Right News and Views

More proof that the Left hates “injustice” only when they can find what they think is a pinprick of it in the Right’s camp. I did not really believe Libby should have been pardoned- he did, after all, lie under oath (it could have been an honest mistake, of course). But after Clinton’s escape from prison time after without a dobut of knowingly lying under oath, I guess that’s just the new reality concerning perjury. But read this to get a better understanding of their hypocrisy.

In this column I discuss the problems with Obama’s claims vs. his statements and voting records.

A Declaration of Independence from Liberals? Oh, yes! Let it be!!!

It staggers the mind that someone would so tenaciously fight taxes to further the possibility of genocide in Iraq when there are plenty of real reasons for one to fight taxes. Reasons such as 1) it is morally reprehensible to redistribute one mans earnings to another, 2) taxes serve as a slush fund to help politicians get reelected by lavishing wasteful spending projects on their districts, and 3) they serve to not only feed but continually enlarge the behemoth of the Potomac. But that is exactly what David Gross is doing. Gross’ goal (though he certainly would not put it this way despite the fact that it very likely would be the result) is to force a new genocide in Iraq by not paying his taxes and thus forcing the US to withdraw the soldiers serving there.

Despite Gross’ efforts to see even more Iraqis die at the hands of terrorists, the passage that enraged me most out of this story was from the IRS condemning Gross’ actions:

“Tax resisters place an undue burden on taxpayers who pay their fair share of taxes, IRS spokeswoman Dianne Besunder said.”

The only “undue burden on taxpayers” comes from the politicians on Capitol Hill who insists that a huge portion of our money belongs in government coffers, who believe they know better how to spend the peoples money than the people themselves, and who think of charity as something to force upon others.

I guess it is hard to take perjury too seriously these days after Bill Clinton lied under oath with no consequences. There are already lefties screaming for Bush’s head because perjury is so bad; lefties that remain strangely silent on Clinton and his lie. Oh, but somehow what Clinton did will be different to them. Somehow, it was okay for Clinton to lie.

And check out some of the pardon’s Clinton granted - bank embezzlement, larceny, obstruction of justice, importation of cocaine, bank robbery, mail fraud, conspiracy to damage property by means and use of an explosive, and many more.

The point: if you are outraged at Bush’s pardon of a perjurer than you had better be outraged at both Clintons escape from the consequences of his own perjury and Clinton’s pardoning of drug dealers, bank robbers, and domestic terrorists.

All the whiney, frightened liberals who cry that the end of the world is near because of the “imminent threat” to their civil liberties should read The Real Threat to Civil Liberties by Victor Davis Hanson. They won’t understand it, of course, but they should read it anyway.

When Democrats were obstructing even the discussion on privitising a portion of Social Security they should have looked ahead to the reality that their own dangerous plans would be stopped by the same methods. At the time of the non-debate I had hoped Democrats would never find themselves in a position of leadership again – and am surprised at the ignorance of the electorate in putting them back into power after so many years of what can’t really be called “leadership” from the 1940’s into the 1990’s.

But there is a least a bit of joy in the fact that Pelosi is “not happy with congress,” as she put it. The “new direction” she promised (which I call “the further advance towards communism”) has died on the vine just as have their plans concerning immigration, stem cell research, Medicare drug pricing, and abandoning Iraq to genocide.

Their public approval rating in the mid-20s, lower than the presidents (how Congress’ could not be lower I don’t know). Let’s hope it dips to zero and they are swept out of power as quickly as they came into power.

If Joe Biden doesn’t like it, it is probably good for America. In this piece from the Miami Herald, he whines and frets about the courts decision to end the use of voluntary schemes to creat “racial balance” among students. Segregated schools by law were, and would be if they were still around, evil. But naturally segregated schools – schools where the districts are mostly one color or mostly another – are fine. Government has no business mandating that a school has a certain percentage of this group or that, only that one group or another may attend if they wish. I don’t care what color you are- but I do care if I were forced to leave the area where I live to go somewhere far off just because there are not enough whites there. But Biden, poor dulited man that he is, simply can’t grasp so basic a concept since his mind has been warped by so many years of liberal ideas.

