The Sitting Dems

The Democrats -- the Party of No, the Party of Retreat and Defeat -- showed their true colors at the State of the Union address Tuesday night.

Of course, the minority party members often sat motionless during the speech, when the Republicans were jumping to their feet and applauding the President. As usual, the cameras caught the Dems sneering and pouting and scowling. Same old, same old.

However, there was one moment when I found the televised visuals to be particularly revealing.

Complete Transcript

(Excerpt)

PRESIDENT BUSH: It is said that prior to the attacks of September the 11th, our government failed to connect the dots of the conspiracy. We now know that two of the hijackers in the United States placed telephone calls to al Qaeda operatives overseas. But we did not know about their plans until it was too late. So to prevent another attack -- based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute -- I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al Qaeda operatives and affiliates to and from America. Previous Presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have, and federal courts have approved the use of that authority. Appropriate members of Congress have been kept informed. The terrorist surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It remains essential to the security of America. If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we want to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again. (Applause.)

When Bush forcefully stated, "we will not sit back and wait to be hit again," he looked straight into the camera.

I don't think he was speaking only to the American people when he said that. He seemed to be telling the world.

More specifically, I think Bush was addressing the terrorists.

Recently, in the taped message that surfaced about two weeks ago, bin Laden echoed the Dems' rhetoric so closely that it seemed as if he had been coached by the big guy, Howard Dean.

It became painfully clear that bin Laden was exploiting the words of the "retreat and defeat" Dems and the radical Left as powerful weapons against the United States. There is no question that these patriotic American libs are a key element in bin Laden's plan for victory.

When the President declared that he was exercising his constitutional authority, the same power used by previous Presidents, he put all the enemies of America on notice.

Bush is going to do all that he legally can do, under the powers granted to him by the Constitution and with the knowledge of members of Congress, to protect the country.

"WE WILL NOT SIT BACK AND WAIT TO BE HIT AGAIN."

After Bush delivered that line, the camera was angled to show how members of the two parties reacted.

In response to the President's promise, the Republicans stood and cheered.

What did those on the left side of the aisle do?

They sat still -- no applause, nothing.

It could have been out of a movie. When the President says, "We will not sit back," the minority party is seen doing exactly that -- sitting.

The Dems cannot be trusted to protect America.

That image of the Dems' response to the President's pledge to protect the homeland was perhaps the most powerful of the night.

It was a perfect illustration of what they stand for. I should rephrase that. The Dems sat, rather than banding with the President, and displayed what they don't stand for.

Quite simply, the Dems DO NOT stand for the defeat of terrorism. That's my image of the Dems -- just sitting back, ineffective.

Considering that the Old Media, the Dem leadership, and the wacko Leftists have been pounding away at the President for months and months, President Bush did not come off as weak or hesitant, not at all.

He was strong, confident, and optimistic. His vision for the country was clear.

President Bush realizes he has an awesome responsibility, to keep Americans safe and free.

I firmly believe that he doesn't expend any energy worrying about his personal poll numbers or his approval ratings or his legacy. He concerns himself with doing everything possible within his power to prevent another attack. That's got nothing to do with political posturing or self-aggrandizement.

I really think that the President cares first and foremost about protecting the country and freedom, not protecting his image.

The Democrats, on the other hand, have shown that they are willing to play games with the well-being of the nation. They have been absolutely ruthless and reckless in their attacks on the President, undermining the Commander-in-Chief, putting our troops at greater risk, and emboldening our enemies. Many of them have shamelessly put their personal political fortunes ahead of the good of the people that they swore to serve.

It would be unfair to suggest that all Dems have failed to faithfully carry out their duties as public servants. It would be untrue. Sadly, it is accurate to say that most Dems have behaved irresponsibly in regard to the War on Terror.

I certainly don't believe that all Republicans have done what's right for the country either. Too many of them have been opportunistic, shirking their commitment to properly serve the people in order to further their personal agendas, just as surely as the Dems have done.

Dem or Republican -- it doesn't matter. Effectively combatting terror can't be done sitting down. The President and his Administration understand that, and I am grateful.

I think back to the night of September 20, 2001, as the World Trade Center still burned. In an address to a joint session of Congress and the American people, President Bush rallied the nation.

He said:

Great harm has been done to us. We have suffered great loss. And in our grief and anger we have found our mission and our moment. Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom -- the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time -- now depends on us. Our nation -- this generation -- will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail.

I believed in the President's complete commitment to ensuring human freedom then, and I believe him now.

Defeat in that endeavor is not an option.

Some Dems have yet to grasp that.

Cindy Gets Evicted

Once again, Cindy Sheehan pulled a "Look at me! Look at me!" publicity stunt, trying to take the State of the Union spotlight off of President Bush.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a fallen soldier in Iraq who reinvigorated the anti-war movement, was arrested and removed from the House gallery Tuesday night just before President Bush's State of the Union address, a police spokeswoman said.

I wouldn't say that Sheehan "reinvigorated the anti-war movement." I think it's more appropriate to say that radical Left organizations and the lib media exploited Sheehan for that purpose back in August.

Since then, she's been trying to feed her addiction to media attention.

Sheehan, who was invited to attend the speech by Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., was charged with demonstrating in the Capitol building, said Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider. The charge was later changed to unlawful conduct, Schneider said. Both charges are misdemeanors.

I wonder if Woolsey would support Sheehan if she challenges Dianne Feinstein in a race for the Senate.

Sheehan was taken in handcuffs from the Capitol to police headquarters a few blocks away. Her case was processed as Bush spoke.

Were handcuffs really necessary?

I don't think so, but I'd bet Sheehan liked it. It added to the drama. Walking out of the chamber without that hardware wouldn't look all that different from walking out to go to the restroom.

Yes, handcuffs were an absolute must.

Schneider said Sheehan had worn a T-shirt with an anti-war slogan to the speech and covered it up until she took her seat. Police warned her that such displays were not allowed, but she did not respond, the spokeswoman said.

Police handcuffed Sheehan and removed her from the gallery before Bush arrived. Sheehan was to be released on her own recognizance, Schneider said.

Sheehan should know better than to not cooperate with the police. Obviously, she staged the whole thing.

...Woolsey offered Sheehan a ticket to the speech -- Gallery 5, seat 7, row A -- earlier Tuesday while Sheehan was attending an "alternative state of the union" press conference by CODEPINK, a group pushing for an end to the Iraq war.

Sheehan, wrapped in a bright pink scarf against the cold, protested outside the White House with a handful of others before heading to the Capitol Tuesday evening. There were no cameras around, but the small band faced the executive mansion and repeatedly shouted, "You're evicted! Get out of our house!"

Gee, that protest didn't draw much of a crowd. Luckily, an AP reporter was there to chronicle the event. Otherwise, we wouldn't know that Sheehan and a few other people stood in front of the White House doing their best to get noticed.

That's big news!
___________________________________

This is funny.



From CODEPINK's website:

This year, both Groundhog Day and the State of the Union Address fell on the same day. As Air America Radio pointed out, "It is an ironic juxtaposition: one involves a meaningless ritual in which we look to a creature of little intelligence for prognostication, and the other involves a groundhog. So instead of sitting at home alone shouting at your TV in anger and frustration - have fun! Take the People's State of the Union to the public.

Gather with other CODEPINK women at a friendly bar or restaurant to watch the President's speech and make a night of it. Check out the link below for games to play, drink suggestions, and party favors.

Huh?

Apparently, the CODEPINK crowd and Air America think Groundhog Day is January 31. Those poor people are so confused.

I'd like to know if they saw their shadows yesterday.

If they did, it means three more years of the Bush Administration.

If they didn't, it means three more years of the Bush Administration.

Where Was Teddy?

I didn't see Ted Kennedy at the President's State of the Union address.

Usually, the television audience is treated to frequent shots of him rolling his eyes, or nodding off.

Where was Teddy?

I did notice that John Kerry looked to be wearing really thick makeup for the occasion. Perhaps he adheres to the notion that it's better to look good than to feel good. Personally, I think Kerry would have been better off with a more natural look. For some reason, his skin made me think of Cher.

Not good.

