Let The Inquisition Begin

Attorney General Eric "Torquemada" Holder has solved the problems of New Black Panther voter intimidation, crime in the cities, Islamic saboteurs at home and mass murderers abroad, so he now turns his mighty political talents to the true international criminals--the CIA interrogators who dared to use harsh techniques to elicit information from terrorists who might reveal information regarding impending future terrorist attacks.

Holder announced that he has decided to "establish a preliminary review after conducting a thorough examination of past reviews of interrogations, including an internal Central Intelligence Agency investigation completed in 2004 by the CIA's inspector general and separate reviews by Justice Department internal affairs watchdogs and prosecutors." That's Holderspeak for pursuing the banana republic agenda of finding ways to prosecute political opponents.

Despite his boss's denials over the past few months that his administration would pursue investigations and prosecution against former administration officials and operatives for their actions on and near the battlefields, Holder has decided to do it anyway. President Obama as recently as last week stated that he "wanted to avoid a polarizing backward-looking fight over issues far removed from my top priorities." The Chicago Tribune says "Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday opened a preliminary investigation into whether some CIA operatives broke the law in their coercive interrogations of suspected terrorists in the years after the September 11, 2001, attacks--presenting President Barack Obama with the prospect of a long, distracting battle over policies and actions carried out under his predecessor."

When confronted with questions from the press, Obama Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said "Ultimately, determinations about whether someone broke the law are made independently by the attorney general." And if you believe that, I have a big orange bridge here in San Francisco I'm willing to sell cheap. The attorney general works for the President. They are political allies. They share the same political philosophy. And Holder doesn't make a move that he doesn't first clear with his boss. While the Democrats will try to paint this as the sterling independence of an ethical attorney general, the chances that Obama did not pre-approve this move are somewhere between zero and none.

Make no mistake. This is pure retaliatory politics. The issue of what comprises torture, enhanced interrogation, ordinary interrogation, and asking nicely will remain a philosophical argument that will never be entirely resolved. And it's not the issue in any event. The possibility that Holder will find that anybody at any level committed any unlawful act based on the existing law at the time of the interrogations is infinitesimal. Those few who did were investigated, prosecuted and convicted, and it was under the Bush administration.

Holder is willing to make public announcements and reproduce documents for public view which are likely to endanger national security for years to come for the sole purpose of attacking political enemies. Of course, Holder has attempted to deflect this criticism by saying that he is merely reviewing the evidence collected by the office of former Attorney General Michael Mukasey who was looking into the destruction of CIA videotapes of detainee interrogations. And what is the horrendous violation of all human decency that Holder and his chief investigator, John Durham are hanging their hats on? Waterboarding.

Considering that there was nothing illegal about waterboarding and a few other nasty interrogation techniques, there is no way to view this announcement except as political punishment of political opponents. This is not something a mature republic does. Only dictatorships and autocracies with one-party governments posing as republics prosecute and persecute their opposition in order to maintain power.

The Democrats have a long history of creating phony political crimes and pursuing them until they finally trap a member of the opposition into doing something that appears to be unlawful. The Valerie Plame case is the most recent example. By the time the unrelenting attacks had succeeded, Scooter Libby was convicted of lying about a matter that had no substance in the first place. Nobody was ever tried or convicted for the alleged "crime." And why not? Because there was no crime to be guilty of. But if you make a mistake in thousands of pages of evidence and testimony about a non-crime, the banana democrats can yell "perjury" and it's off to jail.

Even the liberal MSM, while not criticizing Holder for the vicious underlying reasons for this inquisition, still fretted that this action could hinder Obama's push for his domestic agenda by exacerbating the partisan divide in Washington. And divide it will. Once again, the "bipartisan" Obamacrats have handed the Republicans an issue to rally around. As the McClatchy news organization says: "The probe could complicate Obama's broader political agenda in an already rancorous political atmosphere. Anger among Republicans could make it even harder for Obama to count on broad coalitions to enact his agenda,from health care to climate change and immigration. Even the AP said: "The CIA issue is another headache for an administration struggling to juggle two wars, a painful recession and a crowded agenda bogged down in Congress."

Refusing to take this latest dirty political ploy lying down, Republicans and conservatives predicted that Holder's decision would hurt US national security. The Hill said that Republican Senator Kit Bond lost no time in attacking back. Bond said: "The attorney general and the President are launching a witch-hunt targeting the terror-fighters who have kept us safe since 9-11." And Charles Krauthammer got to the real heart of the matter by saying: "These investigators are going to say, 'I was just obeying orders.' You are going to go to the White House and end up where they want to end up, with [Dick] Cheney, who is the great white whale of this investigation." Krauthammer failed to note what happened to Captain Ahab, the pursuer of that whale.

NBC, in no small hurry to bolster the administration's nefarious investigation, breathlessly announced that Holder had discovered further horrific interrogation techniques used by the former operatives of the Republican administration, including "threats against prisoners' families, sexual humiliation, mock executions, a litany of abuses by CIA interrogators at secret prisons overseas." Oh--the humanity! How could our government ever commit such horrific acts? The International Terrorists Civil Liberties Union (aka the ACLU) obtained this ungodly information from from a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit it had filed in 2003. Of course the ACLU had only the interests of Americans and liberty at heart when it filed a lawsuit to obtain information about overseas operations conducting investigations of foreign terrorists on and near foreign battlefields during a shooting war. Once again, the liberals and their leftist allies want to conduct an asymmetrical war against non-traditional enemies by acting as if it's just a local criminal matter.

Once again, the AP reports "despite the announcement of the criminal probe, several Obama spokesmen declared anew--as the president has repeatedly--that on the subject of detainee interrogation he 'wants to look forward, not back' at Bush tactics. They took pains to say decisions on any prosecutions would be up to Holder, not the White House." Well, I've never been the President of the United States, but I've run a few large companies, and if one of my executives went off on a tangent of his own without my express permission and in contradiction of my stated policy, I'd have booted his butt out the door.

It doesn't help Obama's and Holder's cause that some of his loyal sycophants in the media are slipping up and reporting things favorable to the Bush administration's position. CBS Evening News reported that "the once-secret documents do support the claims by Cheney (remember, he's the true target) that harsh interrogations at times did work. Interviews with prisoners helped the US capture other terror suspects, thwart potential attacks, including Al Qaeda plots to attack the US consulate in Karachi and fly an airplane into California's tallest building." The Washington Post goes even farther by saying "the report found that 'there is no doubt' that the detention and interrogation program itself prevented further terrorist activity, provided information that led to the apprehension of other terrorists, warned authorities of future plots, and helped analysts complete an intelligence picture for senior policymakers and military leaders." ABC World News reported that the documents Holder is reviewing "include information that backs up the Bush White House contention that the detainee program helped to avert further Al Qaeda attacks on the US, including one to derail a passenger train somewhere in the country."

The New York Times even got into the act. "The report found that the CIA program obtained critical information to identify terrorists and stop potential plots and said some imprisoned terrorists provided more information after being exposed to 'brutal' treatment." But it still felt compelled to conclude that "it raised broad questions about the legality, political acceptability and effectiveness of the harshest of the CIA's methods." Someone needs to tell the staff of the New York Times that fighting a war against merciless terrorists includes performing acts that are like making sausage--the result is great, but you don't really want to see it being made.

And while this is going on, the CIA is scrambling to deny rumors that Director Leon Panetta has threatened to resign over the Holder investigation. It did however, admit that Panetta has declared that he will "stand up for those officers who did what their country asked and who followed the legal guidance they were given." The denial included a statement that it was untrue that Panetta engaged in a "profanity-laced screaming match" at the White House when he learned of the Justice Department's plans. I find the denial to be unusually specific about what Panetta supposedly didn't do.

The Obama administration has further plans to damage the CIAs ability to obtain information using traditional means overseas. Detainees under Obama's new "criminal investigation model" will be handled by another layer of inept bureaucracy. No longer will CIA operatives interrogate the terrorists quickly, decisively and on the spot. Now detainees will be entertained by the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group which will be housed within the FBI. You know, the organization that denied the existence of the Mafia for nearly twenty years.

In a related story, CNSNews reports that "officers of the Central Intelligence Agency involved in a terrorist interrogation program that had been reviewed by the [Bush] Justice Department, authorized by agency superiors, approved by top administration officials and repeatedly briefed to leaders of the intelligence committees in the House and Senate nonetheless feared that the US government would not 'stand behind them' if they were later targeted for legal action because of the tough techniques used in the program." This came from the office of the CIA Inspector General. CIA officers harbored these fears even though the agency had carefully laid out its procedures for enhanced interrogation with the Justice Department and received approval from administration officials and repeatedly informed leaders of the congressional intelligence committees about what they were doing.

Grand Inquisitor Holder has not let the CIA officials down. He is now proceeding to prove that their worst fears were justified and prescient. He will conduct an investigation, interrogation and inquisition into the actions of those whose sole duty was to protect American citizens at home and soldiers abroad from further terrorist attacks. He will investigate knowing the success of the program. He will question, knowing that each of the operatives had good faith and justified reasons for believing they were acting under legal executive and congressional authority. He will interrogate to see if anyone was mean or nasty to innocent detainees. He will inquire into the views of the operatives and their bosses to ferret out patriotic heresy and denial of the only True Faith--Liberalism.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Oh You Dirty Liberal Racists. . .

