Reagan 2004 Bumper Stickers are Here!

V-ROC. Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

Consumer Abuse at Microsoft? Try Apple!
How to Be a Democrat

Daily Musings

December 10, 2003: Howard Dean says Bush f***ed up the situation in Iraq – but does not give more than cloudy particulars on what he’d have done. Which leaves the matter open for interpretation. I’ll interpret Candidate Dean’s vagueness to mean that he would have launched a full-scale nuclear attack against Afghanistan and Iraq. Both countries would be radio active ash heaps right now – home to nary a living organism sporting less than six legs. Yes, that is what Howard Dean’s vision for peace must be: nuclear holocaust. That way, a few decades from now, after the radio-activity has subsided, tree-huggers can move in and cultivate a new Eden – where flora & fauna thrive, under the protection of a new world order, ruled from Washington by Howard Dean and his minions of wild-eyed Green militants. A little exaggerated perhaps? Maybe, but this is exactly the type of sinister plotting of which democrats like Dean accuse Bush. They loudly demand concise details from Bush on how and when Iraq & Afghanistan will finally be stable, meanwhile characterizing his efforts to date as overly-aggressive, reckless, and self-serving. Bush is a gang-leader, an imperialist, head of an evil regime set on colonizing the world for America – especially for America’s rich industrialist class. The idea that one-fifth of the world’s population is taught to hate America and rise up against us by despotic theocrats is apparently given no credence, or is perhaps not important to Dean and the democrats. A billion people mobilized to destroy the United States could not possibly be Bush’s motivation to fight. I suppose any given situation could be interpreted in many ways. Fine. Howard Dean is, at heart, an angry, hateful, militant, fanatical environmentalist bent on extermination of all human life save for a tiny circle of like-minded green-bloods, who will let nothing stop them from marauding toward their Green world order. To Dean 9/11 was an excuse to finally decimate humanity itself, so that nature may reclaim her rightful domain on Earth. If only he had the power! Oh, the power!

October 8, 2003: In his rant published in the October 6 Chicago Tribune, “Limbaugh was wrong from the get-go” Derrick Z. Jackson accuses Rush Limbaugh of “fanning ignorance and hate.” He compares Mr. Limbaugh to a “slavemaster” and draws graphic metaphorical images of Mr. Limbaugh whipping slaves and living on a plantation. Basically, Mr. Jackson is saying that Mr. Limbaugh is a racist.
  The provocation for this rant (and dozens of others like it), of course, was Mr. Limbaugh’s comment regarding Donovan McNabb that, “the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well.” Basically, Mr. Limbaugh is saying the media are racist.
  The Limbaugh debacle is a clear illustration of the double-standard that is applied to the race issue in America. Liberals control the terms of the debate. Anyone who shows up at the door with a different angle cannot get their ticket punched. Worse than that, they are routinely shouted down, vilified, and dismissed by people like Mr. Jackson.
  Mr. Limbaugh may be right: the media may be racist. On the other hand, he may be wrong. Unfortunately, however, we won’t know for a while – if ever – because we are not going to have that debate now. The left will not allow it.

