Bush Bashing Futility

Sunday, July 31, 2005

From Michael Barone's article on Bush Bashing:

But mainstream media no longer have a monopoly; Americans have other sources in talk radio, Fox News, and the blogosphere. Bush's presidency is still regarded as illegitimate by perhaps 20 percent of the electorate. But among the rest, the attempt to delegitimize him seems to be collapsing.

While I don't support the occupation of Iraq and will wait to judge its effectiveness on curbing terrorism, Mr. Barone is right on the mark about the numskulls who are content in believing Mr. Bush's presidency is illegitimate. If 2000 cast any doubts they were surely erased by Bush's convincing 2004 victory, even though - as Mr. Barone correctly points out -- "for months the mainstream media mostly ignored the swift boat vets' charges against John Kerry and broadcast accusations against Bush based on forged documents eight weeks before the election."

When Ann Coulter told Sean Hannity "we have the media now," every liberal on the Internet plastered and framed the quote as proof the media is not controlled by the Left. But instead of pretending Democrats never controlled the media in the first place liberals should be concerned as to why they're losing it.

The ridiculous accusations made against conservative appointments in the past like Robert Bork will no longer work today, especially now that Republicans control the Senate.

It's funny how the Bush-bashers had the nerve to tell the president to nominate a "consensus candidate" after years of ridicule and baseless claims made against the man. Just what until who the man has in store for the next Supreme Court retirement.

Gay Plates Ok Says Judge

Thursday, July 28, 2005

Back in June I blogged about a judge who forced the city of Jacksonville to fly gay-pride banners for six days and found it disturbing because it's not the job of the judge to advance gay rights. Now a new judge has stripped the state of Utah the right to regulate its own transportation laws:

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (AP) -- The state of Utah can't block a woman from using her license plate to tell the world "GAYSROK," a judge has ruled.

The state has no good reason to prevent Elizabeth Solomon from having that plate -- which can be read "Gays are OK" or "Gays Rock" -- or another one saying "GAYRYTS," according to Jane Phan, an administrative law judge with the Utah State Tax Commission.

The state can appeal the July 19 decision.

Dani Eyer, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah, which represented Solomon, countered: "The government can't pick and choose what subjects it likes and does not like."

So according to the ACLU I should be allowed to display my "JEWSSUK" license plate or "NEONAZI" tag on my car. With that kind of liberal thinking I should be able to register the novelty slogan "EATDICK" because "the government can't pick and choose what subjects it likes and does not like."

Well actually, it can - or should - be able to regulate its own services. As you may recall from your teenage years: driving is not a right, it's a privilege.

To be fair, a tag that reads "GAYSROK" isn't quite as egregious as one that commands "KILSPIK," but we must realize despite the opinions of the ACLU someone has to draw the line somewhere.

We're not talking about free speech bumper stickers here, but government issued identification tags. It makes the rules. Inasmuch as I would despise a ruling that halted the distribution of "Choose Life" license plates here in Florida, I wouldn't go about saying the state shouldn't have the ability to do so.

And Cars Should Come With Free Clubs

While working on a controversial bill designed to protect gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits, the Senate passed an amendment 70-30 that would require child safety locks to be sold with all handguns.

The truth is most reputable gun manufactures already provide consumers with free gun locks just like the one pictured that came with my Glock 27. Notice how it's still in its original plastic package. And it won't be coming out anytime soon because if a situation were to ever arise I'd like to be able to utilize those hollow points in a timely manner.

Moreover you're not guaranteeing a house will be any safer with an extra lock lying around. You can force a child to buy a book but that doesn't mean he's going to read it.

Voters Find Cross -- Gasp! -- Harmless

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

And to think this is in blue-state California:

A ballot measure to preserve the Mount Soledad cross on public land in La Jolla easily surpassed the two-thirds support it needed for approval Tuesday night.

Two court dates are scheduled in the next three weeks. A Superior Court judge will examine the ballot measure's constitutionality Aug. 12, and a federal judge will hear cross-related arguments Aug. 15.

