Political commentary from a conservative ideologue deep in the heart of Texas. Member: Jewish-Crusader Alliance, Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Friday, November 14, 2003
FOXNews.com - Politics - GOP, Dems Both Claim Victory in Judicial Fight: "
'What has not ended is resolution and determination of members of the U.S. Senate to continue to resist any Neanderthal that is nominated by this president of the United States for any court,' said Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass. "
Teddy thinks that Neanderthal accurately describesJanice Rogers Brown
"... the 54-year-old daughter of an Alabama sharecropper who became a member of the California Supreme Court.
Is she qualified for the job on the federal bench? If anything, she is overqualified. Janice Rogers Brown should be sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court right now.
However, there are a few obstacles blocking her path to the federal bench. There are a few obstructionists in her way. Just like those policemen standing in the schoolhouse doors so many years ago, there are a few racists who will do almost anything to prevent this heroine from assuming her position.
In this case, the racists are Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois and Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts.
Neanderthal No. 2 Carolyn Kuhl:
"Carolyn B. Kuhl is Judge of the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. Since her appointment by Governor Wilson in 1995, she has served in a criminal calendar court in the Criminal Courts Building for a year and one-half and in a fast-track civil assignment in the Civil Courthouse for three years. In 1999, she served for three months on assignment to the California Court of Appeal in Division 4 of the Second Appellate District. In April of 2000 she was selected to participate in the Complex Litigation Pilot Program and in January of 2001 she became the Supervising Judge of the Program.
Before her appointment to the bench, Judge Kuhl was a partner in the Los Angeles law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson. Her practice consisted of civil business litigation in both federal and state court, with specialties in appellate litigation, representation of defense contractors in cases brought under the federal False Claims Act, and employment litigation.
From 1981 through 1986, Judge Kuhl served in the United States Department of Justice. As Deputy Solicitor General she argued cases before the United States Supreme Court and supervised other attorneys’ work in cases before that Court. She also served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Division of the Justice Department, supervising all civil appellate litigation handled by the Department nationwide. As Deputy Assistant Attorney General she also supervised civil trial litigation involving federal agency programs, including high impact cases challenging the legality or constitutionality of agencies’ actions or regulations. Judge Kuhl began her tenure at the Justice Department as Special Assistant to Attorney General William French Smith.
Judge Kuhl graduated from Princeton University in 1974 and from Duke University School of Law in 1977. At Duke Law School she was an Editor of the Duke Law Journal, graduated with distinction, and was awarded membership in the Order of the Coif. Following law school she clerked for the Honorable Anthony M. Kennedy, who at that time was a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Contestant No. 3 for the Teddy Kennedy Neanderthal, knuckle-dragger award Justice Priscilla Owen.
Since Teddy started the mud throwing, what does a pasty, grotesque fat-ass like him expect from the nominees? OH, that's right...the Democrats have decided that anyone who disagrees with their take on things must be reactionary, delusional racists.
Thank you, Charles Martel:
" In October, 732, Charles met Abd-er-Rahman outside of Tours and defeated and slew him in a battle (the Battle of Poitiers) which must ever remain one of the great events in the history of the world, as upon its issue depended whether Christian Civilization should continue or Islam prevail throughout Europe. It was this battle, it is said, that gave Charles his name, Martel (Tudites) 'The Hammer', because of the merciless way in which he smote the enemy."
I'm sure there were a few pacificsts in Charles' time who argued that it was not Christian to slaughter the Muslim invaders. But I imagine that Charles smote them as well.
Today's Darwin Award winner is this guy:
"A Romanian man who spent 11 years in his basement trying to avoid an eight year jail sentence has been arrested."
A bullet is cheaper.
Thursday, November 13, 2003
HATRED, NEXT VERSE
Ted Rall remains, without rival, the lowest form of
excrement on the planet.
Words fail me...which is rare..but how can one open up the gates of hell and describe the utter desolation of what he sees. Better you go read it and judge for yourself (not that you will be surprised). How can any news service publish the tripe that he produces?
SURRENDER MONKEYS TRUE TO FORM
France urges the US to follow the example she set during the opening stages of World War II - when the going gets tough, surrender:
Mr de Villepin told Europe-1 radio that an American goal of setting up a provisional government by mid-2004 was too distant.
He said a UN representative should be appointed to work alongside Paul Bremer, the lead US administrator in Iraq, with the aim of handing power a representative assembly of Iraqis by the end of 2003.
"The international community cannot wait any longer," he said.
"How many deaths does it take to understand that it is essential to change the approach?"
First, what is it that the interantional community cannot wait any longer for? American failure? If France is so concerned, why have they not offered to commit troops and/or financing to the reconstruction efforts.