September 4 2003: “To provide for the common defense” of the United States is the only constitutional duty of the federal government. So here’s an idea: were the federal government not so busily engaged in thousands of unconstitutional activities, maybe they’d have been more focused on defense, and the 9/11 attacks would never have happened. Some want to blame the sophomoric Clinton administration for 9/11 based on dereliction of their constitutional duty to defense. If Clinton’s dereliction really was the cause of 9/11, his whole administration ought to be considered a failure of the worst proportions – bordering on treason. Unfortunately, however, Americans today do not judge the president, or indeed the federal government, based solely on their one constitutional duty. The common defense is just a single criterion for judgment which is mixed willy-nilly with such silly, fanciful “issues” as the environment, abortion rights, minimum wage, “fair” housing, health care, the economy, urban poverty, racial discrimination, and on, and on, and on…and on. So a president, or a government, who egregiously neglects his single duty, so long as he performs favorably on a thousand false fronts, may be remembered a success and revered by the populace. And because his constitutional failure is punished no worse than his irrelevant successes are rewarded, there is no glaring lesson for successors to learn, or incentive for them to avoid the same constitutional failure. In fact, the incentive to neglect duty – and to obscure the view to failed duty – is only reinforced. And now what about Bush? Total victory in Afganistan and Iraq will not matter if people think he hasn’t “created” enough jobs (which is like blaming your house for bad weather) or think he’s soft on air pollution, or whatever. On the other hand, failure in the war on terror (Bush’s only real duty) will be overlooked if Bush is perceived to have improved the economy, cleaned the air, helped the elderly, etc. It is time to get back to basics.
August 5 2003: Warning: American Devolution. Jesse Jackson Junior is Warning Us Now. He is an old school socialist, who wishes to [transform] America’s Constitution from a guarantor of individual liberty to a hammer for Marxism. In fact, U.S. Congressman Jackson (D-IL), has already set to work. In March, 2003, he proposed 8 amendments that, if ever passed, would realistically amount to a second American Revolution – actually Devolution would be more appropriate. The once supple notion of individual liberty, like brittle Autumn wheat fields, would be scythed down once and for all, and the ground re-sown with the noxious weeds of Statism. Democratic totalitarianism will have come of age.
      Quoting directly from John D. Thomas’s August 3, 2003 Chicago Tribune Op-Ed:
      'The new Jacksonian Constitution would guarantee "the right to public education of equal high quality," "the right to health care of equal high quality," "equal rights for women," "the right to decent, safe, sanitary and affordable housing," "the right to a clean, safe and sustainable environment," "the right . . . to full employment and balanced economic growth," "the explicit fundamental right of citizens to vote" and an amendment "regarding taxing the people of the United States progressively."'
      This, of course, is Marxism donning the cloak of charity. Mr. Jackson’s use of the word “Right” is incorrect. “Coerced taxpayer enabled privileges” is what he means by “right.” True rights defy economic measurement. They are invaluable. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are the only pure rights. Even The Bill of Rights, as ingenious as it is, contains mere enumerations of the pure rights. They are simply 10 different examples of the rights to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. All of Mr. Jackson’s so-called rights, deal with money – and stealing money at that.
      “Public education of equal high quality” means forcing some citizens to pay for the education of other citizens. Ditto for health care. Ditto for “affordable housing.” The constitution already guarantees the rights of citizens to pursue education, health care, and housing. Jackson wants to guarantee that some can pursue without paying.
      Mr. Jackson’s proposals are so radical, they would never gain any traction. Right? Certainly, in their overt form, these ideas would meet strong resistance today. But give Mr. Jackson some time. This is a young man, already endowed with ample financial backing and public stature, embarking on what will certainly be a long political career. In addition, he seems greatly determined. “I am very serious about [these Amendments],” he says in the Tribune. “When one stakes themselves out in terms of fundamental principles and fundamental rights and argues that they should be in the Constitution of the United States, it should give you some sense of just how patient and how serious the individual is.”
      “As long as I am alive and in congress,” Jackson says he will push these amendments.
      Perhaps young Mr. Jackson suffers from rosy colored idealism, and will temper his views in coming years. Perhaps. But this scenario seems unlikely for someone of Jackson’s political pedigree. No, I think Mr. Jackson has a plan, and will prove to be very patient in the coming decades. He has watched his father grow from Chicago preacher to civil rights globetrotter. He knows it did not happen overnight. Today, Junior is a fresh-faced Congressman pushing a tired out Marxist agenda in an era of Conservative renaissance. But his agenda is not for today; it’s for forever. And someday, young Mr. Jackson will be the esteemed Mr. Jackson, pushing that same Marxist agenda amidst (dare I say it!) a 1960s radical liberal renaissance.
      I credit Mr. Jackson just a little. Proposing amendments to Marxize the constitution, is an implicit admission that state control of private resources is indeed unconstitutional today. I also credit him for only thinly veiling his Marxist intentions. If he ever gets his way with these amendments, we can’t say he didn’t warn us.
July 24 2003: The New York Times is firing on the Bush tax cut today because the cut does not include child credits to 6.5 million poor families. These families will not receive tax credits because they do not pay enough taxes – meaning the credit would rightly be called welfare. The main argument stops with that, but there is a secondary argument to consider. Not only is this “shameful omission” a “slight to the needy,” says the Times, but also bad economic policy. The poor are “far more likely than the affluent to immediately spend the money in the economic stimulus Mr. Bush has been promising.” There’s the rub. The implication is that equipping America’s poor to buy a few extra bags of potato chips is the necessary fuel to rocket the economy into high orbit. Meanwhile, cutting taxes for the rich only “adds tens of billions of dollars to the deficit.” How did this laughable fallacy ever gain serious acceptance? Consumer spending is important for an economy, but capital investment is the true fuel. When a rich person suddenly has an extra $50,000, most of that money is destined for risk-takers (via loans & investments) who build businesses, which provide poor people opportunities to become rich people. No, the rich are not buying extra potato chips with their tax cut – they’re enabling someone to open a potato chip factory!
July 23 2003: Kobe Bryant has been arrested for 3rd degree sexual assault based on the accusations of an anonymous Colorado woman (soon not to be, I hear). Meanwhile stories indicating that the accusation may be false, and that the accuser may be a gold-digger, are gaining momentum. The accuser was reported to be laughing about her tryst, and boasting about Mr. Bryant’s anatomy at a party a few days subsequent to the incident. Kobe admits to having sex, but insists that everything was consensual. If Kobe really raped this woman, he deserves to be ruined. If he did not rape her, if the sex was truly consensual, Kobe deserves only the wrath of his deceived wife. Feminists, of course, are ready to hang Kobe – possible false accusations be damned. A decade or so ago, feminists declared that sexual assault is such a grave offense that a mere allegation must be treated as an actual crime. Never mind that the cases of Paula Jones, Kathleen Wiley, Monica Lewinsky and a host of other Clinton accusers totally discredits this policy. (Apparently they were the wrong kind of women, or they were accusing the wrong kind of man or something.) The on again/off again policy is back in full effect for Mr. Bryant. Is Kobe guilty? Who knows? This case seems to be rushing toward a he said-she said situation. We can only hope that the guilty party is punished – whoever that really is. One lesson we can, however, take from this is that perhaps the feminist “suspicion equals conviction” policy should also apply to fabricated accusations of rape. A conviction on rape can lead to life in prison. In either case – rape or conviction for rape on intentionally false allegations – an innocent person’s life is ruined.
July 22 2003: Before the 2000 election, liberals said George W. Bush was a dull-minded half-wit, simply too stupid for the demands of the Oval office (Yes, even dumber than walking Handbook of Political No-No’s, Al Gore!). In 2003, the liberals say President Bush, that silver-tongued devil, sold his case for war to the American people - thus changing the course of history! - with nary but 16 words buried deep in his State of the Union speech. “Brevity is the soul of wit!” Said William Shakespeare. And half-wits too?

Operation: IRAQI FREEDOM

Clown's War Council
July 17: Tony Blair's Address to Joint Session of Congress - Brilliant!