MOB Tag

The Dilemna of the Training Thong

While engaged in the time honored tradition of Christmas shopping this year I came across what was for me, at least, an unusual item. Not exactly a 'one of a kind' sadly; but I submit that a tiny white thong, emblazoned with the 'Hello Kitty' logo and pink trim, located in the juniors department, certainly qualifies as unusual. Perhaps I am overly sensitive having a multitude of daughters, but it gave me the creeps to gaze at a thong designed to appeal to and fit a ten-year-old.

After recovering from the initial brain-lock, my reaction was to attack. I attempted to ascertain any possible health risks associated with thongs with which to create the foundation for a 'marketing to minors' lawsuit against the thong industry like that which brought down the evil tobacco companies. I would bring Hello Kitty and the undergarment industry to their knees. That is, until I found conjuring the health risks of thongs just as unsavory as the item itself. Suffice to say I was way out of my comfort zone, cue the disaster alarm.

I settled for simply trying to figure out how a ten-year-old girl would view the addition of a thong to her wardrobe, which otherwise contains floor length 'jammies' boasting the Disney lineup, t-shirts with sayings like 'Little Angel' and 'I'm a handful,' a treasure trove of Scrunchies and of course, decidedly neutral undergarments.

Perhaps the thong would serve as special occasion wear. “Mom! My first communion is today and I can't find my thong.” This remark could only result in a furious search through our multitude of hampers, ending no doubt in a lonely thong floating in a washing-machine set on uber-load. Twenty-five gallons of water later and a girl could enter the kingdom of God with attitude.

The unimaginable health risks, sheer water usage, and the image of my daughter flirting with St. Peter had me increasingly convinced that the thong was not the way to go.

Then again, maybe I was offbase. Maybe I should strive for a more cutting edge attitude. Could the thong emerge, even, as the 'now' father-daughter gift? In today's America, what girl wouldn't want a little ParisHilton leg up at an early age? My daughter could be the envy of the fourth grade class. Jealous little wannabees with 'porn star' stickers on their backpacks would be 'all up in her face.' Throw in a pair of low-riding jeans, allowing the Hello (sex) Kitty message to be prominently displayed every time she ties her shoes and I could be the proud father of a ten-year-old 'be-yatch.' In no time at all she'd be dating a senior and he could drive her to day camp and all those birthday parties.

The kiddy-thong could be the tip of the iceberg. What about a line of lingerie for ten-year-olds or maybe even condoms emblazoned with the Sponge Bob or Bratz logo? A cutting edge entrepreneur could create an entire line of sex-wear for pre-teen girls looking for that 'slut' attitude. Of course I am being facetious, but when a man is stuck along for the ride on shopping excursions his mind tends to wander.

It would ultimately be a testy look of concern from my wife, as she caught me gazing at the suspicious undergarment, which brought me out of my reverie. I can only guess what she may have been thinking, but I wasn't about to ask. The purchasing frenzy was concluded without incident and, thankfully, sans the inclusion of any training thongs. One can only imagine the Christmas morning pictures of the child holding up her new butt-floss and exclaiming “Thanks Mom and Dad, this is just what I wanted. Wait until little Jimmy sees me in it.”

I think if her mom had asked her to model it I would have had to just shoot myself right there in the living room.

In the end I was relieved to maintain the status quo this Christmas. My daughter can get her thongs like the rest of the pre-teeny boppers. She can buy them on her own and hide them at the bottom of her drawer. Mom and Dad's generosity can be reserved for more important and costly items, like cell phones, birth control, and one-year passes to the free clinic.

CONTINUING WITH THE FUNNY Saturday theme, via LGF, the supreme leader of Iran reveals that which is the most feared of the American arsenal.

Tehran, 27 April (AKI) - The Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has said that "human rights, are a weapon in the hands of our enemies to fight Islam."

Nothing inspires people to take up arms like the fear of impending human rights.

To a mixed audience of Iranians, Arabs and other foreigners at the conference, Ayatollah Khamenei said that it was "only through the unity of all Muslims, can they confront these diabolical attempts."

In a perfect world, this would be the line that was met with a long moment of pause, before the audience broke into spontaneous, and prolonged, laughter.

LIKE MOST, MY E-MAIL IS USUALLY overrun with tidbits of political logic from around the globe, ranging in subject from Social Security to the War on Terror. I think of them as "bubble gum" political speech that I usually read, and then discard. This one though, on the subject of immigration, made me laugh, and I thought it would make for a nice chuckle on a saturday afternoon.

Interesting thought from a Southern Californian.

Try driving around as a Gringo in Mexico with no liability insurance ... and have an accident ...

Enter MEXICO illegally. Never mind immigration quotas, visas, international law, or any of that nonsense. Once there, demand that the local government provide free medical care for you and your entire family. Demand bilingual nurses and doctors.

Demand free bilingual local government forms, bulletins, etc. Procreate abundantly. Deflect any criticism of this allegedly irresponsible reproductive behavior with, "It is a cultural United States thing. You would not understand, pal."

Keep your American identity strong. Fly Old Glory from your rooftop, or proudly display it in your front window or on your car bumper. Speak only English at home and in public and insist that your children do likewise.

Demand classes on American culture in the Mexican school system.

Demand a local Mexican driver license. This will afford other legal rights and will go far to legitimize your unauthorized, illegal, presence in Mexico.

Insist that local Mexican law enforcement teach English to all its officers.

Good luck! Because it will never happen. It will not happen in Mexico or any other country in the world ... except right here in the United States ... Land of the naive!

*DOES ANYONE ELSE GET THE IMPRESSION that the Democrats are going to ride the filibuster ship all the way to the bottom? Yesterday, Frist offered the Democrats 100 hours of debate over every nominee before any vote would be taken. Remember, these are judicial nominees that are so extreme that senate business must be brought to a standstill in order to obstruct their confirmation.

If indeed the nominees are that extreme, one would think 100 hours would be more than enough time to make the case to the senate and the American people. So why are the Democrat's balking? Either they know they can't make a case for extremism, or they are worried about their own ability to make a case...period. Either way, that's some pretty pathetic leadership.

MICHELLE MALKIN, who routinely subjects herself to leftist hate sites like Indymedia and Democratic Underground, didn't find much liberal support for Laura Ingraham, who recently underwent surgery for breast cancer. Even after Elizabeth Edwards, a cancer survivor herself, stopped by to inject some sanity, the hate just rolled on.

She probably gave it to herself.

I don't pray for Nazis or other Totalitarian Scum.

I hope she goes into remission and fucking chokes to death.

Meanwhile, Tim Blair is onto an Indymedia scheme to bring the media to it's knees. Eeeks!!!

THE GUARDIAN HAS A PREVIEW of the new Arianna Huffington blog. Huffington has promised that roughly 250 great minds, like Gwyneth Paltrow and Warren Beatty, would check in on the weighty political topics of our time. Here's the first entry from Paltrow. (Hat-tip Asylum)

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.

Gwynniex

Here's the second entry from Paltrow.

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!

Looks like Paltrow is history already. Never fear though, Beatty will be announcing his candidacy for president real soon. As soon as he figures out what everybody is having for lunch.

RECENTLY, A HOST OF DEMOCRATS have been pining for the days of the "fairness doctrine," a time in our history when political speech was heavily regulated. Daniel Henninger has a good piece on OpinionJournal on the subject. He even suggests that the removal of the un-fairness doctrine gave Republicans it's first majority in 42 years.

In 1994, Newt Gingrich, his Contract With America and the Republicans regained control of the House of Representatives for the first time since 1952--the years in which the Fairness Doctrine largely kept politics off the air. This didn't happen because the Gingrich candidates were getting their message out in the Los Angeles Times or Boston Globe.

IT WAS A BIG DAY for apologies from the liberal media. Brit Hume had the complete list including Air America, AP, NPR, the Washington Post, and my favorite from the rubes at the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

An editorial page editor at the Minneapolis Star Tribune (search) insisted earlier this week that his paper has never advocated a change to Senate filibuster rules. But after some media noted that when President Clinton's proposals were being filibustered, the paper called on politicians to "crusade for changes in Senate procedures," Editorial page deputy editor Jim Boyd now admits his paper has been "caught in a contradiction." He says he and his staff "missed" the old editorial.

MARK STEYN THINKS John Bolton is simply "too-hip" for the Democrats to understand. (Hat-tip Capcomm)

If the Senate poseurs and the media wanted to mount a trenchant critique of Bolton's geopolitical philosophy, that would be reasonable enough. But there's not even a pretense of any of that. Instead, his opponents have seized on one episode -- an intelligence analyst in a critical position with whom Bolton and others were dissatisfied -- and used it to advance the bizarre proposition that every junior official should be beyond reproach, and certainly beyond such aggressive ''body language'' as putting one's hands on hips. Or as Peter Beinart, editor of the New Republic, complained to the BBC the other night: Bolton was ''disloyal to his subordinates.''

