Here are some of those liberal fantasies that could be cut & pasted into a separate link or archive....with thanks to you and others of this blog for your original contributions.

I'm beginning to realize that this blog could become a valuable resource for information (ammunition) when I need it fast .... i.e., battling it out with my brothers or other lib friends!

-Global warming.
-Cutting trees to make paper products hurt forests.
-Second hand smoke causes cancer & deaths.
-JFK assassination conspiracy.
-The Mafia killed Nicole Brown Simpson.
-Jane Fonda is NOT a traitor.
-John Kerry went to Cambodia.
-Liberals are better people than conservatives, so anything they do to promote their agenda, even ruining the lives of good people, is justifed.
-Hillary Clinton did not kill Vince Foster.
-Ted Kennedy did not kill Mary Jo Kopechne.
-There’s no such thing as good and evil in the world, only shades of gray.
-Money people earn belongs to the government and they graciously allow you to keep some of it, but they prefer to take most of it away and give it to people who are too lazy to work.
-If they do let me keep more of I money, I might not spend it the “right way.” (as Bill Clinton famously said)
-There’s no moral difference between the U.S. going to war in Iraq and the terrorists attacking us on 9/11
-The Constitution is a living, breathing document that doesn’t mean what it says, it means whatever a bunch of liberal judges wants it to mean.
-If a black person doesn’t think like the black civil rights community thinks he should think, he is not an authentic black, he’s an “Uncle Tom.” Similarly, if a woman doesn’t think like NOW thinks she should think, she’s not an authentic woman. She may as well have a dick.
-If, after a night of con-sexual sex, a woman wakes up and regrets having it, she was raped.
-If an unattractive man glances at a woman for more than 1/100th of a second, it’s sexual harassment, but if a great looking guy, leers, drools, touches and endlessly hits on the same woman, it’s harmless flirtation.
-A woman can walk around wearing the sexiest, most revealing clothing possible…or she can walk around stark naked, and a man is not supposed to notice or react to it in anyway whatsoever, or he is guilty of sexual harassment or worse. A woman bears no responsibility in how men react to her.
-We should never, ever, ever consider the use of torture to get information out of evil people, no matter how many lives are at risk, because that wouldn't be nice.
-It’s okay to discriminate on the basis of sex, race, and religion as long as you do it the “right” way.
-The heterosexual population is just as at risk of getting AIDS as the gay community.
-Raising the minimum wage does NOT increase unemployment.
-Social Security is the greatest social program of all time, and not the world’s largest Ponzi scheme.
-Diversity based on race, religion, national origin, sexual preference is good and actually benefits society, but diversity of opinion is unacceptable.
-Rich people pay no taxes in this country.
-Giving away clean needles to heroin addicts will not increase drug use.
-Giving away condoms to grade school kids will not increase teen-age sexual activity.
-Blowjobs are not sex if performed in the White House by a fat Jewish girl from Beverly Hills on a liberal dem President.
-Hillary Rodham Clinton is NOT the devil incarnate.
-Poverty causes crime—and terrorism.
-If we could just get those misguided terrorists to understand us they would stop trying to kill us without any violence on our part.
-The Religious Right in this country wants to put all Jews in Concentration Camps.
-FDR and the New Deal ended the Great Depression.
-Socialized medicine is a good thing.
-Free healthcare is necessary because everyone needs healthcare.
-The prisoners at Guantanamo are just lovely, misguided youths who need love, and we are shredding the Constitution by keeping them there.
-George W. Bush is worse than Hitler.
-The ACLU actually fights for Civil Liberties.
-Two men or two women are just as good parents as a man and a woman.
-Men should have no say in whether or not abortion should be legal since they can’t pregnant themselves.
-Women should be allowed a choice in whether to keep their baby but have no right to choose silicone breast implants because they have a slightly higher risk of medical problems than the other kind (courtesy Dennis Prager)
-It’s perfectly okay for unelected Judges to legislate from the bench if that’s the only way they can get their insane ideas put into law
-By allowing capital punishment, we are showing a disregard for human life.
-The life of a baby seal up in Alaska is more important than the lives of 200 million human beings living in the USA, so we can’t drill for oil up there.
-Homosexual sex is just as normal and natural as heterosexual sex and society pays no price for encouraging it.
-Korea has the kind of economy the U.S. should emulate.

Check out Drudge!

2005-06-13T07:40:00.000-07:00

Be sure to check out the headline at today�s Drudge Report for the newest juicy gossip on Bill & Hillary. A new book coming out claims Chelsea is the result of Bill "raping" Hillary! And all this time I thought Vince Foster was Chelsea's father!

Korea

2005-06-12T12:22:00.000-07:00