Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Where's The Beef?

You may recall an old commercial, I think for Wendy’s, in which an old lady looks at competitor’s hamburgers and asks “Where’s the beef?” The comment became so popular that Walter Mondale used it in his presidential run. I think it’s fair to ask that question now vis-a-vis the current culture crisis going on in this country. So let’s look at some meat-and-potatoes issues.

Bush lied about Saddam’s WMDs, but Kerry was telling the truth when he said in January of 2003, “If you don’t believe Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn’t vote for me,” and Bill Clinton was telling the truth when he said, “I did not have sex with that woman...Miss Lewinski.”

Karl Rove exposed the identity of a secret agent who used her own cover name and that of her CIA front company to make a personal donation of $1,000 to the 2000 Gore campaign (that’s public info), who was identified by an FSB (formerly KGB) agent in Moscow over ten years ago, and (even more recently) was outed by the CIA itself in documents given to the Swiss Embassy in Havana and somehow passed to Cuban intelligence.

Bush promises that anyone who breaks the law will no longer work in his administration and Harry Reid demands Bush hold to his promise to fire anyone related to the leak.

John Bolton is righteously decried by Chris Dodd as unfit for the position of ambassador to the UN for his “kiss up/kick down” attitude but he welcomes Hillary Clinton to the Senate after she destroyed the career and personal finances of Billy Dale in order to give his job to a friend.

George W. Bush was derided for joining the National Guard and learning to fly dangerous high-tech fighter aircraft rather than go to Vietnam, but John Kerry got a pass for requesting a year-long deferment to continue his post-graduate studies in Paris.

Dan Rather and his media friends attempt to destroy Bush with forged documents claiming he was AWOL, but Brandon Hughey and Jeremy Hinzman are regaled as heroes for going AWOL, deserting their units, and defecting to Canada.

Sandy Berger steals top secret documents about Clinton’s involvement in 9/11 from the National Archives and destroys them, for which he is likely to get a stern talking-to and a $10,000 fine. Howard Harner steals about 100 Civil War letters and gets two years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid commented that Alberto Gonzales would likely win confirmation for O’Connor’s vacant Supreme Court seat and that Senate Democrats would not filibuster him. The same Harry Reid found Gonzales unfit to be Attorney General as did all but 6 of the other Democrats.

The Democratic National Committee said Bush lost 2.7 million manufacturing jobs, but they didn’t mention that the job loss started under Bill Clinton. Nor do they comment now that there are more Americans working now than have ever been and that the American economy has produced over 2 million jobs just his year alone and that unemployment has fallen to 5.0 %, which is better than at any time during the Clinton Administration.

John Kerry said during his campaign that the jobs being created in this country were “hamburger-flipper jobs” but the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed increased employment for construction workers and professionals in health-care and business management and showed little growth at all in lower paying job sectors.

Bush was criticized for cutting taxes while waging a war and ballooning the federal deficit but, as the New York Times reported, “an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.”

The revenue increase was “unexpected” by NYT perhaps, but not by anyone who pays attention. JFK did it and so did Reagan - lowering taxes increases revenues. As in each example, the prevailing liberal Democratic wisdom isn’t something you’d want to bet the farm on. So, where’s the beef?

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Credibility

Think back to the Kerry campaigns. We were told: “Bush is a moron” and that Kerry had released ALL his documents. Well, on June 7, 2005, nearly two years after the campaign ended and over a year after the election, Kerry finally releases more, but still not all, of his records. During the campaign, Gaddis Smith, professor of diplomatic history at Yale who taught Kerry, described him as “the one who stood out.” In June 2005, Smith was confronted with Kerry’s actual grades from Yale and he issued this correction: “I thought he was a good student. Those aren’t very good grades.” As a freshman, Kerry’s GPA was a skin-of-the-teeth C (a 71). That year the political genius who hoped to be President got four Ds: one in geology, two in history and the fourth in political science ~ so much for the political genius. As a sophomore, Kerry’s GPA was a D. His graduating average was a 76; surely not the “best and brightest” as advertised by his Democratic supporters and peers. George W. Bush, on the other hand, readily admitted being a poor student, was vilified as a “frat boy” by Kerry et al., but got only one D in all his four years. His graduating GPA was 77. Bush gets no points for good grades, but he does win this round for credibility.