Does the fact the Saddamist/Islamofascist elements inside Iraq have been able to kill people with terrorist bombings indicate that the approach to the reconstruction is wrong? No, it means that the brutal remnants of the previous regime, whose atrocities against its own people are unquestioned (even by the French), don't like what we are doing and are trying to stop us. If my enemies are so disturbed about my actions I usually take that as a sign that I am on the right path.
Does de Villepan really believe that if control of Iraq were turned over to some UN picked council of Iraqis tomorrow that the bombings would stop? If he does, he is an even bigger fool than he seems (which would be pretty tough to accomplish).
The Saddamist want the Americans to leave and control to be prematurely passed on to a governing group which is seen to be an American or UN puppet. This would give them the best chance to regain power, probably with some kind of Islamist coalition. If we followed de Villepan's advice the US would be seen as too weak to stand up to wartime casualties and international pressure and thus invite more attacks on itself. So France takes sides with Saddam again against the United States - big surprise!
Someone needs to tell Chiraq and de Villepan that no one cares any longer what the French think. And, oh yeah, that they missed a good opportunity to shut up.
Wednesday, November 12, 2003
"HATRED, IT'S THE ONLY THING THAT LASTS"
I'm trying to work out why people hate Bush so much. I never hated Clinton (I still don't) - I thought he was slimy and underburdened with principle but the most intense emotion that I could ever work-up toward him was...disrespect and contempt - never hate.
You'll never find me claiming that Clinton was stupid. I think he was (and is) profoundly wrong in his conclusions about what the governement of the United States should be doing, but that doesn't make him a moron (Michael Moore IS a moron, but that is another subject).
What are the objections to Bush?
He hasn't traveled extensively.
He is a conservative (whatever that may mean).
He wants to appoint judges to the federal courts who don't think Roe v. Wade was such a good decision.
He campaigned for, and eventually won the approval of, a federal tax reduction that, while reducing revenues, actually increased the "progressive" nature of the US tax structure.
He proposed, and won approval of, the invasion of Afghanistan after the Taliban refused to surrender the perpetrators of the 9/11/01 attacks on New York and Washington.
He proposed, and won approval of, the "use of force" against Iraq in order to remove Saddam Hussein from power after Saddam refused to cooperate with the UN (i.e., honor a cease fire agreement with the US) and continued to fire on US and British aircraft in the "No Fly Zones" subsequent ot UN resolution 1441.
He refuses to accelerate funding growth for the "No Child Left Behind" initiative (funds are being increased, mind you, only the rate of the increase is not increasing).
He appointed John Ashcroft as Attorney General who, subsequent to Senate confirmation, has used the tools given to him by the Congressional approval of the PATRIOT Act to deter potential terrorists from making further attacks on US territory in the past two years.
He supports investigating the efficacy of school vouchers in impoving public school performance.
He doesn't believe that the US economy should be crippled in order to comply with a treaty (Kyoto) that the Senate (under Clinton's presidency and Democrat control) voted unanimously not to endorse.
He believes in God and does not appologize for it.
Do you see anything in there to hate him for? Is the most important domestic policy issue of the day abortion? Is the most important foriegn policy initiative Kyoto?
HOW ABOUT A LITTLE BALANCE?
The Media Research Center highlights some good news from Iraq that recently aired on Hardball (via Instapundit):
"Arnot argued: "The real question is, given all the death and destruction that you see on television in the United States, what's the real deal out here? The fact is in 85 percent of the country, it's calm, it's stable, it's moving forward. You find a lot of places like Horia [sp?], where we were today, and Kadame [sp] where they actually like or even love Americans. "
Now certainly everything is not wine and roses, but Arnot is on the ground in Iraq and walking the streets. Why don't we get more of this perspective from the media?
"Matthews: “Bob, would more troops help the effort?”
Arnot: “I don’t really think so. I think the bottom line is you want to get more and more Iraqis out on the front. You’re gonna see it in a couple days a great story here I did with the 17th Field Artillery. What they did is they went out and they hired ex-Republican Guards. They put them into a private security company. They play the national anthem. They have Iraqi colonels back out there. They have a great deal of pride in it. The more Iraqis you get out there in front of American soldiers, the better, whether it’s the civilian defense corps or the police, they’re training them. That’s the real solution, is to get more out there and have terrific intelligence....”
Is Bob Arnot a shill for the Bush Administration? If not (and I've never heard that accusation leveled against him), then you have to give his first-hand reporting some weight. Maybe, just maybe, the military is headed in the right direction and there just hasn't been enought time yet to get Iraqi forces up to strength in order to eradicate the Saddamist/Jihadist thugs.
But that would mean that Dick Gephardt, John Kerry, Howard Dean, et.al. are guilty of embracing foriegn policies based on defeatist, knee-jerk reactions to American casualties. Who else does that remind me of?