All About the Kitten

Everyone seemes to be interested in the Kitten I have been babysitting, so I`ll tell you the whole story. Hopefully I can get through the entire thing before she chews a body part off...

Her name is Annabelle, and I am watching her for my parents, who adopted her because of me. I work for a property management company in the City of St. Louis, and I have the singular honor of trolling through the seamy underbelly of the city. In fact, I sometimes visit places the police refuse to patrol, and I get to see the great triumph of liberal thinking in all it`s glory! On one such venture I went to a property which was a single-family house converted into a two family building. We had this low-life tenant on the first floor we were evicting, and when I came into the common hall I found (as usual) a mess of dirty clothes, trash, old furniture, etc. Also, there was a filthy trash can sitting by the door, and inside that trash can was a tiny kitten trying with what little strength she had left to jump out. Needless to say, I was furious! The temperature was over 95 degrees, and the poor creature was clearly left to die. I took her out of the trash and drove to my parents house, where they received the gift of a kitten (wether they wanted one or not!) with good grace.

My mother named her Annabelle, and she was in sorry shape. She had a terrible case of conjunctivitis, and both of her eyes were swollen shut; she had to FEEL with her paw whenever she moved. She was seriously underweight. She was badly dehydrated, had fleas, ear mites, and was covered with feces. The Vet said she has an ulcer in her eye which was undoubtedly the result of being kicked. (The Vet said she would like to take a bullwhip to the people who had mistreated her so badly!) She was about 5 weeks old, according to the Vet, and had just learned to eat.

My parents nursed her back to health, teaching her to use a litter box (which she still hasn`t quite mastered; she scrapes litter with her FRONT paws, thus failing to cover her ``Dick Durbin``)and treating her for all of the maladies she was afflicted with. The only problem was that they were planning a vacation, so I had to take the little cutie for two weeks.

This has presented a number of problems; I have two male cats, both of whom I also rescued in one capacity or another. This has required that we keep Annabelle upstairs in our bedroom (which is a suite of two rooms)and we have had to limit contact between them. Annabelle, feeling good for the first time in her life, is constantly racing around and scratching and biting on me whenever I stop moving. I fear I may not be able to finish this piece before she finishes me!

My first cat was Blackberry, a Bombay cat (which resembles a black panther)who would look at home in a witches cottage. The English used to call witches or enchanted cats Blackberry Cats, so that`s where I got the name. He is the smartest non-human creature I have ever encountered, and is loyal to boot. I found him abandoned by some low-life we had to evict. He was trapped outside for a week during a very cold snap in late November (20 degree weather), living with some feral cats in an abandoned building. A dog had gotten ahold of him, and had chewed his tail up something aweful. He was at the door to the building, waiting to be let in when I found him. I brought him home with me (which about killed me; he kept trying to get under my feet as I drove!) and he has been my best friend ever since!

We got our second cat from the Humane Society. Our original plan was to get a female kitten (so Blackberry could have a companion) but when we went into the shelter we were immediately drawn to a very sad looking butterscotch tabby. His name was Goccia (which I have since learned is Italian for a drip or drop) and he looked as if he had lost all hope (he was 8 years old, so he probably had good reason to lose hope!) We immediately adopted him, and he has been a great cat,very sweet, although he is a bit of a grouch. He hissed at me and bit me as we were filling out the adoption papers! We had a terrible time acclimating him to our home because Blackberry was simply NOT going to allow another Tom in his castle! Poor blackberry stopped grooming, lost a lot of weight, and was clearly a nervous wreck. Goccia had to endure endless stalking and attacks from Blackberry, but eventually they came to tolerate each-other, and now I think they are friends. It was a long and difficult process.

That`s what made bringing Annabelle in so difficult. I was more concerned about Blackberry than Goccia, although Blackberry has been very good with her, while Goccia has been hissing. It`s hard to figure cats out!

Anyway, Annabelle is doing fine. She runs around crazily, and wants constant attention, which makes blogging very difficult. She is cute as a button! I`m going to have a hard time giving her back when my parents return! I have to go to bed around 7 p.m., because Annabelle wants to play for about two hours after we get in bed, and then she falls asleep tucked under my arm (I have to be careful in the night not to roll over on her!) My wife moved down to the guest bedroom, leaving me to entertain the little kitten (I`m still not sure how that happened!) She is just darling, but she is a real handful!

For all of you who would like pictures, I would love to post them, but I haven`t the foggiest idea how to do it! I have never really gotten the hang of this newfangled contraption (I`m still mastering the slide-rule).

Anyway, between the kitten, a busy spurt at work, and my backyard vineyard (which is requiring a lot of work this next week) my blogging may be a bit thin. Please bear with me; I`ll post up what I can (before Annabelle shreds my legs with her claws!)

Best,

Tim

Grand Theft Bowel Movement

When you gotta go, you gotta go!

What a Piece of Durbin

There is an op-ed in Pravda today written by a guy from Virginia which will absolutely make your blood boil! He trashes (for a foreign audience, mind you) everything about America and what she stands for. This is not the attacks of a liberal Democrat-these are attacks on the very underpinning of our way of life.

He has an e-mail address at the bottom of that piece of Durbin he wrote; everyone should send him friendly notes suggesting he leave this country, since he seems to find it so offensive.

Politically Correct Weapons

So now the military has to use environmentally friendly bullets! I suppose next we`ll see munitions designed not to lower the enemies self-esteem! Maybe we can assemble our army on a hilltop and have them visualize World Peace, thus defeating our enemy without a fight!

Silly me; I thought weapons weren`t supposed to be good for people!

Inouye Will He back the President!

Where was Inouye when the troops were being trashed by Durbin the Turban? Why haven`t we heard him condemn the anti-war radicals in his own party?

We keep hearing the accusation that President Bush has used the war for his own political benefit; this statement by Inouye makes Bush look like a rank amateur! This is cheap political grandstanding at it`s lowest!



WASHINGTON - Sen. Daniel Inouye (news, bio, voting record), D-Hawaii, an Army veteran who lost his right arm in World War II, criticized Republicans on Saturday for not doing enough to help troops fighting in or returning from Iraq.

ADVERTISEMENT

In the Democrats' weekly radio address, Inouye said Senate Republicans were focusing on legislation sought by the gun lobby while ignoring the needs of troops.

On Tuesday, the Senate put off completion of a $491 billion defense bill to act on the National Rifle Association's top priority: shielding gun manufacturers and dealers from liability suits stemming from gun crimes.

"For years, we've heard the president and congressional Republicans speak eloquently about honoring our troops," Inouye said. "But this week — when push came to shove — their priorities were different."

The senator added: "Our men and women who have served should not worry about funding for health care year after year, and our soldiers on the front lines should get the resources they need. Our Congress could consider our men and our women in uniform as our nation's top priority."

The gun bill cleared the Senate 65-31 Friday, with Inouye in opposition

New Deal Crackup

I was going to write an article about the collapse of the AFL-CIO, but Thomas Lifson beat me to it in the American Thinker, so I decided I would confine myself to a (hopefully) brief post here at Birdblog.




Everyone was shocked when the Berlin wall fell; no-one could believe that this symbol of totalitarianism, with us for so long, could melt away like a bad dream. The reality, of course was that forces were at work behind the scenes chipping away at the philosophical structure of that wall, and this made it`s fall all the more dramatic. Now, on the domestic scene, we are witnessing something comparable with the crackup of Big Labor and the AFL-CIO.

For fifty years the AFL-CIO has been the vanguard of the liberal/Democratic machine, and their influence has been crucial in keeping the Democrats viable despite their increasing radicalization. The AFL-CIO rejoined in 1955 after having split over how unions should organize. (The American Federation of Labor wanted to organize along trade lines, the Congress of Industrial Organizations wanted to do it in whole industries.) For the last 25 years , the umbrella organization has been a staunch advocate of radical liberalism, and a great enemy of conservatives and Republicans. Concurrent with this radical politicization of Big Labor, we have witnessed a steady decline in union membership in the United States, and it seemed inevitable that a crackup was was on the horizon. This crackup is now here, and the Republicans may have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to break the old political alignments and forge a new coalition.

Unions were one of the pillars of the Democrat Party in America, and their association with the Democrats goes all the way back to Roosevelt and the New Deal. The New Deal coalition included Unions, Southerners (who still hated the Republicans for the Civil War), Farmers (who received subsidies from FDR), Minorities, Civil Service and Academia, and usually Catholics. The `60`s and 70`s saw the collapse of this traditional New Deal coalition, with the radicalization of the Democrats under Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern, and finally Jimmy Carter, who succeeded in losing the South for the Republicans, splitting away many Catholics, and losing some support from Labor-especially the AFL-CIO which was in the process of deradicalizing under George Meany during the `70`s.

According to Taylor Dark, author of ``The Unions and the Democrats`` , Meany was opposed to the left-wing social agenda of the Democrat Party, including gay rights, radical feminism, racial quotas, and environmentalism. He believed that the proper role of the AFL-CIO was to take direct action only in matters concerning the member Unions. His retirement in 1979 paved the way for greater radicalization of the coalition, reaching it`s peak with the election in 1996 of John Sweeney, who has since steered them in a more virulent direction. They have, in essence, become a shill for the Democrats.

Every member Union in the AFL-CIO has it`s own political action committee, and the AFl-CIO tries to coordinate their actions to maximize results; they generally get behind a candidate and steer the member PACs to follow. This strategy is very effective at getting the best bang for the buck, and delivering massive amounts of money to the Dems for their nefarious work. Getting these PACs to agree on a candidate, and not compete againt each-other, is a primary goal of the umbrella organization.