The majority of the Democratic party has gone on the war path over Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. Charges of prisoner abuse and torture abound. The position of the party is that these prisons have caused terrorist attacks around the world and drawn foreign terrorists into the Iraq theater. Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader, the second highest ranking Democrat in the country, has stated in plain language that Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and Bush’s war in Iraq caused the attacks in London. Rather than heap scorn on Pelosi and beat her from Washington with a switch, Democrats applaud her ludicrous and totally unsubstantiated assertions. Did the war in Iraq, Gitmo, or Abu Ghraib cause the 3/11, Khobar Towers, USS Cole, the first World Trade Center bombing or the 9/11 attacks? Obviously not. Has Nancy Pelosi read Osama bin Laden’s ‘declaration of war’ on the United States? Apparently not. Credibility again goes to the Republicans.

Durban, Pelosi, and the majority of Democrats lambaste the administration and the soldiers as torturers. They further claim that we must give “enemy combatants” rights and privileges under the Geneva Convention that they clearly are not due on the grounds that our soldiers will be at risk if they become POWs. Apart from being morally vacant, these charges are ludicrous on the merits. Long before Gitmo, the US Embassy in Iran was taken by force - an act of war - and American civilians, as well as military personnel, were held, interrogated and tortured for 444 days. That is how our POWs will be treated. In the Persian Gulf War, Major Rhonda Cornum was captured by Iraqi troops. She suffered severe injuries but that didn’t prevent her being sexually molested by an Iraqi soldier. That is how our POWs will be treated. In the current war in Iraq, Sargent Shoshana Johnson was shot in the ankle before being captured: “I was beaten. They slapped me and punched me in my stomach and back. I remember trying to block a blow from a rifle butt.” That is how our POWs ARE being treated. Also, in the current Iraq war, Jessica Lynch was captured and raped while unconscious from her wounds. That is how our POWs ARE being treated. Nick Berg, who was a civilian contractor in Iraq providing aid and support to the citizens of Iraq, was kidnapped and beheaded on video. This is how our POWs ARE being treated. Oops, no points for the Democrats again.

Rather than repeat Karl Rove again, I’ll quote the liberal actor Ron Silver: “There are pre-9/11 people and there are post-9/11 people.” The day before 9/11, Jennie Traschen, a professor at University of Massachusetts, gave a speech in which she described the American flag as “a symbol of terrorism and death and fear and destruction and oppression.” Shortly after the planes hit, another professor on the other side of the country, Ward Churchill, described the people working in the WTC as “the little Eichmanns” and noted they deserved what they got. Shirley McLaine’s response to the planes hitting the Twin Towers was to “melt their weapons, melt their hearts, melt their anger with love.” Richard Gere saw the hijackers as “a relative who’s dangerously sick and we have to give them medicine, and the medicine is love and compassion.” Norman Mailer admired the hijackers, observing that “Americans can’t admit that you need courage to do such a thing.” McLaine, Gere, and Mailer made their comments while the ruins still smoked and bodies were still being pulled from the wreckage. More recently, Michael Duffy, who co-wrote the discredited Time expose of Gitmo, had this gem: “So, you know...the hijackers – 19 of whom have died and we’ll never really get to know [them] – were children...convinced that this was a good way to spend their time...” When this genius was called on his bleeding-heart concern for murderous fanatics, he responded, “I don’t feel sorry for them. It’s the implication here that we somehow, you know, feel sorry for them. I don’t know where that comes from.” Go ahead, pull the other one. The reporters still have press-passes, the professors are still teaching, and the Hollywood elites are still well regarded. No calls for ‘sensitivity training,’ no hisses from the audiences; these people speak from the heart of their ideology. Give me a ‘mean-spirited Republican’ every time, thank you very much.

