Understanding Conservatives

“Had to do some work people. Don't worry I am back. So what are we protesting now? Do you people work? By the way I can just imagine the jobs you work at.”

“Someone wanted a Big Mac huh UU?”

“LMAO; Did they want fries with that?”

“Ynam and Geo I know you think your jobs are important. Someone has to clean the porn booths. You should stop surfing and get mopping!”

“been peeping again UU?”

“you'll go blind you know”

“It that what your mom tells you?”

“Seems like you've got it all worked out in your mind, UU. Would that be a correct statement?”

“"Oh, and Phil:

Ssshhhhhh!"
Phaedrus
09:05:13 AM
07/25/03

Nice retort! You got me there!

From DennisPrager.com:

Are You a Liberal?

It is my belief that about half of the Americans who call themselves liberal do not hold the great majority of positions held by mainstream liberal institutions such as the New York Times editorial page, People for the American Way, and the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. So here is a test of this thesis to be given to anyone who believes he or she is a liberal. If you feel I have omitted a liberal position or have unfairly characterized any of them here, please e-mail me. This is still a work in progress.

Thank you,

Dennis Prager

You say you are a liberal.

Do you believe the following?

1. Standards for admissions to universities, fire departments, etc. should be lowered for people of color.

2. Bilingual education for children of immigrants, rather than immersion in English, is good for them and for America.

3. Murderers should never be put to death.

4. During the Cold War, America should have adopted a nuclear arms freeze.

5. Colleges should not allow ROTC programs.

6. It was wrong to wage war against Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War.

7. Poor parents should not be allowed to have vouchers to send their children to private schools.

8. It is good that trial lawyers and teachers unions are the two biggest contributors to the Democratic Party.

9. Marriage should be redefined from male-female to any two people.

10. A married couple should not have more of a right to adopt a child than two men or two women.

11. The Boy Scouts should not be allowed to use parks or any other public places and should be prohibited from using churches and synagogues for their meetings.

12. The present high tax rates are good.

13. Speech codes on college campuses are good and American values.

14. The Israelis and Palestinians are morally equivalent.

15. The United Nations is a moral force for good in the world, and therefore America should be subservient to it and such international institutions as a world court.

16. It is good that colleges have dropped hundreds of men's sports teams in order to meet gender-based quotas.

17. No abortions can be labeled immoral.

18. Restaurants should be prohibited by law from allowing customers to choose between a smoking and a non-smoking section.

19. High schools should make condoms available to students and teach them how to use them.

20. Racial profiling for terrorists is wrong -- a white American grandmother should as likely be searched as a Saudi young male.

21. Racism and poverty -- not a lack of fathers and a crisis of values -- are the primary causes of violent crime in the inner city.

22. It is wrong and unconstitutional for students to be told, "God bless you" at their graduation.

23. No culture is morally superior to any other.

Those are all liberal positions. How many of them do you hold?”

“Yes to many of them.”

“I hold a few of them Phil, but the terminology used is a little bit provocative, almost as if they're looking to avoid people defining themselves as liberal.
Use of the word "subserviant" in relation to the UN is a good example.”

“The loaded questions and use of words like 'never' show that the writer is big on dogmatism and has a low intolerance for ambiguity. Like the article says, conservatives practice uncertainty avoidance.


What Phil's post has to do with any underlying motivation for 'liberal' thought escapes me.”

“Retort, hell!

I was trying to get you to keep quiet so you didn't ruin my fun.

Party pooper!

And your post looks like almost as biased a source as violin's.”

“Really Phil. No fair injecting reason into a TT political thread.”

“So which ones do you believe in?”

“LOL!

Dennis Prager's test has nothing to do with liberal ideology or motivation. He based it only on liberal positions he has dealt with over the years. He invites liberals to discuss things with him on his radio show (both as guests and callers). That is where some of these came from.”

“Most of those cannot be properly addressed with a 'yes' or 'no'. Just glancing at it I see 3 or 4 that make faulty assumptions. It reminds me of some flakey polling questions and how important it is to have questions phrased in a completely neutral fashion if the results are to be trusted.

That being said, I do disagree with quite a few of them. This reinforces my perception that I haven't moved to the Left so much as the Republican party has moved further Right in the last 15 or 20 years.”

“Which ones do you agree with and which ones do you disagree with?”

“1. Standards for admissions to universities, fire departments, etc. should be lowered for people of color.

Loaded question, but yes.

2. Bilingual education for children of immigrants, rather than immersion in English, is good for them and for America.

Yes.

3. Murderers should never be put to death.

The government should not kill its citizens under and circumstances.

4. During the Cold War, America should have adopted a nuclear arms freeze.

Stupid. Of course not.

5. Colleges should not allow ROTC programs.

Of course they should ALLOW them. Funding them is another matter.

6. It was wrong to wage war against Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War.

Gulf war 1 - no. He invaded another nation. Gulf war 2 - Well, you know my opinion on that.

7. Poor parents should not be allowed to have vouchers to send their children to private schools.

It's a much more complex issue than that, of course. I support vouchers in principal, but I don't support the budget education cuts that conservatives always seem to interlace them with.

