The Activist Left Prepares to Speak

Tonight, as the President addresses the nation on the state of the Union, outside the Capitol Building a group of activists will gather to try to “drown out” Mr. Bush’s speech with drums, violins, car horns, bells, pots, and pans. The left-wing gathering, expected by its organizers to number in the thousands, will feature noted Bush haranguer Cindy Sheehan as part of her ongoing quest to humiliate the President by engaging herself in undignified publicity stunts.

The demonstration is being organized by a recently-created organization known as The World Can’t Wait. The overriding purpose of the organization, in its own words, is to get the message out that “Bush lied, Bush spied, Bush must step down.” Protesters planning to be present for the event state the President’s crimes as, among other things, waging an “unjust war in Iraq, widespread use of torture, massive spying, and total neglect of the people of New Orleans.”

It’s almost a pity that they don’t include the guilt that the President bears in making it difficult for some to quit smoking. After all, that’s the claim recently made by Sean Penn – who will forever be Jeff Spicoli from Fast Times At Ridgemont High in the mind of this writer – in addressing those gathered for another anti-war forum staged in Sacramento. Mr. Penn’s comment is notable in this context as he is one of several Hollywood personalities who have given their endorsement of tonight’s gathering on Capitol Hill. Doubtless, event organizers must certainly be buoyed by the intellectual weight that accompanies Mr. Penn’s vote of confidence.

Of course, it is doubtful that anyone, whether for or against the demonstration, actually believes that it will in fact “drown out” the proceedings within the walls of the House Chamber hundreds of feet away. The intent is obviously symbolic. But this raises the question of what is being symbolized by the left-wing ruckus. To those who vigorously desire the swift departure of George Bush – and indeed all conservatives – from the public arena, it may simply be the voice of dissent. But to the President’s supporters and, more importantly, the partisan-neutral, it is more likely to symbolize one of two things, if not both: The utter lack of a message on the part of the opposition, or the desire to silence any voices that oppose their own.

Strong arguments can be made for both. The fact is that the left has made one its SOPs the silencing of anyone who might offer views alternative to theirs. One can’t help but wonder if this is borne of a recognition – either conscious or unconscious – that they really can’t afford to try to get involved in a rational debate, because they have so little to bring to the table. Thus, the lack of message may be what drives the need to “drown out” those who do have one, but not one that they like.

As a conservative, this writer actually draws encouragement for the future at the prospect of this demonstration. After all, these are the people who will likely choose the next Democrat nominee for President. Americans will be well-served by seeing who is in the driver’s seat of the minority party when evaluating who it is they propose to place in the oval office.

Perhaps it would be helpful for the American public if a network broadcasting tonight’s proceedings present a split screen, with the orderly conduct of the President and the Congress shown on the right side of the screen, and the chaos of his opponents playing on the left side. Forget the formal response of the Democrats, who are beholden to groups like this. There would be a symbolic contrast that could be of real use to American voters.

In The Midst Of The Ethics Session

It’s been well over a week since the Tennessee Senate, voting as a committee of the whole, voted to nullify the results of the special election that put Ophelia Ford, sister of the indicted former senator she replaced, into office. Yet, despite an original intent to conduct a final vote of the Senate acting as the Senate to officially ratify the resolution two days later – and expel Ms. Ford from the Senate – said vote has not been held, and Ms. Ford remains Senator Ford.

Really, no one should be surprised that this is the case. Ms. Ford being a Democrat and all, it was only logical to expect her to file a federal lawsuit to try to stop the Senate from exercising its constitutional role as the final judge of the election of its members. After all, trying to win in the courtroom what they cannot seem to – legitimately – win at the ballot box has become standard operating procedure nationally for the party that now finds itself in the minority in Tennessee’s Senate.

At issue is the fact that the thirteen vote margin by which Ms. Ford defeated Republican Terry Roland is easily exceeded by the number of votes that evidence indicates were fraudulent. A bipartisan Senate panel has already unanimously agreed that nine of the votes in question were illegally cast. And a four vote margin of victory in an election that features, at the very least, another thirty ballots with the forged signature of a poll worker on them is hardly an election in which an observant citizen can have confidence.

In defense of the election, Senator Ford’s attorney is arguing that to void the election would infringe upon the equal protection and due process guarantees for her and her supporters, who he claims would be disenfranchised, as well as violate the Voting Rights Act. The sentiment expressed in this defense seems to be that “errors” are a fact of life in elections, and the system should learn to live with them, even when they are clearly identified.

It continues to be a significant trait of the Democrats to be champions of defending the “equal protection” rights of those who either aren’t honest enough, or responsible enough, to see to it that they actually have a right to vote where they show up to vote – a “protection” that seems to take precedence over the protection of those who do go through the process honestly and/or correctly.

As for the “due process” that is called for in determining the results of an election to a given legislative body, the actions of the Senate up until the intervention of the federal judge are precisely the “due process” called for by the State Constitution – as is the case in most, if not all, state legislatures as well as the United States Congress.