VICTOR DAVID HANSON continues with the "hip" theme, and addresses the "smear mongers" that have hijacked his "confirmation process."

Sen. Barbara Boxer slams the nominee in the manner she hammered Condoleezza Rice. Yet she paid her own son a six-figure fee out of her publicly-raised campaign funds. In another scandal, Boxer circumvented channels to ram through special favorable legislation for the Miwok Tribe that wished a gaming franchise; later, the tribe hired her same peripatetic offspring as a consultant.

Sen. Chris Dodd now thinks out loud whether John Bolton's conduct is indictable. After the recent Enron meltdown that cost consumers billions of dollars, many wondered the same thing about him for sponsoring unusual legislation for his own mega-dollar campaign donors. Dodd's intervention relaxed auditing accountability and allowed suspect firms like Arthur Andersen to circumvent legal culpability with disastrous results.

Biden's past slips and slurs make Bolton look like a Boy Scout. Not long ago he threatened representatives from the airlines with, "I will screw you badly," and dubbed the United States at war in Afghanistan a "high-tech bully." Biden has fought accusations of intellectual misrepresentation going all the way back to law school — repeated charges about character that have aborted his previous presidential ambitions.

The point is not to find dirt on these smear mongers but to remember that the most savagely critical senators — who hold far more important public posts than U.N. ambassador — would themselves fall far short of the impossible standards of nicety that they are suddenly imposing on a good man whose politics they abhor.


THERE IS ALSO BREAKING NEWS on the organization that the smear mongers are trying so hard to protect from reform. French banking giant BNP Paribas may be involved in a massive money laundering scheme in the ever-deepening oil for food scandal. The New York Sun does the math to date.

At the United Nations itself, heads have already been rolling, as one scandal after another has bubbled up from the oil-for-food morass. Several high-ranking U.N. officials close to Secretary-General Annan have been forced to "step aside" - as U.N. lingo has it. Federal prosecutors are investigating allegations that Saddam sent millions in bribes to two as-yet-unnamed high-ranking U.N. officials to help shape the program in his favor. But all the investigating so far has barely begun to expose the full extent of the corruption and mismanagement involved in oil for food, under which Saddam grafted billions out of more than $110 billion in U.N.-approved oil sales and relief purchases meant to help the people of Iraq. "Follow the money," says Mr. Rohrabacher, who adds, "Sometimes it's easy to miss the fact that the bank is right in the middle of it."

Why Bolton Is Being Harassed

An editorial in the Wall Street Journal takes a look at the motives of those trying to "Bork" John Bolton. This paragraph was especially telling in regards to the consensus among the left regarding the UN and foreign policy.

This was the consensus that held, or holds, that North Korea and Iran can be bribed away from their nuclear ambitions, that democracy in the Arab world was impossible and probably undesirable, that fighting terrorism merely encourages more terrorism, that countries such as Syria pose no significant threat to U.S. national security, that the U.N. alone confers moral legitimacy on a foreign-policy objective, and that support for Israel explains Islamic hostility to the U.S. Above all, in this view, the job of appointed officials such as Mr. Bolton is to reside benignly in their offices at State while the permanent foreign service bureaucracy goes about applying establishment prescriptions.

It seems that, in the Democratic Party, "benign" bureaucracy is still more important than results.

Democrats Need Study To See The Obvious

Here's one from the "no-duh" file.

An analysis by a Democratic think tank argues that Democrats are suffering from a severe "parent gap" among married people with children, who say the entertainment industry is lowering the moral standards of the country. The study, published last week by the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), the policy arm of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, admonishes Democrats to pay more attention to parental concerns about "morally corrosive forces in the culture," and warns that the party will not fare better with this pivotal voting bloc until they do.

The article goes on to point out that parents voted for Bush over Kerry by a whopping 20 percent.

Given that the left supports trying to take away a parent's right to be aware of their child's decision to have an abortion, that their mafia, the ACLU, continues to support the free speech rights of a group that advocates child molestation, that they seem totally uninterested in prosecuting Planned Parenthood for supporting the rape of underage girls, and that John Kerry refered to Hollywood as the heart and soul of America, I'm not sure it should come as a surprise.

All of which begs the question: How much is too much to spend on a study that reveals what most people already know?

The evidence would seem to suggest that the Democrats are beginning to pay "lip service" to parents of this nation, but I'm afraid that's all it is, an attempt to patronize people who the left has very little regard for.
What they really want is for parents to reflect Democratic Party values, not the other way around. Exactly who does their party represent again?

Mort Kondracke sees it this way:

Based on this recent performance, the Democrats are going to keep on losing. They haven't proved that Bush's nominees are extreme. They haven't made the case that blocking filibusters is extreme. They said that participating in a religious rally was extreme. They just don't get it.

I'll say they don't.

Assassination Rhetoric Goes Mainstream

Air America suggested assassination as the solution to Bush's attempts to reform Social Security.

Government officials are reviewing a skit which aired on the network Monday evening -- a skit featuring an apparent gunshot warning to the president!

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.

The Secret Service is on it.

Leftist Brown student Liz Sperber is organizing aid for the terrorists in Iraq.

UNCONDITIONALLY-that's the way I support the Iraqi Resistance these days. While I do not offer political support to all groups involved in the anti-imperial struggle in Iraq, I work to support its collective purpose: forcing the troops out now. Forcing because the United States won't leave any other way.

When was the last time anyone heard a solution to any of the world's problems from a liberal? That's what I thought. Let's face it, they don't have any answers, except to support terrorism and assassinate the president. What great philosophies.

Srgena Reacts Violently To U.S. Report

Guiliana Srgena, the most famous of lying Italian journalists, isn't happy that the U.S. soldiers who fired on her car will not be charged as murderers. The report into events of that day has apparently exonerated them of any wrongdoing.

Ms Sgrena described the conclusion of the leaked report as a "slap in the face".

I agree, it is a slap in the face. She should be charged with collusion, lying, and thrown in jail next to Lynne Stewart.

More Evidence That Democrats Can't See Their Own Hypocricy

(hat tip Fireman)

In their zeal to filet DeLay the Democrats, as usual, overlooked their own "questionable" ethics behavior. In the past they might have gotten away with that, which has provided idiots like Nancy Pelosi and others the confidence to berate the GOP mercilessly for considering themselves "above the law," and so forth.

But, as with so many issues, the left fails terribly in their attempts to adjust to a new country, one that doesn't rely so heavily on the main-stream media, which typically has allowed the left a free pass in situations such as this. That safety net is now gone, with the MSM under far more scrutiny and, of course, alternative media sources that fill in the blanks where the media leaves off.

Such is the case with the DeLay scandal, where Democrats are now scrambling to avoid falling victim to their own witch-hunt.

...an aide to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had not reported a 2004 trip to South Korea until a Washington Post reporter asked her office about it. Eddie Charmaine Manansala, Pelosi's special assistant on East Asian affairs, filed a disclosure form for the $9,087 trip a few hours after the newspaper's inquiry and sent a note to the ethics committee saying, "I did not know I was supposed to file these forms and I apologize for its lateness."

Whoops.

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) even asked the ethics committee to investigate him after a reporter for the newspaper Roll Call pointed out that a travel disclosure form from 2001 listed the lobbying firm Rooney Group International as paying for a $1,782 trip to Boston, which would be a violation of House rules.
Abercrombie's aides said they have since determined that the lobbying firm's expenses were reimbursed by the nonprofit group that Abercrombie addressed on the trip, the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts. House rules state that the prohibition against lobbyists paying for members' travel applies "even where the lobbyist . . . will later be reimbursed for those expenses by a non-lobbyist client."

Perhaps Abercrombie should apologize and put this ugliness behind him. Still, that would still leave some high level Democrats in the cross-fire.

As reports about DeLay's travel with lobbyists mount, Republican leaders are attempting to shift attention to questionable activities of Democrats. House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) warned on Sean Hannity's radio show last week that there are "four or five cases out there dealing with top-level Democrats," whom he did not name.

Some pundits have listed as many as 39 congress members that have their family on the payroll in one way or another, among them prominent Democrats who apparently don't believe that exempts them from taking shots at DeLay for the same thing.

Speaking of shots, MSNBC couldn't resist taking this one at Republicans for this latest round of tit for tat.

The threats and maneuvering mark the end of an ethics truce that has existed between the parties since the battles that led to the downfall of House speakers Jim Wright (D-Tex.) in 1989 and Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) in 1998.

Note that the "truce" wasn't ended with the DeLay witch-hunt, but by the GOP response to it.

Democrats have unwittingly signaled open season on any member of congress who may have flirted with ethics violations. Of course many of those congress people will be Democrats, which apparently was completely unforseen by lazy liberals who thought they could count on the media to not tell the whole story.

When will they ever learn?