8. It is good that trial lawyers and teachers unions are the two biggest contributors to the Democratic Party.

Pfft. Who cares? Republicans are owned by special interests as well, I'm for campaign finance reform to the tune of a central fund for campaigning.

9. Marriage should be redefined from male-female to any two people.

Yes.

10. A married couple should not have more of a right to adopt a child than two men or two women.

Case by case basis. Oversimplification.

11. The Boy Scouts should not be allowed to use parks or any other public places and should be prohibited from using churches and synagogues for their meetings.

What?

12. The present high tax rates are good.

No, we should increase taxes on the upper 5% of income.

13. Speech codes on college campuses are good and American values.

No speech code is good.

14. The Israelis and Palestinians are morally equivalent.

Not even close.

15. The United Nations is a moral force for good in the world, and therefore America should be subservient to it and such international institutions as a world court.

Rule of law, once agreed to, should be followed.

16. It is good that colleges have dropped hundreds of men's sports teams in order to meet gender-based quotas.

No, it is not good they were dropped. The opportunities for women that equal funding created is good.

17. No abortions can be labeled immoral.

Not true, but all abortions cannot be labelled immoral.

18. Restaurants should be prohibited by law from allowing customers to choose between a smoking and a non-smoking section.

I could care less, as long as I don't have to smell it.

19. High schools should make condoms available to students and teach them how to use them.

Yes.

20. Racial profiling for terrorists is wrong -- a white American grandmother should as likely be searched as a Saudi young male.

Saudi is not a race. The question is ridiculous.

21. Racism and poverty -- not a lack of fathers and a crisis of values -- are the primary causes of violent crime in the inner city.

Another oversimplification. Many factors go into the cause of the problem. Both of the issues above are included.

22. It is wrong and unconstitutional for students to be told, "God bless you" at their graduation.

By whom?

23. No culture is morally superior to any other.

Not my personal belief, but I do believe we have to treat cultures equally under the law in order to have a rule of law that is not intrinsically unfair.”

“This just in.............

Researchers help define what makes a political Liberal

By Hugh Jim Bissile| 22 July 2003

BESERKLEY, PRC – Politically liberal agendas may range from blaming America first to trampling on traditional moral and religious values to wishing they could pay more for welfare. But are there consistent underlying motivations?

Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of liberalism report that at the core of political liberalism is the resistance to common sense and an intolerance for equality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political liberalism include:

*Pacifism and appeasement
*Intolerance of white heterosexual males
*Responsibility avoidance
*Need for causes to protest
*Wishing someone would do something about the problems

"From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of liberal ideological contents, either independently or in combination," the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Liberalism as Motivated Social Bull#&%!$," recently published in an obscure bulletin that no one has ever heard of before.


The avoidance of responsibility, for example, as well as the need for causes to protest, are particularly tied to one key dimension of liberal thought – and that thought would indeed be listed here by the researchers if liberals were indeed capable of thought, instead of just knee jerk reactions.

The pacifism and appeasement feature of liberalism can be seen in post-Sept. 11 America, where many people appear to accept and even reward terrorists and those who threaten the “can’t we all just get along” views, they wrote.

Intolerance of white heterosexual males, likewise, can be linked to a second key dimension of liberalism - an endorsement of inequality, a view reflected in the U oF M Law School, the US Postal Service and the liberal, segregationist politics of the Sen. Hillary Clinton (B-N.Y.) (B=B!tch)

Desperate liberals share responsibility avoidance, the authors said. Pol Pot, Stalin, and former President William Clinton were individuals, but all were left-wing whackos because they preached a return to an idealized past and did not accept responsibility in any form. Drunkard Ted Kennedy can be described the same way.

This research marks the first synthesis of a vast amount of information about liberalism, and the result is an "elegant and unifying explanation" for political liberalism under the rubric of motivated social cognition, said Skully. That entails the tendency of people's attitudinal preferences on policy matters to be explained by individual needs based on personality, social interests or existential needs.

The researchers' analytical methods allowed them to determine the effects for each class of factors and revealed "more pluralistic and nuanced understanding of the source of liberalism," Skully said.

While most avoid responsibility, Goober said, conservatives appear to accept responsibility and have a higher morals than liberals do.

As for liberals' penchant for being intolerant of white heterosexual males, he said, one contemporary example is liberals' general endorsement of extending rights and liberties to disadvantaged minorities such as gays and lesbians, compared to conservatives' opposing position even though one would never know if someone was gay or lesbian except for that the fact that they feel the need to tell everyone about it and march in annual Sodomite parades.

The researchers said that liberal ideologies, like virtually all belief systems, develop in part because they satisfy some psychological needs, but that "does mean that liberalism is pathological and that conservative beliefs are necessarily true, rational, or principled."

They also stressed that their findings are not judgmental.


This need for causes to protest can lead people to cling to signs, to arrive at premature ejaculations, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes, the researchers advised.

The latest debate about the possibility that the Bush administration ignored intelligence information that discounted reports of Iraq buying nuclear material from Africa may be linked to the liberal need for pacifism and appeasement or the wish that someone else would do something about the problem, said Goober.


Although they concluded that liberal are less "likely to live in the real world" than others are, Goober said, "it doesn't mean that they're less likely to understand big words."