But constitutional means of holding power, such as winning elections, have not been producing the results that Democrats would like in, among other places, the Volunteer State, where following the 2004 elections they found themselves as the minority party in the Senate for the first time in 140 years. And while it is true that any political party is, and should be, interested in increasing its own ranks among elected officials, Democrat Senator Steve Cohen’s attempt to engage in misdirection – another popular Democrat tactic of late – by saying that the desire for more Republican Senators is all that’s driving the movement to void the election in Memphis makes less sense than simply acknowledging that upholding the election would only further erode the already low level of confidence that Tennesseeans have in their legislature as an institution. It is helpful to note here that this all takes place in the midst of a Special Session on Ethics called in response to the recent arrests and indictments of several members and former members of the General Assembly.

At this stage, Republican Majority Leader Ron Ramsey remains confident that the case brought by Senator Ford against her colleagues will be thrown out. Perhaps justice will prevail, but the fact that the judge in question is a Clinton appointee who received her job at the request of the Ford family will probably cause other conservatives to feel a bit more nervousness until the verdict is rendered. But hope will spring eternal.

A Comparison That Won't Fly

In the ongoing fight to try to cast purely political moves as blows struck in some noble cause, Senator Patrick Leahy, as is so often the case with his party, is relying heavily on his perception – or hope – of the ignorance and laziness of the American voter.

While it may be possible to find some refreshment in his admission of Judiciary Committee Democrats acting as Democrats, as opposed to United States Senators, in their opposition to the unquestionably qualified Samuel Alito and his ascension to the Supreme Court, it would be more refreshing still if he could do it without insulting the intelligence of the people he’s addressing.

In explaining his committee vote against the confirmation of Judge Alito, the man who may be the most partisan member of the Senate – it’s hard to decide between him, Ted Kennedy, and Charles Schumer – tried to cast his opposition in historic context, stating that “No president should be allowed to pack the courts, especially the Supreme Court. An overwhelmingly Democratic-controlled Senate stood up to the most popular Democrat ever elected president, Franklin Roosevelt, and we Democrats protected the independence of the Supreme Court by saying that even somebody as popular as Franklin Roosevelt could not pack the Supreme Court.”

If the Senator’s comparison is accurate, then Americans will certainly see the need for such a principled stand. After all, surely opposing an attempt to do something as nefarious as “packing the court” in the way that FDR tried is something that all Americans should be able to support, right? The problem is that the comparison doesn’t fly. Virtually anyone who would actually recognize the term “packing the court” as a reference to Roosevelt’s actions would also recognize that there is a fundamental flaw in the Senator’s attempt to link it with George Bush’s nomination of judicial conservatives to the bench.

President Roosevelt was frustrated with a Supreme Court that had overturned several pieces of New Deal legislation that he strongly supported. His “answer” to the problem was to concoct a scheme in his second term which would enable him to actually increase the number of justices on the court, allowing him to add enough jurists who would be friendly to his point of view to guarantee the sustainment of his agenda. George Bush, on the other hand, is merely exercising his prerogative, in the exercise of his constitutional duty, to appoint justices who share his judicial philosophy. It’s the difference between playing by the rules to achieve your goals as opposed to making up new rules as you go, when the existing rules don’t get you what you want. George Bush is doing the former, while Franklin Roosevelt attempted the latter.

And really, it is the latter that the conduct of Senate Democrats has more closely resembled over the past five years as well. Having failed to win the right to see judges they would prefer placed on the federal bench by playing by the rules – think “winning elections” here – they have continually tried to rewrite the constitutional rules governing this important government function – think requiring sixty votes for confirmation, or deference by the majority to the minority here.

At a time that Democrats controlled both political branches of the government, Republicans offered little opposition to the appointments of left-wing jurists Ruth Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer to the Court. Despite discomfort with the nominees, Senate Republicans recognized that Democrats had won the right to pick “their judges” at the ballot box. And what did they do to solve their problem? They got out, worked hard, and won elections in order to get that right for themselves. Would that it were that Senate Democrats would act like adults and do the same.

Instead, the American people are forced to witness demonstrations like that of Senator Leahy’s, in which he either exposes his own ignorance of the issue, or simply hopes for the ignorance of his listeners. Might this just be further evidence of the lack of confidence that Democrats have in their own agenda to win over voters?

A Poor Use Of Their Valuable Time

It’s becoming obvious to anyone paying even a little bit of attention that Democrats - once again - are hinging their hopes to retake Congress this year not on their ability to sell America on their ideas, whatever they might be, but on their ability to sell America on the notion that Republican rule is hastening the destruction of the universe, or at least the destruction of the Land of the Free.

Witness the ongoing furor over the Bush Administration’s use of the National Security Agency to monitor contacts between persons in the U.S. and foreign agents hostile to the United States. Receiving what they believe is a valuable assist from alleged Republican Arlen Specter, who plans to hold Judiciary Committee hearings on the program, Democrats are salivating at the prospect of drawing the public’s attention to an issue that they believe is a sure winner for them.

Unfortunately for them, there is a fact that will likely elude their recognition until they have already expended much time and energy that could have better been spent elsewhere – like on selling voters on their policies, if indeed voters can be sold on them: That is, that there is no provision in the law that will clearly condemn the Administration’s actions in the eyes of the populace. Indeed, the relevant law seems to have been written broadly enough to easily include the narrowly targeted monitoring that is taking place. Between that and the grant of power given by the Congress to the President following the 2001 attacks on America, “there’s nothing to see here.”