Morris Has More On Pending Hillary Troubles

Dick Morris explains further the potentially deep water that Hillary is in on the campaign finance front. The figure that was siphoned into her campaign is $800,000, not a half-million as I originally reported. The fundraiser organizers, Peter Paul and Aaron Tonkin, insist that Hillary followed every single dime of her campaign fund and thus, must have known about a reporting error that netted her an extra $800,000.

Still, it is David Rosen that currently faces charges on this matter. The question is, will he spill the beans? Morris thinks he will.

If found guilty, he faces a potential sentence of 15 years.

If the feds threaten him with jail — and it's hard to see how they wouldn't —Rosen faces a choice: Tell the truth or go to prison.

Rosen is no long-term Clinton loyalist like Webb Hubbell, nor did he have an affair with a Clinton (as Bill implied to me that Susan McDougal did). And there is no Clinton in the White House to pardon him if he goes to prison.

David Rosen is a young man in his late 30s, with a life ahead of him. He would be a fool to go to jail to protect Hillary.

The Rosen trial starts on May 3. It could get very interesting.

Could Frist Have The Votes Already?

Power Line is running with the notion that the GOP currently has the votes to end the filibuster of judicial nominees. It is based in part on Majority Whip Mitch McConnell's statement to that effect on "Face the Nation."

"There's no doubt in my mind, and I'm a pretty good counter of votes ... that we have the votes we need," Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell of Kentucky told CBS's "Face the Nation."

Of course, that's just another Republican who may be playing the public relations game. Perhaps more telling on the subject is a statement by Joe Biden, who suggested that the senate should allow five of the seven obstructed judges to be confirmed. Hinderaker arrives at a logical conclusion based on Biden's offer of a compromise.

Democrats play to win--unlike, sometimes, Republicans--and if they had a winning hand on judges, a subject dear to the hearts of their richest supporters, they would play it. Biden's willingness to compromise means they don't have the votes.

A David Broger column furthers the notion that the filibuster would ultimately be bad for the Democratic Party, and notes how bad a senate shutdown would be for business.

Voters placed Republicans in control of the White House and the Senate, and while the opposition still has a constitutional role to play, at the end of the day that function has to be more than talking important matters to death...

...Building such a roadblock to consideration of such important legislation as energy, Social Security, welfare reform and the routine financing of government would bring down deserved public condemnation, and the mighty megaphone of the White House would ensure that Democrats took the brunt of the blame. Democrats need to remember what happened to Newt Gingrich when he shut down the government for a few days in 1995 in a budget dispute with President Bill Clinton. It was not Clinton who lost public support.

Paul Mirengoff theorizes that Broger's column, which urges the Democratic Party to step back from this abyss, is still further evidence that the GOP has the votes to end the filubuster.

I would tend to agree that, if the Democrats in the senate thought they had a winning hand in the filibuster, they would not hesitate to use it. Biden's remarks are telling in that, as a leader among the vocal Democratic senators, he seems to be backing away from the reactionary rhetoric of the last two months.

It makes one wonder though. If five of the seven nominees are now acceptable to senate Democrats, what exactly was the problem with them before? If the left does back away from the filibuster and ultimately confirms these five judges it is simply further proof that this has been about power, politics, and a chance to demonize the Republican Party all along, rather than an honest concern for the judiciary.

Koffi On Terrorism

Kofi Annan has written a new, lengthy piece for Foreign Affairs. In the portion entitled "Freedom From Fear," he discusses terrorism, and it's hard not to get the feeling that he is a late arrival to an already-swinging party.

For instance, can the UN be treated as a serious player in the new millenium, even as they continue to struggle to define exactly what terrorism is:

World leaders should unite behind a definition of terrorism that makes clear beyond any question that the targeting of civilians or noncombatants is never acceptable. And they must work to strengthen the capacity of states to meet the binding antiterrorism obligations imposed on them by the Security Council.

Here's an interesting statistic on the success of peaceful efforts to resolve conflict:

Half of all civil wars that appear to have been resolved by peace agreements tragically slide back into conflict within five years.

Here, Annan supports the creation of an entirely new commission, from which many important summits, but very few acts, will certainly spring:

I therefore propose the creation of a new intergovernmental organ in the UN: a Peacebuilding Commission. The commission would be a forum in which representatives from donor countries, troop contributors, and the country being helped would sit together with leaders from other member states, international financial institutions, and regional organizations to agree on strategy, provide policy guidance, mobilize resources, and coordinate the efforts of all involved.

I'll bet it hurt to write this:

When prevention fails, and all other means have been exhausted, we must be able to rely on the use of force.

I'll bet it really hurt to write this:

Article 51 of the UN Charter preserves the right of all states to act in self-defense against an armed attack. Most lawyers recognize that the provision includes the right to take pre-emptive action against an imminent threat; it needs no reinterpretation or rewriting.

This statement answers everything except what we should do when the UN itself fails to live up to it's responsibility:

When states fail to live up to this responsibility, it passes to the international community, which, if necessary, should stand ready to take enforcement action authorized by the Security Council.

In Iraq's case of course, the UN met all the criteria except the "stand ready" part.

Kofi's outline for battling the present and future terrorist threats seem akin to closing the barn door after the cattle's out, and does not really inspire much confidence that UN leadership has learned much since September of 2001.

The Day After The Day After Earth Day

Michael Berliner at FrontPage has a very interesting piece on the scourge of environmentalism, in celebration of Earth Day. I found this quote, from biologist David Graber, especially telling in regards to how the environmental lobby regards humanity:

"Human happiness [is] not as important as a wild and healthy planet . . . . Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along."

The "right" virus presumably would be one that doesn't kill off environmentalists.

I also found Berliner's description of environmentalism very astute.

In a nation founded on the pioneer spirit, environmentalists have made "development" an evil word. They inhibit or prohibit the development of Alaskan oil, offshore drilling, nuclear power--and every other practical form of energy. Housing, commerce, and jobs are sacrificed to spotted owls and snail darters. Medical research is sacrificed to the "rights" of mice. Logging is sacrificed to the "rights" of trees. No instance of the progress that brought man out of the cave is safe from the onslaught of those "protecting" the environment from man, whom they consider a rapist and despoiler by his very essence.

Read the whole thing. It's a great way to celebrate Earth Day...or...the day after the day after Earth Day.

Hillary Might Be In Deep Water This Time

I saw this earlier today but dismissed it as just another crime that the Clinton's would skate on, but now I'm not so sure. It goes back to the indictments against Hillary's former campaign finance chair David Rosen for campaign finance violations. He was accused, in January, of hiding hundreds of thousands of dollars from the FEC.

Now though, Hillary may be directly implicated in this scheme to filter $500,000 directly into her campaign.

Both Tonken and Hollywood mogul Peter Paul - who bankrolled the Clinton gala - say they personally apprised the top Democrat about the costs of the fundraiser.

"I told her about virtually every penny I'd spent on her behalf," Tonken recalled in his recent book "King of Cons."
"I told her about the money and what a pleasure it was to spend it on her [Senate] candidacy."

Mr. Paul says Mrs. Clinton was even involved in trying to trim some of the event's production costs.
"Hillary Clinton personally called the producer of the concert part of this event," he told Fox News Channel's Eric Shawn last November.

"She asked him to lower the fee that he was charging of $850,000 at my request. So I don't understand how she could possibly say that she didn't know" about the costs.

If she knew, that's a felony. Dick Morris said tonight that the only way Hillary is going to get off on this is if Rosen pulls a Web Hubbell, Susan McDougal situation, in which he goes to jail to protect the Clinton's. All in a day's work, serving the Clinto Nostra.

What Are John Kerry and Co. Trying To Cover Up?

While it would seem that the Democratic Party is very busy with trying to get rid of Tom Delay, they are never too busy to cover up for the misdeeds of their own party.

WASHINGTON - Senate Democrats are quietly trying to kill a 10-year legal probe that implicates several senior Clinton administration appointees for obstruction of justice, the Daily News has learned.
The Democrats, saying that the $21 million investigation by Independent Counsel David Barrett should have ended long ago, succeeded in attaching an amendment to a spending bill Tuesday to cut off his funding by June 1.

Yes, you read that right. While the left is trying to perform a political assassination of DeLay over ethics questions they should all have to answer as well; John Kerry, Richard Durbin, and Byron Dorgan are quietly trying to flush an investigation that may implicate the Clintons in widespread abuse of IRS authority. This from Opinion Journal:

We're told that early on the Barrett probe moved away from Mr. Cisneros and his mistress and focused on an attempted cover-up by the Clinton Administration, especially involving the IRS.

Back in the early '90s Mr. Cisneros was considered the rising savior of the Democratic Party in Texas. "So there were people who wanted to save his political future," a source tells us. To that end, when the IRS began investigating him for tax fraud an extraordinary thing happened: The investigation was taken from the IRS district office that would always handle such an audit and moved to Washington, where it was killed.

"Never in the history of the IRS has a case been pulled out of the regional office and taken directly to Washington," our source continues. This information was originally provided to Mr. Barrett, some years into his investigation, by a whistleblower in the IRS regional office with 30 years of experience.