State of the Union Spin

The Old Media's coverage of President Bush's State of the Union address is very telling. Rather than focus on the initiatives that the President proposed for moving the nation forward, or his optimism and hopeful vision, the libs just can't keep from depicting the President as weak and the country as crumbling.

For instance, Terence Hunt of the Associated Press writes:

Hampered by huge budget deficits and an unpopular war, President Bush on Tuesday called for training 70,000 math and science teachers to improve the nation's competitiveness and declared that America must break its dependence on Mideast oil.

"America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world," Bush said as he sought to drive the election-year agenda in his annual State of the Union address.

He declared that the "the state of our union is strong" despite Americans' anxieties about the war in Iraq, the economy, soaring energy costs and rising energy prices. Oil prices are inching toward $70 a barrel, throwing a cloud over the economy and pinching Americans' pocketbooks.

...Bush's address came amid a changing of the guard elsewhere in Washington. Conservative judge Samuel Alito was sworn in as a new Supreme Court justice, replacing Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a moderate swing vote.

...Facing budget deficits that may approach or exceed $400 billion this year, Bush had no room for expensive, new initiatives.

Frustrated by Congress' refusal to consider his Social Security overhaul, Bush switched gears and asked lawmakers to join him in naming a commission to examine the impact of Baby Boom retirements on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid costs.

Spending on those three programs alone will be almost 60 percent of the federal budget by 2030, Bush said.

Three years from leaving office, Bush went before the nation as a politically weakened president after the toughest year of his administration. With Americans anxious about the economy, weary of the Iraq war and unhappy about the administration's response to Hurricane Katrina, Bush's job approval rating is in the anemic high 30s to low 40s.

According to Hunt, Americans are weary and Bush is anemic.

I don't see things that way; but I'm not hampered by the weight of Liberalism or blinded by the implosion of the Democratic Party.

This sounds more like an opinion piece rather than hard reporting. Hunt is relentless in talking about Bush's weakness and frustration, as well as the anxieties burdening Americans.

"Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years," the president said. "Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025.

By targeting only Mideast oil, Bush was ignoring the largest sources of American petroleum consumption _ Mexico and Canada. Imports of oil and refined product from the Persian Gulf make up less than a fifth of all imports and 11 percent of total consumption, according to Energy Department statistics.


The libs need to make up their minds. They moan about U.S. dependency on Mideast oil and then claim that it only accounts for 11 percent of the nation's consumption.

Weird.


What follows is Hunt's account of the Dems' response, delivered by Tim Kaine, Virginia's new governor.

This is odd because the time listed for when Hunt filed his report is "Jan 31 9:51 PM US/Eastern," before Kaine's address aired. Obviously, he received an advance copy of the remarks.

Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, chosen to deliver the response for the Democrats, scolded Bush on the soaring national debt, the frustrated effort to rebuild the hurricane-battered Gulf Coast, Medicaid cuts and other issues. On Iraq, Kaine said that Americans were given "inaccurate information about the reasons for invading" and that troops were given body armor that was inadequate.

"The federal government should serve the American people," the newly elected governor said in excerpts released ahead of his speech. "But that mission is frustrated by this administration's poor choices and bad management.

I didn't react positively to Kaine's address.

Although he delivered his remarks from the executive mansion, with the flickering flames from a fireplace in the background, he looked like he should have been standing in a used car lot.

Kaine had a weird smirk, that kind of, sort of smile you see from a guy selling a miracle cleaner in an infomercial. At other times, he reminded me of a funeral director, minus the red tie, of course.

"There’s a better way" was the line he kept repeating.

He kept talking about the bipartisanship in Virginia.

Again and again, Kaine went back to how Republicans and Dems have worked together in Virginia, and put aside partisanship.

"In Virginia, we've done this, and we've done that."

That's terrific, but not for a response given to the nation. It was as if Kaine was doing a run through of his gubernatorial stump speech.

To me, it was ineffective at best.

Hunt then returns to the State of the Union:

Bush divided his address between problems at home and abroad.

With the war in Iraq about to enter its fourth year and more than 2,240 American troops killed, Bush said the nation must not falter in what he called the central front in the war on terror. Bush did not offer any timetable for bringing American troops home from Iraq. There are about 138,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, down from about 160,000 at the time of the January elections.

"There is no peace in retreat," the president said. "And there is no honor in retreat."

Although the United States went to war on the faulty premise that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, Bush said, "Hindsight alone is not wisdom. And second-guessing is not a strategy."

Hunt falsely asserts that the U.S. went to war on a faulty premise. Saddam's WMD was not the sole reason for intervention in Iraq. It is however the reason that Leftists like to dwell on.

Lame.

Despite recent elections in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories that have given rise to religious-based parties with views sometimes hostile to the West, Bush pressed Saudi Arabia and Egypt _ longtime allies that Washington is loath to challenge too aggressively _ to provide greater freedoms to their citizens.

"Every step toward freedom in the world makes our country safer, and so we will act boldly in freedom's cause," Bush said. "Democracies in the Middle East will not look like our own because they will reflect the traditions of their own citizens. Yet liberty is the future of every nation in the Middle East."

He urged Hamas to "recognize Israel, disarm, reject terrorism and work for lasting peace."

Bush said the United States and its allies were united in insisting that Iran not develop nuclear weapons. Speaking directly to the Iranian people, Bush looked toward a different future for their country and said the United States "hopes one day to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran."

In typical lib fashion, Hunt points out that the Middle East is incapable of democracy and peace.

Hunt is gripped with that retreat and defeat malaise common among the Dems.

Bush projected an air of optimism in a time of anxiety about the economy, the war and other problems.

Hunt attempts to refute Bush's confidence and optimism, as if to say that he has no business being hopeful. That's reminiscent of the way libs used to attack Reagan's positive vision.

"Americans should not fear our economic future because we intend to shape it," he said.

The president renewed his oft-stated goal for Congress to make permanent the tax cuts enacted during his presidency.

Permanent tax cuts?

This is a mortal sin to the tax and spend libs.

"If we do nothing, American families will face a massive tax increase they do not expect and will not welcome," he said.

Bush called for greater public spending on basic science research and more money for math and science education.

He proposed an initiative to train 70,000 high school teachers to lead advanced-placement courses in math and science. In addition, he urged bringing 30,0000 math and science professionals into the classrooms to teach.

I get the feeling that Terence Hunt should have delivered the Dems' response.

Rather than Kaine' State of Virginia address, Hunt's emphasis on spewing the radical Left's talking points probably would have made the Dems happier.

The poor things have had a very rough day.

REASON TO CELEBRATE

Senate Roll Call Votes

KERRY AND KENNEDY'S FILIBUSTER FLOP

Vote Summary:

Question: On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture On The Nomination of Samuel A. Alito, Jr. of New Jersey, To Be An Associate Justice Of The Supreme Court )

Vote Number: 1

Vote Date: January 30, 2006, 04:40 PM

Required For Majority: 3/5

Vote Result: Cloture Motion Agreed to

Nomination Number: PN1059

Nomination Description: Samuel A. Alito, Jr., of New Jersey, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

Vote Counts:

YEAs 72

NAYs 25

Not Voting 3
____________________________________

CONFIRMATION OF SAMUEL ALITO

Vote Summary:

Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Samuel A. Alito, Jr., of New Jersey, to be an Associate Justice )

Vote Number: 2

Vote Date: January 31, 2006, 11:01 AM

Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote

Result: Nomination Confirmed

Nomination Number: PN1059

Nomination Description: Samuel A. Alito, Jr., of New Jersey, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

Vote Counts:

YEAs 58

NAYs 42

Justice for Alito

Samuel Alito has a lot to smile about.

The Dems do not.

From the depressed libs at the Washington Post:

Republican senators, aided by 19 Democrats, cleared the path yesterday for Samuel A. Alito Jr. to join the Supreme Court and for President Bush to put his stamp firmly on the nine-member bench.

Let's not forget that Bill Clinton also left his mark on the nine-member bench with two appointments.

Of course, who can forget the many other places Clinton, shall we say, "left his mark"?

The Senate voted 72 to 25 to end debate on Alito's nomination and to allow a roll call on his confirmation today, shortly before noon. Alito's supporters garnered a dozen more votes than the 60 they needed to choke off a Democratic filibuster effort, which would have allowed debate to continue indefinitely.

