Saturday, April 30, 2005
Take a look, even leave a comment for him.
hat tip to Gun Toting Liberal for this one. Thanks GT.
Friday, April 29, 2005
For Democrats, judicial philosophy is a cultural Armageddon. Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy have turned the Senate into a Branch Davidian compound. No one in the liberal cult is allowed to leave, including the hostage nominees--unless they recant their conservatism. How many Senate Democrats plan to be in this bunker when Bill Frist's ATF squad detonates the "nuclear option"?I've not laughed so hard at a paragraph in a long time, and wish I had written it! Henninger is exactly right. And his analogy needs no further comment.
Thursday, April 28, 2005
By the way, this is the same Senator who promised during his campaign that he would not vote to block Bush's judges. I tell you, it's something in the water....I'm thinking of starting a drive to drain the Potomac. Not that it would help. Most of those Senators drink bottled water..from France.
By the way, has anyone noticed I seem to be posting more on gays these days? It's a paradox. And, as Lazarus Long says, paradox are not to be understood, only embraced...
Running Liberty Just in Case is alot like running a neighborhood bar. You have your regulars, that keep you writing, and you have your occasionals, that pop in for a look, then move on. A percentage of them become regulars over time. You also have your trolls that need to be kicked out by the bouncers once in a while.
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
The General does not give many interviews, but he did give one to Time. Very much worth reading.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Looks like the LA Times has finally caught up:
The number of Americans without health insurance — one of the most watched and worrisome indicators of economic well-being — may be overstated by as much as 20%, according to research conducted for the government.Interesting the way statistics like this come out after the elections...
The Not a Dime More movement is spreading, and nothing scares a politician more than having his money cut off. I'm not sure what internal polls the Republicans are looking at that show support failing. It does not appear to be failing among those who voted them in to office. But Senate Republicans have a history of not listening to anyone who actually voted for them. Guess they're too busy trying to find out what the New York Times and Washington Post think of them.
Maybe it really is something in the water....
Looks like Dr. Senator Frist has the message.
But Frist, in a rare news conference conducted on the Senate floor, said he would not accept any deal that keeps his Republican majority from confirming judicial nominees that have been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
"Are we going to step back from that principle? The answer to that is no," Frist said.
That means he and Reid are still at deadlock, because Democrats have said they would not accept any deals that would permanently ban them from blocking Bush's nominees to the Supreme Court or the federal appellate courts, the top two tiers of the judicial system.
Politics. Still my favorite spectator sport.
Monday, April 25, 2005
Dean has suggested that they (Republicans) are "evil." That they are "corrupt." He called them "brain-dead" during a stop in Toronto -- and while the Terri Schiavo case was still in the news. He has tagged Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) as a "liar." Last week, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that he mimicked a "drug-snorting Rush Limbaugh" at an event there.Well, at least he's consistent.
Sunday, April 24, 2005
I've been off work for months with severe breathing problems. Hospitalized a few times, and more steroids than a major league baseball player. In effect, on long-term disability. I've had multiple diagnoses, none of which have solved the problem.
I've been giving health updates every once in awhile on Liberty, as this is the easiest way to communicate with family and friends around the country. There, now you're up to date. And it didn't even cause you to stop breathing. Can't beat that.
Had a camera put down my trachea last week, all the way to where it branches off to the right and left lung. Local anesthetic, very cool to watch, in a scary sort of way. Apparently my trachea is collapsing periodically, and sucking my esophagus in as it fails. This blocks my airway pretty efficiently, sort of like putting a plastic bag over your head. That's the bad news. The good news is that it appears to be fixable.
Worst case scenario is a surgically placed stint in my trachea, forcing it to stay open. Not the best, or most pain free option. We are trying some specific breathing techniques first. I'm seeing a wonderful speech pathologist named Cathy. Very bouncy, and incredibly optimistic and affirming, all of which I need after 8 months of this. We are identifying triggers that cause the collapse, and working to prevent the attacks.
So far, one trigger identified is microwave popcorn. I am, in effect, allergic to Orville Redenbacher. . And I do love the Orville movie popcorn. Sigh
As always, thanks for the prayers of all faiths, and the support. It's always a big help. Hopefully, we are on the right track, and will soon no longer be on the verge of collapse. Well, physically anyway...
