First, I must congratulate John Roberts having recently been sworn in by acting Chief John Paul Stevens to be the next chief justice of the Supreme Court. I wonder what was going through the mind of the longest serving justice who had to swear in a rookie who was placed immediately above him on the court.
With that milestone behind us all eyes turn to Bush's next pick; the all-important replacement for swing voter Sandra Day O'Connor. Word is Bush plans to wait until next week to make his selection, and the reason is beyond me.
The top headline this week is Tom DeLay's criminal indictment, an event that could turn out to be a devastating blow to the GOP. But it's a story that could easily be washed away if Bush were to announce his nomination of, say, Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owen to the Supreme Court as early as tomorrow.
I don't know what's up with Tom DeLay. Conservatives are crying conspiracy while liberals are crying criminal. I'm tired of this partisan fighting. All my energy is focused on the courts. If DeLay gets convicted then he'll get what he deserves. If anything critical develops I'll discuss it, but until then it's a subject you can turn to CNN for.
As for the courts, Democrats are not playing around. With a margin of 78-22, Roberts' confirmation vote was narrower than both of Clinton's picks combined, and any investigation into Ruth Bader Ginsburg reveals an "extremist" just as much as any conservative Bush could pick. Scalia passed through flawlessly without so much as a single 'nay' vote.
Is a filibuster fight looming? Time will soon tell.
The Waiting Game
We're Running Out of Clocks to Turn Back
A writer for USA TODAY compares us pro-lifers to Osama bin Laden in this wonderful Tuesday column:
Without questioning the integrity of those who believe that life begins at conception, the struggle to overturn Roe v. Wade can also be viewed as an attempt to turn back the clock on women's freedom. Opposing such a reversal isn't a matter of thinking abortion admirable, but of accepting the magnificent revolutionary principle that no man has a right to tell any woman what she can or cannot do with her body.We'll I'm glad Ralph Peters is sticking up for the opposite sex by calling us out as the terrorists we truly are. After all, why fight the terrorists abroad when there are plenty of us pro-lifers here in the United States to apprehend?
Attempts to interfere with another citizen's liberty are worthy of Osama bin Laden, not of Americans.
The Left really enjoys using that "turn back the clock" nonsense because it sounds so grave and ominous, but the reality is that overturning any court decision -- Roe v. Wade or Brown v. Board -- has no effect on the clock which remains fixed. The only way it could be "turned back" is if the legislature passed a law restricting what would no longer be protected by the Supreme Court. It is almost uniformly agreed in the political science community that in the unlikely event of a Roe reversal, the chances of a state passing a complete ban on abortion would be ridiculously small. Those of us hoping for a correction simply want such matters in the hands of accountable lawmakers, not high priests in black robes.
But that hasn't stopped the hysterical liberal lobbies from painting a doomsday picture in the minds of the public. And what bothers me most is how they try to rationalize the validity of Roe. The worst argument you can make is that laws restricting abortion would be "telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her body."
It's absolutely insane to suggest women (and men for that matter) have impalpable rights to their bodies. If so then every drug law would be unconstitutional. Every prostitution, vagrancy, and anti-strip club law has to be considered encroachment on a woman's "right" to do all those things to which the Constitution is completely oblivious.
At 18 a woman is a legal adult, so therefore any laws prohibiting her from possessing or consuming alcohol is as good as the state "telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her body."
No such right to absolute impunity over oneself exists. Stop pretending one does.
The Constitution Works Just Fine, Thank You
While lecturing to hundreds at the New York City Bar Association, one of the worst Supreme Court justices in modern history defended the use of foreign law in American jurisprudence and would like the next confirmed justice to be an activist who would "advance" desired American laws.
She also said she doesn't like the idea of being the only female justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, now that O'Connor has retired and is waiting to be replaced by Bush's next choice.
But when making this decision, "any woman will not do," Ginsburg warned.
There are "some women who might be appointed who would not advance human rights or women's rights," Ginsburg told her audience.
Well yeah, the best woman for the job would not "advance human rights" or "women's rights" or any rights. Judges aren't supposed to advance, promote, flaunt, or do anything with any laws unless it's ruling on the constitutionality of them.
Continuing, Ginsburg stressed that the president should appoint a "fine jurist," which is surprising considering I expected her to recommended a judge like herself.
"I have a list of highly qualified women, but the president has not consulted me," Ginsburg revealed last night.