According to Dark, Bill Clinton`s nomination and election in 1992 showed the power of the AFL-CIO. He and Tom Harkin were the two most likely candidates supported by Big Labor, and the AFL-CIO chose Clinton. Clinton was very careful to downplay his Union ties, in order to maintaing his appearance of independence and moderation.

In recent years, the Labor movement has been struggling. Unionized private sector employement is below 8%! The backbone of the modern Labor movement lies in the government/public sector employees, who, with 40% unionized, clearly have a vested interest in Government being as large and complicated as possible. Increasingly, the winds of politics have been at the heart of Big Labor in America, and the Democrats have become the last, best hope for Unions.

This is at the heart of the crackup of the AFL-CIO; Sweeney wants to increase political funding and activism, while Andrew Stern, head of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and Hoffa at the Teamsters, want to focus more on active recruitment to build their numbers. As a result, the Teamsters and SEIU have announced plans to leave the coalition, while two other unions-the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) and UNITE-HERE have boycotted the Biennial Convention (this is important; the convention is where elections are held and the agenda is set for the next two years.) Bear in mind, the Teamsters have bucked the AFL-CIO before; they endorsed Ronald Reagan for President in 1980!

I used to be a member of the UFCW; the were corrupt to the core. They decided that ALL union workers in the St. Louis area-including the part time bagboys and cashiers-should be given free health insurance. The insurance fund was supposed to be stuffed with money, but the Union wasn`t going to pay out of pocket; they demanded that the grocery industry pay for full health coverage. The company I worked for had a different contract than the main chains, and our agreement was up before the big boys, so the Union decided to use us as a test case. The company refused to play ball, and the Union stopped us from striking, so for four years we worked without a contract. All the while the Union told us that the company was escrowing our pension money, and when the dispute was finally settled we learned that we had lost four years on our pension, and the company declared bankruptcy! Everyone who had started with this company was at 9 years towards vestment, and the UFCW required 10 years, so we lost it all! It turns out our Union Rep who negotiated the deal was the best friend of our company president! We all found ourselves unemployed with no pension thanks to our wonderful union! I had to pay dues to them for years, and all I ever got out of it was a lousy commemorative pin!

At any rate, what we are witnessing is massive reorganization of one of the principle pillars of the New Deal Coalition. The AFL-CIO will be losing nearly one third of their 13 million members, with the subsequent loss of future dues along with $7 million owed by these four unions in back dues, and while these unions will continue to fund political mischief, the loss of coordination means that the union money will be far less effective.

Bear in mind Stern is no conservative, and he is absolutely not going to completely defund the Democrats. Still, he is going to diver funds away from political action in favor of recruitment efforts (he wanted $60 million more allocated from the AFL-CIO than was budged for recruitment.)

My father-in-law is John E. Dunsford, Professor of Labor Law at St. Louis University, a Chester A. Meyers Professor of Law Scholar, and one of the country`s top labor arbitrators. His opinion is that political activism has angered the rank-and-file of the unions, and that what we are witnessing is as much a result of that anger as anything. The average union man may be socially liberal, but he bleeds red-white-and blue, and the disgraceful behavior of the Democrats regarding Iraq and the War has, in Professor Dunsford`s opinion, deeply angered them. This, along with the personal ambitions of the union bosses and the continual decline of Unionism, is at the heart of the current crack-up.

The fact is, Unionism is dying. There are many reasons for this-the rise of small businesses in America, the end of the Industrial economy, the desire for more flexibility on the job leading to more ``independent contractors`` and a less formalized workforce, greater prosperity in general, globalization, etc. have all eroded Big Labor. Less than 12 percent of Americans are union members; down from over 35% in the 1950`s. If unions still wish to be relevant, they are going to have to undergo a dramatic reorganization.

Thanks to President Bush, that help may be on the way; with (at minimum) 10 million illegal aliens currently living and working inside of the borders of the United States, and with millions more on the way, Big Labor has an unprecedented opportunity. Most illegals work in service oriented position; farm work, gardeners, hotel and restaurant staff, housekeeping, etc. If President Bush gets his Guest Worker bill, and he is determined to do just that these millions of low-wage workers will be ripe for the picking. Millions more will flood into the country, since the force of law will no longer prevent them. If Labor is smart, they will begin devising a way to recruit these millions for themselves and the Democrat Party.

President Bush is relying on the gratitude of these formerly illegal aliens to build a dominant, New Deal style coalition of Republicans. He should take a page from history; Republicans freed the slaves, gave them the franchise, and were the main supporters of the Civil Rights Movement, and yet blacks overwhelmingly vote with the Democrats. Why? Because the Democrats were willing to prostitute themselves, were willing to give money to buy the black vote. Gratitude is a poor motivator of people; cold, hard cash works much better.

So how do the Republicans deal with this situation? They now have an unprecedented opportunity to split union votes from their rivals, but they need to listen to the wants and needs of the rank-and-file. Real Immigration reform would be very popular with the average union man, who understands that illegals are taking jobs away from Americans. The Republicans should push for major tax relief-particularly in the field of estate taxes and other portions of the tax code which affect the middle class. Health Savings Accounts and School Choice can also be used to draw union votes away from the Democrats. Finally, President Bush needs to do a much better job of communicating about the War. Most union workers are very patriotic, and they support whoever is in office in times of War. The President needs to make certain that the average joe understands what is happening and where we are going in the War. The Union workers were the men who stormed Omaha Beach, who died in the fields at Frozen Chosen, who crawled through the mud in Vietnam, who marched through the desert sands in Kuwait. They`ll be ready when their country needs them, and they`ll not shirk their duties now.

The Republicans have an unprecedent opportunity; let`s hope they don`t blow it!

Bonnie Blue`s Blog (Say That Ten Times Fast)

(Click the Header)

Anyone who has spent any time on Birdblog or at Ultima Thule knows our brilliant and eloquent friend Bonnie Blue Flag. She now has her own blog, and it looks to be a dandy (as in Yankee Doodle!)

Bonnie is a great writer and razor sharp thinker, so don`t dawdle!!!

Dark Tide

Esther, over at Outside the Blogway, has posted a letter by Congressman Tom Lantos. Congressman Lantos is a surviver of the Nazi Holocaust, and he warns of the need to be vigilant in this era of rising Anti-Semitism. Check it out here!

The Power of the Dark Side

Senator Bill Frist has gone over to the Dark Side; he has changed his position on Fetal Stem-Cell research, now giving his blessing to conducting Dr. Mengele type experiments on frozen fertilized embryos (tiny babies). If Dr. Frist thinks this will help him in a Presidential bid, he is sadly mistaken. This transmogrification may work with the Democrats, but Frist`s base of support is in the pro-Life community, and this is guaranteed to sink him with most conservatives. Even pro-abortion conservatives can`t cast a blind eye to such duplicity; how can Frist be trusted not to change his views on other issues? It`s very hard to heal a breech of trust.

Further, given the advances with Adult stem-cells, this is totally unnecessary, and Dr. Frist has to know that! The only benefit to be derived from Fetal Stem-Cell research is the further erosion of respect for Human Life. THAT is why the left has pushed for this so furiously; they need to maintain their power over life and death. This is another version of the blood-sacrifice, the sacrament which binds them together. Dr. Frist should know this! Why is he joining with the forces of death?

Cardinal William Keeler, chairman of the U.S. Bishops Committee for Pro-Life Activities, had this to say about Frists Journey to the Dark Side:

"Today Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist announced he will support using federal funds to encourage the destruction of living human embryos for their stem cells. Despite the Senator's disclaimers to the contrary, this position is not 'pro-life.'
"Especially disturbing is the Senator's insistence that human embryos unwanted by their own parents are owed 'the same dignity and respect' as children and adults, but may nevertheless be killed for research material.

"Such destruction of innocent human life, even out of a desire to help others, rests on a utilitarian view that undermines human dignity and human respect, as Senator Sam Brownback ably pointed out today in his response.

"Senator Frist's effort to make an analogy with organ transplants also fails, because it would be gravely immoral as well as illegal to harvest any patient's vital organs when he or she is still alive.

"Despite his warning against offering 'false hope' to patients, Senator Frist also repeated claims that are untrue or misleading about the unique 'promise' of embryonic stem cells. No one has identified any disease that can be treated only with these cells; no one even knows whether they will ever provide a safe and reliable treatment for the conditions already being successfully treated using adult stem cells.

"These factual issues will no doubt be explored by others. My own central concern is that neither sound ethics nor good government can rest on the principle that 'the end justifies the means.' I commend President Bush for his laudable pledge to veto such legislation."

Final Installment from the Federalist

Here is the final installment from the three part series in the Federalist:


Top of the fold -- U.S. National Security: The Long War or the Short Surrender (Part III of a three-part series)

In the 1990's, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, there was a new sense of security in the West, particularly in the U.S. But the Free World had unwittingly traded the Cold War for the Long War -- "unwittingly" because after eight years of Clinton administration antics, and eight months of the newly-installed Bush administration's effort to reorder national priorities, most Americans were unaware that another deadly enemy had coalesced in our midst.

That false sense of security terminated abruptly on 11 September 2001, when one of this enemy's brigades attacked the World Trade Center -- for the second time. The first WTC attack on 26 February 1993 was treated by the Clinton administration as a "criminal act." Subsequent attacks by this enemy against Khobar Towers, our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the USS Cole were also investigated as criminal acts. The same would have been true after 9/11, except that President George Bush had the resolve to call this attack what it was -- an "act of war" -- terrorism carried out by an asymmetric enemy calling itself "al-Qa'ida" (The Base), which was part of an international unified Islamic terrorist network supported, in part, by nation states like Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria.

