.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

The Asylum

Welcome to the Asylum. This is a site devoted to politics and current events in America, and around the globe. The THREE lunatics posting here are unabashed conservatives that go after the liberal lies and deceit prevalent in the debate of the day. We'd like to add that the views expressed here do not reflect the views of other inmates, nor were any inmates harmed in the creation of this site.

Location: Mesa, Arizona, United States

Who are we? We're a married couple who has a passion for politics and current events. That's what this site is about. If you read us, you know what we stand for.

Saturday, April 30, 2005

Passing Thoughts In Life’s Rearview Mirror…

This month had it’s fair share of news stories. Both of us tackled a handful of subjects. We even dealt with a couple that a few people wished we quit covering. But to be a blogger requires more than just a change of subjects. We change subjects when a topic hits a lull, or it meets it’s resolution, but we do not give up on something simply because others get bored; we blog on topics that many people are focused on, and depend to have as close to up-to-the minute information regarding a topic as possible. And so without further adieu, we will move onto our monthly recap.

We’ll save the best for last, and I’ll start off with the nomination and vetting process revolving around John Bolton. Now, the Democrats in the Senate have played "dirty pool" for awhile on the president’s nominees, and Bolton is no different. They have tried to characterize this man as some sort of noxious demon, spewing hate and anger on all those that have worked with him. They dig up employees from years ago that have testified that Bolton was mean to them. B-O-O H-O-O. The man expects and demands the best, and he delivers the best. This constant caterwauling over him serves no real purpose in this, other than to show how spiteful the Democrats have become. This man is qualified to handle the job he’s been nominated for. For those not keeping score, he’s been nominated as the new ambassador to the UN, and he’s the kind of guy that isn’t going to take crap from anyone, especially from a corrupt organization like the United Nations. He is going to butt heads. It’s about time. This organization hasn’t stood for democracy and freedom in years.

Fresh off the blogosphere today, we have an update regarding Giuliani Sgrena. You remember her, right? I blogged on her on my old site, and for awhile we heard nothing from her. This month we heard that the Italian government—as a part of their own independent investigation—stated that the US military was responsible for the death of Calipari, the intelligence officer sent to retrieve her. The problem is her story stunk from the start, and today we find out why. She lied. She lied from the start, she impugned our troops honor and integrity, and now I want this woman’s head on a platter. We have satellite telemetry that tracked the incident, and it shows that the car she was in was not traveling at slow speeds. It was going 60 mph, and they were not slowing down for checkpoints. They did not slow down at the one to the road leading to the airport, and our troops responded as they should have. It is sad that Calipari died, but the fault does not lie at our soldier’s feet. It lies with Calipari, and how he handled that operation.

Wonder of wonders, Syria finished it’s pullout of Lebanon. After weeks of pro-Lebanon, pro-democracy rallies, Syria finally had enough and pulled out. Don’t be fooled by the UN attempting to take credit for this act; this action is on Pres. Bush’s plate. He proved that the Bush Doctrine works. Freedom in the Middle-East is a possibility, and the people being subjugated by the ruling class, clerics, dictators, etc., want the same freedom they’re witnessing in Afghanistan and Iraq. And now it’s even more prevalent than ever. Egypt is promising free elections. Saudi Arabia is contemplating allowing women to vote ((GASP)) in their next elections. Even Iran is having problems now. The countries in the Middle-East are feeling the push from their citizens, and those citizens aren’t backing down. They want freedom. They want democracy. It is, as Machiavelli observes, a natural tendency among human beings to be free. Those nations are learning a painful lesson taught so long ago, and has been long since disregarded. Hmmm. I wonder if the Left needs a refresher lesson in The Discourses.

Last month, Pope John Paul II passed away. His legacy within the Church will live; a fact evident to the Church during the funeral as people chanted to have John Paul II sainted, and remembered as "John Paul the Great". But the cardinals elected a man that will probably change little, and be around only a short time. Cardinal Joseph Ratinzger was elevated to the papacy thanks to the college of Cardinals. He was an excellent choice, and one that my other half predicted handily. Thomas stood behind his prediction of Ratzinger until the day it was officially announced, and it made perfect sense. Ratzinger will hold true to many of the ideals that John Paul II held tightly to, and he will prize the youth above all others; they are the future of the Church. Yes, many "liberal" Catholics would have preferred to see a more "progressive" pope, but there is no room for such right now in history. We are at a turning point in history, much like John Paul II was when he was elected. Benedict XVI, as Ratzinger chose as his papacy name, will serve the Church well.

And now we move onto the subject that we have hammered on since it first hit the airwaves in the media. The Senate GOP is going to call for the Constitutional Option to be invoked, breaking a thirty year old rule that has just recently been latched onto by the Democrats. They have been filibustering, or threatening to, the president’s judicial nominees. This is an act with so much malfeasance behind it that it’s not funny. They know what their proper role regarding "advise and consent" is, and they’re disregarding it. Not only do they do so to the detriment of the judiciary and the executive branch, but also to the nation. These people are qualified to hold a seat on the federal bench, but the Democrats have decided that these people are "too extreme" for the bench. And I ask, especially after the ABA said they were perfectly qualified to hold these posts, where the extremity is that they keep talking about.

Extreme to the Left involves interpreting the law properly, and that is something they can ill afford right now. They cannot win at the ballot box, so they are using the act of judicial fiat to pass their agenda. And this is where it gets very precarious in the years to come; in the months to come. These ten jurists that Pres. Bush has nominated will almost surely end up being nominated for a post on the Supreme Court. Rehnquist is not well, and has not been for months. He has said he will step down with the high court finishes it’s session. There are others, including O’Connor and Ginsburg that have hinted they are about ready to step down themselves. Should the GOP not force this issue—force the Constitutional Option—we may be facing a judicial crisis we cannot afford to face. We must be able to balance the high court with a originalist jurist or two. But if the rules stay within the status quo, it will never happen, and we cannot tolerate such acts from a petulant party pissed about being out of power.

Many a heated subject hit the papers and the TVs this month. Nothing compared to the numerous stories revealed by bloggers. Many were worthwhile, and others weren’t. We touched on the things we paid attention to. Each and every one of them was worth the time it took to address them. Sure, we had our favorites, but we also have an obligation to you, our readers, to hit the subjects that were substantive to the nation as a whole. Benedict XVI was important. So was the Syrian withdrawal. But the most important issue we hit this month, and one that is sure to carry over to May, was the Constitutional Option. All the above subjects were worth significant note, and we are happy that all our readers enjoyed every little rant, and every little update we touched on. Thanks for reading!

Publius II & The Bunny ;)

Friday, April 29, 2005

Wisdom From The Other Side Of The Aisle? That Is A Miracle…

The Washington Times had a "shock-me" story today. Harry Reid, while attempting to make sense on the floor of the Senate yesterday stated: "I would like to think a miracle would happen and we would pick up five seats this time." Harry Reid is all but admitting that the Democrats need a miracle to win back seats in the Senate. He knows that the party has a problem.

With mounting scrutiny from the public over the Bolton nomination and the judicial nominees—nominees being a primary point for the GOP platform in 2004—and an alternative media that has just brow-beat the Senate practically to death, Reid knows that his options are limited now. He knows that the Democrats are going to lose the Bolton nomination. They lost the Condi nomination, but for more than just their petty squabbles regarding how qualified she was.

Condi is a stake in the hearts of the Left. She is a successful, intelligent, well-educated, and accomplished young black woman. She has a keen mind that has been displayed to quite a few dignitaries and heads-of-state since being confirmed as Secretary of State. The relationships she garnered as National Security Advisor added to her experience when she took over the post originally held by Colin Powell.

Alberto Gonzales is a incredibly successful lawyer, with a good head for the law when it comes to the Constitution. Yes, he does have the occasional socially-liberal idea, but I can live with that. His role as Attorney General makes him the chief law enforcement officer in the United States, and he knows what is right and what is wrong when it comes to following the laws of the land. The Left attacked him for his involvement in Abu Ghraib—a totally media-driven "scandal" to begin with. Never mind the fact that it took the alternative media less than five minutes to refute what the media was saying. (Final note to the MSM: It was not torture, and even if it were, the Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists; it grants them no protections at all.)

