Free Republic

What you are dealing with is a Democrat Party dominated by aging New Leftists. The New Left wants little in the way of a military, are hostile to police, and want military spending almost all diverted to social spending. New Leftists support imposing a different morality than traditional Western philosophy and the Judeo-Christian moral tradition.

The Republican Party is dominated by old fashioned “Guns and Butter” FDR/JFK/LBJ liberals. They want a big military and a high level of domestic policing. They don’t care about moral/social issues at all, but want to leave them to the New Leftists in the Democratic Party, along with the social spending programs. The Guns and Butter crowd will give the New Leftists their butter, and their “New Morality,” but demand the big military, and absolute discretion at using the military. Like the New Left, the Constituion is elastic, stretched here and there to meet their policy needs. They like being “pragmatic” with the New Left about social spending and social issues, but will not compromise about war making. That is the only issue on which they draw a distinct line in the sand and will not compromise in order to draw Democrat voters to the GOP.

There is no party for traditional Conservatives, who are deliberately confused with “Guns and Butter” Liberals.

Berg not only found employment in Iraq, but he was part of a company in Iraq called "Babylon Towers," meaning communication towers. His alleged partner in this Iraqi company was Aziz K. Aziz, an Iraqi who spent much of the 1980s in Philadelphia, which is a short drive from Berg's native West Chester.

Aziz K. Aziz was convicted in the United States for marketing CRACK VIALS along with a group of Russian emigrees, which probably means Russian mafia. He has an extensive record of criminal charges and allegations. Aziz was part of a State Department sponsored group called the Iraqi/American Council, another group like the Iraqi National Congress. Aziz was interviewed by Fox News during the run up to the invasion advocating military action against Saddam Hussein.

Aziz alleged that he was the last man to see Nicholas Berg alive.

For more information, access the Web site of THE PHILADELPHIA DAILY NEWS for the articles by William Bunch about the backgrounds of Nicholas Berg and Aziz K. Aziz.

From a Booklet of daily Lenten Meditatations from the journal, Magnificat.

Your remarks about the problems with the federal court system miss the mark completely. The problem with the federal courts is judges and Supreme Court justices who unconstitutionally impose their own ideologies on the nation through their rulings. This is LEGISLATING, which is not in any court's jurisdiction. The courts are there to APPLY THE LAW to individual cases, not to create law that satisfies their own political and social beliefs. If courts were confined to their Constitutional functions, it would not matter what the ideology of a nominee for a court position is. It would only matter that the nominee for a judgeship or a Supreme Court justiceship was honest and loyal to the Constitution and People of the United States. The wrangling over nominees has become so depraved in the Senate because both sides are trying to put "their guys" on the bench so the judges can legislate their ideologies. The President has to articulate this Constitutional crisis, and that is what it is, to the American People, and this can be done in a nonpartisan way, as what this position adovcates is a NON-PARTISAN COURT SYSTEM. Only a Court system restrained to applying the law, as it is written, to particular cases can produce an end to nominees for judgeships in the Senate being treated like victims in a gladitorial arena.

Bush was not constrained by the political false dilemma (EITHER he attacked O'Connor, a "political mistake," OR he expresses SUPPORT for the decision, a "smart political strategy"). The true Constitutional and societal crisis that is the present federal court system can only be resolved by restraining the ability of ALL judges and Supreme Court justices to illegally legislate their own political and social opinions. This can, and should, be done by the Congress applying its Article 3, Section 2 powers to regulate the jurisidiction of all federal courts, including the Supreme Court, and voting to overturn any decisions of federal courts that usurp the legislative authority of Congress. Once this is done, Bush could safely nominate a liberal or moderate to the Court, who was honest and a loyal American, and it wouldn't cause a ripple in the social fabric.

I have tried to tell people in here that the "vote GOP because you can hold their feet to the fire for conservative values" campaign slogan was NO LONGER OPERATIVE. It isn't even operative during election cycles when the GOP is most striving to hold their conservative base anymore. No one is allowed to criticize any of the socialist programs they pass. "Hold their feet to the fire" is DEAD, officially. It has been dead for a long time, but the chronic campaigners used to haul it out for a little "Weekend at Bernie's" fun at the expense of conservatives and libertarians. Now, they are admitting that it was only hucksterism.

"The Republicans voted for tax cuts. The Democrats opposed them. Yet you claim they are the same."

