I never back down from a debate with a liberal. As futile as they may be, I find even the most pointless debate with a liberal to have entertaining and educational value.

Entertaining because they rarely make sense or base their arguments on truth. Educational because I continually learn about how liberals formulate their arguments, I recognize their flaws, and, each time, they get frustrated with my continual abundance of knowledge, which they can’t counter because a) they rarely use sources for their information, and b) if they actually used sources or researched an issue, they’d discover the flaws of their own arguments.

One of the key indicators of liberals’ lack of concern for sources is their actual citation of sources. As strange as that sounds, I’ll attempt to explain this to clarify my words.

A simple lurking on my website will show various arguments made by both liberals and conservatives. Liberals are quick to judge any source that counters their delicate liberal values to be biased, nonobjective, and propaganda. However, they consider their sources to be unbiased and objective.

I once used the example that if a conservative reads a book titled Democrats Are Bad, a liberal will say that you’re reading ultra right-wing propagandist lies, and then they’ll tell you read Republicans Are Bad, as if to suggest that the latter title is a bastion of objectivity and void of any bias.

To liberals, conservatives are the only ones with an axe to grind, and liberals are the ones who are flawless in their messages.

In my experiences debating with liberals, they contend victory in an argument the moment they find a source (or perhaps sources) that happen to concur with their original point in the argument. However, the rebuttal to their source is ultimately not applicable to them, for whatever reasons they choose to conjure up in the heat of the moment of the debate.

Generally speaking, liberals’ arguments are emotionally driven, while conservatives’ arguments are founded more in logic or facts.

This is not the exception or the rule, but the common trend.

“Get your laws off my body! Freedom of Choice”
“End racism – support affirmative action!”
“Hate-Free Zone!”
“No Blood For Oil!”
“Your civil liberties are in jeopardy!”
“Save Main Street, stop corporate giants!”
“No more school lunches for the children!”
“Bush is a Nazi!”

These are emotionally charged arguments and slogans meant to induce an emotional response to an issue – not a clear-headed logical response based on truth.

Conservatives don’t suggest telling a woman what to do with her body. Hey, if she wants to be a slut – she can. If she wants to get tattoos all over her body, she can. If she wants to dye her hair orange, she can. If she wants to kill a child, she can’t. The main difference between her body and a fetus is the fact that a fetus has different DNA than her own. The ultimate intent of the “Get your laws off my body” argument is to dehumanize an unborn child and regard it as an extension of a woman’s body. Biologically speaking, this is far from the truth.

Liberals who support affirmative action are by clear-headed and logical standards doubly supporting racism. Judging anyone by the color of their skin as opposed to the content of their character is without doubt racism. Assuming a minority cannot make it on their own merit, or assuming another person is racist and will discriminate is also racist. How can racism be obliterated by the use of racism? Is it not hypocritical to use racism as a means to the end of racism?

Do people have the right to hate? Yes, ultimately they do. I can hate anyone I choose to hate, as anyone can choose to hate me. However, when someone chooses to infringe on my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness because of their hate, that is not okay.

You get my point.

Emotions certainly have their place in political debate. I do not question that. However, informed decisions are not the result of one’s gut emotional response to an issue.

The so-called “anti-war” movement often used “the Iraqi civilians” and “the Iraqi children” in their arguments against the war in Iraq – suggesting our government’s intent was to actually kill civilians deliberately, or, at the very least, be careless in their attempts to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime and kill extraordinarily large numbers of civilians.

However, they are the ones more likely to suggest America was to blame for the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. They are the “progressives” telling Americans to not “become the hate they oppose” and defend ourselves from terrorism. Yet, they don’t ever point a finger at the group responsible for the attacks, and cry foul when the government targets individuals who fall into that same category of people in the quest to fight terrorism.

Liberals will criticize our government for not being more humanitarian by offering more aide to countries in need or liberating countries with brutal dictators, but they will organize protests against a Republican administration when it chooses to save a country from a brutal dictator, while simultaneously taking preemptive action to defend America from terrorism.

Liberals will wage a political war against a Republican administration for not doing anything about “the homeless problem” in the United States, but never make a peep during the administration of a Democrat.

Liberals’ arguments are faulty for the same reasons they claim their arguments are superior. They are biased, nonobjective and propagandist. To them, a fellow liberal’s opinion is more valid than a conservative’s verified factual source.

