Justified Right

Bruce Finds Life Is Tough Sucking Up To Liberals

Bruce, Bruce Bruce.  Didn't I already tell you that politics isn't really your thing?  Didn't I warn you that you were going to get hurt out here in politics world, particularly with that crowd of senseless hippies on the left you are hanging around with?

I begged you to stick with music.

 

But you just couldn't listen to this old Asbury Park boy who is always trying to have your back. 

 

Well, they finally burned you, Bruce. I knew they would.  Let me familiarize the folks here at Justified Right with what just happened between you and the loony left:

 

According to this Associated Press report, Springsteen is apologizing for making an exclusive deal with Wal-Mart to sell his newest album.

 

Now, Wal-Mart is despised by the left, for nothing more than being good at what the do.  The left hates success.  It's an extension of "They hate us for our freedoms."  They really do.

 

So bizarre is the left's obsession with Wal-Mart that there are numerous websites dedicated to letting people talk about how they feel about Wal-Mart.

 

Good grief.  It's just a store.

 

But to the left, Wal-Mart is some sort of human rights grinder that mistreats people all over the world.

 

So when Springsteen made his deal with Wal-Mart, the little bleeding liberal heart went into arrhythmia. 

 

"How could the 'working class hero" Bruce support the evil corporation that exploits the working class?" they whined.  Bruce had to apologize so they wouldn't stroke.

 

Hippies.  They're so stupid.

 

They just don't know that one of the best companies in America for the working class is Wal-Mart.  Why?  Their stuff is less expensive than every other store.  A wide variety of items, even clothes and food, and the best prices around.

 

THAT is GREAT for the working man.  As someone who is feeding a family of 6, I appreciate being able to bring my paycheck to Wal-Mart and get what I need, and still have money left over to take the kids to a movie because of it.

 

That's the sort of life Bruce used to sing about in his songs.

 

So why doesn't Bruce know this about Wal-Mart?  Because he hangs out with elitist snobs like Barry "arugala" Obama.  Bruce has lost touch with the working man.

 

Very sad.

 

I've offered before, Bruce.  Sit down and talk with me, an old Asbury Parker like yourself.  Get back to your roots.

I Like Post-Racial America

SEE THESE TWO GUYS...

        

Michael Steele                                                                                  Barack Obama

Republican National Committee Chairman                                      President of the United States

THEY MAKE THESE TWO GUYS IRRELEVANT...

   

Change I can believe in.

Friday Funny Picture

The other side of Mt. Rushmore.

heh.

Audio From My Appearance On Alan Colmes' Show Is Up

My attempt at bi-partisanship ;-)

Talkin' Blago.  Click below:

http://foxnews.vo.llnwd.net/kip0/_pxn=0+_pxK=17249/talk/ACS/ACS-4-1.mp3

Oh Those Funny Iraqis!!

 

This Iraqi monumnent to the journalist who threw his shoe at President Bush is the funniest thing I've seen so far this year.

I know that the artist parked it at an Orphanage for kids whose parents died in the war.  I understand completely that he is telling those kids to blame America and encourage them through the metaphor of throwing a shoe at the President to someday attack America.

Yet when I look at that picture, I can't help but to laugh at the absurdity.  There must be a sense of humor in that artist somewhere.

Maybe the kids will take this message from the monument:  Thanks to America, an Iraqi can now throw a shoe at International leaders and not get summarily shot on the spot.

Why You Need To Homeschool Your Kids

Because educators are valueless lunatics.

If you are a student, don' t watch.

If you're a grown up man...

Enjoy!

NOBAMA!

Well the era of Barack Obama's "Post-Partisan America" certainly didn't last long.

His Stimulus Plan passed the house, but with NO Republicans voting for it.

NONE. ZERO. NADA. ZILCH.

Eleven Democrats voted no, too.

The uniter?  The dreamer is more like it.

Despite what the puppy-love mainstream media is telling you, he didn't really try to bring Republicans on board.

Visiting Republicans and inviting them to cocktail parties isn't going to cut it.

He's only going to get Republicans to join him if he brings them a bill with good policy.

Filling a bill with as much pork as this has in it won't get any Republican on board.

$400 million for Global Warming Research? $50 million for Artists?  $36 Billion to the unemployed (so they can comfortably stay unemployed)?

Good Grief.

Blago Is Right: His Trial Is Completely Unfair

"Whatever disagreement there may be as to the scope of the phrase ‘due process of law’ there can be no doubt that it embraces the fundamental conception of a fair trial, with opportunity to be heard."

- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Frank v Mangum, 237 U.S. 309, 347 (1915)

I don’t know if Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich did something wrong, and neither do you.

After the current Illinois Senate trial to remove him from office is over, we still won’t know. The proceeding is not just unfair, it’s third-world unfair.

We are a nation of laws, and that’s not a burden. Why do we set up procedural safeguards in criminal trials? One reason: To make sure the proceeding can find the truth.

Pundits are pointing out that this isn’t a criminal trial, so the Illinois Senate is free to set up rules that are less stringent than those in a criminal trial.

That’s like saying you don’t need a batting helmet during practice because it isn’t yet the big game. Sorry but the 90 mph fastball will still kill you if it hits your temple.