Liberals don't feel the need to examine the facts, or use common sense in order to understand or justify some of their positions, he said. "They are more comfortable with being all touchy feely and using their emotions in ways that would make conservatives squirm," Goober said.

He pointed as an example to a 1998 trip to the Mustang Ranch, where President William J. Clinton was asked to explain himself. The Democrat president told assembled world leaders, "I know what I believe and I believe that I’m going in there just to look around at the decorum." And in 1999, Clinton told a British reporter, "Look, my job isn't to nuance, it is to get nooky.""”

“LOL! Beautiful!”

“Thanks! Now do you still support your earlier assertions that their report is science?”

“Oh, relax, savage. Phil already spilled the beans on this thread.

Now let's get back to some good ole bashing.”

“Ask Michael Weiner-Savage. He's 'into' Anthropology, isn't he?

"*Intolerance of white heterosexual males," indeed, LOL”

“Ask him what Tilty? Why Liberalism isn't a political philosophy but rather a mental disorder?”

“DERIVATION OF LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES
The division of the human family into its two distinct branches, liberals and conservatives, occurred some 20,000 years ago. Until then all humans coexisted as members of small bands of nomadic hunter/gatherers.

A thousand generations ago, in the pivotal event of societal evolution, beer was invented. This epochal innovation was both the foundation of modern civilization and the occasion of the great bifurcation of humanity into its two distinct subgroups.

Once beer was discovered, our prehistoric forebears decided it was time to settle down. Making beer required grain, and securing a steady supply of it ordained the invention of agriculture.

After that was accomplished, ancient man quickly, and unfairly, consigned
actual cultivation to women. Men couldn't just run off, willy-nilly, however. Neither the glass bottle nor the aluminum can had yet been invented, so it was necessary to stick pretty close to home and the brewery.

This left our male ancestors with a lot of time on their hands, and led to the division of the species, which persists to this day.

Some men tried to conserve remnants of the old way of life (hence the term "conservative") by spending their days in the open field in the dangerous
pursuit of big game animals. At night they would roast their prey at a big barbecue, and afterwards sat around the fire drinking beer, passing wind, and telling off-color jokes.

Other, more timid, souls stayed closer to home. They are responsible for the domestication of cats and the invention of group therapy. Mostly, they
sat around worrying about how life wasn't fair and concocting elaborate schemes to "liberate" themselves from inequity (thus their designation as "liberals"). In the evening, they gathered around their fire, nibbling on
fruit and nuts, sharing their innermost feelings. Today some liberals try to pretend they're really sort of conservative, and sometimes succeed in confusing people.

The following are a few tips to use in distinguishing the two types.

By definition liberals believe in big government and high taxes. Life is unfair and the government is there to do something about it. They believe that most people are too stupid to spend untaxed income wisely and high taxes
allow liberals in government to do a better job of it.

Conservatives don't like government, and, aside from the military, wish it would just go away. They hate taxes, regulations, speed limits, and small cars. Typical conservatives are Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, and up there with the Big Man in the Sky, the incomparable John
Wayne.

Typical liberals are Dustin Hoffman, Shirley McLaine, Pee Wee Herman, Martin Sheen, Sean Penn, Barbra Streisand, Ted Turner, and his former wife, the traitor-#&%!$ Jane Fonda.

All conservatives drink beer. American beer.

Some liberals like imported beer (they add lime to some for "taste"), but most prefer white wine or foreign water from a bottle. Liberals like to drive Volvos and Saabs because they're made in socialist Sweden. They
like to eat weird food because it's un-American.

Your basic conservative vehicle, especially in Alaska, is theChevy
Suburban. It's big, it's American, it's four-wheel drive, and it sucks up the gas. Conservatives eat beef, which they (surprise!) like to barbecue. Big game hunters are conservative.

Interior decorators are liberal. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule in baseball because it wasn't "fair" to make the poor pitcher take his turn at bat.

Conservatives, inspired by a remark of the legendary Pittsburgh Steeler's linebacker Jack Lambert, believe quarterbacks should be required to wear skirts, so they can more easily be distinguished from real football players. James Brown and Ray Charles are conservatives.

Michael Jackson and Milli Vanilli are liberals. Most social workers, personal injury lawyers, journalists, and group therapists are liberals.

Most ranchers, loggers, professional soldiers, and steeplejacks are conservatives.

Liberal jurors distrust the prosecutors and police.

Conservatives figure the defendant must be guilty or he wouldn't be on trial. Most conservatives not only believe in the death penalty, they
would cheerfully implement it, personally, if called upon to do so.

Liberals think capital punishment is a barbaric relic, and unfair to boot. Liberals believe Europeans are, generally speaking, far more enlightened
than Americans.

Conservatives think Europeans are basically decadent, as evidenced by their complete absence in wars. Typical conservative movies are "Raising Arizona," "Patton," and "Conan the Barbarian."

Typical liberal movies are "Prince of Tides," "Last Tango in Paris," and "The Big Chill."

The quintessential liberal is the handicapper, the person who decides how much extra weight to saddle the faster horses with in order to make the race "fair."

The American cowboy, of course, is your basic, full bore conservative. A hundred years ago an Englishman in South Dakota was trying to find the owner of a huge cattle ranch. He rode up to one of the ranch hands and
asked, "Excuse me, but could you tell me where to find your Master?" To which the cowboy replied, "That sum#&%!$ ain't been born yet."”

