Sunday, October 23, 2005

The Conservative Mind

We would like to invite everyone to visit our new fourm
  • The Conservative Mind.


  • It is a bit different than most forums in it's purpose. Please read our mission statement to see why.
    All guests can read the postings but if you want to participate you need to take advantage of the free registration. All you need is a valid e-mail and a couple of minutes.

    But wait!! if you click
  • The Conservative Mind.
  • within the next ten minutes we will double your order! But that's not all! When you click
  • The Conservative Mind.
  • ask about free shipping! That's right! You get the regular
  • The Conservative Mind.
  • PLUS the SUPER SIZED
  • The Conservative Mind.
  • PLUS FREE!!! SHIPPING, a gazzilion dollar value, all for the special T.V. price of $0.27. Amazing!
  • Click Now!


  • Disclaimer:
    No representation that the hatred of communism is greater than the hatred of communism found on other forums. Offer not valid in the USSR, China, North Korea and certain parts of California and New York, including Berkeley and many boroughs of NYC, see local voting patterns for details.

    Thursday, August 25, 2005

    We Must Never Forget!

    It's nearing four years since the atrocity of September 11th, 2001. These days we rarely see the horrendous images of that day on network television. Some people in the media don't feel we should be exposed to them, but I strenuously disagree with that mindset. I believe we should keep them ever before us, lest some among us forget what we are fighting for.

    Freedom doesn't come without a cost. Our Republic was not established by cowards and/or appeasers, and cowards and/or appeasers will not preserve it. We cannot afford our country to be divided on so important an issue as national security.

    Despite what some might believe, it's impossible to support our troops without supporting their mission, so hopefully we can all put aside partisan politics and get behind them 100% so they can successfully complete their mission over in Iraq and come back home to the people who love them. God bless our military AND their families! Below is the link to a 9-11 tribute, for those who choose to view it.

    http://www.jontzen.com/tributes911/tears5.swf

    Saturday, July 30, 2005

    This White House Is Too Cooperative!

    I'm all for civility and congeniality amongst people who have to work together, but depending upon with whom one is dealing, there can be such a thing as being "too nice".

    I greatly admire President Bush, and for the most part agree with his agenda, but I will admit that there have been times when dealing with the opposition party where I've felt that his administration lacked the sort of toughness that is necessary to keep these partisan sore-losers in line.

    The Democrats have obviously never gotten over the fact that the American people elected this man to the White House, not once, but twice, and they are doing their level best to bully the Bush Administration into making concessions that the Democrats would never even consider making, were the tables reversed. They would never concede even the tiniest little bit of power to Republicans if they were the Majority Party. So I ask, why do the Republicans continue to act as though they have to placate the Minority Party at every turn? It drives me nuts!

    Manuel Miranda has written a good article over on opinionjournal.com http://www.opinionjournal.com/nextjustice/?id=110007028 that expresses concern over the Bush White House Counsel's release of 75,000 pages of documents dealing with John Roberts work during the Reagan presidency. On the one hand, the records seem to bolster the belief that Roberts is indeed an originalist as far as the U.S. Constitution is concerned, and it goes without saying that this is welcome news for conservatives everywhere.

    On the other hand, however, as Mr. Miranda so rightly points out, if the Democrats' past behavior is any indication, releasing these documents will only whet their appetite for more. He fears that having needlessly given them their way in this case will only serve to make them even more determined to acquire privileged documents from when Roberts worked in the Solicitor General's office during the H.W. Bush Administration. And he's right! I don't think there is any doubt that they will pressure the White House Counsel's office to do just that. Give them an inch, and they want the whole yard. You simply cannot be nice to these people!

    In any case, we can only hope that the Bush Admistration is willing to throw down the gauntlet here and now, and say "Enough is enough! We're the Majority Party, damn it! You lost, remember? Twice!" And while I'm not holding my breath waiting for them to do that, I am calling and e-mailing the White House demanding that they hang tough for once! Act like you're the Majority! It's an idea whose time has come!

    Tuesday, June 07, 2005

    What's In a Name?

    Amnesty International's recent use of the word "gulag" to describe our terrorist detention center at Guantanamo Bay was one of the most outrageously inaccurate and flawed analogies I have ever heard.

