Hugh Was Wrong - Miers Had To Go

October 30, 2005 | Filed Under Uncategorized | No Comments

With this Miers fiasco finally behind us, I want to log in my feelings on what happened. I am going to use the support of Miers by writer and radio host, Hugh Hewitt, to demonstrate my evolution from a guarded support of Miers to being against her nomination. Hugh is a perfect foil for this because it was Hugh that actually helped me make the switch, even as he was attempting to do the opposite.

I like Hugh Hewitt’s radio show. He has some incredible experience what with having been in government, being a constitutional lawyer, a professor, a daily blogger and Editorialist for several outlets as well as a talk show host. He is one of those people that one looks at and wonders where he gets the time to do all these things he does, time that the rest of us never seem to find.

However … (didn’t you just know a “however” was a’commin?)

At first, I did want to take Hugh’s advice on this Miers issue. After all, a President has the guaranteed right to nominate anyone he wants to nominate to the SCOTUS. And further, I, too, felt a wiff of elitism coming from Miers’ denigrators when this all began. But as each day moved forward and as each morsel of new info about Miers came out, I found Hugh more and more off base with his support of this nomination. As each day went on with Hugh’s attempts to support her nomination, his ability to convince got weaker and weaker as the growing resistance mounted its successful efforts.

And he was just plain wrong about the entire Harriet Miers story when it was all said and done, too. He is so sure that this whole fiasco, and fiasco it was, is the death knell of both the Bush administration and the conservative movement. He is also sure that this means that the conservatives have assured the end of the non-politicized court. He is wrong on most counts, as far as I am concerned.

I will not stoop to the claim that he is somehow so blindly loyal to the Bush administration that he will say or do anything in support. Though I am sure his past White House experience lends him toward giving a GOP administration a little more leeway than many other pundits might. But, I don’t want to dismiss his opinions as unconsidered spin especially with his thorough knowledge of the law.

And he is right in a few things that he contends. We absolutely have made appointments to the court far more political than it need or should be. But, it isn’t the conservatives that are doing it, by and large, but the left, Miers not-with-standing. The left created “Borking” and have sustained it ever since and it is a process carried on by politicians, not the public. But, with Hugh claiming the right “Borked” Miers, we are seeing a glimpse of his worst hyperbole.

Yes, a very few conservative pundits went over the top in their condemnation of the Miers candidacy. I am sure a few radio hosts took things too far, too. But Borking is something Political Parties do to candidates and this did not happen. Still Hewitt has claimed that this is what happened to Miers. It just isn’t true.

First of all, we absolutely cannot muzzle opinion just because a president made a nomination. Additionally, the Party faithful are wholly obligated to tell their leaders what they want and Miers did not fit that bill. That is exactly what happened here. Bush made an appointment that did not satisfy his base nor did it seem to jive with his claims of placing solid constructionists on the court.

Further, I would say that another radio personality is more right about the supposed crack-up of the right than is Hugh. Rush Limbaugh says this shows the strength of the conservative movement whereas Hugh thinks we are shooting ourselves in the foot. I think Rush is more right than is Hugh. The base asserted their opinion on the kind of nominee they wanted and they had not only the right but the obligation to speak up. Their opinion won the day in the field of debate and this is a good thing.

Also, we DO need a litmus test of sorts for court nominees on the right at this time. We have already ruined the court with politics and we absolutely must place enough judges in place that will reverse this trend now before the proper role of the courts is utterly irretrievable. If we do not do so, we cannot regain the proper role of the courts if we sit idly by and allow the left to control the process.

I’d have to say that the most obvious proof, if proof can be had, that Hugh went over the top in his support of the Miers nomination was when he made a brief negative aside on his radio show (last Monday, I think) that it was just “internet pundits” that doomed Meirs. This is amusing in that Hugh is the biggest supporter of “internet pundits” with his championing of Bloggers. He was dangerously close to saying that “internet pundits” should only be acceptable if they AGREE with him!

Now, I will agree with him. Yes we have made the courts far more a political football than it should be. Yes we risk making the courts assume a role they should not have (and who doesn’ believe it has already happened?). I must also agree that the Supreme Court has never been a place to which we nominate only the “smartest” or most well “educated” elits. Not to say that it isn’t an important position and that we shouldn’t strive to put well educated people with solid experience on the courts but the court was never supposed to be a place where only the literatti were to be placed. We have had many Justices who were not necessarily the cream of the crop, the most elite. The idea that only the most elite should be allowed to attain SCOTUS appointments runs contrary to our culture of being able to achieve greatness from humbleness.

