test

I'm having trouble with the footer (which is why it doesn't exist yet), but I'm finally online here.

Apologists among us.

No doubt abused as a child, or otherwise "marginalized" was this scumbag.

Hat tip to Little Green Footbals. Practitioners of the "religion of peace" have threatened gay activists in the UK. So will the gay activists wake from their leftist haze and deal with reality? Not a chance.

After reading this nonsense, I like Roberts even more.

here. Most interestingly, linked from National Review (!)

Speaks for itself.

The Islamofascists strike London again. Continuously updated info here.

The moonbats have started their hysterical shrieking (who can forget NOW squealing that "WOMEN WILL DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" as they protested Souter's nomination--you can read the nutcase NARAL and Alliance for Communism, er, Justice statements on Souter's nomination here and here--or better yet, Kennedy's idiotic doom and gloom predictions about Bork's America, where "blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters!") It's always the same thing: the sky is falling, the end of the world is near, conservatives will take us back to the stone age!

And it's always bullshit.

But before we get to Roberts, let's lay to rest a couple of popular liberal myths.

He might overturn Roe v. Wade!

Even if Bush could wave a magic wand, and replace every traitorous "living document" judge on the SCOTUS with strict constructionists, it would be highly unlikely that they would overturn Roe v. Wade, because of the inherent conservatism (not political) of the legal system. No doubt they would allow states to restrict abortions, but overturning Roe v. Wade? The odds are about one in a million--even if the SCOTUS were all strict constructionists.

Overturning Roe v. Wade would outlaw abortions!

This is utter nonsense. Overturning Roe v. Wade would have absolutely no effect on the availability of abortion--it would, however, allow states to outlaw abortion. I'm sorry to say that if the leftists had let well enough alone and let legislators deal with abortion on a state level, it would not be the issue it is today. But leftists hate Federalism, and will always, without exception, demand the Federal implementation of their agenda. Always. Without exception.

On to Roberts.

I was rooting for Luttig, Owens or Brown, and was initially skeptical of Roberts. I've since changed my mind. His record (admittedly less than it might be, since he's been on the bench for only a few years) shows him to be a constructionist. Let's look at a couple of cases that have the liberals frothing at the mouth.

The paisley frog case. Roberts dissented, saying that because the frog only lived in California, the federal government could not use the interstate commerce clause to "protect" it. This is a good judicial opinion, that holds "interstate" to mean exactly that, and not whatever he thinks it should mean "in today's world" as a legislator from the bench would.

The french fry case. This is the one that really has the wackjobs howling at the moon--and the one for which Roberts deserves the most praise. In this case, he refused to legislate from the bench on the legislation, which was not the issue before the court, and ruled only on the issue that was before the court: whether this kid's 4th and 5th Amendment rights had been violated.

Let's review that. A liberal judge would have not been able to resist the urge to legislate from the bench and change the issue to the legality of the zero tolerance law, and strike it down. Roberts did not. Roberts stayed strictly on the suit before the court, and refused to legislate from the bench. He did not let his feelings or opinions about the zero tolerance law or the circumstances affect his ruling.

The difference between a liberal or a conservative and a constructionist judge is this: liberal and conservative judges are concerned with issues, and constructionist judges are concerned with process. Roberts's personal politics may indeed be conservative, but from what we know, his personal politics do not affect his rulings, and he is a constructionist.

I doubt the Democrats would try to torpedo Roberts. After all, they have been shooting themselves in the foot with voters with all this obstructionist horseshit. They can't pull this "he's not qualified" crap ("not qualified" is liberalese for "he won't push our agenda on the rest of the nation"). They will demand memos from the Reagan and Bush.41 years, but they won't get them--and shouldn't. Obstructing Roberts would be political suicide, and they know it.

The question, though, is how completely do the ultra-liberal special interest groups own the party.

We'll see when we get to the Senate hearings.

LOL! The moonbats are howling about Roberts! And speaking of moonbats off their meds, read this.

Like Ann Coulter said, the election is the gift that keeps on giving!

Poor yellowcake Joe. I almost feel sorry for him. Almost. Here is a list of his ten biggest ... er ... I'll call them oopsies, since I don't want to sound as if I'm being judgmental.

