THURSDAY NOVEMBER 6, 2003

NEW PHOTOS

There are many additions to the photo galleries.  Some of the pictures without me, or with me in the distant background, are actually worth looking at!

Neal talks with Lt. Col. F.L. Thompson, USMC Retired, one of the guys who helped pull Big Neal (our Neal's father) out of the crashed airplane. [more]

WHO IS JANICE ROGERS BROWN?

Today the Senate Judiciary Committee will consider George Bush's appointment of California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown to the DC Court of Appeals.  Ted Kennedy has instructed the Democrats to filibuster this nomination.  No matter what the Judiciary Committee does, Justice Brown probably doesn't have a chance.

Democrats are outraged at this appointment.  Janice Rogers Brown presents a threat to Democrats on two fronts.  First, she is a conservative.  The truth is she's more of a libertarian than she is a conservative, but conservative is bad enough as far as Democrats are concerned.  For decades the left has depended on the courts to enact their agenda.  They depend on federal judges to make the basic tenants of the leftist philosophy the law of the land through judicial decision.  Democrats absolutely hate the idea of a federal judge who pays attention to the Constitution.  Janice Rogers Brown is just such a person.  She believes that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and she bases her decisions on the law, not on popular opinion.

Democrats are also frightened of Justice Brown because she has strayed from the Democratic plantation.  Democrats cannot win elections without their 90%+ support from Black Americans.  Every time a black conservative is put into a position of prominence there is the chance that other blacks will see that blind loyalty and subservience to the Democratic Party might not actually be the only path to success and fulfillment.

Do you want a little insight into how Janice Rogers Brown thinks?  At the core of her judicial philosophy is a belief that property rights and economic liberty deserve judicial protection.  She dissented on a ruling by the California Supreme Court upholding a rent control ordinance.  She said that "..arbitrary government actions which infringe property interests cannot be saved from constitutional infirmity by the beneficial purposes of the regulators."  Justice Brown was saying that your right to your property supercedes the claims of compassion you hear so often from politicians who want to violate your right to your property for the "common good."

Now ... listen to this statement from Janice Rogers Brown.  As you're listening remember that Teddy Kennedy has pronounced that this woman shall NOT become an appeals court judge.  The case was San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco.  The case was about San Francisco's broad range of restrictions on the way a private individual could use his own property.   In a dissent Justice Brown wrote "Theft is still theft even when the government approves of the thievery.  The right to express one's individuality and essential human dignity through the free use of property is just as important as the right to do so through speech, the press or the free exercise of religion."

Did you hear that?  Justice Janice Rogers Brown was putting property rights up there on the same level with freedom of speech! Democrats have an innate belief that all property belongs to government, and that the government will allow you to control some of that property -- some of that wealth -- if you act in ways Democrats approve of and if you are deemed worthy of the privilege.  Are you beginning to see why the Democrats just don't want this woman on a federal appeals court?

Janice Rogers Brown is heading to a lynching.  Hers.  Ted Kennedy will tell you that she's "out of the mainstream."  Well, to a Democrat, anybody who stands by the concept of individualism and individual rights is out of the mainstream.  Remember, it was Ted Kennedy who praised the war against individuality in a speech in early 2002. 

So ... when are YOU going to start getting upset by these Democratic filibusters of judicial nominees?  Is it as important to you as tonight's TV lineup?  These things aren't going to change, folks, until you get upset and until you start letting your political controllers know how you feel.

WHY DO WE PAY ATTENTION TO THIS BOZO?

There he was again yesterday on CNN; Al "The Liar" Sharpton pontificating on Howard Dean's now-infamous remark about the Confederate Flag.

Mr. Pompadour said:  "To give the signal that he sees something acceptable about people who carry the Confederate Flag is something that in my judgment will rub many Democrats and many Americans wrongly."

Well hell!  The Democratic Party sees Al Sharpton as something acceptable!  What kind of a signal are the Democrats giving embracing this cretin as a presidential candidate?

Look ... someone has to say this.  Al Sharpton is a bigot.  Al Sharpton is a pig.  Al Sharpton is a race baiter.  Al Sharpton is a liar.  Al Sharpton is a notorious anti-Semite.  People have died as a result of Sharpton's bigoted rantings and ravings.  The Democratic Party just doesn't have the gonads to call Sharpton what he is.  They're afraid of him.   Al Sharpton is a beneficiary of black privilege.  Al Sharpton enjoys the privilege of being a liar, an anti-Semite, a bigot, a race baiter and a pig without condemnation for one reason.  He's black.  He's protected from criticism because he's black. 

There's something else that needs to be said here.  Is this the best the Democrats can do?  Throughout the entire Democratic Party they cannot produce one single black candidate for president who isn't smothered in her own corruption like Carol Mosely Braun, or a classless race warlord like Al Sharpton?  Look at the most visible blacks in the Bush Administration:  You have a Secretary of State and a National Security Advisor.  The Democrats are showcasing a corrupt former Senator who couldn't get reelected in her own state, and a lying, bigoted race baiter.  Sure makes you proud to be a Democrat, doesn't it?

BUT THEN DEMOCRATS AREN'T ALL THAT MUCH BETTER ANYWAY.

How can Democrats embrace a creature like Al Sharpton?  Maybe it's because they see so much of themselves in him.

