Will Malven
6/26/2008

“This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.”

T.S. Elliot – The Hollow Men

In Heller vs. Washington D.C., The Supreme Court of the United States voted 5-4 (divided along ideological lines) to declare that “the right to keep and bear arms,” as described in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, is an individual right.

Al-riiight! [fist pump] Yee-hah! Victory at last! Woo-hah! Celebrate the power!

Okay, back to reality.

The United States Supreme Court, that august body "assigned" the highest responsibility of all judicial authorities, to determine what is or is not within the bounds of our Constitution, made a decision that the right to keep and bear arms, as laid out in our Bill of Rights, is an individual right; something that should have been intuitively obvious to any casual reader of the Constitution without the need of reflection.

So what’s wrong? They did so along partisan philosophical lines.

Imagine that, the “right to keep and bear arms” described in the Bill of Rights as…well…”the right to keep and bear arms,” being interpreted as an individual right.

Gee guys (and gal), ya think so? My, how clever you are. What an original concept, reading the Constitution of the United States…as written. What will they think of next?

For some inexplicable reason, there was a collective sigh of relief and celebration of this narrow vote as a victory for those who believe in that right of the individual law abiding citizen to keep and bear arms…in other words those who actually believe the Constitution to be primary and to be the fundamental basis of all of our laws…as our founding fathers intended.

This was not a victory ladies and gentlemen; this was an escape (and a narrow one at that). It was, to quote Lord Wellington following his victory at Waterloo:

“…the nearest run thing you ever saw in your life.”

I find little comfort in this decision. Justice Scalia, in writing his opinion, was very eloquent. He was prolific in his use of quotations from our founding fathers’ writings and statements, to provide the historical context for the majority decision, but in the end this decision left the door open to a very broad array of laws restricting and limitations on, what should be, a law abiding citizen’s unfettered right, as long as those restrictions are not “arbitrary and capricious” in their enforcement.

Being neither fish nor fowl, I find this decision both gratifying and terrifying, gratifying in that it proves at least five of the justices on the Supreme Court can read, terrifying in that such a fundamental and inherent right, as are all rights protected by the Bill of Rights, should be decided under the hot passion philosophical and political opinion rather than the cold reason of constitutional interpretation by so many of our Supreme Court Justices.

It is horrifying that five of our nine justices (I include Kennedy here because his decisions are as inconstant as the wind) are so willing to include their own philosophical biases when making a decision that is so cut and dried as to the original intent of the framers of our constitution.

In the ruling, Justice Scalia says that laws that restrict access or possession of firearms, such as permitting fall within the constitution “as long as they are not arbitrary or capricious,” yet every vote by Justice Kennedy seems “arbitrary and capricious.”

For those who view the Heller decision as a “victory,” I will remind them that “stare decisis” as an “immutable” principle, or even a convenient excuse for avoiding changing prior rulings, is only considered so by those on the Left when the Court’s decisions agree with their own position, otherwise it is simply a vague and nebulous concept to be given only cursory consideration. Only honest jurists, those who believe in the concept of “original intent,” ever defer to stare decisis after careful consideration.

With the appointment of one more justice holding the (historically indefensible) belief that the constitution is a “living document” and that decisions should be made, “reflective of today’s evolving society” and the most recent public opinion polls, Heller can (and likely will) be overturned at the first opportunity if the American people relax their vigilance for even a moment.

Those on the Left have a cavalier contempt for the Constitution and for the concept of “original intent” when called upon to interpret the constitution, preferring instead a sort of “sense of the nation and society” basis for their interpretation. The fallacy of this view becomes readily apparent if closely examined.

If nothing within the Constitution of the United States is fixed in stone, if everything within the Constitution is impermanent and it is a “living, breathing document, then no aspect of our government or the way we choose our leaders can be considered sacrosanct.

If enough justices believe the people should not be able to elect their own government, who cares what the Constitution says? After all, it is a “living breathing document.”

If the original intent of our founding fathers, as made known in their concurrent writings doesn’t pertain or inform as to how the Second Amendment is to be enforced, then no right, is safe, no part of our Constitution is protected from the political whims of whoever sits in the majority of our Supreme Court.

In such a case, our Republic ceases to be a Republic and becomes an oligarchy in which the Courts, not the people or the democratically elected representatives of the people, rule our lives.

This ominous power of the Supreme Court was never the intent of our Founding Fathers when they wrote, revised, and then approved our Constitution. Their intent was clear and it was set down in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.

"Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed"

These powers were further refined by the Eleventh Amendment, ratified in 1795:

"The Judicial power or the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citzens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

Judicial review, as it is currently practiced was not explicitly granted to the Supreme Court in the Constitution. It was only in making the Marbury v. Madison decision (1803) that the Supreme Court assumed for itself the extra-constitutional powers of judicial review.

With that self-assumed power, the Supreme Court went from being the weakest of the three branches of our government, to the most powerful. Since that time and particularly over the past 100 years, the Court has used its self-determined powers to make sweeping changes to our nation and our society, substituting philosophical and ideological opinions for strict interpretation of our laws.

The dangers inherent in such a philosophically driven judiciary has become readily apparent in the court's modern tendency to "legislate from the bench" laws which cover matters rightfully belonging in the domain of the Legislative and/or Executive branches.

It is this tendency of modern jurists to legislate rather than interpret which has turned the Supreme Court from a strict monitor of our constitutional rights, into a political football.

It is also this tendency which emboldens the Supreme Court to thwart the wishes of the electorate as expressed by the various state legislatures and the Congress of the United States, as happened in the previous decision in Kennedy vs. Louisiana.

Justice Kennedy decided that raping a child was not a severe enough crime to warrant the death penalty (I think maybe justice Kennedy confusing his name with that of the appellant and fearing he might be the target of the investigation, cast his vote with the Foul Four just in case), in direct defiance of the will of the people of the State of Louisiana as made known in their passing of the law that was struck down.

Folks, I’m not certain what sort of Justices John McCain would appoint. I’m not terribly sanguine that he will appoint men of good originalist intent, but I do know for certain the kind of Justices Barack Obama would appoint and that alone is reason enough for me to vote for McCain in spite of my misgivings.

Long Live Our America Republic!!!

Uh, oh yeah! Hey Anthony…Anthony Kennedy – sorry -- Mr. Justice Kennedy, the word is “Republic,” not “Oligarchy.”

"[The majority decision] would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

And his further comment that that evidence for such a limit (on the tools available to elected officials to regulate civilian uses of weapons)

"is nowhere to be found."

If those two statements weren't so bone-chilling in their portent and so ominous in their implication of a desire to strip us of our God given, inherent rights, they would be laughable. Here's a clue for Justice Stevens, our forefathers provided no such tools...anywhere.Our forefathers preserved for all posterity our right to protect ourselves against any and all threats whether it involves a matter of self-defense or a matter of the tyranny of the state. Breyer's comment:

"In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

You knew that the Left would balk at nothing to win this 2008 Presidential Election, so you should not be surprised that, suddenly, John McCain's 2000 bout with skin cancer (melanoma) would become a topic of discussion.

This is just the start. McCain's age is ripe for attack and the Dems have already begun to make little cutting remarks and ask questions about his capability of withstanding the rigors of being President of the United States of America.

Democrats are nothing if not ruthless and hateful in their political tactics. Remember it was Al Gore, not George Bush who first floated the Willie Horton issue in the 1988 presidential campaign. So why would anyone be surprised by this latest "trial balloon" being floated by the Democrat Party surrogates in the MSM?