1. Wilson Insisted That The Vice President’s Office Sent Him To Niger.
   
2. Wilson Claimed The Vice President And Other Senior White House Officials Were Briefed On His Niger Report.
   
3. Wilson Has Claimed His Niger Report Was Conclusive And Significant
   
4. Wilson Denied His Wife Suggested He Travel To Niger In 2002.
   
5. Wilson Has Claimed His 1999 Trip To Niger Was Not Suggested By His Wife.
   
6. Wilson Claimed He Was A Victim Of A Partisan Smear Campaign
   
7. A Month Before The Bob Novak And Matthew Cooper Articles Ever Came Out, Wilson Told The Washington Post That Previous Intelligence Reports About Niger Were Based On Forged Documents.
   
8. Wilson Claimed His Book Would Enrich Debate.
   
9. Wilson Claimed The CIA Provided Him With Information Related To The Iraq-Niger Uranium Transaction.
   
10. Wilson Claimed He Is A Non-Partisan “Centrist”.
    

For the discussion, go here.

More than anything else, I just love the myth that liberals are more intellectual. Here's an example.

I'm a news addict. I admit it. I can't help it. Here is my morning routine:

1. Get coffee.
   
2. Start news-sweep at Real Clear Politics, which lists the day's headlines (typically, I go on moonbat overload after reading five or six NY Times stories, so enough of Real Clear Politics).
   
3. Begin blog sweep, with Conservative Grapevine, because like Real Clear Politics, it indexes the latest news by blog. After perusing the latest, I then read my mainstays: Powerline, Right Wing News, Michelle Malkin, and for humor, Imao. I save my faovrite blog, The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, for last, when I'm in the perfect mood to see liberals being eviscerated. Then I hit the secondaries.
   
4. Blog.
   

Usenet? It's lame these days. Lame and fairly annoying--even conservative groups are plagued by howling leftist trolls. I get more Marxist nonsense than anyone should have to put up with just being in a college town--I sure as the hell don't need it in my inbox or at home.

A A hi-f*cking-larious swipe at amoral equivalence. Oops, was that judgmental? Oh dear! Throw wet tofu at me!

I don't know whether to find shit like this humorous, ludicrous, intensely annoying, or a combination of them all--particularly this horseshit:

"It is disappointing that when President Bush had the chance to bring the country together, he instead turned to a nominee who may have impressive legal credentials, but also has sharp partisan credentials that cannot be ignored."

It goes back to that liberals and principles thing. These leftists don't get it because they have no principles. Bush has no obligation to "bring the country together" (which, of course, means appoint a leftist judge who will wipe his ass with the Constitution by "interpreting" it to mean what he thinks it should mean, using "international law" and "current opinion" and other crap, that "living document" bullshit). Bush does have an obligation to fulfil his campaign promises to those of us who elected him, here by appointing not a "living document" activist, but a constructionist.

Hello, liberals. Do you get it? Campaign promises. Not Clinton-esque bullshit forgotten as soon as the inauguration is over. Promises. Look it up.

Hat tip to the Emperor:

BOMBAY -- Hard-line Islamic clerics in a northern Indian village have declared that a woman's 10-year-old marriage was nullified when her father-in-law raped her -- and ordered the mother of five to marry the rapist.

Another reason multiculturalism must be defeated--unless you want this shit here. No thanks.

John Gibson needs to be commemorated for this:

Karl Rove Should Get a Medal
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
By John Gibson

I say give Karl Rove (search) a medal, even if Bush has to fire him.

Why? Because Valerie Plame (search) should have been outed by somebody. And if nobody else had the cojones to do it, I'm glad Rove did — if he did do it, and he still says he didn't.

Why should she have been outed? Well despite her husband's repeated denials, even in the face of a pile of evidence and conclusions from a Senate investigation, it appears all evidence points to Joe Wilson's wife, spy Valerie Plame, as the one who recommended him for the job of going to Niger to discover is Saddam was trying to buy nuke bomb materials.

Why is this important? Because Wilson was opposed to the war in Iraq, opposed to Bush policy, and pointedly and loudly said so.

Consequently, it was of some interest how he got chosen for this sensitive job which people at the time might have thought would be a fulcrum point for a decision about the war.

