The Savage Republican

Is it just me?

Just when you thought that the critics of the Administration couldn't possibly sink any lower, comes this.

In reaction to the selection of John Roberts to the Supreme Court come these intelligent reactions. John Roberts is "obviously" gay because he a)went to a boys boarding school where he studied Latin, participated in drama and choir and (gasp) was a wrestler! Plus he wore plaid pants as a teen in the '60s (didn't we all I hate to admit) and if that weren't damning enough, his children are adopted! He is unacceptable because his wife has "strong" opinions on abortion and she dressed the kids "funny" for the press announcement.

This is all coming out of the same faction of the Democratic Party that thought that "outing" Mary Cheney during the campaign would somehow "hurt" the President. However, aren't these the same people who demand that we accept gays when it comes to issues such as gay marriage?

When did it become ok to attack the families of candidates and appointees? Has the "loyal opposition" sunk so low that they are fine with this? Do they realize what they are opening themselves up to when it is their turn to appoint judges? Do they really want to go down this road?

Saddam/al Qaeda links

I have not seen this getting much coverage so I think I will chime in.

The Weekly Standard has recently run a couple of really good stories summing up the overwhelming preponderance of evidence of the links between Saddam and al Qaeda that were run in the MSM during the Clinton administration. The author, Mr. Stephen Hayes, has related in this series of articles just how cozy Osama and Saddam were in the days leading up to 9/11 and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Vanity Fair columnist Christopher Hitchens, in a recent appearance on MSNBC's Connected program, schooled host Ron Reagan on the numerous connections between Saddam and terrorists like Abu Nidal. Claudia Rosette (of UN Oil-For-Food fame) reminds us in a recent Wall Street Journal column that, thanks to unprecedented access to the regimes files (I guess Saddam was a worse paperwork pack-rat than I am and that takes a lot of doing), we are just beginning to see how deeply intertwined the two (OBL and Saddam) really were.

You can read Mr. Hayes' articles here and here. In addition, the Standard has this enlightening article from Mr. Dan Darling.

When you sift through the gathered research, a large portion coming from European MSM sources (like Le Mond of all places) a logical person can not help but wonder why the willfull blindness of the alphabet soup media (ABC, CBS, MSNBC et al) to the facts. Some of the same sources that today loudly proclaim that there were "NO CONNECTIONS" between Saddam and al Qaeda are the same ones that 10 years ago were forwarning us that Saddam and bin Laden were indeed working together toward the same goal - the destruction of America - the Great Satan.

Reagan's 9 fearful words-revisited

Ronald Reagan said the nine most terrifying words anyone can hear are "I'm from the government and I'm hear to help." I'd like to amend that to "I'm from the government and you can trust me." The TSA (Transportation Security Administration) which is one of the biggest wastes of time and money, decided to illegally gather information on us, Stasi style (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050723/D8BGR5L80.html ) . Now, TSA is the Keystone Cops of security ( www.reason.com/0402/fe.jb.dominate.shtml ) . Even my commercial pilot friends say that we are no safer now than we were 9-11-01.
Don't ever trust anyone from the government. Ever!

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
-George Washington

MSM AWOL! And why they have no credibility.

I just sent this email off to a friend of mine (I got the link from another friend):

Reeve-

You had a friend at Jeremy’s party who was opposed to the Iraqi war. I had mentioned an article on Fox called “What We’ve Accomplished”. He had never heard of any of what we’d accomplished in Iraq from that article and asked me why he hadn’t heard any of this. I returned the question to him.

Please send the following to him.

The bold italicized emphasis is mine.

From Powerline:

July 22, 2005

Iraqis Stand Against Terrorism

Haider Ajina sends us this translation of an article in yesterday's Kululiraq, an Iraqi newspaper:

Iraqis stood for three minutes of silence yesterday in commemoration of the lives lost in the two attacks in Baghdad Aljadedah and Almusaiyab, which claimed 105 martyrs, 32 of whom were children, and 128 wounded of whom 31 were children.

Traffic of thousand of cars stopped in the Allawi & Tahrier area (central Baghdad) as children (from “Baghdad Aljadedah” area) entered “Tahrier” square (with some of the wounded children) carrying Iraqi flags and displaying victory signs in defiance of the terrorists. These children also stood silent for three minutes to commemorate their relatives and friends who died in the homicide bombing attack last week.

