Archive for June, 2003
« Previous Entries Next Entries »My Freedom of Speech
Wednesday, June 18th, 2003I’ll admit that my experience with participating in actual protests is lacking. The main reason is I’m too busy trying to be a productive citizen by going to work during the week. I do hope to increase my involvement in political activities in the future.
Now, the reason why I am mentioning this today, is because I am participating in a protest tomorrow.
I, as well as atleast 20 others, are protesting the Dixie Chicks at their concert in Boston tomorrow night.
I know some people may be thinking “aren’t you beating a dead horse?” or something similar to that affect.
Maybe, maybe not. The truth is, I don’t care. Some of us are still pissed at what Natalie Maines said. Sure she had the right to say it, but her discretion was poor. The meaning of her words still echoes in the brains of some of us who don’t appreciate some dumb country girl bad mouting our President while in another country.
So we’re showing the Dixie Chicks that some of us have not forgotten.
If you want to say stuff like “Get over it,” or “Move on,” or whatever, don’t bother. I’m not interested in anyone’s approval. I’m going to have a good time with people, and send a message at the same time.
So, if you want to post a comment here, why don’t you share with the rest of us your experiences with protests. What was the last protest you were involved in? Why did you participate? Tell us the story of your activism.
The Bastardization of Democracy - Part II
Monday, June 16th, 2003NOTE: This post is in response to a challenge made by one of my blog’s trolls, named Jack. Please read my original essay The Bastardization of Democracy. and the comments made in response to it prior to this post to be up to speed on what the challenge made to me was.
Jack, you challenged me on my knowledge of the Constitution.
You made a rather pompous accusation suggesting I was ignorant regarding content of the document. Contrary to your belief, I have read and studied it in the past - clearly, more than you have.
Just in case you are in the dark about the text of the Constitution, I’ll provide you with the exact text. The appointment of Judges is mentioned in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
My first impression, leads me to believe you are directly referring to “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.” Today, Democrats are choosing to redefine the meaning of “advice and consent of the Senate.” Today we can argue what the meaning of that phrase is. However, the appropriate place to look to understand what “advice and consent” means would be from the Framers of the Constitution themselves.
Now Jack. If you were familiar with the Federalist papers, which I bet you are not, you would be aware of how the Framers of the Constitution had actually envisioned the Senate’s role in confirmation. Alexander Hamilton made it very clear that never was it intended to give the Senate the right to decide who would be selected.
Hamilton understood that the judgment of one man (The President) was better fit to make nominations than a larger body of men.
In an effort to better educate you on this, I’ll quote Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper #76 “Appointing Power of The Executive” directly.
Hamilton wrote:
“He [The President] will, on this account, feel himself under stronger obligations, and more interested to investigate with care the qualities requisite to the stations to be filled, and to prefer with impartiality the persons who may have the fairest pretensions to them. He will have FEWER personal attachments to gratify, than a body of men who may each be supposed to have an equal number; and will be so much the less liable to be misled by the sentiments of friendship and of affection.”
Clearly explained, the President is better suited to suggest appointments than a larger number of people (such as in today’s case, Leahy and his suggest group of high ranking Democrats) because one man is not as predisposed as a group to be influenced by political pressures and interests.
But it is easy to show, that every advantage to be expected from such an arrangement would, in substance, be derived from the power of NOMINATION, which is proposed to be conferred upon him; while several disadvantages which might attend the absolute power of appointment in the hands of that officer would be avoided.
Hamilton is saying here that the process of nomination by the President and confirmation of the Senate provides an appropriate check and balance to the power of the President to make nominations.
In the act of nomination, his judgment alone would be exercised; and as it would be his sole duty to point out the man who, with the approbation of the Senate, should fill an office, his responsibility would be as complete as if he were to make the final appointment.
Here, Hamilton is makes a point that the act of nomination is a test of the President’s judgment. Hamilton later states that while the President’s choice may be overruled, the President maintains the right to nominate another, if not the same person be nominated again. In any case, Hamilton says, “The person ultimately appointed must be the object of his [The President’s] preference.” Hamilton later wrote that the possibility of rejection of the President’s choice gives the President strong motive to make more qualified nominations.
More closely related to the situation, upon which I was challenged to justify my position in my essay “The Bastardization of Democracy,” is the actual involvement of the Senate in aiding in the selection of an appointment.
To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.
Plain and simple: the Senate should not play a role in the nomination process. The process of nomination by one, and the confirmation of the majority of a larger body provides an adequate check and balance on the power of the President to nominate a judge, or any officer, as allowed by Law.
To this reasoning it has been objected that the President, by the influence of the power of nomination, may secure the complaisance of the Senate to his views.
There really is no way to spin this to mean anything different. The President’s power of nomination is the means by which he acquires Senate approval, not the Senate’s consultation.
Welcome To The Empire
Monday, June 16th, 2003Exciting news today.
I’ve been be given the honor by Emperor Misha I of entry into the Rottweiler Empire in the Department of Information.
I accept this honor humbly and offer my deepest thanks to Misha for recognizing me this way.