You are implying that only how socialist programs are financed is a material difference between the MAJORITY of the Members of Congress and the Senators who are both Republicans and Democrats. How socialist programs are financed is not a material difference between those who vote for the programs. The elephantine Ted Kennedy "Education" bill that passed early in the Bush Presidency had to have the support of a majority of both Houses of Congress with GOP majorities. That means a majority of Republicans in both houses, and the President who pushed Kennedy's bill and signed it, were in favor of the socialist Kennedy program. When most of the Republicans voted for the tax cuts, they were only voting in favor of a particular way of financing the programs, namely tax cuts that, they believe, will stimulate the economy, increasing revenues to the government in order to pay for the socialist programs. In other words, "Supply-Side Economics" as a financing technique of government.

The Democrats, on the other hand, prefer direct increases in marginal tax rates to fund the socialist programs. The Republicans believe this is counterproductive, as the tax increases put a drag on economic activity and cut revenues to the government that finance socialist programs.

The Democrats may turn around and claim the Republicans "favor the rich" with tax cuts, but they know this is only true by appearance. It is a political ploy to get more of their party in office, but the Democrats really know that the only difference is how their programs will be financed, and that is NO DIFFERENCE at all with the exception of financing technique. The end result is bigger, less Constitutional government no matter how the programs are financed.

Well, you came up with a LIE in a State of the Union Address, namely Clinton's lie about the missiles not being pointed at our children that night. If someone in the White House reads this, and reminds everyone about that one, maybe this will die down. You see, those keeping this alive are just trying to make the SOTU into the ONE speech (or sworn testimony, I might add) that is too sacrosanct to contain even erroneous intelligence, let alone lies. You can lie during sworn testimony at deposition, and that is not even a misdemeanor, but throw in a line in a SOTU that contains an error or gaffe, that is grounds for impeachment.

The real giveaway is the fact that the Niger documents were found to be forgeries prior to the invasion of Iraq, and AFTER the SOTU. No one yipped and yapped about the comments being in the SOTU until the beginnings of the election cycle began, but those who wanted to hang it on Bush had a problem: CLINTON LIED ALL THE TIME. How to get around that when Billy Boy is doing all of that fundraising. EUREKA! Here's a line in the SOTU that mentioned Niger! That's the ticket! We paint the SOTU as some solemn speech that absolutely is FORBIDDEN to contain any iota or error, mistakes, gaffes, or any nit whatsoever! Yeah, that's how we'll put it out to the media, and let them do the rest. That's why they keep saying "STATE OF THE UNION! STATE OF THE UNION!"

The fly in the ointment was they forgot Clinton lied in one of those, too.

All right, let's try to make the argument that Mr. Bush's supporters should have made, even though I thought this was the wrong war, in the wrong place, and at the wrong time.

What I find fascinating with this stuff about the STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS is the implied argument being set forth by those scandalizing this one sentence in that speech. This implied argument is as follows:

1. Somehow, erroneous information in a STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS should make us all act like stereotypical ladies gardening clubs when a mouse suddenly makes an appearance. We are all supposed to shriek, hike up our skirts, and jump up on our chairs. These people get "the vapors" over the possibility that Bush put something in the STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS that might have been in error. The implication is that the STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS is NOT ALLOWED to contain any errors, and that it is some kind of "holy writ" that must be 100% pure of any errors. On what basis is that argument made? I think I know, and it has something to do with PERJURY on the part of a former Chief Executive.

2. Somehow, a LIE, if Bush lied, is something horrific only if it appears in THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS. I would like to know what makes that speech any more immune from politicians lying, exaggerating, or fudging. I watched some cluck on MSNBC constantly making the distinction of the STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS being infiltrated by either errors or lies, as if, somehow, that was against one of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, when most of these commentators think the TEN COMMANDMENTS are optional.

This attempt to elevate the STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS to some kind of "Holy Grail" is so contrived that is has to be some kind of political spin. Let these people show that ALL OTHER STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESSES have been devoid of erroneous information, lies, exaggerations, etc., then they can start talking about the STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS being something of an INFALLIBLE SPEECH, not unlike the Pope's pronouncements on faith and morals to Roman Catholics.

You apparently do not understand the meaning of the word "audacity." It is not negative in the context used. General Patton several times used this word to describe what he wanted from his commanders, and that was "audacity." In the Sicily campaign, Patton quoted Frederick the Great to Generals Bradley and Lucian Truscott of the Third Infantry Division: "L' audace, l'audace, tourjours, l'audace," meaning he always wanted his commanders to act audaciously in battle. This desire can be translated to Grand Strategy, which is Bush's responsiblity.