I'm not sure Ms. Huffington's site will succeed any better than Air America, but we'll see. Voices on the left have done far better on the internet than they have on radio. And yes, despite her assurances, I have little doubt that this side will definitely tilt left.
Friday, April 22, 2005
It takes in reality only one to make a quarrel. It is useless for theMost great quotes are a Rorschach test. You take away from them what you brought to the table. For me, this quote is the perfect answer to those who want "peace" with terrorists. It also says alot about the Republican sheep currently ensconced in the Senate.
sheep to pass resolutions in favour of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a
Ralph Inge, Outspoken Essays (1919)English author & Anglican
prelate (1860 - 1954)
Hat tip to Robert A. Heinlein, from one of his last books, The Cat Who Walked Through Walls.
Thursday, April 21, 2005
But the ACLU will ride to the rescue, securing their right to say...well, to say this:
I [heart] My Vagina.
And for boys, there is this:
I Support Your VaginaNow, this is simply more information than I need to know about these girls', how shall we say it? preferences. And, it's hard for me to think of any teenage male who would NOT support this particular part of a young girl's anatomy.
"We can't really find out what is inappropriate about it," Rethlefsen, 18, said of the button she wears to raise awareness about women's issues. "I don't think banning things like that is appropriate."Sooo, what exactly is she talking about being banned? That part of her anatomy which apparently needs "support" from hormonally raging young men? Short of a sex change operation, there is no danger of that. I'm thinking there may be better, and more appropriate, ways to raise awareness of "women's issues," than wearing buttons explaining how much one loves their anatomy. The fact that she can't really see what may be inappropriate about her button says more about her upbringing than it does about her love of, ahem, women's issues.
But this is a case tailor made for the nuttiness of the ACLU:
Soooo, being able to wear a button saying "I (heart) my Vagina" or "I Support Your Vagina" is comparable to protesting the Vietnam War?!?!? Only when you fall down the rabbit hole to that Wonderland known as the American left. Sigh.
Their case could become another test of whether high school students have the right to express their views in school. Charles Samuelson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, has offered to help the girls.
"It's political speech," he said.
Samuelson acknowledged that school officials can limit speech considered detrimental or dangerous. But he said this case is similar to Tinker v. Des Moines, a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a case where students were forbidden to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. The court ruled that First Amendment rights are available to teachers and students and that administrators' fear about how others might react is not enough to squelch those rights.
One of my favorite bloggers is Joe, at The New Oklahoma Democrat. He did a post the other day that is well worth reading. It's a little like looking in a mirror, as his views are the polar opposite of my own.
I'm reminded of the old Star Trek Episode, Mirror, Mirror, where Kirk and company are transferred to another Universe, where they are the exact opposite of who they are in the "real" Universe. Just think, Joe. In that Universe, you are more conservative, more Republican, than I am. In that Universe, John Kerry may have even been coherent at times. :-) On the other hand, I shudder at who I would be in that Universe. To quote my 12 year old daughter, it's just icky....
Joe left a comment on Liberty, that doesn't make much sense unless you read his post, and my comment on it. The link to the post is here, and the comments are below:
I'm not sure where to begin on this one, Joe. Let's just deal with the whole Christian thing at the end.Agreeing to disagree is becoming something of a habit for me here on Liberty.
Did God ever enter politics? Yep. The entire book of Judges is God choosing leaders of Israel. It was only when the Hebrews whined and moaned for a king that God gave them Saul. In many ways, Saul was the first political appointee.
Also, I am a Christian. Evangelical, to be exact, from a long line of Roosevelt Democrats. I've done alot of "soul-searching" about which party most aligns with my faith. It would be extremely difficult to remain in the Democrat Party, based on it's platform and agenda. That agenda is the reason you have lost the South, and are losing the Midwest. I would strongly recommend Mike Gegan's peice in the Boston Review on Monday. You can find the link on Liberty.
Finally, Republicans are not saying that Democrats hate Christians. That's a distortion, and something of a straw man. What we are saying is that folks like Chuck Schumer have said that if you have "strong beliefs", and are committed to those beliefs, you cannot be a judge. He said that during the Pryor hearings, in context referring to Pryor's Catholicism. Those same views, specifically pro-life, would preclude an Evangelical from holding a Federal Judgeship in Schumer's world. If you can say with straight face that Schumer does not speak for the left, let me know.
