They're all going to laugh at you

Hi all! : - )

Rush Limbaugh is an interesting personality, but I don't often agree with what he said. I really didn't agree with his advice to a woman who called into his program yesterday.

She works at a library on a liberal campus (by the way, I'm a liberal and proud of it), and is worried that if she expresses her conservative point of view her friendships and her work situation won't be that good. So this is the advice that Rush gave her.

You will not believe what laughing at people who are earnestly serious about what they think will do to them. And they will go, "Why are you laughing at us? What's so funny?" And you say, "I can't believe what you guys are saying. I really can't believe the way you think." And then they'll start, "What do you mean?" And then they've led you into it. You haven't confronted them. You've just laughed at them.

I'm not the worlds best expert on inter-human relations but I know that when I get laughed at, it doesn't make me feel good. It certainly doesn't make me want to listen to whatever the person is saying! : - {

I think this advice would just create more harsh feelings and anger; and I don't know why Mr. Limbaugh would recommend such a course. Unless he feels there is something positive in Liberals and Conservatives hating each other.

American Culpability

Well that didn't take long.

Derrick Z. Jackson, writing in the Boston Globe, holds the United States of America accountable for the terrorist actions in London yesterday. Not in a tinfoil hat kind of way, but morally responsible.

We have rightfully mourned the loss of nearly 3,000 people on 9/11. We have begun mourning the loss of about 40 people in London. We have mourned the loss of 1,751 US soldiers, who, bless them, were following orders of their commander in chief. But to this day, there has been no major acknowledgement, let alone apology, by Bush or Blair for the massive amounts of carnage we created in a war waged over what turned out to be a lie, the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.

These innocents never existed, either in Iraq or Afghanistan. . . .

The United States waged its own war of propaganda by refusing to conduct a legitimate, authoritative, honest accounting of the deaths of innocent civilians.

It may surprise you to hear that I agree with Jackson. We are guilty for this recent carnage. Oh not because of any Iraqi civilians killed; the fact that Jackson equates deliberate murder of thousands with a few accidental civilian deaths shows his TOTAL LACK of any moral compass.

We are guilty because we have not fought this war to win. We have let Liberals and Extremists tie our hands behind our backs. We have left our borders unguarded. We have failed to support President Bush against a MOUNTAIN OF LIES the Liberals have constructed to destroy him.

Simply enough, we have not fought the war to win and we have not correctly identified the real enemies of the United States.

Mailbag Blues

Good Morning Everybody! : ))

A quick reminder; we want to hear from you! Send us your comments on the new direction of the Blog, makes suggestions for how we could better meet your commentary needs, or take us to task for something we said. Here's an e-mail address - politicalcombryant@gmail.com Alternatively you could just leave comments down in the commentary box below this post.

Come Monday we will be replaying to your commants, so get to it. We have a few, but we'd like more. : - )

Round the Horn. An Irwin J. McIckleson Production

Volume II, as they say.

Yes this is Fictional 1910's Plutocrat Irwin J. McIckleson back for another look at the Liberal Coalition.

Let's start out with a website I found nearly incomprehensible - The Gamer's Nook. There is a nice picture, however, of a checkerboard. It's nice to know that in this future age of thinking machines and blinking lights there is still room for an old fashioned game of checkers.

In Search of Telford has the news that price for gasoline may soon reach $3.00 a barrel, which is an astronomically high price to pay for gasoline. I'll have you know that back here in the 1910s I pay three cents per gallon. I don't even really use it; I just buy it and store it in drums in the backyard. I'm planning on having a Viking funeral, when, and if, I should pass on.

Sooner Thought has a section on President Bush meeting the Luxembourg Prime Minister, whom he apparently feels is a "piece of work." I know what he means. Marie-Adelaide, Grand Duchess of Luxembourg (from my time) is somewhat of a piece of work as well; very opinionated. And she cheats at croquet (all Europeansns do, come to think of it, and most Americans).

The Countess, who sounds like she would have gotten along with the Grand Duchess, reports that apparently the laws of gravity work somewhat as they do in my time. So if you shoot a bullet into the air in a fit of celebratory fever, said bullet will eventually find its way back to earth. I have to say I'm surprised that you future peoples haven't figured a way to get around this gravity, but until you do, I agree with the Countess's prescription; don't fire guns up into the sky.

THE FULCRUM has a sad story of a former comrade who was killed in the line of duty serving in Iraq. War is never kind, which is why it is best avoided if possible. Plus it gets in the way of business (unless your business is war, I suppose).

Archy has a post responding to some sort of bomb-throwing anarchist attack in London. He argues in favor of bringing those responsible to justice, which strikes me as the right policy to follow. I've enjoyed London the times I've went, so I would like to express my condolences to Englanders who may have suffered in this tragedy.

