This from Generalissimo:
Just finished watching Michael Moore, clean-shaven and in a suit, on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno. He was subdued, and actually told a few amusing jokes to break the ice. He said he was dressing up in a suit to get ready for the IRS audit he was sure was coming. Not bad.
It reminds me of a classic line from Hamlet:
one may smile, and smile, and be a villain;
A little word association here …
FREAK — When I hear the word “freak,” I immediately think of another Michael … the ludicrous pop-icon Michael Jackson, who looks and acts the part of sheer, utterly disturbing freakishness like no one else.
FAT, DISGUSTING SLOB — When I hear the description “fat, disgusting slob,” no one holds a candle Krispy Kreme to Michael Moore. Dress over his rumpled, homeless look with a nice suit; wash his stench off him; shave the slovenly, three-day-old stubble off his hideous jowls—he’s still as much the lying, disgusting fat slob he ever was.
Netherlands Hospital Euthanizes Babies
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) - A hospital in the Netherlands - the first nation to permit euthanasia - recently proposed guidelines for mercy killings of terminally ill newborns, and then made a startling revelation: It has already begun carrying out such procedures, which include administering a lethal dose of sedatives.
The announcement by the Groningen Academic Hospital came amid a growing discussion in Holland on whether to legalize euthanasia on people incapable of deciding for themselves whether they want to end their lives - a prospect viewed with horror by euthanasia opponents and as a natural evolution by advocates.
In August, the main Dutch doctors' association KNMG urged the Health Ministry to create an independent board to review euthanasia cases for terminally ill people "with no free will," including children, the severely mentally retarded and people left in an irreversible coma after an accident.
The Health Ministry is preparing its response, which could come as soon as December, a spokesman said. [...] (hat tip: The Hugh Hewitt Show)
[Read the rest of the article—really scary stuff.]
Pro-life advocates have long warned of the inevitability of this slippery slope, and with a certainty that has had their opponents hooting in derision. The process whereby life is increasingly disrespected—however—is occurring before our very eyes.
First the life of the unborn was trampled upon; then mercy killing came in vogue for willing participants; now the lives of the retarded and comatose are on the chopping block, even in absence of any authorization on their part. A panel of human buzzards and jackals will decide who lives and who dies.
Who will be next?—the handicapped?; the malformed?; gays?; gypsies? We’ve been through this not even a hundred years ago, when it shook the world with horror and revulsion. We remembered our humanity; the byword became, “Never again!” But history is repeating. The cattle cars of the ‘Culture of Death’ have long since left the station. It started with abortion on demand; now it’s stopping to pick up the retarded.
Past history and present trends give no indication the proscribing of humanity will end here. This eugenic death train is unmasked, yet just keeps clattering inexorably down the tracks. In this century as in the last, we will be horrified to see the Final Solution of the Culture of Death.
As Hugh notes:
Even the title "the Groningen Protocal" is creepy. It ought to remind you of the Wannsee Conference --both waystations on the same road. Once "an independent board" exists to "review cases for terminally ill people 'with no free will'" the project is launched. [...]
Somewhere Mengele is laughing.
UPDATE I
KJL notes the sad state of affairs here in America ...
WE ARE CLOSER TO THE DUTCH THAN MOST THINK [KJL]
Besides the culture of death embraced by New Jersey and California on human cloning (we can clone as long as we kill that new life), the courts insistence on legal infanticide re disallowing partial-birth-abortion bans, and, of course, Roe, Shannen Coffin reminds me that two federal judges here ruled that the government had to pay for abortions of anencephalic babies because they had no chance of survival, i.e., no value to life. (Fortunately, some cooler heads prevailed in the court of appeals where one of those two decisions was reversed (another is pending in the dreaded Ninth Circuit.) How far off are we, really?
UPDATE II
Hugh notes that mainstream media couldn't care less about it ...
I can find no major newspaper articles on the "Groningen Protocol" this morning. The front page of the Los Angeles Times --above the fold, center two columns-- carries this headline: "Salmon and Steelhead May Lose Protection." As Drudge carried the Netherlands story yesterday, every newsroom in America knows about the protocol.
[...]
MSM does not care to cover this. You figure out why. [...] silence is approval, and in approval, an invitation to proceed. (bold and italics supplied)
UPDATE III
As Matthew Heidt notes (in an excellent post which must be read in full), the "Groningen Protocol" is merely 'Hillary [aka socialized] Healthcare' on steroids: When government runs healthcare, bureaucratic committees eventually conclude that the cheapest treatment of catastrophic illness is ... euthanasia.
UPDATE IV
Hugh has published on the Groningen Protocol at the Weekly Standard.
A couple excerpts...
This is either a low point, or a point of no return. The establishment of "independent committees" to dispatch non-consenting humans is nothing but a death penalty committee for innocents. Once begun, it is impossible--simply impossible--to limit the concept with any bright line. Abortion, of course, has always been limited by the physical act of birth, and once out of the womb, only the most extreme "reproductive rights" advocates have argued that the baby's natural right to live can be compromised by the mother. But now the Netherlands has gone farther--much, much farther. If the "severely retarded" may be killed upon appropriate motion, second, debate, and majority vote, why not the moderately retarded? Why not the mildly retarded? Why not, in fact, anyone the "independent committee" deems as usefully dispatched.
... Four years into the new century, and one can only guess where it will end. I do not think it is safe to bet that these next 96 years will be less bloody that the years 1905 to 1999.
UPDATE V
Groningen coming to California! ... Well, actually a 'Right to Die" Bill to be introduced next month in the California Legislature—by all accounts a significant step toward the bankrupt bioethics of the Netherlands. :-(
Thus continues the relentless march of academia’s humanist crusade of revisionist history …
Check out XRLQ’s fine post on the expunging of religious references from Thanksgiving in Maryland public schools.
Outgoing US Secretary of State Colin Powell was asked to step down after telling President George W. Bush he wanted more power to confront Israel over the peace process, according to London's Sunday Telegraph. (emphasis supplied)
I hope the above Jerusalem Post quote regarding Colin Powell is inaccurate. If it is true, it would make me think less of him than I did before.
Though I had some cause to doubt it, I had charitably hoped Powell was truly a neutral broker in the Middle East peace process. If the above report is correct, he alas has harbored favoritism in the Middle East conflict ... and in the wrong direction. (hat tip LGF)
This cartoon is so ludicrous I laughed when I saw it. (hat tip The Corner)
(The cartoon bears the caption: "The Christian Right conducts a philosophical discussion about judicial nominee qualifications with brother Arlen Specter... ."
