Click to bookmark this page!
- Contact Me -
Include your email address
Just in case you weren't sure...
Buy this book (not just because it contains two of my op-eds):
Americans on Politics, Policy, and Pop Culture:
The 101 Best Opinion Editorials From OpEds.com
An Interview With the G-Man:
My first (hopefully not last) experience in live radio, being interviewed by G. Gordon Liddy!
of people freed from totalitarian dictatorships
by precision use of American military force
under George W. Bush:
million in just two years
of people freed from totalitarian dictatorships
by anti-American Bush-bashing
terrorist-appeasing whining elitists:
...The problem seems to
me to be the definition of "free speech".
Liberals define it as anything they want to say
or do that opposes America. I say "speech" ends
where "action" begins. Once you pick up a gun
for the enemy, throw a rock at a cop during a
"peace" march, send money to a terrorist
organisation, or travel to Baghdad to block an
American JDAM with your ass, you have crossed the line from free speech to costly action.
Saying the War on Terror is all about al-Qaeda is like saying we should have fought the Japanese Naval Air Force after Pearl Harbor. Not the Japanese Navy, not the Japanese Army, not the Empire of Japan -- just the Naval Air Force....
Complaining about the "waste" when human embryos are destroyed instead of being used in medical experiments is a lot like going to a funeral and complaining about the waste of perfectly good meat....
Blaming CO2 for climate change is like blaming smoke for the fire. CO2 is largely a following, not a leading, indicator of a rise in temperature....
Cavalier's First Theorem:
Every time, Liberals will fight to protect the guilty and kill the innocent, while Conservatives will fight to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.
Cavalier's Second Theorem:
Liberals are just Socialists who want to be loved... then again, Socialists are just Communists who lack the courage of their convictions.
Cavalier's Third Theorem:
Any strongly moral, hawkish or pro-American statement by a Liberal will inevitably be followed by a "but."
Infamous Monsters of Filmland
Day by Day:
Chris Muir's witty comic strip with a political
The Ultimate War Simulation: Why does this scenario seem so familiar?
What Kind of Liberal Are You?
Save me the trouble
of figuring out what kind of idiot you
Because Bush is to blame... for
Sacred Cow Burgers
Satirical Political Beliefs
Communists for Kerry
Cooper's Protester Guide
Fellowship 9/11: Sauron never attacked Rohan, Saruman did! Yet a small group of elitists convinced Middle-earth to divert resources from the real war to attack Mordor for personal gain.
When Democrats Attack
Did prominent Democrats switch positions on Iraq just to attack President Bush for political gain? (See the updated list.)
Was Iraqi Freedom Justified?
An honest, step-by-step analysis of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq that Congress voted into law shows that it was.
Saddam's Philanthropy of Terror
Details of solid ties to organised international terrorism
How The Left Betrayed Iraq
by Naseer Flayih Hasan
Did We Botch The
No, not of Iraq: of Germany. Read the
media's take on how we "lost the peace" in 1946
Debunking 8 Anti-War Myths About the Conflict in Iraq
Pictures from Hate
Bush/Hate America/Hate Capitalism/Hate
Israel/general wacko rallies
Share your wish list with friends and family
Free online file transfer - even works with Android phones
Reviews of hotels, flights and sites
Convenient comparison shopping
The best right-wing news and commentary
GOP USA Commentary
Men's News Daily
The New Media
a project of Frontiers of Freedom
SF Chronicle watchdog and conservative news
Analysis with political and social commentary
The Conservative Voice
Conservative news and opinion
News By Us
...not news bias
Conservative and Libertarian Intellectual Philosophy and Politics
Practical conservatism for the common man
Analysis, Commentary and Opinion on the Real World
Philly news and blogs
The Fatal Conceit:
The Errors of Socialism
by F. A. Hayek
Articles Previously Published at
- When Good Liberals Go
Bad - 05/29/03
- How Stupid Do Democrats Think You
Are? - 05/31/03
- Who Are These 'Rich' Getting Tax
Cuts, Anyway? - 06/02/03
- How Can We Miss The Clintons If
They Won't Go Away? - 06/04/03
Whining of Mass Distraction: How
To Discredit A President -
- Liberal "Rules" for Arguing
- Liberalism: Curable or
Terminal? - 06/14/03
- Filibustering Judges: Hijacking
Presidential Powers? - 06/17/03
Is Hamas Exempt from the War on
Terror? - 06/22/03
- How Malleable Is The
Constitution? - 06/26/03
- Rejecting Our Biological and
Cultural Heritage - 06/30/03
- I Need Liberal Assistance,
Now! - 07/02/03
- Bring Them On -
- We Need You Arrogant Warmongering
Americans...Again - 07/09/03
- Much Ado About Nothing, Again
- Double Standard: Blindly Blame
Bush - 07/18/03
- Was WWII Also Unjustified?
- Clinton Backing Bush? Don't Bet On
It! - 07/24/03
- How To Be A Hypocritical
Liberal - 07/28/03
- The Clinton Legacy: In Answer to
Mr. Stensrud - 07/30/03
-What Is 'Good News' To
Liberals? - 08/02/03
- Bush's Big Blunder -
- The Meaning of Right - Why I
Supported the Iraq War -
- More Liberal "Rules" for
Arguing - 08/14/03
- You Can Have Cary Grant; I'll Take
John Wayne! - 08/19/03
- Where Is The ACLU When It's
Actually Needed? - 08/25/03
- Who's Afraid Of The Big Bad Ten
Commandments? - 08/28/03
- From The Weasels: Thanks For
Nothing - 08/30/03
- The Liberal
Superfriends - 09/02/03
- Liberal Superfriends 2: The
Sequel - 09/05/03
- Saddam and 9/11: Connect the
Dots - 09/08/03
- Throwing Away the Southern
Vote - 11/02/03
- Libya: The First Domino
Falls - 12/20/03
- Is the UN Playing Games with
American Politics? - 03/04/04
Blogs to Browse
Across the Pond
Arts for Democracy
Bull Moose Strikes Back
Common Sense & Wonder
Everything I Know Is Wrong
Freedom of Thought
My Arse From My Elbow
Take A Stand Against Liberals
The Resplendent Mango
The Right Society
Tom's Common Sense
Tomfoolery of the Highest Order
Trying to Grok
TS Right Dominion
Watcher of Weasels
Word Around the Net
Able Danger: Just Another 9/11 Commission Omission
The biggest unreported story of the year -- at least, unreported by the "mainstream" media -- may be the story of Able Danger. A top secret Pentagon task force identified three of the 9/11 hijackers as terrorists in advance, including ringleader Mohammed Atta, but was told it couldn't touch them by government bureaucrats. This should be above-the-fold news in every paper in America, right? The problem is, this happened during the Clinton administration, so don't expect too much from the Liberal press, even though "Able Danger" is a cool-sounding name for a counter-terrorism operation.