This from the International Herald Tribune (by way of the Drudge Report):

Little spoken on the campaign trail: McCain's bouts with melanoma

By Lawrence K. Altman
March 9, 2008

Along with his signature bright white hair, the most striking aspects of Senator John McCain's physical appearance are his puffy left cheek and the scar that runs down the back of his neck.

The marks are cosmetic reminders of the melanoma surgery he underwent in August 2000. McCain, the presumed Republican presidential nominee, sometimes tells audiences that he has "more scars than Frankenstein."

The operation was performed mainly to determine whether the melanoma, a potentially fatal form of skin cancer, had spread from his left temple to a key lymph node in his neck; a preliminary pathology test at the time showed that it had not.

But because such a test cannot be definitive, the surgeons, with McCain's advance permission, removed the surrounding lymph nodes and part of the parotid gland, which produces saliva, in the same operation, which lasted five and a half hours.

The final pathology analysis showed no evidence of spread of the melanoma, his staff said at the time. McCain, of Arizona, has said he did not need chemotherapy or radiation.

Uhhh yeah Lawrence, little spoken of, but you don't mind speaking of it do you? This is the old "Not to mention McCain's melanoma problem, but did you know about McCain's melanoma problem? Not that it's any big deal, but do you think it might be a big deal that McCain has had melanoma? Oh yeah, it has been in remission for sometime, but you never know..." ad infinitum, ad nauseum routine that Liberals like to play.

These Liberal media types are so predictable. Now that Senator John McCain, their favorite Republican, has been forced upon the Republican Party largely by RINO's and the Republican machine, with the assistance of large crossover voting by Liberals hoping to influence the Republican ticket, the MSM who have championed McCain, can begin to tear him down.

The goal of these "off-hand" comments is to try and find some issue that will stick to McCain and torpedo his Presidential aspirations. In pursuing this, the Leftist media will spare no effort. They want a female or black Democrat as president and they will do whatever's necessary to make it happen, even if it means tearing down someone they admire.

I have made it clear that I do not like McCain as a prospective president and that I am disinclined to vote for his election, but these kinds of below the belt attacks cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. This is an attempted political assassination by implication and association. Lawrence and his fellow hit teams don't care whether McCain is likely to face further difficulties with cancer, they only wish to raise the issue in an effort to skewer his presidential campaign.

I still have not decided whether or not I will support McCain in the general election, but the more of these attacks I see and the more I hear Hillary and Barack promote pure socialism, the closer I draw to voting for McCain. I may have to take an air-sickness bag with me to the voting booth, but I could very well wind up voting for him.

All the Democrats are offering us is a return to the failed policies of the sixties and seventies, with huge increases in welfare spending, socialized medicine, and high marginal tax-rates. They want to return to the failed socialism of the past.

The rest of the Western world is moving in the opposite direction, moving toward more capitalist economies.

It's true that Obama offers us change. Hillary offers us change as well. They will be real vessels for change. The problem is the change they are offering is a big step backwards into the dark years of Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter. The change they offer is change for the worse. They will lead us down the path to lower employment, sluggish economies, and rampant inflation; the "malaise" of Jimmy Carter's term.

I have seen the "future" that Hillary and Barack offer. I lived through it and it was disasterous for the American people and our psyche. It was a time not of "shared prosperity," but of shared misery. Of course Liberals love misery. If they aren't able to complain, if the American people are not suffering, then Liberals can't relax and "enjoy" their lives.

Afterall, we are America and so we are the greatest evil on the face of the planet. Liberals believe that if one is prosperous, then they are bad and have done something evil to achieve that prosperity. Therefore they suffer from guilt at living in the most prosperous nation on Earth and continually seek a means of bringing that prosperity to an end.

Liberls dream of the halcyon days of our national post Vietnam depression. They were in total control of our government, everyone (so they thought) was properly miserable, so naturally Democrats were in Heaven.

Well we are now faced with the very real possibility of having to live through such times again, because Liberals have successfully crippled our education system to the point that younger voters are completely unaware of the misery that Democrat Party policies brought about in America.

The difficult task facing Republicans and McCain is the education of those young voters who have become so enamored of the platitudes of the Left. They have never learned the failings of socialism, never witnessed the misery that the false promises and empty rhetoric of the Left causes.

We definitely have our work cut out for us it we are to avoid another descent into the morass that was the misery of Democrat policy. It took the optimism and patriotic love of country that Ronald Reagan had to shake Americans out of the Jimmy Carter malaise.

I am not so sanguine about John McCain's ability to lift the nation up into the optimism of the eighties.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

I was recently asked by one of those who has resigned himself to voting for John McCain because it is the “pragmatic” thing to do:

“What's your solution…sit home and don't vote? Vote for Hillary or Obama? Vote for a third party candidate which will only benefit Hillary or Obama? Have a temper tantrum because [you] didn't get [your] way?” Thanks, but I'll stick with my pragmatism."

It’s a fair question; what should a Conservative do if he can’t vote for McCain for president?

First thing you don't do is cower in fear of a prospective defeat at the hands of a Democrat Party candidate.

Too many people in the Republican Party appear to be suffering from Hillary Derangement Syndrome (HDS) or Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS)...or maybe it's just Democrat Derangement Syndrome (DDS). They are filled with dire predictions of our future demise should a Republican…any Republican not be elected to the White House.

There is no proof of, or even any evidence to support, the absurd proposition that losing the Presidency in 2008 will mean the end of the world, the histrionics of the "lesser of two evils" touts in the punditry notwithstanding.

The “Conservative” pundits in the press and on television tell me that, no matter how far McCain strays from the principles in which we purportedly believe, he can’t be as bad as Hillary or Obama.

They speak to me of “pragmatism,” of facing the reality that I must support John McCain, regardless of how flawed he may be. I must be “pragmatic.”

Don't speak to me of pragmatism!

Pragmatism gave us David Souter on the Supreme Court.

Pragmatism is McCain/Kennedy giving us amnesty for 20 or 30 million illegal aliens and the end of our culture.

Pragmatism is an excuse for accepting the unacceptable rather than fighting for that in which you believe.

What would America look like had our Forefathers decided to "be pragmatic?" If General George Washington had been “pragmatic,” he would never have attempted to stick it out in Valley Forge, Pa. He would have simply shrugged his shoulders and told his troops, “Well guys, we gave it a good go, but it’s over now so let’s all go home.”

What if Abraham Lincoln had simply shrugged his shoulders and said, “Well, this war is too costly, I think I’ll ‘be pragmatic’ and let the South secede?”

What if Americans had decided to "be pragmatic" and allow the Germans to conquer Europe uncontested?

What if Reagan had decided to "be pragmatic" and cave in to the unilateralist movement in the early 80's?

All of those possible choices were available at the time and they would have been the easier course.

What would America look like had “pragmatism” prevailed over ideology whenever adversity raised its head? “Pragmatists” (like Jimmy Carter) told President Reagan, and all Americans, that our best times were over, that it was all downhill from then on. They told him it was impossible to defeat the Soviet Union.

Ronald Reagan confronted the “pragmatists” who told him that the best we could hope for is to reach an accord. Ronald Reagan took President Kennedy’s question, “Why not?” and threw it in the “pragmatist’s” faces. Ronald Reagan refused to look at the world through the eyes of “pragmatism” and chose to look at the world through the lenses of optimism and moral courage.

Pragmatism is for weaklings and cowards. It’s the snakes voice that says, “Give up, you can’t win. Why even try?”

Perhaps I’ve been alive too long for the rest of the people who are writing about this election, but I lived through the Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton administrations.