But beyond just being a colossal waste of their time and effort in an important campaign season, the simple fact is that they are missing a huge point that may indeed cause them real harm in the fall campaign: Americans are still more scared of the terrorists than they are of George Bush and the Republicans. And the Democrats’ continual drawing of attention to an issue which at the very least gives the impression that they would rather give a terrorist a pass on calling an accomplice in the U.S. than take the chance on hearing a teenager confess to a friend that she had an abortion without her parents’ knowledge does not help their image in the national security arena.

Ask an American if they fear jack-booted Bush Brownshirts will break down their door in the middle of the night to drag them away because they told a friend over the phone that they’re going to campaign for the Democrats in the fall, and it’s safe to say that less than five percent will honestly say “yes.” Ask that same person if they fear what might happen if terrorist leaders outside the U.S. can transmit orders to their agents within the U.S., and that number shoots through the roof. Indeed, it’s safe to say that most Americans would agree that if the President knows such correspondence is taking place, it would be colossally irresponsible for him not to monitor such.

But then, what can the Democrats do? The fact is that even in the election year of 2006, five years after the attacks, National Security remains near the top of every Americans’ list of most pressing issues. And the Democrats are viewed as extremely weak on this issue, in no small part due to the impression, given by their attempts to equate George Bush with Hitler, that they are not serious about it.

So maybe it’s only logical that they would attempt to divert attention from such a pressing issue to try to focus on a scandal. The problem here is that the “scandal” that they are choosing to focus on only draws attention right back to their weakness.

There have been some who suggested that, during the seventies and eighties, the Republicans exploited the threat of Communism for political gain to win four of five presidential elections during that time. And reasonable people can debate such an assertion from either side. But the simple – political – fact is that the American people viewed Communist expansion as a legitimate threat, and consequently wanted a leader who took the threat seriously. It was only after communism was largely defeated that Americans felt it was safe to put a Democrat in the oval office again.

Americans now once again live in what they believe to be dangerous times, and they know who their real enemies are. The continual attempts on the part of the Democrats to convince them that the real enemies are not terrorists, but rather Republicans, will most likely assure that they continue to be the party out of power in the near future.

George and Harry

I don’t watch awards shows of any kind anymore. When I abandoned the religion of celebrity worship several years ago, I discovered that there was no real reason for me to watch them apart from whatever thrill I might get from catching a glimpse, however briefly, of pop culture icons making a temporary descent into the real world in which the rest of us live. As that experience no longer carries such a thrill for me, I find I can make better use of my time reading a book, or cutting my toenails.

Nevertheless, there are sometimes episodes that occur in such settings that make their way into my “field of vision” and prompt a lot of thought on my part. Such is the case with an acceptance speech at the recent Golden Globe ceremonies. In accepting the award for Best Haircut, or something, George Clooney decided to thank Jack Abramoff “just because” - a reference to the bribery conspiracy scandal that some feel will touch only Republicans. He then went on to make a vulgar joke about parents that give a child that particular first name to go with a last name that ends with “off.”

Of course, my first reaction to this incident was to question whether making jokes about someone’s name in this manner is really territory that George C. Looney wants to venture into. But it is just enough to know that Mr. Clooney’s propensity for using events such as this as opportunities to remind viewers of his hatred for those with whom he disagrees is something that has remained constant with the passing of time. Many, no doubt, still remember his tasteless jokes about Charlton Heston’s Alzheimer’s disease in the not-too-distant past, and his unrepentant behavior when criticized for them.

In the spirit of other recent posts to this space, in which I have felt much more comfortable in speaking directly to the actions of a particular faction/party, I take note here that it is no surprise that Mr. Clooney is but one member of the vast Hollywood-Leftist community who is a staunch supporter of the Democrat Socialist party. And that engaging in the kind of personal smears that has become such a standard tactic among those of his ilk, he has joined his partisan beneficiaries in the ranks of those whose needless comments have hurt more than just the intended target – this time it was Mr. Abramoff’s twelve-year-old daughter who was reduced to tears by what was said.

Of course, I don’t deny that Mr. Abramoff has left himself open to such childish attacks from the simple-minded sort who find such gratification in this kind of immature rhetoric by virtue of his criminal activities – which will likely end up implicating members of both parties, by the way. I just think it’s useful to note who the simpletons are that jump on such opportunities as he has afforded, the pointless and damaging nature of what they have to say, and the “leaders” with whom they keep company.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, in yet another episode in which he has been forced to apologize for inappropriate statements he or his office has made, wrote on January 19 that he regrets “the current political climate in which policy disputes escalate too quickly into personal condemnation.” Yet he seems to be willing to do nothing to rein in those in his camp who continue to use it as their debate tactic of choice. We thus certainly shouldn’t be surprised that their staunchest supporters who memorize and recite other people’s thoughts for a living are inclined to use the same tactic, as opposed to offering real and well-thought solutions to the problems our government and nation face.

And maybe that’s because what few ideas they do have simply aren’t very appealing to the American electorate to which they still – much to their chagrin, no doubt – must appeal in order to win back power in the nation’s capital. Thus the need to accentuate scandals in the other camp. But leaving aside the fact that this scandal will likely end up embarrassing both Republicans and Democrats, this brings me back to my basic thought on scandal as a political tactic.