I think you are limiting the meaning of the word to expressions such as: "How dare you have the AUDACITY to say such a thing?" and believe that "audacity" is a negative trait of some kind. To refer to a plan as having "audacity" is not an insult.

I don't like to include myself as a "Boomer," as I did not share most of their worldview, but not all of them had an easy time in the economy. The biggest part of that bulge entered the job market in the early 70s when two big recessions hit, in 1971 and 1974. There was a "glut" of college degrees out there that did not prepare any of them for the realities of the radically changed market, including the massive influx of women into the market at the same time the economy contracted for a decade. There were a lot of "Boomers" out there taking any jobs that would pay. Some learned to lower their expectations, but many did not. The idea that life entailed hardships was a real learning experience for the ones lucky enough to learn that lesson.

Once again, I will explain how this game works:

Put a Democrat in office and he runs the ball as far to the left as rapidly as he dares. When the public becomes alarmed at how things get screwed up by the government programs, in comes a Republican.

The Republican continues moves to the left, but uses different rhetoric to justify it. The movement to the left is not as big as what a Democrat would take, but it keeps everything moving left.

The Democrats, in response to the leftward movement of the Republicans, MOVE FURTHER LEFT, in order to outbid the Republicans for the support of their base. The Democrat base is ecstatic, as they win something no matter which party gets in, so, THE VOTE DEMOCRAT, as they can get more from the (perpetually) more leftist party in the running. The "brilliant strategy" never pays off as advertised by the GOP and their supporters, except that the country keeps moving further and further left, with so-called conservatives, who are really more Republicans, split off from the conservatives, creating splintered opposition to leftist policies, while those on the left remain united in their goals.

It's going over the cliff now. There is no stopping it. We had a chance in 1994, but that was only the slight opening of a pressure-release valve to enable Clinton to find a way to maintain his Presidency into a second term. After two terms of Clinton, Republicans would be satisfied with Satan in the White House if he had an "R" after his name.

There is no stopping some sort of traumatic disaster or a total crack-up now. There's too much cognitive dissonance out there, but at least this move has eliminated some of that.

"Kyle obviously misses the point that this is a pretty good reason to get the Pubbies in and then we can work from the inside to sway them more to the right."

Now, you people say this election after election. It is a variation of the "hold their feet to the fire" argument. Well, "holding their feet to the fire" means nothing if all you want people to do is BLUFF the Republican Party. Just by posting the remarks you made, you TELEGRAPH to that party that any attempt to "move them to the right" is just a BLUFF on your part. You'll never get them to move right by saying: "I'd sure like you to move to the right, but if you won't, I'll vote for you anyway." Your desire for them to "move to the right" is hollow in their eyes if there are no consequences for continuing to move left, which only incites the Democrats to move FURTHER left, as the GOP has given them the excuse, and the reason, to move further left to maintain their voter base.

If the Reagan victory and the 1994 takeover of Congress did not convince these professional vote seekers that "moving more to the right" brings success, then a TOOTHLESS demand from voters that they do so will not impress them at all.

Besides, when anyone TRIES to hold their feet to the fire, you people tell them to STOP, at least until the next election cycle starts, when we are all told how "possible" it is to reform the Republicans, even though there are never supposed to be any real consequences for them if they don't.

"And Kyle, among others, must learn the art of politics. He must also read Sun Tzu. Politics is a form of war. It is fought with polemics and policies. Propaganda and machinations. Idealists are usually among the first casualties."

And it could by YOU who is the victim of these techniques, not Kyle.

I believe she is referring to the left "having it right" about what those who vote want. She is advocating that the REPUBLICANS not touch any policies or programs of the left that the 38% of registered voters who actually vote support so that REPUBLICANS can get elected. She can correct my deduction if she finds it to be in error, but I believe this is an accurate accounting of what Torie means by "the Left getting it right."

Any discussion about how to energize the 62% of eligible voters who do not vote or even register is never considered by any of those people. I actually believe they LIKE the notion of a shrinking electorate, as long as it is the voters of the Left that remain the most active, and, with Democrat "get-out-the-vote" tactics, which are quite efficient and successful (Gore did get a popular majority after all) this acceptance of a shrinking voter pool by those people can be seen in the proper light. You see, we have two parties fighting for fewer voters, and a large number of those voters can be swung left. The Democrats start out with at least 40% of that 38%, and the GOP has about the same base, or at least they HAD about the same base. The "game" those people like the parties playing is to fight over the remaining 20% or so of the 38%. No one suggests working on those who have given up on voting at all.

