June 14, 2006

Poor, Deluded Liberals Wrong Again

One of the greatest aspects of my favorite sport, politics, is watching the hardcore partisans make absolute declarations, when they have no real evidence to back up their claims. The Democrats have become absolute masters in this maneuver. They claimed we would not be able to win in Afghanistan. They said we would need thousands of bodybags if we invaded. They said we could never sponsor a stable government there. They claimed we would not be able to win in Iraq. They said we would need thousands of bodybags if we invaded. They claimed we could never sponsor a stable government there. Heck, they've claimed so many things as absolute truths that have turned out to be false, I've long since lost count. If all else fails, make up something that sounds good.
Well, it's happened again. For many months, we've heard over and over that Karl Rove was going to be indicted in the next week. Never mind that the prosecutor in the supposed CIA leak case stated early on that Rove wasn't a target of the investigation. Never mind that the prosecutor repeated on a regular basis that Rove wasn't a target of the investigation. Never mind that... Aw, heck. There was NEVER any evidence that Rove was the leaker in this case. There was only wild conjecture on the part of liberals who claimed things to be that they wanted to be, but weren't.
That's one of the reasons the Democrats are failing at this point in history. Instead of dealing with things as they really are, they deal with things as they wish they were. They wish our military was running around mass-killing innocent women, children, and babies. They wish George Bush was an idiot. They wish George Bush was a right-wing extremist. They wish Hillary Clinton was a viable candidate to win the presidency. They wish the economy was doing poorly. They wish we were losing in Iraq. They wish Karl Rove was indicted. They wish the United States was the cause of global warming. They wish the oil companies were price-gouging.
They wish all these things because they are necessary to gain the biggest thing they wish was true. They wish they were winning. They wish for all these bad things to happen. You can tell, because they're constantly claiming them to be true, when they aren't. The evidence repeatedly proves their claims wrong, but they continue to make the claims. There's a reason for this. In order for liberals to gain, America must lose.
The left has positioned themselves as the best to handle economic downturns, but not economic high-points. As a result, they rely on a poor economy for political gain. They've positioned themselves as the answer to global warming, because they want to change how the US does business as a response. If the left is to benefit politically from global warming, the US must be the cause. Likewise, with each of the above wishes, the left has positioned itself politically to benefit only under the condition that the wish is actually true.
As it turns out, the evidence has shown that Bush is probably smarter than both Gore and Kerry, and I'd guess Hillary, too. Turns out we're also winning in Iraq, that both Afghanistan and Iraq have built stable governments, our economy is doing very well, the oil companies are raising and lowering prices in conjunction with the crude oil price, and our soldiers in Iraq are doing a good, decent job. As for Global Warming, the only major scientific communities in which there is absolute belief that mankind (primarily the United States) is causing it are Hollywood liberals and Al Gore.
Oh yeah, and Karl Rove didn't get indicted. Wrong again.

Posted by Lockjaw at 6:05 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 11, 2006

Hiatus Break - Immigration Edition

Immigration has been a huge issue for some time now. At first, I thought it was moderately entertaining, but as it has drawn out, it's just gotten boring. The House has passed some real reforms, if imperfect. The Senate has done everything they can to destroy those reforms. In fact, the Senate made their whole bill unconstitutiional by ignoring some basic, elementary-school constitutional law.

Anybody here who didn't know that revenue-generating bills must start in the House of Representatives, stand up. You folks should find a pocket copy of the Constitution and do some studying.

I think it is time for some real reforms. Here's my proposition.

That's my idea. I think it would work.

Posted by Lockjaw at 7:03 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 8, 2006

Domestic Spying? Terrorist Surveillance?

I continue to be entertained by the whole non-issue of the NSA listening in on conversations between known terrorists and others. There have been a lot of lies told about this program, including the big lie that this is a program to spy on Americans. Of course, anyone who has bothered to find out any truth in the issue knows that this isn't a program designed to spy on the average law-abiding American. This doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of ignorant people who are being fooled by the lies told about the program on a daily basis by the Democrats and their ilk, though.

Personally, I think the whole thing is funny. When I grew up, it was a common belief that you could have your phone calls eavesdropped upon. We believed that EVERY phone call between a phone in the US and a phone overseas was listened to. It wasn't a matter of whether we liked it or not, but whether it allowed the US to catch spies before they could do damage.

Now, though, I'm discovering that our beliefs may not have been the case. It never bothered me that overseas communications might be listened to. Why, then, should I get upset about a program existing that only listens to phone calls between phone numbers of known terrorists and others in the US? I'm having some real trouble figuring that out.

Don't get me wrong. I'm very much in favor of protecting human rights. Civil liberties are an important part of our society, and what makes our country great. There is not, however, a stated protection of privacy in our Constitution. Eavesdropping on terrorist communications does not qualify as an "unreasonable" search. There IS a reason. That makes it quite reasonable.

I don't spend a lot of time wondering, though, why the left in this country is so willing to lie about an important anti-terrorism tool such as this. They're not trying to protect anyone's rights. They're trying to find a way to regain the power they've lost in our government to the Republican Party. That's all this is, or ever has been.

Posted by Lockjaw at 8:14 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 2, 2006

It's a Wonderful Day

I know I'm a day late, but I just want to say how happy I am about two particular Tuesday events.

1. Sandra Day O'Connor is no longer a Supreme Court Justice, playing the wishy-washy middle.

2. The humorless, annoying, and more boring than ever Democratic Party has put aside all pretense of being the party of any sort of ideas, embracing obstruction and making sure that they demonstrate it publicly. Their childish behavior in the State of the Union Address was put on display for all to see, and we can no longer try to excuse it away by saying that they're just standing up for what they believe in. What they've proven is that they believe in nothing enough to try to advance it. They've grabbed the sash labelled "Obstructionist" and are wearing it like a fat, ugly teenage girl who thinks she'll be Miss America someday.

Ah, bliss.

Posted by Lockjaw at 8:28 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 6, 2005

Dean Says US Won't Win In Iraq

Seemingly intent on destroying the Democrats from inside, Howard Dean is off running his mouth again. This time, he says that the US will not win in Iraq.

"I've seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam. Everybody then kept saying, 'just another year, just stay the course, we'll have a victory.' Well, we didn't have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening."

Of course, this ignores some simple facts about Vietnam, as well. We WERE winning in Vietnam. Once we reached a point where US forces could be pulled out, because the South Vietnamese forces were capable of winning with only our financial help, we came home. Soon after, the Democrats in Congress removed the support for South Vietnam, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. They had so much political capital invested in the idea that we were losing that they had to take moves to ensure we lost.

