Thursday, June 30, 2005
Seems that stupid Supreme Court decision about taking of personal property was a 5th Amendment case, not 4th Amendment.
The 5th Amendment clause alluded to in this case was:
No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The 4th Amendment clause I alluded to was:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.
Seems to me, that if this was tried as a 4th Amendment case, rather than 5th, than the side of Justice may have prevailed. Too bad I'm too lazy to try for law school, else maybe I could one day make a difference in the world.
Well, I am off, to bask in my delusions of grandeur-lost-due-to-apathy.
Now, the Democrats however, have made absolute asses of themselves in response to this speech, specifically, about tying the Iraq campaign to terrorism.
"Why are the president and his supporters only now saying Saddam was connected to al Qaeda?" They whine. "Why didn't they bring this up when he first decided to go to war?" To which, I reply: WHAT?! HELLO? McFly?
EVERYONE who has supported this campaign has brought up ties to terrorism as justification since the very beginning, including the president. WMDs were the loudest trumpeted cause, but even that was because we were afraid Saddam would give them to..... TERRORISTS!
And, of course, whenever Bush or his staff allude to 9/11, the Democrats poop themselves right on the spot, they get so angry. This confuses me. Do they think we should forget about it? Do they think 9/11 memories should be completely absent from the Foreign Policy decision making process?
Of course, the Democrats have to bve very careful on how they address their discontent, else they run the risk of proving Carl Rove right. Rove gave a suspiciously well-timed speech to the Conservative Party of New York on how Liberals had a pathetic, cowardly reaction to 9/11, right after Dick "The Turban" Durbin, Senator from the state of al-Inois (both those terms were pirated from elsewhere, by the way. I'm not that clever), spat upon our military on the Senate floor. Now, if the Democrats attack Bush's speech in the wrong manner, Rove and other Conservatives will be there with a smug grin, ready to show the American people how right he was.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
The Liberal Wing of the Supreme Court, led by John Paul Stevens, have flagerantly thrown out 4th Amendment of the Constitution, saying that local governments (city, county, townships, etc.) may seize private land from citizens and turn it over to corporations.
Honestly, this can't even be called Marxist or Leninist. This can only be compared to the Corporate-Friendly socialism championed by Hitler. Just to make myself clear, I am not accusing the Supreme Court of genocide, Hitler did OTHER bad things too.
So, the government officially owns your home now. You can live on it, by their grace, until some developer decides they'd rather have your land to build a stip mall.
I do take pride that every Conservative Justice voted the correct way on this issue. Hopefully some Libs will retire or die and we can fill their seat with a Justice who doesn't betray the Constitution.
What puzzles me is why the Civil Libertarians are quiet on this. They are so loud about everything lately, and the government just eliminated the entire concept of Right to Property! An actual non-gun-related amendment to the Constitution has been rendered impotent, and no one cares? The Libertarians claim that everything Bush does in the War on Terror eats away at our civil liberties, but now that the Supreme Court flushed the 4th Amendment down the toilet, the silence is deafening. If only home-owners had the same political influence as the Terrorists in Guantanemo.
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
I can't really blame them. We've accomplished everything we've hoped to, and yet up to 60 Americans a week still get killed by insurgents. Saddam is jailed, the new government formed, and Iraqis enjoyed free elections. The only milestone left, other than catching Zarqawi, is to leave. And quite frankly, Zarqawi is more likely in Syria these days than Iraq.
We probably shouldn't leave without someone assassinating al-Sadr. That is a man who is more trouble than he is worth.
The Iraqis themselves often seem like filthy ingrates who deserved Saddam. This blog certainly references that a lot, as do this blogger's drunken rants.
We probably should not leave until the Iraqi security forces can protect the country. However, at what point do we decide they need to want to survive, and leave them alone? South Vietnam fell quickly after we left, because the Vietnamese did not care enough to stop Ho Chi Minh, and they are still paying the price. Israel, conversely, has time and time again managed to rebuke an entire subcontinent full of enemies that surround them from every side, and they have never had any formal help from the United States or the Soviet Union.