The right to call witnesses is not a burden we “have to put up with” in a criminal trial. It’s there because we can’t find truth without it.

The right to subpoena witnesses is not a burden we “have to put up with” in a criminal trial. It’s there because can’t find truth without it.

The right to access to all evidence is not a burden we “have to put up with” in a criminal trial. It’s there because we can’t find truth without it.

The right to cross-examine witnesses is not a burden we “have to put up with” in a criminal trial.

It’s there because we can’t find truth without it.

You can’t cross-examine an affidavit.

Why should we ever write rules of a hearing less stringent then these simple because we can? Do we not want to find truth?

Yet Governor Blagojevich is being denied all of those things in this Senate “trial.” The result will be about as trustworthy as when Saddam Hussein used to hold trials of his political enemies outside the legislative chamber with a pistol.

America is supposed to be better than this.

I don’t care if it isn’t a criminal trial. It’s still a trial, and it’s worthless if it isn’t fair.

I don’t think this trial is even legal under Illinois law, and if I were the Governor I’d appeal the procedure to the courts.

The Illinois Constitution has its very own Due Process Clause, which states in Article 1, Section II: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor be denied the equal protection of the laws.

The Illinois Constitution does not limit that protection to just criminal trials.

Also, the wrong person seems to be in charge of this whole impeachment scheme. Under Illinois Constitution Article 4, Section 14, it states: The House of Representatives has the sole power to conduct legislative investigations to determine the existence of cause for impeachment…

If the legislature was to have sole power, they relinquished it to criminal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. They let him cherry pick the evidence and the witnesses that were allowed at the Impeachment hearing in the House.

In a criminal context, the Governor is being denied what is called Brady evidence – evidence that could tend to prove he isn’t guilty. Since this is not yet the criminal trial, Fitzgerald doesn’t have to show that it exists. That’s why it’s so unfair to even hold this hearing right now.

To make matters worse, the Senate has declared that the Impeachment Findings will be introduced into this trial, and the Governor is not allowed to challenge it. That basically means they finished the trial before it began.

I’ve never seen in this country such a disregard for a fair process.

Article 13 Section 1 of the Illinois Constitution says this about eligibility to hold office: A person convicted of a felony, bribery, perjury or other infamous crime shall be ineligible to hold an office created by this Constitution.

Governor Blagojevich has not been convicted of anything. All we have is one man, Patrick Fitzgerald, who says he is holding evidence he won’t show us that will one day convict him. Due Process does not mean removing a Governor from office because Patrick Fitzgerald says so.

I scoff at people who say Blagojevich’s media appearances are trying to sway the jury in a possible criminal case. No one is guiltier of that then Fitzgerald. It certainly would sway jurors if the Governor were given a fair trial in the Senate hearing and won.

Fitzgerald is manipulating the Senate trial because he knows it will help sway jurors on his favor if the Governor is removed. He’s not stupid. He just has better media than Blagojevich right now.

Sound From My Appearance on Bob Frantz Show Is Up

 

Cleveland's Bob Frantz interviewed me this past Monday about my column "Roe v Wade & the Rights of the Father."

Iranian President To Wipe Himself Off the Map

  Juden!!  

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (pronounced "Im-a-damn-nut-job") is known for has nothing short of crazy ant-semitic statements, such as saying Jews are Satan, should have their lives ended and insisting that "Israel should be wiped off the map."

He also denies the Holocaust and has even formed a committee to look into whether it really happened.

I always thought that Ahmadinejad was separated at birth form this guy due to their stark resemblance: 

However, President Nutjob may actually have a different ancestry.

According to Mehdi Khazali, the son of the conservative Ayatollah Khazali, the Iranian Presidents ancestors were...

Jewish!!!!

Oh the sweet, sweet Karma if it's true.

Obama Tells Mid-East: America Is A Dictator

 

Oh yes he did.

The President must be back on speaking terms with this guy    if he is using rehtoric against America that gives others a reason to hate us.

Aliens To Bring Star Trek Creator Back To Life!

 

Maybe I'm overstating the case a bit.  I don't know if Aliens can really do that, if there are aliens.

But the ashes of Gene Roddenberry and his wife are going to be shot into space next year, so who knows?  Maybe Gene isn't expendable and is coming back.  Like Spock did when they sent his body to the Genesis planet and he came back to life (wow - that sounded nerdy, didn't it.)

At Justified Right we love all things space and science and those topics are always intertwined with politics, so we post about it. 

America needs to control the final frontier before the Russians do. 

Captain Kirk. Cold War. Space race.

The good old days. 

Fathers of Aborted Babies Speak Out

This is a follow-up to my column that ran Thursday in The Fox Forum called

Roe v Wade and the Rights of the Father.  The column examined the plight of two types of men.

The first man wanted to abort his baby because he was not ready to be a parent, but the mother wouldn’t abort, denying him the reproductive right she has.

 

The second man is a grieving father who wanted to be a parent but the mother wouldn’t let him, so she killed the baby by abortion, denying him the reproductive right she has.

We can never offer the grieving man more than emotional help – we can’t force a woman to have his baby.

 

We can help the second man who does not want to be a father.  Some background:

 

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg reminds us that abortion is not the issue – the issue is reproductive rights – the right to control whether to be a parent or not.