A liberal will suggest to me that I read one of their celebrated book titles, but never consider reading one of my own. I, they say, am a victim of right-wing propaganda.

Certainly, this piece will prompt a liberal to say that I am guilty of the same things I am suggesting they are guilty of. At first glance, it may appear so. However, the key difference is that liberal ideals have become part of the mainstream. They infiltrate the media, public education, Hollywood, and colleges and universities, amongst others. The image and perception of conservatives is blasphemed long before most people even have a real understanding of politics. With that in mind, conservative authors and such are more offering an alternative to the vast amounts of liberal propaganda that have infested the institutions previously mentioned. Because of this fact, liberal sources are not accountable for anything, even the truth.

Think I don’t know what I am talking about? Well, I do. I was a victim of this.

I use to be what some would call a “liberal.” I never really understood or followed politics in my youth, but I was once conditioned to believe such things like Republicans are for the rich, and Democrats are for the poor. I used to buy into the idea that cops are inherently racist and corrupt. Many years ago, I once signed an online petition to free Mumia Abu-Jamal, because a friend of mine told me he was innocent. I didn’t know anything about the case, but my immediate emotional reaction was to defend the rights of a falsely accused black man and condemn the evil white police force.

I was so dead wrong I am ashamed of my previous actions. I fell for the liberal trap. The moment I learned about the actual case, I was so completely transformed by this that this was one of the contributing factors that led me on the path of conservatism.

That’s how liberals think. They see someone like Mumia Abu-Jamal and see “White Cop” and “Black Man” and their liberal emotional response makes them see “Racist White Cop” and “Innocent Black Man.”

I fell for it. Lots of people fall for it. Liberalism scams your heart; it does not educate your brain.

My instinctual, uninformed, gut reactions pushed me to liberalism. My desire for knowledge and truth led me to conservatism. Emotional responses never equal objective responses.

My journey along the political spectrum included some stops along the way to the level of conservatism today. Generally, I started off as an uninformed moderate liberal. Upon my greater understanding of the issues, I became much more centrist. My complete political reawakening happened while in college – while in the belly of the liberal beast. It wasn’t because I was suddenly surrounded by conservatives and they changed my views… Contrary to that, it was the previously mentioned flaws of the liberals and their positions and arguments which solidified my position on the political spectrum.

My opinions are determined on an issue-by-issue basis. My previous political history gives me a perspective whereby I am able to understand how liberals reach their conclusions on an issue. Hence, the reason why I’ve successfully converted a number of liberals to conservatism.*

The tactics of liberals are virtually the same whether it’s your typical everyday uninformed liberal, to the lefty blogger on the Web, to a paid activist, and even an elected official.

They attack the person rather than address the issue. It can be in the form of a labeling game, to just an outright personal attack. Sometimes they resort to criticizing a conservative for things they do themselves, or for causes they don’t truly believe in.

Think about it. I’ve heard lefties call George W. Bush a drunk, or fault him for his daughters’ drinking and/or smoking pot. However, these are the same people who drink underage, get drunk, smoke pot, and push for the legalization of marijuana nonetheless. It’s things like these that show you that it’s not about right and wrong, it’s about left and right.

I’ve delved into some of the liberal tactics in debate that I have personally encountered. My question and challenge to my readers is the following: How have you seen liberals debate in ways that contribute to the overall futility of even arguing with them?

[size=1]*I am sure that this statement is bound to prompt some desperate liberal to make a claim they have converted a conservative to become a liberal similarly to how I did the opposite. Though they can make the claim, wouldn’t it be a rather typical and obvious response to try and counter this piece? If such a claim is made, it will only have been made in response to my own and will most likely be a false rebuttal committed by a liberal desperate to try to make a point in his/her favor.[/size]

I was asked a relatively simple question by my friend Melissa the other day.

The 4th of July often seems to me to be a rather pale fake celebration of our country. Let’s face it, eating too much fatty food, watching some lights explode, and riding some creaky nostalgic carnival rides is not exactly a tribute to the sacrifices people have made to establish & improve our country. It can be a fun holiday, espescially when you are a child. But, in light of recent events, I feel something more substantial is called for.

So that’s where you come in. I’m curious as to what it means to you to be an American. I know that’s a label you’ve really only felt since 9/11 which is probably a common thing with many people in this country.

I’m wondering how you define America & being an American. What characteristics are you proud of? What in our past, present, and future brings you hope? And, conversely, what about America isn’t good?