“"Ask him what Tilty? Why Liberalism isn't a political philosophy but rather a mental disorder?"

Savage


You might ask him what the statute of limitations is on Child Endangerment and Sexual Battery on a Child. I'll bet he knows.”

“That was less than spectacular, FG.”

“Gosh Phaedrus, your disapproval is devastating...”

“I'm positive you can be funnier if you try.

Think Dennis Miller.”

“He's funny???”

“In comparison!














GOTCHA!”

“Never have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.”

“I really don't know about the way liberal is being used. The remark about the lack of liberal facts is quite funny, as all that ever seems to come up from "conservatives" is someone saying "liberal" and then a bunch of people giggling in a Bevis and Butthead kind of way. Oh and I almost forgot, some photoshopped pictures.

There seems to be some sort of organized "anti-liberal" negative campaign out there. Ok you hear the word neo-con now and again, but fairly rarely - yet time and again you hear the words liberal this and liberal that. Are you part of the GOP spin? Or are you just listening to Rush and repeating his ill-considered words.

The people who would appear to be "liberal" on this site seem to make an of effort to produce some sort of argument on each particular issue. Those of a right wing perspective just make some stupid remark about Liberals and start humming the Star Spangled Banner.

Is there so little merit to the Conservative cause and the policies being presued that all they can deal with is the politics of fear and negativity? - Lets scare the hell out of people, go to war, tell them libs are stupid, and even go so far as to call them anti-American for failing to blindly support a President they believe is doing harm to the country, placing the people at risk and threatening the planet we live on?

Surely there must be more to Conservatism than this - everything I've heard on here would indicate not.”

“I would ask you not to disparage Beavis and Butthead like that.”

“Another Pommie on this side on the pond trying to tell us how to run our country. Hark, I her the Queen calling you back for service.”

“More negativity I see Savage, you illustrate the points well. And I live on this side of the pond now "mate".”

“maybe I'll even read what you say next time. So unless I agree with you I should leave the country then Savage?”

“Great! We don't have enough libs, now we have to import them. Well, I guess when you are used to driving on the left, that's where you are in the political spectrum!

Cheerio Mate and Ta Ta!”

“So there isn't any more to your views than that Savage? You're the perfect little Guinea Pig aren't you?”

“"Never have a battle of wits with an unarmed person."
chili36
05:01:33 PM
07/25/03

You are, of course, correct chili. I appologise for taking advantage...”

“People with genuine wit, Father Goose, know how to spell apologize.


Ynami, you'll notice that I attempted to gather true conservative thought on the merits of the Bush admin today by posting an article of george will's. I was met with an enthusiastic silence.”

“My, my Phaedrus, don't we get peevish when someone interrupts our exercise in mutual intellectual masturbation (that would be, of course, you and Fiddler)? It's spelled correctly on whymewhyme's side of the pond...”

“Oops...well, maybe not... :-}








Marge, fire the proofreader!!!!”

“you poor poor misguided souls....



wonder who bin laden wants to win the next US election......who would saddam hussein want to win?

bush or howard dean?


hmmm....let's think about this really really hard.....


who would be better for binladen?


i bet it would be the same people violin and phaeddy want to win.....


now, who do YOU want to be in charge?

bin ladden's choice? or america's choice?

let's drop the abortion bull$h1T and get down to what's really important here...


LIVE FREE OR DIE!”

“from "the federalist".....
FEDERALIST PERSPECTIVE

Top of the fold...

More evidence that the warfront with Jihadistan is attracting
Jihadis from abroad and -- as planned -- inviting the enemy to
battle while keeping the frontlines on their turf, not ours:
Commanding Gen. John Abizaid estimates there are now up to 5,000
insurgent terrorists in Iraq, but the most dangerous foes remain
Saddamite loyalists: "I would say that this group of Ba'athists,
by far, represents the greatest threat to peace and stability." The
primary insurgent groups are the Return Party, Muhammad's Army,
remnants of Saddam's Fedayeen, the Shiite Muntada al-Wilaya and
Ansar al-Islam -- all of whom are suspected to have ties to
al-Qa'ida. Some of the attackers modus operandi indicate they
may be directed by Saddam Hussein, or his former deputy Izzat
Ibrahim al-Douri.

Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez outlined the current battle lines:
"We are taking the fight into the safe havens of the enemy in the
heartland of the country where we continue to face former regime
loyalists, criminals and foreign terrorists who are trying to
isolate the coalition forces from the Iraqi people and break the
will of the international community. They will fail." As for
how close our forces are to tapping Saddam, Gen. Sanchez said,
"Not close enough."

Paul Bremer, U.S. interim administrator in Iraq, met with
senior Bush administration officials this week to discuss the
accelerated democratization of Iraq. Bremer's visit comes amid
a series of heightened attacks against coalition forces and Iraqi
civilians. Senior administration officials are frustrated with the
Iraqi Governing Council's slow progress toward a draft constitution
and democratic elections. (It is ironic that, while the Left at
home and abroad berates the Bush administration for its "ulterior
motives" and "failed policies" in Iraq, the administration itself
is accelerating the establishment of Iraqi democratic leadership
in order that we can withdraw our forces faster.) The IGC has one
month to lay out a timetable for the writing of a constitution and
the transfer of authority to a democratically elected government.