Reid and his gang in the Senate are blocking little ol’ John Bolton because of why? They do not like his mustache? He is a little gruff? He will not take any crap from the UN? Take your pick. I am sure they pick and choose everyday they rise. They are also blocking the judges, and again I ask why? They are too religious for a few? They abide by the proper interpretation of the Constitution?

The constant obstructionism to every little thing the president presents is getting a bit old. Brian Nick, spokesman for the NRSC, said it best.

"Senator Reid can do the math: A Democratic Party, plus no ideas, plus obstruction, plus over-the-top partisan rhetoric equals continued minority."

And that is exactly why they keep losing at the ballot box. Their rhetoric has been beyond spiteful. During the confirmation hearings and the Senate vote, one would have thought that Condi Rice and Alberto Gonzales were Joseph Goebbels and Herman Goering. The Democrats, from day one of the president’s first time, portrayed his as weak, as a liar, as someone willing to step on those below him, as a person determined to take us back to Puritan times, etc. We have all heard the quotes, time and again. They are repulsive and retarded; at times the wailing of petulant child.

There obstructionism is well-known, from judicial nominees on down the line of nominees. They dragged their heels when the president asked them for the approval to go to war, and then when the focus shifted to Iraq, they dragged their heels again. Senators like John Kerry voted against more appropriations for the troops in harm’s way. In committee they slashed the president’s request for more funds. This party does not like the president, and at every turn has tried to hinder him.

And their ideas are "nothing new". It is the same-old, same-old from the Democrats. Just throw more money at the problems, and eventually they will go away. That is not a solution. The rhetoric regarding the president’s ideas for reforming Social Security is getting a bit meaner. Especially on the heels of his press conference from last night. The Democrats do not want Social Security fixed for future generations. They want it left alone because they think it is fine, and the president has overblown the numbers regarding Social Security. One simple fact they cannot refute is that by the mid-2020’s, Social Security will be on the verge of collapse due to the ratio of people paying into it as opposed to those withdrawing from it.

Phil Singer, spokesman for the DSCC, had this to say. It is his interpretation of Reid’s comments. "If the Republicans keep abusing their power, it won't take such a miracle." He believes that Reid was referring to the Constitutional Option showdown that is building in the Senate. And I would like to point out something very important to Mr. Singer. The GOP has not abused it’s power. The Democrats are abusing theirs, or lack thereof, and have been bolstered by GOP RINOs like John McCain and Lincoln Chaffee. The more the Democrats keep the abuse up in the Senate, on the TV screens, in the papers, and across the ‘Net, people will walk away from them. They have been walking since 1994, and the Democrats keep losing. So yes, Reid is right. It will take a miracle to take back just one of the houses of Congress.

The Bunny ;)

Another Ignored-By-The-MSM Scandal…

Despite what many people dislike about Dick Morris, he’s a good man, and possesses a near-"Rovian" political mind. He helped put Clinton in office, and for some time, was close to the Clintons. He has been around them enough, known them long enough, and worked with them enough that I would consider him an expert on them. Both of his books regarding their memoirs are a scathing indictment of both, and the ends they will go to in achieving their goals.

On Monday, Dick Morris wrote in the New York Post about a new scandal that is about to rock the Clintons. It focuses around David Rosen, the national Director of Hillary’s 2000 Senate bid, and he’s facing federal charges that if found guilty, he could face up to fifteen years in prison. And he really has it hard because Hillary is doing her best to distance herself from this.

The media’s refusal to cover this scandal is typical. They "questioned" Hillary’s motives for taking tougher stances on issues like national security and immigration. They were "amazed" at how many Democrats were following her lead. And they announced her "shift" from liberal to moderate. Their infatuation with this woman is pathetic, and I’d just like to point out something to the MSM: Mainstream America isn’t fooled, you dolts. Those on the right predicted she would have to shift, and while you praise her for her tough and idealistic shift, we know she’s simply blowing bravo-sierra up everyone’s skirts. They won’t cover it as long as there’s a chance it could reflect badly on her.

As Morris has pointed out before, the Clintons take careful note of what they do, how they do it, and when they do it. In other words, they have control over every facet of their lives. That goes double for Hillary. Too many stories over the past twelve years have shown that this woman is a taskmaster, that she is prone to let her very vindictive anger slip, and that she is not above being violent. And the Democrats thought Bolton was bad.

Under the arcane rules of the Federal Election Commission at the time, campaigns could use soft money to pay for fund-raising events — provided the gathering's costs came to 40 percent or less of the total of hard money raised. (Soft money was far easier to raise: Donors could give up to $25,000 of soft money, but only $1,000 of hard money).

Hillary's Hollywood gala that raised $1 million in hard money that August. This meant that the campaign could use soft money to pay for all costs up to $400,000. David Rosen conveniently reported to the campaign treasurer that the event did, indeed, cost $400,000, avoiding the necessity of spending any hard money on the affair.

But the federal indictment of Rosen, FBI affidavits and the testimony of the event organizers — Peter Paul and Aaron Tonkin — all confirm that the extravaganza's true cost was at least $1.2 million. Press leaks suggests that the feds may have Rosen on tape acknowledging that he understated the cost of the event on purpose.

Here's why he would have done it: If the real cost of the event were $1.2 million instead of $400,000, the campaign would have had to use hard money to make up the difference. The Hillary Clinton campaign would have had $800,000 less of hard money to spend running TV ads and funding get-out-the-vote operations.
And, at the time of that fund-raiser, Rick Lazio, the GOP candidate, had challenged Hillary to refuse to accept soft money. He found himself awash in hard money — small checks from Hillary haters across the country. But First Lady Hillary Clinton was heavily dependent on large checks from fat-cat donors whom she and the president wined, dined, photographed, and hosted at the White House. And these folks gave a lot more than $1,000 each.

Hillary temporized and delayed, but the handwriting was on the wall. On Sept. 24, the candidates agreed on a soft-money ban. Now she had to pay for it all with hard money. And she was hard up for hard money.

So if Rosen had owned up to the full cost of the fundraiser, the campaign would have had to cough up $800,000 of hard money at exactly the time that it needed the funds the most.

So, we come back to two very important questions. The first is did Hillary know? According to Morris, Tonkin and Paul she did know. And Rosen knows how closely Hillary followed her money in that campaign. She literally knew where every dime was spent. So, why wouldn’t she know about something that saved her $800,000 in hard money donations? I doubt she can play dumb on this end of the scandal. Is it really going to hang her? Possibly, but I think she’s got enough cronies to run damage control for her. When it comes time for her to run—either for the senate or the Presidency—the only way this gains traction is if the bloggers keep digging.

The second question is just how far Rosen is willing to go. She’s already distancing herself from him. He’s no long-term ally to either one of them. And essentially, I’m sure Hillary is hoping he’ll just fall on his sword like a good little expendable crony. Too bad she couldn’t get Raymond Reggie to fall on his. He helped the FBI on the Rosen case.

But what if he doesn’t? He is the key person in the entire investigation, and as of yet, he’s kept Hillary as far as possible. But wait until those JD lawyers start in on him. If he does finally sing, Hillary will probably have some ‘splaining to do.

Publius II

Arianna's Wacky New Endeavor...

Picked up on this wonderful story from the Guardian. Tim Dowling got a little taste of what Arianna is putting forth when it comes to blogging. And after seeing this little tid-bit, Arianna had better reconsider this move.

Welcome!!!!! posted by "Huff" on Mon May 9 2005 at 09:00 PDT
Hi everybody! Allow me to introduce my innovative new publishing venture, a groundbreaking "group blog", where over 250 creative minds from every corner of my Rolodex weigh in on topics ranging from the political to the personal, and anything in between! Well, that's enough from me - let's blog!

comments 0 :: trackbacks 0 :: post a comment

Not bad for an opening post, and it provides promise. But as you will see with this preview, there is anything but promise. Arianna's site is not going to have the edge and information that regular bloggers provide; she definitely cannot compete against the elite of the blogosphere like Hewitt, Lileks, LGF, PowerLine, etc. Below are more posts, and the "creative minds" involved have little to add in terms of serious discussion.