The Bastardization of Democracy
Monday, June 16th, 2003Are Democrats stupid? Or are they just blinded by their prejudice against conservatives?
I am not kidding. This is getting beyond prejudice. It’s at a point of absolute bigotry.
Senator Patrick Leahy, of Vermont has urged President Bush to consult “with him and other leading Democrats before choosing a nominee, should a vacancy occur” in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Ex-fucking-cuse me?
Bite my ass, Leahy. Who the fuck are you to tell the President he should consult with you about his judicial nominees?
Bush has it within his power to nominate whomever he pleases.
Do you see what is going on here? Leahy wants to undermine the system of checks and balances by suggesting the President basically get the Democrats permission to nominate a candidate for the bench.
The New York Times reported on June 15, 2003:
In two recent letters to the White House, Mr. Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said that if Mr. Bush took advantage of a vacancy on the court to select a staunchly conservative judge, it would produce a political war that would upset the nation and diminish respect for the courts.
Bush isn’t the one gridlocking the courts by using filibusters to keep his nominees from getting confirmed. Of course, to Leahy and the Democrats, this is all Bush’s fault. I can’t believe Leahy had the audacity to suggest Bush consult with him on his nominees.
Mr. Leahy said his two letters urging a bipartisan process, the one on Wednesday and one sent on May 14, had not been answered.
Ha! A Democrat is urging a “bipartisan process”??? Is that what these filibusters have been - the championship of democracy and bipartisanship? Pardon me, Senator Leahy, but kiss my ass with your version of bipartisanship.
“The courts are the one part of government people yearn to believe is free of politics,” Mr. Leahy said. “That’s why the Florida case shook people so much,” a reference to the Supreme Court ruling in Bush v. Gore that resulted in Mr. Bush’s presidency.
Once again… the 2000 Election. It never ends. It just never ends.
Although the Senate has 51 Republicans, a bare majority, Democrats have blocked votes on two appeals court nominees and are likely to do so with other candidates, by mounting filibusters, or extended debates.
Breathe in that pure air of bipartisanship.
I am saying for the record now, that the next time the Democrats are in the White House (God forbid) that they are going to lay in they made for themselves.
They have perverted the judicial nomination process.
They have undermined the Constitution.
They have belittled the powers of the President.
They have blemished the purity of Democracy.
This is could set the most dangerous precedent in our government that could ultimately lead to the deterioration of the court system.
A bleak future awaits us.
I see no reason why Republicans should continue to play fair and let left-wing nominees get their fair shot at confirmations the next time a Democrat is in the White House (God forbid.) Why should they? Democrats always accuse the Republicans of playing hard and unfair – maybe it’s time to actually do that.
Fight fire with fire. Show the Democrats what it’s like to be on the receiving end of dirty tricks.
Fair game right? Should be.
Will it get to a point where the two-party system breaks down into an ridiculous and constant power struggle to constantly cripple the majority party to a state of non-productivity? Will it always be about opposing your political adversaries, and not doing what’s right for America?
For the Democrats, that is what it has been: Opposing the Republicans at all costs, at the expense of America.
America is the big loser here. Thanks to the DNC and their bastardization of democracy.
More Liberal Conversations
Sunday, June 15th, 2003I hold to my previous statements about how liberals would rather see Bush’s policies fail, than to see his policies actually help America.
I’ve once again been proven right.
My brother, Aaron, also a conservative, recently had a conversation with our friend “J”, still a liberal. They talked about the tax cut.
Aaron: I think when I get my tax cut check I may get an iPod… if the check is big enough. I got to do my part to stimulate the economy
J: You know, several surveys have shown that people will get that check and bank it. That doesn’t do Bush or the economy any good, though it will help the Democrats.
Aaron: Well, not me… I fully plan to make my life happier with the money if I get it.
J: When do those checks ship again?
Aaron: I am not sure…
J: I might send mine to the anti-Bush 2004 campaign. 
Aaron: what�s the point? That�s like throwing it away
J: Well, it’s interesting you say that. I’m not recycling it into the economy so I can help Bush.
Aaron: that�s pretty sad…. you Democrats…. How about helping America? Forget about which party is in power and do the right thing… geez…
J: The right thing is electing a Democrat. The POPULATION agreed, the ELECTORATES didn�t.
Aaron: depends on who it is. Not all Democrats are good…
J: Who is worthy?
Aaron: We don’t elect a president by popular vote, it’s in the constitution, boy you Democrats need to remember that…
J: I do remember that.
This conversation is an example of a few undeniable truths about the Democrats:
1. They’ll still haven’t moved on from Florida 2000.
2. They’d rather see Bush fail, than see America get better.
3. They’d rather help Bush fail, than help America get better.
4. They are prejudiced against anyone who disagrees with them, or just have a ( R ) after their name.
5. They will never admit that there is or can be a bad Democrat.
6. They make statements based on “sources”, but they never seem to be able to provide them… or even offer them.
It’s amusing, really. The fact they can’t get over the 2000 election really goes to show you how petty they are. Not only that, but they ignore the results of the 2002 election - which is important to the aftermath of the 2000 election. For starters, against historical precedent, Republicans strengthened their hold in the House, and regained control of the Senate. Republicans all did very well in the 2002 gubernatorial races - including Bush’s brother Jeb, the governor of Florida, who won reelection easily - and the Democrats tried to blame the Florida fiasco on him too. So clearly, the nation was steered on the path of conservatism - thus completely eliminating the 2000 election as an issue. You can read more on my thoughts on the 2002 election in my article “Conservatism Wins Big on Election Day 2002.”