Iraqi Prime Minister Dr. Ibrahiem Aljaafary said in a speech regarding this incident: “We will not sway from our path and we will not kneel to those who commit these crimes.” He added, ”We are confident that all nations of this world stand beside us, because to day terrorism does not only affect us Iraqis but the whole world. We Iraqis have the honor of being in the front line in the fight against terrorism."

Haider comments:

Tens of thousands of Iraqis stood silent for three minutes in over 130 Fahrenheit heat to commemorate victims of terror and in a sign of unified defiance of terrorism and I have not seen a single report on this. I waited all day Wednesday and all day today and nothing. The news reported the small anti America demonstration by Alsadar and some Baathists in April but some how missed the whole Iraqi nation standing still in defiance of terrorism.

When was the last time you heard an Arab leader say that his nation was honored to be in the front lines fighting terrorism?

Good question. The terrorists know that Iraq is the front line in the battle against terrorism; the Iraqis agree. Now if only we could convince the Democrats.

Posted by John at 01:53 PM | Permalink

What would NOW say?

The London Telegraph reports that by 2020 there will be 23,000,000 Chinese men that will be unable to find wives as Chinese parents regularly abort unborn female babies ( news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/22/wchina22.xml ).
So, we have "choice" going on, and I wonder what the National Organization of Women would say about this exercise of "choice"?

Of course,the governor still knows best.

Proving again that he's a REAL, not a fake, conservative, Governor Pawlenty is in Washington urging Congress to up ethanol standards ( www.startribune.com/stories/587/5518990.html ) . After all, there is no ethanol market without the government mandating it. He also ignores the fact that ethanol is a horrible fuel for combustion engines, costs much more than petroleum, and is a disaster that requires the government to force us to use it after it forces us to subsidize it.
"This doesn't just benefit farmers,'' he said. "It's good for rural and economic development. It's good environmental policy, and it's good national security policy.'' And who would know better than a guy who can't wait to get to the other side of the Potomac? But, of course, this flies in the face of facts ( www.taxpayersleague.org/issues/legislative_issues_2005.php and scroll down to Ethanol Mandates and Subsidies. The study by Pimentel at Cornell calls ethanol "subsidized food burning" www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/01/8.23.01/Pimentel-ethanol.html ) And yet the Governor goes merrily along extolling ethanol. And always remember, it was state government that brought you the final and fully convincing reason that they should never ever be trusted with decisions involving business: Excelsior-Henderson Motorcycle Company ( http://minneapolisfed.org/pubs/fedgaz/00-01/opinion.cfm .As you read the article, keep substituting "Twins Stadium") .
Crimeny Governor, haven't you done enough damage to your Republican credentials yet?

And we're still waiting.

John Roberts...who? I'm still not convinced. I agree with Ann Coulter in her special column today titled "Souter in Roberts Clothing" ( www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi ).
Here is someone who has a few cases under his belt. And not much else. I also agree with Ann that as we are being told to "trust Roberts" we were also told that we could trust Souter.
Ann goes on to say " If the Senate were in Democrat hands, Roberts would be perfect. But why on earth would Bush waste a nomination on a person who is a complete blank slate when we have a majority in the Senate!
We also have a majority in the House, state legislatures, state governorships, and have won five of the last seven presidential elections , seven of the last ten! We're the Harlem Globetrotters now - why do we have to play the Washington Generals every week? Conservatism is sweeping the nation, we have a fully functioning alternative media, we're ticked off and ready to avenge Robert Bork . . . and Bush nominates a Rorschach blot. ."
Even Fred Barnes, last night on Fox News Special Report, said that Roberts is NOT a Scalia or Thomas type justice (as Bush promised us during the election) but rather closer to Rehnquist.
Ann finishes her column with " The Democrats own polls showed voters are no longer fooled by claims that the Democrats are trying to block judges who would roll back civil rights. Borking is over. And Bush responds by nominating a candidate who will allow Democrats to avoid fighting on their weakest ground - substance. He has given us a Supreme Court nomination that will placate no liberals and should please no conservatives. Maybe Roberts will contravene the sordid history of stealth nominees and be the Scalia or Thomas Bush promised us when he was asking for our votes. Or maybe he won't. The Supreme Court shouldn't be a game of Russian roulette."
I'm going to find out what Robert Bork and Andrew Napolitano have to say on this one.
I trust them.

And while we wait...