Thank God. Our country does not need another ACLU-type Ruth Bader Ginsburg "advancing" or perverting our laws, a task the Constitution delegates to the Legislative Branch and only that branch.
During the question-and-answer session President Clinton's biggest mistake defended the application of foreign law to American cases.
"I will take enlightenment wherever I can get it," she said. "I don't want to stop at a national boundary."
Which is why Ruth Bader Ginsburg should have never been confirmed justice in the first place. Let us recall the oath Ginsburg took -- as well as the other six justices currently sitting on the Supreme Court -- prior to becoming one of the most powerful judges in the country:
"I, (state name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to theAs you can clearly see for yourself, judge's allegiance is to the Constitution and nothing else. Apparently Ginsburg feels she has the authority to transmogrify the role of the Supreme Court justice according to her own whims whenever convenient. For that she is extremely dangerous.
same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter. SO HELP ME GOD."
It's now the job of the president to make sure Ginsburg's voice becomes a minuscule one when the next justice is confirmed.
Democrats Content With No One
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is rolling the political dice - and in my opinion screwing his party over - by coming out in opposition to the appointment of Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court.
If many Democrats join Reid in opposing this likable and well-qualified candidate, Republicans will be able to make the case that any nominee put forth by President Bush would be opposed, therefore it wouldn't matter who he nominates next; including a solid originalist like the feared Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owen.
And with everyone on both sides of the aisle clamoring for Bush to replace a woman with a woman, Brown and Owen are perfect choices to fill the spot while at the same time providing an additional bonus for conservatives looking for the president to tilt the Supreme Court (probably drastically) to the right.
Many political scientists and court observers believe Roberts will have no noticeable impact on the bench, as he's a conservative replacing a conservative. In fact, if he plans to uphold Roe v. Wade then the elevation of Roberts will be a move to the left, hardly something we expected from the man who promised to nominate someone in the mold of Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia.
With every branch of the federal government in Republican hands, Democrats don't have a lot of negotiating room, and would score a major victory if an anti-Roe judge was replaced with one who would uphold the precedent. Such a case would mean three liberal justices would have to resign for there to even be a slight chance for a Roe v. Wade reversal in the near future.
Democrats claim they're "sending a message" to the president by giving Roberts a hard time, saying that this tough battle only means a tougher one for a more controversial choice that conservatives are desperately pleading for.
I won't be surprised if Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, Barbara Boxer, Dick Durbin and the rest of the hard-left in the Senate vote "no" on Roberts, but it dilute whatever legitimacy they have in the future when they take the same action against a true conservative who's just around the corner.
When All Else Fails, Impeach!
John Nichols of The Nation demonstrates quite a leap in his logic:
When pressed, Roberts suggested that only in extraordinary circumstances--when the precedent has proved to be "unworkable" or "difficult to apply"--should the Court even consider overturning settled law.What Nichols fails to understand is that Roberts described how the Supreme Court should go about handling precident; not how he will personally handle the matter. Roberts did not - in any way, shape or form, tell the judiciary committee how he was going to rule on the matter if given the opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Since the Roe v. Wade precedent has survived basically intact through three decades of legal and legislative assaults, and since it has not proved to be unworkable or difficult to apply, Roberts has effectively promised the Senate--under oath--that he will not seek as the Chief Justice to outlaw abortion or other reproductive rights.
These senators should also make it clear that, if John Roberts turns out to be the judicial activist that some fear, and if that activism takes the form of an attack on what he has described as "settled" law, then they will move the impeachment resolution immediately.
Moreover, the "unworkable" and "difficult to apply" standards are as subjective as you can get, and are precisely what judges are supposed to mull over, not congressmen! Impeaching a judge based soley on his findings is a direct violation of the Consitution, which gives the Supreme Court independent judiciary power.
What nerve Nichols has bringing up "activism" when he is the guiltiest of all parties, suggesting senators should resort to threats and blackmail.
What Students Dread Most About School: The Pledge!
"Anonymous" attempts to set the record straight on the pledge and its finding to be unconstitutional:
Lets be serious about this Two things;The problem with this argument is that "Anonymous" failed to explain how "no speech is more coerced than the pledge..." Sure we can come up with plenty of hypothetical scenarios about how a class full of patriotic students indirectly intimidates the lone naysayer, but until we see widespread reports of embarrassed students you can't walk around toting this myth while demanding your argument be credited.