Don’t feel that you have to address the specific questions posed in the previous paragraph. You need only address my main query which is - what does being an American mean to you? What does our nation, as a whole, mean to you?

I hope everyone reading this blog entry will take some time to answer this question themselves in this blog. I don’t want to find comments arguing the political undertones of my answer. This is not an issue where debate is necessary or called for. All antagonistic posts will be deleted without hestitation. I only want to hear your thoughts on the questions I’m about to answer, and your feelings regarding what I’ve written.

As far as my answer goes, after lots of thought, lots of writing, I came up with the following answer:

I believe that today, Americans do not celebrate Independence Day. We celebrate the 4th of July – yet another three-day weekend. Is there something wrong with that? Maybe not, we’re 200+ years beyond our Declaration of Independence, and naturally we take it for granted.

Even I did. Until September 11, 2001.

The first real Independence I’ve ever witness in this country came on September 12, 2001. The flags came out. There was no script telling people how to feel. So people decided to feel like Americans. Perhaps that was the natural response to our country being attacked – for basically no other reason than the freedoms we enjoy and still to this day take for granted.

The first time I experienced a true Independence Day was back in 1998. It wasn’t on the 4th of July. It wasn’t even in America. It was April 29, 1998 in the streets of Tiberias in Israel.

Israel does not take their independence for granted. They are in a constant struggle to maintain that independence and identity – so they never forget what it means. Every Jew in Israel knows someone who has died for their country. That’s their life. They are constantly reminded about the cost of freedom and the struggle it takes to hold on to that freedom. They have to live their lives one day at a time. As teenagers, they don’t talk about going to college when they’re 18, they talk about going into the army, and then college. These are people who want to defend their country from the evils that would like to destroy them.

That night in Tiberias I celebrated Israel’s 50th year of independence. I celebrated with Americans, and Israelis. Only 24 hours earlier, we were observing Israel’s Memorial Day.

That’s right, in Israel; Memorial Day is followed by Independence Day. A day of somber remembrance of those who died to protect their home and people is followed by a day of celebration of the independence of the country whom their loved ones died to protect.

No one went shopping to take advantage of holiday sales at the malls. That’s not what it is like in Israel.

We didn’t go to cookout at someone’s house and eat fatty food .

That night in Tiberias, we actually celebrated 50 years of Israeli Independence. We danced in the street. We sang songs of joy and celebration. We got silly and acted like children. We celebrated freedom.

Celebrations like that are not made in America. Not today. Not anymore.

Something else happened that night I need to share.

A year before, I participated in a summer leadership conference with my youth group. Israeli teenagers participated at the conference as well, and I befriended many of them. One of them, I ran into that night in Tiberias.

His name was Raz Mintz. We’d lost touch shortly after that summer we met, but we recognized each other right away.

Raz Mintz celebrated his country’s independence with us that night. He later went on to defend his country.

He would also die for country.
He was killed November 2, 2001.

He is the first person I’ve ever met who died for their country.

Things like that change how you look at the world, and how you look at your own country.

September 11, 2001 was the day many Americans realized they were Americans. It was the day I realized what it meant to be an American.

Israelis fight on a daily basis to protect their country from an evil force that hates them. For America, being attacked by people who hate us, helped us realize what we had – even if only for a brief period of time.

The truth of the matter is, we don’t appreciate what America is, because we don’t know anything different. We’re accustomed to freedom; we don’t understand that for some, freedom is a luxury. Iraqis today are now beginning to experience that luxury, but we can’t understand what they’re going through.

America used to be the land of opportunity. America was the place that people could go to and find success despite their limitations. Today, America is the place people go so they don’t have to overcome their limitations.

America used to be a country people came to so they could become Americans. Today, it is the country people come to and take advantage of freedom at the expense of Americans.

The reason why this happens is because our nation is so great. It also happens because has many faults. Nevertheless, our faults help contribute to our greatness.

We wouldn’t be attracting so many people to come here if we weren’t so great.
People wouldn’t risk their lives to come to America if we weren’t so great.

Sadly enough, while this hasn’t changed, the times have changed. People still come here for those reasons, but the attitude has changed. People feel America owes something to them to make their lives better.

But that’s not what America is about. It’s about you making your life better if wish to so.

That’s what it means to be an American. For the most part, we control our own destinies. We can choose to work our way to success, or be coddled into dependency of the government, which has taken the role as The Provider in recent history.

It’s about freedom. It’s about choice.