That's where we are in Iraq. The left has so much political capital invested in the idea that Iraq is a failure that they cannot acknowledge the successes, and must ensure that the US does not succeed. They were wrong about our chances for success in Afghanistan. They were wrong about the number of bodybags needed there. They were wrong about the successful creations of a constitution and government. They were wrong about the timeline in the Iraq invasion. They were wrong about the death toll in the Iraq invasion. They were wrong about the timeline for the creation of a constitution in Iraq. They were wrong about the creation of a government in Iraq. They were wrong about whether the Iraqis could carry out a vote. They were wrong about the rebuilding of schools, hospitals, police stations, and communities. They were wrong about the rebuilding of the Iraqi Army. They're constantly wrong about the support in Iraq for the actions the US has taken.

If they have gone all this time, and spent all this political capital on the idea that we're losing a war we've already won, and then we go and succeed in the rebuilding process as well, somebody might just notice. That's why it is vitally important that the left, and the Democrats in particular, succeed in defeating the United States in time of war. They've invested their own success in their country's defeat. Sadly, the goals of the Democrats and the United States are at odds like never before in the history of our country.

Michael Reagan calls Dean's words treasonous. I agree, but if the government under George Bush won't prosecute treason in the cases of people who actually went to Iraq to serve as human shields at strategic targets, then I have no faith it will prosecute Dean. I don't even think Dean's speech SHOULD be prosecuted, mind you, but the chances are nil.

Dean is counting on Bush being weak in his response to this statement. That's because Bush has a history of weak responses. That doesn't make Dean right in any sense. He's not right factually, morally, ethically, or at all.

He's also counting on his supporters being too ignorant to know he's lying. On that, he's been proven correct many times.

Posted by Lockjaw at 5:29 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

November 8, 2005

David Limbaugh on Liberal Orthodoxy

What do liberals believe? That's become a hard question to answer. Gone are the days when you could easily name what liberals believe in. Once, you could say they believed in specific issues. Now, though, they've taken on a particularly weird orthodoxy that has little in common with their old ways. In his latest column, David Limbaugh describes the current belief system of the left in no uncertain terms. He does a great job of laying out their statements against the truth. Information like this contributed greatly to my turn away from liberalism a decade ago. If only the current batch of liberals could follow a logical thought process, they might still be able to turn away from the dark side.

Posted by Lockjaw at 9:40 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 6, 2005

Bill Clinton Says Hillary Would Be Better Prez Than He

Bill Clinton says that Hillary would be a better President than he was. That's a pretty hard statement to argue with. It would be hard to be a WORSE President than Clinton was, though it has been known to happen before.

Clinton goes on to say that he was too young to be a good President.

"I think she wouldn't make as many mistakes because, you know, we're older and more mature, and she is far more experienced now in all the relevant ways than I was when I took office."

The big question, though, is if Hillary Clinton would run for President promising a co-presidency, like she did when Bill ran. Somehow I think not. Before, she made sure to let us all know who was boss of that family. Now, it's established as fact.

Posted by Lockjaw at 8:04 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 1, 2005

Alito Nomination Showdown Begins

Nearly 24 hours after news of the Alito nomination emerged, we've had a little time to see what the reaction is going to be. As usual, the Democrats fail to offer the same respect and deference to the President's nomination that the Republicans gave to Democrat presidents. When a Democrat president nominates someone for a judgeship, even a SCOTUS appointment, Republicans will point out differences, but in the end recognize that the President is the one tasked with making the choice. When Republicans presidents nominate, Democrats insist that they should consult with them so they can get who THEY want instead of who the President wants.

That's why, in the final Senate vote, Democrat nominees get virtually unanimous support, while Republican nominees have to worry about the vote count. The Constitution says that a SCOTUS appointment is the President's job to make, and the Democrats don't care about the Constitution. Is that a strong statement? Yes it is, but history supports it. Check the count.

John Roberts, nominated by a Republican 78-22
Steven Breyer, nominated by a Democrat 87-9
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, nominated by a Democrat 96-3
Clarence Thomas, nominated by a Republican 52-48
David Souter, nominated by a Republican but considered "acceptable" by the Democrats 90-9

In fact, as you go back down the list, Democrats get to have their nominations virtually without a fight, but Republicans have to nominate someone acceptable to the Democrats or expect a battle. That the Democrats allowed Scalia to get on the bench with a unanimous vote is less a sign of comity than it is a sign that Democrats just aren't all that bright.

So, here we are again. The President has made his nomination. The Senate now gets their chance to take part in the advice and consent phase. The Senate should be concerned with how Alito interprets the Constitution of the United States of America, the controlling law of the land. The Democrats, though, have one thing they care about more than the Constitution. Abortion will be the single most important issue in this nomination fight.

Looking back at the nomination history, it becomes clear why SCOTUS fights have become so much more heated in recent years. Until Reagan, the Democrats were winning the abortion issue. If you want to kill your baby, you can do so right up until it sees light outside the womb. Heck, the Democrats have actually fought to allow the baby to be killed after it has seen light outside the womb, but that fight hasn't been won yet. Nixon didn't have to worry about the abortion issue, because his nominations were pre-Roe. Ford didn't have to worry, because he wasn't pushing the issue of protecting the children from Democrats.

It really wasn't until Reagan came along, and the Republicans realized that their political power was truly on the rise that the abortion fight became important. The left, energized by their defeat of America in Vietnam, thought that they should be the winners in politics, as well. Reagan's whipping of Carter at the polls was demoralizing, so the Democrats became hateful. Abortion, they argued, should be made legal retroactively in the cases of Reagan and Jesse Helms.

Once the left realized that a successful, popular, Republican president had the power to shift the makeup of the Supreme Court enough to possibly overturn Roe-v-Wade, they went nuts. Opposition to nominations became the battle for which they prepared every day. Roe-v-Wade became the most important issue in the nation, to the left. As liberalism turned from political viewpoint to religion, abortion became the child sacrifice and liberal senators the high priests.

So, here we are. Another nomination has rolled around. This time, the nominee is clearly anti-murder. You'd think that would be a good thing, except that the left refuses to recognize the snuffing out of a human life as murder if it just happens to be a baby in ANY pre-birth state. Because Alito is anti-murder, specifically in the case of the unborn child, Democrats will oppose him to the end. It's their way. Their faith is in danger.

Here's the funny thing about it all. If Roe-v-Wade was overturned today, abortion would still be legal tomorrow. That's how meaningless this fight is. Of course, meaningless means without meaning. That pretty much sums up the modern Democrat Party in a nutshell.

Meaningless.

Posted by Lockjaw at 5:07 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 30, 2005

DeLay is Indicted - Will it Stand?

So, Tom Delay has finally been indicted in this long, drawn out, political case in Texas. My question is, will this indictment go away like so many other politically motivated actions by this same prosecutor have before? Will the prosecutor offer to drop the charges in exchange for contributions to his political activism as he has done with other charges related to this case? Will the charges be dropped by a judge due to lack of evidence?

Perhaps, this time, the charges will stick.

We'll see.

Posted by Lockjaw at 9:51 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 15, 2005

Hitchens on Sheehan

My favorite liberal columnist, Christopher Hitchens, has written another great column. This time, he's taking on nitwit exploiter Cindy Sheehan and verbose boor Maureen Dowd. It's a good read, as usual.