Last thing. I firmly agree with your assessment of Dean's plan to use the Schiavo case. It would be an immense miscalculation, and would confirm all the doubts about Dr. Dean's selection as DNC Chairman.
Mark Homepage 04.21.05 - 12:03 am #
My argument regarding politics was not regarding has God EVER been political but rather when did God come down and choose the Republicans. Given their track record, I find it impossible to believe he ever would do so. I will edit my statement to better reflect this point. Cheers!
Joseph (OK Democrat)
Thank you for visiting Mark. My argument regarding politics was not regarding has God EVER been political but rather when did God come down and choose the Republicans. Given their track record, I find it impossible to believe he ever would do so. I edited the post to reflect my point. (Editor's Note: Dirty pool!!! Editing your post in response to an admittedly obnoxous reader ie. me negates the context of the comment, rendering it nonsensical. Of, course, some might say it was nonsensical in the first place, so who cares? Sigh) I completely understand your point first of all. Second, I disagree to a point. I understand that there are Democrats who are probably too secular. On the other hand, I also feel that too many Republican leaders are attempting to label the Party as anti-religious. Not all, by any means, but too many. In saying these things, I must also confess that I in turn could never be a Republican because I can't be involved with the Party that literally uses fear to win votes, is definitely on the side ofbig business and is definitely not the friend of the little man, based on their track record. We may be forced to agree to disagree, but I did want to clarify my point. Otherwise, wonderful response and yes my anger at Dean is growing as I stated. Cheers my friend!
Joseph (OK Democrat)
As I said, the dialogue is what makes blogging fun. Once again, I find myself violating one of my Father's rules: "There are two things you should never discuss, Politics and Religion." Sorry Dad. Fortunately, he never heard of blogging before he passed on. Guess I dodged a bullet on that one...Sigh.
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
And not just the Judiciary. What the Senator from Ohio pulled yesterday during the Bolton hearings is simply beyond reason. He admits he wasn't even there for the 2 days of hearings last week! Then votes with the Democrats?!?!? And to think we were worried about Lincoln Chaffee...Sigh.
The refusal of even a single day's honeymoon for the new pope from the scribblers of the left tells us a lot about the folks who work on editorial boards, and also a lot about diversity in America's newsrooms. Are there even five traditional, Mass-attending and confession-going writers among the five editorial boards sampled above? Is there even one who would step forward to defend the Church's teaching on human dignity and sexuality? There are tens of millions of American Catholics full of joy at yesterday's news, but do they have any voice within elite MSM at all?Is it any wonder that newspapers are experiencing massive drops in readership today? Or why the number of readers turning to the blogosphere is increasing exponentially?
In his most formative years, Ratzinger heard Nazi propaganda shouting that there is no truth, no justice, there is only the will of the people (enunciated by its leader). As its necessary precondition, Nazism depended on the debunking of objective truth and objective morality. Truth had to be derided as irrelevant, and naked will had to be exalted.And this:
To anybody who said: “But that’s false!” the Nazi shouted, “That’s just your opinion, and who are you, compared to Der Fuehrer?”
To anybody who said, “But what you are doing is unjust!” the Nazi shouted louder, “Says you, swine.”
Relativism means this: Power trumps.
Along with that move, he has observed (haven’t we all?), comes a dictatorial impulse, to treat anyone who has a different view as “intolerant.” For instance, those (on the “religious right”) who hold that there are truths worth dying for, and objective goods to be pursued and objective evils to be avoided, are now held to be “intolerant” fundamentalists, guilty of “discrimination.”
In other words, the new dictatorial impulse declares that the only view permissible among reasonable people is the view that all subjective choices are equally valid. It declares, further, that anyone who claims that there are objective truths and objective goods and evils is “intolerant.” Such persons are to be expelled from the community, or at a minimum re-educated. That is to say, all Catholics and others like them must be converted to relativism or else sent into cultural re-training camps.
On the basis of relativism, however, no culture can long defend itself or justify its own values. If everything is relative, even tolerance is only a subjective choice, not an objective mandatory value. Ironically, though, what post-moderns call “tolerance” is actually radically intolerant of any view contrary to its own.
And finally this:
For Cardinal Ratzinger, moreover, it is not reason that offers a foundation for faith, but the opposite. Historically, it is Jewish and Christian faith in an intelligent and benevolent Creator that gave birth in the West to trust in reason, humanism, science, and progress, and carried the West far beyond the fatalistic limits of ancient Greece and Rome.