The New York Democratic Party and its allies in the media are dirty racists who can’t stomach the idea of a black man sitting in the Governor’s chair, or so says New York Democratic Governor David Paterson. No so, respond his liberal critics: the problem is you’re blind. So much for the usual political correctness.

For those who don’t know, David Paterson, who is both black and blind, has been dubbed the “Accidental Governor.” He took over the post when crusading “white-knight” Governor Eliot Spitzer flamed out after consorting with a hooker named Ashley Dupre. (The term “white-knight” was not mine, by the way, it came from the racist New York media.)

And the liberals did cheer when Paterson took over. According to one liberal columnist, “People wanted Paterson to succeed, people wanted to get behind . . . a black, sight-challenged New Yorker.” Because that’s how we move beyond race, by supporting a candidate because of his race.

But since those heady days, the cheering has stopped. Paterson’s approval ratings have fallen as low as 18%, and Democrats have begun to call for him to declare that he will not run for re-election, lest the seat fall into Republican hands. And this doesn’t sit well with the good Governor. Why? Because his critics are racists. That’s right, the New York Democratic Party and their media allies are racists.

Last Friday, Paterson told Daily News columnist (and African American) Errol Louis in a radio interview that a “racist media” is trying to kill his chances of running for a full term next year. According to Paterson, the campaign against him is being “orchestrated” by reporters who would rather make the news than report it: “The whole idea is to get me not to run in the primary. We’re not in a post-racial period.”

Apparently, some people are uncomfortable with too many black politicians in power, Paterson warns us. Said Paterson, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick also is under fire in racist Massachusetts because of his race. Moreover, “the reality is the next victim on the list -- and you can see it coming -- is President Barack Obama, who did nothing more than trying to reform a health care system.”

Yes, we can see it coming David. And all because Obama tried to reform health care. . . and the $9 trillion debt, the $1 trillion deficit, the seizure of GM and the political closing of Republican dealerships, the insulting of America and Americans to Muslims on foreign shores, the commission of the same “war crimes” Dick Cheney used to whip out for fun, the demonization of average Americans, the fishy snitch, calling cops stupid, and a whole host of other non-things.

Paterson’s warning did not sit too well with Team Obama. White House political director Patrick Gaspard called Paterson aide Larry Schwartz to tell him that Obama wants no part of this mess (whew, I almost used the word "tar baby" but then I remember that's now racist). Said Obama spokesman Bill Burton:

“In terms of media coverage of the President, he thinks that there are a lot of people who agree with him in the media, there are a lot people who disagree with him in the media, and there are a lot of folks who play it straight. . . Whether or not race plays into that. . . the President doesn't think it is the case. What he thinks is that there area lot of people with different opinions, and one of the great parts about the American tradition is that people are able to do that freely.”

Obama then “wee wee’d” himself.

With the left wing media going insane, not being as accustomed to false allegations of racism as the right is, and with Team Obama trying to unload this albatross, Paterson tried to downplay his comments.

“I don't think the media has acted in a racist way, but I have felt stereotyped at times. . . At no point did I claim that this media piling-on effect was due to race,” he said, before adding, “What I did point out was that certain media outlets have engaged in coverage that exploits racial stereotypes. The media is trying to control the politics, not reporting it. They're trying to control it. There are some folks in the media who think that it's all right to racially stereotype.” Thus, they aren’t racist, they just make racist attacks.

Surprisingly, this didn’t stem the criticism, particularly as the allegation of racism did not sit well with a Democratic Party that believes that it cannot, by definition, be racist.

Said state Senator Kevin Parker: “He’s given the media more than enough to feed on with the incompetence shown in his administration. To quote Michael Jackson, he should start with the man in the mirror.” Michael Jackson? Some Republican will have to try that line on Obama and see how much blood flows at Huffpo.

Paterson was quick to respond by doubling down on stupid. Indeed, noting that despite New York’s financial crisis, he had not had to write IOUs like liberal California, and the state was not nearly as bad off as Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Massachusetts. Strangely, no comparison was made to Republican run states. He also complained that he was held to a higher standard. “I played by the rules. It was a very difficult position to find myself in and I've given it my best. I've done the best I can under the very trying circumstances the state is facing. It seems I have to work twice as hard as others.”

Then he added the coup de grace: “I have been quiet for 17 months on this issue. . . . Part of what I feel is that one very successful minority is permissible, but when you see too many success stories, then some people get nervous.”

He also pointed out that it bothers him that people refer to him as the “accidental governor.” Whines Paterson: “It was not an accident. It is a constitutional mandate. I became governor by a constitutional mandate.” He then noted that the honkus maximus successors to disgraced governors Jim McGreevy of New Jersey and John Rowland of Connecticut were not dubbed “accidental governors.”

The racists in the media haven’t take this too well. After comparing Paterson to black athletes and suggesting that he should raise the “white flag”, they described his complaints as “self-pitying,” even though we know that allegations of racism cannot be self-pity.

But don’t worry, it may turn out that this isn’t about racism at all. . . it’s about disablism. At least, that’s what Democratic state Senator Diane Savino claimed, when she said:

“We live in a digital age now, with e-mailing and BlackBerrying. He is not able to do that because of his visual impairment. David cannot do those things. Also, he does not read Braille. He has people reading newspapers to him. He listens to tapes of staffers briefing him. All that takes an enormous amount of time. . . In some ways I think that has hindered him, in spite of everything he has accomplished in life. David is one of those people who tends to rely on the staff around him to set policy and make decisions, and then he turns around and undoes things. The messaging and the policy development comes out in various conflicting forms.”

Paterson aide, Larry Schwartz called those comments “insensitive and totally inappropriate.” He then stated that “Diane Savino owes a public apology to Governor Paterson and every visually impaired New Yorker.” He then insulted the non-blind by claiming that Paterson functions “as well, if not better than people without a handicap.”

Thus, we are left with a riddle. Is the New York liberal media and the New York Democratic Party (and their Massachusetts equivalents) a bunch of racists who can’t handle seeing too many black men in power? Are they just biased against blind people? Or has a black governor made false claims of racism to cover his own incompetence?

The ironies here are rich. New York should impose an “irony tax.”

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Through The Legal Looking Glass--The Nine Gray Eminences

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas was born on June 23, 1948 in Pin Point, Georgia. His family was poor--dirt poor, as he himself describes them. As the descendants of American slaves living in the Deep South, Thomas and his family experienced many of the humiliations so common to African-Americans of the time. And some of the same family tragedies. His father left the family when Clarence was only two years old. After a fire destroyed their meager home, the family split up.

While Clarence's sister Emma stayed behind with relatives in Pin Point, he and his brother Myers moved to Savannah with their mother. His mother worked as a maid, housekeeper, inn worker, and other types of domestic employment. Though she tried mightily to remain independent, it became increasingly difficult as the boys grew up. The extended family always stuck together, and finally his mother decided she just could no longer go it alone. So when Clarence was seven years old, his mother and the two boys moved in with their grandfather, Myers Anderson, after whom Clarence's brother was named.

Anderson was a largely uneducated man with a big heart and an agile brain. He had built not just one, but two businesses in Savannah. He owned a fuel-oil business as well as an icehouse and delivery service. Myers started taking Clarence and his brother to a local farm around the time Clarence was ten, where they worked a typical sunrise-to-sunset day when not in school. As an adult, Thomas loved to quote his grandfather saying "never let the sun catch you in bed."

Teenage Thomas was the only black student at his high school in Savannah. Following his grandfather's advice, he pursued self-reliance. He was an honors student throughout his high school years. The family were Roman Catholic, and he continued his learning through Catholic schools of higher education. At one point he considered becoming a priest, and attended two different Catholic seminaries. Now ready for his sophomore college year, Thomas went on to College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts.

At Holy Cross, Thomas encountered the Northern form of racial discrimination. Though never directly denied access to any of the privileges of the white students, he nevertheless saw the subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) differences in the way black students were treated, even at a Church-sponsored school. At Holy Cross, Thomas formed one of the very first Black Students Associations. He pointed out years later than he had no intention of it being a separatist group, but formed it solely in reaction to the unequal treatment of black students. He led a student walkout when certain white students received light discipline at the same time that black students were receiving harsh discipline for exactly the same infractions, including expulsion. His group successfully negotiated the return of the expelled black students.

He always felt that the Catholic Church was not doing enough to use its moral and religious power to combat racism. It led to his break with the Church, and he became an Episcopalian for some years. In the 1990's, he returned to the Catholic Church, where he remains a communicant to this day.

After graduating from Holy Cross cum laude with a degree in English literature, Thomas went on to Yale Law School. He graduated near the middle of his class, getting his JD degree in 1974. Thomas was admitted to Yale Law based strictly on his grades and achievements. He had taken advantage of none of the early affirmative action advantages which were available for black students. Yet he was treated by future possible employers as if he wasn't a legitimate Yale Law graduate. Some asked pointed questions about how Thomas had gotten into Yale Law in the first place. This had a very strong influence on Thomas's ongoing disdain for affirmative action programs.

Thomas has one son from his first marriage. He and college sweetheart Kathy Ambush were married in a ceremony at the time that Thomas was Episcopalian. The two separated and were subsequently divorced in 1984. After returning to the Catholic Church, he met Virginia Lamp, a lobbyist and aide to Congressman Dick Armey. He married Lamp in 1987, obtaining an annulment of his first marriage from the Catholic Church. Out of 140 Justices currently serving on the federal bench, there are only thirteen who are Catholic. But Thomas certainly doesn't feel isolated by that. He is just one of the six Catholics currently sitting on the Supreme Court bench.