Scandals are one of the few things that the major parties have in common. By that I mean that both parties have been tainted by scandal in the past and will likely be touched by scandal again in the future. If someone wants to try to present one party as better than the other in this regard, he attempts the impossible. And the American people, by and large know this. Perhaps it’s cynical, but many within the voting public expect to hear about such things happening from time to time. This is likely what many mean when they say that there’s “not a dime’s worth of difference” between the parties. And if scandals in the past and present are what they are talking about, they are right.

Where the parties actually differ – and where more people than the Democrats seem to believe look to determine which party to support – is in what they believe. The positions they take, the policies they advocate, these are what set the Democrats apart from the Republicans. And these are the things that the “vast undecided” electorate will look to come election time.

Is it unpleasant to have to witness the endless finger-pointing that the party of George Clooney and Harry Reid seem to want to use to win people over? Certainly. But knowing that the real goal is to win the support of the people who still hold ultimate power in our Republic, I’m more than willing to endure it if it only helps to secure victory in the only expression of public opinion that really matters – in November.

Regarding Election Integrity

A debate currently rages in Georgia over the need for voters to be able to prove who they are, and that they have the right to vote in a given election. The controversy stems from a law that was passed by Georgia’s legislature last year which required voters to show a photo-ID when they go to the polls in order to be able to vote. Those who did not already have one could purchase one for up to $35.

This final provision within the bill seems to have been what left it open to legal challenge, and the law was indeed blocked from taking effect by a federal judge who ruled that the requirement for some to purchase an ID amounted to an unconstitutional poll tax. The law, consequently, has been unenforceable. That is, until recently – perhaps.

Earlier this month, Georgia’s legislators passed another bill making the photo-IDs free to those who cannot afford to purchase them – seemingly removing the obstacle that kept the original bill from taking effect. Not that it’s going to happen without a fight. Those who continue to oppose the voter ID requirement continue to raise charges that the requirement suppresses the votes of the poor, minorities, and elderly. Of course, it should be noted that this writer has seen no documentation offered to substantiate that claim.

If anyone needs to see real-world evidence of the need for laws like the one being debated in Georgia, he needs only to look to the state bordering the Peach State to the North. In Tennessee, politics-watchers are getting a firsthand look at the corruption that inadequate voter identification breeds.

Tuesday night, the Tennessee Senate, acting as a “committee of the whole,” voted to nullify the results of a special election held in September which was intended to replace one of its members, John Ford of Memphis, who had resigned as the result of a bribery scandal. The election was won by Mr. Ford’s sister, Ophelia, by a margin of 13 votes.

The problem is that more than 13 votes in the election were cast by convicted felons, people living outside the district, or people who aren’t living at all. Should the Senate, voting as the Senate, duplicate last night’s results on Thursday, Ms. Ford will be removed from office, and the Shelby County Commission will appoint a replacement until the next general election.

What is fascinating in both the Georgia case – where the discussion of inadequate voter verification is still at the theoretical level – and the Tennessee case – where the discussion has moved into the “real world situation” arena – is that those in both cases who oppose taking measures to prevent or correct corruption, by and large, have something in common – their partisan affiliation.

It is the Democrats in Georgia who are trying to oppose the measure that would work to prevent corruption in the electoral process. It is the Democrats in Tennessee who are fighting to keep in place the results of an election that no impartial observer could deny was corrupted to the extreme. Predictably, the charges of racism and vote suppression have been thrown out as a means of misdirecting the discussion, for lack of any real leg that these opponents have to stand on.

But “racism” as all too often charged nowadays has become a meaningless term. Whereas in the past, it usually pointed to actual cases of someone’s being unfairly discriminated against on racial grounds, nowadays, more often than not, it is used merely to describe the actions of those with whom a particular group may disagree. Thanks to the race-hustlers who have thrown around the term too freely and carelessly, “racism” as a charge has come to have a very hollow ring to it. What some don’t seem to want to acknowledge is that the measures being discussed in both cases would apply to people of any race – regardless of the race of anyone in a given instance.

And “vote suppression” seems to have come to mean anything that discourages from voting people who don’t have a right to vote. The simple fact of the matter is that there are some whose votes do need to be suppressed under the law: underage citizens, convicted felons, those not properly registered, non-citizens, and, yes, voters who have passed from this life.

The real question that this writer suspects many people – like himself – would like to have answered is: Why is the Democrat party behind most of the opposition to measures that would provide real solutions to the problem of vote and election integrity?

Best guess – It is because elections are a democratic (small “d”) process, and, perhaps ironically, democratic processes have not been kind to the Democrats (large “D”) in recent years. Whereas, when the Republicans were in the minority, they realized they had to just go out, work hard, and win elections, the Democrats now in the minority have decided that they need to circumvent constitutional democratic process in order to move their agenda forward – think of their heavy reliance upon the judicial branch for making policy in this light as well.

What makes this all very sobering is the implications it has for the day, if and when it ever occurs, that the modern Democrat party ever returns to power. They are already trying, through various extra-constitutional means, to suppress and silence those who oppose their agenda. Just imagine how successful they might be at this if they are ever given back the authority that goes with being the majority party.

It’s ten months until election day.