Guess what folks, I'm still here. I'm still a Conservative, and I still have my guns, my freedom of speech, free enterprise did not die out, the Communists did not take over America and...Surprise!...we still have private health care.

If all of the dire predictions coming out of our “Conservative” punditry class today were correct, then according to them, I should already be living in a People’s Socialist Republic of America rather than the greatest, freest, most productive and inventive nation in history.

Certainly socialism has made some progress in our nation, but America today is less socialist than it was in the 60’s and 70’s. One wonders how that could possibly be.

It didn’t come about because we Conservatives gave up on our principles and voted for whomever the Grand Old Party told us to. It came about by Conservatives standing firm on their principles and asserting their power…or withholding their power when necessary.

Are these supposed Conservatives seriously proposing the absurd suggestion that either Barack Obama-sama or Hillary Clinton are any more corrupt, Liberal, or incompetent than Lyndon Johnson or Jimmah Cahtah? If so then they need to revisit their history lessons.

Conservatism is based upon the principles set forth by our founding fathers 230 years ago. Do you believe them to be any less worth fighting for today than they were then?

Maybe old George Washington was mistaken and should have given Benedict Arnold a pardon and asked him to assume the Presidency. That's what all of these so-called Conservatives appear to be advocating now. They tell us that because John McCain is going to be the Republican nominee, we should abandon our principles and capitulate to the powers that be within the Party.

John McCain is no Benedict Arnold in the historical sense, but in the political sense he is every bit as much of a traitor to the Conservative principles he now claims to support. Voting him into the Presidency is no different from taking the easy path.

John McCain does not stand for the principles to which I have dedicated my life and in which I believe. Therefore voting for him would be betraying all that I have spent my life defending.

He does not believe in the sanctity of life, the right of Americans to secure their borders, the right of Americans to keep more of their incomes, the right to freedom of speech as outlined in the First Amendment, or in the free market as a solution to our energy problems. He believes in the false religion of Anthropogenic Global Warming. He opposes the exploitation of our nation’s natural resources in ANWR and off the coasts of Florida and California.

John McCain does not believe in and has never supported any of the Conservative principles in which I believe with the exception of the defense of America against our enemies and, truth be known, neither Hillary nor even Obama will abandon America to the terrorists.

Throughout our history, the weight of office has moderated each and every President once they achieved office and understood the burden they carried. Many, like Bill Clinton were uninspired and chose to play at being President rather than doing the job to which they were elected. Many others were just completely incompetent, as was Jimmy Carter, but none of them, not even FDR was able to destroy our nation either through incompetence or carelessness.

FDR had Soviet agents working for him in the White House and our State Department was teeming with communist sympathizers.

Harry Truman had Alger Hiss (Soviet Agent) create the United Nations, and Harry Dexter White (Soviet Agent) was put in charge of the World Bank after he had been advised by J. Edgar Hoover of White’s sympathies. Yet we survived and the Soviet Union eventually perished.

Our forefathers were wise and built a governmental system which is proof against the kinds of mismanagement, incompetence, and yes even malicious mischief in which any president might engage. There are natural counter-balancing forces which prevent extremism from succeeding in our system. Regardless of who occupied the White House, forces within and outside of the White House and the Capitol building worked to normalize any extremism.

There is no form of government as messy and as stable as a Republic such as ours, as our history has proven.

Yes the pendulum swings both Left and Right and at this time it is not swinging in my direction. Fine, I can live with that, I have before, but I never abandoned my principles just to prevent a catastrophe however chimerical, from occurring.

I am proud of every vote I have made and at the time, I believed in the person for whom I was voting...yes, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and both George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush. I had positive reasons for supporting all of them.

Now I am told that I must forgive John McCain’s political treachery and Liberalism for the good of my party, or else disaster will strike America. What utter nonsense. Why should I forgive McCain for being a traitor to his own party? McCain doesn't forgive or forget anyone who has ever crossed him...except for his good buddies the North Vietnamese.

Why is it that McCain was so eager to make nice with his former captors that he sold his fellow MIA-POW's down the river? Why was it so urgent for America to “normalize” relations with Communist Vietnam? I am forced to ask if McCain is “the Hanoi Candidate.”

I would never trust him in the White House. He's emotionally unstable. It was clearly visible on his face during Mitt Romney's speech telling his delegates to vote for McCain. The guy is an emotional time-bomb.

Better a Marxist than a man of questionable emotional stability in the White House. Anyone voting for McCain is endangering our future generations far more than those who have chosen to sit this election out.

I was not shocked by George W. Bush not being a hardcore Conservative; I knew that before I voted for him. It was obvious to any who was paying attention that he was no Conservative, though I must admit that I did not know the extent to which he leaned Left.

Ultimately I would vote for McCain in spite of his Liberalism, if party supremacy was my only obligation and concern in this election, but it is not, I owe my fellow citizens the careful consideration that I would expect of them…even if they don’t display the same concern for me.

The good of the nation comes before the good of my Republican Party and I do not thing that having an overreacting angry man in the White House would be good for my party.

Not voting in the Presidential election is a right just as is voting. I am not obligated to vote for a candidate just because my Party has chosen to commit suicide. Not voting in the Presidential Election is not the same as not voting. It is making a conscious choice to concentrate my efforts on the candidates who are running down ballot and for whom I can generate enthusiasm. I have a full slate of local, state and federal candidates who are running and they will, if they adhere to Conservative standards, get my vote.

Be “pragmatic?” Not me folks. “Pragmatism” is becoming a linguini-spined, faint-hearted, fair weather Conservatives. “Pragmatism” is the antithesis of what being a Conservative means.

Since when do we Conservatives give up on the universal truths and eternal principles on which our nation was founded? Since when is acquiescing to the siren’s song of returning to the demonstrably failed principles behind socialism, collectivism and “shared responsibility, shared suffering, and shared prosperity” a Conservative principle?

I will be voting for Republican candidates, but I will not be voting for this pariah, or anyone I consider to be a pariah, for the Presidency.

I believe it would run counter to all in which I believe, and would be counter-productive for my Party for me to vote for McCain simply because he is all the Left-wing of my party and the Republican Party’s "Leaders” have given me.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

And now in the "I can't believe I ever voted for this guy" category, I found this on Michelle Malkin's website:

The White House wants a $1.4 billion stimulus/national security package…for Mexico
By Michelle Malkin
February 11, 2008 01:54 PM

A reader asked me to check into information that President Bush was pushing a massive foreign-aid package to Mexico to help them secure their southern border against the flow of illegal aliens from Central America.

“We can’t even get our own border straight, and we are going to provide Mexico with funding so they can solve their problem,” the reader fumed. “I doubt the Central Americans are staying very long in Mexico anyway. We know where they are going!”

Too outrageously outrageous to be true?

Well, I checked it out and it’s even worse than the reader described. Far worse.
The plan is called “The Merida Initiative.” Seems that the White House has had this plan in the works for nearly a year with little congressional input on either side of the border.

We can’t finish our own border fence, properly supply our immigration agents and border patrol with all the equipment and resources they need, or get our house in order. Yet, the Bush administration wants to fork over $1.4 billion to Mexico and Central America–with much of it going into the hands of corrupt law enforcement officials and government bureaucrats who have worked tirelessly to undermine our immigration laws. The funding is tucked into the 2008 supplemental budget.

The real slap in the face? This money is intended to help Mexico secure their Southern border. Let me repeat that because I know you are as incredulous as I am. The money is intended to assist the Mexican Government, the same government which has been helping illegals to enter our country, secure their Southern border with Central America.