Thomas's legal and political career started when he was made Assistant Attorney General of Missouri in 1974 under State Attorney General John Danforth. When Danforth was elected to the US Senate in 1976, Thomas went into private practice as an attorney for the Monsanto Company in St. Louis. Danforth had recognized Thomas's negotiating and legal talents, and in 1979 called Thomas into service again, this time as a Senatorial Legislative Assistant. Danforth was later a strong advocate for a Thomas seat on the Supreme Court.

In 1981, he was appointed as Assistant Secretary of Education for the Office of Civil Rights by Ronald Reagan. In 1982, Thomas was appointed Chairman of the US Equal Employment Opportunities Commission. As someone who had experienced the effect of racial discrimination young, and later the questioning of his credentials because of affirmative action, Thomas became a strong enforcer of anti-discrimination statutes while showing benign neglect toward affirmative action.

He also continued his philosophy of personal self-reliance and stopped the EEOC practice of filing group "class actions" for discrimination, choosing instead to pursue cases of individual and provable discrimination. He discontinued the policy of treating every allegation of discrimination as being true unless proven false, and shifted the burden of proof to those making the claim. He got national press in 1984 by telling black leaders like Jesse Jackson that they were "watching the destruction of our race as they bitch, bitch, bitch about President Reagan instead of working with the Reagan administration to alleviate teenage pregnancy, crime, unemployment and illiteracy."

In June of 1989, President George H. W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to the US District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals. Initially, Thomas was not receptive to the idea, and it took some serious jaw-boning to bring him around. Thomas later said that during the interviews with Democratic Senators and their staffs, he was "struck by how easy it had become for sanctimonious whites to accuse a black man of not caring about civil rights." Hard to believe, but the actual hearings went very smoothly, and during the time he served on the Court of Appeals bench, he became a close friend of fellow Appeals Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

When Supreme Court Justice William Brennan stepped down in 1990, President Bush first thought that he would appoint Thomas to that seat. But fearing a charge of tokenism and growing obstreperousness among the left wing of the Democratic Party, he appointed judicial question mark David Souter instead. As Souter immediately turned out to be a judicial activist and liberal opinion writer, Bush and his Chief of Staff John Sununu determined that their next appointment would be a staunch conservative, and they would not back down. Sununu predicted a "knock-down, drag-out, bloody-knuckles, grass-roots fight" over such a nomination.

Upon the announcement of the retirement of Justice Thurgood Marshall in July of 1991, Bush and Sununu both decided immediately that Thomas would be the nominee. Whether the fact that Marshall was the first and only black Justice on the Court was a factor in the choice is unknown, but it added another factor to the fight that Sununu had predicted, and put the left into full spin cycle figuring out how to attack a black Court nominee. It started with legal writer Jeffrey Toobin saying that Bush made the decision solely on race, and saw Thomas as "pretty much the only qualified black candidate who would be a reliable conservative vote." And that was mild compared to what followed.

The liberal American Bar Association Panel on Supreme Court Nominations declared Thomas "qualified," less than Bush would have wished, but much stronger than the attack dogs would have preferred. Until the earlier Bork debacle, a "qualified" rating from the ABA was more than enough to allow a nominee to slide through the Senate. But the Senate Judiciary Committee was by now far more politicized than even the liberal ABA.

Along with the liberals on the Senate Committee, Thomas was opposed by the NAACP, the Urban League and the National Organization for Women. None were able to attack Thomas on his competence and judicial record, which before Bork were the only criteria by which a Supreme Court nominee was to be vetted. But the NAACP and Urban League didn't like Thomas's views on affirmative action, and NOW was horrified at the thought of a Justice who might vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Out went the judicial questions, and in came the political questions. What ensued was the worst political circus around a Supreme Court nominee since the first "Borking."

The President of NOW literally said in a public statement that they were going to "Bork" Thomas. The "Uncle Tom" allegations began shortly thereafter. Ted Kennedy came up just short of calling Thomas a secret member of the Ku Klux Klan. But Bush stood by his man. And then came the final attack. "A little bit nutty, a little bit slutty" Anita Hill showed up to accuse Thomas of sexual harassment. Thomas lost his temper over this only once, when he called the hearings "a judicial lynching." The story of the hearings is a book by itself, so I will leave it at this. With Thomas's judicial qualifications nearly ignored, and his political beliefs clearly at the forefront, the Senate confirmed his appointment by 52 to 48, the narrowest margin in over a century. Eleven Democrats found their honesty and integrity for a few brief moments, and joined the 41 Republicans voting in favor.

Thomas was viewed from the beginning of his first Supreme Court term as being a member of the conservative minority on the Court. This altered the makeup of the Court in that he replaced a reliably activist and liberal Justice. The Souter nomination had merely replaced a very vocal liberal with a stealth liberal. As an "originalist" he is considered by liberals and judicial activists to be ultraconservative, and the most "right wing" Justice of them all. Many have made the mistake of thinking that because he is rather quiet during argument and reluctant to take center stage that he is merely a weak Justice who follows in the wake of conservatives like his early companion Antonin Scalia.

At least one liberal Supreme Court watcher has gotten it right. Legal reporter Jan Crawford Greenburg says that "pundits' portrayal of Thomas as Antonin Scalia's understudy was grossly inaccurate, it was more often Scalia changing his mind to agree with Thomas rather than the other way around." Unwilling to let such a legal compliment go unmodified, she also adds that she sees Thomas as divisive, since "the forcefulness of Thomas's views pushed Justices Souter, Sandra Day OConnor and Anthony Kennedy away." Yet she remains highly critical of court watchers who consider Thomas to have meager legal talents. For those who might wonder why Chief Justice Rehnquist rarely called on Thomas to write majority opinions, Greenburg says it was Rehnquist's fear of Thomas's clear and cogent arguments and refusal to water down his ideas to gain a majority concurrence. It had nothing to do with any inability of Thomas to write brilliant opinions.

The similarity of voting between the conservative Justices is not as simple as most people would believe. "Originalist" is a broad term which does indeed distinguish them from the "Living Constitution" Justices. But there are subtle differences which could become more apparent if the "originalists" ever become a clear majority on the Court (which isn't going to happen while Barack Obama is President). Justices Scalia and Chief Justice Roberts espouse "original intent," while Justice Alito leans toward "original words plus original intent." While Thomas agrees with both of those views as they have evolved, he goes one step farther. If the original intent is not apparent and the original words do not address a modern issue, Thomas is very clear on where to look next, and it's not "evolving law," the "living Constitution," foreign law or group therapy.

Rather than write a concurring opinion which lays out his judicial philosophy and might harm the the possibility of bringing along the fifth "swing vote," Thomas has thus far largely simply joined in the originalist opinions. But were there to be a fifth solid vote on the originalist side, Thomas would be very likely to concur rather than simply join, and set forth his underlying judicial philosophy. He got it from the Founding Fathers. It's called "Natural Law." Thomas believes that if the words and intent of the Constitution do not resolve the issue, then go to the Declaration of Independence. And if that doesn't address the issue adequately, then go to the Federalist Papers, and the writings of the early Revolutionaries, and even to Judeo-Christian legal tradition. The other originalists stop at "words and intent."

In a much earlier post in which we discussed the Dred Scott decision, I pointed out that had Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas been sitting on the Supreme Court at the time of the decision, only Thomas could have remained true to his judicial philosophy by holding that runaway slaves must be treated as full human beings with the rights of all humans as defined in the Declaration of Independence. The three others would most likely have to go with the majority opinion which held that runaway slaves could be treated in non-slave states as property with no independent human rights because of the "counting" provision contained in the pre-Civil War Constitution.

The likelihood of such a landmark decision ever having to be made again based solely on that difference is terribly slim, but worth thinking about if it should ultimately become the majority legal concept among originalist Justices. This is largely because it would also be a guide to the lower appellate courts making decisions on cases of first impression when the original words and original intent are not sufficient to form a dispositive opinion.

Thomas's stand on stare decisis is clearer in his written works than in the opportunities he has had to exercise it on the Court. In majority opinions, he has the most consistent record of any Justice in upholding prior decisions. Yet when he writes a minority opinion or dissent he is the Justice most consistent in arguing for the overturning of precedent. Thomas has made it clear that he believes that precedent is not legitimate if it is based on false reading (not a "different" reading) of the words of the Constitution. His exact words are "When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution's original meaning." Thus, he has consistently been in the minority on abortion cases, nearly always injecting his view that Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

Thomas is a free speech purist, and behind David Souter, the Justice most likely to support the exercise of free speech regardless of how offensive he personally finds the speech in question. He has been very consistent on the issue of federalism, voting nearly every time to support the reinstatement of purely state issues to the states and taking them out of the federal jurisdiction. He believes the Interstate Commerce Clause provides a particular jurisdiction to the federal government, but does not believe that this specficity of the Clause should be expanded to include entirely tangential matters. For that reason, he has nearly always voted to restrict the federal government from interfering in state-to-state compacts and activities which have minimal impact on national commerce.