Reactions to the Alito Hearings

I’ve mentioned to friends before that I sometimes worry if I’m too partisan. Granted, I am a member of the Republican party, even an officer in a couple of different GOP organizations. But I would never want my partisan loyalties to supersede my loyalty to the nation, or to the truth. So I honestly sometimes ponder if I’m reacting to a particular event just because it involves “my guys” or “the other guys.”

Then again, maybe the fact that I’m still able to ask myself that question indicates that I’m still in the land of the rational. But honestly, I am also reassured by the fact that the party that I presently oppose is the party that has allowed an unrepentant – most of you know to what I refer – Al Sharpton to rise to the status of “presidential contender.” It doesn’t take a partisan Republican to be repulsed by the company that a given party keeps.

And it doesn’t take a partisan of any stripe to see nothing but sheer nastiness in the conduct of certain leading members of a national party in their handling of a constitutional duty/obligation involving people of a different world view.

After the debacle that was the Democrats’ attempt to derail Judge Samuel Alito’s ascension to the Supreme Court, it may be a while before I worry again if I’m being too partisan in how I react to political news in Washington. It was a classic example of what has become the standard operating procedure of the Democrats over the past few years – oppose a Republican nominee on the basis of the record, and if there is nothing in the record to oppose, then just destroy – or try to destroy – the nominee himself.

The fact that Judge Alito survived the hearings – and will most likely be confirmed soon – does not in any way absolve Committee Democrats of their guilt for their shameful behavior toward a man whose qualifications and temperament are beyond question. Their failure to achieve their diabolical objectives doesn’t change the fact of what their objective was, or the fact that they were willing to do anything they were able in order to try to achieve it.

I am about as disgusted with the Democrats as I have ever been. And this from a guy who, as already noted, honestly worries about being too partisan. It just seems right to me to let the reader know this up front before offering the following comments on the Alito hearings.

------------------

I suppose nothing can sum up what the minority party has sunk to in this regard better than the reaction of Martha Alito to the constant assault on her husband at the hearings. Many a wife can listen to legitimate criticism of her husband’s performance as a professional and recognize it as legitimate discourse. She may not like it, but generally won’t be reduced to tears by it.

But rest assured, ninety-five times out of a hundred, when a wife has been reduced to tears in a situation like this, it is because she knows her husband is being treated unfairly, and that the jabs are designed to hurt him. There is no noble intent that is too painful to bear, only viciousness recognized for what it is.

And make no mistake about it – the way the democrats treated this good man is the way they would treat any one of us if we were in the same position as Samuel Alito. They are the “rulers” – as opposed to “leaders” – and their position entitles them to crush whomever they will with no need for regret. If someone is hurt by what they do, so what? That person doesn’t live in their gated community anyway.

I see the kind of bullying that Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, and Charles Schumer engage in at times like this, and have to wonder if the founders envisioned this abusive behavior when they included the “advice and consent” provision on executive nominees. But then, I also wonder if they envisioned an electorate in certain quarters that would actually agree to let them act this way.

Speaking of this bullying, and the hurt it caused, isn’t it cute how Richard Durbin – one of the conspirators in the “destroy Alito’s character” operation – tried to sound sympathetic toward the judge, and his wife? Well, actually, no, it isn’t cute at all. The liberal Senator from Illinois commented that he knows how tough public office can be because of what his own family has gone through when he has faced public criticism.

If memory serves, the last time Mr. Durbin faced public criticism, it was because he compared American servicemen and women to the killing squads of Pol Pot, et al. There is little comparison between justly-deserved criticism over what one says as part of the public record, and simple mischaracterizations and false allegations designed to impugn a man’s character for political gain.

If I had his ear, I would challenge Senator Durbin to point to a single time when someone, in a nationally-televised forum, subjected him to the same kind of humiliating personal attacks to which Sam Alito was subjected – with no basis in anything he had actually said or done. I see Senator Durbin’s comments as a weak attempt at damage control. Like many others, he may recognize how much damage the Dems may have done to themselves in their behavior.

And, by way of transition, this is the Senator Durbin who flat-out told Judge Alito that he could not support a nominee who would not promise to uphold the right to abortion. This, of course, is really the only issue Democrats on the committee need to know about in order to decide how they’ll vote.

Any careful observer can see that any Supreme Court nominees would really need to do only one thing in order to meet with the approval of national democrats – vow allegiance to Roe v. Wade. As Kate O’Beirne has rightly pointed out, the left wants desperately to keep this issue in the judiciary and away from the democratic branches of government. I’ll leave it to the reader to surmise why.

The fact is that there’s not a prominent Democrat who can legitimately criticize anyone for being a “one-issue” voter. Abortion is, simply, the primary issue that gives the Democrat party its reason for existence. Thus all the questioning of Judge Alito on whether or not Roe v. Wade is “settled law,” and if he is willing to commit to never laying a hand on it while on the High Court.

Of course, the “settled law” discussion is but another misdirection on the part of the left, as if to say that “settled law” is somehow beyond the reach of anyone to alter or revoke. Isn’t it true that all “law” is “settled law” in that it is recognized to be the rule currently in effect? But do we not also recognize that all law, even that which is “settled” can be revisited and even overturned by the institution that created it? That’s certainly the case with statutory law made by Congress, why not with judicial law?

I’ve asked the question before: If Roe v Wade had been decided the other way, would abortion rights activists have been willing to say “oh well, it’s settled law” and give up their fight? I think not. But abortion opponents are supposed to do precisely that.

