Democratic Party is trampling the constitution.

The No Religious Test Ban Clause -- Part I"This fundamental and irreconcilable chasm --Democrats do not believe that any nominee who can be suspected of believing in the personhood of the unborn or of other "deeply held beliefs," to quote Senator Schumer, is qualified to sit on the federal bench-- cannot be bridged, and given its importance, should not be avoided. Senators Leahy, Schumer, Kennedy, Boxer, Clinton and Reid have in essence imposed a prohibited "religious test" on nominees for office. "Says Hugh Hewitt

Regardless of the political position, a senator has sworn to uphold the constitution, and to protect rights invented by activist judges, the Democratic Party is trampling the constitution. In response, they must be humbled, crushed. There will be some in the Democratic Party who will be pragmatists. When it becomes obvious the Democrats are in for a long hard winter, politically, these are the people who will join the governing coalition.

George F. Will: California is the 'tail' that wags U.S. 'dog' | The Arizona Daily Star �

I like this. It explains to me why it is important to limit the power of the federal government. When policies are un evenly applied, that is via the states, there can be winners and losers. It is the natual selection process sucessful businesses use (such as GE) who give divisions autonomy then evaluate then continually against other divisions.

John J. Sweeney: Take care of Americans in the working classes | The Arizona Daily Star �

I don't agree with this! This is the Left's answer to the Jay Ambrose argument linked below.

"Let's be clear: Spending for working family programs did not cause the budget deficit. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, plus increased defense, homeland security and international affairs spending, did." Let us be clear, John J. Sweeney saying it doesn't make it so. Spending on social programs that don't work, both create a disincentive to workers to work, and another incentive for them to stop working. It also misappropriates the money taken from the tax payer. You would like to say only the rich pay taxes, which is mainly true. But many of us who don't feel rich get caught up in it too.

More importantly, a benefit to the rich in this case, greatly benefits the rest of us. The rich tend to be smart (although many are Democrats showing there are exceptions). Smart people acting in there own self interest is what this country was founded on. Given sufficient government oversite, the rich will make themselves richer by serving the needs of the people. Other rich, smart people, step in when they can do it better or cheaper. Government programs have no similar mechanism to serve the people efficiently.

I have not similar expectation for intellegence of union leaders.

Jay Ambrose: Bush may be on the edge of greatness

I agree with Jay Ambrose! This is a well written piece expressing what I wish I could (I will disclose that I am a republican partisan, unlike the majority of the Main Stream Media who think they are non partisan).

"Bush will have accomplished what Richard Nixon failed to do, what Gerald Ford failed to do, what Jimmy Carter failed to do, what Ronald Reagan failed to do, what an earlier George Bush failed to do and what Bill Clinton failed to do. They all tried."

By apposing Bush, his critics are placing their political agenda above the needs of the United States. Theses same critics were often heard to ask for time-- let (whatever, inspections, sanctions, talks... ) more time to work.

"Another major step is the democratization of Iraq. On both left and right, critics have said this ambition is either gross stupidity or an idealism contrived to hide lies about why our military is really, truly in Iraq.

Stupidity, indeed. The Iraqi election was one of the most heartwarming world events I can remember in years."

If the Left must think poorly of the President, let them at least allow him to serve his country which all evidence says he is. And if they have a better suggestion, they should make it. What ever his intelligence, what ever his motives, this is working.

Born Fighting

I have been reading James Webbs, Born Fighting. It describes how the people called Red Necks came to be in America, and might explain why todays Liberals dislike them so throughly. "THE SCOTS-IRISH (sometimes also called the Scotch-Irish) are all around you, even though you probably don't know it. They are a force that shapes our culture, more in the abstract power of emotion than through the argumentative force of law. In their insistent individualism they are not likely to put an ethnic label on themselves when they debate societal issues. Some of them don't even know their ethnic label, and some who do know don't particularly care. They don't go for group-identity politics any more than they like to join a union. Two hundred years ago the mountains built a fierce and uncomplaining self-reliance into an already hardened people. To them, joining a group and putting themselves at the mercy of someone else's collectivist judgment makes about as much sense as letting the government take their guns. And nobody is going to get their guns."