Great New Experiment in Democracy, posted by "Huff" on Mon May 9 at 09:02 PDT
The "blogosphere" is the biggest leap forward in journalism since the days of Tom Paine, a unique opportunity to tap directly into the cultural bloodstream. But I'm not here to put words in anyone's mouth, I'm just providing the megaphone!

comments 0 :: trackbacks 0 :: post a comment

A New Kind of Communication, posted by "Huff" on Mon May 9 at 09:07 PDT
Instant, interactive, intelligent, informed; reaching out across the political spectrum. What? Did everybody forget their passwords already?

comments 0 :: trackbacks 0 :: post a comment

I can't think of anything to say, posted by G Paltrow on Mon May 9 at 09:21 PDT
Arianna: its rlly uncool whn my cell rings during pilates. i said id post whn & if i had something to say. rt now im just too busy. stop bugging me.

comments 0 :: trackbacks 0 :: post a comment

Another Cutting Edge Contribution, posted by "Huff" on Mon May 9 at 09:23 PDT
Cantankerous, unafraid and always outspoken, that's Gwyneth (Paltrow) to a tee! You can expect to be hearing a lot more from her on Huffingtonpost.com, on a whole variety of subjects!

comments 0 :: trackbacks 0 :: post a comment

Does anyone know how to get red wine stains out of a wool carpet? posted by NORMAN MAILER on Mon May 9 at 10:14 PDT
I'm screwed if my wife sees this. I'm not even supposed to drink in that room. I've been scrubbing but that just seems to spread the stain around. A quick answer would be most appreciated.

comments 0 :: trackbacks 0 :: post a comment

I think I'm going to run for president, posted by WarrenBeatty on Mon May 9 at 10:39 PDT
You heard it here first, people. The official announcement will be on Jay Leno on Wednesday. Most of you know that I've been actively interested in politics for many years, but recent events in our country have finally made me realise that someone has got to take a stand. I know I can count on your support. Oh hang on, I've got a fridge being delivered that day. Forget about it.

comments 0 :: trackbacks 0 :: post a comment

This is so blogciting, posted by Tina Brown on Mon May 9 at 11:04 PDT
Today we are entering a new paradigm: the energy and passion that I see on this mega-blog will ensure that it becomes not just the premiere electro-salon of the liberal elite, but the soul-search engine for the entire Alter-net. In today's fast-moving, cross-pollinating media perfect storm we don't always want considered essays or spelled-out arguments. Sometimes we just want to say "Bush sucks". Although his wife is really sweet.

comments 0 :: trackbacks 0 :: post a comment

Re: Does anyone know how to get red wine stains out of a wool carpet? posted by BarryDillerCEO.IAC/InterActiveCrop on Mon May 9 at 11:17 PDT
pour white wine over it & then blot GENTLY with a clean cloth. Rinse with warm water & repeat until gone. Whatever you do, don't rub. Who's got a good sourdough bread recipe, btw? The last loaf I made was like a paving stone.

comments 0 :: trackbacks 0 :: post a comment

I know I'm just providing the megaphone but. posted by "Huff" on Mon May 9 2005 at 11:34 PDT
perhaps I could suggest a topic? The president's proposals for private investment accounts are aimed at improving the long-term solvency of social security, but does it come at too high a price, namely sacrificing the commitment to guarantied benefits?

comments 0 :: trackbacks 0 :: post a comment

Dear hopeless liberals, Posted by David "Axis of Evil" Frum on Mon May 9 2005 at 11:45 PDT
Unless you got to that stain right away, white wine ain't gonna do jack. You need BLEACH and plenty of it, and you need to rub hard. Hope this doesn't shatter your cosy little worldview.

comments 0 :: trackbacks 0 :: post a comment

OH MY GOD ARIANNA Posted by G Paltrow on Mon May 9 2005 at 12:22 PDT
Did you just like take that text I sent you and post it on your stupid frigging blog? That was private! How dare you! Don't post this email either!

comments 0 :: trackbacks 0 :: post a comment

Whoops! The fridge is coming today! Posted by WarrenBeatty on Mon May 9 2005 at 13:09 PDT
They just called. So I guess I can announce my candidacy on wed after all, but now I don't really feel like it. Hi Gwynnie! Hi Norman! What's everyone having for lunch?

comments 0 :: trackbacks 0 :: post a comment

I love to encourage people to blog, but this is not what Arianna orginally pitched. As I said, her opening post showed a level of promise, but as we can see, these people have no clue what "blogging" is. They are going to treat her site like a gossip column.

Granted, bloggers wear a variety of hats, and many people do personal blogging, like diaries, but if Arianna thinks she is going to challenge bloggers with this tripe, she is dead wrong. I do note that she tried to present a topic for discussion, namely the president's SS reform ideas, but as we can see, no one followed the lead. Arianna should have known something like this would happen from the Hollywood crowd.

Warren Beatty talking about a run for president? Norman Mailer begging for help to get a wine stain out of a carpet? Gwyneth Paltrow complaining that people are bugging her during pilates? I think these idiots speak for themselves.

Besides, why do we care what the Hollywood crowd has to say about the US, and how it conducts itself. Have any of these people ever been in the government? Ever run a state or a country? Or, are they like Martin Sheen, who thinks that because he plays the president on TV, he considers himself qualified to be president.These people are hopeless, and I do wish Arianna the best, but if I were her, I would not be holding my breath. And all we have to do is look at how many comments were left, and what the trackback is to see how relevent Arianna and her crew are.

The Bunny ;)

Thursday, April 28, 2005

Noonan On Bolton…

Peggy Noonan decided to touch on John Bolton today. Her column is strong to begin with, but I’d like to add a level of commentary to it from "Joe-six-pack". After all, the "intellectuals" consider us that, don’t they?

The case of John Bolton is about politics (unhousebroken conservatives must be stopped), payback (you tick me off, I'll pick you off) and personality. People who have worked with him allege he is heavy-handed, curmudgeonly and not necessarily lovably so.

Good. This is what the UN needs. They need someone who isn’t a "yes-man" like the Left in America is. Those people would toss us to the wolves if it suited them—if given the opportunity—and they wouldn’t shed a tear over it. Their spite and hate over the l;ast few weeks in regard to those that stand for the Constitution, what it means, properly, and where this country is going. I’m not a nutty conspiracy theorist here, but the mainstream of America agrees with me that things are a bit out of control.

Never before has one party in one house acted the way the Democrats have in regard to presidential nominations. This party has obstructed on any jurist they deem unqualified. I pointed out—as did my other half—that the ABA has deemed these ten jurists as "qualified" or above to handle the jobs they have been assigned to. But the Democrats like to pick and choose their facts.

It is the same for John Bolton. The Left dislike him, but not over the endless parade of clowns that keep testifying that he was mean to them, or rude to them. For the love of God, grow a skin! Bolton expects the best, and gives the best. If he pushes a bit, deal and adapt. Otherwise, fold and go away. He is in the business of ghetting results, and quite frankly, he can do it in the UN.

Their litmus tests are no less illegal on Bolton. They are discriminating against him because of their affection for the UN. They know he’ll ruffle feathers. They know he won’t be populer. Being the ambassador to the UN doesn’t evoke "popularity". Bolton will do his job.

Bad temper is a bad thing in a public servant, but it is not the worst thing. Worse is the person who judges all questions as either career-enhancing or career-retarding, who lets the right but tough choice slide if standing for it will make him controversial and therefore a target. Mr. Bolton apparently never does that. Worse is the person who doesn't really care that the right thing be done, as long he gets his paycheck. That's not Mr. Bolton either. Worse still is the cynic who is above caring about anything beyond his own concerns. And that isn't Mr. Bolton either.