 

I proposed a “Father’s Abortion,” where a Judge relieves the expecting father of all parental obligation to the child.  No one will interfere with the woman’s right to choose.  She can still have the baby or not. Now he too will have the choice to be a parent or not, just as she can choose.

 

Equal rights.

 

Take a look at examples of responses I received from readers.

 

Regarding the “Father’s Abortion,” even people who self-identify as “pro-choice” said they agreed: “I am 100% pro-choice and would actually like to see your Father's Abortion be put into law. If a woman is determined to carry her pregnancy to term despite her partner's objections, he should be able to legally renounce obligations to that child.” - Joe from Lodi, CA

 

“If you are not giving the father any say in the abortion process than he should not be required financially to pay for the child… he should have rights too”… - Nick

 

“It is incredible to me that our society can crawl all over a male to take “responsibility” for his child (i.e. “dead-beat dad” legislation/policy), but totally disregard a father’s right to take responsibility for his unborn child.  – Clay

 

Extending Clay’s idea, society looks differntly at men and women on support issues.  A man who tries but falls behind in support payments is reviled as a “deadbeat” and uncaring parent. A women who refuses all responsibility and kills her baby faces no such insults, and no questions about good parenting and responsibility.  Some will even laud her for her “choice” and frame it as a civil rights victory.

 

Let’s talk about the second man – the greiving father.  This is very emotional.

 

My inbox was inundated with letters from all over the United States and Canada by men telling personal stories of depression, grief and anger caused by having no way to save their child.  They feel ignored – no one speaks of them.

 

“I am the father of an aborted baby and your article strikes very close to my heart. 5 years ago I was completely powerless to save the life of my unborn child and have suffered depression ever since.” - Marlon

 

Many sympathetic emails were from women. “I have personally experienced watching a man helplessly discover his girlfriend aborted a child he wanted dearly, and not a THING could be done.”  T-Muncy.

 

Kathryn shared, “My brother-in-law's girlfriend decided she didn't want to be with him anymore. She flew to Seattle (we live in AK) to get an abortion at 6 months. My Brother-in-law was crushed!”

 

Anastasia asked women to consider the man’s position by reversing the roles: “Imagine if a man did not want a baby, and the woman was forced to get an abortion. Outrageously unfair, right?”

 

Another email noted: If the Supreme Court were to tell the average woman that the father of the child could kill her unborn child for reasons of “finding himself, or he’s not ready for a child, or he finds a child inconvenient to his career path,” watch the women of this country rise up!  

 

I can only offer the bereaved fathers advice to deal with their sorrow by turning it into anticipation.  There is a child waiting for them in the hereafter.

 

A physician from Pennsylvania, Lindsay Parks, M.D., emailed a different idea and counseled men to know the child is happy.  Dr. Parks notes with religious warmth:

“They will be safe there forever. Never given even the chance to grow up here and reject God and His gospel, and end up in the place opposite Heaven. He has mercifully culled them for His kingdom, and provided them with eternal refuge and safety.

 

I am not naive enough to believe that a few kind words will quell a father’s pain.  I have never seen pain so vivid, so raw, as in this poem left for me by a father on another website.  His sorrow is as real as any I’ve ever felt:

 

I've got a son that never came.

One that flew kites and arrow-planes.

One that danced in the springtime rains.

Don't know why or who's to blame.

But I've got a son that never came.

Bullfrogs and butterflies he'll never see.

He'll stroll through an open field, but not with me.

There was a time his heartbeat strong.

It beat with rhythm as in a song.

And to me his love belonged.

Don't know why or what went wrong.

But there was a time his heartbeat strong.

It's left in my mind and my heart will tease.

There's no love in my life for my son and me.

Before I had a chance to fight.

They took my son up a flight.

To a room to take his life

Don't know why I had no rights.

Before I had a chance to fight.

Then five months early they stole him from his womb.

Laid him in a corner and watched him die in his tomb.

But for one split second I thought I heard him cry...

"I'm gonna have to leave you now. I love you Dad. Goodbye."

Gay vs Madoff

 

Brothers Lawrence and Kenneth Gay are facing a plea bargained sentence of 11 years in prison for stealing $13,000 from a poker game in Brick, New Jersey.

That's one year in jail for each $1,181.00 stolen.

 

By that math, Bernie Madoff, who stole $50 Billion, should be sentenced to 42 million years in prison.

The Tax-inator

 

Arnie is looking to jack the people of California for cash when they golf, have their car repaired or their pet cared for.

Thank goodness the Constitution protects us from this RINO running for President.

On The Radio Tonight In Cleveland, WTAM 1100

 

 Will be a guest of Bob Frantz tonight to talk about my column "Roe v Wade & The Rights of the Father."

That column has been screaming through the web since it went up on Thursday.

Will also talk about President Barack Obortion lifting the US Ban on money to companies that provide abortions in foreign countries, as well as his plan to pass the awful Freedom of Choice Act.

Welcome RightNation Users!!!

 

I'm getting a lot of clicks today from RightNation to the Roe v Wade & the Rights of the Father column.

That piece has spread around the web like wildfire, and I've been answering emails about it all weekend.