An animated graphic shows a scrum of vicious Christian monsters pummeling the daylights out of an obscured Arlen Specter. One of the fanatics is even using a Bible as a bludgeon against his hapless victim [Bible-thumper, get it? How cute!]. Another, hammering his fist down over and over, bears a eerie resemblance to Howard Dean, livid grimmace and all. Funny, I never took Howard Dean as a member of the Christian Right. :-O)
The Left thinks that the Christian Right are goose-stepping religious Nazis that get their marching orders from Jerry Falwell via metal plates in their heads … dangerous brutes always on the verge of going ape-[poop].
Cartoons such as the one linked above show how superstitious, ignorant, and bigoted the Left is, all while believing (and portraying) Christians to be superstitious, ignorant, and bigoted.
This is a very frightening story of internet privacy violation. Your problem is probably not that serious. However, a search of names on google, including mine and those of other bloggers, will turn up some graphic porn sites. In most cases, the names do not appear on the site, just on google.
I have corresponded with google and am waiting for the "looking into it" process to run its course. You may want to google your own name and make the appropriate noises to google.
Comments on other findings would be interesting.
The NY Post is touting Colin Powell as a candidate. While I doubt it would happen, it's be interesting. I went to Blogs Against Hillary to make sure they picked it up and they have.
I also saw a talking head this morning touting Hillary's Midwest roots. Arkansas, NY, Midwest.
I cannot resist even oblique references (such as this one via McGehee) to the peerless motion picture It's a Wonderful Life.
A news report sets the stage:
FALLUJAH, Iraq -- US forces dropped a pair of 2,000-pound bombs early yesterday morning on a bunker complex believed to be an insurgent training facility on the southern edge of this city, where the most dedicated and best trained rebel fighters are making a last stand.
The bombs shook the ground of the former insurgent stronghold and set off secondary explosions that went on for 45 minutes but could not be seen above ground, persuading officers of the Army's First Infantry Division that there were large stockpiles of weapons underground. (emphasis as supplied by McGehee)
McGeehee then drops this punchline (a comment gleaned from FreeRepublic):
Teacher says every time there’s a secondary explosion in the tunnels, a dozen Islamonazis get their wings...
I would make this minor edit:
Teacher says every time there’s a secondary explosion in the tunnels, a dozen Islamonazis get their horns … (and—of course—no virgins!) ;-)
I love—almost venerate—It’s a Wonderful Life. I figure it just might be the greatest motion picture ever made (with the possible exception of Ben-Hur), so I find the wedding of Frank Capra’s timeless classic with the timely death of terrorists to be irresistible.
More to the point, I find the wild, insane juxtaposition of these two images …
1) Zuzu and George Bailey basking in the last glorious strains of "Auld Lang Syne"
2) The death-shrieks of Islamofascists frying in their hell-holes
to be just hilarious.
This just in from a Berlin mosque:
"These Germans, these atheists, these Europeans don't shave under their arms and their sweat collects under their hair with a revolting smell and they stink," said the preacher at the Mevlana Mosque in Berlin's Kreuzberg district, in the film made by Germany's ZDF public TV, adding: "Hell lives for the infidels! Down with all democracies and all democrats!" (hat tip The Corner)
Moonbats have been moaning since 9/11 about how we need to understand why Islamicists hate us so. Guess we have our answer: Armpit hygiene.
How many lawsuits have unsubstantiated claims alleging "negligent infliction of emotional distress" tacked on at the end just in the off-chance that a plaintiff might be able to get more money by using the "throw in any old claim and see if it sticks" method of litigation? (Fellow lawyers who do any form of tort defense work surely know what I am talking about.)
I am beginning to think that copyright and trademark infringement claims are becoming the new "negligent infliction of emotional distress" claims for the 21st Century.
Many more examples of out-and-out censorship rearing its ugly head in the modern age.
The last link is particularly worrisome - making it unlawful to use a device simply to skip over commercials on videos? (But at the same time still be allowed to skip other content??) It seems to me that this discrimination wouldn't pass Constitutional muster - even if you allow for some forms of content discrimination.
Rather than defending the First Amendment, a large portion of the political and legal community seems content to tear it down.
So ‘Mr. Personality’ Barry Bonds 'Roids juiced his way to another MVP.
Whoop-de-do. It don’t mean nothin’ when it comes from a bottle.
Everyone knows he's hopped up on steroids. If there's any justice, a big fat flashing neon asterisk will blink wildly behind every stat of his chemically altered career. In a way it’s sad—he’ll live and die wondering if he would have been half as good were he not all sauced up.
The use of steroids is cheating at its most basic level, which makes Barry 'Roids a dirty player, and unworthy of our National Pastime, let alone a reputation as one of its best.
I don't wish the wages of performance-enhanced sin upon him. The dangers of steroid use—however—are real and sometimes deadly.
The ultimate question for Barry 'Roids (and all who would do likewise): "Is it really worth it in the end?"
JACQUES CHIRAC dealt a blow to Tony Blair’s attempt to heal the wounds between the US and Europe last night by saying that the Prime Minister had won nothing for supporting the war against Iraq. (hat tip Drudge)
Who the heck is Chirac to lecture Blair, or France to lecture Britain?
“Well, Britain gave its support but I did not see anything in return. I’m not sure it is in the nature of our American friends at the moment to return favours systematically.”
Ah, I get it. Monsieur Chirac's laughing at Mr. Blair: "I got gazillions in payoffs from Mr. Hussein via the U.N.'s money-laundering 'Oil for Food’ scam, and all you got was a lousy 'I got a lot of good Brits killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom' T-Shirt! Ha, ha, ha!"
Bastard.
That's the way Chirac views the world, namely: "What can I scam out of the system while innocent people (in this case the Iraqi people under Saddam Hussein) get screwed?"
M Chirac, whose visit to Britain concludes the Entente Cordiale anniversary celebrations, said: “I am not sure, with America as it is these days, that it would be easy for someone, even the British, to be an honest broker.”
Again, who is Chirac to lecture Blair or Britain? “Honest broker?!” Chirac is not one to speak of honesty; he is eminently skilled—rather—in the weaselly art of treachery.
France scoffing at Britain—and speaking against America—is a pitiable farce. America is the world’s lone superpower (some have called it the world’s hyperpower); Britain is one of the most influential nations in the world; but what is France? France is nothing. France has become a byword of cowardice; of the hollow pomposity and pretension of a nation that once mattered; of a once justifiably proud nation whose power and prestige on the world stage passed into obscurity during the last century (if not before).
France’s place as one of the five permanent (veto-wielding) members on the U.N.’s Security Counsel has for many, many decades been a laugh-out-loud anachronism. Of course the U.N.—as witnessed by the colossal “Oil for Food” scandal—is itself an anachronism. France is but a noisome cog in a far-greater U.N. wheel of corruption.