This was a new kind of war, but it was war nonetheless.

Unlike symmetric threats emanating from clearly defined nation states like Russia and China -- nation states with unambiguous political, economic and geographical interests -- this asymmetric enemy defies nation-state status, thus presenting new and daunting national-security challenges for the executive branch and U.S. military planners.

Perhaps the most difficult of these challenges is the task of keeping Americans focused on why this asymmetric threat must be engaged (short of periodic catastrophic wake-up calls). Unfortunately, in deference to sensitivity and diversity, the Bush administration has yet to use the words "Muslim" or "Islamic" when attempting to define or, dare we say, "profile" this enemy. But the Bush administration, and the administrations of our Allies, depend on public support to prosecute the Long War ahead with Islamists.

Targeting al-Qa'ida and its Saudi protagonist Osama bin Laden may have initially precluded diminishing public support for the so-called "War on Terror," but protests against operations in Iraq and elsewhere are taxing morale both at home and on the warfront. Only two things can curtail this retreat. Either the Bush administration can do a better job of defining this enemy and its lethality, or the enemy can hit us again -- and as noted in parts I and II of this series, this enemy has the potential to hit much harder than it did on 9/11.

The latter is assured if the former fails.

President Bush must rightly define this enemy as Islamist zealots of Jihadistan, a borderless nation of Islamic extremists constituted by al-Qa'ida and other Muslim terrorist groups, calling for jihad, or "holy war," against "all the enemies of Allah." (If you're reading this, you are likely a non adherent -- and an enemy of Allah.) These Jihadis seek to disable the U.S. economy using any means at their disposal, and thus, undermine our political, military and cultural influence around the world. Ultimately, they want to contain or kill those who do not subscribe to their Islamofascist cult of hate.

The President must also convince our countrymen of the certainty that against Jihadistan, there is no neat Cold War doctrine like Mutually Assured Destruction to stay offensive measures. In this war, the only doctrine that can keep the enemy at bay is that of preemption -- and it must be maintained as long as there are Islamists capable of doing the West harm.

President Bush told the nation, "This is a long war, and we have a comprehensive strategy to win it. We're taking the fight to the terrorists abroad, so we don't have to face them here at home. We're denying our enemies sanctuary, by making it clear that America will not tolerate regimes that harbor or support terrorists."

Indeed, it will be a long war, and his Doctrine of Pre-emption is the best directive for strategy. But short of clear public comprehension of what constitutes "the enemy," which is a prerequisite to sustained public support, this essential war will be short-circuited, and Jihadis will, once again, move the warfront to our homeland.

There are plenty of domestic enemies who would undermine public support for the war against Jihadistan for purely political reasons. After all, there are midterm elections in 2006 and a presidential election in 2008. Rep. Nancy Pelosi claims, "The president's frequent references to the terrorist attacks of September 11 show the weakness of his arguments. He is willing to exploit the sacred ground of September 11, knowing that there is no connection between September 11 and the war in Iraq."

Sen. Harry Reid (who voted for Operation Iraqi Freedom) says, "The president's numerous references to September 11 did not provide a way forward in Iraq. ... 'Staying the course,' as the president advocates, is neither sustainable nor likely to lead to the success we all seek."

John Kerry alleges that President Bush has fabricated a "third rationale" for the war: "The first, of course, was weapons of mass destruction. The second was democracy. And now...it's to combat the hotbed of terrorism."

The President, in the national interest, must take the offensive against these opportunistic detractors in order to restore public support and confidence in the Long War. For we can be certain that this war will last beyond his presidency. Just how long might it last? That depends, in part, on how one defines its origin.

If the war began in 627 AD, five years after Islam's founding, when Mohammed committed his first genocide against a Jewish tribe, then the war is an epic struggle between Islam and other religions, especially against Jews and Christians, which is to say its conclusion is not foreseeable. If the war is an extension of the middle-age invasions of the West by rapacious Islam, whether the start date is the victory of Charles Martel at Tours (732 AD), the back and forth of Crusades (1095-1669) or defeats like Constantinople (1453 AD), the siege of Vienna (1529 AD), the fleet at Lepanto (1571 AD), or the gates Venice (1683 AD), then the war is a clash of civilizations which likely has centuries of conflict yet ahead.

But if the war against Jihadistan began, as suggested here, on 11 September 2001, taking into account that Jihadi attacks on Western targets date back to the 1960s, then it will likely continue for decades. After all, it took 70 years to topple the Evil Empire.

"Our generational commitment to the advancement of freedom, especially in the Middle East, is now being tested and honored in Iraq," says President Bush. As we approach the fourth observance of 9/11, we can be sure that Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, Kennedy and their Leftist cadre will run a masterful campaign of disinformation. Such a campaign will surely test the resolve of the American people, and the Bush administration would be well advised to begin vigorously cultivating public support by forthrightly defining this mortal enemy.

The Long War may yet end on a day when the West and its beacon of liberty, these United States, surrender. Of course, the consequences of surrender will be much worse than the consequences of the war itself, but a free nation must be free to do as its collective will chooses -- even it that means choosing to lose.

For the duration, pray that our capability to defend the U.S. on more than one theater warfronts while prosecuting the long war against Jihadistan is not tested.

Blogging to be Lighter Than Normal

Blogging may be a bit lighter than normal; I have a lot going on, and have been babysitting a 6 week old kitten (which takes up a surprising amount of my time.) Please be patient if you don`t see new posts every day.

I am working on one about the dissolution of the AFL-CIO, so check back in a day or so!

Best,

Tim

The President Renews Call for National Suicide

I checked my e-mail first thing this morning, and had a message from Aussiegirl over at Ultima Thule directing me to (a very biased) article in the LA Times which outlines a new offensive (boy that`s the right word) for his ``guest worker`` plan to buy votes from illegal aliens. I had to stop reading half way through, since I hadn`t yet taken my blood-pressure medicine. That was infuriating!

The old saying ``the apple doesn`t fall far from the tree`` is very applicable with President Bush. Everyone said he was more conservative than his father, and that may be true, but he isn`t THAT much more conservative than his father. Furthermore, even if this strategy would work, I am not willing to destroy the Republic to save it (for the Republicans). I would become a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat if the Democrats advocated my beliefs, and I am certainly not going to support the Republicans just because it helps them politically. They are there for OUR pleasure, not we for theirs.

President Bush is blind to the fact that the massive flood of illegals entering this country are going to be our undoing in years to come, and that his obstinacy in this matter is going to fracture the Republican coalition. He may peel a few votes away from the Democrats, but he is going to lose his base if he persists. Meanwhile, the terrible damage he is doing to this country may be irreparable. Consider that Rome fell 100 years after illegal aliens began entering the Empire (with no automobiles, airplanes, trains, no medical services as an enticement, no ready made employment market, and a far, far smaller population of invaders.) How long can a nation survive without control of the border? How can WE survive when our enemies can walk into the country unmolested at any time?

President Bush`s father waged the War on Drugs, and now his son has made that impossible. Our porous border allows anyone to bring anything into the country at any time, including drugs. (I heard on the Laura Ingram Show yesterday-although I haven`t been able to find the link-that Bin Laden approached a number of Drug Lords with the plan of poisoning cocaine. The Drug Lords wisely told him to jump in a sand dune.)

The President is playing with fire!

Chicken Little Not So Dumb After All

News flash; Chicken Little may have been right after all! Here is more proof that we need manned space flight!

Triangulating Tripods

According to Drudge, Hillary Rodham (Clinton) is planning on voting to put John Roberts in the soup; that is, on the Supreme Court.

According to Drudge`s source "She is simply doing what is right for the country, not MOVEON.ORG," the Clinton insider explained.`` Riiight! And Bill was merely ministering to a deeply disturbed Monica Lewinski out of Christian charity. The Clintons never do anything that does not benefit them in some fashion. Hillary plans to use this nomination for her own political aims.

Bill Clinton`s success rested on a policy he called triangulation; the idea was to place himself between the Republicans and the leftist cranks in his own party. He was at the apex of the triangle-hence the name. This was really not a new technique, but Clinton perfected its use, succeeding in tricking Middle-America into believing that he was a ``conservative Democrat`` (what an oxymoron in these modern times!) and that he occupied the middle ground with the rest of ``Mainstream America``. That the Clinton Administration was right of Moron.Ogre is without question, but the political positions taken by Wild Bill were thrust upon him by the winds of public opinion. He and Hillary clearly would have liked to be far to the left of where politics forced them to be. (Hillary Health Care certainly proves this assertion.)

I suspect that the Clintons have encouraged some of the radicalization of the party-especially the elevation of Nancy Pelosi and Howlin` Howie Dean in order to make the Hill look more mainstream. I KNEW that Hillary would not oppose this nomination for that very reason. In fact, it looks like the Democrats are going to do exactly what I predicted; they will huff and puff and then proceed to confirm. They need to save their big guns for the next battle, and Hillary won`t stick her neck out in either of these fights; she cannot afford to appear to be a partisan hack or frothing at the mouth Michael Moore radical. She intends to triangulate, and that requires the appearance of temperance.

Watch for Hillary to generally stay out of the fray on these types of hot-button issues for the next few years. Oh, you`ll hear her occasionally pop off in front of friendly audiences, but the Mainstream Media will barely make mention of any outlandish comments coming from the Hill. Her opinions will be expressed in measured tones, while the likes of Schumer, Durbin, Gore, etc. man the front lines. These rampaging tripods may be the engine, but it will be Hillary forming the third leg of those tripods.