First: There is no speech that is more coerced than the pledge of allegiance. If you can think of something, I would very much like to hear it, but it seems to me that to the extent that the First Amendment protects us from coerced/compelled speech (See West Virginia v. Barnette)
Second: The Establishment clause does not simply protect us against the government 'establishing' religion. In Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Court determined that the requirements were 1) That the law have a secular purpose ; 2) That the law not advance or inhibit religion; and 3) that the law not foster 'excessive entaglement' (sic) with religion. This is the current test of the Establishment Clause, no matter what Justice Thomas wants it to be.Actually Justice Thomas is in the perfect position to reinterpret the Establishment Clause, but that's neither her nor there.
The problem here is that "Anonymous" assumes "under God" is a religious reference in this context. By now, it is safe to say the pledge is a tradition, with philosophical principles; not religious. The purpose of the pledge is to pay homage to our nation; not a monotheistic God.
Just as Judge Roberts had to answer truthfully "so help you God" at his Senate hearings, and just as you had to make a sales transaction yesterday using currency imprinted with "In God We Trust," we are reminded on a daily basis that in this great nation we ultimately answer to a power far greater than any human on the planet. Whether it be the Pope or President Bush, something exists above them, even if it's the atheist or engine-design interpretation of the universe.
This is not a religious debate, and I fully expect the newly revamped Supreme Court to fix it.
I Like America Without Gwyneth Paltrow
Almost two years ago I wrote a column criticizing the mother of Apple for calling Americans "over-patriotic" and for falling in line with the typical Hollywood elitist America-bashers. It was only a matter of time before she felt compelled to speak again on the matter.
While being interviewed for a Toronto newspaper, the eccentric actress responded to another article by the same author with: "I totally agreed with it. I feel like we're really in trouble. I just had a baby and thought, 'I don't want to live there (America).'"
That's fine, Mrs. Paltrow, but then why are you here so often enjoying your film career? It's amazing how this privileged rich woman could view America so negatively, and yet there are those of us in this country with much less fortune who'd never dream of saying anything to that effect.
Hopefully Not on Roberts' Watch
As the country waits for the next chief justice to be confirmed, another judge reminds us judicial activism is alive and well and will continue to be for as long as Carter's and Clinton's judges sit on the bench:
SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday in a case brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds.Because the Supreme Court of the United States failed to rule decisively, I can understand Judge Karlton's bondage to the ruling of the ridiculous 9th Circuit. On a note of caution however, Karlton's ruling is misleading; children are never "coerced" into saying the pledge. You are free to abstain. You are free to not pledge allegiance.
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."
Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.
The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter he sued on behalf of.
I fully expect the 9th Circuit to reaffirm their own ruling when it reaches them on appeal, and the Supreme Court of the United States to overturn it with John Roberts as chief and someone else in O'Connor's spot...that is if the current hearings ever end and Bush gets to nominate a second judge.
On This Sept 11
Today we remember the attacks on America by Islamic fanatics exactly four years ago. It's been a good day, however, and we have plenty of reasons to be optimistic. The NFL kicked off week 1 of what should be an exciting season, the death toll from Hurricane Katrina so far is about 9,500 less than first predicted, and we look forward to the beginning of John Roberts' Senate hearing tomorrow.
We have learned today that the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter, will not ask Roberts whether he would vote to overturn that pesky Roe v. Wade decision.
To demand a yes or no answer on issues like abortion would of course show no respect for the Supreme Court as an institution, which depends of testimony from the different parties before rendering a decision on any given case. Justices should not begin the day already knowing how they will vote, regardless of what kind of reality it may be.
Specter will, on the other hand, ask Roberts if a right to "privacy" exists in the Constitution, and because it doesn't then the question should be an easy one to answer - unless he (most likely) decides to cleverly sidestep his way around the question the same way Ruth Bader Ginsburg did all throughout her hearing.
Judges Must Act On Abortion Cases
A reasonable law requiring minors to seek parental consent before having an abortion is threatened because religious judges are putting their beliefs before the law. As with over-the-counter birth control, religion in the workplace has taken center stage and is capable of doing major damage.
Back in June of this year a pregnant teenager walked into the Memphis, Tennessee courthouse, saying she wanted an abortion. Judge John McCarroll refused to hear the case and said he would recuse himself from any others like it, citing strong aversion to abortion.