"There are, in fact, some principles involved here. Any citizen has the right to petition the president for redress of grievance, or for that matter to insult him to his face. But the potential number of such people is very large, and you don't have the right to cut in line by having so much free time that you can set up camp near his drive. Then there is the question of civilian control over the military, which is an authority that one could indeed say should be absolute. The military and its relatives have no extra claim on the chief executive's ear. Indeed, it might be said that they have less claim than the rest of us, since they have voluntarily sworn an oath to obey and carry out orders."
"Finally, I think one must deny to anyone the right to ventriloquize the dead. Casey Sheehan joined up as a responsible adult volunteer. Are we so sure that he would have wanted to see his mother acquiring "a knack for P.R." and announcing that he was killed in a war for a Jewish cabal? This is just as objectionable, on logical as well as moral grounds, as the old pro-war argument that the dead "must not have died in vain." I distrust anyone who claims to speak for the fallen, and I distrust even more the hysterical noncombatants who exploit the grief of those who have to bury them."

Posted by Lockjaw at 8:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Christine Sheehan Parrots Osama & Co.

Christine Sheehan, media darling of the moment, is just the latest
"useful idiot" on the left that is fighting on the side of Al Qaeda
and other terrorists. In words that could have just as easily been
said by Osama bin Laden himself, Sheehan said, "You get America out of
Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism."

Whose side is she on?

Hat tip Drudge.

Posted by Lockjaw at 5:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 5, 2005

Liberals Promised to Run to Canada - Then Didn't

Leading up to the 2004 elections, there was a lot of loose talk among liberals about leaving the country for Canada if Bush won. What is it about liberals that makes them want to run to Canada when there's a fight, anyway? As it turns out, the loose talk was exactly that. Faced with the prospect of actually having to get off their butts and move to Canada, those loudmouths decided that America might not be such a bad place to live. American applications to live in Canada, instead of going up after the election, actually went DOWN by a decent amount.

Those liberals are better off for staying, too. Our economy continues to improve, and they aren't forced into the substandard Canadian health-care system. Lucky them.

Posted by Lockjaw at 3:48 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 13, 2005

The Most Important Karl Rove Question

Now that "the source" of the Valerie Plame leak has been discovered in Karl Rove, everything should be clear, right?

So, why is Judith Miller in jail for not revealing Karl Rove's name? Could it be that Karl Rove isn't "the source?"

This question would get in the way of the partisan attacks from the left, so you won't see it being asked by them. It should be asked.

Posted by Lockjaw at 6:45 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 12, 2005

Democrat Neck-Stretching Over Rove

It is very interesting to watch so many representatives of the Democratic Party trying to make a scandal out of Karl Rove and the Valerie Plame affair. Every time they think they have an issue, they race to see who can stick their necks out the furthest. This time is no different.

The only detail we KNOW about Rove and the whole story is that he agreed to be an anonymous background source, and provided approximately two minutes of discussion. That's not much. In fact, that's not very much at all. A background source is not a primary source. Primary sources are where information is gained. Background sources are usually presented with information by the reporter, and asked for verification of previously gained data. With a whole two minutes of discussion, there couldn't have been an awful lot of verification going on.

Let's put that aside, though. That doesn't discount the possibility that Rove might have leaked Plame's name. Who else might have leaked her name? Here we have an ambassador's wife and CIA employee who hadn't actually been undercover for years. They went to the right parties and knew all the right people. Is it unreasonable to consider that Karl Rove might not be the only person who knew this story?

That's the problem. We're still in a period of great doubt on this issue. Since the investigation is being handled at a Grand Jury level, it is illegal for any information about the investigation to be made public. This allows enemies of the President to attack relentlessly, absent any real, valuable evidence, without fear of contradiction.

The truth will come out. Maybe it will incriminate Rove, and maybe it will not. We'll see. Unfortunately, some are willing to convict before the evidence is in. How "progressive" of them.

Posted by Lockjaw at 1:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 11, 2005

Obama on Democrat Core Values

This is one of those things that, if a Republican said it of the Democrats, would be villified. That's because it's true. Democrat Senator Barack Obama, D-Ill., has joined the list of people who have pointed out that Democrats lack core values from which they draw their beliefs.

"The Democrats at times have lost their way," conceded Obama. "We are trying to decide what our core values are."

This is something I've tried to point out since I left the Democrat Party a decade ago. Democrats have lost their way, not because the Republicans are better at swaying voters, but because they themselves have ceased to draw on basic, core values as the foundation for their beliefs. It really is that simple. It's gotten even worse than that, though. Now, to look for real core values is to risk being on the same side as Republicans on major issues, and that can get in the way of opposing Republicans for everything they stand for. When you have defined yourself as a party by your opposition and hatred of the other side, it is hard to explain how you can agree on major issues at the same time.

As long as the Democratic Party defines its beliefs against those of the Republicans, they will continue to lose ground. It's what they deserve. If, though, the Democrats could honestly face the issues on the merits of the issues themselves, they could possibly work themselves back into majority status. Right now, they're at least 12 years out from any real change, because of the dynamics of the political system.

It's sad, really.

Posted by Lockjaw at 12:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 23, 2005

Karl Rove Tells the Truth - Democrats Angry

Karl Rove told the truth about how the left responded to the 9/11 attacks and now the left is up in arms.

"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," Mr. Rove, the senior political adviser to President Bush, said at a fund-raiser in Midtown for the Conservative Party of New York State.

Remember, it's only controversial because it's true.

Posted by Lockjaw at 1:01 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Durbin's Motivations

Why did Dick Durbin say what he said? Was it because he truly believed it to be true, or was it because he was willing to say whatever it took to hurt George W. Bush? Since the substance of his statement (equating the Guantanamo Bay facilities to the murder-factories of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot) was false, the question is an important one. You see, if Durbin only wanted to hurt George W. Bush and was willing to say something he knew to be untrue, he's too much of a corrupt liar to be allowed to stay in office. If, however, he truly believes that what he said was true, then he's too stupid to hold the office in the first place.

Personally, I believe it is a combination of the two. Durbin is just one member of a vast nationwide organization that has a long history of siding with enemies of America. In times of war, this organization has regularly given aid and comfort to the enemy both home and abroad. The organization I speak of is the Democrat Party.

During the cold war, the Democrats opposed any moves that were designed to give America a position of superiority. When Reagan took steps that helped lead to the end of the cold war (an end where America and the free world WON), the Democrats fought tooth and nail (or as close to tooth and nail as the pantywaists can) to stop Reagan.

Vietnam was an odd situation. Democrats started the war. Democrats escalated the war. Democrats used the draft as a means to staff the military with the bodies needed to fight. Then, Democrats opposed the war and took steps in Congress to pull the rug out from under our military forces who were finally able to take steps that had them WINNING the war. As long as we were stuck in a quagmire, Democrats were pushing the war. When a Republican took over, he ended the draft and started actually winning the war, so the Democrats sided with the enemy and gave the war away. John Kerry actually met with the enemy, and he wasn't alone in doing so.