People died to give us that freedom. We can’t forget that.

Unfortunately the further through history we go, the more disconnected from that fact we get.

It’s sad sometimes to think that dying for your country has gone from being something honorable to something that can’t handle. People cringe at the thought of sacrifice. People whimper at the onset of a nosebleed after being punched by the enemy. People point fingers at the President for asking our soldiers to fight for our national security, and for the extermination of evil.

We forget about our enemies. We forget how real they are. We lose sight of the fact that America’s greatness is constantly threatened – and people question our need to protect it.

Israel is constantly protecting itself, and frontlines of their constant battle to maintain their independence is in their streets, their backyards, their synagogues, their markets, their homes. They never forget how precious their independence is.

America has.

September 11th reminded us – but we quickly forget.

So we’ll continue with the cookouts, the sales, and the commercialism of The 4th of July. I admit, this 4th of July, I’ll be in Connecticut at a party celebrating the commercialized holiday with college friends.

I’ve experienced two real Independence Days in my life. Once in Israel, and once in America. Two very different but very real experiences.

But that’s okay. There will be other times. Hopefully for all us.

For now, we’re content enjoying the freedoms that we get in America without having to be constantly reminded just how precious they are. Someday we’ll all remember, and we’ll wave our flags again.

Michael Moore,

In your open letter to President Bush, you belittle his military service in the Texas National Guard, suggesting some sort of inferiority of his military stature. I have to question such criticism of Bush’s military status (or in your view, lack-thereof) when the military uses guns – and you clearly hate guns. Wouldn’t you rather Bush have less military rank/experience/status?

Nevertheless you make a point to address Bush’s military record. What is yours? Did you serve? I didn’t think so. He’s done more for his country than you could in nine lives.

Because you are a radical left-wing pussy.

Based on the standard you’ve chosen to set, I can only assume I have the right to judge your intelligence based on your education – of lack-thereof. When it comes to your ability to inform “stupid white males” like myself with your “impressive” knowledge on political issues how can you suggest you have anything even remotely intellectual to say?

You dropped out of college in your first year. I, however, made the Dean’s List my first semester and also graduated 4 years later with honors and summa cum laude. So why don’t you read carefully – you might learn something.

With that in mind, you can address me as Mr. Margolis, should you ever respond to this letter.

In an answer to your question to President Bush, do I think you’re as dumb as you look? No. I think you’re dumber. You collectively label all Americans as “light in the head” but somehow you, a college dropout, has managed to see the light that the rest of can’t see?

Somehow, I just don’t get it.

Your insinuations about the rather important findings in Iraq this week are by no means a reflection of intellectual insight, prowess, or ability. Hell, they are not even a reflection of your ability to read.

MSNBC reported that one of the documents recovered this week was dated 2001, and was titled “Document burial and U.N. Activities in Iraq.” This document, according to sources gave detailed instructions on how to hide materials and deceive U.N. weapons inspectors.

That’s in print. Not crayon.

You suggested that the location of the documents and materials is a reflection of the lack of credibility that weapons ever existed – when in fact, it tells most thinking Americans just how hard the WMDs will be to find, and the efforts that will have to be made to do so.

I guess that’s beyond the mental capacity of a college drop-out.

Stupid white men, indeed.

I know you’d like to believe that George W. Bush, my President and yours, deceived America. However, your rhetoric only supports the fact that Bush is a moral and honest man, who would in-fact not deceive the public. In your own special way that makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside, you criticize Bush for not planting evidence in order to show he was right.

Joke or not. Sarcasm or not. You called Bush stupid for his honesty and integrity. You’ve only proved that Bush honestly believes Iraq had WMDs, and he would not stoop down to Clinton-style tactics to deceive the public to improve his own image.

President Bush has honor, integrity, and morality. You, however, do not.

Your image, as repugnant as it already is, has no moral integrity to fall back on. The content of your character reeks of the squalor that is your entire belief system.

You just can’t be taken seriously anymore. You haven’t gotten over the election of 2000. You were dead wrong in your predictions about the election of 2002. You are even a cancer to your liberal counterparts – bringing the DNC deeper into remission, not further into progression. Your so-called “progressive” ideas are no longer the mainstream. You learned this the hard way last November. You are going to learn it again in November 2004.

As much as your ideas are stupid, I appreciate your efforts. It’s liberals like you that make more and more people choose conservatism. It’s liberals like you who will help clinch President Bush’s victory in 2004.