The proposition calls for the San Diego City Council to give the 29-foot cross, a concentric set of granite walls and the land around them to the U.S. Interior Department as a national veterans memorial.

The cross has been there since 1954. However, in 1989, an atheist filed a federal lawsuit challenging its constitutionality because it was located on public property.

What's getting the atheists so worked up is that a federal law was created to make the cross a National War Memorial and authorized the federal government to receive a donation of the land on which the cross and memorial stood.

Detractors consider the cross an "established religion" even though in this case it is nothing more than a symbolic memorial. Three out of four voters want to keep the cross where it is, but that didn't phase the lawyer of the client who filed the lawsuit. "It still doesn't mean a damn thing," he said. "Voters should have never voted on it. It's a waste of taxpayers' money."

Of course he doesn't think voters should have a say, because the majority of people aren't offended by a harmless memorial that happens to be in the shape of a cross.

Hat tip: Malkin

Embrace Racial Profiling

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

From today's NYT editorial:

London's bombings continue to echo throughout the urban world. In New York City, commuters have been facing random searches of backpacks, duffel bags and briefcases by police officers who are trying to thwart a potential terrorist attack

Travelers have long since gotten used to extensive searches before they board airplanes, and they should be relieved to see security measures on the subways and commuter trains as well. The New York City Police Department seems to have taken some pains to make sure that people's constitutional rights are respected.

The police officers must be careful not to give the impression that every rider who looks Arab or South Asian is automatically a subject of suspicion. They will naturally choose to search the bags of those people who appear suspicious, like those wearing bulky clothes in warm weather. But those who are selected simply because they are carrying packages should be chosen in a way that does not raise fears of racial profiling - by, for example, searching every 5th or 12th person, with the exact sequence chosen at random.

Yes, because we saw how well it worked when London police killed a Brazilian for wearing "bulky clothes" in warm weather. It is perfectly reasonable in today's time to search anyone carrying a package onto a subway car - especially if he looks Arab.

It sucks yes, but so does getting blown up because we were afraid to offend Mohammed Sadique Khan because his ethnicity represents the majority of modern day suicide bombers.

Dean Admits Democrats Needs Pro-Life Voters

Friday, July 22, 2005

Deciding it would nice to win an election once and awhile for the Democrats, party chairman Howard Dean expressed a need to reach out to the pro-life crowd.

The leader of the DNC told a group of college Democrats that their party has to change its approach in the debate over abortion.

"I think we need to talk about this issue differently," said Dean. "The Republicans have painted us as a pro-abortion party. I don't know anybody in America who is pro-abortion."

I do. They're the people who think abortion should be legal. They're the people opposing a perfectly good Supreme Court nominee in John Roberts simply because he doesn't believe the line "right to privacy" is in a document that doesn't have the line "right to privacy" in it.

Dean isn't the first high-profile Democrat to publicly admit mainstream Americans frown upon Democrat-sponsored laws that allow 13-year-old girls to get abortions without parental consent. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton Of New York has also tried to convince the party faithful they could us the votes from us women haters.

Dean said the difference between his party and Republicans is that "we believe a woman has a right to make up their own mind and they believe Tom DeLay should make it up and Rick Santorum should make it up for them."

Actually, most Republicans and the rest of us pro-lifers fully believe in a woman's right to make up her own mind. It's just that after she's made the decision to drop her pants she should - uh, you know; like with every other choice in the world - live with the consequences.

ProtectOurCourt.org to Protect Nothing

Thursday, July 21, 2005

A hideously unfair group called ProtectOurCourt.org is already attacking Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, saying -- surprise -- Roberts is unfit to serve on the nation's highest court because he isn't a liberal.

The group, started by former Wesley Clark staffers, tries to build a case against the solid judge by attacking him based on the clients he once represented...as if Johnnie Cochran had anything to do with the killing of O.J.'s wife.