There are also questions about the Clintons use of the IRS to apply pressure.

Abuse of the taxing power is about as serious as corruption can get in our democracy, and it should be of bipartisan concern. In the 1990s, conservative critics of the Clinton Administration such as the Heritage Foundation had to endure suspicious audits. And of course the Nixon Tapes reveal that the former Republican President ordered tax investigations of Democratic opponents and donors.

It's not like it was really any secret that conservative critics of the Clintons were being audited in the 1990's. It was, frankly, common knowledge. Given the fabricated hysteria over DeLay though, one might expect the Democratic Party to at least appear to take this a little more seriously.

Yet now three highly partisan Democrats want to de-fund this probe and prevent publication of the report. "There is no other way to characterize this but as obstruction of justice," a source tells us, noting that Congress has never before tried to step on an Independent Counsel investigation like this. Surely given the ethical history of the Clinton years, the public deserves to see the report and judge for itself whether the IRS and Justice Department were misused for political purposes.

I wonder what could possibly be so damaging that the Democrats are willing to flush $21 million of our money down the toilet? Dollars to donuts it is something that would drastically erode Hillary's prospects at becoming the next president.

Indeed, it is business as usual in the Democratic Party.

I wonder how many people realize that it has been George W. Bush that has been protecting the Clintons from the worst of the scandals, like the Marc Rich pardon and their shameful trashing of the White House before they left. Given the tactics the left are currently using, maybe it's time to open the books.

Conservatives Need To Step Back And Read Hinderaker's Latest

I ran into this column by John Hinderaker (isn't he turning out to be something?) at The Weekly Standard a day or two ago. I kept coming back to it, knowing it was trying to tell me something, and I finally figured it out.

Seriously, I know it's been said before, but we have got to stop allowing the left to frame the debate.

This is the essence of the frustration on the right, the mystification at the GOP's handling of judicial nominees and the filubuster. As usual, we are allowing the left to bury the truth behind a wall of illegitimate noise. Hinderaker gives a solid reminder why all conservatives, religious and non-believer alike, are trying to end judicial activism.

Hinderaker provides the reminder with his coverage of a Yale chapter of the American Constitutional Society sponsored conference called "The Constitution in 2020":

"The touchstone is Franklin Roosevelt's "Second Bill of Rights," which would recognize a right to "a useful and remunerative job"; sufficient earnings to provide "adequate" food, clothing, and recreation; a "decent" home; a "good education"; and "adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health."

The essence of the progressive constitutional project is to recognize "positive" rights, not just "negative" rights, so that citizens are not only guaranteed freedom from specified forms of government interference, but also are guaranteed the receipt of specified economic benefits.

Here's some specifics from professor Cass Sunstein :

* With growth and change, political rights enshrined in Constitution are inadequate.
* Need economic bill of rights. Ingredients of Second Bill of Rights--Only with these rights will we have security.
* Long tradition of American political thought--states owe to every citizen a degree of subsistence. Second Bill of Rights made possible by attack on distinction between negative and positive rights. Effort to separate them is unfit for the American legal framework.

There's more from professor Bruce Ackerman:

* Task of every generation is to create institutional structures which express fundamental liberal commitments.
* Economic citizenship--stakeholder society in which every young adult gets a form of citizenship inheritance of $80,000, funded by a wealth tax . . .
* Idea of a national citizenship is powerful and underdeveloped legal resource . . . .concept that national citizenship has privileges--we need to make this a reality--cure disenfranchisement for felons.

Hinderaker breaks it all down:

The left makes no secret of its intentions where the Constitution is concerned. It wants to change it, in ways that have nothing to do with what the document actually says. It wants the Constitution to enshrine its own policy preferences--thus freeing it from the tiresome necessity of winning elections. And how will the Constitution be changed? Through a constitutional convention, or a vote of two-thirds of the state legislatures? Of course not. The whole problem, from the liberal perspective, is that they can't get democratically elected bodies to enact their agenda. As one of the Yale conference participants said: "We don't have much choice other than to believe deeply in the courts--where else do we turn?" The new, improved Constitution will come about through judicial re-interpretation. It only awaits, perhaps, the election of the next Democratic president.

IF THE IDEA OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to government-funded child care, "adequate" recreation, and $80,000 in cash seems outlandish, remember that these concepts are no more eccentric than the idea of a right to abortion was, prior to Roe v. Wade. As a law school exercise in 1972, my class was charged with trying to formulate an argument for a constitutional right to abortion. We were stumped. None of us could think of one. A few months later, the "right" to abortion was born.

So Republicans are right to put top priority on the president's ability to get a vote on his judicial nominations. Liberal interest groups have flatly declared their intention to filibuster any nominee to the Supreme Court whom they regard as conservative. The stakes couldn't be higher.

Although I printed more than I would have liked of this column, it is too serious a subject to rely on people's ability to link. It shouldn't cost The Weekly Standard any hits though, as Hinderaker makes many, many more excellent points. Read them all.

Here Comes The Double Standard (updated)

UPDATE: Naturally, the ACLU is getting on board with this nonsense.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota is offering to help students fight any consequences in what's become a battle between free speech and school conduct policies.

If you read the whole thing, you will find that the ACLU is uncomfortable "banning" things. I guess that doesn't apply to religious symbols or speech that goes against the liberal agenda.

Original post: While the ACLU would not support a student who wore a "stright pride" t-shirt to school a couple of years ago, and will not support a teenager who wants to wear a "support our troops" necklace to school, they will probably be all over this one.

"...after Carrie Rethlefsen attended a performance of the play "The Vagina Monologues" last month, she and Emily Nixon wore buttons to school that read: "I [heart] My Vagina."

Naturally, there is a major fight brewing over the girls right to wear the pins to school. I wonder if the same fight would be had if boys were wearing, "I love my penis" buttons to school.

Can there be any doubt that it would be characterized as sexual harrassment and disallowed due to uncomfortable feelings it might cause girls?

I Give You The Future Of The Democratic Party

James Carville and Paul Begala teamed up to write a column about what is wrong with the Democratic Party, entitled "Democrats Must Change Everything." It is, ironically, a lesson not in what the Democratic Party should aspire too, but what they should run from. The two bring to mind a scene from "Oh Brother Where Art Thou," sitting around the porch, drinking mint julips, and exclaiming "We gots to get some of dat dere reform pappy."

They are certainly correct that the Democratic Party doesn't stand for anything, except of course, a nihilistic society (think Flea with a german accent, proclaiming "Dat's right, we care about nussing,") which Carville and Begala predictably fail to mention. They do, however, fall victim to a liberal mentality that insists all political stances fit on a bumber sticker, and the three-inch by eight-inch adhesive philosophy that Carville and Begala have come up with to represent the modern Democratic Party is "reform."

Of course, no reform of the left would be complete without blasting Bush with nonsensical partisan rhetoric for everything under the sun, in order to set up their point. But it is in their point that Carville and Begala reveal a simplicity of thinking that will make the especially shallow politicians weep joyful tears.

They have an answer for the economy:

Democrats should stand for fiscal responsibility, asking the wealthiest to pay their share of the debt — and reform, reform, reform. We should reform trade laws that encourage corporations to ship jobs overseas. We should reform the tax code and replace the current lobbyists' dream with a tax code that is simpler, fairer and more progressive.

This is by far the most complete idea given by the two modern philosophers, which begs the question, will we be getting to the actual reform any time soon? Don't get me wrong, it's not as though the whole column is dedicated to trumpeting socialist mantra from K Street. They do have some answers for anxious leftists desperate for marching orders.

They have an answer for health care:

Democrats should stand for health care reform.

They have an answer for foreign policy:

It's time to reform our foreign policy.

And, they have an answer for political policy:

...it's high time for reform.

Exactly what these reforms will be is anybody's guess, and that would seem to include Carville and Begala. But never fear, the reforms are coming, with the full confidence that they will fit just as nicely on a bumber sticker as this first, in a string of many, original thoughts to come from James and Paul.

The future of the Democratic Party.

Left Shows Contempt For Working Class in DeLay Attacks

(Hat tip: Capcomm)

The shameless attacks on Tom DeLay, which would end tomorrow if the GOP called for an ethics investigation of the entire House of Representatives, has been instructive in how the left presently views the working class. One of DeLay's sins, if the slurs are any indication, is his pre-politician career as an exterminator.

Rich Lowry at National Review Online delves into the left's departure from populism, and the intellectual elites disdain for "dirty work" professions, like garbagemen, plumbers, painters, mechanics, and of course, exterminators.

All these professions can't pass what might be called the "yuck" test: If a graduate student or Manhattan professional can't help but think "yuck" when he considers a given job, it flunks the test. Everybody so employed should know that their jobs are fit for ridicule, and if they ever attain elected office they can expect demeaning nicknames related to their former professions. Even though it's not clear why any of these professions are less honorable than the one that typically produces politicians — lawyering.