Of course, I am not saying we should be appointing ditch diggers to the SCOTUS, but to assume that only the most elite can get there is the other end of that spectrum that we must avoid. We must leave room on the high courts for people who may not fit the mold of the elite classes let we so distance our courts from the “common man” that they are unable to rule with that in mind.

Furthermore, we should try not to make a habit of torpedoing candidates before they even get a hearing, to be sure. There Hugh is more than right.

In any case, I think Hugh got himself in a pickle with his support of Meirs. And I think he just went down the wrong track to save face. He isn’t stupid and he wasn’t insincere. He was just wrong.

Warner Todd Huston

Our Newest Op Ed

October 30, 2005 | Filed Under Uncategorized | No Comments

Walgreens: Let the (gay) games begin
- By Michael M. Bates

The Walgreen Company has given $100,000 to help sponsor the 2006 Gay Games in Chicago. Or, more officially, the Gay Games VII Sports and Cultural Festival, which is scheduled for next July.

Organizations unhappy with the company’s contribution include the Illinois Family Institute and the American Family Association. Both groups have urged members to contact the country’s biggest drugstore chain and voice their disapproval.

According to Walgreens spokesman Michael Polzin, with whom I spoke earlier this week, the groups’ constituents have done just that. He said that reaction from the general public, however, has been minimal.

Mr. Polzin also indicated that the health care company made its donation to “have a presence at the games.” He said they will have pharmacists available to provide information on HIV/AIDS. This is, he asserted, a continuation of the company’s efforts to educate the public on various medical concerns such as cancer and heart disease.

Walgreens gives millions of dollars a year to various charitable entities, he noted. And the company will not reconsider its Platinum-level sponsorship of the gay games………………..
Click HERE To Read On

Our Newest Op Ed

October 29, 2005 | Filed Under Uncategorized | No Comments

Feminism Has Become Silly, Maybe Even Dangerous
- By Warner Todd Huston

In the early days of the US women’s rights movement, when Sarah Grimke and her sister, or Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan B. Anthony led their fights for women’s rights, women were almost universally treated as second class citizens. Throughout the country they couldn’t vote, in many states they couldn’t even legally retain ownership of their own homes upon the death of a husband. It was by and large uncommon for women to attain a higher education and in the days before the Civil War it was even assumed that women were physically unsuited to work outside the home much less start a business. There was little recourse for women who were beaten by violent husbands, women then having little legal recourse in nearly any matter.

Now that was oppression. Those were the days when women were mistreated by societal norms, when women were not offered the opportunities of the American concepts of “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, and when the women’s movement really meant something urgent.

Even in the days of the 1960s and 70s, when women like Gloria Steinem and Germaine Greer began their own crusades women were not able to enjoy the same status as citizen as did men in the US. Even as anti-American as their real aims were what with the socialist/communist ideals that so often underlay their principles, the ladies still had real problems to address.

But, now, we can safely say the battle is won. “Feminism”, as a movement, is now unnecessary. In fact it has become silly at best and dangerous at worst……….

Click HERE To Read On

Our Newest Op Ed

October 28, 2005 | Filed Under Uncategorized | 1 Comment

A Reliable Source (Quit NOCing Valerie Plame)
- By R.A. Hawkins

To listen to Joe Wilson these days we’re on the verge of a legal ‘coupe de tat’. This one will not be like the one the leftwing imagined when the first gay black president (Bubba) was impeached. But as is so often the case, they tend to count their chickens before they hatch. I seriously doubt they will get the indictments they are seeking for other reasons however. I just finished reading the briefing from Stratfor.com regarding this issue. It is a briefing that anyone can get for free if they would just bother to go sign up for it. That being said I’ll move on to some of what was said.

In essence he discussed the damage that this may cause to NOCs - agents operating under Non-Official Cover. For those of you who don’t know how our intelligence system works I’ll explain it a little here. Any person operating in one of our embassies will be assumed by the hosting government to be an active CIA agent. Those people that are agents are operating under what is considered Official Cover, or OCs. The backbone of our intelligence system is the Non-Official Cover agents, or NOCs. Valerie Plame was one of the NOCs. …………..
Click HERE To Read On

Our Newest Op Ed

October 27, 2005 | Filed Under Uncategorized | No Comments

What Environmentalists Do Not Want You to Know About Endangered Species
- By Justin Darr

Did you know that if all the endangered species in the world were made safe, hurricanes would no longer hit the Gulf Coast? This is just one example of the tortured logic liberal environmentalists would like you to believe in regard to Humanity’s affect on the environment.