Rick's Cafe Americain has more on the incidents in London. Apparently the perpetrators were what are called terrorists. I'm not sure if that's the same as saying Anarchist Bomb Throwers or different. Anyway he comments that President Bush has apparently decided to fight the Terrorists in Iraq so as to protect the western world? Maybe I don't really understand what is going on here - but if the terrorists are motivated by an ideology (like our own anarchist bomb throwers) surely this is somewhat of a foolish strategy. Can you shoot an ideology? Can you tie it down and trap it? I don't think so.

I know a little bit about this from my struggles to crush the Unions. You can't defeat bad ideas by force or coercion - frankly that usually made my unionists even more determined to hold onto their foolish ideas. Instead I would usually provide copious amounts of alcohol in order to persuade them to see that I wasn't such a bad guy after all. I don't know if that would work in this situation, but it's worth thinking about anyway.

Steve Bates, The Yellow Doggeral Democrat has further condolences for those affected by the tragedy in London and also reveals that the group who is apparently responsible calls itself the Secret Organization of al-Qaeda in Europe. I have to wonder about a "secret" group claiming responsibility publicly, but perhaps I don't understand how these terrorists think.

The Podunk Press (also known as Words on a Page) has some words on the recently passed 4th of July holiday and what it means. Very patriotic and inspiring words; it is good from my vantage point to know that Americans nearly a hundred years on still revere and support this country and its principles.

And that is it for another week. I am starting to enjoy doing these reviews, I have to say. Very educational.

Watcing our Words

Hi !

I'd just like to drop a friendly note to some of our friends at Fox News. Particularly Brian Kilmeade. You maybe should watch what you say a little, so that you don't make people think that you think terrorist attacks that kill people are a good thing. Here's what Mr. Kilmeade said.

And that was the first time since 9-11 when they should know, and they do know now, that terrorism should be Number 1. But it's important for them all to be together. I think that works to our advantage, in the Western world's advantage, for people to experience something like this together, just 500 miles from where the attacks have happened.

Now I know you didn't mean this to sound like the terrorist attacks were to "our advantage" but some other people might get that impression. So I'd just recommend you be a little more careful in how you phrase your words.

Just a friendly suggestion : ))

Wise Words from Robert Bork

Some of you may disagree with my charactization of the upcoming war over the courts. That's life, I suppose. But I would like to point out that the best Supreme Court Justice who didn't get to serve seems to agree with my analysis, as evidenced by this appearance on CNN. I'm talking, of course, about Judge Robert Bork.

KAGAN: Excuse me. Judge Bork, do you think it's fair to say she [Retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Conner] didn't have an judicial philosophy? Perhaps that she didn't have the same judicial philosophy that you share. But she probably -- she possibly had a more moderate philosophy and was expressing that as a swing vote on the high court.

BORK: I think that referring to a moderate philosophy and a conservative philosophy and so forth is quite wrong. The question is, those judges who depart from the actual Constitution, and those who try to stick to the actual Constitution.

She departed from it frequently. So that I wouldn't call that moderate. I would call it unfortunate. But she is -- she is -- as a result, she often determined the outcome by swinging from one side to the other.

I really like the way Judge Bork puts this; our views are so skewed that we see one judge who ignores the constitution regularly and another who follows it, and we label the one who ignores it as the Moderate. It's not Moderate to ignore the constitution and the principles on which this nation was founded. Or, at least, it shouldn't be!

The Persistence of Existence

I just want to echo Cheery's words earlier. I'm sure we will be talking about the political ramifications of what happened in London, but not today.

Instead I will point you to an article by Dahr Jamail (posted at the liberal site Common Dreams)which questions the existence and the relevance of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. al-Zarqawi is leading a large part of the Terrorist Insurgency in Iraq, so you'd think his existence would be accepted, but you would be wrong.

I'm reminded of an old joke. Historians have just discovered that Shakespeare's plays were not written by Shakespeare, but by another person with the same name.

To be fair, what Jamail is really talking about is how the mythology of al-Zarqawi has overshadowed the man. But I do think it reveals the distinct difference between the Liberal and Conservative mindset. To the Conservative, al-Zarqawi is to be defeated, not understood.

The article is also worth reading as a travelogue; as Jamail meets and discusses al-Zarqawi with many people in that part of the world. It can be pretty funny.

He then adds, somewhat randomly, that he himself has been in different prisons for a total of seven years -- one of those statements you can't decide whether you wished you had never heard or are simply relieved you didn't hear hours earlier just as you were beginning.

"In Afghanistan when we beheaded people it was to show the enemy what their fate was to be. It was to frighten them."

I think to myself grimly: Well, it works.

Anyway, it's well worth reading.