If you didn't know, the job of the lawyer is to defend his client, not his interest. Yet there are groups hell-bent on seeing the defeat of Roberts' elevation to the Supreme Court. Perhaps you guys should spend more time trying to win an election. Then it will be your guy nominating all the Ginsbergs your heart desires.

But the people have spoken and rewarded Bush with another four years in office. It is his privilege to shape the Supreme Court. Not ProtectOurCourt.org's and certainly not the minority Democrats in Congress.

Note: The existence of ProtectOurCourt.org was brought to my attention by the excellent Supreme Court Nomination blog.

In my latest article I dissect every argument made by the group, all but one having anything to do with Roberts' record as a judge. From the article:

The campaign site warns: "In 1991, Roberts argued that doctors who receive federal funding cannot talk to patients about abortion options. Roberts was Deputy Solicitor General during the case of Rust vs. Sullivan."

Yes, he argued on behalf of his client - kind of like how Johnnie Cochran argued on behalf of O.J. Simpson. That's what lawyers do, they represent their clients without necessarily arguing their own beliefs.

Again on the same theme: "Roberts helped write a brief that reiterated the first Bush administration's opposition to the Supreme Court decision of Roe vs. Wade, arguing, "We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled."

Only close-minded liberals have trouble understanding how some judges could find fault in how a "right to privacy" was forged from the Constitution that never mentions those words.

Still though, the brief was written on behalf of a client, with an exclaimer that stated it wasn't his own opinion. Moreover, as a D.C. Appeals Court judge, Roberts rightfully vowed to uphold the legality of Roe v. Wade. See, he knows how to be a judge and doesn't put his personal beliefs before the law.

Finally, we can now discuss Roberts' record as a judge, not a lawyer...nope; wait - he's still a lawyer representing a client. ProtectOurCourt.org states: "In 1993, Roberts argued in Bray vs. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, that protestors who blocked the entrance to reproductive health clinics did not discriminate against women. Congress later enacted the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) to protect women and health care providers from violence and harassment."

Because when you block an entrance to a clinic by not allowing anyone in, you're applying fair standards and aren't discriminating against anyone, even women! But even if Roberts was making that finding as a judge -- which he wasn't -- it sparked the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. That's how our government works. The courts rule on the current law and Congress fixes the problem by enacting new legislation. Congress fixes the law. Not the courts.

Again as a lawyer: "John Roberts argued that it was constitutional for a public school to sponsor prayer at its graduation ceremony in a friend of court brief filed in the 1991 case of Lee vs. Weisman."

Being that there isn't anything mentioned about public schools in the First Amendment, Roberts again hit a homerun when he argued before a third party that prayer at a graduation ceremony isn't "Congress establishing a religion." Of course the liberal members of the Supreme Court disagreed and voted against Roberts' client. In the opinion of one of those justices, Anthony Kennedy fails to show how the case has anything to do with Congress, but that is what you should expect from a Constitution-expanding liberal justice; the kind ProtectOurCourt.org wants.

Once again Roberts is attacked because of whom he represented: "In the case of Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, Roberts served as Toyota's lead counsel and argued to limit the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act."

Only when ProtectOurCourt.org attacks Johnnie Cochran for representing O.J. should they bring up cases like this as if Roberts was arguing on behalf of his own interests. Same for this scenario: "John Roberts joined the Reagan administration's efforts to stop Congress from overturning a 1980 Supreme Court decision in Mobile vs. Bolden that weakened parts of the Voting Rights Act."

It was his job. He wasn't a judge interpreting the Constitution, he was fulfilling his obligation on behalf of the Reagan administration.

ProtectOurCourt.org's last complaint against Roberts is about his position on the environment, the first and only time the site discusses him as a judge, not a lawyer working for somebody else. "Roberts questioned the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act in a dissent from the decision by the D.C. Circuit not to reconsider the ruling by a three-judge panel in the 2003 case of Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton. The case involved a company filing suit against the government after its construction project was stopped because the Environmental Protection Agency found it was 'likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the arroyo southwestern toad.'"

