Advice and Consent

The nomination announcement was barely over when the rebuttal by Patrick Leahy and Chuck Schumer hit the air waves. From my perspective, the two were not outlining a plan where they would provide advice and ultimately consent to the President on his nomination. The advice portion will likely turn into a televised session of character assassination, while the consent portion may even bring the threat of a filibuster, when consent of the entire Senate would require only 51 affirmative votes. Even Robert Bork got the courtesy of an up-and-down vote.

But again, the political machinery and obstructionist view of the minority party is up & running, alive & well. And much to the dissatisfaction of Harry Reid who finds the nomination poor timing for the news cycle. After all, it is taking the Karl Rove non-scandal off of the front page, although it might still be on the front of the New York Times. I would not know. I don't read that fish wrap.

[As an aside, there is mounting evidence against the legitimacy of the faux scandal and trumped up 'crime' based on, of all things, a friend-of-the-courts brief filed by 36 news outlets. The 'agent' was likely 'outed' by the CIA itself. But, as mentioned in my previous post, I won't bore you with details. The facts are out there and the truth is pretty easy to see, if you look for it.]

BUT, I digress. So now the big news is John Roberts. He is a very intelligent individual, is obviously qualified, has been complemented by colleagues of both political parties, and seems to be a pretty squeaky clean kind of guy. Barring some bombshell in his hearings (and not a made up Anita Hill kind of bombshell, although being pro-life may be a bombshell to the Left, perhaps even an 'extraordinary circumstance') he should become the 109th justice to the Supreme Court. But, will it be that easy?

Dick Durbin classified the nominee as (and promised the yet to be held hearings will be) "controversial". Why? Will this be another Democrat and left wing attack of the Administration's agenda? Chuck Schumer has already said that he is concerned about the nominee replacing the "swing vote" lost by the retirement of Justice O'Connor. What?

Will it be so bad to have a judge who interprets the Constitution? It is if you're liberal and losing elections, losing ballot initiatives, and the only hope is to break the law and let the most liberal courts "sort it out." Or perhaps the courts can just make the law for you. The left is way off base here because they are so guilty of using the courts in a politically tactical manner. It worries them that Roberts could be another Scalia, even though he could be another Souter. They want to cling to power and they are doing it through the courts, by judicial fiat.

The issue here is the left, but if the roles were reversed it could be the right as well (although many conservatives favor originalist jurists). The pressure of the extremes is dangerous. And the heavy handedness of the minority of the US Senate should not dictate to the majority. The Senate should hold hearings. But at the end of the day they should vote. Hopefully the questions that they ask will pertain to the willingness of the candidate to do the job of a Supreme Court justice...to interpret the Constitution.

And when it is all said and done, hopefully we will get a justice who does just that. Not a "swing voter", but a justice who will do the job at hand. A justice who will interpret our Constitution and not base decisions on international law. A justice who will use precedent wisely, but will not stretch a vague reference in precedent to make the law say something it does not. A justice who is not afraid to defer rights to the States, as they were originally intended to be. A justice who will allow America to be a sovereign nation. A justice who does the job judicially, not socially.

I hope the politics of the situation don't cloud the advice portion of the process, but I am afraid they already have.

A Global War

History generally writes itself over time and often rewrites itself again and again. History may one day describe the Cold War as World War III. But ultimately, I believe history will view the war on terror as a global conflict, perhaps even as World War IV.

The events in London of today and two weeks ago are proof that terrorism is global and that the general objective is to attack anyone with the hope that those attacked will change a political position or policy. With the bombings in Madrid, the Spanish population reacted to the terror and voted for a government that would abandon the war. Now it appears that terrorists would like to target Brits in a hope to get them to abandon this war as well. Ultimately, the goal is to pit everyone against one another and against the United States to be sure.