We're used to all of this. We're used to watching the Democrats oppose America. We're used to watching the Democrats give aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war. That Dick Durbin is doing it again really isn't much of a surprise.

So, I ask again. Is Dick Durbin making these statements, statements which exist as aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war, because he really believes them, or because they're designed to hurt America?

The answer really matters.

Posted by Lockjaw at 6:28 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 22, 2005

Durbin Should Resign

Dick "Turban" Durbin has apologized. Not good enough. If Trent Lott has to step down from a Senate leadership position for making a not-very-well-thought-out joke at a party celebrating an old man with a checkered past, then Durbin should step down from his leadership position too. Where Lott's mistake was not considering all the facets of his joking compliment toward Strom Thurmond. He owned up to it and did what needed to be done. Durbin, however, KNEW what he was saying was controversial, and tried to play it off as something it wasn't for days before succumbing to pressure and tearfully apologizing.

Lott apologized FOUR TIMES before resigning. That sounds fine. Durbin should apologize three more times and quit his leadership post.

Also, will someone PLEASE kick John McCain in the balls?

Posted by Lockjaw at 5:48 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

June 17, 2005

"Big Time!"

A big ol' hat tip to Michelle Malkin for this one.

'Vice President Dick Cheney appeared this morning on Steve Gill Mornings in Nashville, Tennessee and was asked about Dick Durbin's comparison of U.S. troops at Guantanamo Bay to Nazis. The Vice President noted that he had to be "careful about what I say since this is a family show" but that the "comparison is one of the more egregious things I've heard on the floor of the U.S. Senate."'

Comparisons to Adam Clymer are appropriate, Mr. Cheney.

Posted by Lockjaw at 4:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 9, 2005

John K. Connects the Dots

"[The Republican Party Is] pretty much a white Christian party"
--Howard Dean
"I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for."
--Howard Dean

John K pointed out the link between these two quotes. The obvious extrapolation is that he hates Christians. The slightly less obvious extrapolation is that he hates everything that Christianity stands for.

Let's see. The Bible teaches that child sacrifice is bad. At least that part of the equasion holds up.

You know, if I were a Republican, I think I might be offended. As a Christian, I know that I can't expect better from an antichrist.

Posted by Lockjaw at 6:43 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 7, 2005

My take on the Supreme Court's Raich Decision

I'm going to stick my nose out and say that the Supreme Court did exactly what they should have done in the Raich decision. In deciding that federal law supercedes state law in determining whether medicinal marijuana can be allowed, there was no other that the US Supreme Court could have made.

That said, I think the outcome is wrong. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that the medicinal use of marijuana can be not only valuable in many cases, but outright life-saving in some, as well. When your life-saving medicines make you vomit, and are regurgitated along with the bile, they can't save your life. If marijuana allows you to NOT vomit, and thus keep your other medicines in your system where they can work, then marijuana is a life-saving drug. It's that simple. This is but one of the medical benefits of this drug.

Not only that, but there is nothing in the US Constitution that says that the United States government has any powers over the practice of medicine. ANY involvement in medical practice, be it licensing of doctors, approval of drugs, accreditation of medical schools or weeding out the quacks is contrary to the powers invested in our federal government.

The commerce clause, if used in this manner, is a wholesale abuse of powers by the federal government. Clarence Thomas was right in his criticism of this decision on these grounds. By simply having a market effect on other items which are subject to interstate commerce, medical marijuana was limited. This limitation was approved by the US Supreme Court.

Of course, I did say that the Supreme Court did what they should have done, didn't I? That's because the Supreme Court doesn't just make decisions in a vacuum. They look at cases in regards to the US Constitution, sure, but also as they relate to previous case law. Previous case law has been strengthening the powers of the US government to abuse the commerce clause for decades. The platform for this horrible decision was made one step at a time, in case after case. Rare is the case that protects us from this abuse.

All along, I've had a pretty good idea of what would happen in this case. I knew that the federal government SHOULD lose on constitutional grounds. I knew that the federal government should lose because this case was only brought forth as a means to prove that they could do what they wanted when it came to medical marijuana. I knew that the federal government should lose because for them to win will mean the loss of innocent human life. I knew the government would win, simple because the grounds for it have been built by case law.

This whole story, as it has unfolded, has included the loss of life. Author Peter McWilliams is a victim of the federal government's willingness to prove a point and exercise its power. He sufferred from AIDS and Cancer, both of which were under control in major part because of his use of medical marijuana. His arrest took away his ability to use this life-saving drug, and then it took his life.

Interesting that the dissent in this case came from the "right wing." They tried to do the right thing, but the concept of state's rights isn't something that too many members of the court care to consider, even when it is supported by the constitution and could save lives.

Posted by Lockjaw at 7:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 24, 2005

John Kerry Signed the SF-180?

Months after saying he had released ALL of his military records during his failed Presidential campaign, and over 100 days after promising to do so during an interview with Tim Russert, John Kerry has stated that he has signed the SF-180 form. The SF-180 is the form that would allow public access to all of John Kerry's military records, and shed light on many of the questions about his military service that have been raised but insufficiently answered.

Of course, it isn't quite that simple. According to Kerry, "I have signed it." He also adds that his staff is "still going through it" and ''very, very shortly, you will have a chance to see it." He also points out that he hasn't actually submitted the form to the Navy.

So, he's signed the form. His staff is still going through it. What, exactly, is his staff going through? Are they going through the form? If so, and he needs to verify information in the form, then why has he signed it? Are they going through the information that the Navy will release? If so, are they going to decide to not submit the form if they find something incriminating? What, exactly, is it that we will "have a chance to see?" Do we get to look at a copy of the form? Will we get to see a full release of his military records?

As is normally the case with John Kerry, nothing is very clear about what he's saying. You fill out the form, sign it, and submit it. The Navy releases the information. Why the fuzziness?

Thanks to Decision '08 for the link. D08 has turned out to be a great blog to follow for politics.

Posted by Lockjaw at 9:32 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 13, 2005

Border Patrol and the Minutemen

In today's Washington Times is a report that US Border Patrol agents in the Tuscon Arizona area have been instructed by their superiors to make sure that arrests do not increase after the Minutemen protesters/neighborhood watch leaves the area. The Minutemen, though often misdescribed by pro-illegal-immigrant advocates, simply watched the border for illegal entries, contacting the Border Patrol if they found encroachment. As a result, potential illegal immigrants reportedly waited until they left, or moved to other areas of the border to cross.

Now that the Minutemen have left their posts, attempted crossings are expected to increase. This would, normally, result in an increase in arrests. Apparently, any increase in arrests would show that the Minutemen were successful. More than a dozen agents who patrol this area told the Times that orders were relayed to them that arrests were "not to go up."

