Minnesota Senator Eugene McCarthy died on December 10, 2005.  He is still being memorialized almost daily in the leftist media.  He is hailed for calling out President Johnson on the Vietnam War, forcing LBJ to leave the presidential race in 1968.  Frank Wright (Minneapolis StarTribune, 1/30/06) states that Senator McCarthy stood up alone and demonstrated “that the country was against the war”.  According to Wright, McCarthy “changed the world”. 

The reality is that Senator Eugene McCarthy was an anti-war, blame America first leftist who spread doubt across America.  His actions weakened American resolve thereby making it impossible for the government to let the military fight the war to win.  When our soldiers were fired upon they often had to gain permission to fire back…permission that often took hours to come if it came at all.  Instead of being in and out of Vietnam in a few years, we were forced to retreat more than a decade after we first entered the country.  The good news is that our actions helped bring about the financial destruction of the USSR and led to the virtual destruction of Soviet style communism in the world.  The bad news is that at least half of the 58,000 members of the American military who died in Vietnam would not have had to die if not for the actions of the anti-war left, led by Eugene McCarthy.  And yet, Eugene McCarthy is still being memorialized a month-and-a-half after his death.

That brings me to another McCarthy, Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy.  Joseph McCarthy died on May 2, 1957 of hepatitis.  While still in the Senate, Joseph McCarthy died virtually alone, reviled by many.  Joseph McCarthy worked to bring down communism in America.  He and his staff identified hundreds of communists in the military and in government and helped eradicate them from both systems.  While his approach was often harsh, he did his job.  He was a hero.  But those who sympathized with communism (or those who were themselves communists) vilified him publicly.  They censured him in the Senate and basically shut off attempts to continue identifying communism in the military and government. 

Just as Vietnam veterans were prevented by the left from doing their job to militarily destroy communism in Southeast Asia, Senator Joseph McCarthy was prevented from doing his job to legally destroy communism in America.  While he got rid of many, many followed.  The left continues to promote many of the political, social, and/or economic values of communism in America.  They do so through our political, social, and educational institutions.  Their hero is Eugene McCarthy.  

It is always the left.  It is time for the right to stand up and fight back.  Right now we have the numbers and the political edge.  We need someone to stand up as a political leader for the right.  We need someone who is not afraid to say it like it is…someone who is unwavering…someone who will take up the fight against the left…even if he or she is sometimes less than gentle in tone.  We do not need any more Eugene McCarthy’s.  We need another Joseph McCarthy.

40,000

Since August of 2004 we have received over 40,000 hits.

Thank you VERY much for checking in!

According to the Minneapolis StarTrbune (1/28/06), "Two Iraqi Islamic political groups, one Sunni and one Shiite, as well as many Shiite and Sunni religious leaders throughout the country, welcomed the seeping victory this week by the militant group Hamas in the Palestinian legislative elections". 

Hamas is an armed terrorist organization that has called for the destruction of all Jews and of Israel.  they have supported hundereds of suicide bombings.  The very fact that Muslim leaders and their followers welcome the rise to power of Hamas demonstrates that the "peaceful nature of Islam" is highly overstated.

I can only hope that those on the left who have spoken so wistfully of the potential for negotiated peace in the Middle East have finally come to their senses.  You cannot negotiate very well when you are on your knees with a gun pointed at your head.  That is the position in which the civilized world finds itself today. 

Innocence is nice...sometimes even charming.  But not when our very existence is at risk. 

Three billion dollars earmarked by America to fund significant improvements in Iraqi infrastructure have had to be redirected to fund security measures necessitated by the continued terrorism in Iraq (Jonathan Finer, Washington Post, 1/27/06).  The very money that Americans have directed toward helping Iraqis become more self-sufficient has to be used to secure them against terror. 

Palestinians have been given a chance to build a nation.  Instead they have given Hamas, an armed terrorist group, control of 76 of 132 legislative seats.  They have elected terrorists to govern them.

How can there be any further self-deceit by the left?  How is it possible that they cannot see that those in Iraq who are forcing the reallocation of funds to protect Iraqis are not “insurgents” but terrorists?  How is it possible that the Los Angeles Times can still editorialize (1/27/06) that most Palestinians want peace?  How can the left continue to protect terrorists and give them the benefit of the doubt when they continue to wreck havoc on the world and on anyone with whom they disagree?