Peggy Noonan is correct. Bolton is none of the above. As I stated, he expects the best, and delivers it back. He does not play the typical "partisan" games. His ideology is neither Republican nor Democrat. He acts the way he needs to, when he needs to, and it is expected he will give all. Based on his record—the same record that the Democrats in the Senate have looked at—they say he’s not qualified. Funny, he’s been confirmed four times by the US Senate. So how can Bolton not be qualified?

If he is confirmed he will walk into the U.N. as a man whose reputation is that he does not play well with the other children. Not all bad. He will not be seen as a pushover. Good. Some may approach him with a certain tentativeness. But Mr. Bolton, having been burned in the media frying pan and embarrassed, will likely moderate those parts of his personal style that have caused him trouble. He may wind up surprising everyone with his openness and friendliness. Fine.

Or he'll be a bull in a china shop.

But the U.N. is a china shop in need of a bull, isn't it? The Alfonse-Gaston routine of the past half century is all very nice, but it's given us the U.N. as it is, a place of always-disappointing potential. May not be a bad thing to try something else.

Ms. Noonan brings it home right here. Bolton isn’t going to play well with others because he knows whom he represents. He doesn’t just represent the administration. By extension, he represents the country in an organization that hates our non-capitulating backsides. We don’t drop down on our knees because the "mighty" UN says so. Bolton knows this. The Arizona Republic today offered up Bush (41) as a potential to replace Bolton. Wrong move. Bush’s father put far too much faith in the UN.

Bolton is the right man for the reformation of the UN. They will reform. And Bolton will push that. It’s needed. We can’t afford to let this criminal, corrupt organization to continue. If reform is not pushed, then it’s time for it to fall. At this point, they serve no purpose other than to continue perpetuating the problem. It’s time to end the problem, and if Bolton isn’t the solution, he’s part of it, and to the chagrin of the MSM and the Democrats, that’s a good thing!

Publius II

Lucy And The Football…

The Democrats are pathetic. Harry Reid took the stage today, and had a few words for the press over the Constitutional Option. This came on the heels of an offer made by Frist over this fight. I disagree with the very concept of even attempting a negotiation. If he has the votes he claims he has, it’s time to end this. But, in typical Reid fashion, he said that an agreement to Frist’s proposal would be a "big wet kiss to the far right." Let this be a lesson to us. The Left never wants to truly look at any offer from a conservative. They’re the intellectual ones, after all; remember?

My other half quite eloquently described "negotiations" between the Democrats and the Republicans in the Senate. It’s typical. But this is not a time to capitulate, and that is pretty much what Harry Reid did today. Anyone remember the Peanuts cartoons? Lucy and the football……

Lucy would beg Charlie Brown to kick the football. "Come on, Charlie Brown, you have my word, I won’t pull the football away." And she would pad Charlie Brown’s ego until he would take a shot at kicking the football. NEVER ONCE, did he ever connect with it. She always yanked it away in the end. And that’s what Reid’s diatribe after Frist’s offer was made today.

Oh, if they’d just stop this. Oh, please the Constitution is at stake. These people have gotten their votes. We’re not obstructing. Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah. Nice try, Reid, too bad it isn’t working. You can throw our your 24 hour polls, but WE have seen the numbers, and they are glaringly true.

Tha majority of America wants the GOP to put up or shut up. I’m on that side, but not because I’m tired of the rhetoric, or the debate. It’s important to me; to us. We’re not just going to go away. They either push this issue, and succeed or fail. If they succeed, bravo for them. Great accomplishment, now finish your damn job, and get these people to the bench, and to their proper posts.

If they fail…we have a list of names that are to be removed from office. No, I’m not advocating violence. Duh. However, if you have the ability, like we do in Arizona, to execute a recall effort to force your senator into a recall election, then do it. If not, campaign against them in the primaries. Do what you can. Don’t support those that are willing to change the proper role of the Senate—under Article II of the Constitution—and trump the president’s right to nominate well-qualified individuals for posts on the federal level.

And these people are more than qualified. The ABA has stated that each of the ten remaining jurists are qualified, or more than qualified to hold the posts they’re being appointed to. The ABA is hardly "conservative". Their liberal views are more than apparent most of the time. But they agree that these ten jurists can do their job properly on the benches they’re assigned to.

But the Democrats can’t afford to let these people come up because they can’t stop them. Reid’s "Peanuts Plea" today shows that, as does his impassioned plea after Tuesday’s meeting with Frist. He knows they can’t stop these nominees. He knows that if he can "bully" Frist into backing down, or capitulating, he has won. Frist, thus far—and quite surprisingly—has maintained a stiff upper lip on this. I congratulate him.

Good man, now bring it home. Don’t even think compromise tomorrow. Bring this to the floor, and one way or another, end this. Don’t wait. You are starting to lose an edge on the PR wars, and don’t look to Bush to help you. He could, but I doubt he will; he reluctantly used the recess appointment on Pickering before, and now he’s back waiting for confirmation. For God’s sake, man, end this now.

Publius II

Oil For Food News…

LGF is a great site. And the "flying monkeys from the dark side picked up on something today. Charles runs one of the foremost sites we have used to keep track of the investigations of the UN Oil-For-Food (OFF) scandal. As my other half pointed out yesterday, Mr. Volker had not—despite the media’s claims, and those of Mr. Annan—assured everyone that his report did not exonerate Mr. Annan from culpability in this scandal. But Mr. Annan is not the only one that has to worry.

German companies are also involved in the kickback scandal looming over the oil for food program. United Nations investigators recently requested exports files on 50 German firms from the Foreign Ministry.
Saddam Hussein’s affection for the Swiss financial metropolis Geneva had a long-running history and tradition. Many times over the past decades, Iraq’s former dictator used the fancy and glitzy banking hub on the shores of Lake Geneva as a hiding place for his illegally earned billions. In the late 1980s, Saddam even sent his half-brother to Switzerland, ordering him to protect the money personally.

Bankers in the city along the Rhone River did brisk business with Saddam, even during the United Nations embargo. Saddam’s followers secretly demanded their piece of the pie: those "pieces" were shares of inflated bills issued to corporations planning to supply goods to Baghdad as part of the oil-for-food program. As one of several channels, one account held at the tony Geneva private bank Safdie could be used to transfer these kickbacks.

The wheeling and dealing that took place between industry and the toppled Saddam clan has been under investigation since late 2003, when a high-profile commission started examining the matter. Paul Volcker, former head of the United States Federal Reserve Bank, South African judge Paul Goldstone and Swiss criminal law professor Mark Pieth are currently trying to find out how massive amounts of money could disappear through the Saddam regime’s dark channels, even as the UN closely monitored the Iraqi dictator.

Claudia Rosett, of The Wall Street Journal fame, has further on the issue. Below is an excerpt from it that I have linked to.

Next up in the U.N. oil-for-food scandal is a trip down the money trail, by way of the French bank tapped by the United Nations - in cahoots with Saddam Hussein - to handle the main escrow account of the graft-laden U.N. program. Tomorrow, the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will hold a hearing delving into some of the oil-for-food banking details. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a Republican of California who will lead the hearing, expects that with some of the material due to be disclosed, "heads will turn."

The UN has been exposed; sliced from head to toe and laid bare for all to see. What we have in this organization that has lost it’s way from it’s own mandate. They do not stand for peace. They stand for control. The peacekeepers sent into most countries are a joke, unless it is our forces, and even then they are thanks to the handcuffs that the UN slaps on them. Somalia was a glaring example of it. It is time that the organization is reformed, or we withdraw from it. I can only speak for myself, but I would like to see us depart it.

We stand for freedom and democracy. We always have, and we always will, at least I hope we will. Our Founding Fathers believed in that, and those two important concepts have been passed down from generation to generation. Yes, my brother was the same type of guy in his mid-twenties that was just going to school to make something of his life. Then 9/11 happened.

Despite the fact that I knew that my brother loved this country, and believed to his core in the ideals of the Framers (He did tutor me in many subjects.) I never expected him to do what he did. He left school—and a prominent future career in law—and signed up. He wanted to stand up against the animals that attacked this nation. He believes in the freedom and democracy that we stand for, but he said he would end his tenure with the military should he ever come under the command of the UN. He does not trust them, and their recent history proves his point.