If I'm disappointed that Ashcroft's gone, I'm very happy that Colin Powell is gone, and equally so that he is to be replaced by Condoleezza Rice.
Powell's a good man, but he's not the Sec. of State we need in a post-9/11 world. Powell was too palsy with a U.N. that proved adversarial to U.S. interests from start to finish. Even the ‘Axis of Weasel’ could stand Powell; that's not good. We need a Sec. of State that at least puts the international weasels on edge. It is a virtue that weasels such as the French seethe at the very thought of our Sec. of State. Rumsfeld would be perfect for this—Heh!—but alas his expertise is needed at Sec. of Defense (here's fingers crossed he stays on as DoD Chief).
Condi's ascension to Sec. of State is all good. I’m glad to see her mettle has moved higher up the food chain. She's tough and brilliant, and will need both of these indispensable characteristics to deal effectively with an unruly/backstabbing world and an unruly/backstabbing State Dept.
Hopefully the State Dept.'s propensity for opposing the Dept. of Defense at every possible opportunity will be much mitigated by the leadership of Rice, who appears much more on board with the War on Terror that Powell ever was.
_______
PETERSON TRIAL:
Since this is my first post since the Peterson verdict, let me get this out of the way …
I had long-since ‘tuned out’ the Peterson trial. I knew early on that Scott Peterson was guilty as sin, and that his high-powered attorney was the quintessential scumbag lawyer. I became annoyed as many people have with the overexposure that the media has given to the case. I was really amazed, though, at how powerfully I was affected by the news that the jury had reached a verdict, and by the reading of the verdict itself.
Inveterate pessimist of the legal system than I am, I just knew the jury screwed up, and would tender a “not-guilty” verdict. As the clerk began to read the verdict, I got a sickening pain in my stomach like I had been walloped in the gut by a biker with a steel-toed boot. In that moment it was like I was reliving the horrible moments after the O.J. criminal trial reached it’s outrageous verdict. Emotionally doubled-over, I braced myself for the worst.
”We the jury in the above-entitled cause find the defendant Scott Lee Peterson guilty … .”
They got him!; they got the bastard! The exhilaration and fist-pumping relief I felt in those moments was so intense it astonished me: it was as though Laci was my relative, and the murderer my in-law. I had traces of that ‘cloud-nine’ feeling all day.
Listening to replays later, I could hear the sobbing of Laci’s family after the clerk uttered “guilty.” My heart goes out to Laci’s family—what an overwhelming mixture of pain and relief they must feel.
I’m so glad that monster won’t be on the streets again. Halleluiah.
See what a little pressure can do if it's applied in just the right places?
Of course, I'm sure that one event has absolutely nothing to do with the other. After all, Dreier is only the 3rd most powerful member of the House, and this was just a pure coincidence of timing...Just like Dreier's sudden newfound attention to this issue after more than two decades in office.
The game is on: Hillary in '08 or not? There's a new blogger campaign to stop it at Blogs Against Hillary.
Stop. Stop now. Hillary is running for reelection in 2006. Nothing will put the kibosh on her '08 run quicker than losing her Senate seat. Giuliani can't take a run at her?
If Thune can take out Daschle, then Hillary is fair game. Shift the focus.
The War in Iraq hit particularly close to home with this news. Sgt. 1st Class Michael C. Ottolini, a twenty year veteran of the National Guard who re-upped was killed in Iraq last Wednesday, the victim of a roadside bomb. His family remembers him as one who believed in what he was doing. His son Darrell is quoted as saying that he
"hoped people would set aside their political views on the war and appreciate the sacrifice of the soldiers."
'"We are receiving the benefit of their anguish and their pain," he said.'
Those words should serve as a lesson to us all.
Let me start off by reiterating that I think Senator Specter is a good man. I count the number of times on one hand when I actually wrote a Senator a letter thanking him for supporting certain positions or programs – Specter was one of them in regards to a matter concerning Israel.
With that said, I still maintain that Senator Specter shouldn’t be let within a mile of the Judiciary Committee, let alone its chairmanship.
The more Hugh Hewitt tries to insist that Arlen Specter should be given the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee as a matter of right (or for the sake of "prudence"), the more surprised I am that he has gathered some of the support that he has across the blogosphere.
Let’s take his latest Weekly Standard article for example:
"Fast forward four years. The Democrats have convened in late summer in Cleveland to nominate former Virginia governor Mark Warner and Senator Barack Obama. It is the third night of the convention, and the Democrats have chosen as their keynote speaker . . . Arlen Specter. Or Olympia Snowe. Or Chuck Hagel."
This has been a common occurrence by both parties throughout the years. Disgruntled members of party will often give comfort to other side in order to “stick it” to their party. But what conclusions does Hewitt draw from that? Is he suggesting that we provide a “heckler’s veto” to every dissenter and throw away any semblance of a coherent philosophy in order to prevent a political speech at a convention held every 4 years?
Let’s remind ourselves of one thing - Zell Miller’s speech at the Republican convention isn’t remembered because Miller is a Democrat. It is remembered because it was one of the most forceful speeches made from pure conviction in recent political memory. Everybody knows full well that Specter would be incapable of giving a speech of similar forcefulness. So why then should we be ultimately afraid of such a scenario? The press would cover it using the “novelty” angle of a Republican giving a speech supporting Democratic “tolerance” and the virtues of the “big tent” in politics. But the speech won’t be remembered the next week and will do little to actually move voters in an election (unlike Miller’s speech).
Does Hewitt think that Arnold Schwarzenegger is currently in danger of going over to the Democrats? If not, why do you suppose that is? Why is it that Schwarzenegger can still energize the entire Republican base while Specter is causing rifts in it even though neither of them necessarily align themselves with the conservatives? Two reasons primarily – 1) Schwarzenegger isn’t poised to block vital nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court. 2) Despite his own beliefs, Schwarzenegger does not go out of his way to castigate conservatives as a means of pandering to a certain audience built around a single social issue. Justified or not – it sometimes seems that Specter does just that.
"The prevention of just this sort of scenario is at the core of the debate over Senator Arlen Specter's rise to the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee. A national party would welcome the visibility of a member whose views are not always--or even often--in step with the majority's ideology. A national party intent on a generation of authority would avoid the mistake Democrats made when they drove every pro-life official from its leadership ranks."
Hewitt mischaracterizes (or perhaps genuinely misunderstands) the core of the debate over Specter. This is not about one issue such as abortion. This is about instituting broad reforms into an entire branch of government (the Judiciary) in order to reinstitute representative governance. This sweeping reform would necessarily encompass the abortion issue as a broader matter of Constitutional interpretation. And it is because of that single-issue fixation that Specter has previously indicated that he is willing to jettison the entire reform necessary in our judiciary. Even this view should not be enough to ex-communicate him from the GOP. It simply means that he shouldn’t be the chairman of the one committee that has the power to help ensure that these reforms are put into effect. Why is this such a radical proposal in Hewitt’s eyes?