In hearts-and-minds news, U.S. forces this week arrested 35
Iraqi militants in connection with the 26 October rocket attack
against Baghdad's Al Rasheed Hotel, which housed Deputy Defense
Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and resulted in the death of a senior
U.S. officer. The intelligence-gathering and subsequent arrest of
the conspirators was made possible only through the cooperation
of Iraqi civilians acting in conjunction with the U.S. military
presence. This fact alone is perhaps as important as the arrests
themselves.

Abu Salma Al-Hijazi, identified as an al-Qa'ida commander directly
under Osama bin Laden, issued a new message this week during an
interview from an undisclosed location. Abu Salma said that "a
huge and very courageous strike" will take place, possibly before
the end of Ramadan (26 November), killing 100,000 "infidels"
in an attack that will "amaze the world and turn al-Qa'ida into
[an organization that] horrifies the world until the law of
Allah is implemented...on His land. ... You wait and see that the
balance of power between al-Qa'ida and its rivals will change,
all of a sudden, Allah willing. ... There is no doubt that the
demise of America and its collapse will lead to the collapse
of these fragile regimes that depend on it... We will not stop
until we establish the Islamic Caliphate and until Allah's law
is implemented in His land."

We have, of course, heard such grandiose warnings before, but
as The Federalist has warned repeatedly, al-Qa'ida's ultimate
objective is to detonate a nuclear device in an East Coast
urban center. Abu Salma's warning clearly comports with that
objective -- underscoring again why it is so critical that we keep
the warfront with Jihadistan offshore, and that our collective
resolve remains undiminished.


Quote of the week...

"On this Veterans Day, with our nation at war, Americans are
deeply aware of the current military struggle and of recent
sacrifice. Young Americans have died in liberating Iraq
and Afghanistan. They've died in securing freedom in those
countries. The loss is terrible. It is borne especially by the
families left behind. But in their hurt and in their loneliness,
I want these families to know your loved ones served in a good
and just cause. They died in distant lands to fight terror, to
advance freedom and to protect America. ... Today and every day,
the prayers of the American people are with those who wear our
country's uniform. They serve a great cause and they follow a great
tradition, handed down to them by America's veterans." --President
George W. Bush

To read the President's remarks on Veterans
Day at Arlington National Cemetery, link to --
http://federalist.com/news/VetDay03.asp )


On cross-examination...

"Consequences of us not succeeding here would be very grave.
They are for the Iraqis fatal, perhaps for the Middle East almost
as fatal." --U.S. Iraqi administrator Paul Bremer, on the security
situation in Iraq, facing a combined threat from Saddam loyalists
and al-Qa'ida terrorists

Open query...

"In many nations of the Middle East -- countries of great strategic
importance -- democracy has not yet taken root. And the questions
arise: Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach
of liberty? Are millions of men and women and children condemned
by history or culture to live in despotism? Are they alone never
to know freedom, and never even to have a choice in the matter?
I, for one, do not believe it. I believe every person has the
ability and the right to be free." --President George W. Bush

The BIG lie...

"Alpha Male" wannabe Albert Arnold Gore attacked President Bush
this week for failing to make the country safer from terrorist
attacks, even though we haven't experienced another attack
since 9/11 (the real Clinton/Gore legacy), and exploiting the
attacks to erase civil liberties under the 2001 USA Patriot Act.
"In my opinion, it makes no more sense to launch an assault on
our civil liberties as the best way to get at terrorists than
it did to launch an invasion of Iraq as the best way to get at
Osama bin Laden." Gore said, adding that in both cases Bush has
"recklessly put our country in grave and unnecessary danger."

The Un-anointed One droned on, railing against the Patriot Act and
calling for its full repeal: "They have taken us much farther down
the road toward an intrusive, 'big brother'-style government --
toward the dangers prophesied by George Orwell in his book '1984'
-- than anyone ever thought would be possible in the United States
of America." (Of course, we at The Federalist have grave doubts as
to whether Arnold has actually bothered to read the Patriot Act -
or '1984', for that matter.) To the contrary, the vast majority
of new law represented in the 2001 Patriot Act has been in effect
under a series of executive orders beginning under the Reagan
administration in the early 1980s. Unlike a number of Reagan and
Bush (41) executive orders revoked under the Clinton administration
(including some like Reagan's E.O. 12612 on Federalism, which
really did limit federal prerogatives), the Clinton-Gore duo
never acted to revoke any of the pre-existing executive orders
which now form the parts of the Patriot Act they claim to find so
"objectionable." We hate the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.

For the truth about the 2001 USA Patriot Act, see The
Federalist's definitive position paper on the subject. Link to --
http://www.federalist.com/papers/03-41_paper.asp


News from the Swamp...

In time for Veterans Day on Tuesday, the House voted 362-40 to pass
a defense-spending bill for fiscal 2004, including a provision
allowing veterans to collect disability and retirement benefits
concurrently; the bill will affect 250,000 military veterans.
The legislation also lifts a ban on R&D for low-yield nuclear
weapons, gives Defense Secretary Rumsfeld new authority in the
hiring and firing of some 700,000 civilian defense employees,
and streamlines the process for immigrants serving in the military
to receive U.S. citizenship.