Welcome, RightNation, and I hope you'll keep coming back!

Tommy. 

Nancy The NIMBY

San Fran Nan thinks it's OK to move terrorists from Gitmo to your backyard, but she waives the finger if you dare suggest we move them to hers!

Read the left coast snobbery here.

Obama Attacks Harmless Little Fuzzball. But There's Much More To This

Rush Limbaugh

In his first week in office President Obama tested his muscle by taking a swing not at Ahmadinejad, not at Hamas and not at al-Qaeda, rather he went after an American.

 

The President warned Congressional Republicans that if they wanted to get anything done, they would have to stop listening to radio host Rush Limbaugh. He failed to realize this irony - if Congress truly listened to Limbaugh, they wouldn't have to deal with an Obama Administration in the first place.

 

Don't brush this off as an offhand remark.  He made this point not out of frustration after weeks of meetings; this was said at the outset of talks.  That means it was a primary point the President planned to make, and he made it perfectly clear.

 

President Obama is showing signs of intoxicated ego which is very dangerous when coupled with power and inexperience. That's the recipe for a power drunkard - when recklessness replaces reason.

 

Proof of that came this week when the President rebuffed Republican colloquy about his stimulus plan by delivering the ostentatious retort, "I won," referring to his election. Every Congressman he was speaking to won their last election as well. 

 

The command of the President that Congressmen stop listening to Rush was about much more than just radio. It was about power and control.

 

Conservatives have been concerned about the left's hints of bringing back "The Fairness Doctrine" to the airwaves, which is nothing more than the government telling Americans that they will be restricted on when and how often their opinions may be uttered.

 

President Obama is sparing himself the hassles of public debate over the constitutionality of "The Fairness Doctrine."  He is instead trying to use it "under the table" through the bargaining power of his office.

 

Unlike in the military where power is weapons, civilian power is fired at a negotiating table.  What you can take from your adversary and keep him from taking off that table is the measure of civilian power.

 

A Democrat President with a Democrat Congress is holding a great deal of civilian power at the negotiating table.

 

What President Obama is trying to take off the table is the Republican Congressman's right to hear things; his right to read things; his right to learn the truth through independent investigation.

 

Obama wants to control the flow of information to the minority party.  He is Pravda.  

 

Telling Republicans they will only "get things done" if they tune out Limbaugh is no different than a book burning. It foretells of an insidious type of blackmail. Republicans are being asked to forgo their principles in exchange for a little taste of stimulus packaged pork. Obama is saying, "I'll allow your state roads and a bridge in exchange for the head of Rush Limbaugh." 

 

Fortunately, things aren't that rotten in Denmark.  Rush didn't get to be the most influential radio personality on the planet without there being millions of people who agree with him.

 

It's obvious the President read a few chapters of Sun Tzu's "Art of War" as he trys to divide and conquer Conservatives, just as he famously tried earlier by have dinner with with these folks:

       

 Will                                       Krauthammer                     Kristol                         Kudlow                       Barnes  

 

 

Noonan                             Gigot

I make no slight against those at the dinner with Obama.  I admire the work of all of them, as they are giants in the field of conservative punditry.

 

It must be pointed out though that their venue - broadsheets and magazines - have circulation numbers that are going south like a duck in winter.

 

So while President Obama meant to divide us, he failed to consider that his fellow diners may not be the conservative voices that will drive opinion of him, and they are not of the generation that was excited into politics in the Rush Limbaugh era.

 

The President would have been better off breaking bread with the conservatives in digital media on the Internet.  Their numbers and influence are soaring, and they will drive conservative opinion of this President.  They are of the same mind as Rush, cutting their political teeth in his era, and they will support him.

 

Might I suggest to the President a midnight snack with these folks:

     

 Pam Geller                  Glenn Reynolds             Michelle Malkin                   Frank J.                   John Hinderaker       

 Atlas Shrugged         Instapundit         Michelle Malkin             IMAO         Power Line Blog

 

   

Andrea Tentaros           Rick Moran              Betsy Newmark       Ann Coulter                  Andrew Breitbart

Andrea Tentaros  Right Wing Nuthouse  Betsy's Page     Ann Coulter            Breitbart.com

President Obama has made a terrible mistake going after Rush Limbaugh.  Rush's brand of truthful analysis has spread to the Internet via blogging and has made common Americans finally have the voice Limbaugh always encouraged them to use.

 

This round is scored Limbaugh 1, Obama zero.

 

Democracy will remain safe.  The flow of information is secure. Congressional Republicans will listen to Rush and the rest of us who voted for them.

 

Check out Rush at his website.  And on the radio.  No matter what Obama says.

The Audacity of Transparency

 

A "must read" today is the Politico report about Barack Obama coming in for a surprise visit with the White House Press Corps.

They had the audacity to ask him questions.

He took exception to that. 

After all, their job is to love him, not question him. 

Snobs don't talk to the little people.

Read the Politico report here.

Trashy Obama

You'd think that with all the "Green" people who supported Barack Obama, and with all his talk of "going Green" "Green Technology" and "saving the planet" (talk about a Jesus Complex), there would be nothing but respect for mother earth at the Inauguration of President Green.