So for siding with a construction company that couldn't contract work because the EPA said it might endanger the existence of a toad Roberts is now anti-environment? Whether you like frogs or not, Roberts' opinion that a toad which lives exclusively in California and isn't subject to blanket federal commerce clause legislation is perfectly reasonable, agree with it or not.

Only once does ProtectOurCourt.org criticize an actual court opinion written by John Roberts as a judge. This is because there isn't anything controversial about the nominee. As a judge he is as fair as it gets, resorting to the written law when finding facts. That an organization strongly opposed to John Roberts can only come up with one case against him is telling, and proves how far liberals will go to attack somebody who doesn't agree with them on everything.

Aggressive Profile: Judge John Roberts

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

He may be young (by Supreme Court standards) and good looking, but does John Roberts have the integrity and understanding of the institution to serve on the nation's highest court?

Judge Roberts has served as a federal judge for just a little more than two years on the court of appeals for D.C., considered the second-highest court in the country. But whether or not two years is considered sufficient experience, this sharp attorney has plenty of experience arguing 39 cases before the Supreme Court.

Liberal groups strongly opposed to Roberts' nomination recall a brief he co-wrote in 1990 that suggested the Supreme Court should overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that legalized abortion.

"The court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion ... finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution," the brief said.

Yet during his 2003 confirmation hearing Roberts told senators that he would be guided by legal precedent. "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land." Wise words from an appellate judge who has no choice but to respect the ruling from the highest court. The question now is just how will he interpret Roe v. Wade as a member of it?

While he's currently not the most well-known justice in the country, nor was he mentioned much by court insiders, Roberts has spent many years in the White House, Justice Department and of course in private practice, where he took part in numerous opportunities to argue before the Supreme Court.

In the Reagan administration, Roberts was special assistant to the attorney general and associate counsel to the president. Between 1989 and 1993, he was principal deputy solicitor general, the government's second-highest lawyer, who argues cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist presided over the swearing-in ceremony when Roberts took his seat on the appeals court for the District of Columbia. It wasn't an easy ride. He was nominated for the court in 1992 by the first President Bush and again by the president in 2001. The nominations died in the Senate both times. He was re-nominated in January 2003 and joined the court in June 2003.

Roberts is recognized as a highly intelligent jurist and has received praise from people belonging to all ideologies. An impressive 126 members of the District of Columbia Bar, which included officials from the Clinton administration, signed a letter urging his confirmation. In the letter Roberts was described as one of the "very best and most highly respected appellate lawyers in the nation" and that his reputation as a "brilliant writer and oral advocate" was well deserved.

It is expected that groups on the left and the right will wage a fierce campaign to influence the public to let their senators know where they stand on Bush's appointment. Because liberals were hoping for a more moderate replacement for Justice O'Connor, it should be expected that Roberts will face strict opposition.

While many critics of hard-right justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas say they have political agendas, Judge John Roberts puts the text of the Constitution before ideology, as his on-the-record opinions reflect an originalists' narrow interpretation of the guiding document.

A great example of how Roberts uses the Constitution and nothing else in his rulings can be found in Hedgepath v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority - involving a 12-year-old girl who was obtained by authorities for committing the heinous crime of eating french fries in a Metrorail station. In his ruling against the girl Roberts finds:

No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation. A twelve-year-old girl was arrested, searched, and handcuffed. Her shoelaces were removed, and she was transported in the windowless rear compartment of a police vehicle to a juvenile processing center, where she was booked, fingerprinted, and detained until released to her mother some three hours later — all for eating a single french fry in a Metrorail station. The child was frightened, embarrassed, and crying throughout the or-deal. The district court described the policies that led to her arrest as "foolish," and indeed the policies were changed after those responsible endured the sort of publicity reserved for adults who make young girls cry. The question before us, however, is not whether these policies were a bad idea, but whether they violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. Like the district court, we conclude that they did not, and accordingly we affirm.

It is that kind of eloquence the Supreme Court needs. Even though it was easy to sympathize with a young girl who was busted on a silly zero-tolerance policy, Roberts correctly saw no violation of the Constitution.