Remember the 9/11 Commission, with their supposedly full and complete final report on exactly what allowed 9/11 to happen, and their recommendations for preventing another such attack? Nowhere in their list of suggestions was, "pay attention when the Pentagon identifies al-Qaeda terrorists plotting something." One might think the Commission had never heard of Able Danger. It turns out that some members were briefed on Able Danger on two separate occasions, but declined to look into it further, because what they were told didn't work with the 9/11 timeline they'd already decided upon. Former commission spokesman Al Felzenberg said, "The information that he provided us did not mesh with other conclusions that we were drawing." Is that how an investigation is supposed to proceed -- decide the outcome, then ignore any facts that contradict it? I'd be shocked at this failure of the 9/11 Commission to include all the relevant facts in its "comprehensive" report... if only this weren't the only time they ignored something that would reflect badly on the Clinton administration.
The 9/11 Commission, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, was put together to answer two questions: how did this happen, and how can we prevent it from happening again? Most Conservatives saw the true purpose of the Commission as similarly twofold. Not only was it seeking to blame President Bush for 9/11, which took place only eight months after his inauguration, but it was also pursuing ways to exonerate the Clinton administration for ignoring the growing threat of al-Qaeda for eight years prior to 9/11. People on all sides of the political spectrum were surprised when they issued a final report which, if boiled down to a single sentence, would say, "everyone and no one was to blame."
Most Americans seemed to accept that judgment, despite all the omissions in the report that were pointed out (though, of course, not in the "mainstream" media). For one thing, the report did not mention that Bill Clinton was offered Osama bin Laden by the Sudanese government but refused to take him, as confirmed by his own words. On 15 February 2002, the former President was asked about terrorism while speaking in Woodbury, NY. He said, "At the time, 1996, [bin Laden] had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."
By 1996, bin Laden and al-Qaeda were at least suspected of involvement in the first World Trade Center bombing, the attack on American Rangers in Mogadishu, Somalia and a car bombing at US military headquarters in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. According to documents obtained by Judicial Watch, intelligence analysts warned Clinton that letting bin Laden move to Afghanistan could prove dangerous to US interests. If the Commission was interested in mistakes that led to 9/11 and should not be repeated, wouldn't "letting Osama bin Laden run around free" fit the description? Yet the report only mentioned that the US was aware of the discussion between Sudanese and Saudi Arabian officials.
The Commission also ignored the story of Brian Sullivan, the former FAA special agent who tried to draw John Kerry's attention to lax security at Logan Airport, the very airport from which both planes used in the 9/11 New York City attacks took off. Sullivan and another retired FAA agent, with the help of a local news crew, filmed themselves walking through security carrying all manner of weapons and suspicious equipment. He sent the videotape to John Kerry's office in May 2001, and two months later received a reply that it had been forwarded to the Department of Transportation. In a letter, Sullivan asked Kerry to consider the ramifications of "a coordinated attack which took down several domestic flights on the same day." Brian Sullivan's almost prescient attempt to prevent a disaster like 9/11 received no attention from the 9/11 Commission.
Another person whose work should have been at least mentioned by the 9/11 Commission was FBI agent John O'Neill. O'Neill was responsible for the capture of Ramzi Yousef, the al-Qaeda operative responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, who may also have been an Iraqi agent. O'Neill led the investigation into the 1998 al-Qaeda attacks in Dar-es-Salaam and Nairobi, and the 2000 USS Cole bombing. His conviction that al-Qaeda was not independent, but sponsored by rogue nations -- Iraq among them -- earned him the disapproval of his superiors. He finally quit the Bureau to become Chief of Security for the World Trade Center... and died on 9/11, when he re-entered Tower 2 to rescue survivors of the plane strike. Shouldn't his files and documents, containing the sum of his expertise on al-Qaeda and the evidence he had of Iraq's sponsorship, have been invaluable to the 9/11 Commission? O'Neill's investigative work did not merit so much as a footnote in the report.
Perhaps the first indication that the 9/11 Commission was not all it pretended to be was the presence of Jamie Gorelick on the wrong side of the witness table. Gorelick, during her time as Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton administration, was responsible for creating the "wall of separation" that prevented law enforcement agencies from sharing information about investigations. The Commission determined that the lack of inter-agency cooperation, mostly removed now by the PATRIOT Act, was in part responsible for the failure to prevent 9/11. Coordination and cooperation are essential in preventing terror attacks. It was the "Gorelick wall" that prevented the Pentagon from directly contacting the FBI with Able Danger's information about Mohammed Atta and other 9/11 hijackers.
Why did so few people seem to notice that the creator of that wall sat on, instead of being questioned by, the 9/11 Commission? Attorney General John Ashcroft noted that there might be a conflict of interest, and Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) even called for her to step down. Aside from that, her presence seemed to be largely accepted. That's somewhat akin to letting the guy who sold John Allen Mohammed and Lee Boyd Malvo a sniper rifle (though they were on the banned list) sit on the jury for their murder trials.