To the meaninglessness of relativism, Ratzinger counter poses respect for the distinctive, incommensurable image of God in every single human being, from the most helpless to the seemingly most powerful, together with a sense of our solidarity with one another in the bosom of our Creator. This fundamental vision of the immortal value both of the individual person and the whole human community in solidarity has been the motor-power, the spiritual dynamic overdrive, of an increasingly global (catholic) civilization.
That, at least, is the way he sees it. He is willing to argue out his case with all comers.
Compare Pope Benedict's views to the below from Gene Robinson, the focus of so much controversy in the Anglican Communion, from his interview with PlannedParenthood:
I guess I'm just one of those Anglicans who has "gone off the deep end" about killing children in the womb. Some Episcopalians do indeed feel comfortable in the "grey areas." But those of us who see Scripture as the final arbiter and judge of doctrine do not. It is when you ignore Scripture that the world becomes grey on issues of life and death, among other things. This straying from the Faith is the reason the ECUSA has been asked to attend no further Anglican councils until the next Lambeth conference, and why the rift in the Anglican communion continues to widen. The ECUSA represents the living example of the relativism the new Pope so prophetically warned against. I hope the Anglican Church is listening to it's big sister. I'm quite sure the ECUSA is not.
Little has been written about your stance on reproductive rights. Are you pro-choice?
Absolutely. The reason I love the Episcopal Church is that it actually trusts us to be adults. In a world where everyone tries to paint things as black or white, Episcopalians feel pretty comfortable in the gray areas.
I'm sure there must be individual congregations, and certainly individuals, who are off the deep end about this issue, but for the most part, the stance that we have taken speaks to our people as a mature and adult way of dealing with this — that we protect a woman's right to choose but also say that obviously there are very deep things involved here.
So we encourage our folks to take this very private issue seriously. We urge them to talk to their priests about it and to think through all the questions they might have. And then we absolutely stand behind a woman's right to choose. I think that's a responsible place to be.
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Of course, that's assuming the Republicans don't shoot themselves in the foot between now and then. Sigh.
Monday, April 18, 2005
So, what happens when you do a Google search with the words Wolfowitz and Strauss?
Now I'm no rocket scientist, just a guy from a little town in Oklahoma transplanted to the frozen north of Chicago, but it sure looks like much of the alleged Straussian influence comes from lefty sites, or sites repeating the same stuff. I'm open to being wrong here, and really am not sure I care. But I've spent some time on this , so thought I'd share what I found. I'm expecting Joe to correct me on the above. If so, I'll prominently post how wrong I am.
By the way, hop over to Joe's site for a view on politics completely different from my own. It's a great site, and well worth bookmarking.
Sunday, April 17, 2005
If the American public has to hear another sermon from a Brent Scowcroft — “Sharon just has him [President Bush] wrapped around his little finger. I think the president is mesmerized” — or Madeline Albright — “Do you suppose that the Bush administration has Osama bin Laden hidden away somewhere and will bring him out before the election?” — about what we are now doing wrong in the Middle East, I think it will collectively heave.Read the whole thing. And remember it the next time you see one of these talking heads on your favorite MSM all news station.
The past ostracism of Arafat and the removal of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, followed by democratic engagement, will bring eventual stability to the Middle East and enhance the security of the United States. After the failures of all our present critics, this new policy of promoting American values is our last, best hope. And the president will be rewarded long after he leaves office by the verdict of history for nobly sticking to it when few others, friend or foe, would.
Example 1: Last week's story in The New York Times breathlessly reported that DeLay had employed family members to work on his campaigns and for his political action committee. This story was so old it had whiskers. It was first reported in the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call in 2003.Or this:
Other news outlets dutifully followed the Times and created the impression that DeLay had put family members on the public payroll. In fact, no taxpayer money was involved. Nor was it in any way illegal or unethical for DeLay's privately funded PAC to employ his wife and daughter. The Times reported that DeLay's PAC paid his wife and daughter $500,000. This is only $50,000 a year each for the past five years, a solidly middle-class income and certainly a lot less than the editors at The New York Times earn.