Watch it and weep, Mother Nature:

Roe v Wade and the Rights of the Father

The emphasis must not be on the right to abortion, but on the right to privacy and reproductive control. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg (speaking of a woman’s right).

 

Today marks another anniversary of Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court decision which overturned all State laws that would stop a woman from having an abortion in the first trimester.

 

While the topic I have chosen here, Roe v Wade and the Rights of the Father may sound interesting, actually there is nothing to write about. There are no such rights. A Father can’t stop an abortion if he wants his child, nor can he insist upon an abortion if he doesn’t want his child.

 

This situation should trouble everyone, not from a religious point of view, not from a personal choice point of view, but rather from an Equal Rights point of view.

 

Equal Rights for all people is difficult for any nation to achieve peaceably, because it requires the group in greater power to yield to the group of lesser power.  This is usually accomplished only through war. Our own Civil War is a perfect example of equality being created by force, instead of reason and fairness, as it should have been.

 

This week as I watched and read opinions about Roe v Wade, I could find nothing, not a word among millions that addressed a Father’s relationship to his unborn child. 

 

Two weeks ago I tried an experiment in anticipation of writing this column.  I wrote a column about gun control and posited that only men should vote on the issue of guns.  The logic (rather illogic) used by me was that men buy guns the most, men are called upon to use them most (when a burglar enters our home) and we get shot the most. Why shouldn’t men have the only voice on the issue?

 

I wanted to gauge people’s reactions to the thought that in America we would ever give more weight to one person’s view than another’s because that person can show the issue affects him more.

 

As I walked about the City these two weeks, I was accosted by people who wanted to take me to task for suggesting that women lose their right to vote on an issue just because they may be affected by it less than men.  Some pointed out, quite rightly, that even if there was an issue that didn’t affect women at all, as equal members of society, they should still have a voice in all decisions America makes.

 

Quite right indeed.

 

So where are all these well-reasoned arguments when it comes to a Father and his unborn child?  Why do people who have Equal Protection claims at the ready on other issues suddenly suffer constitutional amnesia when abortion is mentioned?

 

During every abortion a Father’s child dies, so Fathers are affected. There is much written about the post-abortion depression of women.  Nothing is mentioned about the Father. A good Father knows his role is protector of his child.  His depression must be crippling when the law allows him no chance to save his child from death by abortion.

 

The Supreme Court in Roe v Wade found a privacy right in the 14^th Amendment, which doesn’t have the word “privacy” in it.  Then they found that the privacy right had a “penumbra” containing other rights (penumbra means the shadowy area at the edge of a shadow). In that shadow they found the abortion right. That bit of mental gymnastics aside, it wasn’t the most terrible part of the decision. This was:

 

The Court said that a woman my not be mentally ready to handle a child at this stage in her life, or the child might interfere with her career path, and that is so important to her that the State has no right to make a law against it.

 

So I ask today:  Might a Father find himself mentally not ready for a child?  Might a Father find a child inconvenient to his career path?  If these are the rights women get to protect by choosing abortion, why not allow Fathers “the right to choose” also?

 

I propose a “Father’s Abortion.”  Let a Father petition the Court to terminate his own parental rights to his child before or after the child’s birth. He would be rid of his obligations to that child in favor of his mental health and finances, the same as a woman does when she aborts. 

 

As Justice Ginsberg said in the quote above, the emphasis is not abortion, rather an individual’s right to control his own reproduction. If we protect such a right for women, can we constitutionally deny it to men?

 

I propose this not because it would be in any way good.  I propose it because constitutional Equal Protection demands it, and to show the danger created when judges destroy democracy by making up laws that don’t exist.

 

“Father’s Abortion.”  It’s high time for a test case.

 

Any father with such a case can call me and I’ll take it for free.

Obama Announces Plan To Kill Children Around The World

 

As if he’s been waiting for the opportunity his whole life, President Obama on his first full day in office announced he is lifting the US ban on funding groups in foreign nations who give or pay for abortions.

 

He will one day be able to swell his chest and proudly proclaim this part of his legacy: “I killed children all over the world.”

 

When he proclaimed himself the “anti-George” while running for President, he clearly meant it.  George Bush at least has as part of his legacy the freeing of 50 million innocent people from oppression in two nations.

 

Obama’s legacy starts by killing as many innocent people as he can pay for.

 

I’ve never questioned his Christianity before.  I always took him at his word.  Clearly I was duped.  No confident Christian would make his first act one of violence against the innocent. 

 

What would Jesus do?  Certainly not kill the least of our brothers and sisters at their most vulnerable time.  Jesus wouldn’t, but Obama now has.

 

This act exposes some of the Agenda items announced on the newly launched White House website as completely disingenuous.

 

In the section marked “Family” Obama promises to “Support Parents with Young Children.”  Apparently if the children are young enough, he’ll help the parents kill them.

 

In the section marked “Fiscal” Obama says he is “a strong advocate for sound budget practices and the reduction of wasteful spending in Washington.”  

 

Is there a bigger waste of tax dollars than sending money overseas to kill children?  What fiscal argument is there for killing children – that if they are gone we need not waste resources on them?  Barack Mengele.