Get this- he said he “was concerned during their confirmation hearings that Chief Justice Roberts’ and Justice Alito’s appointments would herald a new era of disdain for established precedent.” My, I guess African Americans are glad Biden was not in politics during and after the Civil War. Slavery was an “established precedent,” after all. I guess women are glad he was not in politics during the sufferage movement or women might not have received the right to vote. It was, after all, “established precedent” that only men could vote. Abortion was not legal in the United States until 1973 and it sure was not considered an “established precedent.” Just because a mistake has been around for a while is no excuse to stay stuck in the past and keep doing it wrong. But this is what passes for liberal “logic.”

The icing on the cake is Biden’s comment that the “individual rights and civil liberties of every American would be threatened even more if another conservative is allowed to serve on the Roberts court.” Actually, if he is concerned about Americans and their rights then he needs to switch parties and move out of Liberal La-La Land into Conservative Realityville.

As this American Thinker piece by Christopher Chantrill points out, it was great to see a bill Ted Kennedy was so keen on go down in utter defeat. The “comprehensive” immigration bill is dead- and all thanks to a group of young Republican Senators with talk radio and conservative bloggers behind them.

As Chantrill goes on to point out, however, to score points to undo the damage done to our families and the collapse our social order we’ve got to go on the offensive – and right now that’s not very likely. What to do?

“The liberals created the mess; let them clean it up,” he notes but then goes on to explain that the liberals won’t clean it up. Indeed, they are blissfully unaware there even is a mess. Chantrill suggests taking on the whole liberal culture, perhaps creating a single-issue movement to fight them.

He calls it a “march through the institutions” that should be “driven by a quasi-religious determination to sweep away a liberal monoculture that dares to look on social collapse and call it a “diverse lifestyle.””

Sounds like a plan to me.

In this New York Sun piece, Senator Leahy of Vermont and sadly the Judiciary Committee chairman, seeks to attack the White House for the firing of Federal prosecutors from the Justice Department. The fact that every president does this and that the president has the right to do this doesn’t faze Leahy.

“They’ve chosen confrontation rather than compromise or cooperation,” Leahy had the nerve to say as he completely ignored the fact that the aggression comes from the Democrats, not the White House.

The “issue” is whether or not the White House exerted undue political influence in the firings. My only question is why these people were not removed immediately when Bush first became president. This could have avoided this non-scandal that the Democrats are so desperate to use to hurt Bush. But better this, I suppose, than for them to spend their time and energy dreaming up new ways to tax us or destroy our values. And they certainly aren’t there to serve the people.

In this weeks column I discuss the benefits of shutting down public schools in favor allowing the private sector do what it does so much better than government. I also discuss the major obstacle to this better method of education for our children; liberals.

A “supposedly liberal-leaning jurist” who understands?!?!?! I didn’t think it was possible, but Judge Richard Posner may prove me wrong with his support of secret trials for terrorists and tougher (i.e. less gutlessley liberal) methods of survalance.

“We should think of surveillance as preventative, not punitive,” Posner said. And he’s right. If you’re doing nothing wrong then you’ve got nothing to fear- except, of course, what the terrorits are doing in your city.

Grasping the situation in a way few others do, Posner points out that the US is “a law-saturated society where even non-lawyers tend to think of problems in terms of legal categories.”

“Criminal justice and war,” he contends, “are the two responses we have to terrorism. Each comes with its own legal institutions and doctrines and regimes but the struggle against international terrorism doesn’t fit either very well.”

So we have to think outside the legal box on the criminal justice side and be prepared for a long, hard sturggle on the war side. I’m glad someone “supposedly” on the left has the brains to see it and the guts to say it.

National Review reveals more liberal lunacy from our tragically left-leaning courts. Constitutional rights for enemy combatants could be described in numerous ways: foolish, silly, inane, and of course liberal but most of all dangerous.

But to liberals that is what our laws are for- to insure innocent people are easier targets for the monsters that roam among us.

I’ve always wondered how African American pastors can welcome Democrats into their churches to speak to their congregations. The Democratic Party works- in so many ways - contrary to the scriptures read from those same pulpits that it just doesn’t make sense to me. Thou shalt not kill is incompatible with abortion, for example. But after reading this interview with Angela McGlowan I think I understand. And I am eager to read her book.

Very funny, sadly true.