Example 2: The Washington Post recently published a page-one "expose" about the financing of a 1997 trip to Russia. The facts are that the National Center for Public Policy Research, a nonprofit association, issued a statement last month describing its sponsorship of and payment for this trip: "The National Center for Public Policy Research was careful to pay all the expenses associated with Congressman DeLay's trip. Reports to the contrary are incorrect." Every year, dozens of members of Congress and staff participate in such trips financed by nonprofit organizations. This is perfectly legal, normal and even routine.
In fact, despite being in the minority, over the past four years Democrats have taken 54 percent of such trips and Democrats were the top five private trip-takers (in terms of money spent). They were in order: Sen. John Breaux. Rep. Robert Wexler, Rep. Gene Green, Rep. Maurice Hinchey and Rep. Cal Dooley. And when it comes to taxpayer financed trips, Democrat Nancy Pelosi has spent six times more on foreign travel than Tom DeLay.
Now, here's the real reason for the current rabid attack:
The Democrats never will forgive Tom DeLay for his efforts in redrawing congressional districts in Texas that cost them six seats in the House (which incidentally undid past Democratic gerrymandering and brought Texas' delegation into line with the overwhelming majority of voters in the Lone Star State). Democrats despise DeLay because he is a tough, principled conservative and an effective majority leader who is successful in driving the Republican agenda though the House. Unable to win elections, and bereft of anything positive to offer the country, the Democrats and their Soros-funded allies have become little more than a pack of seething scandalmongers.Elections have consequences. Shame the Left has refused to learn this lesson.
Saturday, April 16, 2005
Some of the nation's most influential evangelical Protestants are participating in the teleconference in Louisville, including Dr. James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family; Chuck Colson, the born-again Watergate figure and founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries; and Dr. Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.Dobson and Colson and Mohler, Oh My! as Dorothy and Company might say if they were from the Left.
Of course, it's perfectly acceptable for prominent Democrats from Clinton to Gore to Kerry to speak in black churches across the country, and to hold what amounts to political fundraisers there. It's only when Conservatives speak at prominent Evangelical Conferences that The New York Times smells trouble. I seriously doubt Mr. Kirkpatrick, the writer of this story, has ever listened to one of Dr. Dobson's radio shows, or would even know where to find Chuck Colson's books, most especially his excellent look at the Kingdom of God vs. The kingdoms of the world called Kingdoms in Conflict. And Lord knows, he would never deign himself lowly enough to enter a (horrors) Southern Baptist Church.
Any wonder the folks in what is arrogantly called "flyover country" are getting redder and redder?
MOSCOW (AP) - Garry Kasparov, the world's former No. 1 chess player who quit the professional game last month to focus on politics, said Saturday he had been hit over the head with a chessboard in a politically motivated attack.
Tracey Schmitt, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, said Dean's "outrageous remarks help underscore why Dean is the leader of the minority party."Hard to get your base excited about killing someone through dehydration and starvation, but Dr. Dean is welcome to try.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
McCain was a brave man in Viet Nam. He became a craven politician a long time ago, however, and almost everything he's done since shows that he hasn't changed a bit. If I still lived in Arizona, I'd be looking for ways to recall him from office immediately. It's time for the GOP to quit kissing McCain's ass and apply another extremity to it with noticeable force -- and to strip him of his committee assignments as soon as possible. Let him switch parties if he likes. He's useless and a disgrace as a Republican.I can't remember being more furious at a Republican. I'm thinking I'm not alone.
The stakes couldn't be higher. This from Hugh Hewitt:
What the Senators don't understand is that the Conservatives who voted them in to the majority aren't paying attention to the media elite. We are paying attention to the new media: Rush Limbaugh and his cohorts on talk radio, National Review, the Washington Times, and the blogs.
Senator Santorum began the program today, and the news was as bad as it gets. Do you have the votes to end the filibuster? "We're working on it." When will the vote occur? "Within a couple of months." Radioblogger will have a full transcript soon.
As soon as that phrase hit the airwaves the e-mail avalanche began and the angry calls have not let up. The Senate GOP is destroying itself, and it does not appear to be aware of the fact. They think they are losing a public relations war with the media elite when in fact they are losing something far more critical --the allegiance of their base.
