Thursday, May 26, 2005

Law and Order, CI you just lost one viewer

Mark my words people. I will never watch Law and Order: Criminal Intent ever again. Not ever. I was disgusted last night while watching the season finale of Law and Order:CI as Detective Eames, played by Katherine Erbe suggested that their investigation looking into the murders of two judges should focus on looking for someone wearing a "Tom Delay" t-shirt. A few seconds after this, the detectives on the show, said that the white supremacist that shot the second judge targeted the wrong man, since this judge was so conservative. At that point I turned off the televison and said, "I am done with this show."

Attempting to tie white supremacist and neo-nazi's to mainstream conservatives is like calling Joseph Stalin a Democrat. Just because one is conservative, and a Constructionist does not make him or her a racist. Just because a white supremacist uses the same constitutional arguments to defend his rights (to be a wack job) as a conservative, does not put him in league with conservatives.

But, as I write this I remember that Liberals think that (in their own mind)their view is the morally elevated view and that all those that oppose them are not just wrong, but immoral. Because I do not think that the use of racial quota's as a form of affirmative action is wrong, I am a racist. Because I believe that abortion as a form of birth control is morally reprehensible I am a sexist. Because I believe in an individuals right to bear arms (a right protected by the Bill of Rights), I am instantly lumped in with Michigan militia types who stockpile weapons.

There is no point in even trying to defend such arguments. First because liberals believe what they think that they will never be convinced otherwise. Second, because the arguments are absurd.

I have always been a Law and Order fan. In fact, Law and Order shows are just about the only shows that I watch on television anymore. Well now I have one more hour in my week to read Anne Coulter or Mark Levine. Law and Order:CI, I am sorry that I ever wasted time watching your ridiculous show.

Wednesday, May 25, 2005

The Truth about the "Nuclear Option" and Filibusters

Now that a compromise has been reached and once again Senate Republicans have proven that they have neither the backbone or gumption to stand up to a fight, let me tell you briefly about how detrimental to the Constitution the "nuclear option" would have been to the country.

In two words; not detrimental at all. The Senate has the ability to change their own rules. Furthermore the use of the filibuster is prohibited in some instances already. Omnibus legislation, such as the federal budget, are not allowed to be filibustered under current Senate rules. Do the rights of the minority mean any less when an omnibus bill has legislation included in it that they oppose? Of course not. Yet, those who oppose the ending of judicial filibuster say that the rights of the minority would be trampled if the Senate were to change the rules. This is simply hogwash.

Remember that no judicial nominee has EVER been filibustered in the history of the Senate that had Majority support. NOT ONE. Yet democrats in the Senate would like you to think otherwise. They often bring up the nomination of Abe Fortas to succeed Earl Warren as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as an example of Republicans filibustering Democratic nominees. First, this amounts to democrats childishly pointing at republicans and saying "See, They did it too." Second, this filibuster was about a sitting Supreme being elevated to Chief Justice. Fortas lacked bipartisan and barely had majority support. A filibuster defeated his nomination, but not to the court. Fortas's nomination was filibustered because there were ethical questions that were brought out during his confirmation hearing before the judiciary committee. The reasons for the filibuster of his nomination were not rooted in partisan politics but rather real concerns about his ethics.

Janice Rogers Brown and the other nominations to the circuit court have been filibustered for years simply because their ideological view did not match those on their left who think that their anointed view is the only correct view in America.

Democrats have accused Republicans of abusing power, yet Dems themselves are the ones who are guilty of abusing power. They have consistently thwarted the will of the people, shirked their "Advise and Consent" responsibility and have acted like the party in the Oval Office when it comes to judicial nominations.

Monday, May 23, 2005

To Not Filibuster

Well it looks like "centrist" members of both parties have come to an agreement and it looks like the majority party will not change the rules and remove the filibuster from the arsenal that Senate democrats currently use to help undermine the constitution and thwart the will of the people. The so-called nuclear option has been averted.

This in my opinion is still nothing more than a victory for the minority party. How can the democrats who control neither house nor the presidency. The use of the filibuster has amounted to the circumventing of the constitution by the minority party.

The Constitution of the United States of America tells us that the Senate is supposed to give "advice and consent" to Presidential appointees such as cabinet positions, ambassadors and Judges. Understand from this verbiage in the constitution and other documents that advice and consent does not mean that the minority party decides who is confirmed and who is not.