Since history unfolds in hindsight, it is important to see the problems of the past and apply them to the present, and the future. Appeasement has failed time and time again and we should remember that fact. The world is a very dangerous place and it will always be dangerous. Men, governments, religions, and cultures will always have differences. Those differences will likely always lead to conflict. While diplomacy is preferable to war, there is merit in remembering that diplomacy accomplishes little if there is no threat of war.

The United States is viewed harshly by many in this world. And the Brits, being a staunch and unwavering ally, are being targeted because of it. Let us pray that our English allies be strong and steadfast in their resolve to fight along with us to defeat terrorism throughout the world. And let us hope that other nations that are not involved can view the future with an eye on the past. Let them join the fight without being coaxed into it by terrorist acts. And if such acts are perpetrated against them, let us hope that their reaction is not to appease, but rather to fight.

The future of peace in the world is dependent on the ability to negotiate a universal peace. But let's remember that there is the likelihood of war at all times, especially in the times when all seems to be peaceful.

God's speed Great Britain.

Political Hacks

Is anyone paying attention to the 'outrage' being directed at Karl Rove over the "leaking" of the name of an "undercover" CIA "agent". I won't bore anyone with details, but suffice it to say that, a) she really was not "undercover" and had not been so for over 5 years, b) Karl Rove apparently never mentioned her by name and, c) it appears that no 'crime' has been committed. None of this addresses the fact that Joe Wilson's integrity is shaky in the given context. Another bizarre 'question' is why the New York Times will not reveal nor let their reporter reveal (even though she is incarcerated) the source that they used in this [almost non] story. Again, there are many, many variables to sift through to determine if Karl Rove did anything improper and if it was really him who is responsible. But, the elites in the media have already convicted Karl (and the entire Bush Administration) and they are just waiting (and hoping) to obtain the proof.

And then, in come the clowns. I mean, how much ranting and raving can come from the Democrats? Can Charles Schumer, Henry Waxman, and John Kerry be serious? The political grandstanding and 'demands' of the Left is outrageous to say the very least. And they actually want the President to 'cooperate' with them on the Supreme Court nomination process so that we can "bring the country together"?

[Insert a very long pause here. I am at a complete loss for words.]

This is a classic example of the political chicanery of the Democrats and the psychopathic left in this country. They cannot accept the fact that they are not in control any longer. Even if they could, they would never admit that 60+ years of Democratic policies have gotten this country absolutely nowhere. The Republican presidents (and the Republican controlled House in those wacky Clinton years) have lead to the only progress that is quantitative and measurable. And, instead of presenting ideas in the hopes of improving America, these political hacks just rant, rave, and oppose anything and everything that is proposed by anyone but them. And they do this for America? Not my America!

This nonsense has really become nauseating. The vitriol spewed by the Left and the all too culpable media is reprehensible. Facts and truth be damned. And what if Karl Rove did this on purpose? He didn't break any laws, so what has he done different from the Democrats? Oh, I know, he has beaten them (like dogs) at their own game. And the powerless Left can't take it.

It is time for every American to demand more from their elected officials (yes, I mean all of you in the blue states) and demand they conduct themselves as professionals (not to mention adults). It is one thing to have differing views. It is an entirely different thing to be obstructionists, especially when there is no 'better alternative' being presented during this obstruction. Politics has become entirely too 'political' and the country is not better for it. But perhaps Karl is having a laugh.

Independence Day

Better late than never....

After the parades, the cookouts, time with family & friends, and fireworks displays are all a memory for another year, I wish to say Happy Independence Day. This is the day that the bravery and conviction of those who stood up to tyranny and founded this nation declared our independence and chose to shed blood to achieve it. The 4th of July is a date that represents the anniversary of that declaration of independence. Let us never forget the meaning of the day and the reality of the facts of our time; that independence was and is to this day, worth fighting to achieve and maintain. Let us not forget those who have fought in the past, as well as those who are fighting today. And, above all, let us be willing to fight in the future, so that we can maintain the greatest gift of all...FREEDOM.

God Bless America. Happy Independence Day.

The Right Wing Zealot