For instance, if Specter broke with party ranks and voted for Barbara Boxer to be the Senate majority leader despite the fact that Republicans hold a majority of seats, would Hewitt maintain that this is simply good natured dissent within the GOP that the party ought to tolerate? Voting for Boxer to achieve a leadership position over the entire Senate would be a disagreement on “one issue” as Hewitt seems to imply. It would be a decision that endangers the entire broad agenda and identity of the Republican party.
Hewitt knows recent California political history. Does he maintain that Republicans Paul Horcher and Doris Allen were just offering reasonable dissents when they actually voted to prevent Republicans from controlling the entire California State Assembly despite their majority status?
Let’s remember Horcher’s quote, "I just wouldn't toe the party line," when he crossed party lines in December 1994 to join all the Assembly Democrats to re-elect liberal Democrat Willie Brown as speaker.
Tell me Mr. Hewitt, was Horcher’s recall by Republicans simply a show of party intolerance for disagreement on that “single issue”?
What Hewitt and his supporters don’t understand is that Specter can deliver the very same situation if he is chairman of the Judiciary Committee – only this time it is being played out in the current 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court instead of the equally split California Assembly of 1994.
"Parties do have to agree on some non-negotiables. For Republicans that list includes a commitment to battle obstructionism in the judicial confirmation process, but it ought not to include a loyalty oath on every nominee."
This statement is a complete contradiction within the context of the Specter flap – further proof that Hewitt fails to understand the true battle that is going on here. If battling “obstructionism in the judicial confirmation process” is really “non-negotiable” in Hewitt’s eyes (as it should be), then he too must demand a “loyalty oath” from Specter if he is to be the Judiciary Committee chairman. Hewitt must know full well how much power the chairman of a committee holds, so his position is rather confusing.
A chairman often has the power to prevent the full Senate from even voting on a nominee who has majority support among its 100 members. That is the issue. That is why Specter shouldn’t hold this power. Nobody is demanding a loyalty oath from Specter that he vote for every nominee. What they are demanding is that he not prevent any nominee from reaching a full vote in the Senate.
Specter is now going through a number of hoops to ensure us that he wouldn’t do that. But with so much at stake here – why take the chance? What is the up-side exactly?
After all, if someone has to spend much of their time trying to convince the world that they really support X, doesn’t that ultimately point to some insecurity on the issue of X? If so, isn’t perfectly natural to suspect that there is a legitimate reason for their insecurity? Wouldn’t it just be easier to have someone in the committee chair where this no longer becomes an issue on either side?
Remember Trent Lott’s sudden suggestions that he would take a good look at every affirmative action proposal that came his way when he was struggling to hold on to his leadership position in the Senate after uttering arguably racist remarks? Do you think that this was healthy environment for party leadership to flourish? Of course not. It was better to have Lott step aside (regardless of how strong the merits might, or might not, have been in the case against him).
Other Republican Senators thought Lott should step down because his continued presence in the leadership position threatened to derail key parts of the Republican agenda. So what was more important? Lott's pride in holding on to his position? Or the larger issues of the agenda that were at stake?
I wonder - Did Hewitt ever fear that Lott might one day give a speech at the Democratic National Convention over this perceived slight? Let’s get real.
Specter is free to disagree on single issues all he wants and still be in good GOP graces, just as long as he isn’t given disproportionate power on an important committee where his disagreements can derail an agenda supported by the majority (not an "abortion" agenda mind you, but an agenda to put Constitutional textualists on the federal courts).
"There is another great role for minority voices within a national party--as a check on excess. The voices of any party's counter-majoritarian caucus are an alarm that sounds whenever ideological excess rears up."
Once again, Hewitt misses the entire point of the debate and ends up turning the argument on its head. The debate is indeed about a “check on excess”. But it the excess of the judiciary that is at stake – not the legislature.
It is vital that such excess be curbed, but we are living at a time of 5-4 divisions where there is no margin of error in administering a solution to the problem.
In order to preserve the very foundations of the democratic rule of law, there must be a strengthened commitment to textualism in Constitutional interpretations by the judicial branch. This means instituting a litmus test on judges – not on single issues mind you, but on interpretive approaches (which in turn would require certain outcomes as to some issues). Is it “ideological excess” to insist on that? Hewitt certainly seems to imply as such.
Hewitt and his defenders might argue that Specter might behave himself and not abuse his power as chairman in blocking votes on judicial nominees. But the salient question is: why should we take the chance when we don’t have to? One miscalculation as to what a chairman might do could potentially doom the best opportunity to correct the direction of the court for well over a generation. Even then, it might be too late with large segments of conservatives valuing “court precedent” over all else.
Why should we force ourselves to look over Specter’s shoulder the entire time when the stakes are so high? Simply for the sake of “tradition” and the fear that we might bruise Specter’s ego?? That seems like a pretty weak argument from my viewpoint.
This brings me to another critical point: Hewitt seems to suggest that Specter and other “moderates” would vote against a perfectly qualified judicial nominee out of spite if they happen to feel slighted. If that is the case, is that the sort of person we want in a committee chair in any event? Don’t we want someone who will vote for or against a nominee out of pure conviction because they think it would be good for the country and the rule of law regardless of any perceived personal insults from fellow party members??
"Finally, conservatives should pause before overthrowing a system that celebrates seniority in the Senate. Where will it stop? Some conservatives are particularly annoyed with Specter, but it isn't as though he's the only moderate Republican who has offended GOP majoritarian beliefs in the past."
I have never understood this. Why exactly should we celebrate seniority in the Senate? What benefits does this system give us?? It seems to me that each Senator should have equal power regardless of their length of tenure. In fact, that notion is so obviously tied to fair governance that I am surprised that even Scalia-style textualists with narrow views of the Equal Protection Clause haven’t questioned the Constitutional problems associated with such a system.
If the people of California decide that a newcomer candidate can better represent them in this day and age than a 30 year veteran of the Senate, why should they be punished for having a Senator with diminished power in relation to more “senior” Senators? Why should voters have to make that choice?
Hewitt asks, “Where will it stop?”
Quite simple Mr. Hewitt. It will stop when we have a Senate system based on one-Senator one-vote and when we have a Court whose entire membership bases their decisions on reasonable interpretations of the actual text of the document known as the Constitution. Why is that so hard to digest? Why is that so radical in your view?
Specter’s appointment to the Judiciary chair could potentially threaten that. It might not. But then again, it might. And as I asked previously – why take that chance when we don’t have to?