Speaking of ideology, exactly what is the Liberal Democrat ideology? The new rising star of the Democratic Party put it better than anyone I’ve ever heard. On July 9th, at a town-hall fundraiser at the Macedonia Missionary Baptist Church, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) said, “the Democrats at times have lost their way. We are trying to decide what our core values are.” It’s simply too perfect. He believes steadfastly in the ‘separation of church and state’ but holds fundraisers in a church, but that’s probably just a belief and not really a ‘core value.’ If you’re looking for someone with a finger on the pulse of the Democratic Party look no further than Doug Sosnik, who worked as a political director and strategist for Bill Clinton. Sosnik, way back in November 2004, said “the leadership of our party has a cultural disconnect. Our leaders – particularly Washington D.C.-based – don’t really have the same life, day to day, as all those people out there in those red states...We can’t figure out a better way to sell to those people.” John Edwards was quoted by the Washington Post on June 15, 2005, saying that the leaders of the Democratic party need "a core set of beliefs [that they are] willing to fight for, whether they're popular or not." Apparently, they were listening because the Boston Globe reported on June 30, 2005, that “House and Senate Democrats...have held a series of long, closed-door meetings over the past several weeks to find a common position and a sharpened political message on the Iraq War.” It’s not that difficult folks, if you had “core values,” your position would be clear. The article goes on to give a ‘Keystone Kops’ reprise of the various ideas the politicos have, from complete and instant withdrawal to increasing troop strength! Rising as the voice of reason, Hillary Clinton “warned that an intense, public debate over Iraq could bitterly divide the nation.” [Hint: the Washington Post reported on June 28, 2005, that nearly 88% of Americans believe the US must stay in Iraq “until civil order is restored - a goal most...acknowledge is, at best, several years away.”] Wesley Clark summed it up almost as well as Obama did: “It’s not realistic for Democrats to have a coherent voice.” Hey, I don’t make this stuff up. Republicans don’t need to have meetings to determine their core values, nor do they need meetings to corral the party and lock them into march-step. Republicans don’t sell to the voters, we just speak from the heart and be exactly who we are. It’s called credibility, or if you like, integrity.

Speaking of integrity, what is it with Democrats and ‘selective outrage?’ Democrats chant “Bush Lied” as if it’s some mantra, as if repeating it often enough will somehow make it true. Where are the Democrats chanting “Clinton Lied,” or “Chirac Lied,” or “Putin Lied,” or “Kofi Lied,” or any of the other over-a-hundred world leaders who said exactly what Bush said. It’s simply politically expedient to condemn Bush, not because he actually lied, but because he’s in the White House and they want him out. Clinton actually did lie and the Democrats told us that was OK - go figure. Tom DeLay is being pilloried for a variety of issues, most of which have already been essentially dismissed by the Ethics committee. The current flap involves a trip he took that was paid for by Jack Abramoff personally rather than by the National Center for Public Policy Research. It should be noted that DeLay reported this trip and the records show clearly that he had every reason to believe it was paid for by the non-profit. DeLay’s greatest critic is Nancy Pelosi who tried to hide her own disclosure of trips taken up to 7 years ago on Friday, July 1, 2005. The rule is that she should have filed within 30 days of the trip, but she didn’t - what was she trying to hide? How about a 1999 trip to Taiwan for a week for her and her husband costing over $4,640 paid for by the Chinese National Association of Industry and Commerce - anyone heard of Unocal? Then there’s Howard Dean. He’s a doctor right? On May 24, 2005, he told Tim Russert on national TV: “You know that abortions have gone up 25 percent since George Bush was President?” Of course, this was a flat out lie and worse because as a doctor he knew it was a lie. Kerry said the same thing before him, and Hillary before Kerry - say it often enough and it becomes true, right? How about Dean on war - - in a personal letter to Bill Clinton dated July 19, 1995, Dean “concluded that we must take unilateral action” in Bosnia on moral grounds. Of course, his morality changes in 2003 when it’s a Republican President going to war in Iraq. In 2005, Dean calls for immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq but doesn’t mind leaving them in Bosnia. Karl Rove recycles a rumor about the wife of Joe Wilson, who is NOT a covert agent, but an analyst, and IS widely known as working for the CIA and the Democrats are out with pitchforks and torches to destroy the monster. Where was this outrage when the Clintons had Paula Jones’ tax returns given to the press, or Linda Tripp’s personnel file from the Pentagon, or when the US District Court found that the Clintons criminally violated the Privacy Act to silence Kathleen Willey? A little closer to home, Democrats serially re-elect Patrick Leahy despite the fact that his exposure of top secret intelligence on national TV got an Egyptian agent killed. There’s a pattern here, can you see it?t6