Thomas supports the Eighth Amendment in its traditional upholding of the death penalty, and opposes federal court intervention in matters of sentencing and arrest determination based on federal standards being applied to state procedures. As for Equal Protection, he sees it in simple terms combined with a traditional view of procedural due process. He sees "substantive due process" as a creation out of whole cloth by the activist Warren Court which turned traditional procedural due process into a legal and philosophical spitting contest about what comprises equal protection. And he's not afraid to apply that judicial philosophy directly to affirmative action. In Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena he wrote that "there is a moral and constitutional equivalence between laws designed to subjugate a race and those that distribute benefits on the basis of race in order to foster some current notion of equality. Government cannot make us equal. It can only recognize, respect, and protect us as equal before the law. That affirmative action programs may have been motivated, in part, by good intentions cannot provide refuge from the principle that under our Constitution, the government may not make distinctions on the basis of race."

On the Church and State issue, Thomas applies his rarely enunciated natural law theory to interpret the meaning of the Establishment Clause. He sees the free exercise provision as an individual right, best protected by the States, and therefore opposed interference in state determinations utilizing the Fourteenth Amendment "incorporation" argument. His stand is that when the Founders wrote the Establishment Clause, they paid due deference to "Nature and Nature's God" from the Declaration by simply stopping the federal government from forcing religion on anyone by creation of a national official religion. He sees the Establishment Clause as fundamental along with the Free Exercise Clause, and therefore any incorporation of the Establisment Clause must necessarily include incorporation of the Free Exercise Clause. That means that prohibiting religious observances or displays on property located within any State jurisdiction via the federal courts is interference with the individual's right to express religious views on state property. And whether that comprises state promotion of religion, he says, is a determination to be made by the State, not the federal courts.

He is clear on abortion. He personally opposes it. But that is not his judicial opinion. His judicial opinion hinges on his belief that some precedent is based on purposeful misreading of the Constitution and should be overturned. He believes Roe v. Wade to be one of those precedents. He has expressed his judicial opinion that abortion is one of those matters never even considered by the Founders except as to the sanctity of human life, and therefore the appropriate jurisdiction for determination of abortion laws is the states, not the federal government. He was able to extend his view to the federal jurisdiction in supporting the federal statute banning partial-birth abortions on the grounds that it asserted authority over a practice clearly proscribed over the entire course of American legal jurisprudence, and that it was not an inordinate overstepping of the federal government since no argument either for or against the statute involved the issue of interstate commerce. Since the Constitution never addressed abortion as an issue of its own, any state or federal statute which addressed the live-birth issue as homicide rather than abortion was valid on its face and could be stricken only if the statute violated some other constitutional stricture.

Thomas has consistently supported the executive branch in its exercise of independent executive power, particularly where it involves the executive's sole power to conduct war as Commander-in-Chief. He therefore wrote a dissenting opinion in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in which the majority held that the ability of the executive to try terrorists captured on foreign soil in military tribunals was a sole prerogative of the Congress, and required Congressional authorization for such trials. As for Fourth Amendment protections, he has usually found in favor of the exercise of the power of the police, and has acidly referred to the volumes of restrictions on reasonable search and seizure as unreasonable.

Thomas has been criticized by overly talkative legal scholars of being lax in his use of the right to ask questions of the attorneys at oral argument. Thomas has given the serious answer that he believes that most issues talked about at oral argument are just recitations of the legal briefs, and that asking questions should be limited to oral arguments which diverge in some way from the written briefs. That is a rare occurrence. Humorously, he has said that if he waits long enough, someone on the Court is going to ask the question he was thinking of anyway. He has also said rather humanly that presenting a case before the Supreme Court is tough enough without Justices asking "gotcha" questions designed solely to show off their own wisdom while humiliating the attorney presenting the argument. "Im not here to give the attorneys a hard time."

Fortunately for all of us, Justice Thomas has given his liberal counterparts on the Court an extremely hard time. And he has made his conservative brethren adhere to their principles. When they have not, he has not been reticent about a school master's use of a sharp tongue for correction.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Question: Your Favorite Romantic Movies

Some disloyal Commentarama readers have suggested that our romance advice wasn’t all that and a bag of chips. Clearly, they are wrong. . . and communists. Still, it never hurts to improve your knowledge base. And the best way to learn something is to see how they do it in the movies. So give us a hand, tell us your two favorite romantic movies and what you like about them. [+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Commentarama, Advice for the Forlorn

We like to think of ourselves as well rounded at Commentarama, but lately we’ve gotten a lot of flack for our failure to dispense romance advice. So here it is. Just remember, you asked for it.

................................................................

Dear Commentarama,

I go on a lot of blind dates, but none of them ever work out because I’m just not good at the whole dating thing. Can you tell me five things that I can say on a first date to make a woman fall madly in love with me?

Signed,
Clueless Loan Officer

Dear Clueless Loaner,

If you want a woman to fall in love with you, whip out these babies:

(1) Oh, I thought you were thinner. (Shows that you have thought about her.)

(2) You’re wearing that? (Shows that you notice details.)

(3) Did you know that blind dates are more economical than paying for hookers? (Shows that you are financially responsible.)

(4) What happened to your hair? (Shows that you care.)

(5) I have the same dress at home. (Shows that you share her interests.)

These are guaranteed to put the “madly” smack-dab into the heart of your relationship.

Management

................................................................

Dear Commentarama,

I’m in love with my boss, but he barely notices me. Sometimes I think he hates me. He has appointed other people to take over all of the most interesting parts of my job, and he ignores me. Still, I love him so. How do I get his attention?

SOS

Dear Hillary,

Please stop writing us. As for your question, try bringing a gun to the next cabinet meeting.

Management

................................................................

Dear Commentarama,

I love little baby ducks, old pickup trucks, slow moving trains and rain. But I have leprosy, and that just breaks me up inside. On what date should I tell the person I’m dating about the leprosy?

Stew

Dear Stew,

No need to go to pieces over this issue, leprosy isn’t that relevant in the modern era. But if it bothers you, try finding dates on eLeper.com. They also have good counselors who are always willing to lend an ear.

Management

................................................................

Dear Commentarama,

I really want to date “Michelle,” who is a wonderful woman, but is also married, as indeed am I. What makes this worse, she’s married to my boss. He’s a jealous man who never dug coal or visited a Homes Depot Bar like I have. He’s so jealous that he has “Michelle” watched day and night by what I swear is like a private security force. Also, I am the first member of my family to go to college and I fear that she is a snob. Hopeless right? Well, get this. The other day I came across a little document from, let’s say “Kenya,” that my boss wouldn’t want people knowing about. Should I use this to blackmail him into letting me go on a date with “Michelle.” I would love to take his plane for a little ride. Maybe to New York. Any advice would be appreciated.

“Neil Kinnock”

Dear Slow Joe,

Despite the propaganda put out by Hallmark, blackmail remains the surest method for obtaining dates. Go where your heart takes you.

Management

................................................................

Dear Commentarama,

I want to be loved. Nay, I need to be loved. I need to be loved just about as much as I hate earmarks. But no one ever wants to give me the love I need, no matter how hard I try. I told my respected friends, who work just across the aisle from me, that I’ll do anything they want for love, but they still won’t love me. What can I do to win their love?

Maverick

Dear Maverick,

Buy a dog.

Management

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

They're Just Plain Folks, Those Obamas

We heard endlessly during the Presidential campaign how Republicans in general and the Bushes in particular were rich elitists who didn't care about the little guy. At the same time, the Obamas touted their education but made much of their own humble beginnings and simple ways. They identify with the common man, and have none of those elitist trappings so evident among Republicans.

So let's take a quick look at the First Mommy and Plain Jane homemaker who is Michelle Obama. She is indeed just like us ordinary folks, if by ordinary you mean the Astors. It took the Canadian press to give us a peek at simply ordinary Michelle's simple life. Somehow, the mainstream media in the United States really believe the propaganda, so they repeat it. Nothing extraordinary about how the First "Lady" lives.

When in her cozy little cottage called the White House, she has more than twenty personal attendants. When she travels, she takes as many of them as she can fit on the jumbo jet with her. In her own words she told the nation: "In my own life, in my own small way, I have tried to give back to this country that has given me so much." She calls it "giving back." To me, it looks more like "getting even, and then some." If I recall, this is also the woman who said that she was proud of this country for the very first time when her husband finagled his way to the Democratic nomination for President of the common folks. "See, that's why I left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service." Really? I thought she left the law firm to take a $300,000 per year job as a hospital administrator. A job for which she had no credentials or experience, and which paid barely $50,000 before her pals in Chicago set the position up for her.

Forget Mamie Eisenhower's hats from Woolworth's. Forget Patricia Nixon's "respectable Republican cloth coat." Forget independently-wealthy Laura Bush's moderate ways. Forget Nancy Reagan's seven assistants (not counting the astrologer). This First Lady is far too important to have less than twenty assistants, all of whom work for Simple Sarah on the taxpayers' money. Michelle Obama does not receive a salary for being the wife of the Crook-in-Chief, so she did indeed give up that juicy public service job at the hospital. But how big a salary do you need when you can get the rubes to pay for twenty-plus assistants to do everything short of going to the bathroom for you?