Now, we can probably thank the press for our early fatigue of this war. After all, it is difficult to hear every day how determined the enemy is, how the whole civilized world hates us, how we are worse than the Khmer Rouge with our interrogation techniques, etc., and if we withdraw from Iraq, then hopefully CNN will relent on their constant assault.
Of course, the cost of withdrawal would be America looking like a failure to the world. Al Qaeda would have a new base of operations. Anyone who trusted America publically would die horribly. America would prove Osama bin Laden correct when he said we were a Paper Tiger, thus emboldening our enemies. But hey, at least Newsweek would lay off the GITMO stories, eh?
We need out of Iraq, yes. However, we need victory. Retreat is not an option. If we retreat, we better detonate a nuke on the way out, because if we are not feared by our enemies, they will make sure that we deserve to fear them.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Now, people who defended the husband want an apology. Well, guess what? Y'ain't gettin' one!
No sane person expected Terri to wake up one day, take some night classes, and resume a normal life. We all knew that what we saw was what we got. The point is, we didn't think that it was worth murdering her for.
For some reason, people obsess about whether certain afflictions are better or worse than death. Now, as far as this mortal coil goes, I really can't think of much that is worse than death. Death is the end-all. You cease to be, as far as mortal understanding can configure. There may not have been much left of Terri in that shell of a brain, but it is certainly more than there is now.
If she was in pain, my opinion would certainly be different. If she had a brain tumor that kept her in constant agony, for example, death might be preferable.
However, in her state, she was in no pain. She was not causing anyone any harm. As far as we know, her soul may have already been happily in Paradise. But her family wanted to take care of her. It may have been a fruitless venture, but it harmed no one.
Of course, it is only appropriate that the husband make the final decision in this case, since Terri did not leave a living will (I want to be sent to a taxidermist, myself). But Michael Schiavo is a creepy man. To this day, Terri's parents and siblings do not know where Terri rests. Why was he so adamant to deny the family the opportunity to care for a loved one? Why will he not let them know where she is now, or where she will be buried?
People seem to love Death these days, whether in the form of abortion, euthenasia, or whatever. It seems to me that in almost all situations, a poor Life is preferable to an exceptional Death. Terri Schiavo, of course, was denied both when she was subjected to 3 weeks of dehydration.
Monday, June 13, 2005
"In western Pakistan, Tribal Council stoned to death a woman who was raped, because according to their custom, the rape was her fault for tempting the assaulter."
Americans would slap their heads in disbelief, saying "Those goddamn barbarians! What the hell is wrong with them?" Then we'd get scared because we realized they have The Bomb.
Well, we have officially lost the right to feel superior. Thank you Michael Jackson.
According to California, child rape is acceptable, as long as the mother is a bitch. NAMBLA will be happy to know this, I'm sure. Supporters of the jury say that there was still "Reasonable Doubt." I said it before but it is worth repeating. You cannot reasonably doubt this freak would do anything!
"Ah, he's just eccentric," people say. "He sleeps with children because he's strange, not because he's a pedophile." Well, guess what? You can be strange AND a pedophile! Pedophilia IS strange, to say the least! This man has such a reputation for being a fucktard, that he could hide in plain sight.
Honestly, I wish I could be surprised. But this is California, where actors are considered foreign policy wizards, rock star endorsements will make or break political ambitions, and all celebrities are above the law.
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Dean may actually manage to do the impossible: To swing the '06 elections to the Republicans
Michael Jackson: Can anyone actually say, in ANY honesty, that it is "reasonable" to "doubt" him capable of anything? By definition of being Michael Jackson, he cannot get a fair trial. Reasonable Doubt is an impossibility, unless the crime is "Fathering his Children" or "Heterosexuality" or "Grasping Reality."
Kilgore sucked as attorney general. NoVA became the North American headquarters for MS-13 under his watch. I cannot endorse this failure as governor.
Any of these may be elaborated upon at a later date. Most will likely be forgotten.
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Now, I may be wrong, but I don't think that anyone particularly minds that we happen to have prisoners in Guantanemo Bay, Cuba. The issue is that we are taking prisoners at all.