AAARRRGGGHHH!!!!! I am almost speechless. I can't believe a sitting President would so betray his nation and its citizens. Now where the heck is that impeachment petition? I'm ready to sign it. Any President who willfully betrays his nation by intentionally undermining the efforts of said nation to maintain the integrity of its borders has no business occuppying the Oval Office.

I can only conclude that George Bush has sold out to his Mexican buddies and is planning to move to Mexico City so he can live like a king with his rich Mexican relatives.

I have never been so disappointed by a Republican in my life. George Bush's betrayal makes John McCain look like a border hawk. We haven't even started building our border fence with Mexico and we are sending the Mexican Government $1.4 Billion to help them? In a declining economy? With 30,000,000 illegal alien criminals occupying our nation?

Michelle says her reader is "fuming?" Big deal, I'm apoplectic. It's all I can do to keep from unleashing a string of obscenities a mile long. Next January cannot come too soon for me.

I want Georgie Porgie out of the White House and out of our government. I apologize to all the Liberals I have ever castigated for bad mouthing President George. They were all correct. The man is either dumb as a bucket of rocks, or is complicit in the betrayal of our country...whether for profit or stupidity, I don't know, but I do know an arrogant jerk when I see him and for my money, George has turned out to be just a stupid arrogant jerk.

Maybe I will just vote Democrat. At least then I will expect to be screwed by the government.

Thanks a lot Michelle...for ruining my whole night! I'll probably lie awake all night obsessing over this. I swear I wish there was someone up there in Washington with enough power to slap some sense into this idiot.

How can someone be so good in choosing his judicial appointments and confronting Islamic terrorism and so abjectly horrible at understanding the needs of his nation?

I can only assume that whoever has been advising him on Islamists and Judges has been exceptionally neglectful with respect to his understanding of immigration.

Well I don't expect anything to improve with McAmnesty or one of the two Democrat Party panderers. I guess I will just call up my Congressmembers and ream them a new one. This needs a congressional hearing. It looks to me like Bush is bent on building Azetlan for the reconquistas.

What a sellout loser.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

(I just wish that some of our elected representatives would occasionally grow a pair and do what they know is right instead of what is politically expedient.)

Hey George, you're a real jerk! Thanks for nothing! What is they call you? Oh yea, "Chimpie." Enjoy it, you've earned it.

"I am the Walrus, Goo, Goo, G'joob."

A visit to Alice's Wonderland and John Lennon's acid-trip inspired song, "I am the Walrus," seem appropriate when discussing Republican candidate John McCain.

In my not so humble opinion, John McCain is as crazy as Bogey's Captain Queeg mumbling about "the strawberries" in The Caine Mutiny. He proved it beyond any doubt in Wednesday night's Republican debate held at the Ronald Reagan Museum in Simi Valley.

McCain's repetitive use of the words "time tables" was eerily reminiscent of Captain Queeg's obsession with "the strawberries." Even more disturbing was McCain's continual reference to Mitt Romney's statement about not wanting "the enemy...wait[ing] in the weeds until you're going to be gone." McCain's references were excessive, bordering on obsessive. McCain had the intense glare and the grim frozen smile down cold, the only thing missing was the rattling steel marbles as he rambled on and on about "waiting in the weeds."

ABC's Robin Roberts asked Mit Romney, during an interview last April:

"Do you believe that there should be a timetable in withdrawing the troops?"

He responded:

"Well, there's no question that the president and Prime Minister al-Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about. But those shouldn't be for public pronouncement. You don't want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you're going to be gone. You want to have a series of things you want to see accomplished in terms of the strength of the Iraqi military and the Iraqi police, and the leadership of the Iraqi government."

Romney was further asked:

"So, private. You wouldn't do it publicly? Because the president has said flat out that he will veto anything the Congress passes about a timetable for troop withdrawals. As president, would you do the same?"

To which he responded:

"Well, of course. Can you imagine a setting where during the Second World War we said to the Germans, gee, if we haven't reached the Rhine by this date, why, we'll go home, or if we haven't gotten this accomplished we'll pull up and leave? You don't publish that to your enemy, or they just simply lie in wait until that time. So, of course you have to work together to create timetables and milestones, but you don't do that with the opposition."

I doubt that Romney could have been any more unequivocal in his opposition to "timetables" as McCain is attempting to define them and as they were generally being used at the time. No objective observer could possibly interpret Romney's statement as being in favor of withdrawal, or of supporting the institution of an arbitrary timetable for withdrawal.

In fact, my response to McCain would simply have been to ask him if he believes that war, any war, should be conducted without any planning whatsoever. I would ask him if he believed that America should conduct the war without consulting with the democratically elected representative of the people for whom we are supposed to be fighting. I would have asked him if he believed that setting goals for the training of Iraqi military and police forces is inappropriate; if he believed that we should not be applying any diplomatic pressure on the Maliki Administration at all. McCain's answers would have been quite revealing.

Frankly, the thought of McCain as President has always been a bit unnerving, but now it simply scares the bejeebers out of me. The thought of giving that kind of power to a man that mentally unstable is absolutely unacceptable.

My other problem with John McCain is that he is not a Conservative. He is pro-life and he is pro-war, but in every other category he is as Liberal as any Democrat.

On taxation he now claims that the reason he voted against the "Bush tax-cuts" was because they were not off-set by spending cuts, but even a cursory examination of the Congressional record proves that his opposition was based on his belief they were tax-cuts for the wealthy. His exact statement was:

Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Conference Report on the Reconciliation bill. I do so after having expressed hope that the progress we made in the Senate bill to scale back the benefits going to the top rate taxpayers to make room for more tax relief to lower income Americans would prevail in the final tax bill.

During the debate on the Senate version of the tax reconciliation bill, I had urged my colleagues that substantial tax relief to middle income Americans should be our top priority. While I regret that my amendment to cut the top rate by one percent to 38.6 percent so millions more middle class Americans would fall into the 15 percent tax bracket failed on a tie vote, Senator GRASSLEY did move in that direction in the Senate bill by insisting that the top rate should be cut to only 36 percent As a result, I reluctantly voted for the bill but pledged to vote against the Conference Report should further reductions in the top tax rate be made at the expense of the majority of Americans who are in much greater need of tax relief.

Unfortunately, the Conference Report did just that by jettisoning the commendable work both Senators GRASSLEY and BAUCUS did in crafting a Senate reconciliation bill that provided more tax relief to middle income Americans. This Conference Report lowers the top rate cut to 35 percent, at the cost of delaying, for several years, much needed tax relief for married couples unfairly penalized by our tax code.

I regret having to vote against this Conference Report. We had an opportunity to provide much more tax relief to millions of hard-working Americans. I supported a $1.35 trillion tax cut despite my concern that a tax cut of that size would restrict our ability to fund necessary increases in defense spending. But I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief.

Once more he has been caught in a lie.

Those are not the words of a Conservative who understands the dynamics of a free market, capitalist economy. They are the talking points of the Democrat demagogues in whose party John McCain more naturally fits. One must wonder if a man like Senator John McCain, who has never once held a job in the private economy, who has spent his entire career in the employ of the government can relate to the needs of the small businessman or woman.

From being the son of an admiral, to attending Annapolis, to his service in the Navy, to divorcing his crippled first wife and marrying a wealthy heiress, to serving in Congress first as a Representative and then as a Senator, McCain has lived his entire life outside of the private economy.