It is advisable to research the effects of the McCain/Feingold campaign "reform" law on Internet forums in relation to identification of the forum with a particular political party. This would/SHOULD be just as true of DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND as with FR. Namely, if a forum is identified as supporting one party over the other, is the sixty day rule of silence about the candidates applicable to such Internet forums? There are other legal considerations other than McCain/Feingold and would probably require a specialized legal counsel to provide the advice.

"Most people, who aren't political naifs, or purer than thouers knew that Perot wasn't an alternative answer to Bush the elder and Bubba-bentone."

Historical Correction: The Perot movement was not "pure." The Little General attracted a polyglot of both left and right, Republican and Democrat. He convinced his followers of all stripes that he was "on their side." Peroism has nothing to do with any form of philosophical consistency.

Logical correction: Your use of the derogataion "naifs" is the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. You believe that if you relegate your opponents to an inferior class by namecalling right off the bat, you discredit any argument that they may have. All you have done is post an irrelevant statement.

"The simple, historically proven fact is, that third parties do NOTHING but hand an election over to the candidate, the person going fringe, most despises/fears."

Historical Correction: No, that is not an "historical fact." The GOP was a THIRD PARTY that ultimately displaced the Whig Party. They failed to win their first election, but won their SECOND election. Your argument is undoubtedly rooted in the single election of 1992, and is therefore the logical fallacy of arguing from the particular to the universal.

Logical Correction: That it is a "simple proven fact" was a mere assertion on your part. You offer no evidence of your claim that it is "proven," "historical," nor a "fact."

"Politics is not now and never has been about only voting for a candidtae who is THE exemplar of one's ideal and positions. Those who rant & rave about this one and that not being whatever and just how more Conservative , or Liberal one is, doesn't mean that one shouldn't accept the possible ... instead of rejecting, out of hand, what one can get. Those people go through life NEVER being satified and never shall be."

I guess all the arguments that conservatives should "vote Republican so they can hold the feet of the Republicans to the fire" to get them to implement conservative policies is now no longer operative.

"The dog-in-the-manger/ cut of one's nose to spite one's face whingers here, refuse to see reality. They go from thread to thread claiming that they'll stay home or why everyone else should vote for some fringe candidate who, if elected, couldn't give them what they imagine he could. That's just delusional, on their collective part and they need to either wake up, or to forget utterly about politics; a subject they don't understand and never shall."

First you condemn people for staying at home instead of voting for candidates that they have concluded will not support any of the policies they desire to have implemented. Then, you demand that they all just forget about politics completely, which, I assume, would have to include voting. So, which is it? Should they stay at home, or vote? On another reply, you stated that it is the people who want "all or nothing" who want a dictator, yet here you are declaring that those who disagree with your position should simply "forget about politics," and, in essence, be DISENFRANCHISED from the vote and have nothing whatsoever to say about public policy. That sounds like DICTATORSHIP to me.

Politics is not the totality of government. You confuse politics with campaigns and election cycles in this country. Political campaigning is the means through which elected leaders are chosen. Politics isn't even just about voting or political parties. Politics is a branch of PHILOSOPHY. It deals with the nature and purpose of government in human society, and is not just about election campaigns in the United States of America. Election campaigns are just POLITICAL PROCEDURES to chose those who will hold elective office, in this case, in the United States of America. Politics is much, much more than just that, however, I shall not advocate that people who don't know or understand that should just shut up about politics, and refrain from voting at all.

I see you have received no real reply to your question. I don't understand why, as the reply is inherent in the question, viz:

The difference is that the DEMOCRAT is the conservative, and the REPUBLICAN is the liberal.

That does happen from time-to-time in the "REAL WORLD OF POLITICS" that some claim to understand. Sometimes the Democrat is the conservative, and the Republican is the liberal.

What I want to know about cats is, why do they always lie there with their tongues hanging out after being hit by a car? What's up with that?

And ... what do computers and cars have to do with owning an AK-47? Your trite remarks do not answer my question.

1. The same liberals who want to take away Second Amendment rights are also opposed to people owning SUVs, as is constantly pointed out by Rush Limbaugh. "Why does anyone NEED a SUV?" demand such leftists.