We are fighting an epoch war against evil.  Whether they are in Iraq, the West Bank, America, or anywhere else in the world, terrorists are evil.  Those who defend evil ARE evil…either out of ignorance or purpose.  It is time to stop making excuses for the bad guys and to stand up and be counted in the war on islamofascism…in the war on evil.

Democrats are ALL about taking care of the little guy…unless the little guy is still housed in a uterus.  Then the Democrats are all about preserving faulty Supreme Court reasoning that gives Constitutional protection to those who choose to abort that fetus…and denying that abortion is not a federal or judicial issue but one that needs to be decided by the people.

Democrats are also ALL about the environment and renewable energy…unless, of course, the source of that renewable energy is a wind turbine farm in their own backyard (John Tierney, NY Times, 1/24/06).  Of course, Senator Teddy Kennedy would oppose wind turbines in Nantucket Sound near his Hyannis Port family compound.  But when Robert Kennedy, Jr. (who earns his living as an “environmental attorney” and by mouthing off on television about how important renewable energy is to America) also disavows the Nantucket wind farm on the basis that it will “destroy the view”, we know that limousine liberal Democrats really care much less about the environment and much more about their lifestyle.  

Then there is the issue of race.  Democrats are ALL about supporting the rights and welfare of “downtrodden minorities”.  Yet, it is Democrats who have controlled Louisiana for decades and who have made it possible for African Americans to remain so dependent on government welfare that they could not get out of New Orleans when disaster struck that proud and wonderful city. 

The truth is that Democrats talk a good story.  They talk a good, politically correct fight.  But it is Republicans that have made the most significant inroads in helping African Americans become more independent of government.  It is Republicans that have offered up real energy programs that engage producers in finding real alternatives.  And it is Republicans that have stood up for the REAL little guy…that tiny child in the womb.

The left continues its march to destroy America.  As I have written in the past, the list of civil liberties being taken away by the left grows almost daily.  As of December 20, the list included the right to:

Drive as far as we want

Drive what we want

Remain safe from predators (e.g., Tookie Williams)

Decide if people can smoke on our own private property

Retain our private property

Keep our lights on at night in the city

Wear high heels (for women)

Live in areas with some space around us

Ride motorcycles without helmets

Ride motorcycles that made noise

Smoke indoors

Smoke outdoors

Eat what we want

Drive in what lane we want (i.e., HOV lanes)

Build what we want on our own property

I have provided detail on most of these in previous commentaries. 

The liberals in Maryland recently added one more to the list.  In a move reminiscent of Nazi Germany, the Maryland legislature has begun the process of state takeover of what has up to now been private enterprise.  The legislation in question requires that larger companies must spend at least 8% of their payroll on health care, or must give the difference to the state.  Of course, this state direction of corporate financials is another form of state takeover.  But the state TAKING of any money that a corporation chooses to not use as directed by the state is nothing less that theft. 

So, corporations are forced to follow state dictate regarding smoking, air cleanliness, affirmative action, employee time off, and business location, among others.  On top of that, businesses risk physical takeover of their very property through state enforced eminent domain.  As of today, they must also spend what the state demands on health care or pay said amount directly to the state. 

None of these invasions into civil liberties is coming from the right.  The left is in charge of takeover.  We have to pay attention.

Once again the left has rewritten history and the truth and has done so with blatant abandon. 

Senator Ted Kennedy and his cohorts have condemned Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito for his membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP).  These leftists have defined that organization as racist and sexist.  I have read a great deal about the organization.  Apparently its early leadership did include some opposed to adding women as Princeton students.  It apparently did oppose allowing admission to ANYONE solely on the basis of gender or race.  Many of us are opposed to affirmative action at face value and expect equality in selection and membership rights.  But at the time that Samuel Alito joined CAP, it appears that the big issue was the fact that Princeton had thrown the ROTC off campus following a firebombing of its headquarters.  Alito was a member of the ROTC.  On a leftist campus there were few places for a conservative (and especially a conservative member of the ROTC) to go.  CAP apparently was one such place.