What I don't understand is why the Border Patrol has been so vehemently opposed to the Minutemen. In my opinion, they should be forming a Border Patrol Volunteer Reserve that would do exactly what the Minutemen have been doing. Build them a bunch of lifeguard towers along the border, and let them sit in the towers and report illegal entries to "the professionals" by cellphone.

It would work.

Undoubtedly, the Democratic Party would oppose it.

Posted by Lockjaw at 7:18 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

May 7, 2005

Rusty Humphries Slams Liberal Situational Ethics

Over at TownHall, Rusty Humphries has laid out one of the best explanations of liberal actions I've seen in a while.

Liberals don't care about judges. They don't care about Senate rules. They don't care about people, constitutional principle or precedent - and they especially don’t care about you. They only care about emotion, power and secular socialist policies. As they say, if it walks like a duck...

Posted by Lockjaw at 7:23 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 4, 2005

Dennis Kucinich -vs- Howard Dean

Howard Dean, continuing his promised tour of "Red States," gave a speech in Minnesota. As part of the speech, Dean said, "The president has created an enormous security problem for the United States where none existed before. But I hope the president is incredibly successful with his policy now that he's there."

This prompted Dennis Kucinich to write an open letter to Howard Dean. In it, he asks, "Did these words really come from the same man who claimed to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, and who had recently campaigned on the antiwar theme? What's changed?"

"Perhaps you now believe that an electoral victory for Democrats in 2006 and beyond requires sweeping this war under the rug. If so, you are only the latest in a long line of recent Democratic leaders who chose a strategy of letting "no light show" between Democrats and the President on the war. Emphasize the economy, instead, they advised, in 2002 and again in 2004."

Fun, fun, FUN! There's nothing like watching the Democrats fight amongst themselves. They've gotten so used to being in the majority, with the ability to guide the debate, that they just can't handle things as the minority party. The focused front they've kept up against the Republicans is showing more signs of fracturing. Having these two has-beens going at it in public wouldn't be half as much fun if Dean hadn't elevated himself to the status of "Former Has-Been" as Chairman of the DNC.

This isn't the end, either. More fractures are showing all the time. I'm looking forward to the 2006 election cycle.

Posted by Lockjaw at 10:39 AM | TrackBack

April 29, 2005

Liberals - Underlying Psychological Problems?

Do liberals have some sort of underlying psychological condition that causes them to be liberals? I know this sounds like a "trolling" statement, but I think it bears examining. There's more going on than mere political discourse. There's a lot more.

The problem is that liberals are all over the place. They'll support one thing, only to oppose it when the Republicans start to support it on their own. Social Security reform and the filibuster are two great examples. Can they be both for and against an issue? Yes and no. They aren't really for or against ANY issue. They're FOR the liberals/Democrats, and against the conservatives/Republicans. This allows them to say things that aren't true, and act like they believe them.

In the end, though, we have to ask ourselves if what they are saying IS true. If it isn't, and they continue to support it, then the next question is WHY they support it. Do they really believe what they say, or do they just say it out of political expediency?

If it's just political expediency, then they're liars. If they really believe it, I'd argue that they're crazy.

Posted by Lockjaw at 7:23 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

April 28, 2005

Ann Coulter Addressed Filibuster - Liberals Call Her a Man

The new Ann Coulter column is out. This time, she addressed the Democrat filibuster of conservative judges, pointing out an important detail. The detail that she points out is that the Democrats aren't pointing out the details.

"But their actual objections to Brown are somewhat opaque. The Web page of 'People for a Small Slice of the Upper West Side Way' contains a lengthy diatribe on Brown's nightmarish extremism while managing never, ever to give one specific example. In fact, if you take out 'Janice Rogers Brown' and replace it with 'Tom DeLay,' it makes just as much sense when you read it."

...

"Conservatives never attack liberal judges this way. We simply say: He found the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional ... He found a right to gay marriage in a state constitution written in 1780 by John Adams ... He ruled that smelly homeless people have a constitutional right to stink up public libraries and scare patrons ... He excluded 80 pounds of cocaine found in the defendant's car on the grounds that it was reasonable to run from the police when the police are viewed as 'corrupt, violent and abusive.'"

Liberals respond by calling Coulter a man.

Posted by Lockjaw at 7:00 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

April 25, 2005

Hollywood Helping Democrats Lose?

An analyis by the Progressive Policy Institute is telling Democrats that they're losing support from families, and Hollywood is one major cause. This Washington Times Story tells how PPI has informed Democrats that they should paye attention to "morally corrosive forces in the culture," and warns that the party will not fare better with this pivotal voting bloc until they do. Give it a read.

I'm inclined to agree. When prominent members of liberal Hollywood get up on stage at a political event to support Democrats and start making comparisons to sexual organs, cursing outrageously, and generally displaying a complete lack of moral code, parents notice. They notice actions that they don't want their kids to see, and they notice who is sponsoring the activity.

Looking at what many of these same people are doing when they're NOT involved in politics causes parents to notice when they DO get involved. Remember the day when you wouldn't hear references to fecal matter on TV? That changed to hearing a *bleep* when the word was used. Then, L.A. Law was allowed to use God's name in vain. Next thing you know, you're hearing sh*bleep* which has given way to today's sh*blip*t. Once upon a time, the word was banned from TV. Now, only one letter of the word is banned. My kid isn't fooled when he hears the not-quite-bleeped version, and he doesn't like it. Luckily for us, we're raising a good kid, who understands the difference between right and wrong.

The Republicans aren't exactly jumping up and down to do anything about it. Democrats, except for a select few, are vehemently opposed to doing anything about it. Hollywood, thinking itself an important and lucrative support structure for the Democrats, makes it clear that nothing SHOULD be done about it.

Will the Democrats bite the hand that feeds them? I doubt it.

I can point to one law that clearly paved the way for what we see on broadcast TV today. That law is the 1996 Telecommunications Act of 1996. Part of that law required the inclusion of the V-Chip into new TVs. Previously, TV broadcasters had been limited in the offensiveness that they could show, partially because of a decision of the Supreme Court. Since TV had no mechanism to show what was coming to you before it was there, offensiveness had to be kept to a low level. The V-Chip, though, changed this. Suddenly, you had a way to know how bad a TV show was. This took away any legal reason to keep the offensiveness low. Sold as a helper to parents, the V-Chip was the downfall of polite TV.

I wasn't a lone voice in the wilderness back in 1996, when I was writing letters to my Senators and Congressman in opposition to the V-Chip provision, for this very reason. As it turns out, though, I was right.

Hollywood isn't stopping its antics anytime soon. In 2008, they'll be back on stage at Democratic fundraisers, insulting more than half the population of America in the most profane way possible. Good parents will notice.

Posted by Lockjaw at 7:16 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 22, 2005

Russ Feingold for President?