Some people may be surprised by Rep. Curt Weldon's (R-PA) revelation that the 9/11 Commission declined to include information that could be useful in preventing future terrorist attacks. After all, isn't it just as important to discover what went right as what went wrong? I'm not surprised at the omission of information from Able Danger, John O'Neill and Brian Sullivan from the 9/11 report, however. It fits in with the pattern of partisan politics the Left has displayed all along.
From the first anti-war protest in NYC just days after 9/11 to the attempt to turn Ground Zero into a showcase for America-bashing, Liberals and their political allies in the Democratic party have worked to discredit President Bush, victimise America and exonerate former President Clinton, while scheming to regain the power they've lost at the voting booth. It's no longer possible to be shocked... all we can do is watch and wonder how much lower they can go, like watching a game of Liberal Limbo.
Posted at Tuesday, August 16, 2005 by CavalierX
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
The Theory of Evolution... of Theories
The Intelligent Design debate continues, fueled by President Bush's recent comment that "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought." The problem is that Intelligent Design theory (or ID for short) is not a scientific theory at all. ID is an attempt to "prove" that God (or, in some versions, space aliens) created human beings, using the fact that we don't yet know everything about the universe. It's a philosophical belief, not a scientific one.
It's depressing that some people feel there is a competition between science and religion. Science is merely a tool like any other; a method of using our intelligence to investigate the world around us. It's not science's fault that Liberals have tried to use it to "prove" that God is non-existent or irrelevant. Of course, it isn't possible to prove such a thing; all a religious person has to ask is, "So who wrote all the laws of Nature that scientists are trying to learn? Who determined the value of Pi, the speed of light or Planck's Constant?"
ID is an attempt to disprove the idea that humans evolved through natural selection, by pointing out the fact that there are questions the current theory of evolution doesn't answer. The general argument is that some things are so complex that they must have been deliberately designed; they cannot have evolved naturally over any length of time. There is no actual proof of external interference, however. ID proponents claim that since evolution by natural selection cannot explain everything, the theory must be invalid or incomplete. While that's certainly possible, it doesn't mean that those things can't possibly be explained by further scientific investigation.
Unfortunately, that's precisely how scientific advancement works -- by finding ways to explain what current theories cannot. Science does not mean pointing out that something is not yet fully understood, and deducing that it must therefore have been authored by an outside agency.
Consider the history of another branch of science. Sir Isaac Newton is most well known for the discovery of the laws of gravity. In 1687, he published Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, three books that forever changed the course of science. The first two dealt with the laws of motion and forces, the third with gravity. Falling objects accelerate at a rate of 32 feet per second, every second they fall -- a rock dropped off a tall building will fall 32 feet, then 64, then 96, and so on until stopped by the ground, or an inconvenient passer-by. Newtonian physics seemed to explain everything very well for centuries.
As scientists dug deeper into the limits of the physical universe, cracks began to show at the edges of Newton's laws -- situations were found that the accepted theories couldn't explain. No one could predict the relationship and interactions between matter and energy on the very large and very small scale using only Newtonian physics. Along came Albert Einstein, with a whole new explanation of physical science. Did that mean Newton was wrong? Did gravity suddenly stop working when quantum theory was discovered? Of course not. Under local conditions, Newtonian physics are just as applicable as ever. Force still equals mass times acceleration. He simply didn't cover everything -- a fault of the available technology of his time as much as anything else.
A century or so later, Einsteinian physics also begins to show cracks around the edges. There are some situations in which the known laws of quantum mechanics don't seem to apply. Why does time itself seem to act differently under extreme circumstances, like in the presence of black holes? ID as applied to physics would simply conclude that black holes must be alien artifacts. Suppose a new kind of particle is discovered that travels faster than light, like the tachyon. Would that make Einstein wrong? Would his theories become garbage? Of course not. Einsteinian physics would explain and predict the normal interactions of matter and energy as well as ever. His theories simply couldn't cover everything, again due -- at least in part -- to the limitations of his time and available technology.
Even today, Newtonian physics are more than adequate for most everyday situations. Falling objects still accelerate in Earth's gravity at 32 feet per second per second. You don't need string theory to calculate how long it takes a rock to fall, but the fact that such advanced theories exist does not invalidate previous ones. In fact, more advanced theories could not even exist without the groundwork they provide. And at no point should anyone decide that there are Things We Just Cannot Explain, and stop trying to understand them. The same holds true for evolutionary theory as physics.
The laws governing heredity were first published in 1866 by Gregor Mendel, a monk experimenting with pea plants. Plants, like animals, generally have offspring that almost exactly resemble them. He realised that some traits are inherited, but that some variations of those traits are dominant over others. The dominant characteristic would appear in all the results of cross-breeding with plants that had different traits. Even so, the recessive variations don't disappear -- they can return in later generations, if combined with another plant carrying them, though neither plant currently shows the recessive characteristic. Two brown-eyed parents might have a blue-eyed child, if each parent has a blue-eyed ancestor somewhere in their past. Mendel codified the rules by which farmers and breeders of all sorts of plants and animals had operated for thousands of years, without understanding the science behind them.
Mendel's theories didn't cover everything, however. As exploration of the Earth's past progressed, ancient remains had been found that belonged to no living creatures... but which were similar in many ways. Obviously, there was some relationship between modern and ancient creatures, despite the differences. A link must have existed between animals past and present, with creatures slowly changing over vast amounts of time. Enter Darwin, and the theory of evolution by natural selection. Though the concept dates back to the ancient Greeks, Darwin codified the laws governing evolution as Mendel did the laws of heredity... and Newton and Einstein did for physics. Once again, science evolved from understanding the narrow focus and short term to the broad scope and long term, building on the work that had gone before.