Yours,

Matt Margolis

www.mattmargolis.com

P.S. I look forward to your reaction when the WMDs are found. I can only wish to be able to see the expression on your face.

NOTE: 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.

Are 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.

“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.

Emperor Misha made a post on his site today about abortion. This is a topic I have to honestly say has not been in the forefront of my mind lately. To be specific, I haven’t thought much about it since this summer. I actually wrote it then too.

Personally, I’m not one to get into the “when does life begin?” debate. It is one ideological aspect of the debate, which I rarely see brought up by the biggest “pro-choice” entities. It’s always the “privacy” and “woman’s rights” issue which is such a weak argument. The “when does life begin” question is probably one of the strongest areas for debate on the issue. However, Misha explained well about that part which I must say sums up the right side of that issue very well.

So, after reading Misha’s blog on the issue, I was reminded of my article from this past summer on the topic of abortion, and thought I’d post it in my blog. It is (or will be again) avaialable for read elsewhere on my site - I’ll post it for the purpose of hearing what you have to say about what I wrote. I really think that the perspective I took is one rarely discussed.

Without further ado.

The Illegitimacy of Fatherhood
by Matthew Margolis
August 20, 2002

What exactly does it mean to be a man who is pro-life? Usually, it is not much different than being a man who is pro-choice because more often than not, most women won’t accept a man’s opinion on the subject. More commonly, a man’s opinion of abortion is only relevant if his opinion is the same as theirs.

The issue of abortion is often clouded by the mind-set that it is an issue about the woman’s body, and how dare anyone tell a woman (or any person) what they can or cannot do with their own body.

People who are pro-choice believe abortion to be an issue about the women’s body. To pro-lifers, it is not. The fact is there are three people that are directly involved in this issue: the mother, and the father, and the child.

Being a man who is pro-life, it is very difficult to have a discussion on this issue with a pro-choice female without my opinion being immediately illegitimatized because I “do not have to worry about getting pregnant.” Although this is true, that men cannot bare children, to disqualify a man’s opinion totally degrades the man’s role in conceiving the child to begin with.

If a man and a woman conceive and the man chooses not to be a father, he is considered the scum of the earth – a selfish deadbeat dad. But, when a woman gets pregnant and chooses not to be a mother, she is merely exercising her right to choose. She becomes yet another poster-child of women’s rights.

It is true, that a man’s way out of a pregnancy is just to leave the woman. Women in this situation are left to either carry it to term and keep the child, or put it up for adoption; or not carry it to term and have an abortion.

Not all men are like that; contrary to popular liberal beliefs, there are men who do in fact take responsibility. Currently, men have no legal rights to have any say whatsoever in the life of their unborn child. As was shown in Stachokus v. Meyers, a recent court case in Pennsylvania.

The Associated Press article entitled “Decision Allows Woman’s Abortion” (August 5, 2002) reported that 23-year-old Tanya Meyers won the right to have an abortion that the father of her child had tried to prevent her from having. Previously, a temporary injunction had barred her from having the abortion. Judge Michael Conahan, of Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, who overturned that injunction, stated that a woman’s right to have an abortion “is not subject to being vetoed by a woman’s husband or partner … Neither an ex-boyfriend nor a fetus has standing to interfere with a woman’s choice to terminate her pregnancy.” Note that the man is referred to as the woman’s partner or ex-boyfriend, and not as the unborn child’s father.

The father of the unborn child, John Stachokus, 27 years of age, said he was willing to take full or partial custody of the child. But since Meyers doesn’t want to go through with the pregnancy, his willingness to take responsibility for the child was ruled irrelevant. Pro-choice activists probably consider him to be as evil as a man who abandons his wife or girlfriend with an unborn child.

Meyers’s lawyer said “Her right to privacy has been restored and she is free to go on with her life … It’s a great relief for her.” Of course, the woman now gets to go on with her life, but that baby, who was wanted by the father, now will never have a chance at life. Her “privacy” is more important than the life of a child who is loved and wanted by the father.

The “Findings of Fact” in this case make reference to the emotional distress suffered by Meyers in having her abortion prevented. The potential emotional distress of Stachokus, by having his child aborted, is not even considered, and therefore, as ruled by Judge Conahan, not even important.

Elizabeth Cavendish, the legal director for the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL), said “We hope this won’t encourage anti-choice advocates to misuse the litigation process to stand in the way of the execution of a woman’s constitutional rights.”