    I thought that Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace did a very credible job of challenging William Schulz, (Amnesty International's executive director) on this issue, but although Schulz did engage in some backpedaling, he stubbornly maintained that there were, indeed, some similarities between the two.

    David Limbaugh thinks that Mr. Shultz and others of his ilk might benefit enormously from reviewing Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's description of an actual Soviet gulag, as written in his classic book, "Gulag Archipelago". He feels that a graphic reminder of what actually constitutes torture, another word that the Left often misuses, might be just what the doctor ordered. I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Limbaugh.

    Mr. Limbaugh, in his article, "The Real Gulag", provides the following excerpt from the chapter in "Gulag Archipelago" entitled: "The Interrogation".


    If the intellectuals in the plays of Chekhov who spent all their time guessing what would happen in 20, 30, or 40 years had been told that in 40 years interrogation by torture would be practiced in Russia; that prisoners would have their skulls squeezed within iron rings; that a human being would be lowered into an acid bath; that they would be trussed up naked to be bitten by ants and bedbugs; that a ramrod heated over a primus stove would be thrust up their anal canal (the 'secret brand'); that a man's genitals would be slowly crushed beneath the toe of a jackboot; and that, in the luckiest possible circumstances, prisoners would be tortured by being kept from sleeping for a week, by thirst, and by being beaten to a bloody pulp, not one of Chekhov's plays would have gotten to its end because all the heroes would have gone off to insane asylums.

    Personally, other than the fact that "Gulag", "Guantanamo" and "Gitmo" all begin with the letter "G", I fail to see the comparison.

    Saturday, May 28, 2005

    The "Borking" Game: Who Are The Major Players?

    One of the hottest issues currently leading in the news is that of the filibustering of President Bush's judicial nominees. Now that the so-called "memorandum of understanding" has been "agreed" upon in the Senate, we are all waiting to see what happens next. Of course, with regard to John Bolton, President Bush's choice for Ambassador to the U.N., we didn't have to wait too long at all before the Democrats resumed their filibustering ways. So much for "comity" and a spirit of "cooperation" in the Senate.

    Clearly, the agreement on the part of the Democrats to end their obstruction of the nominations of only three of President Bush's choices, simply postpones the inevitable showdown that is bound to occur at some future date. No doubt it will occur sooner, rather than later, either with the remaining nominations for Apellate Court judges, or when the time comes to replace one of the justices of the SCOTUS, which is really what this is all about. This backroom deal that occurred at the last moment between a handful of Democrat and Republican Senators, has not really solved anything at all.

    We have seen the extent to which the Democrats have gone to prevent judges with originalist views of the U.S. Constitution from being elevated to our higher courts. For obvious reasons, they would much prefer to confirm more liberal judges, who view the Constitution of the United States as a "living document", over conservative judges, who believe that the Constitution is a static document, meant to be read exactly the way it was written by our Founding Fathers.

    The reason for this, of course, is because those on the Left have, in the past, successfully used the courts to further their own liberal agenda. America, for the most part, is pretty conservative on many social issues, so it is all but impossible for liberals to pass the legislation that they would like to pass by going through conventional means, i.e., by introducing and passing bills through the House of Representatives and the Senate. So what they do instead, is get liberal judges appointed so that they can literally legislate from the bench, and so entirely circumvent the tedious hassle of lawmaking. Sad thing is, this practice has worked for the Democrats for a very long time now, and because of that, it will not be all that easy to end it.

    But that is not really the issue that I intended to address here in any great depth. I wanted to make some noise and sound a warning about a different aspect of the judicial nomination process, specifically the abusive personal attacks that the Democrats have been making against judicial nominees who do not hold the same views as they do. I also want to shed some light on the questionable means they use to collect personal and private information on these individuals.

    I recently came across two very interesting articles concerning the Left's efforts to shoot down the nominations of conservative judges, and I think it's very important to expose exactly who these people are who are at the bottom of this effort. There is a full-fledged attempt going on to smear these decent and respected conservative judges, and to drag them through lengthy, nasty and contentious hearings before the Judicial Committee until they cannot take anymore, as with what occurred with the nomination of Miguel Estrada. His long ordeal at the hands of Senate Democrats ended with him withdrawing his name from consideration. This unfair treatment of nominees is just plain wrong, and really must be stopped before it results in our Judiciary losing even one more highly qualified judge.