The book also describes the Viet Nam war to which the current Iraq war is being compared. The red Necks were a major portion of the fighter sent to that war. "Those who believe the war was fought incompetently on a tactical level should consider that the Vietnamese communists admit to losing 1.4 million soldiers, compared to South Vietnamese losses of 245,000 and American losses of 58,000. And those who believe that it was a "dirty little war" where bombs did all the work might contemplate that it was the most costly war the U.S. Marine Corps has ever fought. Five times as many Marines died in Vietnam as in World War I, three times as many as in Korea, and there were more total casualties (killed and wounded) for the Marines in Vietnam than in all of World War II."

Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush are representative of the SCOTS-IRISH influence in American, and received the prejudice of the Liberal elite for the SCOTS-IRISH who emigrated to the hills of Appalachia. Liberals hate George W Bush calling him dumb, based on this stereotype.

Daily Kos

I am looking here for a alternative to the typical liberal rant as seen in James Carroll column. Not much better, but at least the site references sources rather than just listing generalities.

The Dems' Week from Hell

THE DEMOCRATS' WORST WEEK AND a half since Black Tuesday (November 2, 2004, when the U.S. election returns came in) began on January 18, when Barbara Boxer took on Condi Rice in the Senate, and ended on Black Sunday (January 30, 2005, when Iraq held its first free election).

I am interested in this as a comparison to the liberal columnest

Martin Sheen eaten by cannibals

Martin Sheen: was eaten by cannibals in Michael Crichton book State of Fear. It is fustrating dealing with liberals, and I find this approach refreshing. For a novel, the book has a large number of references supporting the arguments expressed, questioning the presumption of global warming.

The identity of the character Ted Bradley as the Martine Scheen character is introduced on page 408: ""And I'm Ted Bradley," Ted said. He started to extend his hand, the-thought better of it, pulled it back.
"Oh. Hey," the technician said. "I thought you looked familiar. You're
the secretary of state."
"Actually, I'm the president."
"Right, right, the president. I knew I'd seen you before. Your wife :*
a drunk."
"No, actually, the secretary of state's wife is a drunk."
"Oh. I don't get to see the show that often."
"It's off the air now."
"

On page 478 Ted/Martin are discussing Global Warming: ""The whole world knows that. It would reduce global temperatures in the year 2100."
"By how much?"
"I don't know what you're driving at."
"Don't you? The answer is well known. The effect of Kyoto would be to reduce warming by .04 degrees Celsius in the year 2100. Four hundredths of a degree. Do you dispute that outcome?"
"I certainly do. Four what? Hundredths of a degree? That's ridiculous."
"So you don't believe diat would be the effect of the Kyoto Protocol"-*
"Well, maybe because the United States didn't sign it—"
"No, that would be the effect if we did sign it. Four hundredths of a degree."
"No," she said, shaking her head. "I don't believe that's true."
"The figure has been published a number of times in scientific JOUITILS. I can give you the references."*
Raising his glass, Bradley said to Ann, "This guy is real big on references."
"

On page 533, Martin Sheen is eated: "It was Sambuca, though Bradley could barely focus on his face. The world was gray and faint. But he saw that Sambuca was grinning at him, revealing a row of yellow pointed teeth. And then Sambuca held up a knife so Ted could see it, and smiled again, and with two fingers grabbed the flesh of Ted's cheek and sliced it off with the knife."

"And then the whole crowd was upon him, and the knives were everywhere, and they were cutting and yelling and cutting and yelling and he saw one knife move toward his eyes, and felt his trousers tugged down, and he knew nothing more."

Boston.com / News / Boston Globe / Opinion / Op-ed / Train wreck of an election

For aid in evaluating this see: propaganda critic: index of site dedicated to propaganda analysis
Site to aid in analysing the liberal main stream media

Propagandists love short-cuts -- particularly those which short-circuit rational thought. They encourage this by agitating emotions, by exploiting insecurities, by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, and by bending the rules of logic. As history shows, they can be quite successful.


"Iraq is a train wreck. The man who caused it is not in trouble. Tomorrow night he will give his State of the Union speech" This statement may make a liberals blood race, but is propaganda. There is no basis in fact.

It continues: "An Arab nation is humiliated." So what is wrong with that, are you afraid?? " Islamic hatred of the West is ignited."- how much worse could it get. There has been an unreasoned hatred for a long time and prior to 9/11. “The American military is emasculated."-- Not so. The military has been strengthened. Weapons have been developed, and the reputation has been significantly improved." Lies define the foreign policy of the United States." What lies, can we be specific? Lies were king when Clinton was president namely we will come and get you if you hit us. Our threats are now credible.

An so it goes, one baseless charge after another.

