Our Leftist Supreme Court

High court throws out Gitmo tribunal-Nation/Politics-The Washington Times: "President Bush was dealt a legal setback in his wartime powers yesterday when the Supreme Court said in a 5-3 decision that he lacked authority to try prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba before a specially created military tribunal.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, said a pending military tribunal for Yemeni national Salim Ahmed Hamdan, chauffeur to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, could not proceed because its structure and procedures violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice and four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949."

I won't get into why this Supreme Court decision was a disaster for all Americans.

This court has again proven that it leans left, and this presents a dilemma for me. I don't know whether I want the court more conservative or not.

I want the court more conservative because of decisions like this, which make the United States fight dangerous wars with its hands tied behind its back. I want it more conservative to ensure our freedom and liberty, and survival as a nation. I want it more conservative to preserve our language and culture, and protect us from reverse racism. I want it more conservative to protect our borders and battle illegal immigration.

On the other hand, I want to keep the court liberal to preserve Roe vs. Wade, to ensure freedom of the press with regard to adult entertainment and other matters, and to keep the government out of our bedrooms and private lives.

Since I feel obligated to make a decision, I choose to want a more conservative court. National defense and reverse racism etc. are my most important concerns.

Israel Knows How to Wage War

Israelis Batter Gaza and Seize Hamas Officials - New York Times: "In the West Bank city of Ramallah early on Thursday, Israeli forces detained 8 ministers of the 24-member Hamas-led cabinet and 20 lawmakers, including Deputy Prime Minister Nasser Shaer and Labor Minister Mohammed Barghouti, security officials said."

The Israeli's in recent years have found ways to reduce the number of terrorist attacks on them. The fence they've built has been an enormous help. However, when a person is willing to give up his life to take yours, you will not stop him all the time.

Israel has done most of what liberals would want them to do. They've given up territory and settlements. Yet, Hamas still attacks. This time Hamas tried a new tactic, taking a hostage.

Israel's response has been amazing. They may not get their hostage back, but no one can say they didn't try with all their might. Plus, they've been so ruthless that the Palestinians might think twice before pulling another stunt like this. The ordinary Palestinian folk will not like being in the dark with their food rotting in refrigerators that don't work.

Look at the way Israel wages war. They invade with overwhelming force, take out the power grid, and capture government officials. Compare that with the politically correct way we wage war in Iraq. We are careful not to be too mean. We want to win the enemies’ hearts and minds. Just like in Vietnam. Our generals are not waging this war—rather, the politicians are. The result? We fail to win the enemies’ hearts and minds, and we continue to get clobbered in the field.

What would Truman do in Iraq? In insurgent areas, he’d take out a power grid or two.

Look to the Israeli’s. They’ve got the ticket. They are the world’s foremost expert now in dealing with terrorism, and in how to wage a war. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, take off the gloves and win the war.

The Noise of Flag Desecration

Senate Rejects Flag Desecration Amendment (Washington Post)

I kind of resent what George Bush and the Republican Party are doing at this time. They are playing to their base in enough ways to stave off major losses in the 2006 elections. Of course, this is what politicians do. What bothers me is that Mr. Bush and friends are ignoring what his base really cares about—the immigration issue. Yes, there are enough Republicans who care about flag-burning to make a difference. So, it's shrewd to make some noise about it. But that is all it is, noise.

Most Americans don't worry that the flag-burning amendment didn't pass. Sure, people don't want the flag burned, and some are emotional about it. Americans are far more passionate, though, about immigration. Some estimates are that up to 20 million immigrants, or even more, will flood our country in the next twenty years. This will change the demographics, politics, language, values and quality of life for all of us. There is a great danger that we will be creating a permanent underclass.

Say what you will about George Bush's IQ, he's politically astute. He'll probably help the Republicans do better than predicted in the coming elections. Iraq is turning around. The economy is humming. Plus, he'll get away with ignoring the hot-button immigration concern by making a lot of noise on other base issues, like flag-burning.

Getting Elected Versus Conviction

Washington Times Insider Politics Blog: "Not too long ago Mrs. Clinton's husband (and chief political adviser), Bill Clinton, told the liberal American Prospect magazine that the trick to uniting the left wing and centrist camp of the party was a balancing act in which you could not afford to alienate either side. But Mrs. Clinton did just that a couple of weeks ago when she told a liberal, heavily anti-war conference of Democrats that it was not smart strategy to set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. military forces in Iraq, eliciting boos and enflaming her party's antiwar forces."