My only regret about Kerry and Kennedy's lame "little filibuster that couldn't" is that Republicans didn't have the opportunity to invoke the Constitutional option and end the obstruction of qualified judicial nominations by the Dems.

Oh, well. Tomorrow is another day.

Leaders of both parties said Alito, 55, will comfortably win confirmation today, although not by the 78 to 22 margin that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. received last fall. Legal analysts say Alito's 15-year record as an appellate court judge suggests he may be more consistently conservative than Roberts. Moreover, they say, Alito is poised to make a larger impact on the court because he will replace Sandra Day O'Connor, the deciding vote in numerous 5 to 4 decisions over the years. Roberts succeeded a fellow conservative, the late William H. Rehnquist.

Alito won't be confirmed with as great a margin as Roberts received, or any recent nominee.

SO WHAT?

I think it's really pathetic when the Dems try to spin their many, many defeats into victories.

I'm sure the slimmer margin resulting from what will be a nearly party-line vote today will be considered some sort of moral victory by the nuts on the Left.

That's all pointless spin. It achieves nothing other than to slightly boost the sagging self-esteem of the hapless Dems.

A win is a win. The margin doesn't matter. Judge Alito's nomination will be confirmed and he will have a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court.

"I am pleased that a strong, bipartisan majority in the Senate decisively rejected attempts to obstruct and filibuster an up-or-down vote on Judge Sam Alito's nomination," Bush said in a statement. "Judge Alito is extraordinarily well-qualified to serve on our nation's highest court."

My feelings exactly.

The attempted filibuster was more symbolic than serious from the start, as Alito's opponents realized they were almost certain to lose yesterday's "cloture" vote. But liberal groups pressed their Senate allies to use the nomination process to underscore concerns that Alito will try to restrict abortion rights, expand presidential powers, and limit access to courts for environmentalists and others hoping to overturn state policies.

I don't see the attempted filibuster as symbolic. I see it as stupid.

The twenty-five Dems that climbed on the filibuster bandwagon certainly didn't score any points with middle America by kowtowing to the demands of the radical Left nutjobs.

Democratic Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry of Massachusetts took up the liberal cause last week, forcing Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) to schedule yesterday's cloture vote so that today's confirmation vote could take place.

The debate was largely unremarkable until Kennedy delivered a thundering, ad-libbed speech in which he warned that the Alito vote "is going to have echoes for years and years to come."

"If you are concerned and you want a justice that is going to stand for the working men and women in this country, it's not going to be Judge Alito," Kennedy roared as tourists in the visitors' gallery leaned forward for a better view.

Kennedy didn't sound like a U.S. Senator when he was speaking. He sounded like a drunken derelict, shouting and slurring incoherently.

So what else is new?

But Frist got the last word. "The sword of the filibuster has been sheathed," he told his colleagues moments before the roll call began. He scolded Democrats who pursued the stalling tactic on behalf of "the liberal activist agenda," and he warned that top lawyers may decline judicial nominations if they fear the confirmation process has become too brutal and partisan.

Frist not only got the last word. He won. No filibuster.

It really does take a tough individual to agree to be unjustly crucified by the lying, hateful radical Left Dems.

I admire Judge Alito and his family for submitting themselves to the nightmare confirmation process and withstanding the garbage thrown at them by Kennedy, Schumer, Feingold, Durbin, Feinstein, Biden, Kohl, Leahy, Kerry, Clinton, etc.

Unlike Roberts, Alito will have at least one Republican vote against him. Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee, facing a tough reelection battle in Democratic-leaning Rhode Island, announced he will vote against Alito's confirmation even though Chafee voted to end debate yesterday.

RINO, thy name is Chafee!

Chafee decided Alito was unqualified to serve because he expects him to give President Bush the power to snoop into the private lives of any American at any time. He's also considers Alito to be an "enemy of reproductive freedom and the environment."

What a load!

Why does this guy call himself a Republican?

I'm glad he does. Even though he acts more like a Dem, the "R" next to his name does help to keep the Republicans in the majority and in control of committees. However, it would be nice to have a real Republican from Rhode Island in the Senate.

I don't care about Chafee, or any of those blustering but impotent Dems.

I'm just very happy that Justice Alito will be on the Supreme Court for a LONG, LONG, LONG time.

RUN CINDY, RUN!

This is too good.


Cindy Sheehan and Hugo Chavez get cozy in Caracas on Sunday.

Cindy Sheehan believes that the radical Leftist Senator Dianne Feinstein is "a Republican in Democrat's clothing."

That gives you an idea of just how far over the liberal edge Sheehan is. To her, Feinstein is a Republican!

I guess that would follow, given that Sheehan hangs out in the most extreme lefty socialist circles and considers Hugo Chavez one of her buddies.

Now, "matriot" Sheehan is pondering a run for the U.S. Senate to challenge the so very conservative Feinstein.

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -- American peace activist Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq, said Saturday she is strongly considering running for office against U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein because the California lawmaker will not support calls to immediately bring the troops home.

Sheehan, 48, who lives in Berkeley, Calif., accused Feinstein of being out-of-touch with Californians on Iraq.

"She voted for the war. She continues to vote for the funding. She won't call for an immediate withdrawal of the troops," said Sheehan, who gained international attention when she set up a protest camp near U.S. President George W. Bush's Texas ranch last year.

"I think our senator needs to be held accountable for her support of George Bush and his war policies," she added.

Feinstein's campaign manager, Kam Kuwata, went on defense, insisting that Sheehan is wrong, that Feinstein doesn't support Bush or his Iraq war policies. In spite of that, Kuwata didn't exhibit much concern over the thought of Feinstein having a political face-off with Sheehan.

Even Sheehan admits that she doesn't stand a chance. It would be another publicity stunt.

..."If I decided to run, I would have no illusions of winning, but it would bring attention to all the peace candidates in the country," she said. "And I know I would be able to at least have some influence on policy."

...In a speech to more than 100 activists on Friday, Sheehan said Bush "should be tried for war crimes" and asked: "How many more American troops are going to be killed while we sit here waiting for spineless public officials to do something?"

Sheehan said she would head to Washington Sunday for protests against Bush's State of the Union address on Monday, and then return to California to discuss her idea of running against Feinstein with her son and two daughters.

I guess Cindy isn't happy unless she's making headlines.

Another AP story relays that Sheehan "plans to protest again outside President Bush's Texas ranch, Venezuela's president said Sunday with Sheehan by his side."

Hugo Chavez, his arm around Sheehan's shoulders, told a group of activists that Sheehan had told him that during Holy Week, in April, "she is going to put up her tent again in front of Mr. Danger's ranch."

"She invited me to put up a tent. Maybe I'll put up my tent also," Chavez said, to applause from activists invited to his weekly broadcast on the final day of the leftist World Social Forum.

Sheehan, whose 24-year-old soldier son, Casey, was killed in Iraq in 2004, thanked Chavez for "supporting life and peace" and she was impressed by his sincerity.

"He said, 'Why don't I run for president?" she said. "I just laughed."

I'm laughing, too.

Can you imagine Chavez joining Sheehan in her Crawford ditch during Holy Week? I can.

The lib media, Old and New, are probably drooling over the prospect.

Speaking of "supporting life and peace," I wonder how Sheehan feels about Hamas winning the elections in the Palestinian Authority. I would assume that she's quite pleased with the outcome since she shares their anti-Israel mindset.

Remember these Sheehanisms?

"Am I emotional? Yes, my firstborn was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel."

"What they're saying, too, is like, it's OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons. But Iran or Syria better not get nuclear weapons. ... It's OK for Israel to occupy Palestine ... for the United States to occupy Iraq, but it's not OK for Syria to be in Lebanon. They're a bunch of [expletive] hypocrites."

"But now that we have decimated the country, the borders are open, freedom fighters from other countries are going in, and [U.S. troops] have created more terrorism by going to an Islamic country, devastating the country and killing innocent people in that country."

Ah, yes. Terrorists are "freedom fighters" in Sheehan's world. Do Sheehan's "freedom fighters" support life and peace?

I have never heard Sheehan condemn the terrorist attacks on Israel. If she has spoken out against the slaughter of Israeli citizens by Hamas, I missed it.