It used to be that liberals celebrated California labor leader Cesar Chavez for his impassioned advocacy on behalf of people who did nothing all day except bend over and pick grapes. What nickname, one wonders, would the likes of Joshua Marshall come up with if one of these people were ever to come in his political sights after having made an unglamorous living toiling in the dirt and sun all day long?

As time goes by, the Democratic Party becomes more and more the party of the working class. That is, as long as those working don't get dirt under their fingernails.

The New Kid On The Block

The Intellectual Conservative has published a piece I wrote on gay marriage and Minnesota. They even put it on the front page. This humble correspondent thinks it is too cool for school.

Read it here.

UPDATE: Be sure to check out this article too, about ACLU legal representation along the border. While they are busy actively breaking the law, they have still found time to burn a spleef once in a while.

UPDATE: Hate mail from my column at the Intellectual Conservative is pouring in from people who, I guess, didn't get the gist of the article. Here's an example:

HOW DOES IT FEEL? THAT'S THE FIRST STRATEGY OF THE AMERINAZI.

WHO'S THIS LEFT YOU AMERINAZIS ARE ALWAYS TALKING ABOUT?

THEY'RE DOING WHATEVER THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH JUST LIKE YOU AMERINAZIS.

This guy needs to learn a new word.

It Looks As Though Frist Has Grown A Set (updated)

The Asylum's Publius II is reporting that Hugh Hewitt broke a big story today:

He announced that Frist will force this confrontation on the Constitutional Option next week, and yes, he has the votes to break the filibuster.

Hugh Hewitt's website though, is reporting that an exact date has not been decided on.

Meanwhile, Senator Frist has still not announced the date he will hold the vote on breaking the filibuster, and Senators Chafee, Hagel, Snow, Sununu and Warner remain publicly uncommitted. All should be urged to be clear about the timing and their intentions. The Congressional switchboard is 202-225-3121. E-mail addresses for all senators can be found here.

Hugh also offers this tidbit for persual.

Democrats have once again miscalculated. They had perhaps hoped that Christian leaders would go overboard and create the sort of effect that Paul Wellstone's memorial service created, triggering a backlash from an American public that genuinely dislikes immoderate speech. But they tried to create that backlash from a flyer, and have effectively guaranteed that the speakers at Sunday night's teleconference will be as dry as dust, but with an immense audience for their careful retelling of the abuse of the filibuster by Senate Democrats.

Something to look forward too. Too bad they couldn't book Zel Miller.

UPDATE: Podhoretz has the vote coming in the next month. He also issues a warning to Harry Reid regarding his promise to shut down the senate if the majority party overrides the veto.

So go ahead, Harry Reid. Make George W. Bush's day. If Democrats go into an active and public stance of truculent obstruction, they will hand Bush a giant stick to beat them with when 33 senators — including 6 very vulnerable Democrats — face the voters in their states in 2006.

Andrew Sullivan Swallows A Rather Large Pill

Andrew Sullivan, beloved commentator of the left, probably won't be finding himself linked too often from the leftistphere this week. They hate it when logic seeps into perfectly good idealogy. Although it's grudging and at times a bit silly, Sullivan takes a big-boy step away from the far left on the subject of Iraq.

"...if the debate in Washington signifies anything, it appears that the Iraq adventure should be understood at this juncture neither as a phenomenal success but nor as a failure of any profound kind. In the words of Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, it’s still a long hard slog. But the slog now has a clearer direction — and it’s not that far from what the dreaded neoconservatives once hoped for."

This next is my favorite part of the column. It goes hand in hand with the racist notion that the people of Iraq wouldn't be able to grasp democracy. Too much dictatorship, the residents cowed and without the will. Of course, Sullivan references the "ethnic differences," and kind of skates around it, but hey...we know two-plus-two.

Some told us that ethnic differences were so deep this would never happen. They were wrong. So the fact that the US is now seriously contemplating reductions in troop numbers in the medium term is not seen as a sign of cutting and running, but of slow, tentative success.

Sullivan hasn't turned off the spin spigot entirelly, to which the next paragraph (most of which is the usual leftist, hindsight, ankle-biting) attests, but he deserves a chance to take his best shot, considering he follows by conceding a major point.

It isn’t the success war-supporters like me wanted. We drastically underestimated the potential for a Ba’athist-jihadist insurgency; we got the WMD issue grotesquely wrong. Nostra culpa. The Bush administration compounded these errors with dumb-as-a-post decisions, like co-opting Abu Ghraib to torture and kill innocents or delaying elections long enough to allow insurgents to seize the initiative.

One day we will find out with more precision who screwed up and how. But in one fundamental sense President George W Bush didn’t screw up. His simple conviction was that there would be no real solution to the threat of Islamist terror unless we grasped the nettle of Arab autocracy, unless we created a space for freedom in that part of the world.

The final sentence is really the bottom line isn't it? If grasping the "nettle of Arab autocracy" is the genesis of a "real solution," than the "dreaded neoconservatives" were very much right about the proper strategy for defeating Islamic terrorism. That's a large pill to swallow for a guy like Sullivan.

Then again, it was his pill to swallow, wasn't it?

Another Column The Left Will Ignore

Here's a column from Dan Gerstein that explains why the Democratic Party is losing the culture war.

If the Democratic chieftains in Washington really want a window into why heartland residents are tuning out our party, they should stop huddling with loopy linguists from Berkeley like George Lakoff and just start reading Frank Rich's commentaries in the New York Times. There they will find a perfect distillation of the arrogance and narrow-mindedness that typifies the cultural thinking of our elites--and turns off red-state voters. In the view of Mr. Rich and his acolytes, freedom in our culture has been "under attack" ever since 9/11. Indeed, Mr. Rich has argued that this attack is being led by "new Puritans" who want to "stamp out" all that is "joyously vulgar" in American culture and who are fomenting a "government war against indecency" to get the job done.

I suggest reading the whole thing. Most Democrats, of course, won't get past the "vicious attack" on golden boy Frank Rich. This post will have to get you through to Sunday night. I have 30 hours to stamp out all that is joyously vulgar and win the government war against indecency.

Speaking of Extremism, Little Evidence Of Any In Bush Nominations

Here is a link to Brit Hume's interview with law professor Jonathon Turley on Wednesday. It was a very good interview with a "middle of the road" legal mind on the subject of Bush's "extreme" judicial nominees.

In regards to Janice Brown Turley said: She actually stands out on this list as one of two nominees that has actually thought very, very deeply about the philosophical basis of law. She incorporates it into her decisions.

In regards to William Pryor, who believes the Ten Commandments can be displayed in monuments: He prosecuted Moore, even though he agreed with Moore. And so with Pryor, I think that he's gotten a uniquely raw deal, because he's proven that even against his own views, he will carry out the law.

In regards to Priscilla Owen: My view is that she was interpreting things like the parental notification law in a way that was plausible. I don't agree with it. But she's not some wild-eyed extremist.

In regards to Terrance Boyle: Some people have accused him of being an ultra-conservative, but his main problem is that he's been reversed a number of times on what's called plain error. That's a very low standard for a judge to make. So when you're reversed on plain error, it tends to mark up your record.

According to Powerline, Turley was back on to discuss more nominations last night. Here is one interesting thing noted by Turley and summarized by the famous Minnesota bloggers.

As to the other four (Neilson, Saad, McKeague, and Griffin), Turley could not even get Democratic staffers to give him a basis for finding them to be extremists, and Turley knew of none. His view was that the Dems have no substantive arguments against these four, and that they are being blocked by the two Democratic Senators from Michigan as some form of retribution.

Now, let's be clear. All of Bush's nominations are conservative judges. But to call them "extreme" is to call the politics of the majority party in America extreme. It simply doesn't wash.

Grow a set Mr. Frist, and exercise our right to force and up or down vote in the senate.

What's The Difference Between These Two Extremists?

Here are two quotes from extremists on the subject of rape. The first, via LGF:

“Every minute in the world a woman is raped, and she has no one to blame but herself, for she has displayed her beauty to the whole world...“Strapless, backless, sleeveless - they are nothing but satanical. Mini-skirts, tight jeans - all this to tease men and to appeal to (their) carnal nature.”

Here's another one, courtesy of Discover the Network:

"One of the differences between marriage and prostitution is that in marriage you only have to make a deal with one man." "Marriage . . . is a legal license to rape." "The hurting of women is . . . basic to the sexual pleasure of men."

So, what is the difference between the two quotes, other than that one blames women for all rape, and the other essentially accuses all men of being rapists, considering we need to hurt women to feel pleasure?

The first quote is from Sheikh Fiez Muhammed, an Islamic fundamentalist whose views are championed by Islamis terrorists the world over, who believes that women shouldn't have any rights...period. The second is from Andrea Dworkin, long-time leader of the National Organization for Women (NOW), and celebrated leftist poltical activist. Here's what NOW has to say about her in the wake of her recent death:

She was a longtime member of NOW. Dworkin was one of feminism's most rigorous minds and fiercest crusaders. In her determination to articulate the experiences of poor, lower-class, marginal, and prostituted women, Dworkin deepened public awareness of rape, battery, pornography, and prostitution. Called 'the eloquent feminist' by syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman, Dworkin's impassioned words always informed, provoked and inspired.