Noted First Amendment opponent and Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold has made some first steps toward a possible run for President in 2008. The Wisconsin State Journal is reporting that Feingold's Senate campaign has registered the domain names www.russfeingold08.com as well as the .org and .net domains. Since he has no Senate re-election in that year, it's a good bet he's looking to other options.

There is little doubt that any decision by Feingold to run for President in 2008 will place him in a large crowd on the Democrat side of the primary. The big question is whether putting his name and political capital behind unpopular restrictions on the constitutional protections for free speech will hurt him among his own party. In the end, will it really matter if Hillary is part of the race? Is it time to start building my Election '08 Political File already?

Posted by Lockjaw at 1:48 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Dennis Prager on Pacifists

In Part 6 of his series of columns defending Judeo-Christian values, Dennis Prager lays out the following gem.

"Auschwitz was liberated by soldiers making war, not by pacifists who would have allowed the Nazis to murder every Jew in Europe."

Posted by Lockjaw at 1:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Democrats Accept Step 1

Democrats have finally dropped far enough in their political fortunes that they're willing to start the program.
Step 1.
Admit you have a problem.

Howard Dean is embarking on a quest to "rebuild the party." He's got a way to go, though. The drop in electoral success is a symptom of a greater problem. This is, however, the first time that the Democrats have been willing to admit that they aren't the majority party in the US. Maybe they'll continue the program, and not only turn around their fortunes, but also turn into a party of ideas again.

Step 2.
Come to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity

They even act like they're trying to do this one, as well. Of course, it's still the same old canard that Republicans are trying to hold a monopoly on God. One day, they'll realize that God has a monopoly on God, and that God's name shouldn't be invoked only to insult others. We'll see.

Can the Democrats walk the 12 steps and become a party of ideas again? I'm not counting on it anytime soon. I think the real sickness in the party comes at step 5.

Step 5.
We must be entirely honest with somebody if we expect to live long or happily in this world.

Will they make it this far? I'm not so sure.

Posted by Lockjaw at 1:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Democrat Nose-Holding Begins Over Dean

Last week, I posted about how Democrats, no matter who their nominee or choice is for a position, always end up holding their nose and supporting them, no matter how bad they are. The public nose-holding has begun over Dean. This morning, I heard a Democrat spokesman start his talk on the matter with, "I supported the other guy." Geraldine Ferraro, the second woman to receive an electoral vote in the United States, just started her discussion on Dean by pointing out that she supported Martin Frost. Dean, in the meantime, is announcing that he wants to push for support in the heaviest Republican states.

The only people who seem truly energized that Howard Dean is chair of the DNC are Republicans.

Posted by Lockjaw at 1:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Liberal Tells It Like It Is

I just came across an interesting entry at a blog I'd never seen before. Over at The World and Everything In It, was a post called Things and People that Make me Want to Turn Republican. The author, a "Colombian that has lived in the States for more than 8 years," is a self-professed liberal who details some of the reasons she's getting tired of the left in this country. Among them:

Posted by Lockjaw at 1:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Nose-Holding Democrats

With Howard Dean lined up to take control of the Democratic National Committee, the future of the party is up in the air for the first time in over a decade. No longer will the Clintons he the head of the party, and whether this is a good thing is another of the questions the party will have to deal with. Having Terry McAuliffe at the head wasn't one of the best choices the party ever made, but dealing with its bad choices isn't one of the Democrat Party's strong points.

Under Clinton rule, the Democrat Party followed a modified version of Reagan's 11th commandment. "Thou Shalt Always Support Fellow Democrats." This has led to a lack of questioning about whether those being supported were doing what was best for the party, and far too often, it wasn't. Those who have followed my writing for some time know that I am a former Democrat. When I first registered to vote, I did so as a Demcrat on the basis that almost all local elections were decided among Democrat candidates. If I wanted to cast a vote in those elections, I could not do so as a Republican. As I had no real knowledge of politics at that time, I saw no problem with contributing to a single-party system of government. In time, I took on a loyalty to my party choice and followed the same politics that any other MTV watching, ignorant little teenager who was inundated with liberalism would. I became a loyal, liberal, tax-them-all-and-let-the-government-sort-them-out Democrat at heart.

As a loyal Democrat, I found myself forced to support some bad choices. My first Presidential vote was for Dukakis. He was hardly a good candidate, and seemed destined to be a lackluster chief executive, but I had been taught that Reagan was as much as the antichrist by other liberals, and network television. I was also a public school student, so I got plenty of liberal indoctrination there, as well. Given a choice between a so-so candidate and the assistant to the antichrist, I had to choose the so-so candidate.

Later, I was faced with a choice between Senator Jesse Helms and Harvey Gantt. Gantt was, as far as I was concerned, a nobody former Charlotte Mayor with a spotty record and no real reason to excite anybody except that he was black. Since Helms was said to be a racist, and my side hated him, Gantt was the obvious choice. For a second time, a vote against was good enough. In retrospect, I owe my bozo roommate at the time a thanks. We had planned to drive back to our hometown to vote, but he decided to blow it off for some unimportant thing that I can't even remember anymore. I was angry, at the time, at being cost a chance to vote. Looking back, though, his typical lack of concern for anything but the moment was a good thing, because I never actually cast that vote against good ole Jesse. Gantt was the nose-holding choice for the Democrats twice, by the way.

By 1992, I was starting to turn aside from my socialist, idiot, Democrat tendencies. I was starting to look toward libertarianism more and more. I still had a general hatred for Republicans, as I had been taught for so long. I was losing my love for the Democrats, though. I went into the 1992 elections with strong considerations for voting Libertarian. In the end, though, my deeply-rooted hatred for Republicans, and George H. W. Bush were too strong. I held my nose and voted for Clinton. I didn't like it, but I did.

By 1996, I had come to regret my years wasted on liberal propoganda. I became an active Libertarian. I was, in fact, the Libertarian candidate for North Carolina's District 4 Congressional seat. No longer bound by loyalty to the Democrats, I cast my vote for Harry Browne in the presidential race, and felt good about it. That same year, I saw both Democrats and Republicans holding their own noses as they voted for their candidate. More often, though, I saw them voting against the other candidate. Neither side had much of a choice.

In North Carolina's Senate races, I've seen the Democrats lose two races, because they chose the same uninspiring candidate. Erskine Bowles, whose claim to fame was serving in the Clinton White House, gave no real reason to vote for him except that he wasn't a Republican. As a result, Republicans once again hold both Senate seats from North Carolina.

In 2000, Al Gore won the nomination for the Democrats. His run against Bush seemed to gain support for only two reasons. The first was that he was Clinton's VP. The second was that he wasn't a Republican. His message was poorly given. His ability as a candidate was lacking. His candidacy itself was uninspiring. Those who were excited by his campaign tended to be excited more by his attachment to Clinton, than anything at all he did during the campaign. The Republicans, on the other hand, were excited by the energy and tone of Bush's campaign. For the first time in a decade, Republicans had a candidate that they felt they could support because of his own ideas. This time, I decided that Bush was the one to vote for. As President, I saw Bush as bringing us closer to a position as a country that I felt was consistent with my own principles. Gore was an abomdination in that regard, and Browne would have been merely a protest vote. Unlike the Democrats in that year, I didn't have to hold my nose as I voted.