 

In the section marked “Women” Obama quotes himself (how prideful) as follows:

 

“Ordinary women have taken on extraordinary odds to give their daughters the chance for something else; for a life more equal, more free, and filled with more opportunity than they ever had.”

 

Or, if you prefer, Barack will help you kill your daughter.

 

Quite a legacy Obama is building. 

 

He is committed to tearing children into pieces limb by limb, crushing their skills with hammers and sucking out their brains with vacuums.

 

Good grief.  What have we wrought upon the innocent people of the world by electing this man?

 

Helen Thomas Godwin's the CIA!!!

Yup.  She likened our CIA worker's service to our country to that of the Nazis.

All those years of asking questions and she didn't learn a thing.

This is the sort of "post-partisan" world you can expect to live in now that the Obamaniacs are feeling empowered.

Moonbats are ruling the country.

Bush Will Be Remembered as “The Liberator”…Or Not

 

President George W. Bush has liberated 50 million people from oppression.  But if liberation doesn’t last, it may as well never have happened.

 

Presidential legacies are like wet paint – you can’t really tell what color they are until you give them time to dry.

 

It’s almost unfair to write a President’s legacy in the same generation he retired.  Those of us who lived through it are apt to remember nuances both good and bad that later generations simply won’t judge.

 

As time passes issues fall from memory like leaves from a tree; what remains is that one solitary issue – a well-rooted tree trunk issue - that becomes a President’s identity in history.

 

George Washington led the Revolution.

 

Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves.

 

Franklin Roosevelt led us out of Depression.

 

Ronald Reagan won the Cold War.

 

Bill Clinton…well…let’s keep this G rated, shall we?

 

President Bush will be the first President whose legacy will not be judged on how he affected the lives of Americans.  His legacy will rise or fall with the fate of people in two countries he invaded.

 

In Iraq and Afghanistan, 50 million human beings subsisted in careworn lives, beaten and broken by oppressive governments.

 

Iraqis were raped, tortured, had their eyes gouged out or killed for simply disagreeing with their government.  President Saddam Hussein killed more than 50,000 people with chemical weapons and murdered as many as 40 of his own relatives. Children died of malnutrition or disease caused by oppressive policies.  Women were beheaded and the government suppressed religion by murdering clerics.

 

In Afghanistan, those seen as disloyal to the Taliban government were summarily killed and buried in mass graves.  Women were denied the most basic of civil rights and were refused education.  Punishment was carried out in the streets.  Whole families were burned alive.  Eight boys were shot to death for laughing too close to soldiers.  Entire villages thought to be disloyal were massacred.

 

It is easy to judge well the man who toppled those governments and freed 50 million people from cruelty and death.  That man is American President George W. Bush, and he rightfully deserves the title of “Liberator.”

 

But only if Liberation lasts.

 

Like all Presidents, on January 20^th President Bush looses the ability to shape his legacy, and it is quite unfinished as Iraq and Afghanistan are not yet confident democracies.

 

The reasons for invasion were hotly debated in our time, but the invasion debate is now irrelevant.  We cannot tell a free Iraqi woman at a polling booth – “We found no weapons of mass destruction, so it’s back to oppression for you.”  She is free and must stay that way.

 

Other leaders are now charged with solidifying Bush’s legacy.  They inherit not just the “problem” of Iraqi and Afghan freedom, but the easier to accept “moral obligation” to keep 50 million people free.  What world leader dare shrink from that just cause?  How badly history will judge them if they do.

 

President Bush’s legacy is counting most on the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.  The President has a core belief he touts as a self-evident truth:  Once a person is given a sample of Freedom, they never lose the taste of it.  They’ll fight for it.

 

What though for President Bush’s legacy if Iraq and Afghanistan fall back to tyranny?  Probably nothing good.

 

President Bush has been praised for bringing Americans together following the 9/11 attacks. My American pride assures me we would have come together at that moment without him.  He has kept America free from terrorist attacks for 7 years, but that he owes to us – it’s not a favor.  Even though that task is or more or less difficult at different times, it remains a requirement of each President, not a discretionary policy.

 

Scouring the rest of President Bush’s record may reveal accomplishments but none can be categorized as historic.  He did not cause the problems with the economy, Hurricane Katrina or illegal immigration, and debate over his responses will likely remain partisan, not decisive.  He’ll get no enduring legacy on any issue save the liberation of foreigners.

 

President Bush holds the legacy building advantage though.  Only good people will want the Iraqis and Afghans to be free.  Only evil people will wish them enslaved.  President Bush leads this issue with morality on his side.

 

If Iraq and Afghanistan are free he will be George W. Bush “The Liberator;” if they are not free, he won’t be.  There is nothing in between for the President’s legacy.

Bush Commutes Sentence of Ramos & Compean!!!!

About freakin time.

Ramos and Compean are two border agents who shot a drug-running, border-jumping illegal alien.  What was their reward for doing their job?  They were sent to prison.

Fox News is reporting that President Bush has commuted their prison sentences (that's not a full pardon but I'll take it for now).

More on Ramos and Compean here.

Welcome home to these great Americans.

Farewell to "The Liberator"

 

Last night President Bush said goodbye to his “time of consequence” in the White House, offering wishes of hope to his successor who practically guaranteed to deliver it.