Aggressive-Voice endorses John Roberts to be the next associate justice confirmed to the United States Supreme Court.

Meet the Next Supreme Court Justice - John Roberts

He's good looking, young (for Supreme Court standards) and has a solid grasp of the Constitution and knows the role of the jurist. Solid pick, Mr. Bush.

More to come.

UPDATE

I'll be watching the Supreme Court Nomination Blog for more information on Judge Roberts as it comes in. Currently writing a profile on the relatively unknown jurist.

Hillary Whores Herself to Hispanic Crowd

Because Latinos vote too:

Speaking to the nations' largest Hispanic civil rights organization, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., received a standing ovation Monday when she vowed her support for legislation that would allow illegal immigrant high school students to attend college.

Translation: State universities partly funded by you and me should cater to students that by law shouldn't even be in the country.

While politicians from both parties refuse to isolate themselves from the precious Hispanic vote by calling for immigration reform, I am not aware of steps being taken as drastic and progressive as Clinton's that would ensure illegal aliens the right to college.

Why do we even call them illegal anymore?

When Flag-Burning Isn't Protected

Friday, July 15, 2005

You'd have to be severely drunk to not mean to do this:

MARYVILLE, Tenn. - A teenager was jailed for nine days after being accused of burning an American flag on the Fourth of July, and he faces trial next month.

While the case could test a state statute against flag burning - an act the U.S. Supreme Court says is protected under the First Amendment - prosecutors said Andrew Elisha Staley has yet to argue that he was exercising free speech rights.

Staley, 18, is accused of taking the flag from a residence and setting it on fire. The teenager was released from jail Thursday on his own recognizance while he awaits his Aug. 2 trial on charges of desecrating a venerated object, underage drinking, littering, evading arrest, burning personal property and theft.

The Tennessee flag-burning statute makes the crime a misdemeanor, punishable by less than a year in jail and up to $2,500 fine.

The guy's father said he was drunk and would have no reason for burning the flag other than that he was under the influence. This statement might come back to bite Staley because now he has to argue that his flag burning is somehow free speech to be protected by the First Amendment.

Moreover, the guy also faces a bunch of other charges thrown at him. Perhaps he'll think twice about how he celebrates our nation's independence next year.

Fantastic Four, Burger King's Bitch

In my scathing review of one of the worst movies of the year, I bring up the most offensive case of product placement in a film. Ever.

Yet no one else brought it up. In reviews as critical as mine not one critic has called "Fantastic Four" out as the bitch it is under the submission of the fast food chain known as Burger King.

And now the TV commercials have confirmed it. Just go to http://bk.com and see it for yourself. Shake your head in shame, especially if you're a fan of the comic book; or worse, the movie. As the website loads a large flash presentation pops out at you with an image of The Thing telling you to "have it your way," and a customizable online comic entices children to play along.

For a five-week period the highly popular burger joint will be giving away exclusive toys in their Kids Meals you'll find nowhere else. Not that there's anything wrong with movies and restaurants doing joint promotions together - the problem occurs when it becomes a major distraction in the movie itself.

If you haven't seen the utterly dismal flick, there's a part where Torch, one of the Fantastics whose human name is Johnny, actually lights up a billboard featuring Burger King's flame-broiled Whopper with flames strategically placed in the right spots alluding to how the burgers are cooked. The fire that was started by Torch "broils" the billboard image of a whopper, suggesting that after the movie you should go to Burger King and order a flame broiled Whopper.

So why hasn't anyone else brought this up? Probably because product placement has become the norm in mainstream cinema. We expect to see giant ads for Coke and Toyota and when we do we just assume it's part of the movie.

Moreover, such displays are hard to distinguish from legitimate props, such as the restaurant vendors seen in Steven Spielberg's "The Terminal." But in "Fantastic Four" the film stops in its tracks so audiences can be subliminally seduced by a flaming Whopper. Never have I seen something so shameful in the name of marketing.