Scientific evaluation of the past shows that as environmental conditions change over the course of millions of years, creatures slowly adapt; those who have a slight advantage live longer or better lives, and have more offspring. Due to natural variation, some of their descendants may be even slightly better able to survive, and so on. Did this invalidate Mendel's theories? Were all horse, cow and dog breeders put out of business? Did children no longer resemble their parents? Of course not. In the short term -- hundreds of years, even thousands -- the theory that inherited characteristics breed true is still solid. Your children will still look very much like you, or your parents. When people buy a dog, they don't need to worry what its descendants will look like in a million years.
Now, more than a hundred years on, there are some questions unanswered by current evolutionary theory. So, does that mean Darwin was wrong -- that nothing evolves? Does that mean we should burn that branch of science, and stop investigating our own past using scientific methods? Should we just mark that blank area on the chalkboard, "God did this part" and move on to something else? That doesn't make any sense. That doesn't agree with humanity's history of using our intelligence to discover how things work. Like physics before the advent of Einstein or Stephen W. Hawking, evolutionary science is in need of more investigation when there are unanswered questions, not less. When unanswered questions arise... that's when science takes the greatest leaps forward.
Today, we have access to tools of which Darwin could not even dream. We understand the workings of chromosomes and DNA, and have mapped the very genes that make us human. Turning our backs on knowledge has never really been an option, and deciding that an outside agency must have created us simply because we don't have a more clear mundane explanation YET is not a step forward.
Posted at Wednesday, August 10, 2005 by CavalierX
Friday, August 05, 2005
Search Reasonably, Not Randomly!
Once again, Liberals bend over backwards to give jihadists who want to kill innocent Americans every chance to do so. Only this time, they have a point... though not the point they think they have. Less than a month after the Tube bombings in London that killed 52 people, the ACLU's NY chapter is fighting to end random searches on the NYC subways. The argument they make -- that random searches are unconstitutional -- is ridiculous. The Fourth Amendment states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." There is nothing unreasonable about wanting to check the bags and backpacks of people boarding public transportation, while terrorists are carrying bombs onto that same type of transportation in order to commit mass murder.
On the other hand, I happen to agree with the ACLU that we should end random searches on all public transportation. Don't expect to see me joining a patchouli-drenched protest mob anytime soon, though. I'm against random searches because they do no good, not because anyone's feelings might be hurt. We can do much better than that... if we just ignore the hysterics.
Many Liberals feel faint whenever anyone proposes glancing at young, Islamic-looking men while checking for possible terrorists. The fact that young, Islamic-looking men perpetrated nearly every act of terrorism committed in recent years escapes them (as facts usually do). The fact that nineteen out of nineteen 9/11 hijackers were young, Islamic-looking men also seems to make no difference to them. Almost all of the terrorists who deliberately murdered innocents on London subways and Madrid trains, a Bali nightclub and a Beslan school -- among many other places -- were also young, Islamic-looking men as well.
I'm not saying that all people of that description are terrorists, simply observing the fact that most terrorists are people of that description. We are at war with devotees of a radical sect of Islam called Wahhabism. If most terrorists were white-haired, blue-eyed female Protestants over the age of 80, I'd say we should pay particular attention to people of that description. Purposely checking more young, Islamic-looking men than old, European-looking women, Liberals seem to feel, would be worse than letting those young, Islamic-looking men murder dozens, hundreds or even thousands of innocent people. Yet the next time such an event occurs on American soil, the same Liberals will be the first to condemn the Bush administration for not making us completely safe from terrorist attacks.
In deference to the Liberal position -- i.e., "anything that would make America safer is a bad thing" -- random searches were introduced at airports in response to 9/11, instead of directed searches. Racial profiling is avoided that way, but so are results. Airports are now full of elderly women and confused children removing their shoes, thanks to a young, Islamic-looking man who attempted to blow up a plane by secreting explosives in his shoes. Meanwhile countless young, Islamic-looking men breeze through the lines. Surely there's a chance that more of them are likely to be terrorists than people who might have stepped out of a Norman Rockwell painting. Is it rational to pretend that everyone has the same likelihood of being a terrorist as people who may share a cultural background with those who have already attacked us?
Fine, let's not specifically target those who are most likely to be terrorists for personal searches before boarding public transportation. Let's simply cut down on the number of likely misses in those searches using reason and logic. We don't want to waste time and resources conducting searches of those who are least likely to be terrorists, do we? Instead of profiling, let's try reverse profiling -- cutting out the people who fit certain profiles from extraneous searches, leaving the rest to be checked more regularly.
Search the elderly at random? No way. I doubt Grandma will use that cane to beat an airline pilot into submission, nor is that hearing aid in Grandpa's ear likely to be a cleverly-disguised chunk of C-4. Treating them as uniformly dangerous is just statistically unreasonable. Same with children. Little Bobby is unlikely to be an al-Qaeda midget in disguise... but if a screener thinks he might be, then go ahead and search him. Families traveling together are highly illogical subjects for searches, based on past history of known terrorist behavior. Radical terrorists bent on mass murder don't usually invite the family along for the last ride to Paradise. The only time such people should qualify for specific searches is when their behavior seems out of character.
Focusing searches on those statistically more likely to be involved with terrorism is the best overall way to make us safer, but other ways have been tried in the past. It's odd that the people who are most outraged by the suggestion to concentrate screening where it will do the most good are those on the Left. Perhaps if President Bush herded people of Middle-Eastern descent -- men, women and children -- into internment camps for the duration of the war, they would appreciate his efforts more. After all, that was the course of action taken by a Democratic President when confronted by war with enemies of identifiable ethnic origins.
Many Americans consider Franklin Delano Roosevelt a hero today despite his internment of Americans of Japanese, German and Italian ancestry. No less a personage than Time Magazine's Managing Editor Walter Isaacson, however, recently praised him as "someone who embodied the struggle for freedom," a champion of democracy and civil rights. Thousands who had their civil rights taken away by the stroke of a pen might disgree.
Yet when Conservatives merely suggest concentrating airport and subway searches on those most likely to be terrorists, hysterical Liberals compare them not to Roosevelt, but to Hitler. Go figure.