Here are a few of the titles and salaries of the modest assistants the moderate First Lady has working for her. Her Chief of Staff, Susan Sher, with no prior experience in government or protocol (obviously) earns a base salary of $172,200 per year. The next highest earner gets her high salary based on the lengthiness of her title. She is Jocelyn C. Frye, who is (get this) Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady. One is tempted to ask "what policies and projects have the American people or the Constitution authorized a First Lady to have?"

Next in line is Camille Y. Johnston, who earns $102,000 per year as Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady. Abigail Adams wrote her own correspondence at no charge to the public. But Abigail could actually spell and form coherent sentences, so I guess we shouldn't begrudge Michelle having someone to make her look a bit less unintelligent. Melissa E. Winter earns $95,000 as Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff to the First Lady. David Medina gets a mere $90,000 per year because unlike those illustrious ladies listed, he is only Deputy Chief of Staff to the First Lady and apparently doesn't assist the President at all.

Catherine M. Lelyveld gets $84,000 as Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady. Correct me if I'm wrong, but since the First Lady is not even a real official title, and her job is to be the President's wife, why does she need a press secretary at all? A poverty-level salary of $75,000 goes to Frances M. Starkey, Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady. Well, everybody needs somebody to warm up the crowd, right? The list goes on from as low as $36,000 per year for Sally M. Armbruster (as opposed to Michelle the Arm Buster), who is Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary, up to $70,000 for Trooper Sanders, Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady. Michelle seems to have an awful lot of policies and projects to need so much help. But I'm starting to get carpal tunnel syndrome from typing all those humble titles and poverty-level salaries.

The mother's little helpers add up to $1,216,200 just for the major list, and does not include Personal Makeup Artist Ingrid Grimes or First Hairstylist Johnny Wright, both of whom travel with Michelle at all times, and a few other executive director assistant manager co-partner whatevers. The humility and simple life of poor Michelle simply astounds me. Now I understand how she relates so well to the little folks struggling to put food on the table and clothes on their kids' backs. She is definitely someone who can relate well to the wives of unemployed and underemployed men everywhere.

A song from the last Great Depression should explain it all.

"She may be weary,
Women do get weary
Wearing the same shabby dress.
And when she's weary,
Try a little tenderness."

Oh, and along with that, twenty or thirty helpers and a million dollars in salaries, more or less. Fellow ordinary guys, if your wife is depressed, this will cheer her right up.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Liberal Businessman Bears False Witness

President Barack Obama was recently in pulpit mode while slamming grassroots conservatives for showing up at staged pro-government health planning town hall meetings. He accused these "operatives of the right wing conspiracy and the Republican Party" of "bearing false witness." But conservatives are not the only blasphemers. One major liberal business figure is now on the receiving end of leftwing anger.

John Mackey, co-founder, Chairman and CEO of Whole Foods Markets is now is the cross-hairs of the frothing-at-the-mouth left. He is a leader in the organic food movement. He is a self-proclaimed vegan, although he does occasionally eat eggs, so in the hierarchy of non-meat eaters, that makes him an ovo-vegetarian (don't ask me how I know these things). But he only eats eggs from the free range chickens he raises at his Texas ranch. He practices yoga. Last year he gave slightly over a million dollars to animal welfare programs. He has supported liberal and Democratic causes, but calls himself a Libertarian.

As for his business, Whole Foods carries only organic foods. The few animal products carried are gleaned from producers who have signed a humane-treatment pledge. And animal welfare is not his only concern. He takes very good care of his employees, who are among the highest-paid workers in the retail food arena. He offers a very low-cost, high-benefit medical plan for every employee. Without any need for the government to step in, Mackey built in salary and bonus caps on his executives. In 2005, Whole Foods was one of only two Fortune 500 companies to be listed in the top 25 best companies to work for.

He made a decision a few years back that he loved his work more than he loved the wealth he was creating, so he simply reduced his salary to $1.00 per year, and accepts minimal bonuses (last year it was about $34,000, all of which he gave to charity). The sums equal to what he would have made under his old bonus plan are now distributed to the employees at all levels, as well as to multiple charitable causes.

I don't have a dog in this hunt. I have been forced on a few occasions by friends and family members (who never asked a second time) to accompany them to our local Whole Foods store. I usually embarass them by asking loudly where I can find the products with a minimum of 15% preservatives by volume. Or "Where is the MSG aisle?" Or "What's all this brown bread crap? Where's the good white bleached flour Wonder Bread?" Or "Have they washed the caterpillar droppings off these sickly sprouts?" Or "Can you explain to me what unnatural foods are?"

So obviously, a man with Mackey's credentials needs to be vilified by the left. "Traitor!" "Deviant!" "Fascist!" And why is he suddenly so loathsome to the left? He made the fatal error of publicly opposing Obama's public health care proposals (aka nationalized and socialized medicine). In fact, his very public disagreement with the single-payer advocates and single-payer obfuscators includes his own plan which sounds a great deal like our own CommentaramaCare. He made the fatal mistake of promoting and discussing his plan in the Wall Street Journal on August 11 of this year.

He isn't opposing some government regulation. He isn't screaming communist at anyone who proposes Congressional action on getting medical insurance for those who have earned it but for some reason can't afford it under the current chaotic system. He just doesn't want a government takeover, single-payer, British-style National Health Service. He knows the market invariably works better than anything the government can do. And that, according to the followers of High Priest Obama, is heresy.

A growing group of leftist organizations, including ACORN and the SEIU are promoting boycotts against Whole Foods. A company which provides better health benefits for its employees than any government program anywhere in the world has ever provided is now to be punished because its CEO disagrees with the Obamassiah. The HuffPo and DailyKos are in high dudgeon. Although Obama himself has not spoken about Mackey specifically, several of his storm troopers have. They've called Mackey pretty much everything but a Republican, but it's still early in the game. Can "enemy of the people" and "destroyer of children" be far behind?

OK, now let's analyze this. Mackey makes $1.00 per year. He donates all his other income to charity. He is fabulously wealthy. How is Mackey going to be hurt personally by a boycott? The answer, obviously, is he won't, unless you consider harming his company something personal. But a great many other people will be hurt. Whole Foods has thousands of employees nationwide, particularly after the company purchased the Wild Oats Natural Food stores. Mackey won't be out of a job or impoverished if the boycott is successful. But many of those workers will. If stores start closing, the locals may have to buy the vile meat and unnatural vegetable products that people like me buy at Safeway.

Mackey's bonuses are based on profits. If those profits go down, so does Mackey's charitable work. Sorry, Fido and Puff, but we'll have to gas you instead of fixing you up and getting you a good home. And as the largest natural foods chain in the nation, it is also the nation's largest purchaser of natural products from the wholesalers. Who do those producers sell their products to when Whole Foods cuts its purchases by 15% to 25%? More bankruptcies and more payroll cuts will result.

But what are a few hundred or a few thousand ruined livelihoods and businesses when doctrinaire Obamacare is at stake? Who cares about unemployed workers when "principle" is being questioned? And how dare anyone, anyone, question Obama's New Testament? It is far more important to promote half-assed European style government-run health care than it is to support a company which provides some of the best medical care in the world to its employees and provides good, healthy and politically-correct food products.

I will be shopping at Whole Foods for the foreseeable future, also as a matter of principle (certainly not because I want to shop with those natural food creeps). I can always buy a few rabbits and feed the Whole Food products to them while I continue to consume my Wonder Bread sandwiches, pig-pen bacon, chicken-coop chicken, and Oreos.

And while doing the research for this article, I found another reason to love Mackey (and at the same time to wonder what took the SEIU so long to join in a boycott of Whole Foods). Mackey has described unions in terms I only wish I had thought of. "The union is like having herpes. It doesn't kill you, but it's unpleasant and inconvenient, and it stops a lot of people from becoming your lover." Mackey prefers "company unions," which are illegal in America, but work very well in Japan, Germany and many other countries.

America requires that all unions be formed outside of the company, thus producing massive unions with little knowledge of any individual company, huge needs to support leftwing political causes and candidates, and strong associations with criminal enterprises and international socialists. For example: the SEIU (Service Employees International Union). Company unions bring labor and management together to work out common goals for the actual employees and actual management of the actual company. Everybody wins, and not a dime of union money leaves the possession of the union employees. So of course, the left hates the very concept of company unions. It's hard for doctrinaire leftists to convince well-paid, generally satisfied employees that they have "nothing to lose but their chains." It's hard to convince employees with excellent medical benefits that they should give their money involuntarily to a distant union to support political causes and candidates they despise and pay for public endorsement of candidates who support partial-birth abortion along with cost-benefit bureaucratic control of their personal health.

God love John Mackey, and to hell with High Priest Obama.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Polling: Why ObamaCare Is Failing

By now you’ve all seen the chart showing Obama’s approval rating rolling down the hill like Sisyphus’s rock. If not, look to the right. You’ve probably also heard that Republicans lead Democrats by 5% in the generic ballot. A big part of this seems to be that ObamaCare has become political poison. Taking a look at some of the polling data tells us why. . .

For starters, few Americans think the plan will work. Sixty-one percent of Americas state that the goal of health care reform should be to control health care costs. But only 23% of Americans think ObamaCare will control health care costs. Indeed, 53% of Americans expect that it will lead to higher costs (18% think it will have no effect at all).

Americans also aren’t happy with paying for this reform. Fifty-four percent of Americans say that they would rather see tax cuts for the middle class than new spending on health care. BUT, despite promises that the middle class would not be taxed to make this happen, 78% of Americans believe that taxes will be raised on the middle class to cover the costs of health care reform.