McCain's affinity for limiting our Constitutionally protected free speech is evident by his co-authorship of the McCain/Feingold Bill which has turned out to be disastrous on every level, allowing unfettered "independent" advocacy groups to spend unlimited amounts of money attacking any politician with whose agenda they disagree, while limiting the ability of that candidate's campaign to respond. McCain/Feingold was not nor is it now a "Conservative" concept, nor is it in compliance with the Constitution.

On illegal immigration, John McCain's co-authorship of the McCain/Kennedy Comprehensive Immigration Reform Package and his continued insistence on allowing illegal immigrants to remain in the United States sovereign territory indefinitely by means of obtaining a "Z" visa runs contrary to all Conservative values and is in fact the policy goal of our Liberal Democrat Party opponents.

McCain's willingness to distort the record and statements of his opponents and to "embellish" his own pitifully Liberal record are further proof of his dishonesty and lack of character. Once again it appears that the "Straight Talk Express" has taken a very definite Leftward turn.

I have voted in nine Presidential elections and I have always voted for the Republican candidate. I voted that way, not simply because he was the Republican, but primarily because his ideals and policies agreed with my own Conservative beliefs. At the worst, I did so because I believed him to be the lesser of two evils, but at heart I am not so much "a Republican," as I am "a Conservative."

At times I have been more enthusiastic and at times less so, but I never doubted the wisdom of voting "Republican" when faced with the unthinkable Democrat alternative.

That was then and this is now. Now I cannot, nor could I ever in good conscience, support John McCain for the position of President of the United States of America.

Even when faced with the absolute certainty of having a hardcore Marxist/Stalinist opponent in the Democrat Party as both Senator Hillary Rodham, Mrs. William Jefferson, Clinton and Barrack Hussein Obama clearly are, I find that even a Marxist would be preferrable to someone who is certifiably insane.

Following Arizona Senator John McCain's performance, his willingness to persist in telling a bald-faced lie even when directly confronted with proof of his dishonesty, makes it clear that John McCain is the first Republican Presidential candidate to whom I cannot and will not lend my support.

There is no clothespin, no gas-mask sufficiently powerful to bar the insufferable, malodorous emanations of mendacity coming from this miniature martinet that would enable me to vote for him. I would rather watch this nation follow the demonstrably disastrous turn toward socialism that Old Europe has taken, but from which there is always hope of recovery, than put this entire nation and its unimaginable military might into the hands of a man who is undeniably insane.

I fervently hope that Mitt Romney can win the upcoming primaries, or at least enough to prevent McCain from locking up the nomination. If he or even Mike Huckabee proves to be unable to do so, I am faced with the distasteful but inescapable choice of withholding my vote for any candidate for the Presidency.

I will cast my vote in all of the local and state-wide elections, but I will not pull the lever for John McCain. There are many disqualifiers for the Presidency, but, more than any other, it is paramount that any candidate be sane, John McCain is not sane.

May God Help Us All.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

In the "not what it seems" category, we have the following two stories:

N.Y. Senator Defies Polls, Edges Obama

By Anne E. Kornblut and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, January 9, 2008; Page A01

MANCHESTER, N.H., Jan. 8 -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton narrowly won the New Hampshire Democratic presidential primary on Tuesday night, a surprise victory for the onetime front-runner that revived her sagging fortunes and reshaped yet again the fight for the party's nomination.

"Over the last week I listened to you, and in the process I found my own voice," Clinton (N.Y.) said at her victory rally, embracing a newly emotional campaign style that appeared to fuel her turnaround here. "Let's give America the kind of comeback New Hampshire has just given me."

Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), who had anticipated a second consecutive win after his Iowa caucus triumph last Thursday, conceded shortly before 11 p.m. "We always knew our climb would be steep," he told supporters, a day after he had confidently told backers that he was "riding a wave" to a win here. Former senator John Edwards (N.C.) placed a distant third, followed by New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.

The results of this were as predictable as the polls proved to be wrong, but were the polls wrong? I have a different take on these two primary results What Happens in New Hampshire, Stays in New Hampshire...Maybe

Clinton and McCain Rebound to Take N.H.
Romney 2nd in GOP Contest; Iowa Winner Huckabee Is 3rd

By Michael D. Shear and Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, January 9, 2008; Page A01

MANCHESTER, N.H., Jan. 8 -- Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the early Republican front-runner whose campaign imploded last summer, handily won the New Hampshire primary Tuesday, dealing former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney his second loss in the GOP nomination contest.

McCain's victory amounts to a dramatic resurrection for the 71-year-old veteran of presidential politics and further scrambles a Republican race that now moves to Michigan and South Carolina. After New Hampshire, the fight for a new Republican standard-bearer remains a wide-open contest.

"My friends, I'm past the age when I can claim the name 'kid,' no matter what adjective precedes it," McCain told an ecstatic crowd here. "But tonight, we sure showed 'em what a comeback looks like. When the pundits declared us finished, I told 'em, 'I'm going to New Hampshire, where the voters don't let you make their decision for them.' "

We must not forget that the voting rules for New Hampshire are fairly unique. First, you can register to vote in that state one day and vote in the primary the next, second New Hampshire has a very large pool of "undecided" voters who are not required to declare their allegiance and can choose for whom they will vote in the voting booth. Both of these fairly unique factors came into play last night.

Those two factors combined with the inane "sympathy vote" Hillary inevitable gets when she plays the "poor little me, I'm just a woman up against all these mean old men" game.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

Well first, congratulations to Hillary and McCain for snookering the MSM Pollsters and exceeding expectations in winning the New Hampshire Party Primaries. Looks as though we are in for a real race this year...in both parties.

There are a couple of caveats to be considered here. First, the unique rules under which the New Hampshire Primary system works: You can move to the state one day and vote in the primaries the next. So-called independents don't have to decide to which party they are going to throw their vote until they enter the voting booth.

I believe both of these factors were very influential in what occurred last night. First the cynical aspect. There were various reports of a large influx of out cars with out of state licenses being shuttled in by Hillary Clinton to "work" on her campaign. I believe that there may have been more than a little skullduggery going on...oh, nothing illegal, as I said the rules allow for newcomers to the state to vote in the primaries, so if these "campaign workers" chose to remain and cast their ballots for Hillary, it was completely legal if somewhat questionable morally. Nothing new in ethical flexability when it comes to the Clinton political machine.

Second a more practical and predictable phenomenon...and I saw this danger approaching when the lopsided poll numbers in Obama's favor began to appear two days after the Iowa caucuses concluded...the dangers of overly high expectations for Obama being created by the MSM polling data. It was well known that both Obama and McCain were the favorites of the independant voters. They were very strongly influential in generating the poll numbers for both Barrack Obama and John McCain.

When the independant voters entered the voting booths last night, they were given a choice of voting for Obama as predicted, or for McCain. I believe that many of the independants who would normally have voted for Barrack Hussein Obama in the New Hampshire primaries, decided at the very last second that they would vote for McCain so that he would defeat Mitt Romney because Obama's victory was, in their minds, "a done deal."

In New Hampshire we have witnessed the dangers of generating too high an expectation for victory in your polling data and allowing your ego to embrace those numbers too enthusiastically.

When the results from last night's primary began trending in the direction they did, I knew that both of my scenarios were true. I believe that there was some vote stacking in key precincts by the Hillary campaign, by bringing in a large number of out of state voters to vote for her...again completely legal, if not particularly ethical, and I believe that a great many of those who would have voted for Obama under ordinary circumstances, made a last minute decision to change their vote and pick McCain, who has always had a very strong following in New Hampshire.