So, my question to my readers is this: What are some more “undeniable truths” about the Democrats?
A Little Change
Sunday, June 15th, 2003In preparation for the new website, I’ve decided to do a few things in the blog.
I have added a new category called “The Right Idea.”
For those of you who don’t know, that was the name of my column when I wrote for The Informer, which is the University of Hartford’s student newspaper.
Why the change? I’m glad you asked.
While talking to fellow blogger, Courtney, about my experience writing for The Informer, I told her how I missed doing that. She basically pointed out to me that I’m still doing the same thing with my website.
Then I realized she was right.
Therefore, I’ve created the new category to house all blog entries that meet my personal requirements to be considered of the same caliber as editorial or column piece. These entries will also be made available in the “Notebook” section of the non-blog content of this website. Previous blog entries (which meet the requirements previously mentioned) have also been re-catagorized under “The Right Idea.”
I guess you can say this officially marks the rebirth of “The Right Idea.”
UPDATE: Also new to the blog, my gracious hostess Nikki has added the “trackback” feature to my blog. Now people can link directly to specific blog entries if they want or need to.
Filibuster This, Democrats!
Saturday, June 14th, 2003“Here we go again.”
That’s what I thought when I read this article on CNSNews.com, with the ever so common headline “Liberals Blast Latest Bush Circuit Court Nominee”
We’ve all heard similar headlines in the recent past. This is getting old already.
Holy shit. Could it be???? A conservative President has nominated a conservative for a judgeship.
Shame on him!
My favorite parts of the article:
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) described Pryor’s pro-life and other conservative political beliefs as “an unfortunate stitching together of the worst parts of the most troubling judges we’ve seen thus far.”
Oh, Senator Chucky… I’m so sorry. Would you prefer Bush nominate a black cross-dressing homosexual female? Do you want a more diverse bunch of nominees? Is that it?
Well, that can’t be. The Democrats have already filibustered a Hispanic and a female nominee to oblivion. The Democrats’ agenda can’t be diversity in the courts.
Their actions certainly don’t suggest they want qualified judges nominated.
So what’s the beef?
Oh that’s right. They don’t want conservatives on the bench. They don’t want evil right-wingers being nominated.
They would rather have a congested court system, you see.
This goes to show you - the Democrats are a cancer on the American court system.
I’d like to point you to something I found posted on Courtney’s Blog about this issue. Zell Miller, a Democrat from Georgia, said some interesting things to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.
He’s a Democrat, and I agree with him.
Talking about these filibusters, Miller says:
“What makes this so downright un-American is that a highly qualified Hispanic who came to this country to work hard and pursue the American Dream is now caught up in an American nightmare. And a hard-working and highly qualified female hits that infamous glass ceiling in the United States Senate of all places. That’s shameful!”
It’s refreshing to see a Democrat say this. I couldn’t say it much better.
The Frist bill of which I’m a co-sponsor has proposed a four-step process that keeps 60 votes on the initial cloture vote, but decreases it by three votes with each of the next three cloture attempts until finally — after nearly two weeks - it gets down to the majority of 51. This would give the minority plenty of time to plead its case without blocking the majority forever. I don’t see how any fair-minded person can say that’s not reasonable.
Reasonable it is. I hope it passes.
It’s time for the Democrats to stop their pettiness… to stop their perversion of the system.
Yet, it’s the Democrats who say Republicans don’t play fair, and that we’re “steamrolling over liberalism” or whatever. How is it that conservatives are “steamrolling over liberalism,” yet the liberal minority in the Senate has successfully put these nomination processes in lock-down?
Fuck that shit. Let’s get Bush’s nominees through and stop the tyranny of the minority.
Ignoring History
Friday, June 13th, 2003Today, Hillary Clinton has now called for independent inquiries over Iraq. Another spotlight-craving Democrat is questioning the intelligence that lead us to liberate Iraq.
Is Hillary also going to call for the investigation of her husband Bill Clinton’s administration - they were all saying we should go into Iraq as well (see earlier blog entries.) So, if the intelligence used by the Bush Administration was exaggerated, then obviously so was the intelligence gathered on Iraq during the Clinton Administration.
Hillary must remember this. Hillary must be as concerned about that intelligence which made Clinton so insistant to go into Iraq.
The next time someone tells you that the Democrats aren’t being partisan on this issue, look at the history. Look at how different the Democrats are treating this compared to the way they reacted to Bill Clinton warning us about Iraq’s WMD in the 1990’s.
Maybe Hillary should have named her book “Ignoring History” since her current actions clearly show that is exactly what she is doing.
« Previous Entries Next Entries »