"Taking the life of an innocent human being is contrary to the moral order," the judge wrote. "I could not in good conscience make a finding that would allow the minor to proceed with the abortion."
Well that's nice of the judge to consider the wellbeing of the unborn child, but on that particular day another child -- the girl seeking an abortion -- didn't get her day in court and lost out on justice.
Like it or not, the Supreme Court invented a right to abortion, and Roe v. Wade will remain the definitive law of the land until the court takes it upon itself to reverse the landmark 1973 ruling. Unless Bush picks a stellar right-winger to replace Justice O'Connor and then one more in the future, I wouldn't expect such a change anytime soon.
But even though the High Court assures us that somewhere in the Constitution the evisceration of unborn children is made clear, several laws have been passed over the years in many states restricting the procedure that is best illustrated by Comedy Central's South Park.
One such edict is a law 19 states have adopted requiring minors to get a parent's permission before they can have an abortion. In extreme cases such as incest, or parental abuse, or whatever other situation liberals seem to believe is a mainstream occurrence, the minor can ask a judge for permission to go under the knife.
But only four of the nine judges on the Shelby Circuit Court -- where McCarroll sits -- hear such abortion cases because the others have recused themselves in similar fashion.
This is also taking place in Alabama and Pennsylvania, and if the trend continues one can expect such recusals to take place in the other states as well, making it a difficult challenge for women expecting judicial access.
This is not a safe trend for judges to follow. Unlike the over-the-counter birth control fiasco where patrons can take there business elsewhere, we the people depend on the courts for justice and simply can't shop around until we find a desirable outcome.
If obtaining help from the courts become too difficult, then the possibility of being denied due process becomes a reality and the law will find itself under heavier scrutiny from those seeking to have it rendered unconstitutional.
This is not just about abortion, and what we think of it, and whether it should be easy for minors to experience the thrill of it. It's about giving parents the right to control their kids for as long as they're minors. Without this instrumental law 15-year-olds will be able to march into Planned Parenthood clinics to get their fetuses forked with no questions asked.
Without such laws, minors would still be unable to get body piercing, tattoos, and a ballot card, yet they'd have unobstructed access to invasive medical surgery that leaves mental scars for life.
Should 13-year-olds be able to make such decisions on their own?
Aren't parents better suited to determine what's best for their own child than a deadly pill-hawking Planned Parenthood representative?
The parental notification law is the best anti-abortion measure we've got right now, and we can't afford to lose it. In the last presidential election Florida voters overwhelming passed our own statewide measure, Amendment One, by more than 65% with 4,639,635 votes. Every county, even the Democratic bastions, voted "yes" to give parental rights to the parents.
Only liberal nutcases voted against it; comfortable with allowing 12 and 13-year-old girls to make their own potentially life-threatening decisions. Naturally the fringe Left has been all over it, from the ACLU to Planned Parenthood and the radical feminists. We don't need to give them another reason to attack a sensible law.
Judges, religious or not, need to recognize that they are in fact judges, and it is their job to serve without letting personal biases get in the way. If your personal religious beliefs hinder your ability to make a ruling, then it is only fair that you step down and let someone take your place who doesn't have that problem.
Farewell Chief
The well revered Chief Justice who oversaw a conservative shift on the Supreme Court over the last 33 years will be missed, and now Bush must scramble to find a replacement before the Court convenes this year. Here is what Ann Coulter had to say on Rehnquist's passing:
FINAL VICTORY: REHNQUIST RUINS MEDIA'S LABOR DAY WEEKEND - Chief Justice William Rehnquist ends a stellar career of annoying liberals by calling reporters and editors back to work Saturday night to prepare emergency reports on his untimely demise. Clear, concise, almost always right, the Chief Justice was the molecular opposite of Sandra Day O'Connor. God bless Chief Justice Rehnquist. Americans will miss him.I had much respect for Rehnquist, whose judicial philosophy was unvarying throughout his three decades on the bench. He was a champion for states' rights and his written opinions were almost always clear and concise.
With the hurricane disaster still plaguing the gulf coast President Bush has a long road ahead of him and must find time to appoint a replacement. Just think, if the Supreme Court convenes in October without a chief, the job will be temporarily filled by 85-year-old John Paul Stevens.
Who Jesse Jackson Should Really Blame
It didn't take long for the usual suspects to blame President Bush, who right now is currently dealing with one of the worst disasters in American history.