On the other hand, when viewed a propoganda, you can see the piece is well crafted and effective.

The Wizard of OZ- Enhancing liberal Intelligence

When considering the source of liberal intelligence I always think of the Wizard of OZ

Liberals are smart because other liberals tell them they are smart. They remain smart as long as they repeat the party line. When they deviate (that is have an original thought) they are suddenly stupid. Their intelligence is dependent on group approval.



In the original version:

"Come in," said Oz.

The Scarecrow went in and found the little man sitting down by the window, engaged in deep thought.
"I have come for my brains," remarked the Scarecrow, a little uneasily.

"Oh, yes; sit down in that chair, please," replied Oz. "You must excuse me for taking your head off, but I shall have to do it in order to put your brains in their proper place."

"That's all right," said the Scarecrow. "You are quite welcome to take my head off, as long as it will be a better one when you put it on again."

So the Wizard unfastened his head and emptied out the straw. Then he entered the back room and took up a measure of bran, which he mixed with a great many pins and needles. Having shaken them together thoroughly, he filled the top of the Scarecrow's head with the mixture and stuffed the rest of the space with straw, to hold it in place.

When he had fastened the Scarecrow's head on his body again he said to him, "Hereafter you will be a great man, for I have given you a lot of bran-new brains."

The Scarecrow was both pleased and proud at the fulfillment of his greatest wish, and having thanked Oz warmly he went back to his friends.

Dorothy looked at him curiously. His head was quite bulged out at the top with brains.

"How do you feel?" she asked.

"I feel wise indeed," he answered earnestly. "When I get used to my brains I shall know everything."



In the film, the dialog was more direct.

“You have as much brain as anyone, what you need is a degree”

The Basis of the Bush Doctrine

Sharansky's "The Case For Democracy:" A Touchstone for the "Bush Doctrine"

For those who think George W. Bush is an intellectual light weight, skim this real quick and see if you can understand the way the world works. I am unimpressed with the disloyal opposition. They argue by repeating themselves and repeating what others say, without a thought.

They assume their listeners share a world view, allowing them to skip the basics in their arguments. This listener doesn’t share the left’s assumptions so should they ever want to influence my thinking (which they probably don’t since I am another dumb Texan), they need to speak my language.

I don’t anticipate that happening, nor do I think they will be introspective enough to consider they need to reexamine their own beliefs.

What They’re Not Telling You About the “Election”

I was given this by a liberal friend of mine who was impressed by its assertions. I say assertions because I find the lack of argument disturbing. The identity of the author is also a puzzle. Through searches I tracked down the original post.

"After a day which left 50 people dead in Iraq, both civilians and soldiers, the death toll was hailed as a figure that was “lower than expected.” Thus…acceptable, by Bush Administration/corporate media standards. After all, only of them was an American, the rest were Iraqis civilians and British soldiers." I find I agree with this statement in general. I would prefer a higher Iraq death toll. I don't want the Iraqis to feel they are getting a free ride. Other citizens of oppressive governments need the stick as well as the carrot to risk all to free themselves. I place the British in the same category as the American solders, however. No loss is acceptable, but some must be accepted.

"What they also didn’t tell you were that of those who voted, whether they be 35% or even 60% of registered voters, were not voting in support of an ongoing US occupation of their country." This is a straw man argument. It was addressed by the Presidents speech tonight. They don't want us there and we don't want to be there. As soon as possible we will be gone. The Liberals would prefer we surrender. This would only cause our enemies to attack us more. And the impression is correct. By gaining control of their country they can tell us to leave.

"This causes one to view the footage of cheering, jubilant Iraqis in a different light now, doesn’t it?". The freedom to control their destiny is what they were cheering. And that is exactly the result the US wants. This will include removing the US forces. If it happens soon, they will have beaten the records of Japan and Germany, both of whom are today US allies.

"And Bush is portrayed by the media as the bringer of democracy to Iraq by the simple fact that this so-called election took place, botched as it may have been. Appearances suggest that the majority Shia in Iraq now finally get their proportional representation in a “government.” Looks good on paper." This is all smearing and no substance. Why no positive suggestion. All things are possible but it will take a more refined method to win in a democratic government.

"Oil." he says. But is it a cost effective way to attain oil? With the same force we could take over any number of lightly defended countries. With the money spent, we could purchase the oil rights. No evidence is offered. It is a complete lack of intellectual
honesty to fail to develop a thought.