And meanwhile, RINO John McCain has decided to forget party loyalty (again) and side with the Democrats in order to get his blessing from Chris Matthews and the MSM. Again from the Hugh Hewitt site:
As for John McCain, who can say? I can only assume he has abandoned his presidential ambitions, and I hope MSM takes note that he is no longer a "maverick," but a rogue Republican. The filibuster issue is one on which the party has a right to expect loyalty, and it did not get it from John McCain. McCain may still run, and he may still raise a lot of money and expecations, but this decision destroys his chances.This could well be the end of the Republican majority in the Senate. If the Senators refuse to listen to their base, they will lose the majority. Count on it. McCain is already toast. I'm hoping the rest of the Republican Senate doesn't go down with him.
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Any wonder that Democrats keep losing elections?
The outraged-at-Bolton caucus has a problem, which is that anything Bolton has said about the U.N. appears mild given recent U.N. malfeasance. He never said that U.N. peacekeepers would rape children in the Congo. He never said the U.N. would engage in insider dealing to rip off its own Oil-for-Food program in Iraq. He never said the U.N. would institute what appears to be a cover-up of its Oil-for-Food wrongdoing. But this all happened, which is why even Kofi Annan says the U.N. needs a thorough overhaul.
Democrats who oppose Bolton are in effect more deliriously pro-U.N. than even the secretary general. Bolton has always said that the U.N. needs strong U.S. leadership in order to work as an institution. This is Bolton's key disagreement with those Democrats who are content to have the U.S. led by the nose by the lowest common denominator of recalcitrant foreign actors. This attitude is the international version of the old definition of a liberal as someone who won't take his own side in a fight.
One of the big lies of the Left is that Bush has had more Judicial Nominations approved than Clinton, or at least just as many. Scroll through this chart to see if that's correct. The Left must be using the same statistician that told us that the Schiavo case had been heard by 19 separate judges...
Former President Bill Clinton wasn't about to let just anybody attack his wife - especially a gay Republican operative.
Clinton fired back yesterday, suggesting that political consultant Arthur Finkelstein, who has launched a "Stop Her Now" campaign, is suffering from "self-loathing."
Let a conservative talk about gay "self-loathing" and see what a firestorm develops....
Monday, April 11, 2005
I didn't expect a well-written course on Judaism to boot! I thought I had a good understanding of Jewish culture, thanks to friends like Jon and Dani. Right Turns helped me realize how much I didn't know, and gave me a new respect for "God's Chosen People."
If you have an interest in reading this book, click the link. It takes you to Amazon, which is always less expensive than driving to the bookstore.
Thursday, April 07, 2005
My voice is pretty much gone, down to a whisper most of the time. Even if I felt like screaming, I couldn't. Sigh. The pulmonologist thinks these attacks are far more related to an upper airway problem than a lower one. Appears the Vocal Cord Disorder for me is far more severe than most folks. He said only a small percentage of people with this diagnosis have the severe problems I do. At least I live fairly close to Loyola, apparently one of the foremost research facilities on vocal cord disorders. I'll see the head of the department on April 25th.
I appreciate the prayers from all faiths. They mean alot to me. Meanwhile, the number of posts will likely go up, as the computer room in the basement remains the best place for me to breathe for some reason.
I'll let folks know the latest as it happens, both personally, and most especially, politically and culturally.
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
What started with the book Men in Black by Mark Levine reached a turning point with the arrogance of the Judiciary over Terri Schiavo. Judicial nominations are the next big political battleground.
Thomas Jefferson warned repeatedly about the emergence of an out–of-control judiciary that would destroy the Constitution and, along with it, America's fundamental freedoms. He first became alarmed when, in 1803, the U. S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision called Marbury v. Madison. It allowed the Justices to rule on the constitutionality of every legal issue, both inside and outside the government, giving themselves unrivaled imperial power. The concept of "checks and balances" that was intended to keep one branch from eclipsing the other two was no longer in force—at least not with regard to the judiciary. Thereafter, the President, the Congress, and the will of millions of American people have been subservient to the rulings of five imperious justices, along with numerous lower court judges, who continue to issue their decrees beyond the reach of any authority.
When Jefferson recognized the full implications of the Marbury decision, he wrote this prophetic statement: "It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy." 18
BINGO! What we have today, 202 years later, is an oligarchy (rule by a small cadre of elites.) The courts simply strike down laws and policies they don't like, whether their opinions reflect the provisions of the Constitution or not. Furthermore, the activist judges and those who support them have turned the Constitution into what they call "a living, breathing document," in which its actual words no longer mean what they say. The Constitution "evolves," they tell us, to fit the biases of the court. Consequently, we no longer have a government "of the people, by the people and for the people," as Abraham Lincoln described it at Gettysburg. It is, instead—an oligarchy.