Hillary can still be beaten, but she has to be drawn out. That is the principle reason why I believe President Bush made a mistake in nominating Roberts; the Democrats aren`t going to fight this particular Waterloo, but will bide their time and hope to run out the clock on the next nomination. Had President Bush picked a fight with the Democrats at this point, Hillary simply could not remain silent. The Republicans need her talking; the louder the better. She needs to keep her mouth shut.

Everything depends on the lunatic fringe in her party. Will they be calm enough to let her keep out of the fray, or will they force the issue. If they insist on fighting this battle, they will lose.

I never dreamed I`d be rooting for Michael Moore and Moron.ogre. Go, team, go!

Legal Brief; A Review of Men In Black by Mark Levin

My brother has a review of Mark Levin`s book ``MEN IN BLACK`` at the Claremont Review. Click here to read it.

As a side note, Brian tells me that they edited it heavily, and that his best parts were removed. Oh well...

Another Environmental Shakedown

Our old friend David Hogberg has a terrific piece in TAS this morning about yet another environmentalist scam. Great read!

For all of David`s fans, you may be wondering what happened to his website, Hog Haven; he is very busy with other (more lucrative) writing and so had to close his site. It really is a pity; Hog Haven was one of my very favorities! I decided to leave it on the blogroll because it is still a terrific resource. You have access to all of David`s writings, including his social security pieces (which are without peer) so you can find the information you need to defeat liberal spin.

Also, Todd from Village Fool has shut down his site for a while. I removed him from the blogroll until he returns-he is just too busy to devote any time to his blog. I`ll keep you posted.

Finally, Shawn Macomber has left The American Spectator. He was tired of fighting political battles, and intends to do more with the music/cultural scene. You can still find him at Return of the Primitive.

Leap of Faith

Human Events has an article asking the same questions about John Roberts which I have been asking. They point out that Conservatives are taking a leap of faith with this nomination.

Our success rate has been very low when we have taken leaps of faith with the Supreme Court.

Credibility Problem

Former President Clinton`s National Security Advisor pleads guilty to stealing and destroying classified documents and we have to read about it on the internet because the Mainstream Press doesn`t think it newsworthy, although they continue to circle Karl Rove like sharks after a baby seal. What was in those documents that was so important that Berger was willing to commit a crime? Why doesn`t the press care?

Let me see if I understand this; an accidental leak of a once undercover CIA employee`s name is BIG NEWS while a former National Security Advisor stealing and destroying classified documents is unimportant?

And the press wonders why they have credibility problems.

U.N. Power Grab

Patrick O`Hannigan over at Paragraph Farmer has a link which rats out the U.N.`s attempt to seize control of the Internet. As this effects all of us, it bears keeping a sharp eye on the lookout. Between John McCain, the U.N., and a money-hungry Congress, we poor bloggers find ourselves under constant assault, and our freedom of speech depends entirely on our own vigilance. We must always been on our guard.

The New Frontier

There is an article in Yahoo News delineating a vote in the House of Representatives funding President Bush`s proposed return to the Moon and possible Mars mission. It`s refreshing to see some forward thinking in Congress, but I`m not going to hold my breath waiting for the next Moonshot. America is not what it was, and I doubt that Congress will fund this project to completion. Still, hope springs eternal, and a renewed interest in space is an encouraging sign.

The Space Shuttle was developed to be a delivery truck; it was supposed to be used to haul building materials into orbit for the construction of way-stations and large satellites. The original idea was to build a manned booster which would fly the Shuttle to the top of the atmosphere then land on an airstrip while the Shuttle continued on into orbit. The Democrat controlled Congress under President Malaise, Jimmy Carter, cut funding so Nasa substituted a throwaway solid-fuel booster (inflating the cost of launches in the long run) and scaling back on planned uses for the orbiter. The Shuttle was supposed to be the workhorse for developing infrastructure, for building orbital stations which could be used for stopovers on trips to the Moon (which, it was planned, would have permanent settlements) and for exploratory missions to Mars and elsewhere.

Part of what makes spaceflight so heinously expensive is that everything has to be done from Earth. To send a mission to Mars, we must first launch a vehicle from Earth`s surface into LEO (low Earth Orbit) at a velocity of 5 miles per second, then we must wait for a course window to open (if you are going to hit an object millions of miles away, you have to fire at precisely the right moment; this is called a course-window) and launch at the precise moment, driving the speed of the spacecraft beyond 7 miles per second (Earth`s escape velocity). This is a difficult, tedious, expensive process-especially for manned spaceflight. It would be far easier to dock with a space station, send your shuttle back to Earth and board a specially designed spacecraft which could be assembled in orbit, and could even be constructed from materials send from the Moon (which has an escape velocity of a little over a mile an hour rather than 7.) Spacecraft require propellent, which means MASS. Far better to bring your propellent up from the Moon than from Earth; this greatly reduces cost, and is much more efficient, but it requires a permanent manned presence in space.

Which is something that is needed at any rate. What will we do if a large asteroid, say one over 20 miles in diameter, is on a collision course with the Earth? Orbital weapons won`t do diddly; we will have to send spaceships to rendezvous with this body and these ships will have to bring adequate equipment to move this big sucker. Remember, this thing will be moving at up to 40 miles per second! It will wipe the Earth clean of us if we don`t divert it`s orbit, and as things stand there is no way we can do anything about such a catastrophe. We have to have people in space; more than the few we have occupying that white elephant called the ISS.

Beyond Armageddon, we should want to settle the Solar System regardless. Part of the American psyche yearns for a frontier; a sparsely settled place where pioneers can build and create. Even if most Americans will never settle on the frontier, the fact of it being there acts as a psychological pressure valve. ``I can always leave this miserable place and head for the frontier`` used to give hope to many Americans. The driving force in America until the 20th Century was Manifest Destiny; the concept that we settle the wilderness of the American Continent until we filled it from the Atlantic to the Pacific. This was a powerful motivation, and was a large part of what gave our nation vigor and drive. We need that. Should we lead the settlement of the Solar Sytem we could have that again.

And it would be a far larger frontier than the piddling Great Plains; there are five full-sized planets which could be settled (the Moon, Mars, Ganymede, Callisto, and Titan) easily, there are several others which may be habitable with increased technology (Mercury, Europa, and Triton), there are thousands of asteroids and moonlets which could be hollowed out and rotated for gravity, and we could build literally millions of free-floating space colonies. We could settle lava-flow tubes on the Moon (some of which are 50 miles wide and hundreds of miles long) and live exactly as we do on Earth, except we would be SAFER under 200 feet of lunar regolith. If we can find enough nitrogen we may be able to terraform Mars-thicken the Martian atmosphere until we can walk around outside without any special protection. It may eventually be possible to do something similar with Ganymede and Callisto. (Europa is too deep in Jupiter`s radiation belt.) We could build a new civilization in the Solar System, and we wouldn`t have to displace any aboriginal population (and besides, those sexy moon-maidens would be very popular with those lonely male astronauts!)

The point is, we have been goofing around in space for 45 years, and have done very little in the way of infrastructure. Critics complain that we have no reason to go to space, since there is nothing there and we can do what we are doing quite well with unmanned probes and the like. This is akin to saying that we had no reason to send Europeans to America because there was nothing there. You go, you settle, you build, and then there is something there. That is how Mankind has traditionally spread (can you imagine the first Eskimos in America?) and that is the calling of civilization. Consider Genesis1:28 ``God blessed them, saying ``be fertile and multiply; fill the Earth and subdue it..`` We venture forth with Divine Charter, seeking to settle Creation upon God`s command.

We have wasted enough time.

Part II from the Federalist

This is the second part of a three-part series in the Federalist:


U.S. National Security: Homeland Defense (Part two of a three-part series.)

In Part I of this series, we identified the primary asymmetric national-security threat to the U.S. and its interests and allies around the world: Zealots of Jihadistan, that borderless nation of Islamic extremists constituted by al-Qa'ida and other Muslim terrorist groups, calling for jihad, or "holy war," against "all the enemies of Allah" -- that's you.

As Congress debated the merits of the USA Patriot Act earlier this week, Jihadis reminded U.K. citizens, and the free world (again) that they have deep-cover terrorist cells in the West which are determined to do us harm. To date, none of the attacks have been as devastating as 9/11, but Jihadis will strike the U.S. again, and hard.

As first noted by The Patriot three years ago, the FBI calculates there is a high probability that homicide bombers, like those who hit London two weeks ago, will target U.S. commercial centers. However, both our military and intelligence sources estimate that far more devastating attacks are on the horizon, indicating it is only a matter of time until domestic Jihadi cells take delivery of fissile weapons (if they have not already) using Russian cores and Iraqi or Iranian technology previously acquired with assistance from Syria by al-Qa'ida. Those estimates indicate Jihadi targets are urban centers in the Northeast and/or in Southern California. Make no mistake, time is on their side.

How do we defend against this imminent threat?

Given that Jihadistan defies the tangible elements and definable characteristics of symmetric threats like uniformed leagues fighting for clear geographic and economic interests, the best defense against this ideological enemy is an effective offense in an attempt to define a warfront. President George Bush's doctrine of preemption in Afghanistan and Iraq, and precision strikes against Jihadis in numerous other locations, which remain classified, has done that, to the degree possible. Creating a warfront on their turf is essential -- "taking the fight to the enemy," as Mr. Bush says. (The doctrine of preemption is the subject of Part III of this series, "The Long War," next week.)

Given the fact that there are Jihadis already staged in American urban centers (like those who struck on 9/11), terrorists who will take, or already have taken, delivery of devastating fissile weapons, the U.S. must have a capable tactical and strategic homeland defense, one that is not hamstrung by obsolete constraints instituted when the primary national-security threats were external and symmetric -- the USSR and China.