Raping children in the Congo? Disavowing any genocide being carried out in Sudan? Refusing to recognize terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah as such? Purposefully hiding their support of a man like Saddam Hussein under the UN OFF scandal? Uh huh. Sure they are legitimate, and able to be trusted.

He left me and my very dysfunctional, yet unique, family behind. (Anyone who knows me knows the case of my "family".) He followed the call. I respect that. I respect him, and I love him. But he would not have to do this had the UN done their damned job in the first place, and held Saddam accountable. But they do not hold people like him to account. They never do. They embrace men like him.

They played patty-cake with Saddam. They are doing the same with Iran, and "Crazy" Kim Jong-Il in North Korea. This organization does not stand for peace, freedom, and democracy. They give far too much respect and friendship to tyrants and dictators. Much like the obstructionist party in this nation right now in our own Senate.

The Bunny ;)

Wednesday, April 27, 2005

More Idiocy From The MSM…

I have never brought this paper up in any of my blogs. Mostly because they haven’t ever really shown the stupidity they showed yesterday. Marcie brought this to my attention. It’s called "Filibuster Fuss", and it was printed by the Arizona Republic on Tuesday. It was an unsigned editorial, so I can only guess that one of the editorial staff wrote this. Below are excerpts from the editorial, and my rebuttal to this piece of tripe that the "Repugnant" decided to print.

With tempers flaring in Washington over blocked judicial appointments, it may seem implausible to suggest that Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Senate should find a middle ground. But the vital middle is exactly where they need to go. And a sniff of the political winds suggest that is where a growing number of the less bellicose Senate leaders are trying to direct the debate.

There is no middle ground when it comes to the Constitution. It’s quite specific in the duties of the president, and the role the Senate has to play in this. I know that for a few—among them, I’m sure are the liberal editors at the "Repugnant"—they may be sick of this debate. To them I say, tell your party to quit obstructing these nominees. If you have the votes to stop them, then do so. Don’t resort to the tactics of a defeated party that has to resort to unconstitutional means to obtain your overall goal. That goal is to prevent the president his judicial nominees; nominees that are originalists in nature and demeanor.

The small number of blocked candidate disguises the relevant issue, which is that those blocked are people Bush may consider for Supreme Court vacancies he may need to fill in coming years. This fight is far less about who will populate federal circuit-court benches than who will be in line for the U.S. Supreme Court.

I’m not going to blow smoke up anyone’s skirt. The "Repugnant" actually got one thing right in this op-ed. This is about the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Rehnquist is expected to step down at the end of the Court’s current session. One of these ten jurists will likely be appointed to the high court. And that has the Left howling because they don’t want to see an originalist on that court. They like the split they have on it amongst the various activist jurists already there in Ginsburg, Kennedy, Souter, O’ Connor, Breyer, and Stevens. Their job is to interpret the law, not make it up.

It has been a grating process, as filibusters - or the threat of them, at least - always are. The role of the Senate is to act on a president's political nominees, not avoid action. As Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist noted Sunday, it isn't "radical to ask senators to vote."

And that is all we’re asking. Just give them their vote. It’s a simple process where a simple majority either places them on the bench, or sends them home. We’re not afraid to lose a vote, if the Democrats can defeat the nominees. But they don’t want those nominees to have their chances on the floor, nor do they think they can stop them. They know that when push comes to shove—if Frist can muster the votes to break their filibuster—it could be possible that even with RINOs like McCain and Chaffee siding with the Democrats, the GOP can still pass these nominees onto the federal bench.

Changing the rule would be a significant matter - it would effectively allow the reigning majority to halt debate whenever the feeling struck - and critics are right to fear such a change might dramatically alter the very nature of the Senate. Still, the contention of minority Democrats that they are standing athwart the appointments of "right-wing, extremist" jurists is getting old. It flies in the face of recommendations of many of the blocked nominees by the historically liberal American Bar Association, to say nothing of the fact that U.S. voters have chosen conservative leaders for president, the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Incorrect on the first point; it would end any inkling of debate over a nominee. There shouldn’t be any such debate over any nominee once they pass through committee. They are correct on the second point. (Miracle of miracles, they were right twice in the same column.) The ABA has given favorable to exceptional marks to these ten jurists. The Democrats argument vilifying them will not work. It isn’t working, and the more they stand by it, the nuttier the party looks.

Delaware's Sen. Joe Biden, a ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Sunday that he thinks "we should compromise" on a number of the Bush nominees threatened with filibuster. Biden suggested the threat might be lifted for seven of the 10 or so most hotly disputed nominees. This is progress.

Biden’s idea might have worked, except I wouldn’t have entertained the idea of a compromise. For the last time: THESE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO THEIR VOTE! And that isn’t the deal that Frist was presented by Harry Reid. Reid presented an compromise where only three our four would be passed, and they would tell Frist which ones would go home. No deal, Harry. Cry you little girlie man, because your reckoning is coming, and it’s not going to be pretty.

At the same time, it is in the best interests of Republicans not to flip the "nuclear option" switch. It is not a move that would help Arizona, certainly, since GOP Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl are split on support of this measure. Filibusters have a long, valued tradition, a tradition that today is being painfully abused. Getting rid of them, though, is no solution.

Quite frankly, I could give a rip about McCain. He’s chosen his lot, and now he can pay the price. He gets no mercy from me, and I will hammer him down every chance I get. Not only has he betrayed the party, but he’s betrayed his oath as a senator, and a former member of the Armed Forces. "Preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution, Senator McCain, not wipe your @$$ with it. And why shouldn't the switch be pulled. We're out of options, and time is running out. We need to seize the moment now, and end this circus. Besides, Kyl has always been the better of the two, and I don’t care if they’re on opposite sides; quite frequently, they already are.

And in closing, the last paragraph shows how stupid the editors at the "Repugnant" really are. We’re not getting rid of all filibusters. We’re just axing the Democrats illegal one on nominees. If, when this is all said and done, Sen. Byrd wants to filibuster a piece of legislation, he’ll still be able to. (He is the only senator in the Senate right now to have done that.) But nominees should not have to go through yet another debate on the floor of the Senate. It’s bad enough that they’ll have to endure the vitriolic, spiteful, venomous rhetoric of the Democrats as they cast their vote, and make their feelings known. Fine. But just shut up already, and give these people their vote.

Publius II

Best Alias Quote Of The Night...

Vaughn: (Out of breath after chasing a hacker a few blocks, and Dixon clothes-lining him from around a corner) I would have caught him.

Dixon: I know

Hit Them: Do Not Back Down Now…

As many of our regular readers know, both of the lunatics in this Asylum are in favor of the GOP forcing the Constitutional Option in the Senate to end the unconstitutional filibusters over Pres. Bush’s judicial nominees. This issue reared it’s head in the beginning of March. It gained some serious steam in mid-March. Then the bloggers latched onto it, and propelled it forward at light-speed proportions.

Suddenly, the Senate fell under a level of scrutiny that they did not like. People were taking notice of their actions. Hugh Hewitt pushed even harder when he posted the Capitol switchboard number on his site, along with a link to the E-mail addresses to the senators. Here, at the Asylum, we followed suit. Overnight, their phones exploded with angry voters reminding them of their commitment to the president. Many senators have admitted that this quick-start, grass-roots movement is having an effect. They are getting the message. But the GOP leaders are feeling some heat, too.

In 2000, Pres. Bush was elected, and for a very brief time, the GOP had the majority in the Senate. Then, "Jumpin" Jim Jeffords jumped, and the GOP was, once again, in the minority. In 2002, we gave the GOP what they asked for—a majority in the Senate. In 2004, we reelected Bush, and delivered them a greater majority; one that should have been considered unbeatable. But the Democrats are not playing by the rules. The GOP ran on a platform in 2004 of standing up for the president’s nominees. They are just now getting around to it; the new session of Congress convened in January, and it is April now. These could not be construed as a party that is desperate to set the process of advise and consent right.