One of the weapons you already hear the left using is to caution against violence. The idea is that somehow, by criticizing judges in any way, they will be more open to threats of bodily harm. Judges make hard decisions, many times against the worst criminals our society can create. They are already threatened by these creeps. To somehow move that to the idea that any criticism leaves judges open to violence is a stretch, and smacks of manipulation. It reminds me of the Left's attempt to capitalize on the Oklahoma City Bombing by somehow linking it to conservative talk radio. Didn't work then. Won't work now.
Sunday, April 03, 2005
By that definition, modern journalism most certainly needs a good dose of ritalin.
Terri Schiavo is not yet buried; sorry, cremated, per her "husband's" wishes, and the MSM has already turned it's full hyper-focused attention to the death of John Paul II. I think it's worth taking a breath, and thinking about the past two weeks. Two weeks of waiting for a woman to die of dehydration and starvation, in the full glare of the cameras, despite many questions about her mental abilities, and her "husband's" motives in wanting her dead.
I think John Paul II would grieve were Terri's death to be completely overshadowed by his own.
And once the Cold War was won, the man set his face against the creeping liberalism threatening his Church:
We had our own disagreements with this pope, notably over America's efforts in Iraq in two wars. But even in disagreement we have always understood that this pope was no schizophrenic. It is possible, as many who otherwise admire him do, to disagree with Pope John Paul's teachings on marriage and homosexuality, on abortion, and so on. But it is impossible to understand him without conceding the coherency of his argument: that the attempt to liberate oneself from one's nature is the road to enslavement, not freedom.
In progressive circles in the West, religion in general and Christianity in particular tend to find themselves caricatured as a series of Thou Shalt Nots, particularly when they touch on human sexuality. But it is no coincidence that George Weigel entitled his biography of John Paul "Witness to Hope." For billions of people around the world--non-Catholics included--that's exactly what he was. Perhaps this explains why China, where only a tiny fraction of its people are Catholic, remained to the very end fearful of allowing a visit from this frail, physically suffering man, fearing what he might inspire.
We don't expect the secularalists who dominate our intelligentsia ever to understand how a man rooted in orthodox Christianity could ever reconcile himself with modernity, much less establish himself on the vanguard of world history. But many years ago, when the same question was put to France's Cardinal Lustiger by a reporter, he gave the answer. "You're confusing a modern man with an American liberal," the cardinal replied. It was a confusion that Pope John Paul II, may he rest in peace, never made.
I suspect the iron rulers of China remains fearful of this man's influence, even in death. He represents freedom for millions, both Catholic and non-Catholic. Many of us have disagreements with the Church. Few can disagree with the mpact this man's life has had on the world. He will be greatly missed.
Never did believe the polls saying Americans wanted her dead:
The Zogby poll found that, if a person becomes incapacitated and has not expressed their preference for medical treatment, as in Terri's case, 43 percent say "the law presume that the person wants to live, even if the person is receiving food and water through a tube" while just 30 percent disagree.
Another Zogby question his directly on Terri's circumstances.
"If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water," the poll asked.
A whopping 79 percent said the patient should not have food and water taken away while just 9 percent said yes
The questions asked by the other polls smacked of push polls, desperately wanting a predetermined result. The above questions describes the true state Terri Schiavo was in when the feeding tube was pulled. How sad that this poll will be buried in the media's all consuming attention on another death.
Friday, April 01, 2005
WASHINGTON - Sandy Berger, who was President Clinton’s top national security aide, pleaded guilty Friday to taking classified documents from the National Archives and cutting them up with scissors.
Rather than the “honest mistake” he described last summer, Berger acknowledged to U.S. Magistrate Deborah Robinson that he intentionally took and deliberately destroyed three copies of the same document dealing with terror threats during the 2000 millennium celebration
Can you imagine what would happen in the MSM if this were a former Republican National Security Advisor stealing, then destroying classified documents? And don't you find it interesting that nowhere in this story is there information on what specifically was on those documents he cut up. Guess journalistic curiosity only extends so far...