To interdict this internal threat, President Bush created the Department of Homeland Security, reorganized the intelligence community, re-directed certain military assets to supplement homeland defense, and enlisted the support of Congress to pass the USA Patriot Act, which enhanced the ability of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to investigate and track potential terrorists.

Additionally, the administration has enhanced security at coastlines, borders and ports of entry, but (despite a relentless chorus to the contrary) our borders cannot be made sufficiently secure to stop the infiltration of terrorists and their weapons; thus "border security" is not a panacea for containing this threat.

Domestic Jihadi sleeper cells in the U.S., many of which were seeded prior to 9/11, are virtually invisible, supported by hordes of Islamists in domestic mosques, Islamic schools and associations, and other domestic breeding grounds for Islamist hatred. The two most important tools in our domestic inventory to detect and prosecute these cells are DHS and law-enforcement agencies empowered by the Patriot Act -- though neither, ultimately, will provide complete protection from the Jihadi threat.

To that end, DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff has completed his "Second Stage Review," a comprehensive assessment of the Department's missions, organization and resources, and he has outlined plans to restructure the Department based on this review. Implementation of these plans will allow DHS to implement protocols more effectively to protect commerce, transportation and infrastructure. "Our department must drive improvement with a sense of urgency," Chertoff says. "Our enemy constantly changes and adapts, so we as a department must be nimble and decisive."

Mr. Chertoff plans to create an intelligence directorate to aggregate terrorism analysis from law-enforcement and intelligence agencies and will focus DHS resources primarily on prevention of catastrophic nuclear, chemical or biological threats as outlined above. DHS will also launch the Homeland Security Information Network (HSIN-Secret) to share pertinent classified information with state and local homeland-security and law-enforcement agencies. DHS will also implement more stringent immigration and worker-permit procedures.

The most critical defense against the Jihadi threat is the ability of law-enforcement agencies to function within the full limits of their constitutional authority when investigating and prosecuting these terrorist threats. The Patriot Act, as passed by overwhelming majorities of the House and Senate in 2001, clearly defines that authority and removes obstacles which prevented law-enforcement and intelligence agencies from cooperating in these investigations.

Since its passage, more than 400 suspects have been arrested as a result of federal terrorism investigations, and most of them were convicted. Terrorist cells have been dismantled in New York, Oregon, Virginia and Florida, and their support groups have been prosecuted in California, Texas, New Jersey, Illinois, North Carolina and Ohio.

In December of this year, 16 critical provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire. Fortunately, the House has reauthorized 14 of those provisions with 10-year sunset provisions on the remaining two. The Senate will take up this measure in the fall.

Congressional debate is needed because there are legitimate civil-liberty concerns and, accordingly, The Patriot supports the sunset provisions, but in the estimation of our legal scholars and national-security analysts, stalling legislation over those concerns does not outweigh the risk of catastrophic terrorist attacks.

President Bush, calling on the Senate to renew these provisions, warned, "As we wage the war on terror overseas, we'll remember where the war began -- right here on American soil. In our free and open society, there is no such thing as perfect security. To protect our country, we have to be right 100 percent of the time. To hurt us, the terrorists have to be right only once."
Deputy Attorney General James Comey testified before Congress: "You want to catch a terrorist with his hands on the check instead of his hands on the bomb. You want to be many steps ahead of the devastating event. The way we do that is through preventive and disruptive measures, by using investigative tools to learn as much as we can, as quickly as we can, and then incapacitating a target at the right moment."

The Senate should not delay renewal of all these provisions because they enable investigators to use the same methods to investigate terrorists that are now used in routine criminal investigations, and they authorize investigators to track computer espionage and cyber-terrorism. To address civil-liberty concerns, the Patriot Act comports with constitutional constraints, requiring, for example, a federal judge's approval to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, to track his calls, or to search his property.

Congressional Democrats have attempted to hold critical Patriot Act provisions hostage as political fodder, and the consequences of their folly could be catastrophic.

A Religion of Peace?

Thomas Lifson at the American Thinker has a great piece (as usual) on the Koranic roots of terrorism. He is absolutely correct. The Koran is clearly at the heart of all of the evils we have been witnessing. Beheadings are advocated against an enemy, terrorizing the innocent is advocated, kidnapping, assassination, and torture are all acceptable strategy against non-Moslem peoples.

Don`t believe that? Go to the Prophet of Doom website for a list of Koranic chapter and verse. This is a tremendous resource for those who don`t have a copy of the Koran, or who don`t have time to page through it, but who seek to cite specific verses. This website is divided into different categories, making it easy to find what you are looking for. If you want to know what the Koran says about terrorism, click on the terrorism link. If you want to know about Islamic views of torture, click on torture, etc. This is a a very handy site-everyone should have it bookmarked!

Weighing in the Balance

There is a good post at RedState.com expressing dissatisfaction with the John Roberts nomination. It adds details I have not come across previously.

Hugh Hewitt has a number of posts over on his blog touting the merits of the Roberts nomination. He is very enthusiastic over Roberts, having worked with him in the White House Counsel`s Office in `85-86.

Only time will tell which way the scale will tip.

UT Weighs in on the Roberts Nomination

Aussiegirl has written a post at Ultima Thule which somewhat mirrors my own thoughts on the John Roberts nomination. She has sighted John Podhoretz, among others, and has dissected matters in her inimitable, crystal clear style. Check it out.

I am happy to say that Thomas Lifson, Editor of the American Thinker, strongly disagrees with my views on this; everything he knows strongly suggests that Roberts will make a first-rate Justice. Mr. Lifson is one of the brightest people around, so I may be all wet in my assessment. I hope and pray that he is right (and I hate being wrong), because I WANT Roberts to be a top conservative Jurist. I just have these nagging doubts...

Read for yourself and decide.

Patriots

It looks like the Colonists have had enough of the blackcoats! The citizens of Maplewood, Missouri, which is a suburb of St. Louis, are mad as hell, and aren`t going to take it anymore! They have forced the Mayor of Maplewood to issue a pledge not to use Eminent Domain to steal their homes (Maplewood has been terrible about it`s misuse of ED in the past.)

The Art of War

(This post may appear later in the week in the American Thinker. Editor Thomas Lifson wants to find a pro to pair with my con, so he didn`t want to post this up right away. I`ll keep everyone up-to-date.)



``One who knows when he can fight, and when he cannot fight, will be victorious``
Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Sun Tzu was an ancient, semi-mythical Chinese military tactician who wrote the definitive text on military strategy. His profound understanding of the martial arts so influenced the Orient that his writings were not permitted in unauthorized hands, lest they abet sedition. Sun Tzu taught, among other things, the importance of controlling the times and places of battles. Unfortunately, President Bush has neglected to read Sun Tzu, and his nomination of John Roberts for the Supreme Court may cost conservatives the war.

Today it seems every mouth is filled with praise for President Bush`s selection of John Roberts Jr. to fill Sandra Day O`Connor`s patent leather pumps on the Supreme Court, and everyone is admiring the political acumen displayed by the President in choosing someone with such a thin judicial resume` that he will be virtually untouchable politically. Who can argue with that? He is said to be conservative, althought he is not that objectionable to the liberals. He is the perfect candidate to avoid a hard, bitter confirmation battle with Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Durbin the Turban, Chucky Schumer, Huffing Hillary, and all of those other rampaging Tripods wreaking destruction in the Senate. (I`ve been going to too many movies lately!) He is a man of character and intelligence...

So, why be glum about this nomination? The reasons are twofold; It`s not a good idea putting a man in a lifelong position of imperial power without knowing EXACTLY what he is going to do once there, and it may be that our invertebrate friends in Washington have badly miscalculated the strategic importance of this nomination. I think the time has come for a showdown over judicial nominations, and I believe that the President has put off for tomorrow what he should have done today. I suspect we will all pay dearly for that.

To my first point regarding the coronation of a doctrinally unclear Justice, I merely need point to Sandra Day O`Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter. These Three Kings of Disorient are usually unable to find the map, much less locate where on said map they reside. We never can be sure which way these Justices will rule on any given case, and we have been treated to a treasure-trove of personal views and myopic thinking masquerading as Judicial Opinion. Bear in mind that these three Justices were supposed to be conservatives (or at least, not liberal), and they were appointed by Republican Presidents. Also, considering the fact that Earl Warren and Warren Burger were both Republican appointees who changed radically once they sat their derriere`s upon the judicial thrones; it should be obvious that anybody being seriously considered for the godhead should have a solid record on which to base their elevation to the holy of holies.

Which is precisely what we don`t have in the case of Judge Roberts; he has only been on the bench for a few short years, and does not have a sizable body of writing to analyze. According to John Tabin writing in The American Spectator Online:

On abortion, the issue that drives these debates (thanks again, Justice Blackmun), Roberts's record is not entirely clear. In 1990 he authored a brief for the first Bush administration that called for the overturning of Roe v. Wade, but that he presented his client's position tells us very little about whether he shares it (only that he wasn't so at odds with the administration that he would resign over it). He told the Judiciary Committee in 2003 that "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land....There is nothing in my personal views that would keep me from upholding it." Thus he respects "vertical" stare decisis on abortion -- the principle that lower courts must follow Supreme Court precedent. But that tells us nothing about his views on "horizontal" stare decisis, the idea that the Court should avoid overturning its own precedents.

In other words, we simply can`t tell which way Judge Roberts will go on abortion-or any other issue before the Court. We simply do not have a large enough body of writings from Roberts to be certain of his views; we are taking him on faith. The Republicans have a miserable success record with faith-based judicial nominees.