And so we hear that we are days,perhaps hours away from a Supreme Court nominee. I came across this from the Joseph Sobran archives of May, 2000:

"Those of us who urge conservatives to leave the
Republican Party are often charged with ensuring the election
of Al Gore and especially with helping see to it that Gore
will name the next few Supreme Court justices. But recent
Republican nominees to the Court -- Souter, Kennedy, and
O'Connor -- have saved Roe v. Wade; worse yet, Republicans in
the Senate have voted overwhelmingly to confirm Clinton's
nominees, Ginzburg and Breyer, and would no doubt do the same
for Gore's picks. Both parties show approximately equal
respect for constitutional law. That is, approximately none.
Put otherwise, both parties -- and both candidates -- would
support a continuation of lawless government. A moment of
peace and prosperity is the ideal time to build a new party."
And I reflect on this leaving the Republican Party  when we have a "conservative" governor who
supports spending still more, not eliminating a single program or giving a tax cut in the face of rising revenues,
talks about what a good idea it is that only Hennepin County  pay for a stadium for billionaires
so millionaires can play baseball and then is stunned that there's wrinkle called  a "referendum" that would
kill the stadium deal (note to the Guv: Trust me, if there is a referendum on the stadium  in Hennepin county,
there ain't no deal to kill as there won't be a stadium. Get it?)
Any how, just a few thoughts as we wait.

And Congressman, there's a cell with your name on it too

I started writing this the day I heard Bernie Ebbers (of WorldCom fame) was sentenced to 25 years in prison. Now, it's well proven that he was the head of an organization that perpetrated the largest private financial fraud in U.S. history. What he and WorldCom did was use liabilities as assets to improve the financial picture of WorldCom. And the resultant fraud collapsed WorldCom. Amount? About $11,000,000,000. Now, if any of you know how Social Security is truly run, that is exactly how monies from you to "fund" the trust fund are used.
The Social Security Administration lends its "contributions" (FICA [aka Social Security] on your paycheck stands for Federal Insurance Contributions Act) to the U.S. Treasury, which then includes them in the General Fund as assets. And they are then spent (see below). This is the same as you or me getting a $1,000,000 loan from the bank, putting it in our savings account, which we then spend, and then go around telling everyone that we're millionaires. Uh, no, we OWE $1,000,000. We are in DEBT $1,000,000. And yet, the Treasury and Congress and the President have been doing this for over 40 years. To the tune of trillions (not mere billions) of dollars.
So, when I saw the WorldCom executives being led out of their offices in handcuffs (picture above), I thought : "Are the Feds on their way to Congress to arrest all the Congress?"
A multi-trillion dollar fraud. And they keep being elected.

"Do you know where your Social Security taxes are? Some of them went to pay for the National Cowgirl Hall of Fame and Museum in Fort Worth, Texas. The same monies helped the State Historical Society of Iowa in Des Moines pay for the development of exhibits for the World Food Prize. And we should all be happy that some of our Social Security surplus funded a study of mariachi music for the Clark County (Nevada) School District. As we know by now, Social Security is facing many problems that will require long-term, comprehensive reform. But before a doctor operates on a patient, the first step is to stop the bleeding. And the first step toward Social Security reform should be to stop Congress from spending Social Security money on anything except workers' retirement." --Michael Tanner
However, the only real reform is to end Social Security (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42013 )(which by the way, is unconstitutional) so the people in Washington can not fool with it. At all.

If I turn blue...

I've written my Congressman, John Kline. I've written Senator Coleman. I've heard back from both.
I urged them both, if they have the ear of the President, to urge him to nominate a Supreme Court candidate in the mold of Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas. I wrote the Senator and Congressman that we worked hard to win Minnesota for the President. That we worked for him as we believed him when he campaigned against judicial activism. When he campaigned for a Senate that would pass his judicial nominees. That he wanted justices in the form of a Scalia or Thomas. But, that was then.
Now, I hear the President say, regarding a Supreme appointment that he intends to appoint a "fair-minded individual who represents the mainstream of American law and American values." Now, I get real nervous whenever I hear the terms "fair" and "mainstream" in regards to an appointee.
I'm holding my breath on this appointee (remembering his Dad appointed David Souter).
By the way,having turned red, not blue, I've already exhaled on Tim Pawlenty.

The Savage Republican

Local Attractions

Favorite Links

Previous Posts

Archives

Saturday, July 23, 2005

Is it just me?

Saddam/al Qaeda links

Reagan's 9 fearful words-revisited

Friday, July 22, 2005

MSM AWOL! And why they have no credibility.

What would NOW say?

Thursday, July 21, 2005

Of course,the governor still knows best.

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

And we're still waiting.

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

And while we wait...

Monday, July 18, 2005

And Congressman, there's a cell with your name on it too

If I turn blue...