Jan

31

2006

Alito Confirmed, Sworn In As 110th Supreme

Filed Under Liberty and Democracy | 2 Comments

In the closest vote since 1991, Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. has been confirmed as this country’s next Supreme Court Justice, the 110th overall. This will be secondary news in the next few hours as President Bush tonight delivers his State of the Union address.

I watched enough of the confirmation hearings to be impressed by Mr. Alito. He appears to be, as President Bush described him today after his confirmation:

Sam Alito is a brilliant and fair-minded judge who strictly interprets the Constitution and laws and does not legislate from the bench.
And that should be exactly what we all demand of each Supreme Justice. After all, the job description of every judge is “interprets the Constitution and laws”. Making laws and conforming to change is the province of the Legislature, not the Judiciary. An analogy is that economics deals with the changing financial realm, while mathematics deals with the accepted understanding of how numbers relate to one another. Economics is constantly in flux; Mathematics aspires to a permanent understanding of the universal and immutable functions of numbers. Economists and Legislators react; Mathematicians and Jurists measure.

Mr. Alito’s placement on the bench does not, nor should not, ensure any outcome of future cases; except as proscribe dictated by the strict interpretation of the Constitution and laws of this land. And, Alito seems to have the intellect to understand the criteria, and the integrity to be guided by the facts before him and how the law applies to those facts. Even with regard to that one issue, the one which fuels the venom flowing through the veins in every person of dogma, abortion.

There will continue to be those who believe that their position on this most controversial issue is so valid that a court should decide in their favor even if all of the legal “i’s” have not been dotted or all of the procedural “t’s” have not been crossed. With Alito, I both hope and believe we have a man who will not countenance shoddy legal arguments. We do not want him to simply rubber-stamp our preferences; we want to know that the law countenances each result.

NOTE: Text changed. I have deleted the word “proscribed” above and replaced it with “dictated”. I thank John Mulligan for noting the confusing usage, and I thank Chris for his thoughts, And I especially thank Chris for his editorial corrections to my grammar. For, as Toby Keith sings, “I’m not as good as I once was”, so your help is welcome. I am grateful for any help I can get.

Jan

30

2006

How Many Years Must The People Wait For Kerry To Keep His Pledge?

Filed Under History, Law and Ethics, Lies, Corruption and Scandals, Politics | 5 Comments

The answer, my friends, is blowin’ in the wind. Still.

Tommorow second term President, George W. Bush, will deliver the State of the Union address to Congress. One condition of our state he likely won’t mention is that we remain in a state of suspense awaiting review of John Kerry’s military records. A year has passed since his opponent in the 2004 Presidential race, John F’n. Kerry, pledged to release all of his military records for public review, and consequent to Kerry’s failure to produce, America has been in a state of suspense, awaiting Kerry’s action.

Sure Kerry did sign the form 180, but only for review by his hometown newspaper which was restricted to review only and no reproduction of the records was allowed. Certainly not a source which America trusts to provide an unvarnished retelling of the records. Hardly what America was promised.

So, the clock continues to tick, one year and counting. Kerry’s one-man filibuster of the truth. And we continue to call on the dude to keep his word; sign the SF 180 Senator Kerry. And this time let everyone see what your records show.

Kerry has dreams of running again for President. His candidacy will be dogged by this failed promise. He has failed to keep his word, and failed to show the Swiftees to be the liars he claims them to be. Maybe he can’t do the latter even by doing the former. Perhaps, being the mediocre student he was, contrary to his intellectual image, perhaps Kerry just doesn’t understand the meaning of the word promise.

Jan

28

2006

Osama’s Koran

Filed Under War and Terrorism | 3 Comments

Just a little ditty trying to prove that while you can put a beat to the Koran, you just can’t beat the Koran. [insert] Heavy Sarcasm Here[/insert]

Update: Chris found the song at another site, here. I’ll leave the old as testament to the censorship whcih must have occurred at YouTube. By the way, I never received a reply to my email, since they have not answered, I am left to assume that they took it off their playlist as an act of cowardice.