Even if my lack of confidence is totally unjustified, and John Roberts turns out to be a blend of Antonin Scalia and Ronald Reagan, I still find the President`s lilly-livered approach to this nomination quite disturbing. We have a war coming over judicial nominations, and the longer we wait to fight this battle the harder it will be to win. President Bush is determined to continue his ``duck and cover`` strategy (or, as he calls it, his ``New Tone``) which is merely a remodeling of the Newt Gingrich tenement shack which cost the Republicans seats in the 1998 off-year elections. The Democrat Tripods demolished that particular Hooverville when Newt tried it, and although they have had less success against Bush, they will eventually figure out some sort of message to campaign on and then the ``new tone`` will be trampled under foot as surely as New York in the recent Spielberg film. Bush`s ``new tone`` hides tone-deafness.

President Bush needs to understand when he should and should not fight. Since the election of 2000 the Democrats have fought tooth-and-nail to prevent him from appointing any judges, and Mr. Bush has sought to avoid a destructive showdown with his foes in the Senate. When the Senate Republicans were considering the ``nuclear option``, the change in Senate filibuster rules which would allow a simple majority to invoke cloture (rather than the 60 votes currently required) President Bush discouraged this maneuver. Everyone has known for some time that several Supreme Court seats would be coming vacant, and the Democrats have been preparing for war. Now the moment everyone has been waiting for has arrived, and the President has dodged the issue, appointing someone who will be easier to confirm.

Ronald Brownstein, writing in the L.A. Times, makes the case that this nomination will be a fight, but not a war. Brownstein states:

But in Roberts, a judge since 2003 on the powerful U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Bush also chose a nominee unlikely to inspire either the most enthusiasm among hard-core conservatives or the most intense opposition from Democrats and liberal groups.

In effect, Roberts may represent an effort to thread the needle in filling the court vacancy. The selection could offer Bush an opportunity to maximize his chance of a relatively smooth confirmation while minimizing the danger of either conservative disaffection or scorched-earth Democratic opposition.

It seems clear that the President is doing everything in his power to avoid a long and bitter confirmation battle. But is that a good idea at this point?

Why hasn`t Chief Justice Rehnquist retired? Probably because he is afraid that the Republicans will appoint another Souter, and his life`s work will melt away because of their cowardice. I suspect he has been waiting to see what happens with Sandra Day O`Connor`s seat. If it looks safe for him to leave, he will.

There is the rub. If Roberts confirmation hearing fails to erupt into a war, the Democrats will be in a decent position to attack Bush`s next nominee with all vigor; the war will have been postponed from 2005 to `06 or even `07, and the President may not be able to win at that point. The Democrats will be able to fire all of their guns, and they will be able to defend this action by claiming to have given Roberts a pass. Time is not on the President`s side. When Rehnquist retires (or passes away) the President will have a vacancy on the Court, as well as the nomination of a new Chief Justice. The stakes will be much higher. Will he be able to persuade his party to implement the ``nuclear option`` immediately before the midterm elections, or before the Presidential elections? Will a very lame-duck President be able to force his picks through before his term expires? The time to fight is now, not two years from now. President Bush has pushed this battle off into the future, and he can ill-afford it.

As Sun Tzu pointed out,``One who knows when he can fight, and when he cannot fight, will be victorious``. We needed to fight this judicial battle now to be victorious. If the tripods throw everything they have at Roberts, reneging on their deal with Senate Republicans and filibustering, Mssrs. Frist and Delay will be able to launch the nukes at them. If the Democrats wisely pursue a ``bloody nose`` strategy (make some fuss but then confirm) they will be in a position to stop the more critical appointments which the President will make later. Republicans needed to draw a line in the sand, and that should have been accomplished by the President selecting a verifiable, strong conservative. (The words ``confirmable`` should give us all great trepidation.)

Now, a scorpion stings because it is a scorpion, and the Democrats may not be able to control their bloodlust enough to recognize the mistake the President has made. Still, I hate to rely on their continual ineptitude for our success. We need to be smarter in our strategy, as well as willing to roll up our collective sleeves for some bare-knuckle politics.

I wish Mr. Bush would read his Sun Tzu.

McCain`s Closet

In a recent Drudge Report, America`s favorite Rhino, that Captain Qweeg of the Ship of State (I hope I`m spelling that correctly), the defender of free speach for the press, the man who is Still-in-Saigon, John McCain, has done a cameo in a raunchy new summer flick. In the interest of America`s time-honored tradition of yellow journalism, I thought I`d direct everyone to a nice load of nasty rumors and unprovable truths.
(Shoot, I could work for the New York Times!)

The site is called Skeleton Closet, and is chock full of ``over the fence`` gossip and downright nasty rumors about our ``bipartisan`` Senator. You also can check out other unproven innuendo and half-truths on many more of your favorites characters.

The Federalist on the War on Jihad

The Federalist has a great piece on the War on Jihad. This is the first of a three-part series, which I`ll try to bring in it`s entirety.


"National defense is one of the cardinal duties of a statesman." --John Adams

_____----********O********----______

THE PATRIOT PERSPECTIVE

Top of the fold -- U.S. National Security: Imminent Threats (Part one of a three-part series)

Since the dawn of the American Republic, perilous national-security threats were symmetric, emanating from clearly defined nation-states with unambiguous political, economic and geographical interests.

Such symmetric threats are tangible, which is to say that American political leaders have been able to define them sufficiently so that the American people could generally grasp what constituted "the enemy." World Wars I and II involved symmetric threats and well-defined adversaries. Military campaigns in Korea and Vietnam, on the other hand, lost public support because the purpose of those campaigns (and "the enemy" in the case of Vietnam) was not clearly defined, and thus, American casualties in those conflicts were not tolerated.

Regarding Vietnam, not only did Kennedy and Johnson err grievously in their arguments for escalating our involvement in that "police action," but they, and Nixon after them, had to contend with a new arbiter of presidential messages -- TV news networks, and their political agendas which were, and still are (with one exception), overwhelmingly left of center. The Leftmedia can completely undermine a President's call to rally public support against a national security adversary, unless that call is clear and concise.

Having learned hard lessons from Korea and Vietnam, George Bush(41) did a far better job of both defining the enemy and defining American objectives when it came time to engage Saddam Hussein's million-strong army in Desert Storm. The result was overwhelming public support. But defining the enemy and our objectives in the second round with Iraq has been much more difficult for Bush(43), because the enemy and our objective was, and remains much larger than just "containing Saddam."

There is an imminent national-security threat, which defies all the elements and definable characteristics of symmetric threats. Thus it is difficult to sustain public support in defense against this threat -- particularly when some American political leaders and their Leftmedia minions attempt to deny the threat in a brazen effort to undermine public support for the current administration. This political folly is tantamount to treason as there is, today, a clear and present danger of a catastrophic WMD attack against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.

Islamist terrorism is an asymmetric form of warfare, one that emerged in the late 1960s when Islamists inflicted terror first against Israel and Western military targets in the Middle East, and then, given rapid growth in the number of Jihadi adherents over two decades, striking targets in Europe. This threat congealed at the end of the Cold War, and in 1993 our homeland became a front line in this escalating conflict with Islamists.

On 26 February, 1993, Pakistani native Ramzi Ahmed Yousef and his al-Qa'ida terrorist brethren (who had entered the United States on Iraqi passports under the control of Iraqi intelligence) bombed the north tower of the World Trade Center in an effort to topple that tower into the south tower and inflict mass civilian casualties. Fortunately, due to Ramzi's lack of engineering knowledge, his crude truck-bomb didn't cause the collapse of the building, though it created a six-story crater in the parking garage.

Although Ramzi escaped, several other terrorists were captured and tried. Ramzi himself was finally arrested in 1995, as he was formulating plans to bomb simultaneously a number of U.S. international flights. After 1995, al-Qa'ida Jihadis focused on American targets abroad -- the Khobar Towers in 1996, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the U.S.S. Cole in 2000 -- all without reprisal from the Clinton administration.

In 2001, Ramzi's uncle, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (the number-three thug in the al-Qa'ida organization), and Ramzi's mentor, Jihadi sheik Osama bin Laden himself, revised Ramzi's plan. Rather than bombing civilian aircraft, they planned to hijack civilian aircraft simultaneously and use them as missiles. On 11 September of that year, one of al-Qa'ida's U.S. terrorist cells finished the business that Ramzi started almost a decade earlier, bringing down the twin towers of the World Trade Center and targeting the Pentagon and Capitol Building.

The intent of this Jihadi sleeper cell was not just to bring down the WTC towers, but also the U.S. economy, thus breaking the will of the American people in their effort to hold the line against Jihadi expansionism around the world.

On that Tuesday morning, the American people were awakened to an imminent threat to our homeland, and before noon that day, our collective sense of invincibility had all but vanished.

In reality, Western democracies, particularly those seen as the true beacons of liberty, have been at war with Jihadistan, that borderless nation of Islamic extremists that constitute al-Qa'ida and other Muslim terrorist groups, for at least a decade.

A borderless nation? Indeed. The "Islamic World" of the Quran recognizes no political borders. Though orthodox Muslims (those who subscribe to the teachings of the "pre-Medina" Quran) do not support acts of terrorism or mass murder, very large sects within the Islamic world subscribe to the "post-Mecca" Quran and Hadiths (Mohammed's teachings). It is this latter group of death-worshipping sects that calls for jihad, or "holy war," against "all the enemies of Allah." They thus constitute an enemy without borders -- a nation of "holy" warriors we at The Patriot call Jihadistan, in an effort to make this enemy more tangible.