She almost certainly inspired this girl, who falsely accused men of rape to make a political statement. To my mind, there is very little difference in the rhetoric of Muhammed, and that of Dworkin.

Just a reminder that these are the people who support the Democratic Party, and whose agenda Democrats champion.

Could Byrd Be On His Way Out?

When we were a minority we were told that if we wanted to shape our country we should become the majority party. Now that we are the majority party, we are being told that we need to become a super-majority party to appoint judges that only require a majority.

Well then, let's become a super-majorty. It shouldn't be that hard given how obstructionism ruined Tom Daschle's career. Now the chief obstructionist has become Robert "Sheets" byrd, who has never won an election by less than 30 points, but whose current actions are creating unrest in his home state, according to Don Surber at the Charlseton Daily Mail, via The American Thinker.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee did a telephone poll of 500 likely voters on March 15-16 and found Republican Congresswoman Shelley Capito is within 10 points of Byrd.

Byrd was ahead 52 percent to 42. The margin of error is 4.3 percent, meaning that in 19 out of 20 cases, the numbers for the two would fall between 48 and 56 for Byrd and 38 and 46 for Capito.

Sounds good to me. Perhaps Byrd can be "Daschled." We also know that Democrat Mark Dayton is history, and will more than likely likely be replaced with popular Republican Mark Kennedy. There are rumors that John Edwards has little hope of being reelected in his state. That would make 58 seats.

Hmmm...I wonder where we might get a couple more.

This Close To Being The Next School Shooting

Yesterday we received a call from our oldest daughter, a high-schooler, letting us know that she had heard the middle school was under a "lock-down," and that her little sister would not be able to come home after school. Their were rumors of armed criminals running around the school and the students would not be allowed to leave until the authorities were sure the threat was neutralized.

How close did our daughter's school come to being the next Red Lake? Well, any answer would be purely speculative, but we did receive a letter from the school principal today, describing the events. According to his letter, "Our local police had pulled over a driver of a motor vehicle who had been driving erratically. The driver crashed his vehicle during the pursuit and indicators of a portable meth lab were also present. The driver fled on foot and headed toward our direction."

Accounts differ as to whether the assailant was armed, but a number of children of law enforcement officers are claiming their parents insisted there was. I have not been able to verify that, but it is certainly possible. Here's how the principal describes tense moments at the school.

"Substitute teacher (name omitted)...was asked by me to stand by the rear door in the 62 CORE wing. Within minutes of standing there, the suspect was at that door attempting to enter our building. (Teacher) immediately reported the incident to me. Seconds later (another teacher) and I radioed each other that we both saw the intruder outdoors in the back parking lot area. Police were immediately summoned to our school in an effort to arrest this person."

Long story short, a substitute teacher, a hero in my book, stood her ground at a back door of the school and refused the assailant entry to the school. The assailant is a known meth-user, may have been armed, and was in a desperate situation. My wife noted today that thinking about the possibilities made her physically ill.

I know the feeling.

Thanks to our principal and staff for their quick reaction to a dangerous situation, keeping their heads as events unfolded, and protecting our kids until the coast was clear. I don't want to think about what might have happened if they were not so prepared.

As Usual, Democrat's Stance On Nuclear Option Hypocritical

The Democratic Party has been making a lot of noise lately regarding "the nuclear option," a means by which the Republican Party could force up-or-down votes on judicial nominees. They want you to believe that a legitimate, constitutionally provided for measure, designed to force the senate to comply with the appointments clause of the constitution, is somehow radical or extreme.

Nothing could be further from the truth of course, but that hasn't stopped the left from screaming like overgrown children. The loudest of les enfants terrible is none other than Senator Robert Byrd, who is coincidentally the oldest and therefore the most glaring example of age-inappropriate behavior. His age though, hasn't stopped him from serving up a sizeable helping of Nazi slurs with a dash of Mussolini for flavor.

The not-so-subtle invocations are meant to point out that the Republican Party is acting in a fascist manner in attempting to kill the filibuster. But, as the Houston Chronicle's Richard Bond points out, Byrd is hoping that Americans have a very short memory.

Beyond Byrd's rhetoric, now a staple among the Howard Dean-led Democrats, it is worth noting that Byrd is condemning Republicans for considering using a tactic that he himself used four times during his tenure as majority leader. And he is hardly alone in showing hypocrisy on the issue. Various other Democratic senators are now decrying potential tactics they have approved in the past.

The article lists four occasions Byrd killed filibusters for political gain. By his own definition that makes him a jack-boot wearing Nazi, which is of course apt, considering his long and illustrious career in the Ku Klux Klan. Still, these hypocrisies are so glaring, and so obvious, that the main-stream media has totally missed them.

Even more glaring is the group of Democratic senators whose attitude towards the filibuster has been, in the past, remarkably similar to the Republicans they now choose to vilify.

Ten years ago, a group of Democratic senators called for an end to the filibuster for any purpose, including legislation. Their proposal received 19 votes, all from their own party. Among those still serving who voted for that change are Kennedy, John Kerry of Massachusetts, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Barbara Boxer of California, Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, Paul Sarbanes of Maryland, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin.

New York's Sen. Charles Schumer, one of the Democrats' shrillest voices decrying Republican consideration of the "Byrd precedent," has argued that rules can be changed from one Senate to the next by simple majority vote.

Of course, now that these majority-party tactics are being used by the Republican Party, they are fascist bullying attempts designed to pursue an extremist agenda. If the MSM were to actually cover this story, the Democratic senators in question would look like the hypocritical fools that they are. Alas, they are too lazy to do more than parrot whatever is said on the senate floor.

The average American is left with the impression that Byrd and the other hypocrites are simply caring politicians, looking out for moderate America. In fact, they are embittered sore-losers obsessed with pretending they are still in the majority party. That's all there is to it.

What Is Today's Liberal?

The Weekly Standard's Joel Engel has a great new column on how the word "liberal" has been hijacked by the far left, and used to support actions that are decidedly not liberal. Here's a few examples:

For example, rooting against the United States and for "insurgents" who delight in slaughtering innocents is many things (stupid, for one, also sad, evil, and short-sighted), but it is assuredly not liberal.

Decrying the American "religious right" for advocating a "culture of life" while simultaneously praising the neck-slicing Islamofascists is many things (start with pathetic), but it is not liberal.

Protesting the painless execution of a sadistic murderer while cheering the removal of a feeding tube from a brain-damaged woman whose parents very much want her alive even if her estranged husband doesn't, is many things (incomprehensible, indefensible, and unforgivably cruel), but it is not liberal.

Marching against war every time the United States is involved--in fact only when the United States is involved--regardless of the war's purpose, is many things (reactionary for sure), but it is not liberal.

Pretending that the abuses committed by Americans at Abu Ghraib prison were on a par with the wholesale torture, rape, and murder committed there over decades is many things (overwrought, unenlightened, an insult to intelligence), but it is not liberal.

Depicting Condoleezza Rice in editorial cartoons as a big-lipped mammy who speaks Ebonics to her massa is many things (offensive, sickening), but it is not liberal.

Invoking Nazis and/or the Taliban to describe duly-elected officeholders of another party is many things (tiresome, ridiculous), but it is not liberal.

Referring to illegals as "undocumented workers," and to those who'd like to enforce immigration laws as evil and racist, is many things (self-destructive, short-sighted), but it is not liberal.

Shouting down speakers in the name of free speech is many things (fascistic, tyrannical, churlish), but it is not liberal.

I kind of feel sorry for the word "liberal." The poor thing, it has been kidnapped by some ridiculous extremists who needed a descriptive. Personally, I thought "ridiculous extremists" was pretty accurate in the first place.

T-Shirt Call For Assassination Of Bush (updated)

Calls to violence from the leftists just continue to get more and more mainstream. At least the NYT was subtle when it published a column, post election, that longed for the days of the presidential assassin. Now they are just putting it on t-shirts, via LGF.

UPDATE: Go to Powerline to see pictures from the Columbia art exhibit, including stamps depicting the president with a gun to his head.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has a whole distubing collection, including shirts calling for DeLay's suicide, and items expressing support for the military, when they shoot their officers.

Will somebody please let me know when it becomes acceptable to worry that some innocent conservative is going to get plugged?