Any individual Senator can feel free to disagree from the party line on any issue they want to. I do the same on many issues myself. But when it comes to committee chairmanships, it is both fair and appropriate to insist on certain litmus tests to make sure that the issues the party are interested in get a fair hearing followed by a full vote on the Senate floor.
You can have a dissenting Republican agree with John Kerry’s foreign policy, but you don’t want them as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.
You can have dissenting Republicans be in favor unilateral nuclear disarmament in the U.S. while also being in favor of placing U.S. forces entirely under U.N. command – just don’t have them be Chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Let them chair the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee instead. Is that too much to ask? Or does the respect for “seniority” trump all such common sense?
All the anti-Spector forces in this debate are asking is that we don’t allow Republicans with dissenting views on single issues be placed in specific positions where they are allowed to potentially jeopardize important movement on a much broader agenda that transcends the single issue (or issues) in question.
Whether Hewitt chooses to admit it or not, that is what this debate is really about…
"Beginning a new era with a purge is simply the worst possible politics, a self-inflicted wound, and one the consequences of which could be far reaching and awful.
Prudence. Prudence. Prudence.
Jeffords. Jeffords. Jeffords."
Up until now, I have had admittedly rather spirited but still entirely respectful disagreements with Hewitt.
However, it is the last six words of Hewitt’s column that makes me believe that he is either suffering from a current lobotomy, or is in desperate need of one.
The only rational interpretation of the meaning of Hewitt's last six words is that the GOP somehow forced Senator Jim Jeffords to leave the Republican party because it wasn’t prudent enough and was far too stringent on dissenters within its own ranks such as him.
Is Hewitt serious??? He can’t possibly be…
Let’s review the actual details of the Jeffords switch:
First off, it wasn’t a single issue or two that Jeffords disagreed with. It was the entire Bush agenda. Even CNN admits to that.
(Read Jeffords’ own statements two years after the switch. Now you tell me - does this sound like a man who is disappointed by the intolerance in the Republican party over a few issues? Or does it sound like a full fledged Democrat? If it’s the former, do you hear him criticizing the Democrats over his disagreements with them? Didn’t think so…)
But apart from the breadth of Jeffords’ disagreements with the Bush agenda, you also have to remember the circumstances of the 50-50 Senate split at the time. Jeffords was clearly trying to blackmail the GOP into potentially derailing its entire agenda unless it gave him everything he wanted. And even if it did, that would only embolden Jeffords and other “dissenters” to ask for more. The end result would have been a complete capitulation – not an accommodation on one or two issues.
Hewitt sets a standard for accommodating dissenters that is impossibly high – failing to distinguish between accommodation and wholesale surrender.
And let’s also remember what it is that finally convinced Jeffords to jump ship as an Independent – the promise of a committee chairmanship by the Democrats. It is astounding that Hewitt doesn’t see the ironies in his own arguments...
This is a perfect example of what happens when a single Senator is given inordinately more power over his colleagues in his ability to set the agenda. Jeffords found himself in that position. And in the end, does anyone (besides Hewitt) really believe that Jeffords leaving the party was bad for the Republicans in the long term??
And who can forget the trial balloon that Jeffords offered, suggesting that he might be willing to switch back to the Republicans after they re-took power in the next elections? For Jeffords, maintaining the power of a committee chairmanship always trumped principle. Sound familiar in this debate that we are now having??
Rationality. Rationality. Rationality.
Hewitt. Hewitt. Hewitt...
Debate rages on whether the death of Arafat should be celebrated. Here's my two cents: I am at a loss to explain how some have the capacity to see beyond the evil perpetrated by those such as Arafat. Those who minister to condemned prisoners share the same quality. However, pragmatically speaking, the death of Arafat, the instigator and perpetrator of two intafadahs and countless acts of despicable terror and murder on innocents such as the Hatuel family, will save countless lives. Since preservation of life is sacred to Judaism, Arafat's death is most definitely cause for celebration. L'chaim!
Hattips: Rachel Ann, Auterrfic
Some time ago, Joel wrote about sprawl, and his take on it. This excellent article, to which he refers in his post, underscores the shortcomings of the anti-sprawl advocates with regard to the reality of life vs. their fantasy of an idyllic community that is self-sufficient and that requires no one to drive anywhere in order to afford to live in that community. I would take all of this one step further, however, and suggest, based on my experiences here in our small, RURAL town of Cotati, that developers have managed to sniff out a prize opportunity to boondoggle planning departments and city councils such as ours by riding the wave of anti-sprawl advocacy to their benefit.
We have in Cotati an established, turn -of-last-century era downtown residential area. In their infinite wisdom, our planning department and city council are contemplating zoning changes that will allow three-story, mixed-use buildings in this, and other, areas. While I freely admit that there are parts of town where this type of construction may be appropriate, these established neigborhoods are not the place.
Further, we have a city council and planning commission comprised of members of the community that have absolutely no experience in construction and little knowledge, beyond that they have received in their mostly short tenures as council and commission members, of what will and will not result in a profitable project for a developer. Time and again I have heard some of them comment that high-density is the only type of project that will pencil-out for developers. When pressed for the source of this information, it was (not surprisingly!) revealed that it was the builders themselves.
Consequently, we are faced with the reality of three-story, attached, concrete jungles with no yards, inadequate parking, and, incredibly, no potential for street improvements to handle increased traffic on the grounds that such construction will actually force people out of their cars and into alternative transportation! These "luxury homes" (as a sign preposterously proclaims outside of one of these projects) are on the market in the $500,000 range, making it impossible for virtually anyone without two incomes (read two commuters) to afford. And the jobs are in Marin County and San Francisco, a fact that seems lost on the powers that be.
The irony (or hypocrisy) that none of the members of our city government live in such a building and that most of them drive SUV's is not lost on me.
Jeff Jacoby writes a great article, which sings the language of my heart:
ARAFAT THE MONSTER
YASSER ARAFAT died at age 75, lying in bed surrounded by familiar faces. He left this world peacefully, unlike the thousands of victims he sent to early graves.
In a better world, the PLO chief would have met his end on a gallows, hanged for mass murder much as the Nazi chiefs were hanged at Nuremberg. In a better world, the French president would not have paid a visit to the bedside of such a monster. In a better world, George Bush would not have said, on hearing the first reports that Arafat had died, "God bless his soul."
God bless his soul? What a grotesque idea! Bless the soul of the man who brought modern terrorism to the world? Who sent his agents to slaughter athletes at the Olympics, blow airliners out of the sky, bomb schools and pizzerias, machine-gun passengers in airline terminals? Who lied, cheated, and stole without compunction? Who inculcated the vilest culture of Jew-hatred since the Third Reich? Human beings might stoop to bless a creature so evil -- as indeed Arafat was blessed, with money, deference, even a Nobel Prize -- but God, I am quite sure, will damn him for eternity.