So, if we close GITMO, what do we do with the Talibanese and Al Qaedans? Well, I see four options.
1.) Move them to another prison.
Downside: Leftists bitch about this prison just like they bitched about GITMO. We have to tear down this prison and move them again. Repeat endlessly.
2.) Send them home.
Downside: Afghanistan is overwhelmed with fresh Taliban troops, genuinely refreshed from a 4 year tropical vacation. Karzai's government is overthrown, American allies all horribly murdered, War on Terror collapses in failure.
3.) Kill all the prisoners in GITMO. After all, we can't really ever let the true fanatics go.
Downside: This kinda really WOULD turn GITMO into a Gulag.
4.) Just open the door to GITMO and let them have the run of Cuba.
Upside: Castro would likely murder most of them. Maybe they overthrow Castro. United States will be forced to actually pay attention to Border Security issues, what with Al Qaeda running less than 90 miles from Miami.
Downside: United States will obviously still ignore the border, since politicians of both parties are filthy morons. 9/11-type attacks galore ensue.
None of these options particularly appeal to me. I figure the best plan is to keep with the current status quo, keep the Koran urination issues to a minimum, and let the issue mysteriously vanish the next time a Democrat is elected president (Human Rights groups never stage a serious protest against a Democrat. Not even LBJ).
I suppose maybe we should also perhaps allow Amnesty International members the option of taking a GITMO boy home. I wonder if there would be many takers?
Thursday, June 02, 2005
But, that won't stop me from talking about it, because beneath the surface, there are some interesting issues.
Now, apparantly, Felt was primed to become J. Edgar Hoover's successor in the FBI. Hoover kept an iron grip on power in DC through a system of blackmailing the powerful. He dug up dirt on every politician of every political persuasion, and threatened to destroy careers if crossed. JFK, RFK, LBJ, Richard Nixon, and countless others, he made them his bitches.
Nixon passed over Felt to succeed Hoover. Felt actually made good on the threats that his mentor made, but never actually delivered on.
Anonymous whistleblowing, ever since, has been a weapon of choice for dissatisified bureaucrats. In his book, Off With Their Heads, Dick Morris cites several occasions President Clinton's plans of action were halted by bureaucrats telling him, in no uncertain terms, that they would leak to the press. The current administration has been famous for their leakage problem (man, that sounds pretty gross). Thanks to anti-Bush bureaucrats in State and Defense, odds are the general public knew most of our plans for the Afghanistan campaign before the actual generals on the field did.
Oddly, Nixon apparantly knew who Deep Throat was, according to his tapes. James Taranto on Best of the Web today published this exerpt:
Haldeman: . . . We know who leaked it.
Nixon: Somebody in the FBI?
Haldeman: Yes, sir. Mark Felt. . . .
Nixon: Is he Catholic?
Haldeman: [unintelligible] Jewish.
Nixon: Christ, put a Jew in there?
Incidently, this shows how Pat Buchanan was able to find a comfortable home in the Nixon administration. Well, except that Buchanan is Catholic.
Interestingly, Felt got himself into a piece of trouble during the Carter years, and began a lengthy jail sentence, which was relieved when President Reagan gave him a presidential pardon. On the occasion of his release, Nixon sent him a bottle of champagne, telling him that in the end, justice would always prevail. (source: Ibid)
I tried checking Pat Buchanan's article archive to see if he had anything to say about Deep Throat's outting. He didn't. I'm sure that John McLaughlin will force him to make a statement this weekend, though. I tried G. Gordan Liddy's page to see if he had any public statements. If he does, I couldn't find them. That man redefines scary-lookin', tho, let me tell you.
According to Peggy Noonan, Ben Stein (a Jew in Nixon's employ?) of all people had some fairly harsh words for Felt.
So, when all is said and done, is Mark Felt a hero or villain? Noonan would contend villain, as would many Paleo-Conservatives. But, in the end he put an end to wrongdoing. He may have had some personal motives, but doing the right thing for the wrong reason is still virtuous.
We are better off with the presidency knowing that if it strays too far from the ethical line, there may be another Deep Throat lurking in the shadows.