Sad News from England

We here at Make me a Commentator!!! wanted to take a moment before the regular back and forth of the day to talk about what happened in London this morning. As you probably know, London transportation systems were rocked by six apparently coordinated explosions that have left at least two people dead and others injured. Our hearts go out to those who have suffered in these blasts and their families.

We will short return to our regular back and forth jousting, and it seems likely that we will eventually discuss the political ramifications of this terrible incident. I don't know how we can avoid it. But I hope in our discussions we don't forget the human face of this incident.

Thank you for your time.

Mail Bag Needs filling

Hi! Cheery once again reminding you if you have any comments on the new format of this website to send them to this E-Mail Address politicalcombryant@gmail.com

You can also leave them in the comments section down below!

We have a new member of our little family who will be handling the Monday Mail Bag on, coincidentally enough, Monday! So send those comments and e-mails so we have something to respond to! : )

Activist Judges

The New York Times, showing it's traditional LIBERAL BIAS, has an article today accusing Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia of judicial activism. This charge would be laughable if it weren't based on a semi reasonable methodology.

The authors took as a sign of Judicial activism the decision to declare a law unconstitutional. If a Justice voted to overturn a law (as is the Supreme Court's perogative), that is an example of Judicial Activism. By this standard, Clarence Thomas is the most activist justice on the bench, having voted to overturn a law 65.63% of the time. Ruth Bader Gingsburg, on the other hand, has a rating of 39.06%. Parenthetically I should add I didn't check the figures; I'm assuming the authors got them right.

The problem with this analysis is that it ignores the larger framework. If a person ran into your house and started spraying everything with water from a hose, you would probably call the cops to have him hauled away. But if your house was on fire and a person did the same thing, you would praise his heroism.

AMERICA IS ON FIRE!

We've had 80 years of bad justice, creating a climate in which many of the laws passed are frankly unconstitutional. A strict constructionalist naturally will find himself declaring a lot of laws unconstitutional; it's those who believe in a "fluid interpretation" of the constitution that will allow this desecration of American principles to continue unabated.

I will add another point; those of us who support President Bush are looking to see if he is going to live up to his promise. I am confident he will. It's important that America gets the sort of Justice it deserves and that the Liberals of this country learn where they stand. If President Bush puts up a weak or a middle of the road type of candidate, someone who isn't going to fight for the constitutionalist vision of America, well, let's just say I think that would be a serious mistake.

How to Talk to Women

Cheery here, with a selection from comments President made in Lyngby, Denmark. According to Salon, this was a discussion between President Bush and Tabassum Zakaria, a woman reporter from Reuters.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Reuters man, Toby. Woman -- excuse me. I can see that. (Laughter.) So how long have you been on the presidential beat?

Q Since February.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes. Well, make yourself less scarce.

By the way, how silly is it that they just use that Q, to represent the reporters. I mean people like to see their name, don't they? And it's not like it would be all that hard to say who asked which question. : - O

Anyway, just an example of how President Bush might do a little better at, well, recognizing a woman. According to Salon, President Bush calls on female reporters very rarely. Kind of embarrassing, to say the least. I'm sure this is an honest mistake, and not an indication of what President Bush thinks of women, but it might help if he tried a little harder. : - ) Maybe President Bush should get a check sheet on the podium so you can tell who the women are and then call on them.

Why we Fight!

Just finished Pat Buchanan's latest article and I'm HOPPING MAD! Not at Buchanan, this time. Instead I am ANGRY at how far the SUPREME COURT has drifted from the values that formed this nation.

The Brown decision of 1954, desegregating the schools of 17 states and the District of Columbia, awakened the nation to the court's new claim to power. Hailed by liberal elites -- and finding no resistance from a Democratic Congress or president who spent his afternoons at Burning Tree -- Warren's court went off on a rampage.

It invented new rights for criminals and put new restrictions on cops and prosecutors. It reassigned students to schools by race and ordered busing to bring it about, tearing cities apart. It ordered God, prayer and Bible-reading out of classrooms. It said pornography was constitutionally protected, making Larry Flynt and Al Goldstein First Amendment heroes, rather than felons. It ruled naked dancing a protected form of free expression. It declared abortion a constitutional right and sodomy constitutionally protected behavior.

It all started with Brown vs. the Board of Education. That is often taught as a triumph for civil rights, and perhaps it had a good effect. But it also opened the door to all of these other ABUSES by a court driven by ARROGANCE and EGO.

Now President Bush has a chance to restore the court, and through that action also restore America. I hope he takes this opportunity.

The Upcoming Court Mud Fight

Hi Everybody !

As we all know, Justice Sandra Day O'Conner recently stepped down. This gives President Bush the opportunity to nominate a new candidate to the bench and to put the recent Senate Compromise to the test. I have to admit I'm not looking forward to the upcoming fight. : - (

Bill Murchison, as shown by his latest article, shares some of my concerns.