It appears that the "Peace Mom" is very selective when it comes to supporting life and peace.

I wouldn't think that Sheehan's anti-Semitic tinged stuff sits well with Feinstein.

I really hope Sheehan runs for the Senate. The more time she spends in the spotlight, the better.

Sheehan would not only be a problem for Feinstein in the 2006 race; she would be a problem for all Democrats, all those so-called mainstream, "tough on terror" Dems.

RUN CINDY, RUN!

PLEASE!!!

MAKE MY DAY

Great minds think alike.

Apparently, warped, frustrated minds think alike, too.

In terms of the Samuel Alito nomination, John Kerry and the New York Times Editorial Board are on the same page.

On Thursday, the Times' lead editorial, "Senators in Need of a Spine," called for Senate Democrats to filibuster Judge Alito. The piece seems like a compilation of ramblings overheard at Barbra Streisand's last dinner party.

(Excerpts)

Judge Samuel Alito Jr., whose entire history suggests that he holds extreme views about the expansive powers of the presidency and the limited role of Congress, will almost certainly be a Supreme Court justice soon. His elevation will come courtesy of a president whose grandiose vision of his own powers threatens to undermine the nation's basic philosophy of government — and a Senate that seems eager to cooperate by rolling over and playing dead.

It is hard to imagine a moment when it would be more appropriate for senators to fight for a principle. Even a losing battle would draw the public's attention to the import of this nomination.

Good Lord, these libs are really cracking up.

This "Bush is overthrowing the government" crud is crazy. I agree with the notion that a filibuster fight would draw the public's attention. However, that attention will be focused on the Dems' implosion.

The Dems and the Leftist organizations failed to convince Americans that Alito is demonic and a danger to democracy. They tried to Bork him and they crashed and burned.

Explain to me how a filibuster battle would change the American people's opinion of Alito. The Dems verbally crucified the man and his popularity grew. Americans weren't frightened by the thought of Justice Alito, nor did they heed the Dems' silly warnings of dire consequences for the country with Alito on the Court.

...There was nothing that Judge Alito said in his hearings that gave any comfort to those of us who wonder whether the new Roberts court will follow precedent and continue to affirm, for instance, that a man the president labels an "unlawful enemy combatant" has the basic right to challenge the government's ability to hold him in detention forever without explanation. His much-quoted statement that the president is not above the law is meaningless unless he also believes that the law requires the chief executive to defer to Congress and the courts.

Judge Alito's refusal to even pretend to sound like a moderate was telling because it would have cost him so little. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., who was far more skillful at appearing mainstream at the hearings, has already given indications that whatever he said about the limits of executive power when he was questioned by the Senate has little practical impact on how he will rule now that he has a lifetime appointment.

Senate Democrats, who presented a united front against the nomination of Judge Alito in the Judiciary Committee, seem unwilling to risk the public criticism that might come with a filibuster — particularly since there is very little chance it would work. Judge Alito's supporters would almost certainly be able to muster the 60 senators necessary to put the nomination to a final vote.

Why would there be "public criticism" with a filibuster attempt?

Simple.

Americans support Judge Alito because he is clearly qualified. Mainstream America would view a filibuster as just more obstruction from the radical Left. It would push the Dems further into their ultra-liberal corner.

The people voted Bush into office knowing that he would likely have the opportunity to fill Supreme Court vacancies. The President is fulfilling his campaign promise to select nominees that do not intend to legislate from the bench. He vowed to choose individuals that would respect the separation of powers and he has.

Americans are happy with the Alito nomination. Dragging the Senate vote out with a filibuster stunt that is guaranteed to be unsuccessful would not be a principled move by the Dems. It would be another tactical error, highlighting their weakness.

A filibuster is a radical tool. It's easy to see why Democrats are frightened of it. But from our perspective, there are some things far more frightening. One of them is Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court.

The libs keep plugging away with the fear mongering.

Note to the libs: IT DOESN'T WORK!

On Thursday, John Kerry took a cue from the Times editorial. Big mistake.

He solidified his image as an out of the mainstream extremist by calling for his fellow Dems to join him in the filibuster of the Alito nomination.

Even the Times had to admit that Kerry's rallying cry fell on deaf ears.

David D. Kirkpatrick was assigned the difficult task of administering a dose of reality to the desperate libs in his article "Kerry Urges Alito Filibuster, but His Reception is Cool."

Kirkpatrick writes:

Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts could not attend the Senate debate on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. on Thursday. He was in Davos, Switzerland, mingling with international business and political leaders at the World Economic Forum.

But late Thursday afternoon, Mr. Kerry began calling fellow Democratic senators in a quixotic, last-minute effort for a filibuster to stop the nomination.

Democrats cringed and Republicans jeered at the awkwardness of his gesture, which almost no one in the Senate expects to succeed.

"God bless John Kerry," said Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican on the Judiciary Committee. "He just cinched this whole nomination. With Senator Kerry, it is Christmas every day."

Merry Christmas! God bless us, everyone!

Steve Schmidt, a White House spokesman working on the nomination, said Mr. Kerry's move "says a lot less about Alito than it does about the Iowa primary in 2008," suggesting that Mr. Kerry, who lost the presidential race in 2004, was playing to his party's liberal base in a bid to recapture its nomination.

That was my reaction. Kerry knows he has to out-lib the other libs in the primaries if he has any hope of getting the nomination again.

Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, sounded almost apologetic about Mr. Kerry's statements.

"No one can complain on this matter that there hasn't been sufficient time to talk about Judge Alito, pro and con," Mr. Reid said on the Senate floor. "I hope that this matter will be resolved without too much more talking."

Reid's been doing a lot of apologizing lately. I guess he's one of the Dems that the Times believes lacks a spine.

Mr. Kerry's call for a filibuster, an effort to stop confirmation by refusing to close debate and hold a vote, was joined by his fellow Democratic senator from Massachusetts, Edward M. Kennedy.

Wow. What a surprise!

...Mr. Kerry offered an explanation for his position in a post on a liberal blog, the Daily Kos.

"People can say all they want that 'elections have consequences,' " he wrote. "Trust me, more than anyone I understand that. But that seems like an awfully convoluted rationale for me to stay silent about Judge Alito's nomination."

Mr. Kerry was celebrated by leaders of the coalition of liberal groups opposing Judge Alito's nomination.

"Senator John Kerry has called for a filibuster of the Alito nomination, heeding your calls to do everything possible to defeat it," People for the American Way cheered in an e-mail message to its supporters.

There is no question that Kerry has definitely jumped the mainstream swimming shark. He has given up on the moderate act that he tried to pull off in the 2004 election.

Kerry has fallen so far since he lost to President Bush. It really has been quite dramatic. He's fallen so fast and hard, like an anvil on the coyote. His pandering to the likes of Daily Kos and People for the American Way is pathetic.

Kerry is morphing into Dennis Kucinich, albeit a taller version.

Mr. Kennedy said a filibuster might help focus attention on the nomination and give its opponents a last chance to sway the public and the Senate.

He acknowledged some "divisions in the caucus" over the advisability of a filibuster, but he said the effort had the support of a few others, including Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the Democratic whip.

A spokesman for Mr. Durbin confirmed that he would vote against closing debate.

It's amazing how the once stauch pro-lifer and moderate Durbin has swung to the Left's outer limits.

Why, Little Dick? Why?

"It is an uphill climb at this point," Mr. Kennedy said of a filibuster. "But it is achievable."

No, it's not achievable.

...Mr. Kerry has been rallying his supporters against the nomination for weeks in mass e-mail messages and on his Web site.

Here's a sample of one those e-mail messages:

If you want to understand why Americans don't want Judge Alito on the Supreme Court, just take a look at his record. It paints a disturbing picture.

When it comes to standing up to the abuse of executive power and protecting our right to privacy, he barely has a record. Judge Alito refused to hold the government accountable for excessive force when an unarmed boy was shot and killed, or when an innocent 10 year old girl was strip-searched.

In a speech in 2000, Judge Alito even endorsed a theory suggesting that independent agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which holds companies responsible for making products safe for kids, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, which stands up to corporate abusers like Enron, are unconstitutional infringements on the President's power.

With this record, how can we expect Alito to stand up to the President when he breaks the law to eavesdrop on American citizens or authorizes the torture of detainees?