Not all Democrats are without character, integrity, and credibility. There’s Zell Miller, for one. Given the track record of the party as a whole though, I seriously have to question the veracity of any self-declared Democrat. The leadership of the Party believes that to win elections they have to sell themselves and their message and when they lose they have to “figure out a better way to sell.” The rank-and-file brainlessly ignore the facts when they are clear for all to see and shamelessly repeat the talking points of the day. If this gets Democrats angry - GREAT! But before they drag out the pitchforks and torches, they should sit down with a pen and paper and answer the issues point for point; respond with reason and fact, instead of emotion and dogma. That would be the credible thing to do.

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Krafty Words

Mr. Kraft is worried about my credibility again and for that I thank him. He suggests that I turn off FOX and turn on NPR. He thinks that I should be critical of Republicans in order to meet some criteria of fairness and balance. If the truth be told, I was planning on treating him to a review of the various Republican ‘bad boys’ (as I see them). There are Republicans who philander, lie, cheat, and steal. I wasn’t gong to just blast Mr. Kraft and expose his feeble-mindedness. But, in the immortal words of John Wayne: “the hell I won’t!”

If the best Mr. Kraft (and my other critics) can do is to cry in their coffee about how one-sided my “attacks” are, then it is incumbent upon them to either own up to the fact that their side is exactly as I’ve described them, or respond to my “attacks” and prove me wrong. Months ago, Mr. Kraft called me on the carpet about my observations on the performance of the Springfield School District. He demanded an apology, but he never got around to disproving the statistics I quoted from the Town Report - statistics that came directly from the schools themselves.

Mr. Kraft’s assertion that NPR is more “fair and balanced” than FOX News is another bit of tired, liberal dogma that just makes me shake my head. It is highly doubtful that Mr. Kraft ever has watched FOX News for any length of time, much less long enough to draw a rational conclusion. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and NPR and the rest of the ‘mainstream media’ regularly lob broadsides against FOX. It is to their advantage to do so: news is business and in business you must obliterate your competition. As consumers, it is incumbent upon us to work through the advertising. Clearly, Mr. Kraft has failed to do this. If he had, he would have learned that Juan Williams and Mara Liason, both highly placed in NPR, are regular commentators on the Brit Hume segment. Despite being regularly cast as a conservative, Bill O’Rielly considers himself a moderate and his show never casts a Republican without giving equal time to a Democrat. O’Rielly is often highly critical of the Bush Administration. There would be no Hannity & Colmes show without the extremely liberal and proudly Democratic Alan Colmes. Despite being a Republican, Sean Hannity regularly invites his friends liberal Democrats Charles Rangle and Al Sharpton and gives them ample time to speak their minds. Before I ever let a partisan movie like “OutFOXed” make up my mind about where I get my information from, I’m damn-sure going to go out there and get both sides. I watched all the major news networks and listened to NPR for years before I settled in at FOX and I still get most of my news from a variety of independent sources including foreign news agencies.

It is intellectually vapid of Mr. Kraft to assert that my credibility is diminished because I focus on the failings of the Democratic Party and Liberalism without giving “equal time” to bashing Republicans. The majority of other contributors to the Springfield Reporter, from editorials to political cartoons, to letters to the editor, engage in “Bush-bashing” and anti-Republicans rants. Howard Dean says “Republicans have never worked an honesty day in their lives,” speaking about ALL Republican, not just the leadership as he tried to spin his comments later. Where is Mr. Kraft’s condemnation of these others? It is typical of the Left to slip into the “politics of personal destruction,” when they are challenged. Neither Kraft, nor anyone else thus far, has even attempted with any degree of clarity to debunk anything I’ve written. The response to anything critical of the Left is to make ad hominem attacks unrelated to the facts of the issue, to decry the unfairness of “giving so much space” to the critic, and to try the moral relativism of saying, “well, your side has done bad stuff, too!”