In 2004, hatred was back in vogue among the Democrats. John Kerry, winning the nomination for his party, was chosen because he was seen as the one who could beat Bush. He wasn't a good candidate. His Senate record was sorely lacking in depth. In choosing to run on his military record, it soon became evident that he wasn't the hero he was made out to be. His own statements about his military record began to haunt him. His choice to highlight his military record harmed him in the image of his own party, which has become anti-military in recent years. Nonetheless, hatred won out, and Kerry got more votes than anyone ever expected. His party held its nose and voted for him, out of a sense of duty. His party held its nose and voted for him, because they hated his opponent. Bush, on the other hand, was seen as more effective in the single most important issue of the day, and so he got more votes, and won the important electoral vote as well.

Now, the Democrats are faced with their next choice. It appears that they're choosing Dean to chair the party. Other, better, choices were available, but have been dropping out as support solidifies around Dean. Dean is looking like the choice because of his image as a liberal's liberal (which he complained that he wasn't, during his Presidential campaign) and because of his fundraising ability (which wasn't actually his ability, but the existence of a groundswell of grass-roots support that came to him via the Internet). Personally, I don't think Dean is the best man for the job. I don't think he will take the Democrats in a direction that will lead them to victory. Of course, I'm glad of that, because I do not want the current Democrat Party to find victory. What's good for the Democrats is bad for America, in my opinion, and what's bad for America is good for Democrats.

One thing's for sure, though. Since I'm no longer a Democrat, I won't have to hold my nose while I support Dean. As more Democrats get tired of holding their own noses while supporting the unsupportable, their power will continue to wane. That's a good thing for America.

Posted by Lockjaw at 1:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

One of my favorite lines of the inaugural speech

"Americans, at our best, value the life we see in one another, and must always remember that even the unwanted have worth."

Posted by Lockjaw at 1:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Strategy -vs- Tactics in Politics

In looking at politics, and how the business of politics is done, one must understand the difference between the terms "Strategy" and "Tactics." These are typically thought of as terms of war. I believe they are valid terms for politics, because politics is a form of war designed to avoid bloodshed.

Currently, the Democrats have three main long term goals. One is to defend against Republican policies being enacted. The second is to gain representative seats in the House and Senate. The third is to regain the Presidency. One strategy being followed to achieve these goals is to obstruct the President's nominees for the judiciary. They paint nominees as being "too extreme" so as to weaken the President's position with the public, and they foment division among members of Congress in order to guide public opinion.

Yesterday, we got to see this strategy at the tactical level. The nomination hearing for Alberto Gonzalez is a mere battle in the greater war. The tactics of this battle include tying Gonzalez to the Abu Graib "torture" incident, attempting to catch him in a misstatement that can be used against him, and making public statements to hurt him politically. These are fairly standard tactics that have been used by the Democrats for decades to achieve fairly standard strategies.

The problem that the Democrats have fallen into is that their strategy of opposing judicial nominees has become so standard that it no longer relies on the judicial nominee fitting into their script. It doesn't matter if the nominee is extreme, the strategy calls for the nominee to be painted as extreme, so all tactics used against that nominee rely on charges of extremism. Charles Pickering, known for taking anti-racist stands from the bench, was painted as a racist because part of the Democrat strategy relies on Republicans being called racist. The Democrat strategy of taking all credit for minority advancement requires that all minority nominees put forth by Republican presidents being opposed, so we have Harry Reid calling Justice Thomas an idiot.

It is the tactics that cause so many people to dislike the Democrats. It is the tactical maneuvering that shows the racism, hatred, lies and propoganda of the left. The problem they have is that the tactics are required, because of the choice of long-term strategies.

As I've said before, the Democrats hold close enough to 50% of the voting populace that they have no obvious need to change their ways anytime soon. Their strategies are designed to stem the loss of political capital. With such a close division in the country, they may actually be able to pull it off.

Because their tactics are of such a negative nature, it is important that the Democrats paint their opponents as the purveyors of negativity. It is for this reason that Fox News Channel is hated among the left. Fox actually has the temerity to hire more than a token number of conservatives, and allows both sides of an issue to present their stories. This cannot be allowed.

What is the best way to respond to the negativity of the Democrats? Quite simply, we must "shine the light." One of the reasons I enjoy listening to Rush Limbaugh's daily show is that he doesn't just talk about what the Democrats have to say. He actually reads quotes from newspaper sources, or plays audio soundbites (sometimes lengthy ones) of actual statements made by Democrats. If we are going to demonstrate that it is the Democrats who are the hate-mongers in our political society, then we must accurately quote them.

For instance, take this comment from a previous post on this blog:

"Ha!

Republican's made the carrer politician step down to Arnold Schwartenegger (sp)

Republican's are the joke of our society!

If you are a Repub, you must like war, famine, joblessness, homelessness, etc.

Why don't you think about things: Do you like Health Insurance, Un-employment insurance, the 40 hour work week as opposed to 56 hours, and banning child labor?

Then you are a Democrat!!

And if you actually believe in Jesus, he was a Liberal-Radical and the bible proves it!!

Republicans = Satan!!

Ha!

Shine the light. Don't interrupt a Democrat when he's proving your point. Don't get in the way when a Democrat decides to demonstrate his own racism, hatred and lies. Give them more rope, and they'll hang themselves. Once they're out of breath from ranting, you can take a moment to calmly point out the truth.

The truth about the previous quoted comment? In addition to the obvious inability to spell, reason, or deal with facts (obviously learning from government schools), the poster was just plain hateful. That can't be making the Democrats look good.

Posted by Lockjaw at 1:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Fun Two Years for Democrat-Watching

I've been saying for a while that Republicans shouldn't crow too loudly about having given the Democrats a major whupping at the polls in 2004. While a 3% difference in what was virtually a two-man race isn't as close as it looks, it still means that Democrats are capable of pulling 48% of the vote in a hotly contested national race. Should a party which, even with a loss, can get 48% of the vote start re-examining itself and make major changes in direction? I would say no. From today's events, I'd say that the Democrat leadership would say the same thing.

The Democrats were able, using their current tactics of hate-mongering, race-baiting, selective labelling, propoganda, lies and insults, to do big things in 2004. They greatly improved their turnout at the polls, which is no small thing. They pulled in vote totals that were far and away better than any other presidential candidate had ever gotten, which would have been more notable if Bush hadn't gotten still more. They raised more funds than the Republicans did. They got more favorable media coverage. They did everything that you need to do to win an election except actually win, and they were only one and a half percentage points away from doing that. (Politics is a zero-sum game when it comes to votes in a two-way race.)