Judge Alito's record on civil rights is no better. He saw no legitimate question of discrimination in allowing an all-white jury to sentence a black man to death for killing a white man. His own colleagues have criticized him for ignoring employees' rights to be free from job discrimination. Judge Alito's clear bias is to keep victims of discrimination out of the court system - and to rule in favor of corporate interests.

Nuts, isn't it?

Absolutely nuts!

And when the Democratic caucus met Wednesday to discuss the nomination, he gave an impassioned plea that the party should try to stage a filibuster even if it failed, people present said, speaking only if granted anonymity because the meeting was private. Some senators at the meeting said an unsuccessful filibuster would leave the party weakened for future battles.

...In the end the party leaders were not persuaded by Mr. Kerry's appeal.

I guess the electrifying Kerry's appeal wasn't "impassioned" enough.

Judge Alito's confirmation was looking increasingly certain Thursday. Two more Democrats, Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, said they would break party ranks to vote for confirmation.

Mr. Byrd said his constituents had told him they were "appalled" by the harsh questioning Judge Alito received from the Senate Judiciary Committee at his confirmation hearings, calling them "an outrage and a disgrace."

Byrd is running scared. With a tough election ahead, he knows he actually has to listen to his constituents on this one.

...Shortly after 7 p.m. [Thursday], Mr. Kerry issued a statement saying, "Judge Alito's confirmation would be an ideological coup on the Supreme Court."

"The president has every right to nominate Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court," Mr. Kerry said. "It's our right and our responsibility to oppose him vigorously."

A few moments later, April Boyd, a spokeswoman for Mr. Kerry, sent a postscript saying that "as things played out over the course of the day today" he had decided to fly home. "Kerry will be back in Washington tomorrow," Ms. Boyd said.

Maybe Kerry's supporters at Daily Kos and People for the American Way begged their knight in shining armor to return and report for duty.

In a way, I hope the Dems do try to filibuster Alito.

As Senator George Allen said, "My reaction is, if they move forward with such a filibuster, 'Make my day.' We will enjoy pulling the constitutional trigger to allow Judge Alito a fair up-or-down vote."

They, the People, Endorse Terror

Hamas supporters place Islamic flags at the Palestinian Legislative Council in the West Bank town of Ramallah, Thursday, Jan. 26, 2006.

Is it appropriate for nations to have diplomatic relations with a democratically elected terrorist regime, granting it legitimacy?

It is no longer a hypothetical question.

Leaders urged to accept Hamas government

The shockwaves of Hamas's victory in the Palestinian elections have been felt at the World Economic Forum (WEF) at the Swiss resort of Davos.

That's where John Kerry was hanging out when he tried to rally support to filibuster the nomination of Samuel Alito.

Small world.

At the summit of global leaders and business chiefs, the leaders of Pakistan and Afghanistan joined the Arab League in arguing that the Palestinian militant group should be given a chance.

Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf said the international community had to accept that Hamas was entitled to form a government.

"The reality is that Hamas has won," he said.

"They've been voted by the people, by the Palestinians, for the dictates of democracy have been read, and why should we deny that?

"For they've come, we should accept this reality."

Musharraf is wrong about the international community being required to accept Hamas.

The people of the Palestinian Authority will have to deal with the fact that Hamas won the election, but the rest of the world is not obligated to recognize a terrorist regime.

General Musharraf also said that taking responsibility for the development and security of the Palestinians would inevitably change Hamas.

Hamas is being urged to abandon its armed struggle as it prepares to take power.

Yeah, right.

Why would an election victory, a mandate, prompt Hamas to change its ways?

The US, Israel and Australia all say that they will not negotiate with a Hamas-led government if it continues to support terrorism.

I am completely on board with that. We do not negotiate with terrorists. Case closed.

If Hamas proceeds in employing terrorist tactics and threatening Israel and its allies, the legitimacy of the PA as a responsible member of the world community is rightly called into question.

But prominent Palestinian legislator Hanan Ashrawi says that Hamas is likely to change its approach now that it has legitimate political power.

"Clearly Hamas is going to try and be more and more direct in its political stance, it's going to be much more pragmatic," he said.

"I think it will abandon its extremist rhetoric and try to rehabilitate itself internationally."

I'll believe it when I see it.

I don't think the overwhelming victory will encourage Hamas to change. I think it will have the opposite effect. The Palestinians obviously support terrorists. The agenda of Hamas is their agenda.

I suspect Hamas will give the Palestinian people exactly what they voted for -- a terrorist government.

Earlier today Prime Minister John Howard said while there is no doubt Hamas has been democratically elected, it will have to change its ways.

"So far as Australia is concerned, we cannot have a meaningful relationship with a government that continues to support and promote suicide bombing in Israel and the destruction of the Jewish state," he said.

No kidding.

It does not follow that just because Hamas won the election that the U.S., Israel, Australia, or any other country must have diplomatic relations with the terrorist power.

Read about the Hamas reaction to Israel's withdrawal from Gaza in August 2005.

Excerpts from the Hamas victory campaign, which appear below, were translated by the Intelligence and Information Center at the Center for Special Studies (C.S.S.)

·Mahmoud al-Zahar, a senior Hamas official in the Gaza Strip, in an interview broadcast by Al-Arabiyya TV on August 17, again stated that Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip defeated by the “resistance,” not as the result of “useless negotiations.” He said that if [the Gaza Strip's] sea, land and air sovereignty were not handed over to the Palestinians, “the resistance” would continue [in the Strip as well].

·Musa Abu Marzuq, deputy chief of Hamas' political bureau, reiterated Hamas' determination not to be disarmed, stating that the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip was not the final step. He boasted of Hamas' close relations with Egypt and said that the movement was waiting for Egypt's answer to Hamas' request to open an office in Cairo (A-Sharq Il-Awsat, August 18, 2005).

·Radio Al-Aqsa, Hamas' radio station, continued broadcasting crude hate-mongering songs inciting terrorism and violence against Israel, and songs praising and encouraging members of the Izzadine al-Qassam Battalions, the terrorist-operative wing of the organization. On August 18, with the sounds of explosions in the background, an announcer stated: “We will be victorious over Sharon, and you will realize that tomorrow with the help of Allah. The Izzadine al-Qassam Battalions will make you tremble in Haifa, in Tel Aviv. They will strike you in Safed, in Acre.

"Wait for us in Jaffa, Haifa, Tel Aviv, Ashkelon. The knights of Gaza are coming. Our beloved sons of Palestine, we make no distinction between [Israeli-controlled] Palestine and [the West Bank and Gaza Strip] Palestine. There is no difference between Jaffa and Gaza, between the Galilee and Hebron. Hamas will leave Gaza and break out throughout Palestine to show the way of jihad, which will bring our nation to its summit. Oh sons of Zion, the defeat you suffered in Gaza is just the beginning…”

Hamas' Internet site presents the disengagement as a Hamas victory, stressing the importance Izzadine al-Qassam. The site offers many posters, including some which are anti-Semitic in nature, praising Hamas as a victor, portraying the IDF as humiliated and touting the continuation of the “struggle” to destroy the State of Israel.


Translation: “You will never return. We will drive you out [by force] of the belly of the earth and you will [also] disappear from the surface of the earth.” [I.e., We will force you to disappear entirely.]


That's scary. That was only five months ago. Has Hamas had an extreme makeover in the interim?

Is this what the Palestinian people are about?

How they voted reflects who they are.

They, the people, endorse terrorism.

Personally, I find that apsect of the PA's election results to be most troubling.

Israel compromises for peace, painfully withdrawing from Gaza, and how are they rewarded?

Palestinians elect a group that promotes the annihilation of Israel to become their ruling power.

That is nothing to celebrate, unless you're a terrorist or count yourself as a terrorist symathizer.

Read about Iran's reaction to the election.

Iran has congratulated the Islamist Palestinian group Hamas for its election victory and praised voters for choosing "to continue the struggle and resistance against occupation".

Hamid Reza Asefi, the foreign ministry spokesman said in a statement on Thursday faxed to journalists:"The Islamic republic of Iran congratulates Hamas and all the Palestinian soldiers and the great Islamic people."