Mr. Kraft suggests I look to Watergate and I wish he would. For decades, Nixon’s name has been trashed, yet as we approach the time frame where history is gaining enough perspective to see clearly, it’s becoming much more obvious that what we’ve been led to believe (by Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Bob Woodward) just ain’t so. What do we know about Nixon? Well, when he lost to Kennedy in 1960 in an election rife with legitimate charges of Democratic electoral fraud, then-Vice President Nixon did not go to court and hold up the transfer of power for six weeks. Once he did gain office, Nixon did what earlier Democratic Presidents before him had done. President Lyndon B. Johnson, through Bill Moyers, illegally used the FBI to plant bugs on his political opponents Barry Goldwater (and his staffers) and Robert F. Kennedy. That’s Bill Moyers, who till recently was the power at the “politically balanced” NPR. We’ve learned that much of “All The President’s Men” is suspect and that the ‘reporting’ of The Washington Post was sketchy at best. The source of the information used to “bring down” the President was a disgruntled employee who broke the law to do as much damage as he possibly could. Moreover, that same “hero” then proceeded to do exactly what the “plumbers” did and was caught and convicted. Sadly, a Republican President pardoned him. It would be sweet justice if Mark Felt, Woodward, and Bernstein were tried for the Federal crimes they committed or at least for bribery - it doesn’t matter that the payoff of the bribe comes decades after the crime: should Felt get any money for his story, it would be the payoff. I wouldn’t suggest jail time, only the conviction because then he couldn’t get any money out of it. Somehow, I don’t think that Mr. Kraft sees this the way I do and the way that I believe history will.

I am sure Mr. Kraft would disagree with the following statements, but I believe them to be true. “September 11 changed America. It made us realize we must deal differently with the very real threat of terrorism, whether it comes from shadowy groups operating in the mountains of Afghanistan or in 70 other countries....There has been some debate over how ‘imminent’ a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated...Saddam’s government has contact with many international terrorist organizations...He could make those weapons available to many terrorist groups...if Saddam thought he could attack America through proxies and cover the trail back to Baghdad, he might not think it so irrational...The fact that Zarqawi certainly is related to the death of the U.S. aid officer and that he is very close to bin Laden puts at rest, in fairly dramatic terms, that there is at least a substantial connection between Saddam and al Qaeda...September 11 has forever changed the world. We may not like it, but that is the world in which we live. When there is a grave threat to Americans’ lives, we have a responsibility to take action to prevent it.” These are the same words George W. Bush has used in many statements since September 11, 2001, BUT this is not his statement. The quote belongs to Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) made on the floor of the Senate on October 10, 2002 and again on CNN on February 5, 2003 to Wolf Blitzer. At the end of June this year, the same person who made the previous statements said Iraq “had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden, it had nothing to do with al-Qaida, it had nothing to do with September 11.” I leave it to the reader to determine the character of Senator Rockefeller - “the hell I will!” Only a moral reprobate who cares for nothing but his own aggrandizement could hold both of these positions. George W. Bush has never connected September 11 with Saddam Hussein except to point out that Iraq is the next front in the War on Terror. It is the trademark hypocrisy and shame of the Democratic leadership that they “banged the drums of war” when the tide of the country washed over them but with its ebb, they went right back to demoralizing rhetoric and self-aggrandizing accusations.

I could go on, but I’ve reached saturation for today. The reason I changed tacks and decided to address Mr. Kraft directly rather than indulge his childish notion of ‘balance’ is because I got up early this morning (July 7, 2005) to the news of the major terrorist strike in London, England. Why do I hold Mr. Kraft and the Democrat Party in such high disregard? I think I’ll let Michael Moore and Woody Allen speak for me. Shortly after 9/11, Moore told an audience: “There is no terrorist threat.” The Democratic Party enthroned Moore at their 2004 Convention and continue to buy his books and watch his movies. On June 28, 2005, Woody Allen added this gem to the political debate: 9/11 is “too small, history overwhelms it...The history of the world is like: He kills me, I kill him, only with different cosmetics and different castings. So in 2001, some fanatics killed some Americans, and now some Americans are killing some Iraqis...And in my childhood, some Nazis killed some Jews. And now, some Jewish people and some Palestinians are killing each other. Political questions, if you go back thousands of years, are ephemeral, not important. History is the same thing over and over again.” Of course, Allen didn’t have the balls to say this in America, he said it in Germany to Der Spiegel. I doubt his movies would suffer much if he had said it here. Karl Rove was right: “Liberals do not understand the significance of 9/11.”