2. You do not understand the difference between actual assault rifles and the kind of SEMI-automatic firearms that are affected by this ban. An ASSAULT RIFLE (most of them are actually CARBINES, not rifles, as they have less range than the longer barrelled rifle) has a selector switch on it. When you turn the switch to "FULL AUTO," it fires like a machine gun. When you turn the switch to "SEMI-AUTOMATIC," you can only fire a one shot at a time, but do not have to manually work a lever, bolt, or pump action to eject the empty cartridge and load a new one. That is why it is called "SEMI-AUTOMATIC."

The term "automatic" refers to a mechanism in the weapon that ejects the empty, fired cartridge casing and loads the next round from an external or internal magazine that holds the unfired cartridges. Some of the weapons use mechanical AUTOMATIC reloading, like the German Luger pistol, and others use "Blowback" technology that captures the gases from the firing of a cartridge and forces the gas back into the weapon to work the mechanism that reloads the next cartridge. An "automatic" carbine fires and reloads as long as your finger presses the trigger. A "semi-automatic" must have the trigger depressed in order to work the mechanism to eject and load. They are SINGLE-SHOT weapons, not AUTOMATIC weapons. The only differences between the banned weapons and hunting weapons that are semi-automatic are:

A. A semi-automatic carbine has a shorter range.

B. Some semi-automatic carbines "look like" the military arms from which they are copied. An AR-15 "looks like" an M-16, but has no flash suppressor or lug for receiving a bayonet. Actually, this makes the AR-15 LESS of a "militia" weapon than an M-16, and, according to one Supreme Court decision, it is MILITARY ARMS that are those protected by the Second Amendment, as a militia is supposed to drill and train with actual military weapons, not with civilian market knock-offs. That decision identified all the military weapons that were protected under the Second Amendment by branch of service and specialty, such as an Artiller soldier could own the military sidearms of the day that were applicable to the artillery, an artilleryman's sword and revolver. A cavalryman could own a saber, revolver, and carbine that were in use in that branch of service. An infantryman could own a long rifle in use in the service and a bayonet to be fitted on the long rifle.

The Second Amendment does not secure SPORTING ARMS, although no one should be worried about them. The Second Amendment actually supports the ownership of MILITARY ARMS. I am talking about the small arms used by the branches of the service that are not crew-served weapons, such as machine guns, Stinger missiles, etc. Crew-served weapons require more than one soldier to use them. No one in the militia kept howitzers in their front yards. The Supreme Court only addressed small arms used by individual soldiers.

What this means is that, in addition to the Second Amendment as an issue, the erosion of the institution of ACTUAL State Militias, organized by State Governments and regulated by Congress, as opposed to the National Guard system we now have, should also be discussed with the issue of gun ownership. To be a true militia, the officers have to be recognized by the Governor and Legislature, and they must regularly drill and train, with the militia being under the regulations established by Congress.

Assault "Rifles" and Machine Pistols/Submachine Guns: People confuse these two weapons. An assault rifle has the same fully automatic capabilities as a submachine gun, but has a carbine configuration (shorter rifle) and can accept a bayonet. The carbine also does not fire PISTOL ammunition. A submachine gun fires the same caliber of ammunition that the primary sidearm of an army fires. In World War II, the German MP-40 fired 9 millimeter pistol ammunition and the US Thompson submachine gun fired 45 caliber pistol ammunition like the Colt .45. Like the assault "rifle" (Assault rifle was the German designation for such weapons, but they are not rifles) the submachine gun is designed to be most effective in close quarters combat. "Sweeping" and "brooming" are terms used to describe what they are intended to do, as the submachine gun was originally designed to "sweep" World War I trenches of enemy troops once an attack caused soldiers to enter enemy trenches or fire down into them at close range.

The only real assualt RIFLE was the Browing Automatic Rifle. It was fully automatic (fired like a machine gun) was not crew-served, and was constructed in the configuration of a large rifle.

They're demographically irrelevant.

Not when only 38% of eligible voters are participating. Both parties need their 40% base of that 38% in order to have a chance. That is why you guys got mad when Slade Gorton went down in the face of a large Libertarian Party vote, and then Jumpin Jim left you. Oh, you need every vote you can get. Look how close it was in 2000.

If we are demographically irrelevant, don't blame us if he gets beaten, and don't think it can't happen.