Posted at Friday, August 05, 2005 by CavalierX
Sunday, July 31, 2005
Looking for a Big Book of Opinions?
Posted at Sunday, July 31, 2005 by CavalierX
Friday, July 29, 2005
Liberals Love America, BUT...
Liberals always insist that they love America, despite their constant complaints, but they can never seem to point out exactly what it is they love about it. Whereas most Americans can simply say, "I love my country," and leave it at that, Liberals always have to follow that statement with a "BUT..." But what?
Consider a relationship in which one person demands that the other change his or her taste in music, books, television shows, movies and style of dress. Imagine that person also being coerced to stop wasting time with cherished recreations, cease eating favorite foods, alter old habits and drop old friends. Is that indicative of a healthy relationship? It's a selfish, controlling kind of affection... "I love you not for who you are, but for what I can change you into." That's how Liberals seem to feel about America.
Ask Liberals why they love America. Really listen to their answers. Do they say they love America for her tolerance and diversity? Then why do they not tolerate those who have opinions that differ from their own? Do they profess to love America's economic opportunities? Why do they want to cripple businesses with oppressive regulations and punish those who succeed with higher taxes? Do they tell you they love America for her beautiful forests, plains, rivers and mountains? If so, why do they complain about the manner in which those lands became part of this country, and demand that it all be preserved as if behind glass? Do they claim to love America for the freedoms we enjoy? Why, then, do they despise the military and police that protect our freedom? Why do they protest our military for helping others secure freedom for themselves and their children?
Liberals claim to support our military... but it's an odd kind of "support" that primarily consists of comparing them to Nazis and Soviet thugs, and accusing them of torture and wanton slaughter. What kind of "support" calls for them to abandon their mission before it's completed, and run away from an enemy who chose this fight? How can you say to someone, "I support you, but despise everything you stand for and everything you do, and will take every possible opportunity to make my feelings obvious for all to see?" That's not love and support; that's utter contempt, lacking even the common decency to be honest about it.
There seems to be nothing about America of which Liberals whole-heartedly approve. When they encourage teachers to stop using red pens because red is "pretty frightening," and feel that testing students at their grade level is "inherently unfair," you know they can't think much of our educational system. Liberals take no pride in our history, our political system, our traditions or our ability to exercise our religious freedom. Don't they frequently accuse America of committing horrible atrocities and being a nation of religious extremists? Don't they condemn patriotic displays and complain about "rigged" elections whenever they lose one, without serious evidence or reason? They claim they're just looking at America "warts and all," but the warts are all they see. Imagine saying to a person in earnestness, "Sure I love you, but you're ugly, stupid and smell bad." Wouldn't any reasonable person characterise that as emotional cruelty, at best?
It's time for America to get out of this abusive relationship. We've put up with Liberals bad-mouthing our country for far too long without putting up a defense. The next time you hear a Liberal insisting that he or she loves America and supports the troops, "BUT..." gently interrupt and ask, "why?" If you get an answer at all, it should be enlightening.
Posted at Friday, July 29, 2005 by CavalierX
Sunday, July 24, 2005
John Roberts and the French Fry Flap
Senate Democrats are preparing to play to the cameras once more while raking Supreme Court nominee John Roberts over the coals, but the fight may not be as fierce as some Liberals want. There's bound to be some huffing and puffing during the confirmation hearings, as many of the radical groups controlling the Democrats demand they fight a battle that cannot be won. It ought to be interesting, as the Senate unanimously approved Roberts in 2003. Though Democrats will probably use the "we need more documents" dodge to avoid an outright filibuster, Roberts will surely be confirmed in the end. One almost has to feel sorry for the Democrats, pushed into this fight by their own base. It's just another indication that the once-great party is losing coherence as various special-interest groups try to use them to pursue their separate agendas.
The Left dislikes Roberts because he's Conservative. That goes without saying, as they seem to hate anyone to the ideological right of Michael Moore these days. The far Right, on the other hand, distrusts Roberts because he's a relative unknown. Ann Coulter wrote, "Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever." She's right about that -- after all, Justices Souter, Kennedy and O'Connor all turned out to be huge disappointments to the Republicans who nominated and voted for them. I'm not sure I'd place Roberts in the category of "stealth nominee," however. If nothing else, he's already been in DC for years, and is less likely to have his head turned by the political atmosphere.
No one will learn anything about Roberts' judicial philosophy from the hearings that can't be discovered in his previous decisions and history. Endless questions regarding how he might rule on variations of hypothetical abortion cases is likely to take up most of the Senate's time. Those who do the best job of looking tough and serious about protecting the "right" to kill unborn children as an easy means of post-coital birth control will make a few points with the far-Left base, however. That's what the power of the United States Supreme Court has come to mean to Liberals -- it's merely a way to keep in place bad court decisions that created or altered rights and laws without going through the Legislative and Executive branches. Anything that threatens to return control to the people or their elected representatives -- as mandated by the Constitution -- threatens them.
The only thing about a Supreme Court Justice's personal beliefs that should matter is how well he can put them aside to do his job. The Supreme Court was created to oversee the rulings of lower courts, to ensure that our rights, and the limits on government set forth in the Constitution, are not violated. Only the elected branches of the government are supposed to enact laws and change the Constitution when necessary. Instead, the Supreme Court has increasingly become the author of autocratic change, bypassing the Constitution they are supposed to uphold. President Bush promised to appoint Supreme Court Justices, should he have the opportunity, who would return to the principles enshrined in the Constitution. Hopefully, Judge Roberts is that kind of person.
We can learn quite a bit about John Roberts' judicial outlook by examining his "french fry ruling" of 2004. Liberals are already pointing to it as an example of how Roberts is "hostile" to civil rights, but the facts show a strict interpretation of the law without bias. (The "mainstream media," however, makes its bias clear. The Associated Press story on Roberts' nomination began, "Judge John G. Roberts' views on abortion may be murky, but there's no question where he stands on the issue of girls eating fries in a subway station.") A twelve-year-old was arrested for violating a ban on eating in the Metro, DC's subway. The girl was taken to a police station and released to her mother. Through her lawyer, the girl claimed her rights were violated, calling the law discriminatory. The lawsuit claimed she was unfairly treated because of her youth -- an adult, being responsible for him or herself, would have merely received a citation for the offense.