Interestingly enough, as time goes by, it becomes more apparent to me that the Dems’ allegiance to abortion is symptomatic of the problem that has made a once-great party one that is now fighting against history to survive ideologically – there is no commitment to truth. This problem is most clearly revealed in the left’s refusal to acknowledge – despite a growing mountain of evidence – that what is conceived in the womb is a human life, deserving of all the rights and protections that government is bound to secure for any other human life. A party that is committed to what they wish was the truth more than they are what is the truth is a party that is dooming itself to alienation from continuingly larger portions of the populace. Unless the populace itself loses it’s commitment to truth and reality – but that’s a discussion for another time.

This issue is, of course, the primary issue under consideration when Joe Biden says he is upset that Judge Alito won’t be drawn into a discussion about where he stands on the issues? Excuse me? As a judge, he is not supposed to be drawn into such a discussion in an official capacity. He should be discussing where he stands on the law. Discussion of the issues is for the political branches – the branches that answer directly to the people – to engage in. Just one of many statements that either demonstrate a lack of understanding on the part of the Senator himself – or herself – or of a willingness to misdirect, and count on the public’s ignorance.

And speaking of statements designed to misdirect, what about these constant complaints about Judge Alito coming down on the side of the corporation versus the “little guy?” Again, his job is to come down on the side of the law. If you want to talk about the judge’s decision on a given case where a corporation was pitted against a “little guy,” you need to look at where each of those parties stood in relation to the law.

Since I’ve started complaining about Senator Biden – which, I acknowledge, I do quite a bit – I note that the man who obviously considers himself the smartest man in America stated in an interview that Robert Bork was rejected because he was forthcoming with his views “on the issues” and, in the words of the Senator “the American people didn’t agree with his views.” I would love to see his documentation to back up that statement. Clever, though, how he tries sell the idea that the Senate Judiciary Committee is the barometer of how the American people feel about the issues.

Reminds me of Diane Feinstein saying she speaks for American women on matters of “reproductive rights.” Who exactly appointed her to that position? I know an awful lot of women who would be quick to point out to Ms. Feinstein that she does not speak for them.

But, oh, how it makes you sound more authoritative to claim such.

Of course, how are they to know whether or not they really do represent the views of the average American? The fact is that they don’t really care how the average American feels. They know how the average American should feel about an issue, so there’s no need to listen.

Just like there was no need to listen to Judge Alito that much. Maybe, like me, some of you saw a piece (sorry I can’t remember where, but I’ll find it if you need me to) that noted how long each Senator spoke during their thirty minutes each that they were given to “question” judge Alito. Long story short, between Schumer, Kennedy, and Biden, Alito actually was able to speak significantly less than ten minutes in each case.

Again, they represent a party that doesn’t listen, or feel the need to. They have become more committed to the party line and agenda than they have to what is true and factual – and right. And their behavior reflects it. The Alito hearings are only the latest example of this.

I have been hesitant to say much what I’m now saying in a public forum for some time. But the fact is that the national Democrat leadership has just become quite nasty and offensive in how it approaches politics and government. And the national leadership has finally become so rotten at the top that the nastiness is trickling down, even to the local levels.

I have been saying for some time that many Democrat activists at the local level – separated somewhat from the national leadership – are good, decent people who aren’t inclined to the type of misbehavior in which their national leaders engage. But the fact is, even in a peaceful little area like the one in which I live, the nastiness is making its way down.

Maybe it’s because new media have enabled the “local folk” to stay in contact with the leaders more easily – making it easier for the leadership’s behavior to “rub off” on them. Maybe it’s the frustration of continuing to see their party lose even in election years when all signs point to a long-awaited victory (due to their reliance on scandals to win for them, as opposed to ideas – but that’s the subject for another piece as well). Whatever the reason, even at the local level, it’s getting ugly. I could provide specific examples that both myself, and Republican associates have had direct involvement in, but won’t at this time. But if it does get to the point where even in a peaceful little town in Southern Tennessee supporters of the Democrats can no longer carry on civil discourse, one needs only look to their national leadership in Washington, and events like the recently-concluded hearings to see why they simply aren’t able to talk rationally. Their leadership has given them no rational ground on which to stand.

Bits and Pieces

Trying to get back into the swing of posting more regularly. On those days when I simply can't get a full-fledged commentary completed, I'll at least try to get something like the following posted.

JLH


- I see where Planned Parenthood – one of the organizations that leads the charge in ending parenthood wherever possible – has launched a line of keychains promoting condom use. Included in this line is one model that features a doctored version of Michelangelo’s The Creation of Adam. Only in Planned Parenthood’s version God is handing Adam a condom. It reminds me of NARAL’s “Choice on Earth” Christmas cards in its mockery of Judeo-Christian imagery.

Beautiful, just beautiful.

Frankly, the simple form of Christianity I adhere to doesn’t put much stock in painted or carved images depicting the Divine. And I don’t even celebrate Christmas from a religious standpoint. But I know an awful lot of Americans do. And I know that regardless of how I, or anyone else might react to, or ignore, such gimmicks, I recognize the intent to mock, or at least exploit, the cherished beliefs of many to promote an agenda when I see it.