Just who are these "enemies of Allah"? In the wake of the most recent Jihadi attacks, the murder of more than 50 civilians in London, a Muslim "scholar," Hani Al-Siba'I, leader of the Al-Maqreze Centre for Historical Studies in London, made clear just who these Islamist Jihadis consider to be their enemies.

"The term 'civilians' does not exist in Islamic religious law," said Hani. "There is no such term as 'civilians' in the modern Western sense. People are either of Dar Al-Harb or not." Dar Al-Harb refers to the House of War -- anyone who is outside the House of Islam or the Muslim faith. In other words, if you are not Muslim, you are an infidel, the enemy of Allah. Even if you are Muslim, but advocate political and economic liberty for your brethren, you are a target. (Consider the number of Muslim citizens in Iraq murdered daily by Jihadis.)

How many members of the Muslim faith subscribe to the notion that non-adherents are infidels? Perhaps fewer than five percent of all Muslims take such a hard line. But to put this in perspective, if just one percent of Muslims worldwide inhabit the national brotherhood of Jihadistan, then there are ten times more Jihadis than there are uniformed American combat personnel in our military service branches.

There has been much hand-wringing this past week by those who just can't understand how four "British" citizens could have carried out the London bombings against their fellow citizens. But the attackers were not British citizens -- they were Jihadi warriors first and foremost. Until Western leaders can clearly articulate this distinction, such attacks will continue to be viewed as detached incidents of terrorism -- and not part of a uniform warfront with Jihadistan. Thus, rallying public support for that warfront will remain a daunting task.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration has yet to articulate this distinction in such a way that the American people, who tend to have a very short collective attention span when it comes to national-security issues, can grasp. Thanks to the 24-hour news cycle, millions of Americans can recite all the sordid details about a runaway bride, a celebrity child molestation case and a girl missing in Aruba. But these same Americans know almost nothing about an adversary, which is actively seeking to slaughter us by the tens of thousands.

Fortunately, the Bush administration understands our Jihadi adversary well. As President George Bush correctly noted in October of 2001, "Our war on terror begins with al-Qa'ida, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. ... This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion."

Because Jihadistan lacks any central governing authority (other than the Islamist protagonist of the day -- currently Osama bin Laden) or any central funding mechanism (other than the Saudi government and Islamist support groups in the West), its methods are unconventional. That is to say, it will use the most devastating weapon in its arsenal to succeed in its objective of destroying "the infidels."

Indeed, given that objective, and past performance, what's to prevent surrogate terrorists from detonating a fissionable weapon in a U.S. urban center? The answer -- nothing short of a determined Doctrine of Preemption as outlined by the President Bush, and a good measure of fortune -- the continued grace of God.

And Government Taketh Away

This article in CNS News warns that Churches are especially threatened by the Supreme Court decision KELO vs. NEW LONDON, in which the Court greatly expanded the powers of Eminent Domain to allow governments to seize property for developement (or non-developement).

Sandra Day O`Conner, in one of her more lucid opinions, sees danger here:

In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor described the slippery slope she believes the court's majority created with its decision.

"[T]he Court today significantly expands the meaning of public use," O'Connor wrote. "It holds that the sovereign may take private property currently put to ordinary private use, and give it over for new, ordi\-nary private use, so long as the new use is predicted to generate some secondary benefit for the public -- such as increased tax revenue, more jobs, maybe even aesthetic pleasure."

O'Connor voiced another concern, one that resonated with groups advocating on behalf of religious rights. She warned that in expanding the definition of "public use," the majority had come close to embracing "the absurd argument that ... any church that might be replaced with a retail store ... is inherently harmful to society, and thus within the government's power to condemn."

Let`s face it, folks; local and regional governments are going to look to their own interests, and they will seize property if they think they can derive some benefit. Certainly Churches will be easy pickings for them. That was the whole point of the Bill of Rights; it was to constrain government from acting like, well, government! To paraphrase-the Lord giveth, and government taketh away. The Founding Fathers understood this.

I believe that Environmentalists are going to catch on to this, and use it profitably to tie up large amounts of real property. I own land in the Ozarks, land which I purchased from a local who had purchased it from a timber company. This particular company buys and sells large amounts of property, logging select sites when the trees mature, then selling it off. I can see the Sierra Club greasing palms at the County Seat to get the County Planning Commission to seize this property through Eminent Domain and declare it parkland. Compensation would be low, and our local timber companies would go belly-up, but that`s a small price to pay for our friends at the Sierra Club! (Actually, this particular example probably wouldn`t work since logging is just about the ONLY industry in Reynolds County. It would work fine in most other counties in Missouri.)

This was a terrible Court decision, and we will be suffering from it for a long, long time.

The Little Weasel

It looks like the British didn`t learn their lesson. Following the terrorist bombings in London, MP`s were falling over themselves in the mad rush to pass legislation granting Moslems special protection under the law.

What heinous acts of hatred spurred this? Somebody threw a rock through a Mosque window! Oh the horror! It`s clear that the British populace is out of control, with mobs rampaging the streets breaking out one whole window in their fury at the poor, innocent Moslem terrorists!!! Had Parliament not acted, we would have been treated to such abominable acts as toilet papering trees and lawn jobs. Oh, the Humanity!

I am confident that British law offers adequate protections to people of all Religions. Why does the British government feel it necessary to grant special rights and protections to a minority group (hate crimes laws can only be described as special rights), a group which happens to engage in vitriolic rhetoric against their host country and launches occasional terrorist attacks?

We have the answer to that one; the British are engaging in appeasement. They want to ``Covenant`` with the Islamic World, offering safe harbor in return for peace. They`ll stand by us in Iraq, but won`t clean out the rats nest of terrorist thugs at home. They believed up until the London bombings (and, obviously, Parliament still believes) that peace can be bought. Didn`t they learn anything from Churchill?

Perhaps they should study the statistics. Although this recent poll shows that support for terrorism is dropping in the Islamic World, there are still a majority which favors violence to attain their ends, and, of all peoples, the British should understand that they can`t play games here.

Why are so many Moslems living in Britain? That is the question that Parliament should be asking. There really is no reason for Britain to have such a sizable Islamic minority. What is attracting Moslems? Is it the food? Is it the pub scene? The wonderful weather? Or is there something which can`t be had in France or Holland, something which a Moslem would value more highly?

What attracts people to the United States? People come here for freedom. I suspect Moslems are going to Britain for freedom also, but not the freedom we think of when we use the term. I suspect the Imams are looking for OPERATIONAL freedom, the freedom to function and act without fear of being stopped. It looks like Britain is supplying that freedom, and will continue to supply it in the future.

Britain had better face the facts; terrorists have an insatiable appetite for destruction, and they will feed wherever they can find prey. If they aren`t successful abroad, they will strike at home. This, I think, was as much a factor as any; terrorists were finding it difficult to strike at the ``Great Satan`` so they chose instead to attack the Little Weasel (the weasel being so much easier.)

Covenants do not matter to these people. Britain had better learn that lesson now, or they will learn it in a far more painful fashion later.

No Border Worries In Washington

Once again, our friends in Congress have betrayed us on border security. Controlling our borders is the most fundamental reason for a central government; without border control we do not have a nation, and that is the first duty of the Federal Government. If Congress does not wish to exercise border control, perhaps it is time to rethink their role.

I found Sen. Schumer`s argument particularly myopic:

But Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, said the amendments would sap funds from local law enforcement.
"That's the problem here. It's not in strengthening the borders. It's in taking away money from the people every day who defend us and, since 9/11, have new duties," he said.

Doesn`t it occur to Mr. Schumer that stopping terrorists (and criminals) at the border is preferable to funding police and firefighters to respond after a tragedy has occured? Why are we in Afghanistan? Because we attacked the terrorists at their source. Even the liberal Democrats understood that we had to go after Bin-Laden overseas, and not wait for him to come to us. Yet here we seem to be inviting terrorists and criminals to roam about freely within the United States, preferring to spend our money on ``first responders`` who clean up the messes after these terrorists and criminals have attacked at a place and time of their choosing. (We have completely forgotten the ``War on Drugs``, choosing to allow anyone to smuggle narcotics into the country. Drugs are at the heart of a good deal of crime in America, I might add.) What fools we mortals be!

Even if we could make the claim that all illegals were decent folks seeking employment, we still have to face the fact that the United States will disappear as a credible entity if we do not restrict their entry into the country. I used the very conservative numbers from the liberal PEW Hispanic Center for my article in the American Thinker, and the actual numbers could be as high as 10 times the number I used. We could have as many as 10 million illegals entering per year! (I know that recently I have been seeing Hispanics in parts of town they never inhabited, and I have a pretty good idea that they are illegals, given the way they stare at me when I visit one of our properties in the course of my workday.) The population of the United States is only 290 million. Assuming we have 10 million illegals currently residing in the country, how long will it take for the United States to become part of Latin America? If we use the high figures, 20 years! As I pointed out in Barbarian Invasions, the Roman Empire was destroyed in a mere 100 years by illegal immigration, and this occured without automobiles or serious modern infrastructure, without free medical care, welfare, etc. One must assume that the invasion of America will progess much more swiftly than Rome`s, and it is reasonable to assume that America will die much more quickly from it.

The fact is, we simply cannot digest such a large influx. These are people who do not intend to enculturate, who have come merely to benefit from what America has to offer. They are, well, alien culturally, and they will kill the goose that laid the golden egg by destroying the culture which created the prosperity they seek.