In closing I should like to quote Dick Durban: “Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line. To them, I extend my heartfelt apologies.”

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

Lie of the Party

Frankly, I’m at my wit’s end. I can’t imagine being a Democrat today. How do you look at yourselves in the mirror? Democrats tout themselves as the party of the people. Time after time, I hear, I’m a Democrat because they stand for the little guy like me. It’s a good slogan, if only it were true.

Your second-highest ranking political representative compares the United States to Soviet Gulags, Nazis, and the Khmer Rouge and you don’t call for his resignation! In fact, you lie through your teeth to defend him! Dick Durbin was reading a prepared statement, so Harry Reid’s excuse that his comments were extemporaneous does not fly. Nor did his “apology” retract the comparison - he only apologized to those people whose feelings he hurt. His comments were aired on Al Jazeera the day after he made them, so again his defenders lie when they blame Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity for promoting the backlash. These are your Senators, yet you do nothing about them. When Trent Lott made a stupid, relatively innocuous, and completely extemporaneous comment off the Senate floor, outside the confines of his Senate work, at a birthday party he was castigated and forced to step down by his own party. There is no outrage on the Left for Durban - you guys circled the wagons around him - meanwhile Durban’s words are used to goad and justify more attacks on Americans. So much for the “party of the people.”

Last week, my family went to Washington, DC on vacation. I can tell you from personal experience that Dick Durbin is either a complete idiot or a bald-faced liar. The Capitol sits at 1st and Independence Avenues. Ten blocks away, at 15th and Independence Avenue, stands the Holocaust Memorial Museum. A few blocks beyond that lies the World War II Memorial, a short walk beyond that, the Korean War Veterans Memorial, and, just around the end of the Reflecting Pool, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. It would take no more than a brief after-lunch break for Durbin to see his comments for what they are, but I don’t think he really needs it - I think he knows the truth and doesn’t believe a word he himself uttered. So why say them? Simply, he can’t regain power with the truth, so he lies. The Democratic Party has held all three branches of Government for almost as long as anyone alive can remember. They have been steadily losing that hegemony for over a decade. Now they hold dominance only in the Supreme Court. The truth wouldn’t help Dick Durbin, so he lied. So much for the “party of the people.”

Why not? Democrats have been lying for ages and it has always worked for them up to now. Democrats are for the little guy and against the big corporations, right? How is it then that all five liberal justices on the Supreme Court sided with government and big corporations and the four conservative justices stood with .the little guy? The liberal activists on the Supreme Court simply voided the restrictions of the Fifth Amendment as it pertains to property rights. Say what you like, but private property rights are unarguably the cornerstone of American liberty. Now, as conservative Justice Scalia said in dissent, “I can just take anyone’s property away and give it to whomever I like.” In celebration of the new powers granted to government by the Supreme Court, I move that the Town of Springfield condemn the property of William O. Moeser at 64 Chester Road so we can convert it from a private home to a new police station, or perhaps a homeless shelter. I am sure that Mr. Moeser would be thrilled to find a new home, since his interpretation of the Constitution as a living document to be interpreted “expansively” was just upheld. The “little guys” in New London, Connecticut, have just been sold down the river by the liberal agenda, their homes will be torn down to make way for a mall, all in the name of greater tax revenue for the city. So much for the “party of the people.”

I have been following this case for some time and heard about the decision while passing through Connecticut on the way to my weekend in Washington. I immediately got on the cell phone and called the offices of Bernie Sanders, Jim Jeffords, and Patrick Leahy. I implored the staffer in each office to express to their boss the urgent need to address this issue. I asked that each speak out on the floor of his branch of Congress. When I returned home, I learned - not much to my surprise - that not one of the liberal Democrat representatives from Vermont spoke out against this decision (yes, Bernie and Jim are Democrats - just look at their voting records). While my representatives were missing-in-action, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) stood up in the Senate to decry the abuse of power. So much for the “party of the people.”