Minnesota To Vote On The Future Of Marriage

Marriage is not an individual right. Otherwise, why limit marriage to unions of two people instead of three of four or five? Why limit it to adult humans, if some want to be united with others of various ages, sexes, and species. Marriage is a social contract because the issues involved go beyond the particular individuals. Unions of a man and woman produce the future generations on whom the fate of the whole society depends. Society has something to say about that.--Thomas Sowell

According to the Forest Lake Times, it looks like Minnesotans may get a chance to exercise their right to vote for or against a gay marriage ban next year. Naturally, many Democrats are not at all happy with this upcoming expression of democracy. Matt Entenza, Karen Clark, and Michael Paymar were all quoted by an article authored by T.W. Budig in opposition to the amendment.

How can their opposition be viewed as anything less than opposition to the very tenets of self-government? Are we to believe that they would feel the same way if they were confident the amendment would be rejected?

I have read many arguments on the subject and remain unconvinced that gay marriage rises to the level of a civil rights issue. I would refer readers to the Thomas Sowell quote that opened this post as one of the most succinct on the issue. Also, the effects of gay marriage on Scandanavia are well documented and leave little doubt of a negative impact.

Perhaps though, the greatest impact on my decision will have been the behavior of secularists who advocate for gay marriage. No single group of people has been more influential in my decision. Samuel Silver puts it best:

Secularists truly believe religious people are ignorant, intolerant, homophobic, racist, and generally dangerous; so they believe it is only “social justice” to destroy any public acceptance of the religious worldview, even by undemocratic means. The leaders of the secular movement are strident atheists who cannot tolerate religious people; a constant reminder of everything they reject. Instead of being religious fundamentalists, they became secular fundamentalists. Through propaganda and ridicule, these fundamentalists have also convinced a minority of Americans, who believe in God, to fear religion more than secularism, in complete disregard to the barbaric reality of the 20th century.

Gay marriage advocates have shown no respect for the will of the people of this nation. Rather than show patience and a willingness to embrace the views of those who disagree, with an eye towards reaching some equitable compromise, they have instead demonstrated nothing but contempt. Anyone who dares hold a different view is ridiculed as the homophobes, oppressors, etc...

Of course, in order for gay marriage to flourish in our country, the same people who have been held up to ridicule by secularists are expected to somehow see through that hateful rhetoric and "do what's right." Ironically, the gay lobby never considered holding itself to that same standard, as they have stomped all over the will of citizens of this nation, demonizing anyone who dares hold a differing opinion.

I have spent a great deal of time in the political trenches, debating this issue with supporters of gay marriage. My support for gay adoption and civil unions, coupled with my opposition to the National Defense of Marriage Act has not usually been enough to escape the "right-wing fascist homophobe tag." It is truly all or nothing with these people.

And that is the essence of my views towards gay marriage. Proponents essentially propose an ultimatum. You are either a supporter of gay marriage, or you are a fascist religious caveman. Despite the fact that I describe myself as an athiest, I would much rather live with the fascist religious caveman tag than be bullied into supporting something as ambiguous to society as gay marriage.

Bottom line? The people who should have spent the last four years explaining their position in a reasonable manner have instead chosen to vilify opposition, bully their position, and shame America into supporting gay marriage.

When the chance arrives next year for Minnesotans to cast a vote on the issue, mine will reflect my opinion on the left's tactics to a degree as much as, or greater than, it will reflect my actual attitude towards gay marriage.

Don't get me wrong, I probably would have voted to protect traditional marriage anyway, as civil unions seem a perfectly reasonable compromise on this issue. It's just that now I will vote with pleasure. I don't like to be bullied and demonized. I would wager that the majority of voters in Minnesota feel the same way, which is why Democrats are opposed to this vote taking place at all.

Social Security Reform Moving Forward

While the lib's are throwing things, it looks like Social Security reform is just around the corner. This...from Roll Call, via Social Security Choice.

Republicans in Congress and the White House say they have nearly finished the first stage of their push to overhaul the Social Security system and will soon begin crafting a bill that could pass both chambers by the end of July.

Roll Call is also reporting that any premature eulogizing of personal accounts would be in error. In fact, they will be front and center.

“Personal accounts are an essential part of any reform,” said Bob Stevenson, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.). “Without personal accounts, all you have left is benefit cuts.”

Perhaps the GOP has finally figured out that, once you get past the loud whining and scare tactics of Democratic leadership, the people (you know...us) actually suppport personal accounts. It's about time.

Barone's been keeping an eye on the numbers...

When Fox News pollster John Gorman asked, "Do you favor or oppose giving individuals the choice to invest a portion of their Social Security contributions in stocks or mutual funds?" Sixty percent said yes, and 28 percent said no.

...and the political climate.

In the short run, very few Republicans run great political risks by supporting Bush. Significantly more Democrats run great political risks by opposing him. Obstruction doesn't work well for Democrats in Bush seats: Just ask former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. And at the moment, on Social Security, as Democrats Stan Greenberg and James Carville wrote last month, "Voters are looking for reform, change and new ideas, but Democrats seem stuck in concrete."

Leftists Continue To Elevate The Debate (updated)

It is getting harder and harder to hold our own against the leftists in the great debate. Seriously, their arguments are just getting so...enlightened. For instance, Michelle Malkin has finally been put in her place.

Michelle Malkin is a c**t.

Posted by: hostile on April 7, 2005 at 11:17 AM PERMALINK

hostile is right. she's a c**t. Coulter is neither c**t nor whore. she's a man. Maggie "Pay for Play" Gallagher is the whore.

Posted by: sean on April 7, 2005 at 11:24 AM PERMALINK

This is a blog hosted by Washington Monthly, a respected liberal publication. The author of the article that encourages this glimpse into how leftists really think, Kevin Drum, notes in his piece that pundits like Malkin, Hewitt, and Powerline should just STFU (shut the f**k up).

Comments like Hostile's and Sean's can be deleted by a blog administrator at almost any hosting service. Are we to believe that the Washington Monthly is incapable? No, they were left there, on purpose I presume, because it is what passes for political speech from the left these days.

Now for the scariest thought of all. Before the many recent examples of how the infantile left acts when it doesn't get it's way; killing cops, crying rape, throwing food, using vile language, etc.., they were actually considered a viable alternative to the GOP in the 2004 election, represented by John Kerry.

That's right folks, John Kerry and the Democratic Party were their heroes. What does that say about the party and what it represents?

Perhaps they can reach their base better in 2008 if they exchange debate, which was an empty effort anyway, for something more likely to capture the party faithful's attention, like government subsidized diaper changes or promises of cookies before dinner. That'll get 'em excited.

UPDATE: Meanwhile, a 13-year-old girl in New York is being treated like a criminal by her school district for wearing a red, white, and blue "pro-troops" necklace. Perhaps she would be treated fairly if she were to wear something more appropriate, like a "gay pride" necklace or a Che Geuvera t-shirt.

Just another case of a right-wing "runt?"

UPDATE: Here's an excellent explanation of the lofty debate tactics used by the left, from FrontPage's Jamie Glazov.

Part of the explanation for this failure to express disagreement in the form of an intellectual argument, we suspect, has to do with the left’s undisputed domination over the institutions of the higher culture – the universities, the large metropolitan press, and the TV networks. This dominance has caused it to inhabit a cultural echo chamber where the only interlocutor it really has to speak to (and answer to) is itself. Consequently, it has grown intellectually lazy and reaches for the most convenient epithet before it ever thinks about an argument. It has substituted emotional reflexes for ideas for so long that it has become a kind of latter day version of the conservatism that Lionel Trilling described as a “mental irritability” rather than an intellectual reference.

Sunday Is Good News Day

Monday through Saturday we spend a great deal of time pointing out the infantile behavior of the modern liberal. Sunday brings good news. This was posted by Mohammed at Iraq the Model yesterday, celebrating the fall of Baghdad.

The winds of change that have blown away the tyrant in Iraq have begun to reach more and more people everyday and the heroic stand of Iraqis is inspiring freedom lovers in Beirut and Cairo, Kuwait and Bahrain, Arabia and Damascus; people are screaming enough is enough; enough for tyranny, enough for repression and enough for slavery.

While the left is busy mass producing Bush/monkey signs, the war in Iraq has sprung one of the greatest drives towards personal liberty in modern history. Mohammed has a message for the 2.5 million moonbats who are busy pretending it isn't happening right in front of their eyes:

Go and chant with them, condemn democracy and march against freedom if you like but don't forget that those thugs represent no one but themselves. They rejected democracy from the beginning and missed the chance of joining the greatest election of our time.And don't forget that millions of Iraqis had also rejected those fanatics when the people marched to the boxes ignoring the threats and "fatwas"

Yes, go and chant. Oh, and keep the salad dressing handy in case you run into a supporter of democracy. Personally, I prefer a creamy ceasar.

For the U.S. military and supporters of democracy in Iraq, Mohammed also has this message:

Finally, I would like to say it again and say it loud:Thank you our liberators.

If anyone needs a good chuckle, this week's installment of "Stolen Treasures from J-Land" is in at The New World.

Strange Days Indeed

Things continue to get more and more surreal every day. Idiots are killing cops as an "action against corporate irresponsibility," the debate has been reduced to infantile food-assaults by the leftist rank and file, and now Mens News Daily is reporting that a woman is making up rape stories on campus. Not just any woman either.