You wouldn't send a peacenik to see if we should go to war, if we need to go to war, now would you?

That's exactly what happened, and as they say in the news biz: Inquiring minds wanted to know, "How the heck did this happen?"

Well, turns out the wife did it.

She touted husband Joe, her CIA bosses bit, and off Wilson went to completely knock down any notion Saddam wanted Niger's nuke bomb making stuff, which is called yellow cake.

Problem is, the report of the Select Committee on Intelligence says the information showed no such thing. That, in fact, it was still a bit of a mystery and Saddam could well have been trying to buy the nuke bomb material.

So why should Rove get a medal?

Let's just assume that spy Valerie Plame knew her husband's attitudes about the war in Iraq and George W. Bush's policies. Sending him off to Niger could be regarded as an attempt to influence national policies.

Where I come from, we want to know who that is. We do not want secret spymasters pulling the puppet strings in the background. That is something that should be out in the open and the person doing it should own up to it.

Rove should get a medal — if he did what he says he didn't.

That's My Word.

BY JAMES TARANTO
Thursday, July 14, 2005 3:16 p.m. EDT

Clinton: Media Have Liberal Bias
"Former President Clinton, defending his senator-wife's statements on abortion, said Wednesday that Democrats are held to a double standard," the Associated Press reports from Washington:

He contended that Republicans have defined the abortion debate in a way that boxes in Democrats.

"So for example, if you're a Democrat and you have sort of normal impulses, you're a sellout, like when Hillary said abortion is a tragedy for virtually everybody who undergoes it, we ought to do all we can to reduce abortion," Clinton said.

"All of a sudden," he continued, the media began asking, " 'Is she selling out? Is she abandoning her principles?' But if John McCain, who's pro-life, works with Hillary on global warming, he's a man of principle moving to the middle."

"It's nuts," the former president said.

Clinton is absolutely right: The media cheer when a Republican moves to the left and boo when a Democrat moves to the right. For an even more extreme example, compare their treatment of Jim Jeffords and Zell Miller.

Conservatives have been complaining about liberal media bias for decades. Now they've found an unlikely ally in Bill Clinton.

Hat tip to Mark Steyn:

It has been sobering this past week watching some of my "woollier" colleagues (in Vicki Woods's self-designation) gradually awake to the realisation that the real suicide bomb is "multiculturalism" ... As I've said before, you can't assimilate with a nullity - which is what multiculturalism is.

There is the all too often unspoken, fundamental reason multiculturalism is destructive, and there is the real culture war. Abortion, gay marriage, these are trivial by comparison.

Americans love ethnicity. We always have. In the 50s liberals love to decry Americans drove miles to eat in chop suey palaces and take in the chintzy cheezy decor and waiters in quaint native costumes. We have street festivals where otherwise assimilated citizens dress up and serve their ancestral foods, play ancestral music, do native dances, and so forth. Were multiculturalism a celebration of ethnicity, as it is often disingenuously presented, it would be innocuous.

But multiculturalism isn't ethnicity, or the celebration thereof. Multiculturalism is the deliberate, incremental dismantling of our mores, our values, our ideals and our culture, turning us, as Mark Steyn put it, into a nullity.

Although how Britain and Europe can attempt to encourage immigrants to assimilate to something that has never existed, it's a no-brainer here.

The United States is the only nation founded upon ideals. People have come here since the birth of our nation for those ideals. We have every right--indeed, we are morally obligated to expect, to demand that those who come to live here assimilate to those ideals. We are morally obligated to help them do so in any way we can, but yes, immigrants must become Americans--and the only way to be an American is to share those ideals. The color of your skin, the nation of your birth, the language you first spoke, none of these define you as American or not; only the subscription to those American ideals does.

Yet multiculturalists are well on their way to destroying those ideals, in our schools, in our universities, and in the Beltway. American history textbooks spend most of their time on revisionist PC mythohistory and neglect their primary purpose: transmitting the ideals upon which this nation was founded. So-called government and civics textbooks follow the same destructive path.

Identity politics, hyphenated "American"ism, are nothing more than the destruction of the nation's ideals.

That is the real culture war. And somebody had better start identifying and fighting it, instead of the secondary culture war issues.