Neither of these factors lessens the impact of what occurred last night for both candidates, I merely offer them as an explanation...as I see it.

I would also add that I believe, being the cynic that I am, Hillary's little emotional display Monday and her little contrived, cutsy, "Well I'm hurt by that" reaction in Saturday's Democrat debate when she was told that she was not as attractive a candidate as Barrack Obama; both clear and cynical playings of the feminine card, played an important role in her surprise victory.

Hillary simply pulled another "Lazio" moment and generated a sympathy vote.

Silly me, I was hoping that New Hampshire voters would see through Hillary Clinton's "poor little me" charades, but I guess I overestimated their intelligence. I should have known better, afterall they are "undecideds." How intelligent do you have to be to not be able to see the very clear differences and flaws of each candidate well ahead of casting your vote.

I would call it a "lack of convictions" rather than "undecided" vote. As a result of all of these factors, New Hampshire wound up with an unexpectedly large "independant" vote for McCain and an unexpectedly small "undecided" turnout for Obama.

It's still a race out there folks!

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

 

Will Malven
houston conservative
8:30 AM 12/27/2007

Today, at about 6:15 PM Pakistan time (6:15 AM EST), Benazir Bhutto the former Prime Minister of Pakistan was killed by an assassin/suicide bomber.

Early reports say the the former Prime Minister was shot up to five times, including once in the neck, by an assassin who then detonated a bomb strapped to himself.

The assassination took place immediately following a rally being held in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, for Bhutto's election, in advance of the upcoming elections.

Bhutto reportedly died at the hospital from loss of blood following a reported 30 minute trip to the hospital. She was alive and conscious at the hospital and said she would be back, but surgeons reported that she had suffered too much blood loss as a result of her wounds and died shortly after entering surgery.

Bhutto has been a controversial figure in Pakistani politics from the time of the assassination of her father Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, in a 1977 military coup staged by General Mohammad Zia ul-Haq.

Benazir Bhutto was elected the first female Prime Minister of a Muslim nation in 1988, but was removed from office by President Ghulam Ishaq Khan for corruption after less than 2 years in office.

Mrs. Bhutto was again elected in 1993 and remained in office until Pakistani President Farooq Leghari had her removed...again for charges of corruption.

She then went into self-exile for eight years before returning to Pakistan last October with the encouragement of the Bush and Blair administrations.

Initially following her return, there was much speculation of a "power sharing" arrangement with Musharraf, but after negotiations fell apart, she actively campaigned against President Pervez Musharraf and chose to run for the Presidency herself.

Though current speculation abounds about the possibility of Musharraf's involvement in her assassination, the former Prime Minister has long been a target of the Taliban and other Muslim extremist groups within Pakistan.

Her pro-Western attitude, long campaign for modernization, and her brazeness as a female politician have long been considered an affront to the hardline Islamic fundamentalists who have caused so much trouble in Pakistan and in neighboring Afghanistan.

Though considered a real Pakistani Patriot by her supporters, both within and outside of Pakistan, her rash actions after arriving in Pakistan and her apparent arrogance were a constant source of conflict with the Musharraf Government which was charged with the responsibility of protecting her.

Bhutto wielded dictatorial control of her Pakistani Freedom Party, even while in exile and she arrogantly considered herself to be the annointed leader of Pakistan.

While her death is tragic, even more tragic is the chaos which will now inevitably ensue, and the inherrent risks to the surrounding nations as Musharraf's control of the nation and its nuclear arsenal is now more tenuous than it ever has been. Rioting has been reported throughout Pakistan as word of her death began to spread.

As a result of being forced to resign as commander of the Pakistani Military following a ruling by the Supreme Court of Pakistan that one man could not be both President and Commander of the military Musharraf, who has demonstrated himself to be a strong ally of America in the war on terror, now has less control over the Pakistani Nuclear arsenal and over the nation.

In the end, it was a combination of a blundering unwarranted intrusion into the internal politics of Pakistan by President Bush and Condaleeza Rice attempting to force Musharraf to relinquish some of his power, the powerful Islamic extremist faction in Pakistan's Northwest territories, and Benazir Bhutto's own arrogance which led to this tragedy.

President Bush and the Liberal idiots in State and Congress should have paid attention to former UN Ambassador John Bolton's admonition to stay out of Pakistan's internal affairs and allow Musharraf to run his own nation without American interference.

More Later.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

I'm sorry, haven't we been here before?

Last time it was the New York Lies Times revealing classified information about the warrantless wire-tapping of phone calls from suspected terrorists overseas into the United States.

Remember the outrage, the indignation of the Democrat Liberal idiots in Congress, the hystrionics of Dick "Pig Eyes" Durbin, and Jay "Richest Man in Congress" Rockefeller IV (D-WV), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee and Jane Harman (D-CA) the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

We then found out that both Rockefeller and Harman had been advised of the program four years before they began to complain about it. In addition, we found that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD), Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), and Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), had all been advised of the program at the same time.

All of these six had been informed of the NSA Warrantless Wiretapping four years before the story was leaked by the Lies Times, yet mysteriously none of them did anything to stop it until it became public. Then, suddenly, they were "Shocked, shocked I tell you," to discover that the NSA program was being conducted.

It was only later, once the facts became known, that they began to claim that although they had been informed, they had "expressed concern" over the program, or they had "not realized the extent of the program," or some other BS story intended to cover their collective tails with their Liberal idiot constituencies.

Liberal idiots, caught in their deceptions for all to witness who were willing.

At the time, Victoria Toensing, co-author of the FISA Bill, published a January 19, 2005 editorial in Opinion Journal, in which she said:

Why did the president not ask Congress in 2001 to amend FISA to address these problems? My experience is instructive. After the TWA [Flight 847 hijacking] incident, I suggested asking the Hill to change the law. A career Justice Department official responded, "Congress will make it a political issue and we may come away with less ability to monitor."

The political posturing by Democrats who suddenly found problems with the NSA program after four years of supporting it during classified briefings only confirms that concern.

Victoria, shame on you, "political posturing?" It went way beyond simple political posturing. It was a clear attempt to lay all of the blame for the program at the feet of the President while covering themselves with false bravado for "standing up to the White House."

Well that was yesterday. Now we have a "new outrage." One which, if we were to believe the liars in Congress and the Propaganda wing of the Democrat Party we euphemistically call the "unbiased, independant, Press," exceeds the severity of the NSA wiretapping scandal.

Interestingly enough, we have basically the same players, giving us the same stories as before. We have the New York Lies Times telling the public about information given them by current and former government officials. Once again we have hysterical shouts of mock outrage echoing from the Democrat members of the intelligence committees. Fox News reports Senator John D. "Jay, I'm Filthy Rich" Rockefeller as first stating categorically that:

"The news that the tapes were destroyed was extremely disturbing to me and the CIA's description of notifying Congress is inconsistent with our records. As we learn more, it is only raising new questions and concerns," Intelligence Committee Chairman Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said Friday.

"We do not know if there was intent to obstruct justice, an attempt to prevent congressional scrutiny, or whether they were simply destroyed out of concern they could be leaked — whatever the intent, we must get to the bottom of it. This is a very serious matter with very serious consequences," he added.

Rockefeller said the committee hasn't found records showing they were told about the existence of the tapes, or their plans to destroy them. He said he knew about about the tapes himself, but doesn't remember being told about plans to destroy them either.

Yes indeed Senator Rocky, "we must get to the bottom of it." But Fox News reports:

Jane Harman, then the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, was one of only four members of Congress in 2003 informed of the tapes' existence and the CIA's intention to ultimately destroy them.