You have to remember that liberals do not think like you and me. We live in a world we believe to be basically good, and where doing what is right an end unto itself. If we stick to our values, look out for ourselves, and try to help those around us along the way, the world will be a better place. Why? Because we believe in God and that we will be held accountable for whatever havoc we might cause. We should not destroy the environment because it is a gift from God, and marring it a grievous sin. ………….
Click HERE To Read On

Our Newest Op Ed

October 25, 2005 | Filed Under Uncategorized | No Comments

Looters Should Be Shot
- By Frederick Meekins

In one captivating scene of Stephen Spielberg’s “War Of The Worlds”, a frenzied mob besieges a minivan until the character played by Tom Cruise relinquishes control of it with the drama heightened by a few brief moments of whether or not his preadolescent daughter was going to be part of the spoils. As someone that projects certain cultural and social trends into the future, the scenario reminded me of what would likely happen should an incident of overwhelming destruction ever occur within the United States.

Those with limited imaginations will brush it all aside and say such anarchy could never happen here. And under optimal circumstances, I would never have proof one way or the other as to the veracity of my sociological postulations regarding these matters. Unfortunately in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, it seems I didn’t have to wait too long for a far off tragedy to receive confirmation.

Before the flood waters even had the opportunity to recede from this contemporary Atlantis, a wave of human scum far more deliberately malevolent than anything found in the forces of nature washed over the sunken city. For while most of the residents of the Gulf Coast were no doubt awed and humbled by the circumstances into which they were thrust, others less noble in bearing decided to exhibit behaviors proving they were barely worthy of membership among the ranks of civilized men by instead of aiding their neighbors in a time of overwhelming need deciding to prey upon them like common leeches…….
Click HERE To Read On

Our Newest Op Ed

October 24, 2005 | Filed Under Uncategorized | No Comments

Answering the Clinton’s Ill-mannered Behavior
- By Chuck Busch

It is questionable whether a supposed environmental warming trend triggered the two violent hurricanes in the Gulf coast, but there can be no doubt that the acrimony over disaster response has produced a significant change in the political atmosphere over Washington. The formerly impeached president and perpetual campaigner, Bill Clinton, headed for the spotlight once again to deliverable a string of disparaging remarks directed toward President Bush’s handling of the Katrina emergency, Iraq and the national budget.

Having been in office for two terms, Bill Clinton cannot run for U.S. President again. It would seem improbable that he or his ex-co-president spouse would succeed anyway, now that the sordid tales of eight years of mind-boggling scandals involving abuses of power, criminal neglect, ineptitude, cowardice, immorality and corruption have become public knowledge. Therefore, Clinton has set his sights on the only other job left to him besides dogcatcher (my apologies to animal control agents) and that is, Secretary General of the United Nations. Clinton probably considers this a promotion and a chance to achieve a redeeming legacy that so far has eluded him ………..
Click HERE To Read On

Our Newest Op Ed

October 23, 2005 | Filed Under Uncategorized | No Comments

The MSM’s Drooling Beast
- By Resa LaRu Kirkland

By 1968, NVA morale was at its lowest point ever. The plans for “Tet” ‘68 was their last desperate attempt to achieve a success, in an effort to boost the NVA morale. When it was over, General Giap and the NVA viewed the Tet ‘68 offensive as a failure, they were on their knees and had prepared to negotiate a surrender.

At that time, there were fewer than 10,000 U.S. casualties, the Vietnam War was about to end, as the NVA was prepared to accept their defeat. Then, they heard Walter Cronkite (former CBS News anchor and correspondent) on TV proclaiming the success of the Tet ‘68 offensive by the communist NVA. They were completely and totally amazed at hearing that the US Embassy had been overrun. In reality, The NVA had not gained access to the Embassy–there were some VC who had been killed on the grassy lawn, but they hadn’t gained access…According to (General) Giap, these distorted reports were inspirational to the NVA. They changed their plans from a negotiated surrender and decided instead, they only needed to persevere for one more hour, day, week, month, eventually the protesters in American would help them to achieve a victory they knew they could not win on the battlefield…Today, there are 58,000 names on the Vietnam Wall Memorial that was built with the donations made by the American public. Although Giap did not mention each and every protester’s name in his book, many of us will never forget the 58,000 names on the Wall. We will also never forget the names of those who helped in placing those additional 48,000 names there: Bill, Jane, Tom, Cronkite, and others. Those of us who rotated prior to Walter Cronkite’s report on “Tet-68″ can clearly state, “We were still winning when I left!”–9th Infantry Division.

This was a staggering revelation, and yet it did nothing to change the media. If anything, they were proud of their treason. It is only one of the reasons I can’t stand Walter Cronkite. He will go down in history as the most treacherous prevaricator in modern media history. But he won’t go down alone; he’ll have a plethora of media puppets with him ………
Click HERE To Read On