To liberals, pre-natal infanticide is a right covered by the 14th Amendment. I cannot understand how a man who wants to save the life of his child is violating the mother’s constitutional rights.

NARAL, who provided co-council in this case, refers to pro-lifers as “anti-choice activists”, once again distorting the issue of abortion to being about a woman’s right to do what she wants with her body, as opposed to it being an issue about the life of an unborn child.

Men are collectively criticized for not taking responsibility for their actions (it seems to be forgotten that it takes two people to conceive a child). If the man wants the child but the woman does not, as was the situation in Stachokus v. Meyers, by not giving his desire to keep the child any authority is hypocritical. It suggests that women have the power to impose responsibility on a man only when it is convenient – only in accordance to the woman’s decision.

By not giving the man any say whatsoever in preventing that unborn child’s life from being unnaturally ended suggests that men only need to take responsibility for their actions if the woman decides to keep the child - not if she doesn’t want to keep the child.

In Stachokus v. Meyers, the definition of “responsibility” for a man was altered from agreeing to care for and financially support the child (which Stachokus offered to do) to meaning he had to support the decision of the mother to abort the child… even though he did not want to lose his child. A woman’s “choice” is a man’s “responsibility” regardless of what the woman’s choice is.

Obviously, a man should not be able to force a woman to have an abortion if she does not want to - meaning men cannot deny women the right to motherhood. But, women can deny men the right to fatherhood. Is this because fatherhood is not as important, or not equal to motherhood? Is fatherhood merely a choice that is dependent on a superior (perhaps godlike) morality possessed by women who are with child?

Women have the power to absolve themselves of responsibility by having an abortion, while men on the other hand not only do not have that right, but also are criticized for not accepting responsibility. Yet, men are not yet given the right to accept responsibility if the mother doesn’t want them to, or doesn’t want to accept any responsibility herself.

Although the mother carries the child for nine months and endures the physical, mental, emotional, and hormonal hardships that come with it, that life inside her is not an extension of her body. It is an individual life with it’s own genetics, which come from both her and the child’s father.

We cannot change nature, women will always be the carriers of unborn children, but that does not give them the right to end the life of the unborn child anymore then the parents of a child who has been born. Before birth, it is a choice - after birth, it is a life. How is that right? The problem is, responsibility is only considered if the child is brought to term, but in reality, responsibility should be a concept considered before conception. Yes, accidents happen, but if the father is willing to accept responsibility for it, then abortion should not be an option.

I do not like being told that my opinion is invalid because of my gender. If men and women are equal, why is it that in the case of abortion, the opinions of men and women are not equal? When it comes to parenting, or at least the potential of becoming parents, the law empowers women as the superior decision makers. The recent decision in Stachokus v. Meyers devalues the man’s role in conception, and endorses the illegitimacy of fatherhood.

I’d love to hear your thoughts.

So did you hear about the National Progressive Conference to Take Back America that occured June 4-6 in Washington, DC? I didn’t know anything about it until I ran across a news article fron CNSNews.com which happened to mention it. My intrigue led me to search online about this conference and I came across http://www.ourfuture.org/projects/national_conference/index.cfm . One of the first lines to greet you is

The right-wing politicians who now run Washington are out of control.

I wish.

They are weakening America.

Aww, now that hurts. I’m offended. I’m suing! Hate speech!

No, seriously. This is gold. I’m excited already. This brings me to my next focus… The right wing media.

No need to check your eyes, you read correctly, the right wing media. Have you heard of Eric Alterman, author of the book “What Liberal Media?” CNSNews.com had an article called ‘Right Wing Media’ Called ‘Steamroller’ of Liberalism, and it reading it just goes to show you how liberals think. Mr. Alterman was one of the last speakers at the Take Back America conference.

No kidding right? How fitting.

Alterman said that conservatives dominate the media and they are now so powerful that “it’s a steamroller rolling over what is left of what we (liberals) believe and what we have worked for.”

Crybaby, crybaby, crybaby.

I’m not going to cite different damning examples proving left wing media bias on various major television networks, but I just want to highlight some of the stupid things Alterman said.

“Every time [conservatives] read anything they don’t like, they are on the case of the media, they are working the reps, and they are saying, ‘How dare you say that all homosexuals aren’t going to hell?’”

Since when? Can you tell me where? Can anyone show me an example of this?