More importantly, membership in CAP actually meant you received a magazine that was at one time edited by a person of color and later by a woman (Laura Ingraham).  For more on this issue you can go to:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/581gyfjg.asp

What I find particularly disturbing is not that Samuel Alito was a member of CAP.  What I find concerning is the hypocrisy of Senator Teddy Kennedy.  After this married man drove his “date” into the Chappaquiddick, Senator Kennedy ran away like a baby to dry out and come up with an alibi.  When no alibi or plan was forthcoming, he admitted to being the driver and got a two month suspended sentence.  Running worked for him. 

Today, Senator Kennedy once again ran away.  This time, after trying to destroy the reputation of Samuel Alito for being a member of a “sexist” club (CAP), Senator Kennedy cancelled his membership in the “Owl Club”.  The “Owl” is a club that forbids women as members.  It was thrown off the Harvard Campus in 1984.  BUT, apparently Kennedy has maintained his membership through the years…until now when he is taking a little heat for his hypocrisy.

If you have been a member of a club for decades and if you believe in the tenets of that club, stand up and admit it.  Don’t try to run away and pretend it never happened. 

You can run, Senator Kennedy.  You always have.  You have hoodwinked the people of Massachusetts and much of the rest of the country with your political savvy, your ability to bring in pork barrel money hand over fist, and your name.  You have used the memory of your brother to do what he would have never done. 

The problem is this Senator Kennedy.  We all knew President Kennedy.  You sir, are no John F. Kennedy.  That is why you are so bitter, so hateful, and so pathetic as a human being.

In the meantime, Samuel Alito should be confirmed as the next Supreme Court Justice.  Your reign is nearly over.  Old age will win.  Thank God for that!

Appeasement works… until the appeaser is destroyed.

Ask the British.  Ask the Israelis.  Ask every civilized nation that has given in to criminals, rogue states, or terrorists. 

Al Qaida leaders have already concluded that America has lost the war against islamofascism because we are being pressured from within by the left to retreat from Iraq.  Somehow the left thinks that if we appease the enemy the enemy will stop killing us.  I recall that Neville Chamberlain believed the same.  I recall that every time Israel tries to compromise with the PLO more Israelis are murdered.

Never appease the bad guys.  Never drop your gun when it is trained on the bad guy, even if you are scared and tired and want to go home and sleep. Never!

Appeasement works… until the appeaser is destroyed.

Now, this is one of those difficult commentaries. 

There is a great deal of emotion around the issue of abortion.  Everyone has an opinion and it is always extreme…one way or the other.  As I have written many times, the leftists are continually trying to take away our civil rights.  And yet, via Roe v. Wade, the left has kidnapped the Constitution in a successful effort to grant us a right that is not constitutionally proscribed. 

Abortion, in reality, is not a Constitutional issue.  In the eyes of the Constitution, it is a non-issue.  The Constitution does not deal with the issue of abortion.  In fact, it does not really deal with the issue of “privacy” which is the supposed foundation for the Roe-v. Wade decision.  In making its decision on abortion, the Supreme Court really messed up.

Abortion is a moral decision that must be made by a mother and a father.  Granted, the mother gets the final say, but the decision is one that involves BOTH parents. 

As we all know, abortion is the one issue that underlies every leftist decision regarding selection of Supreme Court justices.  This was apparent in the confirmation hearing of now Chief Justice Roberts and in the confirmation hearings of Judge Alito.  One issue people are not very productive or useful.  Watching the circus that was the Alito confirmation hearings, that is very apparent.

In truth, despite all the rhetoric, there IS NO Constitutional right to abortion.  This view is stated better and more concisely than I could ever do in a recent editorial by Steve Chapman in the Chicago Tribune (1/14/06).  Chapman wrote the following:

“Samuel Alito Jr. wrote a memo in 1985 arguing there is no constitutional right to abortion, and prochoice groups are alarmed by that document. They say it proves he's a right-wing extremist with a ‘long history of hostility to reproductive freedom,’ in the words of the National Abortion Federation.

“Maybe Alito is secretly plotting to make pregnancy mandatory for all fertile females, as the NAF suggests. But for those of us inclined to be charitable, there's another possible explanation for why he said the Constitution doesn't protect abortion rights: because it doesn't.