 

A speech that started out sounding like the Thank You section in the front of a book quickly turned to the issue that will define his legacy — how he turned the despair caused by the attacks of September 11 that killed nearly 3,000 Americans into a chance to free 50 million people from oppression in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

Note this well: His response to an attempt to conquer us was not vengeance to conquer others, but a war to free others.

 

He addressed that first because that is the hope for his legacy.  From the ultimate act of aggression came the ultimate act of kindness — delivering freedom to the oppressed.

 

He ticked off his domestic policy measures quickly.  He should have.  He’ll not be known 100 years from now for medicine or education or anything other than his foreign policy.

 

Mr. Obama must heed with absolute clarity President Bush’s warnings that our biggest concern remains fending off attacks by our enemies. President Bush is, after all, the heavyweight champion of keeping us safe for 7 straight years.

 

The introduction of the men in attendance who are dedicating their lives to others — an educator, a soldier, a doctor — is a message from the president pleading with us to serve others before ourselves.

 

Offering yourself to the service of others is a throwback to the “Thousand Points of Lights” volunteerism of his father’s presidency.

 

To the current President Bush, service to others is the construct he’d like us to use when examining his own legacy. Rescuing people in oppression and despair is the one chance for a great legacy he has.

 

Few men in history can lay claim to bringing freedom to 50 million human beings.  This man can, if the freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq remains.

 

Farewell, Mr. President, and may your legacy as “The Liberator” be long lasting.

 

See more thoughts on the speech at The Fox Forums.

1 out of 5 Baby Killers To Lose Their Jobs

   

See, Bernie Madoff isn't such a bad guy after all.

Read the good news here.

When Did Rudy Become Mayor Of Baghdad?

 

This little ditty of a news feed from AFP reminded me of the glory days in NYC when America's mayor was still the mayor:

BAGHDAD (AFP) - Baghdad on Monday launched a tough new initiative to force the fast growing number of beggars off busy streets and into new social programmes.

Rudy employed a "broken windows" theory of criminology, which meant he would fight crime right down to the smallest broken window case.

He famously arrested all the squeegee men.  Remember them?  While you were in traffic, they would spray cleaner on your windshield and squeegee the glass, then ask you for money.

They problem of course was the guys who would spit on your windshield, wipe it off and ask you for money.

Recalling Rudy here from 1993 in the NYT:

[Dinkins] challenger, Rudolph W. Giuliani, is going the incumbent one better: he is vowing a police crackdown with assault charges against the worst "squeegee operators" who "menace" and "extort" drivers. The Republican-Liberal candidate stresses the "broken windows" thesis of criminologists that tolerance of petty street disorder has been shown time after time to invite far more felonious problems -- just as a broken window that goes unfixed can suggest the broader decline of a building or a neighborhood. Thus is the "war on crime" theme of modern politics taking on urban subtleties.

Will Be ON FoxNews.Com's "The Strategy Room" Monday at 1:00 pm

 

Go to www.FoxNews.Com and click on the blue link under the first few headlines.

Prince Harry Rocks

My favorite of the Royals is in the news again. 

Once again the "gotcha" media are trying to cast him as a racist or reckless sort, this time based upon a video of him in the military, cutting up with his friends at a down moment.

Crikey.

He's not in the Boy Scouts, he's in the military. 

So men sometimes cut loose and act a little crazy to relieve stress?  Oh the horrors!

Good grief.

Harry volunteered for the front lines of a war. 

 

His brother's ship went to the Caribbean.

Harry rocks.  Here's the vid:

Florida's "Transgenders Pick Either Bathroom Law." I Pick "Confusing" and "Dangerous"

In Gainesville Florida they passed an ordinance that 'Transgendered" people can choose to use either the Men's Room or Women's  Room (or even both).  "Sit or stand" is now apparntly a civil right the rest of us don't have. 

The problem is this: Do you know who a transgendered person is?  Anyone who says they are!!!  That's who!!!

Although there is no perfected definition of Transgendered, basically anyone who feels like their spirit doesn't match their own plumbing can call themselves that.

Now I'm not going to say a discouraging word about Transgendered people, so you Politically Correct idiots cans shut up before you start talking.

My concern is the people that are going to lie about being Transgendered just to get a peek into the other bathrooms. 

This ordinance assumes we live in a "perv-free" world. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

There's going to be lots of this going on in Gainesville:

Leave These Folks and Their Religion Alone

 

You can just feel the media hoping and praying that they can find John Travolta having forgone some sort of treatment for his deceased son Jett based upon Scientology, so they can tear into the religion.

They tease the issue in every printed story by bringing up that the family believes in Scientology.  In all the other reports of deaths in the media religion isn't mentioned.  There is a reason the media is doing this to the Travolta family, and the reason is they are looking for another chance  to kick a religion.

People of all religions should be appalled.  The Press intends to use the sad death of young Jett as a pawn in their war against believers.

By all accounts John Travolta and Kelly Preston are great parents who loved their son and did all they could for him.

Enough.

Harry Reid v Federalism, Part II

 

On Monday I posted here on The Fox Forum how Democrat Harry Reid was flirting with a shift against State’s Rights by refusing to seat Roland Burris from Illinois, who legally is entitled to the seat.

