Friday, October 27, 2006

"We Have Decided"

"We have decided" you WILL have gay marriage, so stated the New Jersey Supreme Court.
That reminds me that "No man’s life, liberty or property is safe while the Court is sitting," to modify an observation by Judge Gideon Tucker in the 19th century.
Once again the will of the elite is imposed upon the befuddled citizens; this time in New Jersey where the State Supreme Court has declared the right to same-sex marriage to be the will of the elite and therefore binding upon the hapless citizens of New Jersey Four more state supreme courts are considering similar cases and will impose upon the general populace their versions of the traditional meaning of marriage, the English language and the construction of society.
When the United States Supreme Court some years ago found some bizarre rights in the "emanations and penumbras" of the shadows of the United States Constitution, I am sure they believed they were just relieving us citizens of the messy process of debating and legislating on contentious social issues that are better left to the great minds of the elites. But the torrent of judicial activism on every level since then must even horrify those who started it. Read the contorted logic of New Jersey’s best minds:
"Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this state, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same sex-partners can no longer be tolerated under our state constitution." They then rule that, "denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits given to their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose." Then turning around again, " Court (The Supreme Court of New Jersey) holds that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes." the Court finds it necessary to destroy the plain English meaning of the word "marriage" which in any dictionary is defined as a union between a man and a woman. The Federal and State Constitutions were written with this plain English meaning and not with a liberal political agenda of 2006.
Second, they note that in the Constitution they "cannot find a fundamental right to same-sex marriage," but nevertheless a ban "can no longer be tolerated under our state constitution." Astounding, it is not there but " we have decided" to decree it.
Third, giving "benefits to married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate government purpose." Using the term "married heterosexual" is part of the twisting of the English language, but the corker is that marriage as it has always been known, now has no "legitimate government purpose." What are "legitimate government purposes?" Are things like controlling leaf burning, licensing hairdressers, banning second-hand smoke and, of course, Eminent Domain by which they can take the house of the powerless and award it to the politically connected for a parking lot, "legitimate government purposes"? But, heaven forfend, that defining what marriage is, has been and should remain, be a "legitimate government" concern.
Fourth, the Supreme Court doesn’t seem to recognize the arbitrariness of the definitions and social pronouncements used in their decision. If the definition of marriage is wide open and evolving, why do they limit their decision to "committed same-sex partners?" What constitutes a commitment, a week, month or what is acceptable? But wait, why have they limited their decision to "same-sex partners" without defining whether "partners," plural, can be three, four or more? Then we come up against the arbitrary use of "same-sex"; surely in their reading of the constitution there can be no prohibition against "inter-species" sexual partnerships, say between "Ralph and Fido?"
Oh, it is all so confusing! I see why we can’t relegate these important issues to the messy democratic process. If the common people get involved they will drag in the mores of Western Civilization, morality, religion, social history and all sorts of other irrelevant things better left to the elite minds of the moment. Sometimes I feel like it is all a plot, that when the U.S. Supreme Court released all those "emanations and penumbras" into the atmosphere years ago, they were something like radiation rays that infected all the best minds causing spasms of hysteria and paranoia. But sometimes, I don’t feel these great minds are better than mine.
Remember, it was only two years ago that the best elite minds told Ohioans that Ohio did not need a "Marriage Amendment" to the Ohio Constitution. Who is sorry now!