"I told the CIA that destroying videotapes of interrogations was a bad idea and urged them in writing not to do it," Harman said. While key lawmakers were briefed on the CIA's intention to destroy the tapes, they were not notified two years later when the spy agency actually carried out the plan. The Senate Intelligence Committee's Democratic chairman, Jay Rockefeller, said the committee only learned of the tapes' destruction in November 2006.

Now Jay, if you're going to play the self-righteous indignation card, hadn't you better get your story straight first. So the "bottom of it," Senator Rocky, is that you and your fellow Democrats are liars.

Now today on Fox News Channel's Special Report with Brit Hume it was revealed that they had received a "clarification" from Rockefeller's office stating that the Senator was so concerned with his responsibilities on the Intelligence committee that "he sent his aide" to the meeting at which the existence of the tapes was revealed as was the intent to destroy them.

Umm, is that another one of those "Whoops!" moments Senator Rocky? The tapes were destroyed in 2005, you admit that you were aware of that fact in 2006, yet it took you over a year to suddenly discover your outrage?

Nope, no political posturing here folks...

Like I said, the words Liberal and idiots are inextricably linked in todays political lexicon. How many time will Liberal voters fall for the same trick? How many times can their Senators be caught in lies before their constituents finally figure out their being deceived?

Sadly, it appears that the answer is "infinitely many." Liberals are idiots, paranoid idiots, idiots who see conpiracies everywhere they look. Liberals see "Vast right-wing conspiracies." Evergreen in their talking points you will find out that they believe that President Bush is plotting to declare himself dictator, that President Bush is a puppet being controlled by Dick Cheney, that President Bush is being controlled by Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, that President Bush lied about WMD so that America could spend $Hundreds of Billions in defense spending and thousands of troops' lives to gain control of $Tens of Billions in Iraqi oil reserves (now that's math that can only be a result of today's shoddy public education system), etc.

The plots and conspiracies are legion, but one thing is consistent, President Bush is either behind them all or being "handled" to cause them all. This obssesive hatred of President Bush by those on the Left is a pathology having no basis in reality. Liberals have long ago left the reservation, and very possibly the planet.

To call today's Liberals paranoiacs would be to give real paranoiacs a bad reputation. These folks are just hateful, uninformed, intellectual midgets, whose only goal is to gain control of our nation.
They are people who will not learn from history, cannot support their positions with any semblance of reasoned argument, but are absolutely certain they are right. As usual, Liberal arrogance is founded on a firm understanding of their own imaginings.

I suspect we will be finding out that this is once again much ado about nothing, intended as a diversion from the fact that this Democrat Congress has accomplished less that just about any Congress in history, yet they are still seeking reelection.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

Will Malven

11/16/2007

 

 

Friday afternoon, the 14th of November, 2007, 61 year old grandfather Joe Horn was working in his home when he heard glass breaking at his next door neighbor’s house. He investigated the sound and saw two men in the act of breaking into and then entering his neighbor's house. What happened next was a textbook example of how every American citizen should behave.

 

When Mr. Horn saw the two men breaking into his neighbor's house, he called 911 to alert the police. Over the next six or seven minutes, he conversed with the 911 operator as he waited for police to arrive.   Mr. Horn was outraged at this act of brazen criminal behavior and rightfully so, would that every law-abiding citizen felt such outrage when a crime is being committed.  Mr. Horn was absolutely determined that he was not going to allow these two criminals to escape and he told the 911 operator of his intention.

 

Having waited for the police to arrive, Mr. Horn then did what I would hope every citizen would do, he acted to defend his neighbor's property and very possibly his own. When he witnessed the perpetrators leaving the crime scene and it became apparent that the police would not arrive in time, Joe Horn grabbed up a pump shotgun and went outside to stop them and hold them for the police. He warned them not to move. They moved and he shot them.

 

Here is the Houston Chronicle’s article about the shooting:

Nov. 15, 2007, 9:58PM
Shooting of theft suspects may test self-defense law

By RUTH RENDON and PEGGY O'HARE
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

In a case legal experts say may "stretch the limits" of the state's self-defense laws, a Pasadena man shot and killed two suspected burglars during a confrontation as they attempted to flee his neighbor's property Wednesday afternoon.

 

In the minutes before the fatal shootings, Pasadena police said the man called 911 and reported that he had heard glass breaking next door and saw two men entering the home through a window. Still on the phone with police, the man, believed to be in his 70s, saw the suspects leaving from the back of the home.

 

"I'm getting my gun and going to stop them," the neighbor told the dispatcher during the 2 p.m. call, according to Vance Mitchell, a spokesman for Pasadena police. "The dispatcher said, 'No, stay inside the house; officers are on the way.'

 

"Then you hear him rack the shotgun. The next sound the dispatcher heard was a boom. Then there was silence for a couple of seconds and then another boom."

 

Our forefathers believed that every citizen capable of handling and using a firearm could and should possess one.  They also believed that it was the duty of every citizen to protect themselves and their communities.  They expected men to intervene to prevent these crimes rather than cowering helplessly waiting for the police to arrive and watching helplessly as the criminals make good their escape because the police are can’t get there.

 

Any society so cowed by their government that they are afraid to defend themselves property, and their neighborhood is no longer a free society. In this case these criminals were stopped by a man who refused to allow himself and his neighbor to become a victims.  They encountered a man who refused to live in a completely lawless society.  We should all be angry that criminals feel perfectly safe in committing a crime like this. As Americans, we should not be forced to live in fear because some people don't respect the property of others.

 

Our population is increasing at an alarming rate, due in large part to a massive influx of people (illegal aliens) who feel no compunction at violating our nation’s laws to enter our country. If one uses the logic of Rudy Giuliani’s “broken window theory,” by looking the other way as we have been doing for decades as these law breakers violate the integrity of our borders, we are encouraging criminal behavior of a more serious nature.

 

 The fact is that police forces across the nation are increasingly undermanned, over worked, and underpaid.  It is apparent for all who will see that American citizens must begin to depend more upon their neighbors for security than on the police. The average response time in Houston to a “Priority One” (life threatening ) emergency call is now in excess of five minutes.  This, as reported by Channel Two News:

 

Local 2 Investigates analyzed three years worth of police response times, breaking down Houston neighborhood by neighborhood, we discovered more and more parts of the city are waiting longer than five minutes for police to respond to these life-threatening, "priority one" calls.

 

"What I hear from officers is we are short and could we get some help out here," outgoing Houston Police Officers’ Union president Hans Marticiuc said.

 

In 2004, police were taking longer than 5 minutes to respond to a third of Houston's neighborhoods. Two years later it was 43%. Through the first quarter of this year it was half the city.

 

"Any given shift you probably don't have more than 200 to 250 officers out on the street," Marticiuc said.

 

"For the entire city?" Arnold asked.

 

"Uh, huh," Marticiuc said.

 

Ironically that news story was published just nine days prior to this event.  Since “a burglary in progress” is not considered a life threatening call under ordinary circumstances, it is a safe bet that, short of Mr. Horn making his intentions to intervene clear to the dispatcher, the police would have arrived 5-10 minutes or more after the criminals had left the crime scene and were well out of the neighborhood.

 

Every action Mr. Horn took was textbook citizenship. Citizenship is not a state of being; it is a state of action. Citizens vote in elections, serve on juries, and help their neighbors when asked.  Real citizens care enough about their communities enough to be willing to risk their lives to make sure their neighborhoods are safe for their children, their neighbor's children, the elderly, and all of those who are incapable of protecting themselves. Real citizens do not sit and let bad things happen out of fear of injury or legal action.