I have no patience for sellouts. Box office giants like "Fantastic Four" do not need to distract audiences with subliminal commercials after we've already endured twenty minutes of annoying Fanta commercials while holding on to a $8-10 movie stub that wasn't purchased so we could watch advertisements.

When a highly anticipated movie is scheduled to begin a 8:00 don't expect it to actually start until 8:30. Don't think you can show up late however unless you want to sit in the front row. All this adds up to a disappointing movie going experience that can only be remedied by a truly fantastic film - one not with the word 'fantastic' in the title.

The Eternal Justice

Thursday, July 14, 2005

"I am not about to announce my retirement. I will continue to perform my duties as chief justice as long as my health permits."

This, from the guy who was just released from the hospital suffering from a "fever," says he will continue to serve as chief justice on the highest court in the country until he croaks.

Rehnquist, who has been on the court for an amazing 33 years is battling thyroid cancer and has a trachea tube to him breathe and a cane to help him walk.

With all due respect to the Great Chief, it's getting kind of ridiculous. Perhaps I'm just anxious, but President Bush is now facing three confirmations: O'Connor's replacement, Rehnquist's replacement, and the chief justice spot.

Considering the current speed of the embattled Senate all three confirmations might not take place before the Court resumes work next session.

Let's hope before October we'll know the newest two justices of Scalia's Court.

At Least Corporate Frauds Don't Murder Children

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Love him or hate him, Bill O'Reilly is the only pundit in the country leading the fight to lock away child sex offenders. Two nights ago on his FOX program The O'Reilly Factor Bill named every state and their governors that have weak laws on sexual predators, both red and blue; Republican and Democrat.

There's no reason why Jessica's Law isn't being passed in every state in the union. It's appropriate, fair and reasonable. You touch a child under the age of 10 and you go to prison for a minimum of 25 years. Do it again and you're gone for life.

Today the CEO of WorldCom, Bernard Ebbers, was sentenced to 25 years in prison for his part in the $11 billion accounting scam that ruined the portfolios of many employees. Inasmuch as one would like to see this creep get locked away, I'd rather he be walking the streets than a thug with a penchant for child molesting.

Twenty-five years for child molesters. No less.

Would you Spill Harry Potter's Beans?

Monday, July 11, 2005

Harry Potter's latest secret may have slipped out in Canada, and publishers of the best-selling books hope the magical allure of author J.K. Rowling's autograph will get it back under wraps.

Raincoast Books Ltd. has won a court injunction barring the buyers of "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" from disclosing the plot. The court also ordered all the copies be returned to Raincoast, which has promised the early buyers book plates autographed by Rowling once the embargo is lifted.

Those few with advanced copies have a lot of power, sadly, and can do a lot of damage if they reveal the plot and conclusion before the highly anticipated book is released.

If you had your hands on a copy you could either return it and get an autographed book plate, or become world famous by being the guy who posted crucial if not all the pages of the book on the Internet.

Mighty tempting.

Revival of Reagan Conservatism

Just got this e-mail from John Kerry:

Dear Friend,

Let's make our principles crystal clear right out of the box. We will never support a Supreme Court nominee intent on reversing Roe v. Wade and undoing critical civil rights protections.

From the range of choices the White House is currently considering, America and the Constitution would be best served if President Bush chooses a nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor, who was named to the Court by no less of a conservative than Ronald Reagan and approved unanimously by the United States Senate.

Sow now compromise is no good. Remember during the Senate fight over judicial nominees how Democrats screamed about the minority party having a say without Senate Republicans getting their way every time? Yet the same Democrats are set on ensuring that the Supreme Court is never filled with justices who would threaten to overturn the bogus Roe v. Wade decision.

Let's take a look at the current ideological leanings of the Supreme Court:
Conservatives: 3 (Rehnquist, Thomas, Scalia)
Moderates: 1 (Kennedy)
Liberals: 4 (Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer)

It would be absolutely fair for Bush to nominate someone with similar views to Thomas or Scalia, especially if it's to replace Rehnquist after elevating a moderate such as Alberto Gonzalez to replace O'Connor.