My listeners love to keep their eyes on a website known as Democratic Underground.  This is a website where Democrats gather to share their feelings about political issues, the war in Iraq, and, of course, George Bush.  When these listeners see something particularly interesting they alert me by e-mail.

Yesterday afternoon I started getting notices of a posting on Democratic Underground from someone who calls herself "Starpass."  The title of her posting was "I hope the bloodshed continues in Iraq."  Starpass was writing to express her desire that far more American troops die in Iraq.  Here is just part of what she wrote:

"The only way to get rid of this slime bag WASP-Mafia, oil barron ridden cartel of a government, this assault on Americans and anything one could laughingly call "a democracy", relies heavily on what a shit hole Iraq turns into. They need to die so that we can be free. Soldiers usually did that directly--i.e., fight those invading and harming a country. This time they need to die in defense of a lie from a lying adminstration to show these ignorant, dumb Americans that Bush is incompetent. They need to die so that Americans get rid of this deadly scum. It is obscene, Barbie Bush, how other sons (of much nobler blood) have to die to save us from your Rosemary's Baby spawn and his ungodly cohorts."

This from the party of compassion.  This from the party that cares so much for you.  I'll bet you just can't wait to get out there and vote for these Democrats next year, can you?

THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE SATIRE.  IT ALMOST ISN'T

I don't know how many of you visit The Onion on the Internet.  If you don't you should.  It's an absolutely fantastic satirical website with news stories that you would swear could be true ... but aren't.  So, with full credit to The Onion, I want to post in its entirety one of their current stories.  I want to post it because we are not very far from this being absolutely true.  Here you go.

        
NEW YORK-Alarmed by the unhealthy choices they make every day, more and more Americans are calling on the government to enact legislation that will protect them from their own behavior.

"The government is finally starting to take some responsibility for the effect my behavior has on others," said New York City resident Alec Haverchuk, 44, who is prohibited by law from smoking in restaurants and bars. "But we have a long way to go. I can still light up on city streets and in the privacy of my own home. I mean, legislators acknowledge that my cigarette smoke could give others cancer, but don't they care about me, too?"

"It's not just about Americans eating too many fries or cracking their skulls open when they fall off their bicycles," said Los Angeles resident Rebecca Burnie, 26. "It's a financial issue, too. I spend all my money on trendy clothes and a nightlife that I can't afford. I'm $23,000 in debt, but the credit-card companies keep letting me spend. It's obscene that the government allows those companies to allow me to do this to myself. Why do I pay my taxes?"

Beginning with seatbelt legislation in the 1970s, concern over dangerous behavior has resulted in increased governmental oversight of private activities. Burnie and Haverchuk are only two of a growing number of citizens who argue that legislation should be enacted to protect them from their own bad habits and poor decisions.

Anita Andelman of the American Citizen Protection Group is at the forefront of the fight for "greater guardianship for all Americans."

"Legislation targeting harmful substances like drugs and alcohol is a good start, but that's all it is-a start," Andelman said. "My car automatically puts my seatbelt on me whenever I get into it. There's no chance that I'll make the risky decision to leave it off. So why am I still legally allowed to drink too much caffeine, watch television for seven hours a day, and, in some states, even ride in the back of a pick-up truck? It just isn't right."

The ACPG has also come out in favor of California's proposed "soda tax," which addresses unhealthy eating habits.
"The legislation, if approved, would establish a tax on sodas and other beverages with minimal nutritional value, and the money would be used to fund programs that address the growing epidemic of childhood obesity," Andelman said. "If our own government doesn't do something to make us get in better shape-or, for that matter, dress a little nicer-who will?"

Rev. Ted Hinson, founder of the Christian activist group Please God Stop Me, said he believes that the government will listen.

"For years, legislators have done an admirable job of listening to constituents who want the dangerous, undesirable behavior of their neighbors regulated," Hinson said. "That is a good sign for those of us who wish for greater protection from ourselves. But you should see the filth I still have access to, just by walking into a store or flipping on my computer. There is still much work to be done if we are going to achieve the ideal nanny-state."

Bernard Nathansen, an attorney for the Personal Rights Deferred Center in Oakes, VA, is one of many individuals working to promote "governmental accountability." His organization arranges class-action lawsuits on behalf of Americans who have been hurt by the government's negligence, including individuals who suffer health problems related to overexposure to sunlight.

"We can all agree that many choices are too important to be left up to a highly flawed individual," Nathansen said. "Decisions that directly affect our health, or allow us to expose ourselves to potential risks, should be left to the wiser, cooler heads of the government."

"But things like food and drug labels are half-measures," Nathansen said. "The regulations, however well-intentioned, often allow citizens the choice of ignoring the instructions. Many current laws were written primarily to protect others from our dangerous actions, with no concern for the deleterious effect our actions can have on ourselves. The government must do more."

To this end, Personal Rights Deferred has compiled an action list of more than 700 behaviors it wants regulated by state or federal authorities. The list includes such risky behaviors as swimming in cold weather and staying up all night playing video games.

"The fact is, personal responsibility doesn't work," Nathansen said. "Take a good look at the way others around you are living, and I'm sure you'll agree. It's time for the American people to demand that someone force them to do something about it."