Predictably, Democrats in the House criticized the bill for not
doing enough for veterans. "For the select few it does address,
the tax may not fully end for 10 years," said House Minority
Leader Nancy Pelosi. "Many of these are veterans of World War
II. Ten years is a long time to wait in any event, especially
if you are a World War II vet. That is not good enough."
Republican Rep. Michael Bilirakis, however, who first introduced
the veterans'-benefits bill 18 years ago, placed a sweaty sock in
Ms. Pelosi's mouth by reminding her that the Democrats dominated
the lower chamber for 40 years before 1995 without putting "a
single dollar in veterans' pockets from concurrent receipts."

Never ones to let a tragedy pass without converting it into
political fodder, Demos Dick Gephardt and Dennis Kucinich are
seizing publicity around the trial of murderer-assassin John
Muhammad and demanding that the federal ban on so-called "assault
weapons," scheduled to expire next year, be renewed and expanded
to cover a broader range of arms.

In the Senate, finally -- but much belatedly -- Republicans this
week recovered a splinter of backbone and forced the congressional
upper chamber's Demo obstructionists into defending their
unprecedented filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees
with a long-hours session of debate. To recap: The Senate
Demos have resorted to the filibuster to block appointment of
several Bush choices for judgeships; these nominees have the 50+
Senate votes needed for confirmation but not the 60 cloture votes
needed to stop a filibuster. Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum,
who pushed for the 30-hour marathon session that began Wednesday,
explained, "We'll work well into the night on Thursday night,
and we will do what is best for this country and what is best for
the Constitution to try to restore the tradition and precedent
of the Senate to get up or down votes on judicial nominations
for the sake of the independence of the judiciary."

The Demos argue that they have advanced almost all of President
Bush's nominees -- which is true. But the real test is the three
they are holding hostage because Mr. Bush has a long slate of
nominees cut from similar "constitutional constructionist" cloth
ready to fill federal-bench vacancies, and it is easier to make
his case by forcing votes on these four than a slate of 50.

Regarding other Demo shenanigans, Republican Sen. Pat Roberts,
chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said
this week that his committee will continue to operate in the
aftermath of last week's scandalous memo from a staffer for
committee co-chairman Sen. John Rockefeller. "What this memo has
done is really poison the well," said Sen. Roberts, speaking of
the memo that outlined the Democrats' strategy for undermining
the intelligence committee's 9/11 security and intelligence
inquiry for political gain in the 2004 presidential election.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist added that the intelligence
committee, which has operated for more than 30 years as a
nonpartisan entity, has become so politicized "as to render it
incapable of meeting its responsibilities to the United States
Senate and to the American people."

The malevolent memo calls for "pulling the trigger" on the ploy to
undermine the committee's work and discredit the administration
"probably next year," in order to maximize embarrassment for
President Bush during the election season.

To read the full text of the memo, link to --
http://Federalist.com/news/demo_memo.asp


From the "Department of Military Readiness"...

We are still awaiting the outcome of the Article 32 hearing
for U.S. Army Lt. Col. Allen B. West, who may be charged with
criminal assault for UCMJ violations related to the psychological
intimidation tactics he used to acquire vital intelligence from
an enemy combatant in Iraq -- intelligence that saved the lives
of American soldiers facing imminent attack.

The Federalist is not suggesting that Col. West did not violate
the UCMJ. Indeed, the evidence would indicate that he may have
violated the letter of the law. We are, however, suggesting
that prosecutors in both civilian and military courts frequently
decline prosecution based on extenuating circumstances, and such
prosecutorial discretion is called for in this case. To that
end, we believe West's command should do nothing more than drop
a disciplinary note in his jacket and return him to his command.
(Though we continue to weight the idea, as many of you have
suggested, that he instead be promoted to full bird!)

Please join now more than 110,000 fellow Patriots and sign a
petition asking Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to seek a
quick resolution and closure to this grossly misguided criminal
prosecution. To support Lt. Col. West,
Link to -- http://PatriotPetitions.US/colwest

(If you don't have Web access, please send a blank e-mail to:
Each e-mail sent to this
address will be counted as one signature for the petition.)


From the "Department of Military Correctness"...

Now that former POW Jessica Lynch has launched her book tour
promoting "I Am A Soldier Too: The Jessica Lynch Story," she
took time out to bite the hand that rescued her. This week, she
accused the Department of Defense of using dramatic films from her
capture and rescue to bolster public support for the war in Iraq.
"They used me as a way to symbolize all this stuff," Lynch told
ABC's Diane Sawyer, falling headlong into a sleazy Leftmedia trap.
Admittedly, some back-office pencil-necks at DoD did use the
rescue footage to propagandize the status of "heroic" women in
the military - but not to justify our war against Jihadistan.

Lynch, a 20-year-old Army supply clerk, was captured 23 March
by Iraqi forces in Nasiriyah after she and others were separated
from a 507th Maintenance Company convoy. Most of those captured
with her were killed. Lynch, however, was rescued on 01 April,
in large part due to the actions of an Iraqi man, Mohammed Odeh
al-Rehaief, who walked into a Marine camp at great personal risk
and told U.S. forces where they could find her.