“True, the Supreme Court has ruled it does, but that only proves the court has final say on the matter. The right to abortion is a wholesale invention of the court. There is no reference to it in the Constitution, and it can't be reasonably extrapolated from principles enshrined there.

“In the history of American jurisprudence, the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision stands out for its utter detachment from the actual language of the Constitution. That helps to explain why, 33 years later, it has yet to gain broad acceptance from the public. Or from legal scholars -- even those favoring abortion rights. Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago Law School, author of ‘Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts Are Wrong for America,’ says Roe ‘way overreached.’ Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who founded the Women's Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, once admitted that the decision ‘was difficult to justify.’

“Says Edward Lazarus, a former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun, who wrote the opinion in Roe, ‘As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose.’

“For nearly two centuries, the courts had no inkling that abortion was protected by the framers. When the Supreme Court finally discovered the oversight, it didn't get there by applying clear principles or solid precedents, as it usually does in expanding protections. Instead, it took the right of privacy, implicitly upheld in various provisions of the Bill of Rights, and stretched it beyond recognition.

“The result was like building a skyscraper on a foundation designed for a log cabin. Roe was shaky on Day One and has been shaky ever since. All Alito did in 1985 was point out that the moon is not, in fact, made of green cheese.

“The court sometimes finds new rights without an unequivocal constitutional basis -- as when it outlawed segregated public schools and when it adopted the ‘one man, one vote’ rule that legislative districts be equal in population. But those decisions soon gained universal acceptance because they reflected certain fundamental values of the Constitution. The right to abortion, however, hasn't overcome powerful doubts it engendered from the start.

“So seeing Roe as mistaken is not a radical view. The radical view comes from the other side. When the Constitution says nothing about an issue, the obvious answer is to leave the matter to legislative bodies. When the Constitution is silent, the people get the final say.

“As a conservative practitioner of a profession that stresses respect for history, continuity and predictability, Alito may ultimately be willing to leave Roe in place. Just don't expect him to pretend it was right all along.”

If we could get beyond the rhetoric and emotion we would see that the issue is not as divisive as it has become.  Abortion is a moral decision.  It is not a Constitutional right, nor is it a Constitutional wrong.  Personally, I am opposed to abortion.  But it is not my choice, or yours, unless you are the mother or father.  Abortion is a choice of the people.

Roe V. Wade needs to be overturned, not because abortion should be prohibited but because the Supreme Court has no legitimate say in the discussion. 

The people have the only say in this matter.

Imagine no more countries…a brotherhood of man…no one to kill or die for…

Wouldn’t that be great?  What was John Lennon smoking when he wrote that one? 

Now imagine this.  You are tired and cold.  You are walking down a dimly lit street littered with cans, bottles, old newspapers, dirty Kleenex and used condoms.  Five gang-bangers approach you and start to taunt you.  One of them pushes you against the cement wall of the building beside you.  Another pushes you toward the third and all five begin to bounce you back and forth like a basketball.  One of them takes out a gun and aims it at your head.  He tells you to give him your wallet.  You reach to get it and he pulls back the hammer of the 9 millimeter that he is holding sideways and aiming at you.  You know there is no money in the wallet and that they will be very angry when they realize that fact.  You are shaking, scared, and sweating.  You fully believe that your life is over.

Imagine that.

That is real life…not drug induced fantasy.

Now imagine that someone comes out of the shadows.  He too has a gun.  He informs the bad guys in a clear, deep voice that their fun is over.  They have a choice…leave now or be killed.  They choose to turn on the shadowy figure.  Bad choice.  The shadowy figure fires five shots…none of them from a sideways position.  The five bad guys are all dead.

Imagine that.

Who is the bad guy in this scenario?  The shadowy figure or the five gang-bangers?  Where is all that “no one to kill or die for” crap?

Now imagine that the shadowy figure is a man who has vowed to protect you against the bad guys.  He has always been there but you didn’t even think about him.  Other people called him stupid or said that he was a liar and a criminal.  Yet, he has vowed to protect all of them as well.

All of a sudden he is not so bad?  A man who is there to save you from the bad guys when you might have not even believed there were bad guys?