BATON ROUGE, La. - Racism is partly to blame for the deadly aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Rev. Jesse Jackson said, calling President Bush's response to the disaster "incompetent."Instead of dismissing the violence as an exaggeration of the media, the racist Jesse Jackson and the entire Black Caucus should be boisterously condemning the looters and rioters -- mostly black in a city that's mostly black -- who have done an excellent job impeding the progress of the rescue effort.
"Today, as the President comes to Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi for his ceremonial trip to look at the victims of the devastation, he would do well to have a plan more significant than a ceremonial tour," Jackson said Friday.
Jackson also said the news media has "criminalized the people of New Orleans" by focusing on violence in the city.
It's been almost five days since Hurricane Katrina ravished the Gulf Coast and until now hardly any food or water made it to the desperate residents. Much of the blame should be put on the slow response from the National Guard and federal officials, but it doesn't help when relief workers and doctors are getting shot in the head by snipers.
It doesn't help when looters clean out Wal-Marts.
It doesn't help when cops clean out Wal-Marts.
It doesn't help when thugs are robbing boats and caravans at gunpoint.
Jesse Jackson needs to either shut the hell up or acknowledge the brave efforts of those currently trying to bring relief to cities where many residents are using bullets to keep them out.
Plan B's Plan Uncertain
So much fuss in Washington over a tiny little pill:
WASHINGTON - A high-ranking Food and Drug Administration official resigned Wednesday in protest of the agency's refusal to allow over-the-counter sales of emergency contraception.I, unlike most of my colleagues on the right, am an enthusiastic supporter of the Plan B contraceptive, because it allows women who are at risk of becoming pregnant a way to halt the process before another unborn child ultimately ends up in the medical waste bin.
The FDA on Friday postponed indefinitely its decision on whether to allow the morning-after pill, called Plan B, to sell without a prescription. The agency said it was safe for adults to use without a doctor's guidance but that young teenagers still needed a prescription and it couldn't determine how to enforce an age limit — a decision contrary to the advice of its own scientific advisers.
As for restricting it to minors without a prescription, the drug should be regulated the way cigarettes are. Obviously minors will still find ways to get access to it just like they do for every drug regardless of its availability, but it's a risk they and their abettors take.
Canada Cracks Down on Pit Bulls
Ontario has become the first province in Canada to put its foot down on the breeding and maintaining of pit bulls. Before the end of the 60-day grace period any pit bull currently in Ontario must be spayed or neutered and muzzled when in public. After two months the province will bar any pit bulls from being bred or imported.
A similar law is already in effect in many Canadian cities and here in the United States in places like Denver, Miami and Cincinnati. Pit bull lovers as you can imagine aren't happy with the increase of widespread restrictions.
But when neighborhood animals, let alone humans, are being terrorized by vicious pit bulls inadequately raised by their owners, the city has an obligation to protect its citizens.
I'm quite aware of the number of "good" pit bulls that don't deserve scrutiny, so perhaps there is a better way of handling the problem. No person should ever have to worry about getting mauled and the problem won't remedy itself.
Lap Dances: Between "Freedom Of Speech" And "Or Of The Press"
I guess we now know where this judge likes to spend his free time when he's not inventing new constitutional rights:
KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- A new state law banning seminude lap dances at Missouri strip clubs was declared unconstitutional by a judge Friday, two days before it was to go into effect.As someone who supports whatever one wants to do with his or her body, I must concede that exchanging money for stripping naked and grinding on a customer's crotch is hardly a fundamental right granted by our forefathers. Apparently the judge sees it differently, so boys and girls, let's review the First Amendment:
Cole County Circuit Judge Richard Callahan said provisions of the law violate First Amendment protections and state constitutional limits on amending a bill beyond its original purpose.
"The state may not limit persons of majority age from engaging in lawful expressive conduct protected by the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution without a substantial and direct connection to adverse secondary effects, a showing that has not been made," Callahan said in the declaratory judgment.
Under the law, signed in July by Gov. Matt Blunt, seminude lap dances would have been banned and dancers would have had to stay at least 10 feet from each other. Customers would have faced misdemeanor charges for tucking money into a dancers' G-strings, and the minimum age for dancers and customers would have risen from 19 to 21.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Yep, pretty sure the act of stripping naked and grinding on a customer's crotch in a strip club is a loose interpretation of "freedom of speech," just as stripping naked and grinding on a customer's crotch in a restaurant would be.