Iran and Hamas are allies and declared in December that they represented a "united front" against Israel. "The Palestinians have voted for the resistance and have shown their loyalty," Asefi said.

"The result of these elections will reinforce the unity of the Palestinian people in defending their rights. The massive participation of the Palestinians shows their will to continue the struggle and resistance against occupation."

That is not encouraging.

Until Hamas denounces terrorism and respects the right of Israel to exist, and more importantly, verifies those pronouncements with concrete measures, we must assume that the Palestinians have chosen to be a terrorist state.

I pray that Palestinian legislator Hanan Ashrawi's prediction that "Hamas is likely to change its approach now that it has legitimate political power" is accurate.

I'm hoping for the best, but I'm not expecting it.

I think January 26, 2006 is likely to mark the addition of another spoke to the Axis of Evil.


I want to be wrong.

Update: Another Dem Blocks the Schoolhouse Door

Last Friday, I wrote about the battle over school choice in Wisconsin.

Bill Christofferson of The Xoff Files flipped out over a segment that WTMJ radio talk show host Charlie Sykes put together with Mikel Holt, Jim Gilles, and students from Messmer High School in Milwaukee.

Read the script here.

Christofferson claimed that it was illegal for Sykes to air the spot on his show. Of course, it was a ridiculous argument. He obviously was grabbing at straws, in typical lib fashion, to come up with something to get the very powerful segment off the air.

In the meantime, the spot began airing as a paid ad on a number of radio stations. (Xoff failed in his crusade to keep the spot from being heard.)

This was not the end of the controversy. The school choice opponents came up with another plan of attack, one that usually has some success. They charged racism.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

A group of African-American leaders in Milwaukee lambasted a radio advertisement Wednesday that compares Gov. Jim Doyle to two Southern governors, Orval Faubus and George Wallace, who became notorious for trying to block school desegregation in the 1950s and 1960s.

One of the authors of the ad said it has been replaced with a different version that doesn't directly mention Faubus and Wallace.

...At a news conference held Wednesday at the headquarters of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, [NAACP branch President Jerry] Hamilton said linking Doyle with Faubus and Wallace was an "awful comparison."

"The country has lived through segregated times," she said, adding that "Governor Doyle is no segregationist."

"I do not blame the students who appear in the ads," Hamilton said. "They are pawns used by cowardly people who prey upon the fears of parents."

[Mikel] Holt said he thought the ads were misunderstood.

We "never called Doyle a racist," he said. "All they said was that if he doesn't lift the cap, they will be thrown out of the program and it will have the chilling effect of his standing in the schoolhouse door. There was no maliciousness involved."

Holt added that the students "are being held hostage in this political gamesmanship."

I agree with Holt. The focus should be on the students, not the orchestrated posturing of politicians and organizations on a damage control mission.

The NAACP and others were smart to stage a news conference publicizing their outrage over what they claim was an attempt to characterize Doyle as a racist, a segregationist Dem from days of old. It deflected attention away from the real issue. Instead of talking about lifting the cap, they shifted the discussion to the victimization of poor Governor Doyle.

Certainly, it's legitimate for Doyle's supporters to point out that he is not a racist, even though the spot in its original form never claimed that he is.

What bothers me is that these African-American leaders aren't fighting for the students. Why don't they back the kids that want a chance to receive the best education available? Why not hold a news conference to draw attention to the needs of the students?

The fact is Doyle is blocking students' access to schools by not lifting the cap. In that sense, he is standing in the schoolhouse door as surely as Orval Faubus and George Wallace did.

That's not to say that I believe Doyle is racially motivated in his attempts to keep children from choosing their schools. I don't. I absolutely do not think he's intentionally trying to prevent minorities and the poor from having the same opportunities as more economically fortunate kids out of any personal racist agenda.

That may be why I never considered the ad to be an attack on Doyle's character. I don't see it as implying that he's a racist. In fact, I think it's unfair of the NAACP and the others to charge that Sykes and Holt are exploiting race in their ad.

If it's wrong to unfairly call Doyle a racist, how can it be right to unfairly say that the ad, and therefore its creators, are racist?

What the original ad does is highlight the fact that some children are not being allowed access to schools they'd like to attend. Doyle is standing in their way.

That doesn't mean that he's racist.

It means that he needs to lift the cap.

An Honest, Courageous Liberal

Joel Stein

Finally!

At long last a major Old Media outlet published an opinion piece that shreds the "I support the troops" curtain that many anti-war libs have been hiding behind.

Joel Stein's column, published in the Los Angeles Times yesterday, was a breath of fresh air.

While I despise what Stein says, I commend him for his honesty. In a very real sense, I have far more respect for Stein than for the libs claiming to support the troops while doing everything they can to undermine the war effort and the Commander-in-Chief. Of course, many of those frauds are currently serving in the U.S. House and Senate.

Stein's "Warriors and Wusses" sparked a wildfire.

According to Reuters:

Joel Stein said he has been "bombarded" by hate mail over the incendiary article -- which was headlined "Warriors and Wusses" and held that U.S. soldiers in Iraq were "ignoring their morality" -- but does not regret writing it and stands by the premise.

"I don't support what they are doing, and I don't the see point of putting a big yellow magnet on your car if you don't," Stein told Reuters in an interview. "I don't think (soldiers) are necessarily bad people. I do plenty of things that are wrong too. But I don't agree with what they are doing so I don't see the logic of supporting it."

...Stein said that, despite the fact that his e-mail address was not made public by the paper, he had received some 100 "hate e-mails" by noon.

"They're telling me to leave the country, which sounded good at first because I thought they meant a vacation. But they didn't mean a vacation," he said. The columnist said he suspected the reaction was largely fueled by the Web sites, adding: "My guess is that it will die down pretty quickly."

Stein said he had long considered the issue and that whenever a politician opposes the war but supports the troops "I just always think they are covering their ass."

Asked if he had regrets, he said: "No, because I'm against the war. (I have no regrets) if this helps us get out of that war and bring our troops home safely."

I agree with Stein. People who loudly oppose the war in Iraq, demeaning the mission and belittling progress made, while simultaneously insisting that they are proud of the troops are engaged in a CYA dance.

It is illogical. You can't have it both ways. It's not being supportive to say that the troops haven't accomplished anything of value in Iraq, nor is it supportive to say that those who were killed sacrificed their lives for Bush's lies and an ignoble cause.

Of course, having differences with the Bush Administration's War on Terror policies does not necessarily mean that one is criticizing the morality of the troops, like Stein does.

The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying.

However, it's disingenuous to say that one is proud of the troops while moaning about the damage that those same troops have done, insisting that tens of thousands of civilians have been killed to make Bush's oil buddies rich, etc.

I, for one, am glad that Stein wrote his column. He deserves credit for admitting that he believes the troops in Iraq should be held responsible for their actions, actions he fiercely opposes.

While he cuts through the Left's hypocrisy and incoherence, in the process, he reveals his own disjointedness. It's ironic that Stein intends to call out the "I support the troops" libs as fakes, yet he reveals himself to be an impostor, also in CYA mode.

Stein says:

I'm not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after the Vietnam War, but we shouldn't be celebrating people for doing something we don't think was a good idea. All I'm asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health and a safe, immediate return. But, please, no parades.

No spitting, but no parades. Got it.

Radio Blogger has the transcript of Hugh Hewitt's interview with Joel Stein this morning.

It's worth reading, very enlightening.

It brings to mind Mark Levin's quote, "Liberalism is the philosophy of the stupid."

Visit Joel Stein.com.

He has a great photo gallery.

The Dems' Defeat

In a party-line vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee recommended that the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito be sent to the full Senate for approval.

Tuesday’s session gave the Dem committee members one last chance to bloviate before going down in defeat. They seized the opportunity to make political speeches, often seeming to forget the business at hand, Judge Alito’s nomination.

The tenor of their statements on Tuesday was similar to what we heard from them last week during their questioning of Alito – snippy attacks and unfounded smears and whiny distortions.

In short, they not only showed that they lacked the decency to support an unquestionably qualified nominee; they revealed that they did not have the strength of character to risk alienating the lunatic fringe of the Democratic Party and do the right thing.

It has become increasingly clear that the lunatic fringe is now the heart and soul of the Dem Party. If Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska is the only Dem willing to vote to confirm Alito, it will cement the reality that the radical Left is in control and completely out of touch with the mainstream of the country.