YouTube – It’s In The Koran

– lgf

Jan

27

2006

Reality Check: Democratic Shift

Filed Under Politics | Comments Off

It is generally recognized that today’s Democratic Party leadership is attached to the far left. It seems beholden to the election votes expected from the blame America first crowd, (the Michael Moore wing of the Party, if you will), the Sixties holdover peaceniks, the Pro-Abortion crowd, radical environmentalists, fringe cultural groups such as gays and lesbians, and others still who remain attached to failed utopian concepts and socialist dream states. And one almost universal trait of all of these peoples is a disregard for decorum. It, the lack of decorum, didn’t begin with the Clinton Presidency era spin agents who adopted a debate strategy of talking over their counterparts on television, but those bullies of discourse perfected an unfortunate tone previously seen on the 1960’s college campus anti-war protests, Greenpeace maritime interventions, women’s lib debacles, and so on among the liberal agenda factions.

Two examples this week make me wonder if the tired act of, bitch, bitch, and bitch even louder but never offer a workable alternative, haven’t finally worn thin within the Democratic population.

The first example is that of “Sheets” Byrd, as Rush Limbaugh calls Senator Robert Byrd, the former Ku Klux Klan member, of West Virginia. Byrd, who has as much poor-character baggage to carry as does even Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, (aka, the swimmer), and neither has fully owned up to their past, nevertheless Byrd has taken a huge leap off the liberal freight train by not only endorsing Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court, but by also chastising his fellow Democrats for their unconscionable behavior during the Senate confirmation hearing on Judge Alito’s nomination.

The skeptical view on Byrd’s motivations will follow.

The second example is that of Democratic mouthpiece Bob Beckel who appeared this week in replacement for the absent Alan Colmes on Fox News evening show, Hannity and Colmes. Beckel, who has for years been as vociferous, is his defense of the ridiculous, otherwise known as liberal policy positions, as has been even the Deliverance inbred James Carville, now is taking a tough stand on Iran and even put together two hours of television over two nights where he appeared to be capable of formulating his own thoughts. Progress even if only an act.

Beckel’s take on Iran is that we must move to prevent that member of the “Axis of Evil” from building the bomb, and you know which bomb I mean. He is taking a strong position, he says, we must act even if it means military action, to eliminate Iran’s ability to crash the Nuclear party. Bravo.

Ann Coulter, a guest on tonight’s version of the H & C show due in great part to the additional notoriety she, a blonde babe by the way, has received since John (I served in Vietnam, though I refuse to let you see the service records of that experience) Kerry’s recent Senate floor tirade against Judge Alito in which he cited Coulter’s support for Alito as proof that Alito is unfit to serve on the highest court, she had the perfect retort to Beckel’s new-found display of testosterone. Coulter replied, and I liberally paraphrase, that she is willing to accept Beckel as an ally in the Iran matter, but, she warned, if we go there and we don’t find any nukes don’t start saying Bush lied and Mullahs died. Her reference is a fair assumption of the Democratic response if Iran is not making the bomb given the number of Democrats who now proclaim President Bush a liar for believing their claims during the previous Democratic administration of existent Iraqi WMD hordes.

But, putting aside the possibility that Byrd’s words are motivated by his impending re-election bid, and the Beckel may still be the policy stooge we have always known him to be but now masquerading as a patriot and hawk; it is refreshing to hear a Democrat speak in tones discordant with those of the extreme leftist elements of their Party. And, even if both cases prove to be more Machiavellian than Zell Millerian (Zell Miller is the old school Dem who spoke so forcefully at the Republican National Convention in 2004), these two examples are evidence that some Democrats understand that their old and failed ways no longer play with the American public.

Jan

27

2006

We are all diminished…

Filed Under Liberty and Democracy | 1 Comment

Charles Krauthammer has always been one of the primary reasons I tune into the Fox News Channel to see Special Report w/ Brit Hume. IMHO, the famous ‘panel’ is never quite as good when he is not there. The combination of his intellect, insight, wit, and frankness is not just fun to watch, but inspiring.