[...]
How is it possible to reflect on Arafat's most enduring legacy -- the rise of modern terrorism -- without recalling the legions of men, women, and children whose lives he and his followers destroyed? If Osama bin Laden were on his deathbed, would we neglect to mention all those he murdered on 9/11?
It would take an encyclopedia to catalog all of the evil Arafat committed. But that is no excuse for not trying to recall at least some of it.
Perhaps his signal contribution to the practice of political terror was the introduction of warfare against children. On one black date in May 1974, three PLO terrorists slipped from Lebanon into the northern Israeli town of Ma'alot. They murdered two parents and a child whom they found at home, then seized a local school, taking more than 100 boys and girls hostage and threatening to kill them unless a number of imprisoned terrorists were released. When Israeli troops attempted a rescue, the terrorists exploded hand grenades and opened fire on the students. By the time the horror ended, 25 people were dead; 21 of them were children.
Thirty years later, no one speaks of Ma'alot anymore. The dead children have been forgotten. Everyone knows Arafat's name, but who ever recalls the names of his victims?
So let us recall them: Ilana Turgeman. Rachel Aputa. Yocheved Mazoz. Sarah Ben-Shim'on. Yona Sabag. Yafa Cohen. Shoshana Cohen. Michal Sitrok. Malka Amrosy. Aviva Saada. Yocheved Diyi. Yaakov Levi. Yaakov Kabla. Rina Cohen. Ilana Ne'eman. Sarah Madar. Tamar Dahan. Sarah Soper. Lili Morad. David Madar. Yehudit Madar. The 21 dead children of Ma'alot -- 21 of the thousands of who died at Arafat's command.
_______
Meanwhile, at the U.N.:
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan praised Arafat's struggle to win international recognition for the Palestinian cause, as he ordered flags to fly at half-mast at the United Nations. (hat tip The Corner)
Sweet. Mass-murdering terrorists always have a welcome place at the U.N.
_______
LGF's celebratory first post of the post-Arafish era. You knew it could be entitled none other than Ding Dong the Fish is Dead. :-D
_______
UPDATE:
Arafat's rap sheet (barely scratches the surface). (hat tip The Corner)
At last it's official. Yasser Arafat, one of the world’s most truly evil men—the father of modern terrorism—is declared dead.
The French hospital, the Palestinian spokesmen, and the larger media itself, have been playing games with the world regarding his status. But for all intents and purposes he was dead by October 29, when the dying old buzzard was whisked to France—that is if death can be reckoned at the point that his tenure as commander of the Palestinian terror death-cult was irrevocably at an end. After that it was only a matter of time until the glad tidings of his death were made official.
Here's a biography of a madman.
(hat tip LGF)
7:55 PM UPDATE: Whoops! Turns out it DID happen today. 7:55PM PST - Gretta Van Sustren on Fox news reporting that "Breaking news....Yasser Arafat IS dead."
The Wednesday prediction was right after all. Disregard the next two sentences, but be sure to check out Pipe's article linked below.
I'm sure they decided to wait until the end of Ramadan to announce the death of a man who has probably been dead for a week now.
Daniel Pipes has the best round-up of the Arafat death charade - including the increasingly plausible speculation of AIDS and Arafat's rumored homosexuality.
Goldberg nails it in repeating some themes recently posted by your humble Calblogger.
I’m sad to see John Ashcroft resign as United States Attorney General.
I know how good he was based—if nothing else—on how he scared the living [brown stuff] out of the denizens of the Left’s fever swamp. I especially got a kick over how they hyperventilated and peed themselves for fear over the fact he’s a [gasp!] Christian. Bwa-ha-haaaa! Aren’t the moonbats amazed that Ashcroft never got around to enacting decretals condemning all non born-agains to death? More likely they’ve concluded Ashcroft snuck them into law without even the ACLU noticing.
The unwashed leftist masses were too busy freaking out about Gulag Amerika to appreciate the fact that no terror attack has hit America since Ashcroft’s anti-terror policies were implemented.
Ultra-lefty legal scholar/hack Irwin Chimerinsky Chimperinsky called John Ashcroft “[T]he worst Attorney General in American history.” Knowing Irwin as I do, that in my mind provides the highest recommendation for John Ashcroft’s place as “The greatest Attorney General in American history.”
UPDATE:
Opinion Journal notes that "Ashcroft left a better Justice Department than he inherited." He did the heavy (and sometimes unpopular) lifting after 9/11, leaving easier tasks to his successors. (Read the whole article)
Happy 229th Birthday, United States Marine Corps!
Go and see what Marines are doing for us today in the appropriately titled, Hell in a Very Small Place.
Every one of them are heroes.
(hat tip Hugh)
So now Kerry thinks his getting the '04 nomination has somehow sainted him to be the new Democrat point man to tilt at the diabolical windmills of Bush, Rove, and Halliburton?
Kerry will attend a post-election lame-duck Senate session that begins next week and has said he is "fired up" to play a highly visible role, the friends and aides said.
Fired up?!! It's almost pitiably, really. More flashbacks of ‘Nam; ah yes—an Effin’ war hero once again … goin’ ‘Genghis Kahn’ on a ravaged countryside with his .50 cal.’
Earth to John, you ain’t in ‘Nam no more.
After two decades of abject Senate mediocrity, Kerry's all fired up to take the Senate by storm? Dream on!, you wooden, Massachusetts scarecrow.
Kerry fueled talk about a 2008 bid during remarks at a Washington restaurant Saturday night. He provoke[d] a thunderous reception by reminding about 400 campaign aides and volunteers that Ronald Reagan twice sought the Republican nomination for president before winning it in 1980.
He's just the latest schlub to fall for the delusion that at first obsessed Gore—that a mere nomination makes him King of the Party. It still hasn’t dawned on him that the only reason he was nominated was because the alternative was Howard the Dean Howeird the Scream. Face it, French-face—Bubba is still the Party's top dog. Period.
I'm laughing. The guy's delusional. Put a fork in the loser, his presidential aspirations are done ... now and forever.
(hat tip The Pajamahadin)
Straight out of the box, President re-elect Bush hawks a thick loogie in our faces. Nice.
It’s not easy to incite me to angry phone calls and complaint letters. This does:
President Bush yesterday moved aggressively to resurrect his plan to relax rules against illegal immigration, a move bound to anger conservatives just days after they helped re-elect him.
The president met privately in the Oval Office with Sen. John McCain to discuss jump-starting a stalled White House initiative that would grant legal status to millions of immigrants who broke the law to enter the United States.