Now, Hillary is backpedaling. The well-known strategy for getting elected is play to your base before the primaries, then move to the center for the election.

Politicians are always doing a balancing act. Bill Clinton was a master at it. George Bush is tough on terrorists and friendly to business, but accommodating to illegal immigrants. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger leans so far left that he's going to tip over soon. I guess you have to do this to get elected.

On the other hand, where is the conviction? Can a politician stay true to her principles? Harry Truman is now considered to have been a great president. Yet, at the end of his last term he couldn't have been elected dogcatcher. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, on the other hand, seemed to have conviction and popularity. How did he get away with it?

I believe the answer is leadership. George Bush has conviction on the issue of the war in Iraq. He believes that this is a just war that will make America safer. He is opposed by a majority of Americans on this matter, yet he stays the course. This is one reason, I believe, that history will one day judge him as a great president.

Contrast this with Hillary, and John Kerry, who speak out of both sides of their mouths. I don't sense from them that they care about America. I don't sense that they care about the troops. They just want to get elected.

Why Our System Works and Theirs Doesn't

How do Mexicans who were on the brink of starvation now find themselves middle-class homeowners in the U.S.? How can poor Cubans migrate to Florida and own thriving businesses? The difference between poverty and economic success is often a move of less than 100 miles.


To the contrary, why can't Afghanistan get its economy going? Or Iraq? Or Peru?

One answer to all this, besides the very simple answer of capitalism, is CORRUPTION. Despite our Enron, Tom Delay, WorldCom, Martha Stewart et al fiascoes, America has comparatively little corruption. The rule of law prevails. Ken Lay goes to prison. Tom Delay is forced to step down. Martha Stewart bakes cookies for the inmates.This doesn't happen in Mexico, or Iraq, or Peru. In Mexico, you have to worry about the judges, the police, and the politicians, as much as you worry about the street thugs. See Afghan Leader Losing Support.

One thing I worry about, with all this illegal immigration from a non-functioning Third World country, is the gradual introduction of more corruption into our system that may someday reach a tipping point.

Amnesty for Iraqi Insurgents?

See one article about this issue, Washington Post on Amnesty Deal.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki outlines a limited amnesty as part of a national reconciliation plan he intends to release within days. (Pool - Getty Images)

I think about Abraham Lincoln who declared a blanket amnesty in the Civil War for a wide swath of rebels. Many Northerners were furious with him about this. Yet, it turned out to be wise, as our country eventually became one again. The situation in Iraq is a bit different, in that some insurgents have deliberately killed civilians, and have tortured prisoners and mutilated their bodies. A Lincolnesque gesture might not be appropriate in these circumstances. Still, I believe that the most important thought to keep central is "What will bring peace to the Iraqi's and unite their country?" Only people who understand their culture can answer this question. Undoubtedly they need a Lincoln at this time. Whether this kind of man exists is one question. What Lincoln himself would do today in Iraq is another. The final answer is, the Iraqi's must decide, and we must live with their decision.

P.S. I found this today, (Wed 6/28/06), which is a partial answer to the above post:

Iraq rules out amnesty for those who kill, QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA
Associated Press

Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

I'm starting small with this post, just saying that Bill O'Reilly spins and Bill Maher is politically correct.

O'Reilly avoids spin mostly when he stays on the conservative side, but Maher is almost always politically correct. O'Reilly's bashing of the oil companies is demagoguery at its worst. My liberal friends love Maher because he chants the mantras of the liberal religion.

Not that I agree with Republicans. I am a conservative, and Republicans are not, at this time.

Here are my heroes: Michael Savage, Larry Elder, Dennis Prager, John F. Kennedy. These people come as close to the truth as I've seen in the public arena.

If Democrats could get back to Kennedy liberalism, I could respect them. I might not agree with them, but I'd respect them.

Edward Kennedy, on the other hand, is a disgrace to the human race.

I want it noted that I am not Christian Right. I want government out of the bedroom and out of our personal lives.

The war in Iraq is justified, and even ingenious. It's the first action in the Middle East to shake things up in years. It has exposed the barbarity of a whole segment of the world's population. It really does pit good versus evil.

Immigration without assimilation will change America into a third world country.

Now you get the idea.