But, at least they are addressing it now, before the Supreme Court ends it’s session. Rehnquist is expected to retire from the high court then. Frist, in an attempt to work through this issue, met with Harry Reid. I give kudos to Frist for not caving in, and refusing to accept the offer that Reid presented. There should not have been any negotiating on this subject. Here is how the negotiations should have gone:

Frist to Reid: "End your filibusters, or else."

The Arizona Republic had an interesting op-ed on Tuesday called "Filibuster Fuss", and Arizona’s "esteemed" paper of record was calling for the Republicans and Democrats to negotiate a compromise. (Thomas has seen the op-ed, and he is busy preparing a measured response.) Needless to say, the paper wrote the piece using the talking points being perpetuated by the Democrats.

"But the vital middle is exactly where they [both parties] need to go. And a sniff of the political winds suggest that is where a growing number of the less bellicose Senate leaders are trying to direct the debate."

Reid to Frist: "Kneel before Zod!"
Frist to Reid: "As you wish."

This is typical of Democrat negotiation when it comes to conservatives. Tyrants and dictators, they capitulate to, which should kill their "Bush is Hitler" arguments. They want the GOP to cave in because they are afraid that they will not be able to stop the GOP. Which may also explain why after the meeting, Reid called Frist practically begging him not to execute the Option.

According to Frist this past weekend, Santorum on Tuesday, and Mitch McConnell today, the GOP has the votes to back up the move. True or not, Frist should bring it to the floor of the Senate immediately. This should be done before the Senate goes into it’s week-long recess. If he does not, he had better bring it to the floor—bright and early—that first Monday they are back.

This needs to end now. The judiciary is at stake, and we need originalist jurists on the bench. The Left cannot be allowed to continue "passing" their agenda through an activist judiciary that disregards the law, and shows utter disdain to the Constitution’s proper interpretation.

The Bunny ;)

Around The World…

Today had it’s share of news. Some of it good, some of it bad, and some of it was just plain ugly. So, our first stop is Captain’s Quarters.

In an interview aired yesterday with Fox News, Mr. Volcker took direct issue with Mr. Annan's insistence that he had been exonerated by investigators probing both his role in overseeing the Iraq aid program and conflicts of interest involving a key contract awarded to a Swiss firm that employed Mr. Annan's son.

"I thought we criticized [Mr. Annan] rather severely," Mr. Volcker said of his panel's interim report, released March 29. "I would not call that an exoneration."
Asked point-blank whether Mr. Annan had been cleared of wrongdoing in the $10 billion scandal, Mr. Volcker replied, "No."

Oh yes, Kooky Uncle Kofi lied, again. His report, at first seemed like an attempt, at times, to gloss over the complicity of Annan and his son, Kojo, in the Oil-For-Food scandal. Volker’s response to whether or not Annan was cleared of any wrongdoing is quite telling. And now is the time for Congress to push this. They have subpoena powers, and they are already investigating much of what Volker has been privy to in terms of information and records.

Here’s the problem with that scenario. Anyone watching the partisan pettiness erupting in the Senate right now? The Democrats—the party chiefly in charge of cheerleading for the worthless UN—is holding up judicial nominees, and the appointment of John Bolton. If a serious investigation is initiated by Congress, does anyone really think that the Democrats will pursue the information they receive earnestly? I don’t. Based on past actions of leaders in the Democrat party, I wouldn’t be surprised if they shredded some of the most damning records during the investigation just to protect their precious Uncle Kofi.

Mitch Berg, of Shot in the Dark fame, filled in for Hugh Hewitt on his radio show today. On his show, Sen. Mitch McConnell announced that yes, the GOP had the votes locked up to end the filibuster, and promised that the showdown is coming; and it’s coming soon. We will see if his powers of prediction will come true. Hugh has faith in McConnell, and the MOB (Minnesota Organization of Bloggers—an alliance of the elite bloggers on the blogosphere) also have faith in him. I know the guy’s a good senator, and has always stood on the side of the Constitution. McConnell’s on board. And it sounds like a couple of the key RINOs may have gotten the message. BUT, let me emphasize that the pressure should not be let up. Don’t let these guys off the hook, and keep the pressure up on the Democrats, as well. A few of them are facing reelection in 2006, too.

Much of what Mitch addressed concerned the Constitutional Option, including a debate between a liberal law professor, and John Hinderocker of PowerLine blog fame. Needless to say, this professor didn’t know half of what he was saying, and it served as an embarrassment to Constitutional scholars everywhere. The professor’s continued insistence that the judicial filibusters were inherent within the Constitution would be laughable were it no so tragic. NOWHERE in the Constitution is the filibuster even addressed. It is addressed, to a point, in the Federalist Papers; the majority coming in #76 and #77. Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 specifically states that BOTH houses of Congress may establish their own rules. The filibuster is exactly that, and like any rule, it can be revoked. The Democrats in 1995 attempted to remove ALL filibusters from being exercised. Now, they don’t want it changed. Will someone please make up their minds.




This Hat-Tip must go to all of the above. They all picked it up and ran with it. The Secret Service is investigating Air America radio for the following skit.

The announcer: "A spoiled child is telling us our Social Security isn’t safe anymore, so he is going to fix it for us. Well, here’s your answer, you ungrateful whelp: [audio sound of 4 gunshots being fired.] Just try it, you little bastard. [audio of gun being cocked]."

The audio production at the center of the controversy aired during opening minutes of The Randi Rhodes Show.

"What is with all the killing?" Rhodes said, laughing, after the clip aired.

"Even joking about shooting the president is a crime, let alone doing it on national radio... we are taking this very seriously," a government source explained.

This shows the epitome of the hate on the Left for this president. This doesn’t just apply to Air America. Go on a search through the Internet and see the seething hatred that is evident for Pres. Bush, for slights they can’t even prove. MoveOn.org took the rhetoric to new lows last year with their portrayal of Pres. Bush as Adolf Hitler. Sometimes, you just gotta laugh, but most of the time I’m left shaking my head at the utter stupidity of the Left. Now, Air America did release a brief statement about it.

AIR AMERICA President of Programming and co-COO Jon Sinton said in a release: "We regret that a produced comedy bit that was in bad taste slipped through our normal vetting process. We do acknowledge that it was an internal error and internal discipline will be enforced."

Rhodes apologized for the skit on her show today. "It was a bit," Rhodes said. "It was bad. I apologize a thousand times."

Now, it’s wonderful that she apologizes now, but I know a bit about the radio business. The host approves of the things that occur during a show, and would have had advance knowledge of it in the planning meetings that go on prior to the show, so she can apologize, but I don’t buy it. She has made comments in the past regarding the death of the president. And as for discipline, what kind are they referring to? Will Ms. Rhodes be fired, or is their investigation going to be an equivalent to the one that CBS conducted over "Rathergate". The kind where Dan Rather was allowed to stay on after he committed his journalistic felony. I doubt that Ms. Rhodes will receive a harsh punishment from the executives at Air America. If the Secret Service wishes to press charges, that punishment will certainly fit the crime.

Publius II

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

An Assault On One Is An Assault On All…

Zipping through the blogosphere…I cam across this from Hugh Hewitt. Janice Rogers Brown has come under unprecedented disdain under the auspices of the LA Times. This is beyond the pale as they report Ms. Brown as a RW, Christian Conservative. She is a conservative, to be sure, but not cut from the same extremist cloth that the Left wishes.

Ms. Brown, to defend her to the Times, is a conservative cut from the same cloth of our Framers; being that the Constitution and it’s complete, originalist interpretation are the ultimate authorities regarding her decisions. That is what cowers the liberals more than anything.

The will not have a jurist going to the bench that embraces their mentality of literal rule by law. Ms. Brown—and others like Pryor and Owens—do not believe that they make the law. They believe that their calling is to interpret the law. That is that "proper and peculiar" power that the judiciary possesses. And it is one which the liberals discount as fodder. That is why they have been trying to perpetuate their agenda through the courts rather than the ballot box.