Of course, if uneducated migrant workers can enter illegally, so can anybody else who wishes. I read on Free Republic a message in response to my article calling me an idiot because, as they say, the terrorists will fly in on planes legally. Such weak reasoning proves our public school system is in serious need of reform. We have lists of known terrorists who will find it difficult to fly in, but would have no trouble flying in to Mexico and then taking the underground railroad into the land of the free. Also, they could carry things in which would be impossible on a commercial flight-things such as biologically active agents, dangerous chemicals, or radioactive material. (We know the Russians cannot account for all of their ``suitcase nukes``.) Terrorists could land a boat near Ensenada, say, and pack a suitcase nuke across the border to use on Los Angeles. This could be prevented if we would make a reasonable effort at stopping these people at the border. It is the first, most fundamental means of terror prevention.

I realize I`m covering old ground to regular readers of Birdblog, but I feel it is too important. The Republicans have control of both Houses of Congress, as well as the Presidency, and we are still getting shafted with this kind of crap. There is no sensible reason for this. The Republicans and President Bush are out in left field on this issue, and they may well split their party over this. They need to stop being so greedy for cheap labor, and start thinking about the future well-being of the Republic!

Some Good News

Good News on the Terror Front, according to John Tabin in TAS this morning.

Baby Blues

Is this really Al Gore?


Willie Windsor, 54, of Phoenix has for several years lived as a full-time baby, wearing frilly dresses, diapers and bonnets, sucking on a pacifier, eating Gerber cuisine, and habitually clutching a rag doll, in a home filled with oversized baby furniture. According to a long Phoenix New Times profile in June, the diaper is not just a prop. Windsor said he worked hard to become incontinent, even chaining the commode shut to avoid temptation, and the reporter admitted feeling "disconcert(ed)" that Windsor might be relieving himself at the very moment he was describing his un-toilet training. Apparently, Windsor's brother, ex-wife, girlfriend and a neighbor tolerate his lifestyle (though no girlfriend has yet been willing to change his diapers). Windsor is a semi-retired singer-actor and said he's been celibate for nine years. [Phoenix New Times, 6-9-05]

York On The Plame Game

Byron York has a must read piece over at NRO about the Plame Game. Don`t miss this one!

Tran Sient Weighs In On Plamegate

Tran Sient has a piece which dovetails nicely with my post on the whole Rove/Plame business. Everyone should definitely read this one!

Where Is The Outcry?

Robert Bidinotto has written an outstanding piece questioning the deafening silence from the Islamic community over continuing terrorism. This is an absolute must read!

Wilson`s Tempest in a Sweet Mint Teapot

I was over at Gindy`s where I chimed in on a discussion about this whole Valerie Plame affair. It seems to me that there is a great deal of ignorance about this situation, and I did a quick rundown on what actually occured (and tried to straighten out some liberals who the brilliant but mannerly Gindy was too gentlemanly to browbeat.) I decided this would make a good post here at Birdblog.

Joe Wilson had been in the Foreign Service, reaching his peak immediately prior to Gulf War I when he was acting Ambassador to Iraq, and made a name for himself by getting people out before the bombs dropped. He was then appointed in `92 to be Ambassador to Gabon. Now, such plum positions as Ambassador to Gabon are usually reserved for high-powered diplomats who have previously worked as power brokers in such demanding positions as the mail room, the secretarial pool, and the janitorial staff. That Wilson could qualify for such duty speaks volumes about his competence and importance. Wilson served throughout the Clinton years, retiring from his Ambassadorship in 1995. (It`s interesting to note that he calls himself George Bush`s Ambassador despite serving during the Clinton years. Also, voluntary retirement is at age 50 in the CIA, and Wilson retired at age 48! hmmm..) After the election of George W. in 2000, Wilson dropped out of government service, living off of his status as former ambassador, and off of his wife Valerie Plame`s CIA salary.

Wilson was notorious for being politically partisan, and he hated the ``neocons`` whom he saw as subverting the government. He once stated that they had taken over the government and that he intended to do everything in his power to bring them down. He made the following statement in the left wing The Nation magazine:


Then what's the point of this new American imperialism? The neoconservatives with a stranglehold on the foreign policy of the Republican Party, a party that traditionally eschewed foreign military adventures, want to go beyond expanding US global influence to force revolutionary change on the region. American pre-eminence in the Gulf is necessary but not sufficient for the hawks. Nothing short of conquest, occupation and imposition of handpicked leaders on a vanquished population will suffice. Iraq is the linchpin for this broader assault on the region. The new imperialists will not rest until governments that ape our worldview are implanted throughout the region, a breathtakingly ambitious undertaking, smacking of hubris in the extreme. Arabs who complain about American-supported antidemocratic regimes today will find us in even more direct control tomorrow.

Ambassador Wilson can hardly be considered a non-biased or moderate voice, considering statements like that, yet he was constantly referred to in those terms by a media hell-bent on embarassing President Bush.

Wilson says he was approached by the CIA for his mission to Niger. What he failed to mention, and what he has vigorously denied, is that the person who approached him was his wife, Valerie Plame. Now, this is an important point. It proves that a.Wilson is a liar (according to Robert Novak.) and b.there is something fishy about this entire expedition. No one at CIA will admit to giving the go-ahead on Wilson`s big adventure. No one outside of the CIA has any recollection of suggesting Wilson go. The question arises-why would the CIA send a barely competent ambassador to conduct an investigation of this magnitude? Wilson had no investigative experience, no knowledge of investigative methods, and any people he knew in Niger in the `80`s were probably no longer in the loop. Yet, according to the Ambassador, his country needed him, and when the call came he heroically answered.

So what did Wilson actually do? He sat in a hotel lobby at tea-time and engaged anybody who passed in conversation. Gee! His approach smacks of genius! Those man-in-the-street interviews are guaranteed to get secret information! Wilson also mentions speaking to a couple of government officials, and insists that they said they were clean. I seem to remember James Carville and Paul Begala saying Clinton was clean when asked about Monica Lewinski, and they never really changed their answer despite a little stain...

So, our brave hero goes to Niger, sits around in Kaffeklatch with passing tourists, then returns home to write a report for the CIA. Ooops, wrong again! He (supposedly) delivers an oral report to the CIA (no one seems to remember talking to him) then immediately writes an Op-Ed claiming that President Bush made up the entire Yellowcake story to get us into war. He does not feel bound to maintain confidentiality (which a CIA agent would) but blabs to all and sundry the story of his ``mission`` and how those evil Neocons have hijacked the World.

Meanwhile, according to numerous reports both here and in Britain, shoeless Joe (he couldn`t do any legwork in Niger) turns out to be dead wrong and the accusations that Iraq tried to buy yellowcake uranium proved to be true! Do we hear a retraction, either from our hero, or from the mainstream press? Nooo! Instead, we are treated to a new line of attack.

Valerie Plame, Wilson`s dear sweet wife, had worked undercover at the CIA years before, but had been working as an analyst at Langley. (Analysts are not undercover.) Robert Novak, writing about the affair, chose the unfortunate term ``operative`` to describe Plame. This set off a firestorm in the media and with Democrats, both of whom were eager for any kind of scandal to use against the President. Clifford May, writing in National Review, explains this in better detail. For a crime to be committed, the leaker has to knowingly divulge the information against someone who is currently classed as ``covert``. Plame`s identity was common knowledge, and she was listed at Who`s Who in America as working for the CIA! This hardly warrants the hysterical reaction we have seen.

The Democrats and Media insisted on an investigation of the ``leak``, and now they think they have something with some innocuous comments from Karl Rove. This is the moment they have been waiting for! They think they can bring down Rove, and perhaps will have grounds for Impeaching the President! (They have been determined to find a way to pay back for Bill Clinton, and have been grasping at any hint of scandal in the hopes that they can stick something to Bush.) Now they think they have found something, and they will pursue this will all vigor. You doubt that? This is an old strategy from their moth-eaten playbook. Remember James Watt? He was Reagan`s Secretary of the Interior, and the Democrats and Media hounded him out of office. Remember the abuse Alexander Haig received? Remember the effort to bring down George H.W. Bush over Iran-Contra? We can go back even further; remember Spiro Agnew? Hillary Clinton and Richard Ben Venista worked to get Agnew removed and wanted the Democrats to not confirm Gerald Ford as Vice President, so the Democrat House Speaker would become President (in other words, they wanted a coup.) Baseless accusations of scandal and malfeasence are mother`s milk to them.

Consider the accusations of wrongdoing against President Bush. He was falsely accused of ducking his military service, of using war to promote profits for his ``oil buddies``, of being stupid and a puppet of Dick Cheney (just as Reagan was accused of being stupid and a puppet of Alex Haig), of using the 911 attacks to make himself emperor, of encouraging torture at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, of lying to America to start a needless war. Cheney has been accused on the floor of the Senate (by Patrick Leahy) of starting the Iraq war to make money for his ``oil buddies`` (so much for Senatorial ``comity``; it only applies to Republicans.) How about the abuse of John Ashcroft.

Now the forces of darkness (Democrats and Media) are trying to use an off-handed comment to the Prince of Darkness (Robert Novak) to bring down President Bush`s chief political advisor. They believe Karl Rove is some sort of mad scientist, and in complete control of the stupid President, because, as John Kerry said, ``I can`t believe we are losing to this guy.`` Surely, Rove is engaged in some evil machinations which have been costing the pure and innocent Democrats elections. If only they can get rid of Rove...

They simply cannot accept that their day is past, and that, with the advent of the internet, talk radio, and Fox News, their stranglehold on the dissemination of information is broken, and with that their power. They are unwilling to face that their philosophy has been proven wrong by the forces of history, and that America knows it. They care more for their own power than for the security of the nation, and they can no longer hide that fact, so their options have dwindled to ankle-biting and mosquito buzzing.

What they don`t understand is that America is learning the truth about them, and that they can no longer tar and feather their enemies.

For more on information, check out this, and this from Clifford May.