While Lynch was busy with her book tour this week, another
"publisher" of sorts, Hustler magazine's Larry Flynt, announced
that he had purchased photos of Lynch out of uniform -- in fact,
wearing nothing at all. Said Flynt, a pornographer of impeccable
virtue, "I was offered photos of Jessica Lynch. I purchased them
in order to keep them out of circulation, not to publish them."

Summing up, while we do appreciate Ms. Lynch's willingness to
serve her nation, she is clearly NOT a hero -- a word which gets
applied to just about anyone in any kind of uniform these days.
(If you have even a scintilla of doubt as to what a hero really is,
we strongly encourage you read a few of the 3,400 Medal of Honor
recipient citations online at http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/moh1.htm)


Judicial Benchmarks...

From the Leftjudiciary, last week the Supremes refused to consider
the case of Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore, who refused
a federal court's ruling to remove a monument from the Alabama
judicial-building rotunda, which depicted, among other things,
the Ten Commandments. Justice Moore cited the First and Tenth
Amendments in defense of his decision, but the Supremes would
have no part of that debate.

Consequently, an Alabama judicial ethics panel ordered Justice
Moore removed from office. The decision to remove Moore received
the unanimous vote of the nine-member panel, which concluded,
"The chief justice placed himself above the law." In an ironic
twist of fate, Justice Moore is being accused of judicial activism!

"I was not surprised by this verdict," Justice Moore said.

State Attorney General William Pryor, Jr., had called on the panel
to remove Moore, saying he "intentionally and publicly engaged in
misconduct, and because he remains unrepentant for his behavior."
Pryor, it should be noted, is currently nominated to a federal
judgeship but remains unconfirmed due to the reticence of some
Senate Democrats over the AG's "conservative Christian beliefs."
Before taking this unfortunate stand against Moore, Pryor enjoyed
the endorsement of The Federalist -- without qualification.

One of thousands of Justice Moore's supporters noted, "Secular
nations have one thing in common -- mass graves, and the reason
is that they believe the government is the final arbiter of right
and wrong and good and evil." Amen.

Though the High Court refused to hear Justice Moore's case, they
did agree to hear arguments on behalf of 16 enemy combatants (two
British citizens, two Australians and 12 Kuwaitis) being held at
the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, whose lawyers think
they should have access to U.S. courts in order to challenge
their imprisonment without formal charges.

The case sets up what may be a historic challenge between the
Executive and Judicial branches of government. Bush administration
Solicitor General Theodore Olson, argued that the detainees'
status was a question "constitutionally committed to the executive
branch" and not the Judiciary and, additionally, the determination
of sovereignty over a particular territory is "not a question on
which a court may second-guess the political branches."


Regarding the redistribution of your income...

What a Kroc! While Albert Gore and company are busy trying to
find underwriting for a Leftist radio network, major Demo-donor
Joan Kroc, widow of McDonald's founder Ray Kroc, has willed $200
million to National Public Radio -- the largest monetary award
ever given to an American "cultural" institution. (Evidence that
perhaps McDonald's hamburgers clog arteries not just to the heart,
but to the brain as well.) NPR's annual operating budget is
about $100 million, and it will receive $86 million of that next
year for its partisan peacenik propaganda programming from the
taxpayer-funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting. NPR, or as
some call the Leftist propaganda machine, National Palestinian
Radio, produces 32 weekly programs for an audience of 22 million
listeners -- double their audience in 1993.


On the Left...

The election year began this week, and the Left's "Braying Herd of
Jackasses" is still looking for a soapbox. In keeping with the
law of unintended consequences, the Left's dramatic polarization
of issues and constituencies has resulted in a small but very
vocal number of their ilk leading the charge for populist Howard
Dean, and the rest of the bunch scratching their derrières.
ABC's Clintonista commentator George Stephanopoulos concludes,
"If I could come up with one word to describe [every major
Democratic insider], it would be depressed -- depressed at the
prospect of Howard Dean getting the nomination."

Dean appears to have "recovered" from his "outreach" to Southern
conservatives, this week gaining official endorsements from two
unions, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees and the Service Employees International Union.

The real problem facing the Demos is summed up brilliantly
by Democrat Sen. Zell Miller: "I find it hard to believe,
but these naive nine [Democrat presidential candidates] have
managed to combine the worst feature of the McGovern campaign --
the president is a liar and we must have peace at any cost --
with the worst feature of the Mondale campaign -- watch your
wallet, we're going to raise your taxes. George McGovern carried
one state in 1972. Walter Mondale carried one state in 1984.
Not exactly role models when it comes to how to get elected or,
for that matter, how to run a country."

Memo to Hillary: Need we remind you that 21 November is the
deadline to register for New Hampshire's primary?


From the "Non Compos Mentis" Files...