Read the whole article, it’s a hoot. (hat tip Xrlq)
UPDATE:
Contact Bush and his pro-amnesty minions. Let them know how you feel.
The I.Q. average of the U.S. House of Representatives is destined to drop a few points with the return of liberal loon Cynthia McKinney.
McKinney has formerly been on the take from terror sponsors, and has always had a penchant for popping off with dizzyingly stupid statements.
She now returns to the very position from which she was ousted only two years ago. She'll be able to hobnob once again with the dimmest bulb in the U.S. House, namely Dem Representative Maxine Waters (L.A., California). Just how dumb is Maxine? She once famously lamented that her mother could not abort her. By all rights Maxine should be stationed behind the courtesy desk at the Watts DMV.
Hugh Hewitt suggests in a recent article that fresh Democratic up-and-comers can transform the Democratic Party:
Scoop Jackson is long gone, but his party needs him back. Folks like Salazar and Obama can be part of that necessary revival.
Scoop Jackson wouldn’t recognize today’s Democratic Party; and today’s Democratic Party wouldn’t recognize him. Even relative moderates such as Joe Lieberman have become marginalized within the party, and are not taken seriously by the Party elite.
I have to seriously question whether it's even possible for good men to rise to levels of influence in the Democratic Party without being thoroughly corrupted along the way; without having to sell their souls in the adopting of the hard-left party line; without being morally degraded by the cutthroat partisanism needed to satiate the liberal wing of the Party, which increasingly clamors for the ‘read meat’ of hate.
Hinderacker at Powerlineblog identifies Hugh Hewitt as one of The Big Winners of the 2004 Election:
There are lots of winners tonight. President Bush, pre-eminently; John Thune; Lisa Murkowski; Mel Martinez, and various others. But one of the big winners has to be Hugh Hewitt. Hugh has been a tower of strength throughout the campaign--not a pollyanna, but a rational voice of conservative confidence. Hugh steadied the troops whenever panic started to set in. He made the issues clear in his best-selling If It's Not Close, They Can't Cheat. He rallied pro-Republican forces in various media to work together for the practical end of re-electing President George W. Bush and as many Republican Senators and Congressmen as possible. Why? Because electing Democrats is going to get us killed.
In this election cycle, Hugh has taken his place among the foremost figures in American public life. I may be wrong, and I mean no disrespect to Rush Limbaugh or other eminent talk show hosts, but it strikes me that no one has understood the congruence of media--radio, print media and the blogosphere--anywhere near as well as Hugh. No one has built as good a network of radio stations and web sites--like ours--as Hugh. No one has led conservatives into battle with such a clear conscience and such a lucid vision for the future as Hugh. When many of us, including me, doubted, Hugh was the ever-present voice of assurance. After the candidates themselves, and after the Swift Boat Vets, the wonderful returns we've seen tonight are a tribute to the vision of Hugh Hewitt. He is at the very top of the conservative punditocracy.
DEACON adds: Let's also remember Hugh's famous battle-cry -- "if it's not close, they can't cheat." Of course, Hugh may not have anticipated the Democrats' response -- try to cheat by redefining the meaning of "close."
I'd have to agree with Powerline that Hugh Hewitt is a big winner in the 2004 Election. I must add however, that Powerline itself—along with other blogs that helped break the CBS scandal—was a big winner as well. Powerline produced the monster post "The Sixty-First Minute," which generated over 600 trackbacks (!!!) and propelled memogate to the forefront of the blogosphere and beyond.
Many conservatives have been mystified that the 2004 Presidential Election race was even close, that Kerry—the king of flip-flops—mounted as much of a challenge as he did.
The truth is that the race shouldn't have been close at all, and wouldn't have … but for an extremely biased mainstream media.
Newsweek's Evan Thomas had once boasted ...
”There's one other base here, the media. Let's talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win and I think they're going to portray Kerry and Edwards I'm talking about the establishment media, not Fox. They're going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and there's going to be this glow about them, collective glow, the two of them, that's going to be worth maybe 15 points.”
Kenshi, a self-confessed Democrat from LiveJournal notes:
Mainstream media bragged of being able to boost the Dems by 15 percent (do you remember Newsweek saying that?). The "blogosphere" has been crowing that MSM failed to do so (for which the blogs also claim responsibility), but I don't agree. I think the MSM actually succeeded in bringing the Dems a 10 to 15 point boost in the election (and maybe more). Before the media spin machine started systematically slamming Bush 18 months ago, he was favored at around 66% in the polls. 66% minus 15% is...well...the 51% margin Bush was re-elected by. Thing is, even the thinly veiled support of most major media outlets wasn't enough to put Kerry in the White House. [...]
There is no other way to interpret that except as a colossal win with as much of an implied mandate as most big victories in American electoral history. The Dems may currently disagree, but acceptance is the first step toward recovery. Get over it. (hat tip Instapundit)
I have to agree with Kenshi that the media's role in the Election has been very much underestimated by the punditocracy.
Remember the steady drumbeat in the mainstream media even about the non-issue of President Bush's National Guard service? Just imagine what the media would have done to Bush if he had the baggage that Kerry had! Dan Rather would have been laughing and snorting with "Genghis Khan" references in every newscast; the media would have endlessly played footage of Bush heaving medals over the White House fence; the interview in which he confessed “yes, yes, I committed … atrocities … contrary to the Geneva Conventions," would have been played ad infinitum. In short, the media would have buried Bush if he had Kerry's record.
In conclusion, Kerry benefited immeasurably from a protective media that largely shielded his 1971 Congressional testimony, VVAW membership, questionable medals, and military discharge, et al. In the presence of a neutral media, Bush would have won by a landslide. Only a media that fawned over Kerry with kid gloves—while attempting to pummel Bush with iron fists—made it close.
This from Washington Times:
Sen. John Kerry, with a single telephone call congratulating President Bush yesterday morning, threw off the role of failed presidential candidate leading an embittered minority party and instead became a healer and statesman.
Kerry a "healer and statesman?!" Puh-leeeze!
Kerry conceded late; only after he found he couldn't pull an Al Gore; and hours after he sent would-be Veep 'Prettyboy' Edwards out to awkwardly shadowbox before the crowd, telling them they would "fight." All that was missing was the Rocky theme music.
There was a lot of post-election talk about Kerry's "gracious concession." To me the phrase "gracious concession" is itself a redundancy. If a concession be not gracious, it is unworthy the name.
The fact that a concession is “gracious” is not worthy of special note, or at least not unless given by a candidate from the political Party that gave America the Wellstone Memorial.
I guess after the hell Gore put America through in 2000, any Democratic concession that hasn't followed a month of legal scorched-earth campaign is worthy the title "healer and statesman."