 

The rush to deny Blago his pick has Americans forgetting that if they stopped to think about it, they don’t want the Senate to have veto power over any State’s choice of their own Senator.

 

Some folks thought I was overreaching – that Harry Reid doesn’t have designs on assuming the power to deny Senators from every state their seat.

 

Well, take note of what Harry Reid said on Wednesday about Republican Norm Coleman, who is legally challenging the election results in Minnesota:

 

“Norm Coleman will never ever serve in the Senate. He lost the election. He can stall things, but he'll never serve in the Senate.”

 

So if Coleman wins his challenge, Harry Reid thinks he can deny a ruling by the Minnesota courts and the will of Minnesotans, too.

 

Reid is dangerous.  He is what the Founders feared, and what they tried to prevent, when they set up American Federalism with shared powers between the National and State governments. 

 

Reid thinks Obama’s victory somehow makes him King.  Scary.

 

Supporting Sanjay Gupta for Surgeon General

Why support Gupta?

He was the CNN reporter who called shenanigans on Michael Moore's misrepresentation by cherry picking and fudging facts.

For that we should reward Gupta Supreme Court-like tenure and make him Surgeon General for life!

Enjoy:

Intrigue: Blago & Burris Testing Federalism

 

Happy New Year, America.  Time to decide if you want to give away to the Federal Government even more power – as in your right to vote for your own representatives.

 

The media is captivated by whether it’s LEGAL for the US Senate to refuse to seat Blago’s pick Roland Burris.  What a bore.  Stop all the hand wringing because legally they can’t refuse him.

 

Oh they can try - until a Judge orders them otherwise.  Let’s dispose of the legalities:

 

The Illinois Secretary of State has to certify Burris’ appointment because it’s not discretionary; it’s a ministerial obligation.   He’s refused to do so, but Burris’ lawyers are going to win that lawsuit faster than President Bush dodging a shoe.

 

The Senate may Constitutionally refuse to seat Burris only if they can pass one of three tests: Prove he isn’t 30 years old (fail), hasn’t been a citizen for 9 years (fail) or wasn’t an inhabitant of Illinois when appointed (fail). 

 

If the Senate doesn’t seat him, a Judge will order it to do so faster than President Bush dodging the second shoe.

 

The Senate may do as they did with Senator Mary Landrieu (D. La), whom they didn’t want to seat in 1996 because of fraud in her election.  They seated her temporarily while the Rules Committee investigated for 10 months.  They let her stay and they’ll let Burris stay too – because they have to.  Blago is innocent until proven guilty and Burris is guilty of nothing.

 

The temporary seating of Roland Burris will also avoid the Democrats the embarrassment of having to revert back to their old Bull Connor days, by stopping the only Black Senator at the door with dogs and a fire hose.

 

So forget the legal issue of whether the Senate has the power to not seat Burris. 

 

More important is this:  Would we WANT the Senate to have the power to refuse a State’s choice of its own representative?  Do you want someone other than you to choose your representatives?

 

Make no mistake Burris is Illinois’ choice.  The 17^th Amendment allows Blagojevich to make the pick.

 

Blago’s pick has raised a most important issue that we Americans too infrequently debate (probably because the mainstream media doesn’t pick up on it).

 

The issue is Federalism and State’s Rights.

 

Federalism is a yardstick – use it to measure whether government power is balanced between the Federal government and State governments. To much power to the Feds and you get a Unitarian system.  To much power to the States and you get a Confederacy.

 

The debate over which should have more power blazed when America was born, with Alexander Hamilton leading the charge for a strong Federal Government on national defense and commerce.  Thomas Jefferson was the most notable opposition, fearing a return to monarchy should the States, gathered together as a republic, cede too much power to the Feds.  Both sought the Federalist balance, but disagreed where the center was.

 

Since then the two sides have had a tug of war through American history, occasionally pulling power back and forth between the State and Federal government, defining the current state of Federalism.

 

Blagojevich and Burris have unwittingly put Federalism up for change.

 

Before 1913 the Constitution called for Senators to be appointed by State Legislatures.  Senators have 6-year terms and therefore are not so swayed by public opinion. That tilts toward Federal power.  The 17th Amendment allowed the people to elect their Senators, pulling power back to the people; a clear State’s Rights shift.

 

Why in the world would any American want a Federal Senate that can block the seating of their Constitutionally elected or appointed Senator? If we did we would cede our power of self-representation to the whims of Senators from other states who do not know us or care for us.

 

Like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

 

Reid is leading the charge to block Burris, and we are finding out now that he may be motivated by his own interests – he called Blagojevich and demanded someone different be appointed.

 

We Americans take our representation in government very seriously.  Our country was founded because the British denied us that very thing.  When we see “taxation without representation” coming, we start throwing tea parties in Boston and writing complaints against King George like the following into Declarations of Independence:

 

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

 

The media is so enthralled with beating up Blago (deservedly) they are missing the bigger story - Democrats are pondering a shift in Federalism against States Rights toward tyrannical despotism not seen here since King George.  They want the power to appoint our representatives.

 

Harry Reid and the Dummycrats are scary, and the media better start paying attention.

On FoxNews.Com's The Strategy Room Monday at 10:30 am