Speaking of Walter Mondale, in a fit of desperation, Sen. John
"Ketchup" Kerry, the very model of inspirational leadership and
consensus-building, dumped his campaign manager this week and
hired an ultra-Leftist attack dog. "I have decided to make a
change at the top of my campaign leadership," said the impressively
coiffured husband of the Heinz Ketchup heiress. "Mary Beth Cahill,
an accomplished leader for Democrats and progressive causes,
including President Clinton, Sen. Ted Kennedy, Rep. Barney Frank,
and Emily's List, will be my new campaign manager." Ms. Cahill
has also worked for the likes of Michael S. Dukakis, under whom
Kerry served as lieutenant governor. Of his former campaign
director, Kerry noted, "I've asked Jim [Jordan] to continue in
his role as senior strategist as we enter this critical phase of
the campaign." In other words, Jordan will now stir the cream
in Ms. Cahill's coffee.

"From the bottom of my heart, I thank [campaign manager] Jim
Jordan for his leadership, extremely hard work, unsurpassed
loyalty and devotion to me, to this campaign, and to the people
who have worked with him," Kerry said in a heartfelt statement to
the press moments after firing the guy. (As you may have guessed,
Kerry isn't exactly racing ahead in the polls.)


Around the nation...

From the states, an increasing number of states have cancelled
their presidential primaries next year, some concerned over cost,
others questioning the value of the primary system altogether.
Maine, Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah have all eliminated
their states' primaries next year, with Arizona and Missouri
pursuing similar measures. In most cases, party-run caucuses
will replace the state-sponsored primaries.

In Wisconsin, Demo Gov. Jim Doyle vetoed a bill defining marriage
as solely between a man and woman. "This bill is just another
example of the Legislature focusing its time and energy on
divisive, mean-spirited bills that do nothing to grow Wisconsin's
economy, make health care more affordable and accessible, or
improve our public schools," said Doyle.

In Missouri, Circuit Judge Steven Ohmer overturned the "right to
carry" law recently enacted by the legislature over Demo Gov. Bob
Holden's veto. Attorney General Jay Nixon, who argued in favor of
the law, has appealed the ruling. "We will be asking the Missouri
Supreme Court to expedite this matter so we can have a full and
final decision on this important public-policy issue," Nixon said.


In business/economic news...

The World Trade Organization ruled that the massive steel
tariffs imposed by the Bush administration last year -- by far
the administration's worst economic-policy decision to date --
are illegal, according to current trade agreements. The 30%
tariffs were designed to appease steel-workers unions and buffer
the industry from foreign competition, though most free-market
economists agree that the U.S. jobs lost in steel-consuming
industries due to the protectionist measures are a multiple
of the steel-producing jobs the tariffs may have protected.
The WTO ruling opens the door for the European Union to impose
retaliatory tariffs against U.S. imports, and in an effort to push
the administration toward repealing the tariffs, the European
countermeasures are likely to target products from swing states
in the 2004 presidential election.


In faith matters...

In faith matters, "How dare we in this country spend $87 billion
on war when 44 million people have no health insurance? ... It's
up to the church to lead on some of these moral issues," asked
Vicky Gene Robinson, newly-ordained homosexual Episcopal bishop
of the Diocese of New Hampshire. Delivering his first sermon as
bishop in the diocese's All Saints Church, the same church where
he married his wife before divorcing her and abandoning their
two children to pursue a homosexual lifestyle, Robinson said that
he wants bring God's message of love to "those on the margins,"
adding that Jesus "looked at the religious establishment of his day
and realized they had closed their eyes to those on the margins."

Apparently the expenditure of $87 billion in the liberation of
Afghanistan (where women were regularly beaten or publicly executed
for the mildest violation of Islamic law, such as showing their
faces) and the liberation of Iraq (where people were normally
fed feet first into industrial shredders for crossing a deranged
autocrat and his sons) do not qualify as reaching out "to those
on the margins." We might also note that homosexuals didn't fare
too well under Taliban or Ba'athist rule, either.

In better news, the U.S. Catholic Bishops this week gave
near-unanimous support to a statement affirming that marriage
should be a relationship between one man and one woman, entitled,
"Between Man and Woman: Questions and Answers About Marriage and
Same-Sex Unions." Explained Bishop J. Kevin Boland of the Diocese
of Savannah, Georgia, "Marriage is in crisis and will be further
eroded unless we're strong in pointing out that same-sex unions
are not the equivalent of marriage." Exactly so!


Around the world...

As noted in The Federalist last year, and confirmed publicly
this week by the CIA, North Korea and Iran are more advanced
in their nuclear programs than previous "conventional wisdom"
had held. The CIA's assessment of the Kim Jong Il regime's
nuclear capabilities is bleak, while the International Atomic
Energy Agency, reverting to form, has acknowledged Iran had a
secret uranium-enrichment research program for 18 years -- but
decided that is not "proof" of a nuclear weapons program. Guess we
will have to depend on Israel to clean this one up -- again.


And last...

But certainly not least... This week, we not only pay solemn
tribute to our nation's veterans and their families, we also
commemorate the 228th birthday of the United States Marine Corps.
Ooorah!”

“I think bin Laden would have no problem with another Bush admin... based on past performance.”

“You gotta be kidding yourself if you really think anyone reads anything that long.

Why don't you say what you got to say, then reference a link if anyone wants to verify it. I'd probably review the reference after hearing what you have to say.

get real”

“well MB, i had a few beers.....sue me. read it if you got the guts. better yet, sign up, it's free.

tilt, you can't be serious.”