Damn!

Who could possibly oppose anyone who has vowed to protect them against the bad guys?  

Not me. 

The only people who could oppose a man willing to give it all up to protect all of us are those who cannot understand that there is evil in the world…or who know there is evil in the world and are under its control. 

There is nothing more to imagine, because this is fact.  The only people who could oppose a man willing to give it all up to protect all of us are those who cannot understand that there is evil in the world…or who know there is evil in the world and are under its control.  The man who has vowed to protect us against the bad guys is President Bush.  He has elected to put it all on the line for what he believes to be the greatest of all causes…protecting Americans against evil…even those who condemn him for doing so.  His arsenal may not include a 9 millimeter…but it includes all the tools at the hand of the President of the United States of America. 

Anyone who could oppose President Bush for using those tools to defend us against the evil that is islamofascism either cannot grasp the fact that evil exists or are themselves evil.  As far as I can see, there is nothing left to imagine.  We know who opposes President Bush.  That tells us just exactly who is evil. 

Imagine that.

I am sitting here in a totally confounded state of mind.  I have been watching the Senate hearings into the nomination of Samuel Alito for Supreme Court Justice.  Among the Senators challenging Alito is Senator Ted Kennedy. 

Ignore the fact that Kennedy can’t even address Judge Alito by his correct name…Alioto? 

Ignore the fact that any candidate for Supreme Court Justice MUST separate personal feelings from legal obligation.  We know that is deemed impossible by Senator Kennedy and by most of those on the left.  Leftists want a Justice that will never question Roe v. Wade or any other ruling with which they agree.  They know that their own candidate would mix feeling with law.  They don’t know it can be avoided by a person with integrity…which should be a characteristic of any judge at any level of the judiciary.

Ignore the fact that Democrats on the panel, including Kennedy, are said to be probing for ideological extremism.  “Ideological extremism”?  You have to be kidding me.  The left has that title totally locked up. 

The real issue here is much more important than any of those factors.

The real issue is about integrity.  In his continued push to subpoena private files from the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, Senator Kennedy continued to challenge the personal integrity of Judge Alito.  He has done so several times during his panel pontifications. He is not competent to challenge fact or to challenge law. 

Instead, Kennedy continues to challenge Alito’s integrity at a very personal level.  And THAT is the most important factor of all. 

Of the three Kennedy brothers in public service, two had at least some degree of integrity.  Both are dead.  One has NEVER shown any degree of personal integrity.  He is the senator from Massachusetts.  How Senator Kennedy can challenge the personal integrity of ANY other human being is confounding. 

And that is why I am sitting here in a confounded state of mind.

 “Illegal”:  A term of shifting meaning for the left.

A murderer is convicted for killing four human beings.  He is sentenced to death.  He doesn’t kill anyone else while he is in prison…at least not directly.  But the course of events that he started before conviction kills hundreds. 

According to the left, his illegal acts and his legal conviction and sentencing should not be taken into account.  Apparently, it is all just relative.

Illegal immigrants enter America illegally.  But to the left they are undocumented immigrants.  The left argues that these immigrants add to our economy and are just trying to help their families.  To the left, what these people have done is not really illegal.

That is the problem with the left.  To meet their objectives they will redefine any term or any reality.  For them it is all about how they feel today and what their objective is for tomorrow.  The rest of us sit by and watch and don’t get it.

A reality of shifting meaning.  Only one thing doesn’t change.  There is no accountability from the left.

So, you thought I was kidding?  Over and over again, I have written about the efforts of the left to slowly erode our individual freedoms while throwing out the red herring of the Patriot Act to deflect our attention.  The reality is that I have understated the severity of the problem…and overused the word “slowly”.

Today (January 6, 2006) in one newspaper (Minneapolis Star Tribune) I found three significant examples of the left’s usurpation of our civil liberties.

First, George Will wrote about “an exceedingly silly edict from the NCAA”.  In that act of censorship, the NCAA “is going to police cultural sensitivity, as it understands that.”  This arbiter of diversity is attempting to limit diversity by declaring Chief Illiniwek “hostile and abusive” to Native Americans.  All this while a 2002 Sport Illustrated poll found that “Eighty-one percent (of Native Americans polled) said high school and college teams should not stop using Indian nicknames.”  In fact, according to Will, “In 1995, the Office of Civil Rights in President Clinton’s Education Department (yes, that is what I said…President Clinton’s Education Department) rejected the claim that the Chief and the name Fighting Illini created for anyone a ‘hostile environment’ on campus.”