Take note Red State America.

Here are a few things that the Dems on the Senate Judiciary Committee had to say about Judge Alito, the next Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

As you’ll see, they continue to disgrace themselves, their Party, and the nation.

Transcript


PATRICK LEAHY: We have a president who is prone to unilateralism and assertions of executive power that extend all the way to illegal spying on Americans. Preventing government intrusion into the privacy and freedoms of Americans is one of the hallmarks of the Supreme Court.

There is no assurance that Judge Alito will serve as an effective check and balance on government intrusion into the lives of Americans. Indeed, his record suggests otherwise.

…No president should be allowed to pack the courts, especially the Supreme Court. An overwhelmingly Democratic-controlled Senate stood up to the most popular Democrat ever elected president, Franklin Roosevelt, and we Democrats protected the independence of the Supreme Court by saying that even someone as popular as Franklin Roosevelt could not pack the Supreme Court.

Well, even today, with a Republican Senate, I would say that no president should be allow to pack the courts, and especially the Supreme Court when nominees are selected to enshrine presidential claims of government powers.

Our system was designed to ensure balance and to protect against overreaching by any branch. The Senate should not be a rubber stamp to this president's effort to move the law dramatically to the right and to give him unfettered leeway.

So I will not lend my support to an effort by this president to move the Supreme Court and the law radically to the right and to remove the final check within our democracy.

This is positively idiotic.

President Bush has had the opportunity to select two nominees for the Supreme Court, as many as Bill Clinton.

Did Clinton “pack” the Supreme Court?

This power grab stuff is a crock.


TED KENNEDY: And we have a president who claims that he has the authority to spy on persons on American soil without a court order required by law.
The record demonstrates that we cannot count on Judge Alito to blow the whistle when the president is out of bounds. He is a long- standing advocate for expanding executive power, even at the expense of core individual liberties.

…Judge Alito is highly intelligent, but his record does not show a judge who is willing to enforce the Constitution limitations on executive power when government officials intrude on individual rights.

His record does not show a judge who is open to the claims of vulnerable individuals asking only justice against powerful institutions.

His record does not show a judge who upholds the liberty and privacy of citizens seeking to protect their fundamental rights.

The record does not show a judge who'll uphold equal justice under the law.

That's why I oppose his confirmation to the Supreme Court and I hope my colleagues on the committee share these concerns and will join me.

Kennedy continues to misrepresent Judge Alito’s ability and record and integrity.

The American Bar Association unanimously designated Judge Alito as "well-qualified" to serve on the Supreme Court, its highest rating possible. According to Georgetown law professor Paul Rothstein, "They look at integrity, competence, judicial temperament. They examine all of his writings and all of his opinions."

I guess Teddy must have been at the bar when the Bar Association passed judgment on Judge Alito and endorsed him without reservation.


JOE BIDEN: I plan to vote no on the nomination of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court, and I do so for three reasons: first, his expansive view of executive power; secondly, his narrow view of the role of the Congress; and third, his grudging reading of anti-discrimination law reflecting, in my view, a lack of understanding of congressional intent and the nature of discrimination in the 21st century.

…Last week, I was thinking, as I was preparing to speak before a Martin Luther King event, like many of us, probably all of us here did in our home states, about Dr. King.

And I reread -- I reread -- his letter from the Birmingham jail, in which he laid out the following standard: He said, and I quote, "When you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact you are Negro, living constantly at tip-toe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and you are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments, when you are forever fighting the degenerating sense of nobody-ness, then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait."

We shouldn't wait. We should own up to the fact that prejudice is still around and has moved. It's not quite the prejudice of the '60s when you would say, well, we don't want any blacks here, or more descriptive terms.

Now it's more subtle. They say, we are not sure you'd fit in. New words, for old sins.

All public officials including judges in my view must understand prejudice still lurks in the shadows. And my examination of Justice Alito's record demonstrates to me that he does not look into the shadows.

In that last paragraph, Biden refers to Judge Alito as “Justice Alito.” I wonder if that’s a mistake in the transcript or Biden’s slip. Either way, Biden should get used to calling him Justice Alito.

I found Biden’s blathering extremely mean-spirited. Once again, he portrayed Judge Alito as a racist and a misogynist.

What a disgraceful performance by Biden!


HERB KOHL: After thorough examination, Mr. Chairman, I regret that I cannot support the nomination of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court.

I fear that a Justice Alito will narrow our rights, limit our freedoms and overturn decades of progress.

To confirm Judge Alito to the Supreme Court would be to gamble with our liberties, a bet I fear the Constitution and the American people would lose.

Those are extremely strong words, and extremely unfair.

The remarkably undistinguished Kohl merely parroted the wacko statements of his Dem colleagues.

When Judge Alito takes Justice O’Connor’s seat, I’m certain that “decades of progress” will not be overturned.

Simply put, Kohl is an embarrassment.


DIANNE FEINSTEIN: And I came to the conclusion that the fundamental right to liberty is at question in this nominee.

It has nothing to do with his qualifications and his credentials. But it does have something to do with how far we are willing to see this court move to the right and out of the mainstream of legal thinking in this great country.

And I, for one, really believe that there comes a time when you just have to stand up, particularly when you know the majority of people think as you do.

And I truly believe that. I really believe the majority of people in America believe that a woman should have certain rights of privacy; modified by the state, but certain rights of privacy. And if you know this person is not going to respect those rights but holds to a different theory, then you have to stand up.

Feinstein believes that the “fundamental right to liberty” will be in danger if, I mean WHEN, Judge Alito becomes a Supreme Court Justice.

I don’t buy that. I don’t think she really believes that to be the case either. She’s simply playing politics and trying to placate the base. You’d have to be a paranoid freak to think that Judge Alito’s presence on the Court will mean the end of liberty for Americans.

Who knows? Maybe Feinstein is a paranoid freak.

I don’t think that’s so. I think Feinstein is pretending to be taking a principled stand when in reality she’s following her marching orders from the very vocal radical Left.


RUSS FEINGOLD: I do want to say what a distinguished legal career the judge has had and how much I enjoyed getting to know him and learning about him, but I do have grave concerns.

I have grave concerns about how this nominee would rule in cases involving the application of the Bill of Rights in time of war.

...Confronted with an executive branch that has jealously claimed every possible authority that it can and then some, the Supreme Court must continue to assert its constitutional role as a critical check on executive power.

Just how critical that check is has been made clear over the past few weeks, as Americans have learned that the president thinks his executive power permits him to violate explicit criminal statutes by spying on Americans without a court order.

With the executive and the legislature at loggerheads, we may well need, Mr. Chairman, the Supreme Court to have the final word on this matter. In times of constitutional crisis, the Supreme Court can tell the executive it has gone too far and require it to the obey the law.

Yet, Judge Alito's record and testimony strongly suggest that he would do what he has done for much of his 15 years on the bench: defer to the executive branch in case after case at the expense of individual rights.

...Judge Alito's record and his testimony have led me to conclude that that his impulse to defer to the executive branch would make him a dangerous addition to the Supreme Court at a time when cases involving executive overreaching in the name of fighting terrorism are likely to be such an important part of the court's work.

Once again, Feingold used the TELEVISED Alito confirmation hearings as free air time for his 2008 presidential campaign.

Judge Alito is "dangerous." Very dramatic!

Feingold came very close to going completely over the top, sounding like another Senator from Wisconsin, Joe McCarthy.

He characterized Judge Alito as a menace, a threat to our freedom and the very foundation of our democracy. He depicted Judge Alito as a willing soldier, ready to take up arms in President Bush's war against the liberties of American citizens.

Blah, blah, blah.

There's no need for Feingold to use such scare tactics. He should recognize that this domestic spying stuff is not resonating with the American people.

With all of these statements on the record, it's going to be very difficult for him to appear tough on terror when he's out on the campaign trail. Feingold would be wise to take it down a notch.

After Feingold spoke, Lindsey Graham took his turn.

Graham said, "As to who [Judge Alito] is and whether or not he's too deferential to the government, after listening to Senator Feingold, it's amazing he would even be considered for nomination.

"He should be under house arrest."

Appropriately, that was met with laughter.