Today, Mr. Krauthammer gives us a rare glimpse into his background, his foundation, and what makes him tick. He does this by way of a bittersweet story about the relationship between he and his brother Marcel. Having read this, all I could think of were these famous lines from No man is an island by John Donne (paraphrased ever so slightly):

…No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, [America] is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend’s or of thine own were. Any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee…

Mr. Krauthammer, our sympathies and prayers are with you and your family. Your elegant words have let us all know what a great man your brother was, and that we have all been diminished by his passing.

Jan

27

2006

The art of self-deception

Filed Under Lies, Corruption and Scandals | Comments Off

Like any fair-minded person, I regularly try to detach myself from my opinions to analyze my thinking and detect where bias is creeping in. It is only the clueless moron who plows ahead in such a self-righteous stupor that he believes he can’t ever be wrong, and critical thinking ends once you have arrived at a conclusion. How did I reach that decision? Why do I object to this policy? What’s at the heart of this problem, and who is best equipped to resolve it? This is why I choose to be conservative: the Left today is dominated by assumptions that dare not be questioned, and platitudes that dare not be abandoned.

On this theme, Joseph Rago offers us a wonderful case study in self-deception. When an ideology continues to defend the indefensible long after the fall of its capital, is it any wonder it is willing to pardon the guilty and convict the innocent?

Jan

26

2006

A slow motion train wreck!

Filed Under Politics | 1 Comment

Do you ever get the feeling that we non-Democrats (I use that term because not all of us here are “Republicans”) are watching a slow motion train wreck… with the train being the Democratic Party?

I mean, we see the shaky bridge, the broken rails, the sudden drop off… and it seems to us that the train’s engineer would see those things too and divert the course of his charge, but he just keeps pouring on the speed. And now, even the passengers are starting to sense the peril. And while it would help our business to have our competitors run their train into a pit, it is still sad that so many innocent, helpless, naive people will be taken down as well.

It’s good thing for us I guess is that those who survive the wreck will think twice about riding a train driven by those people again. The bad part is that they may quit riding altogether.

Jan

23

2006

Canadian Liberals Whine Blogs May Cause Voters To Think

Filed Under History, Law and Ethics, Liberty and Democracy, Lies, Corruption and Scandals, Politics | Comments Off

It seems that the Liberal compulsion to blame the voters for being educated is an international phenomenon, small dead animals: The Captain Has Just Turned On The Tinfoil Hat Sign. Perhaps there is a genetic component which presents in all liberals as an aversion to playing on an even field.

Isn’t it always the same with them, blame the other guy and keep marking the ballots. Only the background music changes.

Jan

23

2006

Senators: Take some advice from The Black Republican – and William Rehnquist

Filed Under Law and Ethics | Comments Off

In a column that sounds more appropriate for a member of MoveOn.org than a Senior Editor for a national newsweekly, Jonathan Alter last week proved how absolutely unhinged the leftist press has become. In a world of so many real threats, Alter is worrying that George Bush is the new Nixon.

With a few exceptions, the media coverage [of the Alito hearings] didn’t help. It’s so much easier to talk about Joe Biden’s big mouth or a right-wing Princeton alumni group or Mrs. Alito’s tears than to figure out how the country should prevent a president of the United States from castrating the United States Congress.
I suppose this could be considered progress. The moonbats have been saying for years that Bush is Hitler, and Alter’s own column draws imagery that suggests the Chimpführer is just days away from burning down the Reichstag Capitol.
The “momentous” issue (Alito’s words) is whether this president, or any other, has the right to tell Congress to shove it. And even if one concedes that wartime offers the president extra powers to limit liberty, what happens if the terrorist threat looks permanent? We may be scrapping our checks and balances not just for a few years (as during the Civil War), but for good.

Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Russ Feingold ably raised some of these questions last week; Al Gore… weigh(ed) in, too. But the Democratic Party as a whole cannot stay focused on the issue. Some activists keep jumping ahead to the remedy for the president’s power grab, which they say is impeachment. But that’s a pipe dream and a distraction from the task at hand, which is figuring out how to reassert Congress’s institutional role.

Jonathan, Congress’s institutional role in a judicial nomination is laid out in the Constitution itself; specifically, the Senate is to “advise and consent.” So tomorrow, the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on Judge Alito’s nomination to be the next Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

What did the Senate’s exhaustive grilling of the judge turn up? Not much, primarily because – rather than asking a wide range of probing questions regarding Alito’s judicial interpretation of his 300 decisions over 15 years on the federal bench – the Democrats were obsessed with playing “Gotcha!” games, asking the same three or four questions over and over again. Judge Alito, not being a fool, obliged in kind with the same three or four answers – over and over again.

For those on the liberal side who tremble with rage over the obstinate refusal of the good judge to say what his opinions are on the legal issues of the day, consider what The Black Republican had to say about judicial nominations, via the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist:

We wish for a… Justice who will sustain what has been done in regard to emancipation…. We cannot ask a man what he will do, and if we should, and he should answer us, we should despise him for it. Therefore, we must take a man whose opinions are known.
Of course, the significant difference here is Lincoln was looking for someone to put ON the court, while Democrats are scrambling for a reason to keep one OFF. Yet it’s instructive – about the level of the Democrats’ hypocrisy, and Alter’s paranoia – that Rehnquist, himself a justice and a chief justice, saw nothing improper about a president sending a nominee to the court that he hopes will defend his interests.
There is no reason in the world why a president should not do this. One of the many marks of genius that our Constitution bears is the fine balance struck in the establishment of the judicial branch, avoiding subservience to the supposedly more vigorous legislative and executive branches on the one hand, and avoiding total institutional isolation from public opinion on the other. The performance of the judicial branch of the United States government for a period of nearly two hundred years has shown it to be remarkably independent of the other coordinate branches of that government. Yet the institution has been constructed in such a way that, because of the mortality tables, if nothing else, the public will, in the person of the President of the United States – the one official who is elected by the entire nation – have something to say about the membership of the Court, and thereby indirectly about its decisions.
If the Democrats think it’s so terrible the Constitution could be shredded by a conservative court, why are they in such a rush to shred it first? Their defiance of the wisdom of the Founders indicts them at every turn.

Jan

22

2006

The Molly Ivins in all of us

Filed Under Politics | Comments Off

You won’t hear this often, so listen up: In so many ways, I agree with Molly Ivins. It’s hard to quote some of her comments, because I usually only agree with half of each sentence, but I do agree entirely with her general thesis.

There are times when regular politics will not do, and this is one of those times. There are times a country is so tired of bull that only the truth can provide relief.
Ivins takes her party to task for “cowering and pretending the only way to win is as Republican-lite,” and proceeds to give all manner of advice on topics the Democrats can credibly argue (in her thinking) without “triangulation, calculation and equivocation.”

I may disagree with Ivins about what’s best for America, and the reception America may give her ideas. But the worst thing for all of us – Democrats, Republicans, and everyone else – is when one or both of the parties in our two-party system is consistently trying to lie about what they really believe, and what they want to do with power when they have it. Without honesty in both parties, personal and ideological corruption thrives.

Jan

21

2006

I’ll Visit New Hampshire

Filed Under Law and Ethics | Comments Off

When they complete the Lost Liberty Hotel I will make my first visit to to Weare, NH. I suspect that the people behind this push to kick Justice Souter off of his property under the eminent domain laws which Souter imagines exist within the Constitution are hearing the collective voices of those appalled by what Souter did, just as Kevin Costner’s character in the movie Field of Dreams heard voices of those longing for older times, we are saying that if you build it, we will come. Not that we think it is right to take a man’s home, just to demonstrate to those who do so believe that it isn’t right.