On June 13, 2005, the Senate passed a resolution to apologize for lynching. What a crock! It is typical liberal-all-flash-and-no-substance rhetoric and a waste of time and energy. Throughout the judicial nomination and Bolton filibusters, the Democratic leadership was castigating Republicans for wasting so much time and distracting the Senate from the important work of the American people. With the obstructionist sluice-gates open the Senate rushed forth to pass this resolution that is SO important to America at this time. We’ve got energy and fuel problems, budget concerns, foreign trade issues, not to mention a war, but thank God we’ve now apologized for lynchings. I’ve got a news-flash for you - my family has never, ever been involved in a lynching and I don’t think it’s right for my taxes to be wasted on such NONSENSE! Lynchings happened, they were wrong, but the time to have apologized is long since passed and it’s time people were told to get over it and get on with their lives. Members of my family were slaughtered in the concentration camps (you know, like the ones that Dick Durbin said America is currently running) in Nazi Germany - I neither want nor need Germans to apologize for that. I have family that were murdered in Cuba by Castro’s illegitimate and illegal regime - I neither expect nor want him to apologize for that. Apologies don’t do a damn thing. The brutal truth, the actual history, is that till the 1960s, the Democratic Party (you know, those guys who filibustered Civil Rights laws) blocked all attempts to make lynching illegal. It’s a fact, look it up. So much for the “party of the people.”

It’s so easy for the Democratic Party to sweep their dirty laundry under the rug forty years later and simply produce a weak and limp apology for their heinous behavior. But that’s what the Democratic Party does best. After months of almost nonstop criticism of the Guantanimo Bay Prison, replete with baseless and erroneous reports in Newsweek, New York Times, and other media about abuses alleged by the prisoners (who are trained to manipulate the media by making false accusations), the Democratic critics finally went to see the place for themselves. ( Call me foolish, but I’d have gone to check it out BEFORE I criticized, but that’s just me.) Had these Congresspersons returned with horror stories of abuse and torture, we’d have heard about it ad nauseum. The fact is, these pathetic individuals returned cowed and quiet, softly expressing the fact that “this wasn’t the Gitmo that’s been described to us,” as one Representative put it. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), ever the loyal toe-the-liberal-line toady, could only muster the observation that “this proves we’ve made progress.” PATHETIC! The terrorists infesting Iraq videotape beheadings, demand ransoms, stage mass executions, car-bomb markets, make suicide bombers of retarded children - and they do all this to innocent civilians, not soldiers! But our noble and brave Democrats want us to “close Gitmo” so these people will treat our POWs better. News Flash: terrorist attacks and atrocities occurred BEFORE Gitmo was built and they’re going to continue whether it’s there or not. Is it that Democrats care more for terrorists than for Americans? No, I wouldn’t say that (unless I were angry); rather, Democrats are willing to take whatever position, no matter how extreme, in opposition to their opponent - which in this case happens to be Republicans and not terrorists. So much for the “party of the people.”

I am proud to be a Conservative and I’m proud to be a Republican. I recognize and admit that both conservatives and Republicans have done stupid, bad, illegal, and even unpatriotic things. When we find out, we Republicans punish them. That just doesn’t seem to happen on the other side of the aisle. Democrats excuse their offenders, occasionally with a mild rebuke or a ‘time-out’, but more often than not, Democrats circle the wagons and defend their reprobates with their politics of personal destruction. If she were a Republican, Hillary Clinton would have been ostracized and sent into obscurity. By contrast, the Democrats are likely to run her for President, yet her reputation for “kiss up, kick down” is much more serious than John Bolton’s. Senator Dodd (D-CT) said that barred him from “holding a high government office,” but he doesn’t move for impeachment of Senator Clinton and will likely campaign for her run as President. Where’s the headsman for Sandy Berger - you remember, he’s the Clinton-guy that stole top-secret documents ‘by mistake.’ How about Dan Rostenkowski? I just don’t get the appeal of the Democratic Party and I haven’t met anyone yet who can intellectually defend it. But, hey, it’s the “party of the people,” so let’s party-hearty and keep it goin’ till the sun goes down!