Judge Roberts could find no "right to eat french fries on the subway" in the Constitution. This was inexplicable and unforgivable to Liberals, as was his failure to find a Constitutional right for the young to be treated as adults under the law (except, of course, when being sentenced for murder). Writing the unanimous decision, he said that treating the young differently was allowable as long as there was a "rational basis" for doing so. In this case, the logical reason was that the girl had no parent or legal guardian present to take responsibility for her behavior. Roberts agreed with the lower court ruling that the arrest was legal, though he chided the transit police for overreacting, calling the policy that led to the arrest "foolish." Foolish or not, the transit police did have the legal right to enforce an eating ban on the Metro.
An activist judge would have simply overturned the eating ban. He might have discovered a Constitutional "right to eat in public places," using the same mysterious method by which federal judges so frequently divine hidden "rights." The fact that he did not do so -- despite his personal feelings, which he made clear to all -- speaks well of Judge Roberts, and fuels hope that he can be the kind of Justice we need on the Supreme Court.
Posted at Sunday, July 24, 2005 by CavalierX
Monday, July 18, 2005
The Supreme Court Battle Begins
Finally, the long-awaited battle on Capitol Hill is about to begin. If you thought the fights over President Bush's appellate court nominees were full of vitriolic mud-slinging, just wait until he names his choice to succeed Sandra Day O'Connor in his first Supreme Court nomination. As the old saying goes, "you ain't seen nothin' yet."
Frankly, I'm happy to see this Supreme Court change at last. They've made some of the worst decisions since the Dred Scott case of 1857, in which the Court returned a free man to and upheld slavery, while denying citizenship to black Americans. In the last few years alone, this court has granted extensive legal rights to terrorists and illegal enemy combatants during a war while cutting%20down%20our%20right%20to%20free%20speech%20before%20an%20election%20(under%20the%20McCain-Feingold%20Act)%20and%20discovering a new "right to gay sex" hidden somewhere in the Constitution. They have made random and confusing decisions regarding our right to religious freedom, and admitted to basing decisions on foreign court rulings rather than our own Constitution. They only cite foreign decisions that agree with their predetermined positions, of course, so that's alright. At least I hope we won't be following Muslim shar'ia laws -- which include stoning adulterers, including rape victims -- anytime soon. The worst decision yet made by this court was to change the meaning of "public use" in the 5th Amendment from "something used by the public" to "something that might generate more money for the government." This latest decision, Kelo v. New London, allows your local government to seize your home if Wal-Mart or Home Depot wants to build a new store on the spot... or even if someone merely wants to build a larger house that could bring in more tax revenue.
During his 2000 and 2004 campaigns, President Bush promised to fill any vacancies on the Supreme Court with justices who understand and accept their proper role in the government under the Constitution. Someone like Miguel Estrada, for example, whose 2001 nomination to the federal bench was blocked by Democrats until he finally withdrew his name from consideration over two years later, would make an excellent Supreme Court justice. Democrats saw Estrada as "especially dangerous" because "he is Latino," as one of several memos setting forth the Democrat strategy to block Bush's nominations from coming to a vote pointed out. Whether they're good judges who would follow the Constitution doesn't matter -- anyone nominated by President Bush is likely to suffer attacks on their character and intelligence. Remember Senator Ted Kennedy's characterisation of Bush's judicial nominees in 2003 as "Neanderthals?" That was mild compared to the upcoming fight.
Any move towards originalism fills Liberals with panic. Whenever elements of their agenda are put to a proper vote by the people, they fail. Gay "marriage," for example, has never been accepted by the people when put to a vote -- not even in bluer-than-blue states like Oregon. In fact, a gay "marriage" ban was on the ballot in Oregon and 10 other states for the 2004 election, and passed in every single one. Californians passed Proposition 22, a similar ban, by 61% to 39% in 2000. In Massachusetts, on the other hand, the legislature voted to put a gay "marriage" ban on the ballot in November 2006... and the MA Supreme Court promptly ruled that it must be legal until then. The only way Liberals can get this or any of their unpopular programs enshrined into law is to have them forced on the public by the judiciary. The problem is that the 10th Amendment to the Constitution specifically states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." The Supreme Court has repeatedly usurped the powers of the states and the people by finding hidden meanings in the Constitution whenever they want to create or curtail a law or right.
How could a branch of government created to protect our rights abuse their power with such impunity? This runaway judicial activism must be stopped. The fact that we even consider the ideology of a judicial nominee is an indication of how far we've allowed the Supreme Court to stray from its original role. The third, and intentionally weakest, branch of government was created to oversee the rulings of lower courts, and determine whether a decision violated a citizen's Constitutional rights. Why should a judge's personal beliefs matter, if they are working within the framework set down by the Founders? Now any five members of the Supreme Court can remove those rights and create new ones at will, with no real check on their power except advancing age. Their personal opinions have become important because "They the Justices," not "We the People," are in control.
They have lost the House, the Senate, the White House and a majority of governorships and state legislatures. Now the Liberals may lose control of the Supreme Court. But that's one of the main reasons the majority of Americans keep voting for more Conservative representation where they can find it -- to correct, if possible, these abuses of power. Bush's words about halting the actions of agenda-driven courts got some of the loudest applause during his campaign speeches. We're supposed to be a Republic, ruled by the people, not a group of lawyers carried away with their own sense of self-importance.
Posted at Monday, July 18, 2005 by CavalierX
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Exploding Liberal Myths 10: The Plame Name Game
Once again, the Liberal media is trying to ramp up hysteria over the "outing" of Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame. The problem with their frenzy is that there's no substance to the charge, once all the angry flailing and faux outrage are done with.