Tobacco Fascists Strike
Of all the things wrong with our entertainment industry country music is the last thing that should be under the microscope. From the Billings Gazette:
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - The state attorney general wants the country singer who made the song "Redneck Woman" a hit to stop "glamorizing" the use of smokeless tobacco at her concerts.If this isn't hypocrisy at its finest then I don't know what is. Meanwhile, rap artists glamorize sex and drugs to such extremes that rappers light joints on stage while half naked women parade around while being virtually groped by the entertainers.
State officials said Gretchen Wilson can be seen on concert jumbo screens pulling a can of Skoal from her pocket while performing her new song, "Skoal Ring."
That may violate the 1998 settlement between states and tobacco companies forbidding tobacco ads targeting young people, Attorney General Paul Summers said.
"Many young people attend your concerts and purchase your music and T-shirts," Summers wrote in a letter he sent to Wilson Thursday. "Because your actions strongly influence the youth in your audience ... I ask you to take steps to warn young people of negative health effects of smokeless tobacco use."
Ah, but the real problem is tobacco! Never mind youth pregnancy is as high as 13% at some high schools and pot is abundant almost everywhere, me mustn't encourage those innocent children to discover chew!
Book Review: 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (And Al Franken Is #37)
Over at the main site you can read my extensive analysis of Bernard Goldberg's latest book 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (And Al Franken is #37). I actually took the time (a little less with each analysis) to write out all 100 people who Bernard Goldberg thinks are screwing up America.
I did this not just because I'm a masochist but because 100 People is one of the most pointless books I have ever read and I want to save whoever reads my review some money. To be sure, I have little in common with the mostly liberals who are described in Goldberg's tome, but I certainly don't think just because someone supports affirmative action that he is necessarily screwing up America.
I believe the book was written just to make east money (why else would the title point out Al Franken as #37?) and I'm ashamed so many of my conservative colleagues are eating it up, literally. Captain Ed of Captain's Quarters went so far as to say "In essence, the book serves its main course in that first 54 pages, and offers the reader 100 servings of dessert afterwards."
Dessert? Are you kidding me? Maybe if Goldberg had a funny bone in his body, but he doesn't. He learned the hard way on The Daily Show when he could hardly muster a laugh with his sarcasm as Jon Stewart noted comedy isn't an easy thing to do.
And now Goldberg is being hailed as a "courageous truth teller" because he took on gangsta rap and other unconventional issues for while men to tackle. Frankly, there's nothing courageous about reprinting rap lyrics in a book saying some (like old white men) would find it offensive.
America is a great country. Rap music isn't screwing it up. Grand Theft Auto isn't screwing it up. Feminists (as annoying as they can be) aren't screwing it up. Ann Coulter isn't screwing up America…oops, she of course isn't listed.
We're all entitled to our opinions, and when someone disagrees with you there's no reason to accuse them of being something they're not. Speaking specifically to Bernard Goldberg, there's no reason to write a book on such people. As a result you're making a lot of people angry, but at least your bank account is satisfied.
Ironically, Goldberg stated in many interviews that he wrote the book because our culture has gotten "mean" and reasonable discourse is no longer an option. Meanwhile, page after page of his dry book is nothing more than attacks on people in ways that can be best described as "mean."
What will the casual reader take with them after reading this book? Courtney Love is a "ho" and Paris Hilton is a "vapid, empty-headed, inane, hollow, vain, tasteless, self-centered, useless twerp."
Even the guy who created the harmless show Fear Factor is somehow screwing up America despite the fact his show is one of the most popular among American audiences.
Take it from someone who is no friend of the liberal establishment, 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (And Al Franken is #37), valued at almost $30, is one of the worst purchasing decisions you can make this summer.
Cindy's War in Texas Continues
Cindy Sheehan is no longer just a grieving mother. She's a political opportunist who's taken advantage of celebrity status among the far Left and is armed with a blog on Michael Moore's website.
Camped outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, Mrs. Sheehan has become an active political pundit who's willingly battling it out with her conservative critics fighting fire with fire. In her latest post at Michael Moore's website, Sheehan told readers, "The right wingers are really having a field day with me. It hurts me really badly, but I am willing to put up with the crap, if it ends the war a minute sooner than it would have."
It's true conservatives are all over Sheehan's developing divorce story and they shouldn't be. Such matters should be left private but the events are true nonetheless and on the open record. Sheehan says the divorce was in the works long before the protest began. I say it's none of our concern.