Further, Nancy Pelosi’s attempts to demonize insurance companies have fallen on deaf ears: Americans “fear” the government more than they fear private insurance companies by a margin of 51% to 41%.

In fact, now that Americans have been asked to compare the quality of the care they receive against the alternatives being offered, 74% of Americans now rate the quality of the care they receive as good or excellent. Only 7% rate their own care as poor. And this good will has carried over to the entire system, with 48% of Americans now rating the U.S. health care system as good or excellent, up 13 points from two months ago and 19 points from last year. And this number is even higher when you exclude Democrats (see the chart below for party affiliation break downs).

So how is all of this translating into support (or lack thereof) for ObamaCare? Only 35% of Americans say that it would be better to pass the current version of ObamaCare than it would be to do nothing.

Finally, click on the chart below, which shows that these numbers are much more dramatic when you separate out the Democrats. Interestingly, Republicans and unaffiliated voters seem rather like minded on these issues, and once again, the Democrats are the outliers.



[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Liberal “Thinking”: Changing Human Nature

Driving across the country, you hear a lot of stupidity poured out over the airwaves. You hear so much, in fact, that it hardly rates mentioning. But near the end of my recent trip, one woman gave us a little gem that’s worth discussing. This woman encapsulated the fundamental flaw with liberal thinking when she claimed that eliminating guns would stop human violence. The flaw she so eloquentlessly displayed, is that liberals constantly try to change human nature rather than change human behavior.

Here’s the set up. The talk show host asked his audience “what do you wish had never been invented?” After a succession of callers suggested de-inventing their pet peeves (like bass on car stereos or video games), one brave caller gave us the liberal home run: guns.

But she didn’t just say that she wished guns had never been invented, she explained why. And that’s where this gets interesting. After she whined, “if we could just get rid of guns, people wouldn’t use them,” the host asked, “wouldn’t that just mean that the strong could do what they wanted to the weak?” No, she responded, “because if we get rid of guns, the urge to commit violence will go away.”

Un. . .believably. . . stupid!

Consider for a moment that most violent crime today is not committed with guns, even in countries like the United States where guns are available to all. Consider also that for a millennia, mankind has been killing each other with whatever weapon they can find. Guns are merely the latest in a long line of tools that began with the bare hand. Consider also that a gun, just like a knife, a club, a lampshade, a car or a rubber duck, has no morality of its own. It is only when the gun is put into the wrong hands that the gun will be put to an immoral use. Thus, attacking the gun fails to address the real problem, which is the person bent on harming another.

But this post isn’t about guns (the gun post is coming next week). This post is about the problem with this woman’s “thought”-process, and what this tells us about liberal thinking. And in that regard, she’s given us a great window in the flaw the underlies the liberal mindset: rather than accepting human nature as a fact, and proposing rules to control human behavior, she is hoping to change human nature itself.

Indeed, she’s not saying, if we eliminate guns, there will be no opportunity for violence -- because that’s obviously false. Instead, she’s assuming that human nature is violent because of the temptation of guns. If we can only eliminate this temptation, human nature will readjust and violence will vanish.

But this wishful thinking is irrational to the nth degree. The gun did not create the instinct for violence, nor does it maintain that instinct. Nor is it at all clear that human nature can be changed. In fact, attempt after attempt by the left to change human nature has failed miserably, dashed against the rocks of reality. We can control our natures, but we can’t change them. Conservatives understand this. That why our policies are about changing incentives. That's why we believe in strong institutions like marriage and church to reign in our worst impulses by making misbehavior more expense, i.e. giving us more to lose if we act out, and by increasing the level of reward if we act properly.

Liberals don’t understand this, and that’s the problem with so many of their policies. They are constantly trying to change human nature. They dream about eliminating money because that will cause people to stop being greedy. They dream about teaching kids to cooperate and not keeping score in sports or giving out grades because they hope this will stop people from being competitive. They try to stop people from using racist or sexist or whatever words because that will stop us having those beliefs.

The insanely stupid idea of unilateral disarmament was about changing the way man viewed violence. Liberals unilateralists argued that violence arises solely because of fear. Thus, if we showed that we would never attack anyone, they would not attack us -- a policy that has failed every time it's been tried, like in 1938. Liberals likewise argue that crime is about poverty. If we could just lifted everyone from poverty, we could end the desire of people to take things from others (envy). (Though, as an aside, it is important to note that this “crime” does not include white collar crime, which liberals see as being caused by greed).

Communism was about changing the way man worked in the community. By banning private ownership, people would stop being greedy, i.e. seeking to satisfy their wants. Instead, they would work according to their abilities and would take only according to their needs. Socialists from the 1930s spoke of the “new man” or the “socialist man”, who was supposed to be a creature created by these new societies without all of the negative human nature that besets us now.

None of this worked. None of this could work, because we are hardwired to want, to need, and to feel the whole gambit of emotions. You simply can’t change man. You can control him with incentives, and by punishing him for misdeeds and rewarding him for good, but you just can’t change human nature.

So when you hear that next liberal plan, ask yourself, are they offering a solution to a problem or are they trying to change human nature. If it’s the latter, sit back and enjoy the spectacle of failure.


(FYI, if you haven’t already, go back and read my article about conservative v. liberal thinking. You might find that article explains a lot about the how liberals and conservatives view the world differently and why they propose different kinds of solutions for the same problem.)


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Blagojevich Appointment Spurs Call To Amend Constitution

The appointment of Roland Burris to the US Senate by disgraced Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich spurred no small reaction in the Senate on both sides of the aisle. Even though this seems like eons ago, the whole sorry affair occurred only last December upon the election of Barack Obama, the former Senator, to the Presidency. The perpetual hissing contest of the Illinois political snakes had spread to the halls of Congress.

Recently, in a move that most of us missed, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution voted by 5 to 3 to submit to the full Judiciary Committee and the Senate a resolution amending the Constitution to change the manner of seating a Senator filling an empty seat.

Once again, the left hand of the Democratic Party doesn't know what the other left hand of the Democratic Party is up to. Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) brought the resolution to the subcommittee. A liberal who also seems to have a sense of morality and fairness, Feingold was appalled by the appointment of a political hack and former failure in the state Attorney General's office by a governor who was caught trying to sell Obama's former seat. I can almost feel sorry for Burris. From what we know, he wasn't even the high bidder.

The proposed Feingold Amendment favors direct elections over gubernatorial appointments to fill Senate vacancies. It would become the Twenty-Eighth Amendment if it passes. That requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress followed by ratification by three-quarters of the states. I hasten to add that I don't think it will survive even the Senate vote, but I've been wrong before.

Said Feingold: "The controversies surrounding some of the recent gubernatorial appointments to vacant Senate seats make it painfully clear that such appointments are an anachronism that must end." It is unclear which other scandals Feingold is referring to, but it's very clear the trigger was the Blagojevich pay-to-play fiasco.

I have never been a fan of the 17th Amendment, but not for the same reasons as Feingold. Feingold targets Paragraph 2 which provides "That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct." My objection is to the full early twentieth-century Amendment itself. It was a major step towards direct democracy and away from the republican form of government set up by the Founders. Previously, the House represented the People directly while the Senate represented the States. Senators were appointed by the governor and had to be confirmed by the state legislature. In changing that system from one which put the brakes on the will of temporary majorities by creating a more conservative body to balance it, the 17th Amendment provided for direct election of Senators. Thus, the Senate became a body with two members from each state, elected in the same manner as the other house, but with extra percs and longer terms in office. The former balance was destroyed. But that's an issue for one of my constitutional history courses, and not for this blog.

Feingold goes on: "In 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution gave the citizens of the country the power to finally elect their senators. They should have the same power in the case of unexpected mid-term vacancies, so that the Senate is as responsive as possible to the will of the people." Feingold received bipartisan support on the subcommittee from Republicans John McCain (R-Arizona), Richard Durbin (D-Illinois), and Mark Begich (D-Alaska). Small problem for Feingold--he forgot to check in first with Ted Kennedy (D-Chappaquiddick).

The proposed Amendment would entirely disallow gubernatorial appointments, and leave the vacancy in place until the affected state governor issued a writ of election and the state held an election. It would be up to the states to determine how those special elections would be implemented. The present system has worked relatively well since its inception. Despite some Burris-type appointments, most have served the will of the people. It isn't politically expedient (a Republican governor can replace a Democratic Senator with a member of his or her own party). But it actually serves exigent circumstances better than a delay and a vacancy in the Senate. And from my perspective, it further erodes the right of the states to determine their own rules for the seating of Senators from their own state.

So what does Senator Kennedy have to say about appointments? He's for them, although he used to be against them, except when he was for them. Confused? Let me explain (in case you missed the note in yesterday's SF Diary). Kennedy just lobbied the Massachusetts governor and legislature to pass new legislation allowing for interim appointments (in other words, the exact opposite of the Feingold resolution). Currently, Massachusetts law does not allow for gubernatorial appointments to the Senate. And why not? I'm glad you asked. Back when Senator John Kerry (D-Peoples Republic of Massachusetts) was running for President, Massachusetts had the other kind of statute which allowed the governor to appoint an interim Senator to fill a vacancy. Foolishly, Kennedy and the other Democrats in Massachusetts thought Kerry might actually win the election. That meant, God forbid, that the Republican governor of the state (Mitt Romney) would be able to appoint a Republican to replace Kerry. So with heavy influence from both Kerry and Kennedy, the state legislature passed a statute eliminating gubernatorial appointments.