Libs always say that Republicans have done the same thing to Dem Presidents and that more than 95% of Judicial nominees have been confirmed by the Senate. This is erroneous. The democrats use of the filibuster is unprecedented. When you consider only appellate Judges President Bush has only had 67% of his nominees confirmed. President Clinton by contrast had more than 75%. But what this does not tell you is that not once did the Senate not give Clinton appointees an up-or-down vote on the floor.

Then consider the appointment of Ruth Bader-Guinsberg to the Supreme Court. If there is not a person that deserved to be rejected it was her. She, apart from being a nut, did not in my opinion possess the intellectual capacity to sit on the highest court in the land. She was confirmed with heavy bi-partisan support.

Next consider the confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas. This man was subjected to a smear campaign of unprecedented proportions. He was accused of things that if were true, should have eliminated him from consideration, yet he was still confirmed. Why? Well first because everyone who was honest with themselves knew that Thomas was telling the truth and that Anita Hill was lying. Much of this can be read at the following link.
While Democrats at the time were very much opposed to Thomas' nomination, no one even considered a filibuster. Why? Because those Senators at least respected the constitution. This group of liberals would rather use the constitution of the United States as toilet paper rather than fulfill their constitutional duty to give "advice and consent" to the president on judicial nominees.

Make no mistakes. This fight is not really over appellate court nominees, but rather it is about future Supreme Court vacancies that will most certainly occur in the next couple of years. The last thing Democrats want is Supreme Court Justices that follow the constitution rather than a so-called evolving set of standards that Justice Kennedy recently referred to in one of the Supreme Court's recent ridiculous decisions. To put it simply. Conservatives want Justices like Scalia, and Thomas; Liberals want Justices such as Kennedy and Bader-Ginsberg. Here's to hoping that Constitutionalists are nominated and confirmed and activist liberal judges are dealt a major blow to their incrimental agendas.

Monday, May 16, 2005

Pandora's Box

This weekend's Newsweek story alleging that the Holy Koran had been desecrated by interrogators at Guantanimo Bay is the latest example of News organizations institutional bias against the Bush Administration and the U.S.'s war on terror. Newsweek's haste in reporting this story has enraged Muslims worldwide and caused rioting and deaths in Afghanistan.

It turns out now that Newsweek's source cannot be proven and the magazine is now beginning to moon walk faster than Michael Jackson. Despite the fact that Newsweek is backtracking they will not print a retraction. This smacks of journalistic hubris of the highest magnitude. Newsweek and other left leaning news organizations have become so focused on bringing down a twice elected president, that they have lost sight of what they are supposed to do, help to defend the constitution by informing the people of what government is doing.

Yet because of an institutional media bias permeates the mainstream press to such a degree that I honestly believe that they do not realize their ridiculous bias against Conservatives and traditional values. They have become so blinded by their hatred of President Bush and his policies that they refuse to report stories when liberals are involved.

But what is more disturbing is that it seems that the liberal media has become so blinded by this hatred that they rush to press with any story that helps to damage the Bush Administration without first checking and confirming sources. It has been going on for years and culminated with the 60 Minutes piece about Bush's guard duty that was later discredited. And now again the liberal media is at it again with this story. While the National Guard story could have affected the election, this story has had global consequences.

But the question is whether or not a retraction will be heard by the Muslim world and be accepted as false. This story has, by the White House's own words, damaged America's image in the eyes of Muslims all over the world. Al Jezerra and other Arab news outlets reported on the original story but have not reported Newsweek's backing away from the story. Al Jezerra has basically become the propaganda arm of Al Qaida, and I doubt even if Newsweek does print a full retraction that Al Jezerra will relay that retraction to the Islamic world. But even if they did I don't think that many Muslims would believe the report.

Islamic culture has for decades fostered a general disdain and distrust of anything that comes from the West. The Islamic religion, while propped up as a religion of peace by the mainstream press, is really just the opposite. They look at Christianity not just as a sin but rather an abomination. Muslims call Christians "Infidels." Fundamentalist Muslims blamed the West for the corruption of their religion. In summary, Muslims generally hate non-believers. They consider them lesser people. So for a story to originate from the land of the infidel that purports desecration of something held so deeply sacred would understandably infuriate Muslims. A full apology and retraction (which Newsweek has yet to publish) amounts to little more than closing Pandora's Box after all sorrow had been released into the world.

Before the US just had Fundamentalist Muslims declaring Jihad, now more moderate leaders are declaring Holy War against the Infidel.

Thanks Newsweek for unraveling US foreign policy with such a well researched story.

No, there is no anti-Israel Bias at the NY Times.

Recently the New York Times published an Op-Ed of a Palestinian who describes the deplorable conditions that he says exist in Israeli prison...