But many have legitimate beef with the high-profile protester, saying she's being unfair to the president, who already met with her once and has no intention of meeting with her for a second time.
I wouldn't either, considering Mrs. Sheehan is persistent on brining the troops home when President Bush has made it clear that such a strategy isn't on the table.
We already know what Sheehan would say to the president because she has made her statements public, and that they're conversation would hardly be a tea party. She wants to lecture, and wants to demand an immediate withdrawal out of Iraq - and now even Afghanistan because we have yet to catch Osama bin Laden.
Sheehan's son died over a year ago and it only took President Bush two months to address her concerns. While details of what happened at the gathering are sketchy and hard to confirm, a meeting did take place.
Now Sheehan has suddenly opened up camp at Bush's ranch, and a large following has accompanied her and support her agenda. While she has every right to protest the occupation of Iraq, the pro-war crowd has the right to scrutinize Sheehan, and are glad to refute her radical comments. Just what do the Jews in Palestine have to do with her son or the war in Iraq?
The mainstream media has been a darling to Sheehan, despite her claim that it is nothing but "a propaganda tool for the government." Without the Internet, we "would already be a fascist state." And according to Sheehan, America "is not worth dying for" and "has been killing people . . . since we first stepped foot on this continent." Of course it's no surprise Sheehan is convinced Bush is a liar and that "the Downing Street Memo proves that" Bush "lied to the American people."
And the publicity keeps growing. In her most recent column, Ann Coulter wonders how a grieving mother could earn such publicity. "Call me old-fashioned, but a grief-stricken war mother shouldn't have her own full-time PR flack. After your third profile on 'Entertainment Tonight,' you're no longer a grieving mom; you're a C-list celebrity trolling for a book deal or a reality show."
Coulter continues with this insight: "If one dead son means no one can win an argument with you, how about two dead sons? What if the person arguing with you is a mother who also lost a son in Iraq and she's pro-war? Do we decide the winner with a coin toss? Or do we see if there's a woman out there who lost two children in Iraq and see what she thinks about the war?"
It doesn't matter what any one person has to say, whether they've lost kids in the war or not. This war involves all of us, and a successful outcome in the war on terrorism is crucial to our survival. Whether Iraq should be a part of it will be known soon enough.
NARAL Stands Behind Malicious Anti-Roberts Ad
The slanderous pro-choice lobby is standing behind their recently pulled television spot that links Supreme Court nominee John Roberts to an abortion clinic bomber, according to its official blog.
The commercial NARAL still supports features a female narrator delivering this warning over dramatic piano chords: "Seven years ago, a bomb destroyed a women's 'health clinic' in Birmingham, Alabama. Supreme Court nominee John Roberts filed court briefs supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber."
Wow, Roberts actually filed briefs on behalf of a clinic bomber? Well, no. Not even close. Turns out the brief was written seven years before the clinic was bombed. In it, Roberts stated (and correctly so) that abortion protestors were not violating a specific Civil Rights law when they protested. Seven years later one of those protestors Roberts indirectly spoke for happened to bombed a clinic.
The audacious announcement then ends with this closer: "America can't afford a justice whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans."
Meanwhile others are saying "America can't afford a justice whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against unborn children."
But regardless of your stance on abortion the NARAL campaign is a total sham devoid of any credibility. As The Daily Show's John Stewart shrewdly points out in this clip, saying John Roberts supports abortion clinic bombers is like saying those who bought Michael Jackson's 1982 Thriller album support child molestation.
It's Called Stalking
The sad story of a mother in despair:
The mother of a US soldier killed in Iraq warned she would camp outside the White House next month if US President George W. Bush refuses to meet with her here at his ranch.President Bush already spoke with Mrs. Sheehan, in private, which is pretty remarkable considering he was never obligated to, and it must take tough skin to confront a person accusing you of murdering their child.
"I don't understand why he cannot spend ten minutes of his time to talk to somebody whose life he has devastated," said Cindy Sheehan, 48, who has been camped out about a kilometer from the gates of Bush's ranch since Saturday.
"I want Bush to stop using my son's sacrifice to justify the killing," she told reporters, insisting that "he needs to bring the troops home now."
Bush has already stated an immediate withdrawal is not an option so any further meetings between the two will likely be unproductive.