    Unfortunately, this is a strategy that has been successfully used by Democrats in the past, and now it's important to understand who is behind it. It will probably be no surprise to most of you who follow politics to hear that anti-American activists such as George Soros (who sponsors Community Rights Counsel) and radical lobbyists such as NARAL Pro-choice America (National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League) are behind these campaigns to de-rail conservative judges. They hire private investigators and political consultants to conduct negative research on any and all conservative nominees who might possibly be considered by President Bush for positions on our higher courts, and they feed this information back to the Democrat leadership so they can use it against them to block their confirmation.

    But, rather than my going on and on about this, I would strongly suggest that you read the following two very enlightening articles which explain exactly how this is being done. I think it's very important to expose these tactics before the Democrats succeed in "Borking" the next round of extremely qualified and principled conservative judges with these unreasonable, vicious attacks against them. Here are the links to both articles:

    Rigging the Borking Game by Jeffrey Lord

    AND

    Probing the Judges by Robert Novak

    Friday, May 20, 2005

    Welcome To the Mark Levin Fans

    Enjoy your night of Drive By Blogging.

    Remember to flush when you are through.

    Friday, May 13, 2005

    CBS Redeems Itself......NOT!

    In keeping with its long-standing policy of dishonest reporting, it seems that CBS has once again deliberately misreported the news. No shocker there. Apparently, notwithstanding the shame of the Dan Rather/forged memos debacle, CBS has learned nothing about the importance of objectivity and truthfulness in their reporting of stories. Indeed, it seems as though their political bias is so deeply embedded in their worldview, that they simply cannot help themselves.

    According to Kenneth Starr, the excerpts of the interview that he did with Gloria Borger were taken completely out of context, thereby misrepresenting, in a most egregious manner, what he had said concerning the so-called nuclear option.

    Ramesh Ponnuru, of National Review online, contacted Mr. Starr to ask him about this issue, and Starr forwarded to him a copy of an e-mail that he had sent to a third party explaining the whole thing. Here is what Mr. Ponnuru wrote about it:

    CBS, AP, and other outlets reported earlier this week that Starr had said that getting rid of the judicial filibuster would be a “radical, radical departure from our history and our traditions, and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government.”

    This seemed like a very odd thing for Starr to say, so I contacted him.

    He forwarded to me an email he had sent to someone else who had asked about this matter:

    "In the piece that I have now seen, and which I gather is being lavishly quoted, CBS employed two snippets. The ‘radical departure’ snippet was specifically addressed — although this is not evidenced whatever from the clip — to the practice of invoking judicial philosophy as a grounds for voting against a qualified nominee of integrity and experience. I said in sharp language that that practice was wrong. I contrasted the current practice . . with what occurred during Ruth Ginsburg’s nomination process, as numerous Republicans voted (rightly) to confirm a former ACLU staff lawyer. They disagreed with her positions as a lawyer, but they voted (again, rightly) to confirm her. Why? Because elections, like ideas, have consequences. . . In the interview, I did indeed suggest, and have suggested elsewhere, that caution and prudence be exercised (Burkean that I am) in shifting/modifying rules (that’s the second snippet), but I likewise made clear that the ‘filibuster’ represents an entirely new use (and misuse) of a venerable tradition. . . .

    “[O]ur friends are way off base in assuming that the CBS snippets, as used, represent (a) my views, or (b) what I in fact said.”


    National Review Corner

    Also, for anyone interested in seeing the way CBS slanted this story, here is a link to the transcript of Borger's report, with additional misleading comments by CBS anchor, Bob Schieffer.

    CBS News transcript

    A word of advice. When using CBS as a source, it would be wise to use a bit of caution before accepting their stories as factual. They are not without an agenda, as evidenced by their propensity to put a liberal spin on their stories of a political nature. It's a most fascinating thing to observe, actually, because I'm sure if you asked them, they would vehemently deny having any bias whatsoever.

    Still, there's no doubt that a liberal bias is often evident in their reporting. Is it possible that they are truly unaware of it? I guess that's a legitimate theory, but not having the ability to see into their hearts and minds, it's not a question that I can even begin to answer.