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

"We need to negotiate a settlement," a politician and "Terrorist Denier" said recently referring to the war between Israel and Hezbollah. Whose war is it anyway that ‘we’ can interfere? Such a politician and many common citizens refuse to "know their enemy," as Sun Tzu, the Chinese writer said centuries ago about war.
A specter is haunting the world - the specter of Terrorism, to paraphrase Karl Marx. It is a reality that cannot be ignored even though we see many around us who live in a dream world of denial and fantasy. Similar to "Holocaust Deniers," the "Terrorist Deniers" are blind to history’s evidence and they find "alternative reality" explanations for the wave of terrorism that has engulfed the planet.
Bombay India has smoldered from terrorist bombs, London is commemorating the one year anniversary of the terrorist attacks, Spain still searches for clues in the bombing of passenger trains and bomb plots against New York and Chicago were uncovered within the last few weeks. Yet, against this backdrop, the University of Wisconsin currently has a "Terrorist Denier" professor teaching a course that proclaims that the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were explosions executed by George W. Bush so that he could begin his war against Islam in Iraq. It was just announced by the University that they will have this ‘nut cake’ teach the course again in the fall semester. To think parents actually pay to send their children to such centers of indoctrination.
The first great wave of terrorism, the targeting of the innocent as a means of destabilizing a government, began in Russia at the turn of the last century. It culminated in the assassination of the Tsar Alexander II. At the assassins’ trial the prosecutor spoke of the innocent bystanders killed. The terrorist leader laughed. The prosecutor’s observation was true then and equally true now, "When people weep, they laugh". As we weep over a beheading in Iraq, mass slaughter of refugees in Darfur or civilian Israelis killed repeatedly by Palestinians, the terrorists laugh.
In much of the world, the easy solution is to fall back on the default bogeyman, the United States, as the cause of all evils. In psychology it is called "transference." For example, instead of facing the real problem, Terrorists who will hurt you, you blame the United States who won’t hurt you even if you speak out. This fantasy is extremely comforting to much of Europe trying to ignore the bombs going off in their midst.
Within the United States the "Terrorist Deniers" find comfort in blaming the United States for being the "root cause," a favorite term, of everything evil. Witness the deranged University of Colorado, professor Ward Churchill, who declared that the victims of 9/11 were all "little Eichmans", a statement that immediately won him the affection of liberals, progressives and other assorted looneys. But our homegrown deniers have an additional bogeyman to flail, President George W. Bush as the "root cause" of terrorism. In psychology a term has been coined to express this delusion, it is called "BDS", or Bush Derangement Syndrome. It is best expressed by the paroxysm of rage and irrationality that "BDS" sufferers experience upon hearing the name George W. Bush. Whatever problem is being discussed relating to terrorism, global warming, hurricanes, the economy or public education. it is immediately attributed to our President or his diabolical minion, Karl Rove.
Unfortunately Deniers in the grip of the delusion of "BDS" are millstones hanging from the necks of rational Americans. They contribute nothing to an analysis of terrorism and the means of preventing and then defeating it. "Terrorist Deniers" need to realize that we need a discussion of the means and techniques on winning the War on Terror and not juvenile carping and blame shifting. Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger coined a term for people such as the Deniers, " Girly Men." Since the United States is perceived to be the cause of terror, the solution of Deniers is appeasement, which calls for anxious overtures and undue concessions to satisfy an aggressor. Appeasement is a fundamental misreading of reality when pacifism is seen as the response to terrorists who declare that they wish to annihilate us. What part of "I want to kill you" do the Deniers not understand? Calling for conferences and dialog to share our "feelings and concerns" with the terrorists and hear their "legitimate grievances" is the utmost of narcissistic folly.
One major obstacle to our understanding of Islamist Jihad or North Korea’s or Iran’s nuclear fantasies is the fact that their mindsets are out of the world view of Western Civilization. The West prizes life whereas the terrorists prize death. There has been a paradigm shift of tectonic proportion in the concept and processing of war which we need to recognize and not indulge in romantic fantasies of the liberals, progressives and "Terrorist Deniers."
What can rational, concerned citizens do? Knowledge precedes power so we need to empower ourselves individually and collectively as a nation with the truth about our enemies. They exist and they want to ‘wipe out’ us infidels. Praying for them is fine if confined to the realm of their immortal souls, but accommodating them on earth is "Terrorist Denial." From a realistic perspective, truth should precede a plan of action. And the plan, as late President Ronald Reagan said regarding the Soviet empire, "We win, they lose."

Monday, October 23, 2006

Is America to end in fiery immolation or to sink into an icy abyss of poverty? This either/or proposition seems to be the Hobson’s Choice given to us by the leaders of the Republican and Democrat Parties. Ken Mehlman, Chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC) fears immolation as our end and Howard Dean, Chairman Democratic National Committee, (DNC) sees poverty as our national destiny. But, happily, each of them offers an opportunity to avoid the impending disaster; vote their party into office in November and their party will save the nation. Who is right, which straw shall we grasp?
In contrasting Op-Ed pieces issued by Mr. Mehlman and Mr. Dean on September 22, each outlines the world view of their party and what solutions their party officially offers to the crisis of our time. So stark are the differences in perceiving where America has been, where it is now and what lies in the future, one wonders if they are operating on the same planet.
The Republican world view sees the fiery attack on America by the Islamo-fascists as the central fact. Mr. Mehlman notes the increasing ferocity of terrorists’ assaults on Western Civilization since the Munich attack in 1972 that reached new heights of barbarity in the 9/11 attack and continued in the unmasked plans for new assaults on Americans uncovered in London in the last few weeks. Homeland defense is the primary domestic goal, fighting the Islamo-fascists on their own turf and limiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons are the international goals. He describes continued robust domestic economy growth and participation in a vibrant global economy as dependent upon true national security and the defeat of Islamo-fascist terrorism.
"A war against American families" by the government, meaning the Bush administration, is the repeated theme of the Democrat world view, as outlined by Chairman Dean. He sees America in the cold grip of poverty, injustice and depression. His description of the current state of American society is reminiscent of Charles Dickens describing the early industrial age in his book ‘Bleak House’ and in his story, ‘A Christmas Carol’ except one would have to strip out the happy ending for Tiny Tim in the holiday tale. In his utter despair, Chairman Dean laments high unemployment due to globalization, falling wages, a health care crisis, disappearing pensions, and "dwindling economic fortunes". He opines that by abandoning the war against Islamo-fascism in Iraq, we could have enough money to fund many new government programs to cure all the ills that beset America. It is difficult for the ordinary observer to share Mr. Dean’s gloom and doom outlook. Where is all the poverty and government oppression except in the Liberal mind? In his article only two sentences represent the whole of Democrat policy on the war on terror, defense policy and al Qaeda.
Come election time, Mr. Dean and his Democrat liberals, can be trusted to only vaguely lay out a ‘plan’ to defeat the enemies of poverty, injustice and depression. Is the enemy really at home? Can’t you see him all around you? Or is he you? You who can’t make ends meet, you who can’t party or shop, you who can’t find a job, you with a job who are so depresseed you can’t go to work, you who must fight injustice and discrimination daily, you who can’t save because you choose not to, you who need the government to tax you more so that you can spend less and save others who won’t take care of themselves responsibly? Is it so unfair and oppressive as you go about your day by day living that poverty, injustice and depression way heavily upon your mind? Or are these mere delusions conveniently playing you for a sucker and playing into the hands of would-be leaders like Mr. Dean?
In November, Americans must choose between the opposing Republican and Democrat world views. Chairman Dean, speaking for Democrats, claims the danger to the nation comes from Bush, Cheney and Rove. Conversely, Chairman Mehlman, speaking for the Republicans, see the danger coming from Osama, al-Qaeda and Ahmadinejad. Starkly put, which is the greater danger. Fire or ice?