In that situation there would still be more liberals on the court, but the Dems will be satisfied with nothing less than two "Reagan conservatives" who are really moderates.

When the president is conservative, having been elected twice, and his Congress is conservative, it can only be expected that at least one of his Supreme Court nominees is conservative.

Troops to Possibly Return in 2006

According to the Associated Press the Pentagon is planning to pull some of its 135,000 troops out of Iraq in 2006. Many here in the United States want a definitive date for pullback, but such information made publicly would be insane because that would be giving away information to the enemy.

My best friend just left for Iraq yesterday after his 2-week leave and will be on patrol in the worst of it until an early month of next year. The last thing I want is for is the insurgents to wait until that time to execute an all-out attack on our soldiers if they become aware of pullout dates.

Fantastic Flop

Sunday, July 10, 2005

I never expect much from movies inspired by comic books, and Fantastic Four hardly looked fantastic judging by the trailers and previews - so I can't say I was surprised to have disliked the film. What kind of threw me off was how horrible the film turns out to be.

Consider that it manages to go from start to finish without doing anything of great significance. By the time each member of the Fantastic Four learns of their powers there's only time for a ridiculously goofy looking villain to kill a few people and then...well, let's just say it's bad.

Stay away from this farce. With great films like War of the Worlds and Batman Begins still playing there's no excuse to contribute your cash to this one.

Plea Deal of a Lifetime

Monday, July 04, 2005

Apparently the United States isn't the only country that grants plea bargains to even the most heinous of villains. This story is downright sickening:

TORONTO (Reuters) - A Canadian sex killer was freed after 12 years behind bars on Monday. Karla Homolka, 35, and her then-husband, Paul Bernardo, kidnapped, sexually assaulted, tortured and killed two teenaged girls in the early 1990s in southern Ontario.

Homolka, who videotaped the assaults, also drugged her 15-year-old sister so Bernardo could rape her in the basement of her family home after a Christmas dinner. The girl choked on her own vomit and died.

She agreed to a plea-bargain sentence for manslaughter in return for testifying against Bernardo, an agreement that angered Canadians and was dubbed "a deal with the devil." Bernardo is serving a life sentence for murder and will likely never be released.

A Quebec judge rejected Homolka's request last Wednesday for a publication ban that would prevent the media from reporting her whereabouts.

"The thought of being relentlessly pursued, hunted down and followed when I won't have any protection makes me fear for my life," she said in an affidavit. "People are always going to interpret what I do as bad. They'll pick out one bad thing from a sea of good and I'll be judged on that," she wrote in prison correspondence that was published in a newspaper.

Question: If the "assaults" were videotaped then why did prosecutors need Homolka to testify against her husband if they had more than enough evidence to convict?

Any person who takes an active role in the torture, rape and murder of anyone deserves no less than life in prison, let alone a measly twelve year sentence many drug offenders here in the United States wish they could serve instead of their punishments.

Homolka is the embodiment of evil. Rather than appreciate the most generous sentence one could receive for taking part in such crimes, Homolka is concerned that she will be "judged" for whatever she does from now in life. Well, at least she's being judged in a free society.

And talk about audacity. She fears for her life? Tell that to the victims' families who saw the videotape you produced of a teenage girl who died on her own vomit. I commend the Canadian citizens and members of the media who are protesting the release of this subhuman.

Bye Bye Sandra Day

Friday, July 01, 2005

What great news it was to learn that Sandra Day O'Connor will be stepping down from the Supreme Court. As you well know, O'Connor was the swing vote against a case that could have reversed Roe. V Wade, a decision that was implemented by an activist court with no regard for the Constitution.

O'Connor is considered a moderate conservative but lately has become hardly dependable. Bush has a tough job ahead of him and the Senate an even harder one. I want a justice who will respect the Constitution, realize that if the People don't want gay marriage he/she will not ignore them, will put the individual before government and yield to states' rights. After all, the norms in Alabama aren't the same as in New York.

More later on this breaking news.