This all being the case, I wasn't surprised at today's events in the Gonzalez hearing, and in other news.

Listening to today's hearings on the radio, (NPR offers excellent coverage of events of this type, normally.) I must say I was quite entertained. Gonzalez did a fine job of defending his record against often baseless attacks and nonsensical questions. Schumer actually asked if he thought it was constitutional for the Senate to change its rules to stop filibusters of judicial nominees. I can answer that one, and the answer is YES! The Constitution grants the Senate the ability to make its own rules for conduct and operation of the Senate. Of course, Schumer knows this too. His purpose wasn't to get an answer, but to get Gonzalez on the record saying something that could be twisted for political purposes. It's a common tactic.

Leahy, Schumer and "Drowning Man" Kennedy were just a hoot to listen to, as they made some of the wackiest statements. Gonzalez was credited with actions taken by the Defense Department, previous Attorneys General, Congress, the Supreme Court, the CIA and some bozos who decided that dressing up detainees in Iraq would be fun.

Elsewhere, Barbara Boxer was busy protesting the 2004 Presidential election electoral college tally on the basis that the Democrats lost. Of course, she made it sound better. She added flowery language and tried to insinuate that the election was stolen. That's a tactic that works for the Democrats, too. If you lose, sue until you win, and if you still can't win, say the election was stolen.

It is my sincere hope that the Democrats will, for the next two and four years (Congressional and Presidential cycles) spend their time doing what they have done so well for the last four years. They should obstruct nominees. They should block minority nominees completely when they can. They should complain about stolen elections. They should demean those who defeat them as lacking in intelligence. They should complain of conspiracy, corruption, racism, ageism, sexism and cronyism. They should mold their policies around opposition to the policies of their enemies. They should support raised spending and oppose tax cuts. It works for them.

It works very well for them.

Luckily, it works very well for the Republicans, too. For every additional vote gained by the Democrats, the Republicans gained one as well. On top of this, a small percentage of previous Democrat voters moved to the Republican side, allowing for a decisive win.

If the Democrats are going to avoid a long, dramatic slide into continual loss, they're going to have to keep up what has kept them alive thus far. If they throw away their strategies and tactics for a new way now, they'll lose big in 2008. Only by keeping up what they're used to doing, can they hope to stay near a 50/50 split with the Republicans. Admitting they have a problem is the worst thing they can do in the short term, and short term is where they've been fixated for far too long as they lost ground.

The Republicans have had the benefit of looking at the long term, because for most of the past that can be remembered, they've been the minority party. Now, they're the majority and still growing, so they can still keep a long-term outlook. The Democrats have lost their majority, and are slowly losing ground, and so must look at short-term strategies. Defensive retreat doesn't allow for long-term.

It is possible that the Democrats can turn back their losing slide. If they can do so, they may be able to begin work on more long-term strategies again. To do so, though, I believe they'll have to make major changes in their policy proposals. Such a process would take 12 years to put into motion, and I don't see the Democrats having a turnaround in the next 12 years.

This makes me very happy.

Posted by Lockjaw at 1:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Democrats - The Clueless Party

Michael Gecan of The Washington Post gives us an interesting analysis of the tactics of the Democrats. In "In A Clueless Party", Gecan details the Democrats fawning over celebrities while turning personal contact into a quota game. The Republicans, on the other hand, have turned to personal contacts, discussion and debate to gain ground. It's a good read, but I doubt the Democrats will listen.

Posted by Lockjaw at 1:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Intolerant "Progressives" - Homophobia and the Left

Mark Coffee over at Decision '08 writes an interesting piece on how the so-called "Progressives" deal with homosexuality and homosexuals. It's worth reading.

The intolerance of the Radical Left comes into even sharper focus with their smear campaign against new RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman. You see, because, as Hindrocket at Power Line points out, Mehlman is 38, single, and likes to keep his personal life to himself, he must in fact be gay. This is part and parcel of the Left's parlor game of outing gay (or just rumoured to be gay) Republicans.

This is, I think, an acknowledgement of something I've seen for a long time. Homosexuality is seen as a liberal issue. Never mind that there are many who aren't a part of the left who are gay. The Log Cabin Republicans are a good example. Homosexuality is more or less a tool of the liberals to get what they want.

One thing that liberals support is thought crime legislation. In order to get the laws they want against specific thoughts, they call them "hate crimes" and turn the homosexual community into a monolithic army for their cause. They fight to keep sexual preferences from being used as a means to deny housing, or jobs. They conveniently leave out the fact that such a law would preclude housing complexes that could be gay-only. They don't mention that businesses made up of mostly homosexuals (and there are plenty of them) would have to hore token straight people.

The so-called "gay marriage" issue is the big thing at present. It makes no difference that marriage has NEVER been defined as allowing two men or two women to marry. It makes no difference that the textbook definition of marriage has been left virtually untouched for centuries. Suddenly, anyone opposing major changes in the definition of marriage hates homosexuals. It just isn't true. The gay marriage issue isn't an attempt to allow homosexuals to marry. It's an attempt to tear down the institution of marriage from the ground up. Liberals are just using homosexuals as tools to reach their goals.

To homosexuals, I give the same message I give to blacks, hispanics, women and other "minorities." Don't think that the left loves you. If you think that the left loves you because of your minority group, look at what they do to members of that group who choose to not be a member of the left. When they're done with you, they'll dump you to the curb.

If you want to reach a higher place in life, get to work. Don't rely on the Democrats to get you there. They'll just create little ghettoes, hidden away from the "respectable" members of society and put you there, out of sight. It's what they do to the blacks they can control. It's what they do to the poor. It's what they'll do to you.

Posted by Lockjaw at 12:48 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Abortion Issue Stalling Spending Bill

There's a $388 Billion must-pass spending bill in the House and Senate to fund non-military operations and non-security operations. These operations have been going on since October 1st under stopgap spending measures. Tucked into this bill is an abortion measure that is causing some controversy on The Hill. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is determined to slow the spending bill down to stop it. Nevertheless, it appears likely to pass. Story here.

What's the controversy? Current law forces hospitals and health care providers to discuss abortion as an option when a woman is pregnant, and to provide abortions, abortion counseling or referrals for abortion. Under current law, there is no choice in the matter. The law change would simply allow hospitals and health care providers to CHOOSE whether they wanted to offer these services.

Barbara Boxer and other anti-choice Democrats are determined to keep current law that forces doctors to kill babies. Republicans seem to be pushing a pro-choice position.

My take? I think abortion is the child sacrifice that is required by the liberal religion. 100% compliance with any provision that spreads abortion is necessary to support the faith. Even a simple, common sense, PRO-CHOICE change in the law like this could make abortions harder to get, though still legal and freely available, and thus must be opposed on liberal principle. What principle? That killing unborn children is an absolute good, and any opposition to this killing is evil.

Posted by Lockjaw at 12:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Why does the Left Hate George Bush?

Hatred for George W. Bush and the Republican Party is so great among the