So that was the first for today.  The second example was written by Robert Franklin.  Franklin stated “So now city leaders in mostly black, mostly blue-collar Riviera Beach, Fla., want to use eminent domain to kick about 6,000 people out of their homes in order to build a waterfront yachting and housing complex for the rich.  The glitz of big new developments can blind local officials….Where’s the ‘free’ in ‘free enterprise’ if your business property can be taken for someone else’s business?”  Franklin went on to state “We have all kinds of government programs to get people into homes.  And few words carry the emotional ties of ‘home’, the images of childhood laughter, marital joy, family celebrations, tastes and smells of food we love, images of pride and achievement, comfort and stability.  And isn’t there a ‘public purpose’ in nurturing and protecting those values?”

Of course there is.

But it doesn’t stop there.  These first two examples were commentaries…citing facts… but still commentaries.  The third example is supposed to be a news article (written by Aaron Blake).  In that article, Blake states that “Minnesota continues to rank near the bottom and made no advances this past year in important highway safety laws, according to Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety.”  Minnesota falls into the intermediate category because it has not implemented all of the 14 laws recommended by the group (i.e., it hasn’t completed caved to the leftist demagogues).  Apparently, the advocacy group is “an alliance of consumer, health and safety groups and insurance companies”.  Of the list of recommended laws that Minnesota has not enacted (yet):

“It does not have a law allowing officers to pull someone over solely for a seat belt violation.

“It doesn’t require all motorcycle riders to wear helmets...

“and it doesn’t have sobriety checkpoints.”

The article was written as if those “failures” were bad things.  In fact, they are three of the only remnants of America still to be found in Minnesota.  Do we want the police to be able to pull us over in our cars without cause…just to see if we are over the legal alcohol limit?  Do we want to be pulled over for not wearing a seat belt when this is a personal choice?  And do we want to be arrested for not wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle when this too is a personal choice?  Do we want the socialist-fascists to control our every move?  Do we want to lose any vestige of freedom to those whose entire goal is to control us? 

When will we see that the left is actually the right?  That the left of today is no different than the leftists in Nazi Germany whose goal it was to control the masses, to control business and industry, and to destroy the moral fabric of a nation?  America destroyed the National Socialist Party and its leader.  It is resurrected in the American left.

Here is the latest leftist trick.  Whenever anyone identifies the need to deal with ILLEGAL immigration, that person is immediately marginalized as being “anti-immigration”.  That is anti-IMMIGRATION. 

IMMIGRATION, when done legally is a good thing.  It brings new ideas and skills to our nation.  It brings a mix of thoughts and feelings and cultures and perceptions that renew America…as it has for the past 230 years.

ILLEGAL immigration has nothing to do with immigration.  It has to do with committing an illegal act.  We punish those who do illegal activities.  That is one of the things that preserve a culture. 

When those of us who want to eliminate illegal immigration are wrongfully accused of being anti-immigration, another wrong has been committed. 

Unfortunately, those committing the wrong know exactly what they are doing.  They are trying to sway opinion and they are winning in many quarters.

Here is the bottom line. 

Legal immigration is good.

Illegal immigration is bad.  Those committing the crime need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.  So do those who try to cover it with trickery.

Here is the press in all its glory.  “12 Miners Alive” (Washington Post, January 4, 2006).  This and similar headlines were repeated throughout the print media this morning.  The problem is that the 12 men were not found alive.  They were found dead.  Because of the actions of the press, the family members of the 12 dead men suffered the worst of the worst…to have their hope rebuilt and demolished within the period of a few hours.

Just a mistake you say?  No.  It was not just a mistake.  The press cared only about one thing…getting the story before deadline.  They got the story but they got the wrong story.  And they hurt many.  This is just another example of the failure of the press.  Just as in Rather-gate, the press decided to run a story without substantiation…without even the briefest of confirmation. 

All for their own personal gain.