So now you have liberal Feingold, full of good intentions (and we know what the road to hell is paved with) on one side. On the other side is the liberal Kennedy, full of political intentions. This is probably all academic anyway. Only Alaska, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Oregon and Wisconsin (Feingold's home state) forbid gubernatorial appointments. Since 1913, 184 Senators have been appointed by governors, and a very small handful have actually been involved in any scandal. There have been far more scandals in the actual elections than in the interim appointments. And it is important to note that in all cases, the appointment is not permanent. All states, as provided by the Constitution, must still conduct the special election. The current system merely avoids a vacancy until the election can take place.

I believe the appropriate expression for the resolution is "using an elephant gun to kill a gnat." No system will ever be perfect (we're entitled to fair elections, not perfect elections). My personal view of the Constitution is that the Founders made it difficult to amend for extremely sound reasons. Too many amendments to solve too many unimportant or trivial matters, and the great bedrock of American republican government becomes just another messy collection of conflicting laws. It's bad enough that we have Supreme Court Justices who alter the Constitution by fiat, we don't need the Senate helping them.

Interesting political note: Recent Senators who have entered the Senate via gubernatorial appointment include Burris (D-Illinois), Bennet (D-Colorado), Gillibrand (D-New York) and Kaufman (D-Delaware). Senator Reid opposes the resolution and comes from a state which allows gubernatorial appointments. Senator Durbin supports the resolution, and also comes from a state which allows such appointments. But Durbin's support may be more apparent than real. He is the other Senator from the state which stirred up the controversy in the first place. Yet both Reid and Durbin voted not to seat Burris, using very lame arguments to support their position. Political embarrassment is not a proper ground for refusing to seat a Senator.

As it stands now, Feingold has major, and probably insurmountable opposition. Those in the Senate who have expressed disapproval of the resolution include Kyl (R-Arizona), Cornyn (R-Texas), Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-Nevada), Kennedy (D-From You Know Where) as well as his potential successor, and the Chairwoman of the Senate Rules Committee, Feinstein (D-California).

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Commentarama Password Winner

And the correct answer is: Crow T. Robot (he's the kinda gold guy, front, left).

TENNESSEE JED got the right movie and the correct scene. Congratulations!

On October 23, 1993, Joel Hodgson was leaving Mystery Science 3000 to pursue other interests. The show that evening built a short story around Mike (the new guy) arriving. Crow, as usual, got the idea mixed up about the mad scientists trying to kill the new guy so they could take his place. He thought they were trying to kill Joel, so he engineers a safe way for Joel to get off the space station and back to Earth. Then Mike joins Crow and Tom Servo in the movie room to watch a classically-bad Joe Don Baker movie entitled: Mitchell.

Mitchell was a boozy detective helping out in an investigation of a crooked lawyer (why else do you think Andrew chose it?). The lawyer was mobbed-up. When two Mafiosos who had dealings with the lawyer meet on a park bench, they each need to make sure they're talking to a legit mobster who knows the passwords. As they start to utter the magic words, Crow channels one of the Mafiosos, intoning the password phrase: "It's a cold day for pontooning."
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Film Friday: Flash Gordon (1980)

Flash Gordon should stink. But I love this film and I’m not alone. Although it had limited success when it was released, Flash Gordon has since become a cult classic. The question is why? To solve that riddle, let’s look at what’s wrong with the film.

The Production Stinks, Right?

Right off the bat, we notice that the effects in Flash Gordon are quite poor. The ships aren’t sleek or believable, the planets aren’t planets and half the sets are only half sets. This is not Star Wars. Clearly, this counts against the film. . . or does it?

Actually, let me backup a step. The sets and effects seem bad at first, until you realize what is going on. They aren’t realistic because they aren’t intended to be. These effects and sets were consciously chosen by producer Dino De Laurentiis (Conan, Dune, Army of Darkness) to be stylized and minimal. At the same time, the costumes are remarkably ornate and colorful. And all of this combines to gives a retro feel to the movie, reminiscent of the 1930s comic strip.

Moreover, minimal sets can be quite a good idea. Minimal sets work because the human mind is remarkably good at interpretation. That’s why we can see stick figures as people even though they are just a collection of lines. That’s also why theater works, why cartoons can be largely symbolic, and why movies like Dogville work, even though the sets are imaginary. The sets and effects in Flash Gordon fall into this category. Indeed, in many ways, these sets are rather ingenious because they let the imagination of the viewer fill them in. It’s hard to go wrong when you let a viewer customize a movie in their own minds.

The Plots Is Surprisingly Solid

So we can’t really criticize the sets or the costumes. And we certainly can’t criticize the soundtrack, scored by Queen. So what about the plot? The plot of Flash Gordon is nothing special, right? New York Jets quarterback Flash and Dale Arden are kidnapped by Dr. Hans Zarkov (Topol), and flown into a great void from which the earth is being attacked, though the attacks appear as natural disasters. On the other side of the void, they find Ming the Merciless (Max von Sydow), who rules over a series of princedoms through fear of his military and his secret police, and by keeping the princes fighting with each other.

Ming decides that he’s going to execute Flash, brainwash Zarkov, marry Arden, and then destroy the Earth. Flash escapes execution with the aid of Ming’s daughter Princess Aura, who takes him to the princedom of her lover -- Prince Barin (Timothy Dalton). Barin tries to kill Flash but ends up being captured by his rival, the winged Prince Vultan (Brian Blessed). In the processes of sorting out their differences through trial by combat, Flash kills Klytus, the head of Ming’s secret police. Ming responds by destroying Vultan’s city and taking Dale back to his castle to be married. Flash must convince Barin and Vultan to team up to defeat Ming. He does, they do, the end.

Actually, that’s a rather complex plot for as simple as the movie feels. And that’s the result of surprisingly good writing. The plot moves quickly, at a strong pace, and without hiccup. Nothing in this story feels like it was added to make the movie longer or because the director wedged in some idea that never really fit the story. Moreover, even though the lack of sets meant that every action or plot element had to be communicated to the viewer through dialog, the dialog never feels heavy or labored or weighed down. To the contrary, the dialog is witty and simple, and eminently quotable.

Also, these writers have learned the art of manipulating their audience on an emotional level. For example, we know that Flash will not die. Thus, when he is executed, we know this must be a ruse, though we don’t know how. Whereas lesser writers might have immediately revealed Flash’s escape, these writers take their time and continue the rest of the story as we wait. This heightens our tension and keeps our eyes glued to the screen in anticipation. . . we want to know the answer to the riddle that has been asked. In the same way, we are often told of schemes, which we then get to watch unfold on our unsuspecting heroes. This pulls us into the movie as we know something the hero does not and we feel compelled to warn him.

The strong writing is perhaps explained by the pedigree of the writers: Flash Gordon was co-written by Michael Allin, who wrote Enter the Dragon (1973), and Lorenso Semple who wrote the screenplays for such classics as The Parallax View (1974), Three Days of the Condor (1975),Papillion (1973), and Never Say Never Again (1983). Good writing comes through in any genre.

The Acting Is Surprisingly Good As Well

Even though the writing is good, the acting is horrible right? Nope. Flash Gordon contains some amazingly talented actors. Max von Sydow plays Ming, Topol plays Hans Zarkov, Timothy Dalton plays Prince Barin, and Brian Blessed plays Vultan. And while they all definitely play "over the top," it really fits with the story. What's more, the script is eminently quotable and it is the actors' delivery that often makes the quotes memorable. Blessed, for example, has mentioned that his “Gordon’s alive” quote is the one he hears the most from fans of his work.

Moreover, these actors act quite earnestly and they remain true to the emotions and natures of their characters. In every moment, they act consistently with their characters’ natures and respond naturally to events. They don’t “act down” to the subject matter and there is never a moment where they do something strange or unnatural that pulls you out of the movie or reminds you that they are acting.

If there is camp, it comes from Gordon (former Playgirl centerfold Sam Jones) and Dale (Melody Anderson). But I’ll tell you why it works. Their camp brings a level of innocence to the roles and their chemistry is real enough. Indeed, they are quite believable as two people who barely know each other, but find themselves in unusual surroundings and are starting to fall for each other. Thus, while sometimes their acting seems more melodramatic than dramatic, it serves the story well. In fact, it gives the movie a heart, in that you easily like these people and you want to see everything work out for them. It also sets them off from the other characters, who are native to Ming's universe, and who act much more aggressively.

But In The End, The Films Is Just Plain Fun

So the sets and effects, and soundtrack are actually quite good -- particularly for science fiction fans who tend to accept greater creativity. The script is surprisingly strong, despite the surface childishness of the concept. The acting is quite solid too. But that alone doesn’t mean the film is going to work. Yet, this film does. So what makes it cross that line?

This movie aims straight for your inner child. It is a modern fairytale. It is uncomplicated and clear. The good guys are not only good, they are innocent -- no anti-heroes here. The bad guys are evil villains. They too are uncomplicated. And that means you can sit back and root for the good guys without worrying about the rightness or morality of their actions. Thus, while this film is not deep or meaningful, it is very easy to enjoy. That is perhaps why this movie continues to find viewers in each passing generation, because this movie appeals to our simpler, less cynical selves.