They know they cannot win there. In the overall war of ideas, the Left will always lose at the ballot box. They have no ideas; nothing to drive us forward. They have only ideas that will hold us back, and keep us down; held fast by a bootheel of oppression. Despite their party "public" face, the do not stand for what is right, what is proper, and what is just. Those ideals are subject to their whims. And we have already seen what their whims produce.

These were the same people that excused FDR’s slow moves to curtail Hitler. These were the same people that denied the complicity of the Rosenberg’s in stealing the A-Bomb materials. These were the same that—to this day—defend Alger Hiss. They defend Castro, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot and Mao. And they are the same party that, day by day, threaten our very way of life. They threaten our freedom. They threaten our rights. They threaten our morals and our values. These people are not to be trusted.

And now they threaten the very law which our Founding Fathers gave their blood for. They fought and died to construct, maintain, and preserve this nation; the greatest nation on the face of the planet, despite the howls of the Left. Good; let them howl. I do not care. But I do care when they threaten the rights which were bestowed upon me through the blood of patriots far smarter and braver than them, and myself.

I am not trying divert attention from this issue from a diatribe like this, but words mean things. These people dislike what this country stands for, what it represents, and what helps reinstall those ideals. Frist should push this issue forward, and finish off the Democrats in the process. Let them try to shut down the Senate. The president has powers at his disposal to get around such a move. That applies to Bolton and the judges.

The Democrats have no idea the misery about to be delivered upon their party. It will not be pretty, to say the least, and it might even be painful at the ballot box the next go-round. But lessons in life are seldom painless, and we will re-deliver this lesson to them again, and again, if necessary. America wants a change. They do not represent that change. Conservative’s do, but they are not willing to accept that. Too bad. I had hoped for a more challenging opponent in 2006 and beyond. But, just to avoid seeming lazy, I will be here. WE will be here, and so will the blogosphere.

The Bunny ;)

The Backbone Is Growing…

Sen. Frist seemed to discover his backbone today, or at least part of it, when he told Se. Reid there would be no compromises on judicial nominees. Good for him. It is high time that the leadership of the GOP in the Senate started to force this issue. This issue should be forced forward. It is of the utmost importance to do so. And the more the Democrats squirm to avoid this issue, the worse they look.

I am happy to see this turn of events, but for me, personally, it isn’t enough. Frist needs to bring this to the floor as expediently as possible. Tom Petty once sang that "the waiting is the hardest part.". He has no idea. The GOP base is sick of constantly hearing about this. Let’s move this forward. Force it. Ram it right down their throats! The Democrats can carp and wail about this issue all they want; all the while avoiding their own sordid history on the issue of filibusters.

Oh yes. The Democrats have their own history regarding the issue of filibusters. In 1995, 19 Democrats in the Senate attempted to abolish filibusters completely. Every filibuster, no matter what it was executed on. Legislation, nominees, or otherwise, to the Democrats the filibuster was an unjust thing to have in the Congress. Yet now, they are screaming that the GOP is doing what they attempted to do in 1995.

That isn’t what this issue is about. I will not rehash the explanation of this over again. I have repeated myself more times than I can count. So has Marcie. Everyone knows where we stand on the issue of the Constitutional Option. It needs to be done. We WANT to keep the filibuster in place for legislation, otherwise there is no way to stop legislation that is detrimental to the nation. And that we want to keep in place. What we want abolished is the illegal filibuster over nominees in the Senate.

The Senate has the duty to grill and approve of nominees appointed by the president. This is inherent under the Constitution, and it is precisely explained in the Federalist Papers by the Framers. The president has the right and obligation to appoint people to certain posts, and the Senate has likewise to confirm those people. We are not asking for the Democrats to cut off a limb. We are asking them to give these people their appropriate votes. Up-or-down, pass-or-fail it does not matter. Give them what they rightly deserve.

They don’t deserve the treatment they’ve received. They have been impugned over the smallest slights, in the eyes of the Democrats. "God forbid we appoint a Catholic to the bench. No, not an Evangelical on the bench, they’ll single-handedly revoke Roe v. Wade!" This is pathetic, and further, it shows the Constitutional-illiteracy of those that we’ve elected. Things don’t work like that. To change the ruling on Roe v. Wade it must be appealed to the Supreme Court. I doubt we’ll ever see that abomination revoked in my lifetime.

But the Democrats—especially the leadership—do not see this. They see a catastrophe on the horizon. What they do not realize is that the catastrophe will strike their party should they retaliate the way they have promised. Shutting down the Senate is a death knell for them; political suicide just as the new election cycle is gearing up. I doubt the Democrats have the guts to pull off a shut down of the Senate because they realize how devastating it would be to the party as a whole.

And I will admit that I am one that has called for the GOP to shut down the Senate. (This comes more our of frustration than anything else.) However, more reasonable heads have prevailed in convincing me that this isn’t a place the GOP wants to go. Not just for how bad they would look, but also for the sheer fact that it doesn’t help the cause at all. It would make us look as bad as the Democrats. Nice theory, but like all others, just a theory that sees no fruition.

But there is still one level of recourse we have. The Senate goes into a one-week recess the first week of May. If Bush really wants to push this issue forward for his party, he can recess appoint each and every nominee that has passed through the committee. That includes every one of the nominees being savaged by the Left right now. They would hold their posts until the next session of Congress convenes; that would be the 109th Congress, as opposed to the current 108th Congress. And should the Democrats decide to shut down the Senate, the president, under the Constitution, has the ability to appoint through Executive Order.

Which means that if the president wants to show how much support he has in these candidates, the first week of May should serve as the starting point for seven D-Days in a row. Appoint them under the provisions listed in the Constitution. He did so with Judge Pickering when the Congress recessed last year; do it now, too. And he can do it with John Bolton, as well. Both of these need to be pushed forward, and if the GOP leadership in the Senate won’t do it, then it should fall to the president to do so. The base—that’s us, folks—will have their list of names to get rid of in 2006, 2008, and 2010. We’ll do that for the party if they’ll push the measures and the nominees forward. That’s all we’re asking. Is that really so hard?

Publius II & The Bunny ;)

Run The Blockade, Sen. Frist!

OK. I know I have harped this issue to death for many. I’m so sorry to disappoint those people, but I’m just getting started. This issue is of such dire importance to me and many people that respect and believe in our Constitution. The Democrats are spitting all over it, and this administration, and quite frankly, I’m in the mood to push back a bit. So, here we go.

First off, below are three links that, if you are interested in this issue and you’re as incensed as many of us are, you should visit regularly. I have mentioned Hugh Hewitt on numerous occasions, linked to him more times than I can count, and one of them is his site. The other is BeyondTheNews.com, which is a site where he is a regular contributor. So is Dennis Prager and Mike Gallagher, for all those of you who engage in the talk radio merry-go-round everyday like we do. The last site is a blog site called ConfirmThem.com. This is the key site to keep up on all the information regarding the coming showdown.

And we’re not a bad site, either. On this issue you may even see a bit of emotion over this. I can honestly tell you that "pissed-off" is the lower level that Marcie and I share right now on a daily basis. "Nuclear meltdown" is the norm for us right now each day as this issue continues to drag on, and on, and on, and on, and on, etc., ad naseum. This issue should never have even reached this point. In 2000, it wasn’t feasible to push the issue thanks to that idiot Jeffords from Vermont.
In 2002, the GOP base gave them what they asked for. A majority in the Senate. 52 seats in the Senate after the voting was all said and done. They had their majority. But after watching the RINOs wander the pasture of the Senate for a year or so, the GOP pulled out all the stops. Prior to the 2004 election, the judicial nominees were being held up, and they campaigned on that issue. They claimed if the base just gave them a clear-cut majority they could get the job done.

In 2004, not only did the base deliver Pres. Bush back to the White House, but we increased our hold on the House, and increased the majority in the Senate. Again, the base gave them their wish. 55 seats in the Senate. They had their clear majority. Since the convening of the new session of Congress, the urgency of the GOP towards judicial nominees didn’t arise until about a month or so ago. I’ve been harping on it for a bit longer than that, just not on a regular business. (Hey, being a blogger means I have a full plate of issues and topics already. Even I have to juggle a bit.)