“[Liberals] don’t lack for sound facts; we really just lack the capacity to get the facts out there.”

Yeah, we heard the same piss-poor, whiny crybaby excuse in November of 2002. Remember that? Remember Barbra Streisand and Terry McAuliffe yapping about the Democrats inability to get their message out? See, Democrats can’t lose on the issues, they lose on technicalities, and because Republicans don’t play by the rules. Republicans don’t win on the issues - they use dirty tricks. Yawn.

Conference panelist Anita Drobny, of AnShell Media said that the conservative-dominated media in America is not informing America accurately. According to Drobny:

“There are 350 hours of right wing talk [radio], and there are five hours of ‘other.’ Out of the five hours of ‘other,’ three hours is [Fox News’s] Alan Colmes. What does that say to us? It frightened me,”

Anita is an idiot. She’s stupid and also needs work on her math. Based on her numbers, Alan Colmes (who clearly is not a good enough liberal for Drobny) is 3 of the 5 hours of talk radio hosted by a liberal. Meaning that there is only one other liberal talk show in the entire country, and it is only two hours. I guess she wasn’t counting taxpayer funded NPR, amongst others.

Liberal math is apparently more complex than calculus… Because her numbers don’t work no matter how I try to get them to.

Another panelist, Dan Carol, of the Carl/Trevelyan Strategy Group warned the liberal conference cesspool that the left has lots of work to do before it can challenge the dominant right wing media.

I was just thinking, were Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, Ted Turner, or Tom Brokaw there? I’d love to hear their thoughts on the right-wing media.

Dan Carol also said “Even if we had a TV channel right now, I don’t think we could fill it 24/7 with good programming.” I’m trying to think of a 24/7 conservative station. Why are they talking about a 24/7 liberal station? Isn’t CNN enough?

The article continues:

Alterman cited a New York Times report that indicated users of the conservative website Free Republic.com spend an average of more than five hours reading the site. That typifies the devotion of conservative activists, he said.
“They are not just masturbating in front of their computer screen, they are e-mailing their congressman, they are e-mailing letters to the editor, they are organizing gatherings, they are spreading rumors, getting stuff on Rush and Drudge that night,” Alterman explained.

Is Alterman implying that we fight better? I’ll tell you what he is saying. He’s saying that conservatives are doing exactly what good citizens are supposed to do! He’s pissed off that conservatives apparently care more about their country to do something. He’s pissed off that liberals are too busy learning about homosexual sex in school that they don’t know how to read and write a letter to the editor, or write their congressman. He’s pissed that liberals don’t know how to organize gatherings and spread rumors.

Wait a second, what ever happen to those “worldwide ‘anti-war’ protests,” those “nationwide campus anti-war protests?” Liberals don’t organize?

Here’s the deal. Liberals can’t accept defeat. They can’t accept failing the American public on the issues. They can’t even concede that maybe…just maybe… that more and more Americans are leaning conservative because they are conservative… because they want to be… because they are choosing the moral high ground… because they understand a life is life at conception… because they understand that the government is too big… that taxes are too high… that if you take guns away from us, then only criminals will have them… that Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator who had to be taken out… that child molesters shouldn’t be on the streets…. that you don’t eliminate discrimination by discriminating against the majority… that you can’t let everyone into this country and give them benefits they didn’t pay for… because Americans understand that the liberals are wrong.

“You can watch Fox News, you can read the Washington Times, the Weekly Standard, the New York Post, Matt Drudge, Rush Limbaugh; it’s a whole world view, and it’s an energizing world view,” Alterman said. You can also watch CNN, you can also read the New York Times, TIME Magazine, The Boston Globe, etc. etc. etc.

There are choices in America. What to watch… what to read… which websites to browse… Liberals want to remove your right to choose.

Your right to choose.

Because the option of conservative outlets disrupts the foundation of the liberal monopoly on… just about everything from education, to media, to Hollywood, to newspapers, to whatever you’d like.

Your right to choose.

Because the mere existance of conservatism is threatening to liberals. Because two sides to every story means at one point, you have to accept one eventually.

You can’t choose conservatism without it being someone elses fault. The “vast right-wing conspiracy” which is too blame for the liberals’ shortcomings.

Your right to choose is your right to reject liberalism if you want to. Liberals don’t want you to enjoy that freedom. They don’t care about what you are, unless you are what you should be: just like them. It’s not about right wing dominance. It’s about right wing presence.

Liberals feel threatened - and I know why.