Check out the new film site -- CommentaramaFilms!

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Preacher Obama Discovers The Judeo-Christian Bible

No longer satisfied with mere politics, walking across the Potomac, and delivering fish and loaves to the multitude, High Priest Barack Obama has discovered the same Bible that the vast majority of Americans know and cling to. And if his massive government takeover of health care doesn't work, he'll bring a cross with him to the next Sermon on the Mount.

Obama can't explain his health care proposals, in part because they're incomprehensible, and in part because he doesn't dare admit what the real plan is--100% government takeover. Since logic and facts are not part of the public presentation, his latest move is to invoke religious obligation. Now remember, what little Obama knows of Christianity he got from Rev. Jeremiah Wright, so anything he preaches is going to reek of Liberation Theology which uses a distorted version of Christianity to promote a primitive form of socialism (unlike Wright, Obama hasn't publicly adopted Black Liberation Theology, largely because he couldn't win elections by favoring a group which comprises only about 12% of the American population).

If Obama thought that quoting the Koran would help him, he would do that. He has certainly shown more of an affinity for the Prophet than for the Savior over the past few months, but he must have decided that was working against his elevation to the Godhead, so he'll have to work on the Christian side for awhile.

So on Wednesday, armed with his Cliff Notes and a dog-eared copy of Christianity for Dummies, Obama preached to a gathering of religious voters and pastors. Now mind you, I use the expression "religous leaders" cautiously, since almost all the religionists were from liberal to ultraliberal wings of formerly mainstream churches, or megachurch pastors who preach a little Christianity and a lot of feel-goodism. The United Church of Christ [sic.] had a presence, as well as World Council of Churches members and hangers-on from the United Methodists, United Presbyterians, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (Lutherans who have never read the Augsburg Confession), and lesser known groups like the Church of the Holy Dry Cleaners. Since the press spent little effort on the gathering, we don't know if the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence or the Metropolitan Community Church sent representatives, but Missouri Synod Lutherans and traditional Catholic clerics were conspicuous in their absence.

The Right Reverend Obama told the gathering that "As the world's richest nation (not when he gets done with us), America has a moral duty to offer health care to everyone." Not knowing anything about American history, Obama has no way of knowing that before the liberals started taxing people half to death during the Roosevelt New Deal, the churches used a major portion of their Sunday offerings to provide food, shelter and yes, health care for the poor. Catholics (and to a somewhat lesser but notable extent, Lutherans) built hospitals and clinics for those who could not afford traditional medical bills.

I can tell you personally, that I received major medical maltreatment at a County Hospital in Los Angeles (Olive View Medical Center) during a period of financial distress. Two publicly-paid doctors in a row misdiagnosed and improperly treated me for a staph infection that went so virulent that I nearly died. I fortunately passed out in front of the Santa Monica Superior Court, and the ambulance transported me to Santa Monica Hospital--a Lutheran Hospital. They shocked me back to life, then put me in an isolation ward (I was that infectious by that time), and I spent six days there recovering. I had to take intravenous antibiotics for another two weeks, every six hours. The County Hospital billed me over $600 for nearly killing me, but Santa Monica Hospital accepted my complete financial inability to pay, contacted the Lutheran Brotherhood and Aid Association for Lutherans (both are technically insurance companies), and a bill approaching nearly $12,000 was completely "forgiven." Pastor Obama: Please don't tell me that the so-called "public option" is preferable to private and charitable institutions.

The Politico reported "In an odd bit of messaging, Obama urged the religious communities, many of which offer outreach and even sanctuary to illegal aliens, not to believe reports that health reform would cover foreigners in the US illegally." Talk about mixed messages. The Preacher seemingly had lost his sermon notes, and was winging it. First of all, that was the wrong group to be telling that illegals wouldn't be covered. And second, it's a lie (the Preacher's halo is slipping). The simple fact is that in the hastily-revised versions of the 1000 page bills, specific references to coverage for illegals has indeed been removed. Case closed? Hardly. Obama claims to be not only the national High Priest, but a lawyer as well. Any lawyer who claims to know constitutional law and constitutional history knows that if a group is not specifically excluded, the courts will invariably find that they are included.

Rabbi Obama apparently has also been skimming those irritating Ten Commandments that his people have been removing from all public places. He chastened those who "bear false witness against his plan." He forgot the "against thy neighbor" part, but close enough. Like a thundering prophet of the Old Testament, he said: "The first thing I want to correct is the idea that the proposed overhaul would force some people into different health care plans. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." Do clerics' noses grow when they lie? Since there aren't any close-ups of Rabbi Obama at the meeting, we really can't tell. Everyone with even a modicum of education and a little understanding of economics knows that even the most efficient private industry cannot compete with publicly-funded and government controlled industries. Particularly when that same government plans to eliminate the very tax incentives that make private insurance and employer-provided insurance workable. I don't remember anywhere in my Bible where Isaiah or Jeremiah lied to the people of Israel.

Meanwhile, back in the Christian camp, Pastor Obama's apostles, according to the normally-friendly AP, are "providing a financial windfall in the election offseason to Democratic consulting firms that are closely connected to the president and two of his top advisers. Interest groups that are running at least $24 million in pro-overhaul ads hired GMMB, which worked for Obama's 2008 campaign and whose partners include a top Obama campaign strategist. They also hired AKPD Message and Media, which was founded by David Axelrod, a top adviser to Obama's campaign and now to the White House." And I guess I should add, the chief apostle of the fishy snitch e-mail campaign, as well as the author of the e-mail reply that went out to people who are now unwillingly on a government e-mail list.

Yet Pastor Obama rails against special interests. The AP further reports that President Obama "accuses special interests of fighting to block his health care overhaul, but has spent months assembling a formidable lineup of special interests of his own, an essential element of a plan to remake the health care system and succeed where President Bill Clinton memorably failed. The President's special interest groups even include doctors, nurses, drug makers and labor unions working to pass an overhaul despite any misgivings they may have." Don't forget AARP.

Meanwhile, the Messiah's minions have taken to threatening those very insurance companies that Obama himself says will continue to operate completely independently of the government. FNC reports "An official letter from House Democrats (signed by West Side L.A. leftist Henry Waxman) to a few dozen insurance companies may amount to the most blatant pressure politics yet in their drive to pass healthcare reform." The opening sentence reads like a threat: "The Committee on Energy and Commerce is examining executive compensation and other business practices in the health insurance industry." Although on official Committee stationery, the Republican members of the Committee didn't find out about the letters until angry constituents began calling their offices.

The Waxman letters demand huge amounts of financial information from the insurance companies, requiring the companies to send reams of compensation data by September 15. Essentially, without specifying exactly what information they are demanding, the Senators have put the companies in danger of contempt unless they produce every single bit of information about all compensation for all the executives of the respective companies. The letters don't even specify who qualifies as an executive, since they seem to be based more on total income than position in the company.

And finally, for the greatest Priest of them all, Father Teddy Kennedy. Kennedy is in the final tragic stages of brain cancer. He has been for many years the foremost Senatorial advocate of nationalized health care. And now he foresees his possible demise before the final vote on health care. With Pastor Robert Byrd already on the sidelines, Kennedy's vote might be absolutely crucial if the Democrats decide they have to go it alone, without the Republicans, at vote time. So Kennedy has contacted the Massachusetts powers-that-be to rush a bill through the legislature changing the method of obtaining a Senator after the death or resignation of the current Senator. Presently, the Governor of Massachusetts (Pastor Deval Patrick) must call a special election to replace the Senator. Although the majority party would have an edge, there's no guarantee that a liberal Democrat would win that election. And setting up elections doesn't happen overnight.

Kennedy proposes that the law be changed so that the Governor can immediately name the successor to fill out the term, and if the term has more than six months to run, then to appoint an interim successor (who will be the incumbent) until a special election can be called. Unfortunately for the Democrats, Kennedy is merely a great priest, but not a prophet or seer. The proposed law was exactly the law that was in place when Kennedy lobbied to change it to its present form. You see, at the time of the change to the current law, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry was running for President, and the Governor of Massachusetts was Mitt Romney--a Republican. The Kennedy move was to stave off the appointment of a Republican Senator from the People's Republic. Well, Father Kennedy, karma's a bitch, isn't it?

Unrelated Note: Yesterday I reported in my Diary that conservatives are now the largest political self-identity in all fifty states, according to the Democrat sponsored Gallup Poll. Today, the Pew Research poll shows that the percentage of Americans who hold a favorable view of the Democratic Party has slipped below 50% since Obama assumed office. It is now at 49%, down from 62% just seven months ago. But that is not the good news you might think, at least standing with the other fact. Republican percentages have not changed appreciably at all during the same period of time. If Democrat numbers are down, conservative numbers are strikingly up, but Republican numbers have not changed, there is a message. And I covered it yesterday. America is conservative, now in all fifty states. Republicans who take conservative stands will prevail. But the Republican Party cannot have a rebirth until it announces a unified message of conservatism. The "leaders" need to learn the lessons of history. 1994 was not a Republican revolution. It was a conservative revolution, and there just happened to be more conservatives in the Republican Party than in the Democratic Party. Republicans who do not espouse conservative views will not participate in a resurgent Republican Party. And if too few conservatives run on the Republican ticket, there will be no Republican resurgence at all.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...