Nall is the president of the Brevard Chapter of the National Organization for Women, Local 6 News reported. Police said she may have been trying to make a statement when she lied about the rape.

Does anyone else get the feeling that liberals like attention just a little too much? Regretably, they seem to be running out of fresh ideas for face-time.

In the "here we go again" file, Martha Burk, chair of the National Council of Women's Organizations, plans to announce a "new action" against the Augusta Golf Club and Master's Golf Tournament sponsors on Thursday.

Here's more maturity from leftist trend-setter Dailykos, who refers to John Hinderaker as "assrocket," via LGF:

Powerline-was-completely-fucking-wrong-gate was a problem not just because their wild-ass accusations about the Schiavo-Martinez memo were completely wrong, not just because media asses like Howie Kurtz took them seriously, but because they harm the reputation of the entire blogosphere.

Thanks Marcus, but you're taking care of that yourself quite nicely. To see what has him so upset, go here.

I think I know why we can't get through to these people. We first have to get into the sandbox with them.

Death By Environmentalism

This article, brought to you by the Intellectual Conservative, is lengthy but excellent read on the human toll of environmentalism. Here's a paragraph on the cause of 15,000 deaths heat-wave in France a couple of years ago; environmentally driven energy taxes.

Sure enough, the high energy taxes have worked exactly as the environmentalists planned: they have reduced energy consumption. Seeking ways to cut their electric bills, French citizens realized that air conditioners consume more energy than almost any other household appliance. For the poor and the elderly, especially, air conditioning simply became unaffordable. So, by the millions, they decided to forgo the amenity that environmental taxes made so expensive. Air conditioning, so universal in America, became in France an indulgence of the well-to-do. As Chantal de Singly, director of the Saint-Antoine hospital in Paris, put it in Le Monde (August 19, 2003), the heat wave revealed two classes of French citizens: "the France of the air conditioned versus the France of the overheated."

The article also covers CAFE standards, DDT, and the food industry. The whole thing makes an excellent weekend read.

Schiavo Memo Indicts The Media...Again.

It is now common knowledge that the now-infamous Schiavo memo originated from Mel Martinez (R) staffer Brian Darling, and was not yet another example of Democratic dirty tricks. Naturally, the left is missing the point of this situation and running around saying "Ha! It wasn't us this time."
But the way the memo was covered by the main-stream media is yet another example of either it's irresponsibility (if you're an optimist), or blatant bias against the Republicans (if you're a pessimist).

John Hinderaker, writing for the Weekly Standard, summarizes the situation accurately:

The Democrats were thus not guilty, as many of us believed, of creating the memo as a dirty trick. The central claim of many Democrats, newspapers, and commentators--that the memo was the product of the Republican congressional leadership and constituted an official "GOP talking points memo"--has likewise been proved false. It was this characterization that justified the memo's use as an indictment of congressional Republicans' motives in the Schiavo case. If the memo had been correctly described from the beginning, as the inept product of a freshman senator's aide, with no responsibility for Republican political strategy, which may not have been read by a single Republican senator, it is questionable whether it would even have merited a news story.

Should it be any suprise that the media ran with the memo and attibuted it to sources it had not yet verified? Given Dan Rather's recent troubles I would have guessed "yes" two weeks ago, but this most recent case of irresponsible journalism proves they have learned absolutely nothing.

Choosing Between The Extremes

Look anywhere on the American political scene these days and you will find widespread liberal paranoia regarding the "religious right." The religious right is bent on turning the bow of the nation into the winds of the dark ages, and woe be the enlightened secularists along the way. Given that the religious right makes up a rather small percentage of the Republican Party, the rest of us are asked often how we can align ourselves with their brand of extremism.

A couple of points on that issue. Firstly, I have yet to have pointed out to me an instance where the religious right has "forced it's views" down the throats of anyone. Defending their culture from assaults by the ACLU does not count. Defending against an abortion on demand mentality does not count. Defending national and state laws against gay marriage does not count. Even the opening of the federal courts, widely attributed by the left as a sign of a new era of global religious rule, accomplished only the affirmation of Michael Schiavo's original position.

Yet these are the most prevalent examples of the offensive by the religious right, which sounds more and more like a contradiction in terms. Still, the paranoia on this subject knows no bounds and I am often asked, as a godless pagan, how I can align myself with these dark forces. My answer is invariably: what are my choices?

Given that both political parties have extremes, regardless of which you affiliate yourself with you get nut-jobs. The discussion then becomes, which nut-jobs are worse, the right's or the left's?

The right's "nut-jobs" sometimes refer to the sexual ambiguity of cartoon characters, or inquire as to why stuffed animals are carrying purses. Occasionally, they fight for a "culture of life" and, right or wrong, that doesn't really seem that extreme. They choose their battles based on philosophy just like any group, as the environmental or gay lobby, for instance. Their goal is to slow down the assault on the nation's traditions, plain and simple. In some cases it is in our best interests, in others for their own benefit...just like any lobby.

On the other hand, were people like me to be scared away from the Republican Party, what would await us on the other side?

The left's extremists have resorted to throwing food at conservatives. They have a suicidal philosophy on national security, think America is always the bad guy, and would love to see the United Nations rule the world. It's not that they don't believe there should be a God, but that the widely accepted God should be replaced by their favorite deity, government.

Even more concerning, is the tactics used by the left to further their agenda, which should be of concern. One need only find a Krugman column, or that of any other leftist sycophant, and replace all references to the religious right with the word "Jew" to realize we are not in Kansas anymore.

Worst of all, while the right's "religious extremists" are treated like any other lobby in Washington, the left's secular extremists are in control of the party. Howard Dean, who thinks Republicans are "evil," is in charge of the DNC. The new leaders of the party are Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, and Robert Byrd; dangerous ideologues to the core. The left's heroes are Ward Churchill and Michael Moore, liars and propagandists who believe we are the true terrorists in the world.

Aside from these core beliefs, they have not one single plan for how to address the issues of the day. From the War on Terror, to social security, to health care, the party is bankrupt of ideas. In fact, the left has been reduced to an entirely obstructionist party, whose sole platform is knee-capping the government that the American people elected.

The left demands that the Republican Party end it's affiliation with the religious right and end the "grave danger" they pose to our society. Of course, they show no willingness to back away from their extremists; the global government and abortion on demand crowds, the anti-American propagandists, and the Euro-socialists-fascists.

The religious right, at it's core, seeks to preserve America in it's current form, the form that has allowed for the greatest freedoms individuals have ever enjoyed, the form that allowed our country to rise to the prominence it has in it's short history, and brought the opportunity for prosperity to everyone.
The left's extremists who, again, run the party, seek exactly the opposite; nothing short of the entire dismantling of that country, block by block, and it's rebuilding in an entirely new image.

The choice than, between right and left, is preserve or dismantle. This is the option that every American who doesn't align themselves with extremists must make when choosing a political party. Given that choice, is it any wonder that the left finds itself on the outside looking in?

The Indymedia Murderer (updated)

Via LGF, The Washington Post published a lengthy story earlier this week on Andrew Mickel, the leftist who shot and killed a police officer in Red Bluff California last November. According to CJ, Mickel is a frequent commenter at Indymedia, which is a hate-filled, anti-American website.

For context, Indymedia ran a story during the most recent Fallujah offensive openly wondering if it was time to start actively supporting the Iraqi insugency. It was remarked by many visitors that the time had come to take up arms against the "Bush regime." Mickel's slaughter of a police officer is no less than the fulfillment of a prophecy that I often worried, in my days of trolling Indymedia, would come to fruition.

Following the murder, Mickel left this manifesto at more than a dozen sites operated by Indymedia:

"Hello Everyone, my name's Andy. I killed a Police Officer in Red Bluff, California in a motion to bring attention to, and halt, the police-state tactics that have come to be used throughout our country. Now I'm coming forward, to explain that this killing was also an action against corporate irresponsibility."

Andrew Mickel is a disturbing example of the end result of politics designed for the lowest common demoninator. The far left loves to play word-games with American foreign policy and the Bush administration, using terms like "terrorists," regime change," "killers," war mongerers," corporate whores," "Nazi's," etc..., without regard for truth or consequence.

It appears that the chickens have finally come home to roost. Indymedia and other far-left hate sites and personalities are indirectly responsible for Mickel's actions, in that their hysterical hatred for their own country finally caused someone to crack.

So much for the "harmless" rhetoric of the left.

UPDATE: Horowitz joins Buchanen and Kristol as the latest victims of what The American Thinker calls "left wing thuggery," the food-assault. Kristol had the best reaction to the thuggery, when he said, "Just let me finish this point..." Man, he's cool.

The AOL Alliance's RepublicanJen has a complete list of food assaults against conservatives, and Poor Robert has the story on another open-minded leftist's murderous rampage.

Degree by degree, the erosion continues.