Liberals are sacrificing what little credibility they have left with the American people in their desperate attempt to destroy the Bush administration at all costs. To that end, they have continually accused President Bush's advisor Karl Rove of giving Plame's name to the media in order to punish Wilson, after Wilson investigated reports of Saddam's attempt to buy Nigerian uranium and lied about his findings.
Wilson filed a disappointingly neutral report upon his return, but published an editorial stating unequivocally that the British-backed claim was absolutely untrue -- and that President Bush was using it anyway, to create a reason to attack Saddam. However, in his 2004 book, Wilson revealed that "It was Saddam Hussein's information minister, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, often referred to in the Western press as 'Baghdad Bob,' who approached an official of the African nation of Niger in 1999 to discuss trade -- an overture the official saw as a possible effort to buy uranium." So the uranium buy attempt actually did happen, and Wilson knew about it, but lied about it to try and prevent the liberation of Iraq for political purposes.
In the Liberal version of events, Karl Rove -- a consummately clever political operator by all accounts, except in this story -- revealed Plame's role as a covert agent for the CIA out of sheer vindictiveness. I don't know how that makes any sense, or what end it was supposed to achieve, but somehow it seems perfectly reasonable to Liberals that he would do this. Rove did, in fact, mention that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA to Time reporter Matt Cooper, but never indicated that she had once been a spy. Cooper was not the writer who published her identity -- that was columnist Robert Novak. The problem is that in order to prove Rove did anything illegal, an illegal act has to have taken place.
Knowingly revealing the identity of a covert agent is illegal under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. If that's what Rove or anyone else did, he ought to be hung out for the crows. (I wonder whether Liberals will wail about such a violation of the Geneva Conventions, as they do when terrorists get too much or too little air conditioning?) In order for Rove (or whoever the source was) to have broken the law, he would have to know and reveal that Plame was a covert operative for the CIA. The problem is... she wasn't one anymore.
Apparently, Valerie Plame ceased to be a covert agent when her cover was blown years earlier. The CIA believed that Aldrich Ames (CIA agent/KGB spy/traitor) revealed her role, along with many other operatives, to the KGB before his arrest in 1994. Plame's former existence as a secret agent became little more than cocktail party chatter with which to thrill the uninitiated. Since her identity was not classified, not secret, and she had not been assigned to duty outside the US in the last five years, revealing her mundane desk job with the CIA was simply not a crime. Lots of people work for the CIA, after all.
What no one talks about is the reason Wilson was picked to go to Niger... the question that originally nagged Novak. In fact, whoever did uncover Plame's involvement in her husband's selection did the country a favor. Plame wanted Wilson to investigate the British claim because of his vocal antipathy to President Bush and his staunch opposition to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. He was sent not to gather evidence and form a conclusion, but because his conclusion was foreordained. Whoever sent him was attempting to exert an undue influence over America's foreign policy by sending someone who would ignore evidence contrary to his opinion. Do we really want former secret agents playing political games to determine the outcomes of investigations before they're even begun? Investigations the outcomes of which may determine the nation's course in wartime?
Once again, Liberals and their pet Democrats have chosen the wrong hill to die on. While ignoring the real problem we narrowly avoided, they try to whip us into an attack on someone who, even if their accusations are true, commited no crime.
Exploding Liberal Myths 11: Home Spying Hogwash
Exploding Liberal Myths 9: The Separation of Church and State
Exploding Liberal Myths 8: The Nazi Meme
Exploding Liberal Myths 7: Fidel Castro, Demigod?
Exploding Liberal Myths 6: A Less Safe Post-Iraq
Exploding Liberal Myths 5: The Moral United Nations
Exploding Liberal Myths 4: Runaway Global Warming
Exploding Liberal Myths 3: Outsourcing Woes
Exploding Liberal Myths 2: The Eeevil PATRIOT Act
Exploding Liberal Myths 1: Nigerian Uranium
Posted at Tuesday, July 12, 2005 by CavalierX
Saturday, July 09, 2005
The following email arrived in response to my 7 July 2005 blog entry, London and the Long War, which was reprinted in American Daily. After responding to it, I thought I should post his letter here, along with my reply.
Have just read your article and would like to thank you for your support and kind words. I cannot also begin to tell you how much George Galloway is hated here in the UK (by anybody with a sense of decency), but sadly people like him are all too prevalent in this land. That this creature Galloway could not even wait a decent time (if there is such a thing) to try to make political capital out of the blood of innocent victims and families makes it even more despicable. He did it on the day, when people are dead or dying, when families don`t still know whether their loved ones are coming home that evening!!! How low can he go??
Sadly I also blame our government for a weak, ineffective immigration policy that has allowed the country to become awash with so-called "asylum seekers" and free-loaders. And a human rights policy that means "we" do nothing but give succour to suspected terrorists and murderers. If you speak out here about this, you are a racist. Well, look at what happens when you have such policies Mr Blair. It`s why when I see him bleating on TV, I want to shout at him and tell him and his bleeding-heart government to wake up to the real world.
I am a Londoner, born and bred, work there and so shared in all the grief, anger and courage that was displayed in our city on Thursday. One of my work colleagues was on one of the tube trains that was bombed. He took shrapnel wounds, but is, thankfully, alive. But he has only just started his working life. Poor kid. But trust me we will not be cowed from going about our business as usual, and will never let these bastards win. Because the moment that I or any of my countrymen refuse to leave our homes to travel to our daily business, then this scum HAVE won.
Thank you for your support, and for the support of your countrymen and women. It is truly comforting to know who our true friends are. But we have always known that.
My reply to his email:
Thanks for writing; I know it's a difficult time for all of you. Oddly enough, the terrorists followed the Nazi playbook exactly, and seem to have achieved the same result. Bombing Guernica resulted in Spanish capitulation (to Franco), but bombing London, hoping for a similar loss of nerve, resulted in resolute opposition. The barbaric scum of the Earth never learn... lucky for us.