Now, we’re seeing that the majority we delivered them isn’t enough, or doesn’t seem so. We already have McCain and Chaffee on record as saying they will oppose the party’s idea of exercising the Constitutional Option. (I must make a correction. I earlier posted that Chaffee was from Nebraska. I stand corrected. He is from Rhode Island. I apologize for the mistake.)

But the GOP has several wobbly senators right now that are a detriment to this move should they abstain, or side with the Democrats. They are: Collins of Maine, DeWine of Ohio, Hagel of Nebraska, Snowe of Maine, Sununu of New Hampshire, Voinovich of Ohio, and Warner of Virginia. These are the seven RINOs that are considering the desertion of the party on this vote. Call them: 202-225-3121, or E-mail them. Be firm, but be polite, and urge them to side with the party when it comes to ending the filibusters of the judges.

For those that still think this is a non-issue, allow me to put this into perspective for you; crystal-clear perspective. Right now, any originalist jurist coming out of committee is being filibustered. It’s illegal, plain and simple. (If anyone would like to know what the Framers had in mind for appointments, I suggest Federalist # 76 and 77; very informative for the ill-educated.) It does not matter whether it is a Hispanic judge, a Black judge, a woman, or what have you. They are automatically filibustered by the Democrats based on the sole fact that they believe in the Constitution, and that they believe their job is to interpret it. And, I guess if you’re a Democrat, that’s a crime. To someone like myself, the crime is being perpetuated by the Democrats, and RINOs like McCain and Chaffee.

As long as these jurists are filibustered, there is no hope for the remainder of the president’s term in office to get any originalist jurist on the bench. The problem seems small until you take into account that Chief Justice Rehnquist will step down in June at the end of the current Supreme Court session. He is not well, and his health is fading fast with his continued exertions on the Court. Now, here is your question: How will we replace the vacancy on the Court? Worse yet, a new chief justice will need to be appointed. Anyone want to take bets on how nasty the Democrats will be should someone like Justices Scalia or Thomas be appointed to that position?

Remember, it’s a new post, and they will have to go back through the confirmation process again. I can almost certainly guarantee people that the confirmation hearings for either will be dog-fights, and quite frankly, I’m not sure the GOP has the intestinal fortitude to see them through. Rumors are that Scalia will be the man, as Thomas is on the record as not wanting the position. I’m prepared to watch Scalia be savaged by the Democrats, but if this filibuster crap is still going on, I doubt we will see him, or his replacement confirmed.

This issue is more important than anything being contemplated by the Senate right now. To hell with the highway bills. Social Security has been "solvent" by Democrat definitions for years now, so there’s no immediate need there. So, let’s push the envelope. Call for the vote. Hey, win or lose, it doesn’t matter. Personally, I want it to succeed. Duh. Unlike McCain, I stand on the side of the Constitution, not some petty Senate rule that allows someone to throw a temper-tantrum at the drop of a hat over nominees.

The Democrats can’t win at the ballot box. They can’t win in the realm of ideas. They keep getting their @$$es handed to them every time an election has come around since 1994. And that is what they are afraid of the most. They don’t have the votes to stop these people from coming out of committee, and they’re afraid they don’t have the votes to stop them now. But that is the proper check and balance for the Executive branch in the Congress. If you can stop his initiatives or his nominees, knock yourself out. I truly think that if Frist presses this issue to it’s conclusion—and does so quickly; speed is of the essence on this issue—that it will spell out the final defeat of a once great party. And it will force them back into the "soul-searching" phase they were in after another sound defeat from the opposition.

Publius II

Monday, April 25, 2005

Obligatory Greeting...

We would like to welcome all our regular readers to the new feature at the top of our site. Chris Muir is an excellent cartoonist and satirist. We both enjoyed reading it on the Captain's Quarters site, and yesterday, I found the HTML code that Chris offers on his site so that it can be placed on any site. So, after about an hour of trial and error in our HTML code here, I finally figured out how to put it up.

The cartoon will update everyday there is a new strip done by him. And if you're lost in the running storyline, just click the link under the cartoon. It will take you to his site, and you can catch yourself up.

So, welcome Chris Muir to our site. We thoroughly enjoy reading your cartoons everyday. We hope you enjoy the everyday lives of Sam, Zed, Damon and Jan as much as we do.

Publius II

Bolton Update: Uh-Oh, Some Of His Colleagues Liked Him.

I caught this off of NewsMax. (Yes, I am aware of people that dislike NewsMax, but from time to time they pick up on stories I might have missed.) It seems that John Bolton has some supporters; old associates that do not share the views that the Democrats, or the woman that is the Dallas-founder of "Mothers Opposing Bush" that claimed she was "abused" by Mr. Bolton.

Forty-three of John Bolton's former colleagues at the American Enterprise Institute want to set the record straight: They've sent a letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, defending Bolton's conduct and management style."We were colleagues of John Bolton during his tenure as senior vice president of the American Enterprise Institute from January 1997 through May 2001. We are writing to tell you and your colleagues that the various allegations that have been raised before your Committee, concerning Mr. Bolton's management style and conduct in other organizations and circumstances, are radically at odds with our experiences in more than four years of intense, frequent and continuous interaction with him."

The letter, addressed to Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Sen. Richard Lugar and ranking Democrat Joseph Biden, said Bolton was a "demanding" colleague all right - as demanding of himself as he was of others.

"He was unfailingly courteous and respectful to us, regardless of our AEI positions or seniority," Bolton's former colleagues said.

They called it "preposterous" that Bolton would want to punish or settle scores with subordinates who disagreed with him - and several of them noted that they were Bolton's subordinates at AEI.

They described Bolton's style as "clear and consistent" in cases where disagreements arose: "He would state his own views openly and directly, expect others to be equally open and direct, and go out of his way to encourage subordinates to be open and direct, all in the service of arriving at the best possible decision."

Sometimes Bolton's own views would change as a result of discussion, his former colleagues said.

But once a decision was reached, Bolton expected subordinates to get with the program, just as he followed the decisions reached by his peers or superiors.

The letter praised the "crispness, openness, fairness, and efficiency" of Bolton's management style at AEI, and it questioned the "strange allegations" that surfaced after President Bush nominated Bolton to serve as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

(Several people who testified at Bolton's confirmation hearing described him as a temperamental and vindictive man who lashed out at people who disagreed with him -- even chasing one woman down a hallway to yell at her. But Bolton's defenders note there are plenty of people in Washington who don't suffer fools gladly.)

"Contrary to the portrayals of his accusers, he combines a temperate disposition, good spirit, and utter honesty with his well-known attributes of exceptional intelligence and intensity of purpose," his former AEI colleagues wrote.

Such a "rare combination" is a "highly desirable" attribute for the next U.N. ambassador, the letter said.

The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research describes itself as a think tank that is "dedicated to preserving and strengthening the foundations of freedom - limited government, private enterprise, vital cultural and political institutions, and a strong foreign policy and national defense."

President Bush is standing by Bolton, calling him the right man for the U.N. job. His nomination remains bottled up in committee for the time being.

This is just devastating to the Left over this nomination—almost reminiscent of how the Swift Boat Vets rallied against John Kerry. For those that have forgotten, there was plenty of controversy surrounding Kerry. He kept hyping his record in the service, and the Swift Vets refused to give up their criticism. Then came the story about his mission into Cambodia. When the bloggers picked up on the incongruities in his story the Swift Vets immediately had allies that were hammering him as hard as they were.

Bolton is nominated, and savaged by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Democrats. His only supporters, aside from the right-center bloggers, was Pres. Bush, VP Cheney, and a few GOP leaders. When the Democrats started rolling out "witnesses" to Bolton’s rough attitude and supposed abuse, the RINOs came out to stab the GOP in the back again. And just when all seems it’s darkest—just as it did for the Swift Vets during the election—hope breaks through in the 43 people willing to stand up—openly and honestly—and defend the integrity, the character, and the professionalism of the man who should be our newest UN ambassador.

The Bunny ;)

weight loss product