 

Our society is slowly devolving  to a point where our justice system is more concerned with the rights of criminals than it is with the rights of law abiding citizens.  Our judges appear to care more about how our criminal population is being treated than the fact that they are in prison for a committing criminal acts against the people those judges are elected to protect.  Those to whom we have entrusted our domestic order and tranquility have become advocates of chaos rather than enforcers of order.  Why should the American people be forced to endure living in a lawless society because the lawyers of the ACLU and a bunch of Leftist Judges believe that criminals’ rights supersede the rights of law-abiding citizens to be secure in their neighborhoods and homes?

 

What happened on Wednesday was both heroic and tragic. Mr. Horn’s actions were heroic. It was the courageous thing to do and it was the right thing to do. That these two men had to die is tragic, but their deaths were of their own choosing. 

 

The criminals Dejesus and Ortiz were solely responsible for their own deaths.  Mr. Horn was not looking for someone to shoot that day; he was minding his own business.  The two perpetrators were looking for trouble and unfortunately for their families, they found more trouble than they bargained for.  We must never allow ourselves to forget, DeJesus and Ortiz were criminals and were caught in the act of committing a crime. Had they surrendered to Mr. Horn rather than ignore him, they would be alive today.  Had they not been intent on breaking the law, they would be alive today.

 

Our Founding Fathers believed passionately in every man’s right to own and protect his property as well as his person by any appropriate means.  They also believed in the right of people to protect their communities.  That is precisely what Mr. Joe Horn did when he confronted Ortiz and DeJesus.  The survival of our Republic depends on the citizens’ right to do so.

 

Our society has blessed us with lives of abundance and liberty due, in main part, to the laws we have passed which define how we are supposed to interact with each other.   Those blessings also derive from the rights and liberties we claim as our inheritance from our Creator and from the traditions and laws handed down to us by our forefathers.  

Our freedoms and liberties have been bought and paid for many times over by the blood of our forefathers and our fellow citizens and to the extent that we allow our government to usurp those freedoms and liberties, we dishonor those who have gone before us.

 

Criminals should be afraid to commit crimes.  They should live in terror that every time they go out to commit a crime, they will encounter a man like Joe Horn.  When criminals are more afraid of committing a crime than they are in gaining from their brazenness, then crimes decrease.  It has been proven time and again that the more likely it is that criminals believe that they will encounter a homeowner armed with a firearm; the less likely they are to attempt to enter that house. That is why those cities and states in which they have passed the most draconian gun laws have the highest violent crime rates and those which have enacted concealed carry laws and the castle doctrine, have the lowest violent crime rates.

 

The reaction from those on the Left was easily predictable.  They are immediately more concerned with the deaths of two felons than they are with the fact that they were caught committing a crime. Once more we are shown an object lesson that Liberals are incapable of comprehending human nature.  It is these same people who advocate tighter restrictions on gun ownership and who advocate an international policy of appeasement over confrontation.  Once more we are shown why allowing Liberals to govern our society is dangerous for our citizenry.

 

When a society becomes so afraid that it surrenders its citizens’ rights to do exactly what Joe Horn did; when a society allows itself to be disarmed by its government and police are the only people in that society who are allowed to possess firearms, it is precisely at that moment that a free society becomes a “police state.”

 

Mr. Horn is not happy that he was forced to kill those two men.  Their deaths will haunt him for a long time, but he should never doubt that what he did was right and justified.  And as for those in our society who condemn him, they are wrong and unjustified in their criticism.  Until they find themselves in the same situation and are forced to make the same decisions, perhaps they should withhold their judgment.

 

I don’t know if Messrs. Ortiz and DeJesus deserved to die for their crime, but once they made the decision to cross the line from citizen to criminal, once they chose to ignore Mr. Horn’s order to stop, they became responsible for their own fates.

 

I for one will pray for Mr. Horn, that he can find some solace in the fact that what he did was the right thing to do.  It was and is what every good citizen should be prepared to do.  He is a hero in the greatest traditions of our Founding Fathers.

 

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

 

Do you people really want Democrats to run this nation?  Well here's an example of why I don't.

Today in New Jersey, Governor Corzine and his hearty band of Democrat thugs tried to railroad a $25 million bond fund allocation through the State House just 3 days after the people of New Jersey overwhelmingly rejected the very same $25 million.  This money is to be dedicated to the construction of a Embryonic Stem Cell research facility.

Can you imagine the arrogance of these people, to reject the decision of the voters and spend their tax funds and thereby increase New Jersey's already bloated deficit.  This is just a taste of what a Hillary Clinton or B. Hussein Obama Presidency will be like with a Democrat Party in control of both houses of congress.

I hear a lot of grumbling that "This Conservative will never vote for a "RINO" candidate, even if it means allowing Democrats to win the White House.  Friends, this is what is commonly called "cutting your nose off to spite your face. 

The interesting thing is that when these Self-appointed guardians of the Right refer to "RINO's," they have so broadened the definition that was Ronald Reagan running for the Republican nomination for President, they would label him a "RINO."  Don't believe me?  Take a good look at Ronald Reagan's record.  He proclaimed himself to be pro-life and though I have no reason to doubt that he was pro-life, when he had the chance to nominate strongly pro-life Justices to the Supreme Court, he came up with...Sandra Day O'Conner.

Now I'm sure that Sandra Day O'Conner was and is a very nice lady, but she was chosen not for her abilities, or her view of the Constitution as immutable, she was chosen because she was a woman...and a not very pro-life woman at that.  So exactly how does that stack up against the standards set up by those self-proclaimed ( I would say self-righteous) guardians of the Right?  Not very well. 

His next appointment was Antonin Scalia and nobody can fault him on that one, but after Judge Bork was turned from a person to a verb by the Democrats in the Senate, Reagan fell flat again, first choosing Ginsberg and after he turned out to be unsuitable, Kennedy.  Now Kennedy isn't terrible and wound up on the correct side most of the time, but he's no pro-life gem either.

The point I'm trying to make here is not about Reagan or about his judicial appointments.  The point I'm making here is how absurd people like James Dobson and Tony Perkins are behaving in their personal attacks against candidates like Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney.  Even Fred Thompson has been the subject of their attacks, all in the name of preventing abortion.

These men are proposing assuring the election of a Democrat like Hillary Clinton simply to "punish" the Republican Party, in hopes of increasing their influence upon later elections.  This is an amazingly naive view of politics considering that African Americans have been doing precisely the same thing, not voting for Republicans for forty years and all they have really done is alienate themselves from the Republican Party.

Blacks hardly receive a token nod from the Republicans, because they have made themselves irrelevant to the ability of Republicans in getting elected. It's sad but true.  So now we have these highly emotional pro-life leaders (by the way I am staunchly pro-life, considering abortion to be pre-meditated, state sanctioned murder) suggesting that by doing the same thing, they can increase their influence upon the party that has given them the voice they have.

I refuse to be a single issue voter.  I know that at times, the lesser of two seemingly less than desirable choices is still a choice.  I also know that allowing the extremists that now are controlling the Democrat Party to have a completely free rein is a recipe for disaster.

If Corzine and his New Jersey Democrats can, by fiat, ignore the will of the citizens of New Jersey, imagine what Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Teddy Kennedy, Chuck Schumer and the whole gang of Marxist will be able to do with a sympathetic President...and trust me, Hillary Clinton, B. Hussein Obama, and John Edwards are all three hard core Marxists and they have plans for your money that don't include allowing you to keep very much of it.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!