Jan

20

2006

And now for something completely different…

Filed Under Internet and Blogging | 2 Comments

We have an unofficial and undocumented rule here at The Black Republican: News and opinion article that mention Abraham Lincoln and/or The Civil War earns automatic recognition – either in our Recommended Reading section or, less often but more prestigiously (if that’s even possible here), via a front page post. As a weblog dedicated to Abraham Lincoln, the Great Emancipator, the founder of the Grand Old Party and author of the enduring principles upon which it was founded, I cannot see how we can do otherwise.

As an adjunct to that unofficial rule, however, it seems to be a growing trend that any mention or reference to anything Monty Python has started to garner the same results! I must stress that this is an absolutely un-unofficial, non-rule, but it seems to be occurring often and… spontaneously? I cannot explain this phenomenon in any other way other than to say that some of us must have a hidden fondness for SPAM, a soft spot for Norwegian Blue parrots, or a historical interest in the Spanish Inquisition. (Didn’t see that one coming did you? Well, nobody expects…)

All of this having been said, John O’Sullivan over at National Review Online has a very well written and funny article regarding the current Canadian political scene that, under normal circumstances, may or may not have earned a mention on this site. In this case, however, Mr. O’Sullivan had the luck to entitle his piece I’m a Lumberjack and I’m Okay, so…

Hat tip to Sue!

Jan

19

2006

Unconditional surrender

Filed Under War and Terrorism | Comments Off

The losing side in a war will inevitably reach the point where they see the writing on the wall, and after a moment of self-reflection will offer to call it a draw. Wise generals know their opponent is showing signs of weakening and will use the faux pas as a cue to press hard on the enemy’s lines. Even if the reigning authority eventually chooses to accept envoys to establish peace, it’s better to negotiate from a position of strength: the winner need not settle for the offered tie if he can achieve clear victory while the foreign diplomats grovel.

Of course in our current conflict, the other side has little “reigning authority”, no envoys or diplomats, and until now has never even broached the subject of peace except as the result of our total annihilation. In a surprising move, “Mr. Annihilation” himself, Osama bin Laden suggested today we just call the whole thing off.

Al-Jazeera on Thursday aired an audiotape from Osama bin Laden, who says al-Qaida is making preparations for attacks in the United States but offers a truce on “fair” but undefined conditions. The CIA has authenticated the voice on the tape as that of bin Laden, an agency official said….

The White House rejected the truce offer. The United States will not let up in the war on terror despite bin Laden’s latest threats, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. “We do not negotiate with terrorists,” McClellan said. “We put them out of business.”

In 1862, a new diplomatic stance known as “unconditional surrender” was first proposed by U.S. Grant at Fort Donelson. This weapon – “Surrender now and we might not kill you. No promises” – was proven to be a rather effective tool when wielded by the Allies in WWII.

Mr. McClellan has apparently proffered a new variation of this tool: “Just lay down and wait. We’ll be along to kill you soon. Try not to hurt anyone in the meantime.” I don’t know if it will work in Afghanistan, but it will be interesting to see the results of the control group in Iraq.

Jan

18

2006

Kick Start Your Morning

Filed Under Entertainment and Sports | Comments Off

Belly Laugh

My baby sister.

Jan

18

2006

The French Military gets Googled!

Filed Under Internet and Blogging | Comments Off

Google has not become the worlds leading search engine by accident. It has take a lot of hard work by a lot of talented people to make Google faster, more comprehensive, and – most importantly – more accurate than all the others. For a quick and illustrative demonstration of all of all these qualities, do the following:

1. Open a new browser window and go to Google.
2. In the search field, type french military victories and click the “I’m Feeling Lucky” button.

See what I mean! Fast, comprehensive, and 100% accurate!

Hat tip to my coworkers Sue and Doug (aka the GenericGeek)

Next Page →

  • Featured Sponsor

  • Recent Comments

  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

  • Categories