I see what's happening in Great Britain as a close analogue of what happened here in America after 9/11 -- most will band together while some use the tragedy for personal or political gain. What George Galloway said was utterly disgusting, and his timing inhumanly cruel. We have more than our share of that sort here, and all their poison came out during the recent election season, even to using the number of our dead soldiers to demand we run away and hide. Galloway isn't too far from our John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, and so on ad nauseum.
After nearly four years, some people seem to have forgotten what happened, but most Americans have the right attitude about this war: a steely determination to see it through. President Bush truly speaks for us in this regard. For some of us, it's easy to remember -- every time I go to NYC, I see that broken skyline and get angry as hell all over again. Debra Burlingame, sister to one of the 9/11 pilots, said it best. She said she was once asked whether she missed the easy solidarity of the days following 9/11. "No," she said, "I miss the anger." There's nothing wrong with being angry over these horrible atrocities the terrorists are visiting upon the innocent, and don't let any crystal-wearing, tree-hugging, dope-smoking New Age "citizen of the world" wanna-be hippie tell you differently.
President Bush's open border policies concern us greatly, as Mr. Blair's concern you. In addition to the illegal immigrants that are a drain on our economy, we know that terrorists are coming in from Mexico. They're all just walking through holes in the fence, but neither Republicans nor Democrats are inclined to do anything about it. But at least Bush and Blair are aggressively pursuing the leaders of these murderous scum in their hidey-holes, and pushing a policy of democritisation and freedom in the Middle East to take care of the frustration and hopelessness that give rise to terrorism. It's our best shot, I think, in the long term.
They can't win, as long as we refuse to let them. It's going to be hard and tough, and they will murder as many innocents as they can in an effort to frighten and dishearten us. But in the end, they will lose.
Posted at Saturday, July 09, 2005 by CavalierX
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Once again, the barbarians who are our enemies in the War on Terror have struck a blow against the innocent. This time, they have exploded multiple bombs in London, in three Tube (subway) stations as well as a passenger bus. Dozens of innocent people are dead and as many as a thousand may be wounded. How many more innocents must suffer at the hands of these inhuman creatures in the shape of men before the hard-core anti-war Liberals among us stop giving them cover and support?
Almost immediately, seemingly before the echoes of the blasts even stopped, the recriminations began -- not against the sadistic monsters who target innocent men, women and children for death, but against those world leaders who are trying to stop them, especially President Bush and PM Tony Blair. Leftists like the despicable George Galloway, who was expelled from Britain's Labour party for his comments about the Iraq war, were at their terrorist-defending best. Galloway, who apparently received millions of dollars in oil vouchers from Saddam for his opposition to Saddam's overthrow, stated that "Londoners have now paid the price" for Britain backing America in the War on Terror. Well, London has paid the price for standing up to evil before.
Galloway suggested that retreating from Iraq immediately might appease the terrorists, echoing a persistent defeatist theme coming from the Left. Somehow, the Liberals have deluded themselves into thinking that there was no such thing as terrorism before President Bush and the other Coalition leaders removed one of the biggest terror supporters in the Middle East from power. They have themselves convinced that if America runs away from them, the terrorists will simply leave us alone. But they can't convince those of us who remember 9/11 so easily, no matter how hard they try to pretend that it didn't happen, or didn't matter.
Since 9/11, the US and our allies have finally responded to the menace of al-Qaeda and other terror groups. Al-Qaeda's main base in Afghanistan was destroyed, and the Taliban as well as Saddam Hussein's regime have been replaced with growing democracies. Democracy and freedom are the only cures for terrorism, and the terrorists know it. The fight in Iraq, according to a Congressional study, is the "central battle" for al-Qaeda. That's why they're pouring so much of their resources and manpower into Iraq, trying to prevent the fledgling democracy from taking root there. Meanwhile, the "useful idiots" (Stalin's term for his unwitting Western supporters) on the Left have spent the last three years fighting al-Qaeda's public relations war for them, thinking only of their own political gain.
Our enemies haven't been killing only Iraqis and Americans; al-Qaeda is responsible for the Bali nightclub bombing in 2002, the Istanbul mosque and Casablanca bombings of 2003 and the Madrid train bombing of 2004. The so-called "Chechen separatists" responsible for the Russian plane crashes and school massacre of 2004 were, outside of the "mainstream" media's euphemism fetish, Islamic terrorists linked to al-Qaeda. It seems that not even trying to stop the invasion of Iraq was protection against terrorist attacks, so the Liberal insistence that abandoning Iraq will stop terrorism is ludicrous. Al-Qaeda's goal is to bring the entire world under the sway of their radical brand of Islam, and refusing to fight them won't stop them from fighting you.
It has always been a matter of civilisation versus the barbarians who care nothing for the lives of innocents, who fight to destroy, not expand, civilisation. Our various ancestors fought pirates, Mongols, Huns, and Vikings. The reference to "the shores of Tripoli" in the Marine Hymn refers to the war against the Barbary pirates of North Africa two centuries ago. The Spanish fought the tide of Muslim invasion for centuries, a millennium ago. The Romans fought the Visigoths and Ostrogoths before Rome fell. Even the Sumerians repeatedly fought off those who tried to destroy their civilisation. The fight against Islamofascism is merely the current incarnation of the long war. Now we fight terrorists around the world, and the latest battleground is London.
The British have never been a people liable to meekly surrender to threats. They didn't bow humbly to the Vikings, the French, the Spanish, the Germans or even Irish terrorists, and they don't appear to be faltering now. The British people face the choice whether to band together with us -- as Tony Blair has done -- to hunt and fight the enemy wherever they hide, or fight each other and let the enemy win. According to all reports, the British are coming together exactly as we Americans did after 9/11, and we must stand by them as they did us. We can only win this war together.
Posted at Thursday, July 07, 2005 by CavalierX