What I’m thankful for is not Kerry’s façade of generosity, but for the Ohio voters that put the election beyond all legal challenge.
Let me be plain here from the beginning: My response to John Kerry’s recent defeat in last week’s Presidential Election is—overwhelmingly—relief, not gloating.
I’m a generous man; I do not gloat in the faces of all Kerry supporters. I only gloat in the faces of such Kerry supporters as have taken special measures to make themselves gloat-worthy. :-)
That having been said, Let the gloat-fest be unleashed on the gloat-worthy parties below …
I gloat in the face of those who backed Kerry simply because they hated Bush:
For four years, Americans watched and listened as President Bush was demonized with a savagery unprecedented in modern American politics. For four years they saw him likened to Hitler and Goebbels, heard his supporters called brownshirts and racists, his administration dubbed "the 43d Reich." For four years they took it all in: "Bush" spelled with a swastika instead of an `s,' the depictions of the president as a drooling moron or a homicidal liar, the poisonous insults aimed at anyone who might consider voting for him. And then on Tuesday they turned out to vote and handed the haters a crushing repudiation.
After enduring the c**p of the Bush-hating Left since 2000, I deserve gloating-rights today, and boy-oh-boy does it feel good!
I gloat in the face of those who have decided they hate America—and even wish death upon it—because America voted for Bush (as in the following from a blogger so vile I refuse to grant linkage):
”Good, Go Ahead, America, Choke on Your Own Vomit, You Deserve to Die.”
I gloat in the face of that portion of the international community who disagreed with America’s choice of President. To which I say, “Hey, I'm glad I pissed you off.”
I gloat in the face of the mainstream media (e.g.; CBS, et al) that did everything they could to buoy Kerry and bash Bush.
Of course I gloat in the collective face of the Democrat party and all its players too numerous to mention, but most especially John “Blue Falcon” Kerry himself, who stupidly thought he could become President after having backstabbed his fellow vets after coming home from ‘Nam. I laugh in his haughty, pompous face most of all (with a gloating sneer in the face of his creepy Billionairess wife Ter-AY-sa as well).
I gloat in the face of idiot entertainers like Tim “Chill Wind” Robbins, the Dixie Ditsy Chicks, Whoopi, ‘Babs’ Streisand, and a list of likeminded lefties that stretches on almost to eternity.
Of course I gloat in bin Laden’s face, the uber-terrorist who tried to torpedo Bush with a Lame-O videotaped threat released days before the election. Indeed, I gloat in the face of all of America’s enemies in the War on Terror … both the ‘Axis of Evil’ and the ‘Axis of Weasel,’ nor forgetting the ‘terrorist broadcasting company’ otherwise known as al Jazeera.
I gloat upwind from the slovenly face of that disgusting butterball dirtbag Michael Moore. It’s funny, really; before the Election I was outraged at the very thought his vile screed Fahrenheit 9/11 Fraud’N’Hate 9/11 might win an Oscar. Now, I’m so blissful that Moore’s s**t got blown back in his own repugnant face—in the very fact that Bush won—that I don’t really care anymore what the Academy does. If that worm gets an Oscar it will just be a constant reminder to me that President Bush, the man Moore despised above all others (even more than terrorists, whom Moore called “minutemen”), got to rub Moore’s face in his own s**t on Election Day. That is a thought far, far sweeter than honey.
Those same Kerry-Edwards bumper stickers that used to make me outraged and indignant whenever I saw them all over L.A.’s west side, now just fill me with reservoirs of glee such as I cannot explain. The Kerry supporters in their cars can’t hear me when I cry in exultation, “Suckaaaaaaas! … You lost!; America won!!!”
This gloat-fest is the barest, most incomplete of lists. It could be ten times this long and barely scratch the Left’s miserable surface. However, anyone else’s face I should gloat in but forgot to is probably included here. (hat tip LGF)
Standing in the light of the Election’s results, the ending of Journey’s song “Lovin,’ Touchin,’ Squeezin’” plays over and over in my mind like the sweetest refrain. “Na na na, na na na …” never felt so good! :-D
Ten thousand or more of our troops are currently pressing the fight to our enemies in the most hazardous environment of all—urban combat.
To Matthew Heidt's post I simply say ... Amen.
(hat tip Hugh Hewitt)
Hammorabi: "Declaration of the death of Arafat has been postponed until tomorrow (according to Al-Arbyiah TV)."
One more day of the charade....
I’m of course quite exultant that John Kerry flamed in last week’s Presidential Election.
My preeminent reason for opposing his election was the imperative of national security.
Second only to that is my intense happiness and personal satisfaction that Vietnam veterans at long last have their vengeance upon John F. Kerry, the ‘Blue Falcon’ that had done so much to make their lives miserable.
There are many reasons why I detest John Kerry, but none so much as his despicable 1971 Congressional testimony.
We all remember his sensational lies, such as:
They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam […]
I’ve heard Kerry’s entire testimony, and the audio is even more sickening than the written transcript, sounding more languorous and insufferably haughty than Thurston Howell III. It was the sheer volume of venom that he spat at his fellow veterans—however—that was most shocking (e.g.; for “[C]rimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.”).
As I listened in disgust to his unceasing invectives against our military, and our nation itself, I mused “It’s as though Kerry’s channeling Ho Chi Minh himself!” Indeed, Ho Chi Minh could hardly have spewed more bile than Kerry did.
POW’s have documented that Kerry’s own testimony was used against them by their tormentors in the infamous Hanoi Hilton. It’s such a shameful, sickening thing, that the thought has occurred to me that Kerry should sincerely thank his Maker that none of those vets looked him up after the war to give him a small taste of the torments our POWs endured, leaving him bleeding beside the road.
I remember when John O'Neill—Vietnam veteran and author of the blockbuster book Unfit for Command—was interviewed by Sean Hannity. Sean asked him if there was anything that could help make right what Kerry had done to his fellow vets; perhaps an apology or something. Paul O'Neill replied simply, "For him not to be President." Keeping that ‘Blue Falcon’ out of the White House—who had betrayed them while they were in harm's way or being tortured as POW’s—is the best thing in the world for helping “make things right.”
There was so much “made right” on Election Day; so much for Vietnam vets to savor in the fact that Kerry’s truly traitorous actions against his fellow vets finally came back to bite him in the @$$, and play a decisive part in denying him the world’s greatest political prize: President of the United States of America.
It’s when I think about this that I realize a tiny bit of the flood of joy and relief those betrayed vets must finally feel—that simple fact that at long last a little bit of justice, a little bit of payback, has finally, finally come back on John Kerry, a man who spat upon his own, and should never come within a mile of Pennsylvania Avenue, or the title Commander in Chief.