I have to think that Somebody somewhere doesn’t appreciate the intent. And while I think these promotions on the part of abortion advocates are tacky in the extreme, I’m content to let them be judged elsewhere for their effrontery.




- I plan to have some things to say – a lot of things, actually – concerning the Alito confirmation hearings in the next couple of days. But for now, I’ll just take note of a story I saw in the Washington Times about a group of twenty female Democrat members of the House of Representatives who have declared Samuel Alito to be unfit for the Supreme Court.

All I know to say when I hear such things is, “So what?” These women have no Constitutional say in who gets nominated/confirmed to any federal court. So what’s the point? Grandstanding? Fundraising? Or maybe it’s just the liberal need to execute some form of public protest when they don’t get their way?




- This is kind of dated, but I noticed where former President Bill Clinton said that he believes that the country is ready to elect a woman president – as long as she is the right kind of candidate. I don’t suppose I have any argument with that statement, but the obvious implication on his part is that the country should be willing to vote for Hillary.

Okay, obviously he feels she is the “right kind of candidate.” I suppose that term might have a different definition depending on who you’re talking to, but it would have been helpful if he had explained what he meant by it.

I have said for some time that if Hillary wants to run, she has the right to. And if people want to vote for her, they have the right to, even if they don’t know why. I certainly don’t know why they would. And I don’t say that to bash Hillary in any way. I honestly don’t know what it is about her that commends her to America as the best choice for President, and would love for someone to tell me what it is.

Michael Oates Palmer, who wrote for “The West Wing” (Or is it still on the air?), offered to buy a beer for the first Hillary supporter who “can point me to one decision or vote she’s made in the last four years where she took a stand that went against her best political interests.”

That is a valid question from a purely political standpoint. But for me, it goes even further. I just want to know what she’s done, what she’s accomplished, that makes her the best candidate, or even the best candidate among women. Can anyone help me out here?




- Maybe it’s only of interest to me because of my ties to Russia as the result of the adoption of my sons and the friends we made there in the process, but Lee Edwards had an interesting commentary in the January 5 Washington Times, the principal purpose of which was to talk up a proposed memorial to the victims of communism to be located in Washington. Regardless of how you feel about the proliferation in recent years of more and more “landmarks” in the nation’s capital, the piece provides some sobering reminders of the cost that has been imposed by, as he puts it “the bloodiest ideology yet devised by man.”

I’m reminded of an episode a few years ago in which my wife and I were in some other folks home in East Tennessee, when the news broke that Elian Gonzalez had been seized in a late night raid, and was to be returned to communist Cuba. As all who were gathered where we were discussed the events and their implications, one of the sons of our host, in his early twenties, said something to the effect of, “How bad can life in a communist country really be?” I was stunned into silence.

It only reaffirms the truth of Edwards’ statement that “We Americans are lucky. We’ve never had to worry about a knock on the door in the middle of the night, with members of the secret police ready to drag us from our homes.” Unfortunately, as that episode demonstrated, our good fortune in this regard has, in many cases, made us blind to the terrors of this ideology that many faced, and continue to face. For as Edwards’ notes, communism still remains a force for terror over one-fifth of the world’s population. And certain nations that have thrown it off previously stand in danger of falling back in it’s particularly deadly brand of tyranny.





- Remember when President Reagan was mocked for saying that trees contribute to global warming?

Well!

I had to chuckle when I saw the Reuters story proclaiming that German (that’s European) scientists have confirmed that living plants are major producers of greenhouse gasses.

But this really isn’t about that particular news item.

President Reagan was brutalized for suggesting this very thing two decades ago. Not because his statement had been dis-proven scientifically, but because, you see, he was a buffoon and had no business contradicting the accepted wisdom on the subject.

President Reagan’s simple-mindedness and ignorance was a major assumption made by many in the press and on the left (Or am I being redundant?) that served as their starting point on how to evaluate anything he said or did. Indeed, making unproven assumptions as starting points for evaluating any number of phenomena seems to be becoming more and more accepted as valid practice – which may be why the German study can’t explain why such a large source of the gasses had been overlooked before. Maybe it’s because they had previously started with the assumption that plants couldn’t be a source, so never bothered to look at them before.

In any event, as time goes by, new revelations/admissions made by those in politics, science, or whatever are revealing that maybe the Gipper wasn’t a buffoon for suggesting the emperor had no clothes after all – on more subjects than just greenhouse gasses. And his stature only becomes all the more impressive for his refusing to back down from what he believed simply because it wouldn’t be accepted by those who supposedly knew better than him (Weren’t we discussing communism a moment ago?). History is being very kind to him, as many of us knew it always would.

Now we have another President who is evaluated the same way by all the “smart people” – that is, begin with the assumption that he is a buffoon and that anything he says is laughable, particularly if it goes against the accepted wisdom of the day. Many in this community of “smart people” are already labeling him as one of the worst presidents ever – including a well-educated friend of mine who should really know better than to try to evaluate the historic quality of a presidency while it is still going on. But President Bush is standing by his beliefs with regard to the most pressing issues of our time. Don’t be surprised if history is equally kind to him in another quarter-century or so.

Some Of Us CAN Handle The Truth

Sometimes it’s just easier to get down on a personal level, and write in first person. My apologies to Delores Thompson (my 12th Grade English Teacher).