Well said, Senator Graham.


CHUCK SCHUMER: When what the law requires is that Judge Alito exercise his discretion whether to overrule a precedent protective of personal autonomy, whether to uphold the dismissal of a civil rights claim or whether to defer to the judgment of the legislature, he too often sails out of the mainstream.

So in light of his refusal to explain his views on particular constitutional questions at the hearings, we must examine his written record even more closely. And that examination tells us that in case after case, on issue after issue, especially when left to his discretion and especially when there is any plausible legal wiggle room, Judge Alito is a judicial outlier who stands well out of the mainstream. The evidence is simply overwhelming.

...He has stood alone at the edge of the judicial mainstream in too many important cases and on too many important issues.

Taken together, these cases paint an unmistakable portrait in the area of sex discrimination law, in the area of civil rights law, in the area of presidential power, in the area of congressional authority, in the area of criminal law enforcement. And, of course, when it comes to a woman's right to choose, Judge Alito has shown himself to be outside the mainstream.

...In the end, Mr. Chairman, given Judge Alito's refusal to answer many important questions, given that he's out of the mainstream on too many issues and would move the country backward, and given that pledges to follow precedent provide little consolation both in the records of others who have come before this committee and Judge Alito's record in the 3rd Circuit, I have no choice but to vote nay and urge my colleagues to do the same.

BORING!

Schumer's comments were just more of the same rot offered by the other Dems. Like the others, Schumer was appeasing the wacko fringe of the Party by calling Alito a racist and misogynist.


DICK DURBIN: As we read [a memo he had written in 1985 in application for a job with the Department of Justice], it confirmed suspicions and fears on our side of why the same groups that condemned and excoriated Harriet Miers had embraced Sam Alito.

The views which he expressed in that memo were not views that evidenced an open mind. They evidenced a closed mind.

To refer to the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, which Judge Alito did not recollect when he came before us, was clearly to feed raw meat to the Reagan administration who loved the agenda of this fringe organization dedicated to keeping women and minorities out of Princeton University.

When you walk through the statements made by Judge Alito in that memorandum, they were troubling and unsettling. To think that he would take these same views to the Supreme Court and follow them mean that many of the things we assume in America would change.

...Does that reflect the caring heart that we're looking for in a person who is supposed to bring wisdom to the Supreme Court? Is it any wonder that many of us wonder what will happen over 20 or 30 years if Sam Alito is the deciding vote on the United States Supreme Court?

When it comes to fundamental questions as to whether this government will go too far to pry into our personal lives and infringe on our freedoms, whether this country is going to move forward or backward on issues of civil rights and women's rights, whether he will side with special interest or the poor, the dispossessed and those who have to fight their way into our court system for an opportunity for justice?

These are legitimate concerns and questions I have in my mind. They have drawn me to the conclusion that he is not the right person for the Supreme Court at this time.

Durbin described Judge Alito as an enemy of America and everything we value as Americans.

According to Durbin, Judge Alito's sole purpose in life is to destroy the Constitution. He intends to do all he can to trample on the rights of individuals because he hates minorities, women, and the poor. He lacks a "caring heart." Judge Alito's goal is to give more power to President Bush so he can turn the United States into Nazi Germany.

I really don't know how these Dem Senators could face Judge Alito and say such things to him.

The Dems didn't lay out any legitimate concerns regarding Judge Alito's qualifications. Zero. It was all speculation about his position on issues and how he would rule. It was about sliming a good man in the name of self-promotion and scoring political points and the strategy of advancing a liberal agenda through judicial fiat.

In sum, their arguments against Judge Alito were self-serving. Their personal smears were shameful. Absolutely shameful.

At the end of the day, the flogging of this man by the Dems was completely ineffectual, a disgusting exercise in futility.

Of course, the Dems are the real losers here; but in a way, I think that the hearings also have shown how much we all have lost as a result of the hate and rabid partisanship that permeates the political scene.

The lack of civility and respect exhibited by the Dems was stunning. It was depressing to witness. I truly believe that their behavior at these hearings served to diminish us as a nation.

I kept wondering, "Isn't America better than this?"

I know it is. It's far better than the Senate Judiciary Committee Dems. America is still a place that values character and honor and integrity.

The fact that Judge Alito will soon be sworn in as a Supreme Court Justice proves that.

CERTIFIABLY INSANE

Kenneth R. Timmerman paints a frightening picture in "Iranian President Sees End of World Order."

Of course, we know that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the definition of an extremist. His inexcusable statements regarding Israel, his brashness, his defiance, and his refusal to negotiate in good faith with world leaders about Iran's nuclear programs cause one to arrive at the singular conclusion that the man is a serious threat to our safety and security.

Timmerman reveals that Ahmadinejad is even crazier than his recent statements indicate.

Read Timmerman's article.

(Excerpt)

On Dec. 16, gunmen opened fire on the motorcade of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as he toured the southeastern province of Sistan, along Iran's border with Pakistan.

According to news reports, Ahmadinejad's personal bodyguard and driver were killed in the ambush, although the president was unhurt. The government-controlled media in Tehran attributed the attack to "bandits," a term used to denote a wide range of armed groups, from drug dealers to opposition guerrillas.

How did Ahmadinejad manage to escape injury or death due to the bandits' attack?

Fate can be so cruel.

But in this case, the attack may have been part of a plot to remove the Iranian president by a faction within the ruling clergy. At least, so believes a Western source who has just returned from talks with top officials in Tehran.

The faction seeking to remove Ahmadinejad does not object to the substance of the Iranian president's repeated vows to "wipe Israel from the map" and destroy America. Nor do they believe Iran should abandon its secret nuclear weapons program, top Iranian government officials said, according to the source.

What radical Iranian in good standing would object to Ahmadinejad's promise to wipe Israel off the map, destroy the U.S., and amass a nuclear arsenal?

Rather, they object to the fact that he has made such comments openly and without ambiguity. They believe that his frankness dangerously exposes them to attack from the United States, Israel or both.

Don't ask. Don't tell.

"This guy is not a politician," the source quoted one top Iranian official as saying. "He is certifiably insane. And he is obsessed with the Imam Zaman," the legendary 12th imam, or Imam Mahdi, whom many Shiite Muslims believe will return in the "end times" after a period of horrific battles, famine and pestilence.

It's not good when the country's president is considered "certifiably insane" by a top official. Then again, maybe being insane is a quality that many Iranians look for in a good leader. They do tend to affix themselves to nutjobs.

Seeking insane leaders is not a pattern evident only in Iran or the Middle East. God knows we have plenty of elected officials in Washington, and the U.S. in general, that I would categorize as certifiable.

Extremism is a global plague.

Americans may find it curious that government officials in Tehran, who have actively supported the Islamic republic for years, object to Ahmadinejad's religious zealotry. After all, this comes in a regime whose constitution declares that the supreme leader is God's representative on earth whose edicts can not be challenged by elected representatives.

But for more than two decades, Iranian leaders such as former President Hashemi Rafsanjani have walked a fine line between openly defying the United States and conducting covert aggression through terrorists and sophisticated intelligence operations. Under Ahmadinejad, these officials believe, that fine line has been crossed.

The fine line hasn't just been crossed. It's been erased altogether.

Former CIA operations officer Reuel Marc Gerecht believes, "The only way Iran is going to get better is for it to get a lot worse -- and Ahmadinejad may just possibly be the man to galvanize a broad-based opposition to the regime."

Yes, if one is looking for an insane leader to rally more moderate Iranians against the current regime, Ahmadinejad is definitely the guy.

It scares me to think of Iran sinking any further, and conditions becoming worse than they are right now.

That aside, I think a regime change is definitely in order. Ahmadinejad presents a grave danger to world stability, even as unstable as that stability currently is.

Remember when John Kerry was calling for regime change in Iraq and the U.S.?

On April 2, 2003, Kerry said in a speech to New Hampshire Democrats at the Peterborough, N.H., Town Library, "What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States."

We know John Kerry is still calling for Bush to be ousted; but I wonder if he thinks Ahmadinejad should go, too.

Does he consider the "certifiably insane" Iranian president as great a threat to America as President Bush?

Who knows? It's hard to say with these libs, especially Kerry. My guess is he'd say yes and no.