Thursday, October 12, 2006


The $870,000 cover up, no news, no jail time and no shame.
Air America, the failing Liberal radio station, illegally received $875,000 from the non-profit Gloria Wise Boys And Girls Club, money that was intend for child programs and assisting working mothers. Air America is most infamous for it’s broadcasting diatribes against President Bush by Al Franken and stunts like its mock execution of President Bush. The radio station Air America, brought into being by deep pocket Liberals to oppose President Bush, is failing miserably due to a lack of listeners and commercial advertisers.
When welfare reform was being debated in the senate, a Liberal Democrat Senator bemoaned the fact that woman and children would be forced to sleep on subway grates in New York because their only lifelines were being stripped away. The weeping and gnashing of teeth could be heard all over the nation in the lamentation of Liberal Democrats as trumpeted by the major media. Oddly enough, today when the social safety blanket is actually yanked off of children and widows by Air America not a peep is heard from those same Liberals or media outlets.
How could it be that Liberals, who claim their primary concern are women and children, are now so calloused and cold hearted when their primary constituency is abused? Well you see even Liberals know that everyone must sacrifice, even women and children, in the name of a greater cause. In this case, maintaining a Liberal radio station on the airwaves is worth a bit of sacrifice on the part of women and children and shame on anyone who would condemn sacrifice for such a noble cause.
Surely any objective person, using a Liberal worldview, would consider the Liberal action right, meet, proper and just if you just consider the facts. Being deeply imbued with socialist ideas, the Liberal powers felt that the fact that no one wanted to listen to their drivel was insufficient reason to fold their tent and disappear. The socialist concept provides a solution - make someone else pay for a bad and failed idea. Now follow this logic. 1. Air America was to further the Liberal Agenda. 2.The primary goal of the Liberals is to protect women and children. 3.Therefore, it follows that women and children ought to sacrifice to keep Air America on the airwaves so that Air America can push the Liberal Agenda which in the long run will help women and children. 4.And besides the women and children don’t even have to know they are making the sacrifice.
Although the scandal came to light about a year ago there has been an almost total blackout in the major news media, Air America being a Liberal ally. The publicity hound, Eliot Spitzer, Democrat New York Attorney General, soon to anointed as Governor, has shown little interest in criminal prosecution of this scandal. The scandal was silently brought to a close in the first week of October when it was ruled that one of the main perpetrators would have to return $38,000 of the $68,000 he stole for personal use and the other main character would have to return $32,000 of the $87,000 he stole. He pulled no jail time and just a ban against working at a non-profit for two years. Air America and its role just passed under the radar screen even though Al Franken, the multimillionaire, chief buffoon of the station, admitted last year some knowledge that the $875,000 came from unusual sources. Some have wondered how the mass media and Democrat Eliot Spitzer would have treated the case if the money was diverted to a Conservative radio station. This, of course, is pure speculation since all Conservative programs make money for hosts and sponsors and don’t follow the Liberal way of losing money for all. But the Democrat leaders in Congress have vowed to "level the playing field" if they take over Congrss in November. In best Nanny State fashion, they will re-institute the "Fairness Doctrine" in broadcasting which mean stations will be compelled to broadcast an hour of Liberal broadcasting for every hour of Conservative broadcast even if there is no sponsor or listener for the Liberal hour.
Last detail, don’t feel too bad for the little kids; it wasn’t their lunch money. It was your money that went to Air America. You see the Federal Government, read taxpayers, gave the money to Gloria Wise B&G Club for the kids. Hug a Liberal today.