JLH

What drives my thinking on any number of topics – politics, religion, or whatever – is a burning desire to know the truth, that overrides any personal agendas or ambitions I may have. I have positions that I hold on any number of issues within such broad topical areas as I have just described, but none that can’t be altered, or even recanted, if verifiable evidence is presented to me that my positions are wrong.

Religion? I am firmly committed to my Christian faith, because I believe the historical evidence, both scriptural and secular, supports the notion that Jesus of Nazareth actually died physically, and then actually came back from the dead three days later, convincing me, like Paul of Tarsus, that He really was/is the Son of God. But I am willing to listen to voices of dissent. If it can be proven that my foundational beliefs about Jesus and the events surrounding His death are not true, I stand ready to acknowledge that I am wrong in this regard. Because I love the truth.

Abortion? I am pro-life – or anti-abortion, if you prefer – because I believe the evidence supports the notion that what is conceived in the womb is human life, and that all human life is inherently precious. But I am never opposed to discussing the issue rationally, and listening to the arguments and evidence to be presented by those who believe otherwise. If it can be undeniably determined that their position is grounded in the truth, I stand ready to correct myself. Because the truth doesn’t change just because I might not choose to believe it.

It is a small and, I believe, insecure person who is unable to acknowledge that the position they hold on a given issue within any topical area is beyond debate – when insufficient evidence has been presented to rule out any and all alternatives.

These are the kind of thoughts that run through my head lately when I hear about all the furor surrounding the evolution/intelligent design debate going on in many school systems – and court systems – throughout the land. I’m certainly no old-timer – yet – but even I can remember when public schools, which I attended early in life, referred to the notion of the origin of life as promoted by Charles Darwin and his disciples as the theory of evolution.

It is interesting to me to note that, among its proponents, the “theory” qualifier has been dropped, and the notion of evolution as settled science is now insisted upon. There is now no room for doubt, dissent, or alternatives. I suppose simply because it has been accepted for so long – prompting me to think about other “scientific” theories that were accepted for many years in earlier times. But I digress.

The latest episode in this ongoing struggle – at least that I am aware of – has taken place in Dover, Pennsylvania, where, according to the Associated Press, the school board last year approved a policy that required a statement to be read about the theory of intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. The statement would note that Darwin’s theory has never been established as fact, and that there are gaps in the theory that may merit attention. If anyone is interested in learning more, reference is made to an “intelligent design” book, that can be acquired.

That’s it. No lessons on how intelligent design might work, or have worked. No lessons on how to debunk evolutionary theory. Just a statement read, reminding the listeners that evolution remains an unproven theory that is nevertheless accepted by many in the scientific community.

But that is apparently more than the “evolution proponents” can bear. Not only can they not tolerate an open and rational debate on the subject of the origin of life – leaving aside the question of why the origin of life needs to be taught in the public schools anyway (I have my suspicions) – they cannot tolerate even a hint that their position could conceivably be at odds with what actually is.

Since the policy was implemented in Dover, one board member resigned in protest, and most of the rest were voted out of office at the next election, in favor of those who promised to rescind the policy. One teacher was quoted as saying “I will feel comfortable again teaching what I’d always felt comfortable teaching.” I wonder if plantation owners of the old South felt similar comfort after the 1858 Dred Scott decision, that affirmed the belief of many, despite what was true, that blacks were not worthy of the same level of civil rights and liberties as whites.

Keep in mind that this teacher was not required under the policy to teach anything other than the theory of evolution that she had always taught – only to add in a note about the possibility of another alternative to the question of where life came from. No doubt, though, the indoctrination she received in the course of receiving her degree and certification convinced her that “smart people” knew that evolution was the only possibility. Aren’t the emperor’s new clothes beautiful?

Of course, to no one’s surprise, the policy had already been declared illegal by U.S. District Judge John Jones, who ruled that teaching that says that life may have originated with an unidentified intelligent cause is religious, not scientific. Consequently, he ruled that such is not appropriate in the schools as it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment – though he failed to note what specific religion such endorses at the expense of others.

But leaving the constitutional issue aside, there is a question that has been raised by many that the judge’s ruling neglects to deal with: What if intelligent design is, in fact, the truth regarding the origin of life? Whether it’s some alien life form that visited this planetary system eons ago or a living spirit, a Deity, that was at work, what if that is really what happened? Does the fact that such might lead some – though not all – to certain religious beliefs mean it can’t be taught, and our children should thus be taught some unproven theory, that is at odds with reality, because of a “wall of separation” that recent generations – certainly not the founders – have erected?

Regardless of what the insecure and arrogant voices of some declare, neither evolution nor intelligent design can be proven scientifically. From that standpoint, one is as valid as the other, and merits just as much attention in the nation’s classrooms. If either “theory” is acknowledged, both should be acknowledged.

Frankly, I am one intelligent design/creation proponent who is perfectly comfortable with an open and rational debate regarding the evidence used to support the alternative beliefs. Again, because at the end of the day, I just want to know what the truth is, and have nothing to fear from it being unveiled – to whatever extent that we can unveil it. Would that it were that those on the other side of the debate were as secure in their beliefs and sincere in their desire for the truth. But their unwillingness to hear any hint of dissent suggests that they simply are not.