Therefore, it's not, after all, Judicial Nomination Time. It's Election Time. Get ready to hate. Get ready to distort and vituperate and throw around catch phrases like "ideologue" and "hard right." If you enjoyed the last presidential election, you'll just absolutely love and adore the coming Senate and media battle over ... whomever.

I think Mr. Murchinson is right here. I hope the President lives up to his claim to be a uniter and not a divider. He could show his uniting colors by nominating a candidate who Senate Democrats could support.

By the same token, I hope that Democrats don't go overboard in pillorying whoever President Bush puts up. Of course we should discuss why we support or don't support his candidate, but we can do that without personal attacks or unpleasantness, can't we? : - )

I think we can! : ))

Liberals Banking on President Bush not Honoring his Promises

E. J. Dionne has an article today singing the praises of Sandra Day O'Conner, and indirectly slamming modern conservatives.

It's odd that O'Connor, in an instant, became a liberal hero. In many ways, she is the most profoundly conservative justice on the court. Cass Sunstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago, noted that she is a particular kind of conservative, an implicit follower of the philosopher Edmund Burke, "someone who likes tradition, respects incremental change, doesn't like revolution."

But the Burkean disposition is not what animates the political movement that now flies under the colors of conservatism. The judicial right is seeking anything but continuity. It wants a revolution of its own -- or perhaps a counterrevolution. And unlike O'Connor, who liked her decisions very particular, the new conservatives love sweeping abstractions. To them, a case-by-case approach is as unprincipled as it is unexciting.

Let's put this another way; O'Conner's judicial work is similar to Nero's fiddle work. In both cases the performance might be very well done, but TOTALLY UNSUITED to the times.

The liberals of this country have taken us so far away from what the founders of this country intended that returning America to what it should be will seem like a radical, even revolutionary step. Given the INCREDIBLE ROT at the heart of the American Government, merely pruning the leaves will accomplish little. Instead we need someone who is going to interpret the law according to the original intent. And that is the sort of person President Bush has promised to place on the Supreme Court.

And people who are banking on President Bush not living up to his word, well, they don't know President Bush.

Happy Birthday President Bush

Good Morning Everybody! :)

I would also like to wish President Bush a Happy Birthday. The passage of another year is often times an opportunity to reflect back on how we've lived our life and consider if there were any mistakes that we made. The Philosopher Confucius said, "Be not ashamed of mistakes and thus make them crimes." You might consider that your watchword for the coming year, as you examine where your plans have gone well and where they haven't.

Just a thought, Mr. President. Enjoy your cake! : )

Happy Birthday Mr. President

Fifty Nine Years ago today, al-Qaeda had a very bad day. They probably didn't realize it at the time (if they were even around in 1946). But on July 6th, 1946, the man who would grow up to be our current President was born.

I'm confident that years from now, when this day is a national holiday, our children will ask us what it was like to live during the reign of such a talented and wise man. I don't know what I will tell them. Will I comment at the yapping of the Democrats constantly undermining his efforts to protect the nation? Or will that seem too petty in the future?

Probably be too petty; by then, I'm sure the Democratic Party will be no more than a historical curiosity. President Bush's constant success is showing America that Conservative principles work. And despite the deceptions of the media, the American people are figuring it out. They can tell the difference between a media hyped economy like we had in the 90s and a real economic boom like we are having now. They can tell the difference between scolding our enemies and dealing with our enemies.

So enjoy your special day Mr. President. America stands with you!

Mail Bag

Hi all! : - )

It occurred to me in my previous post that we need a better way to collect overall comments on the website. You can comment on the posts, of course, but if you have any overall comments on the direction of this website, please send them to this address - politicalcombryant@gmail.com

Each Monday our own Irwin J. McIckleson will respond to a selected number of e-mails, as well as comments in individual posts. In this way we hope you can feel like this is your website as much as it is ours! : )

So get out your e-mail caps and e-mail us right away!

Accusing Thomases

Apparently Karl Rove is being accused of having outed Valerie Plame by Lawrence O'Donnell. According to O'Donnell, Karl Rove is the source of the leak regarding Valerie Plame. If memory serves, however, Valerie Plame's job was COMMON KNOWLEDGE in Washington D.C. So how can it be a crime to reveal what everybody already knows?

O'Donnell, showing the traditional Liberal belief in the Justice System, immediately renders a verdict on poor Karl Rove. GUILTY! But of course, most of us in reality are more interested in waiting to look at the evidence before passing judgement.

If it turns out that Rove knowingly outed Plame, obviously that's embarrassing for him and for the President. But perhaps we can wait for the legal system to do it's thing before making that call, eh, O'Donnell?

The Format of this Site

Hi!

This is Cheery and I need to talk to you about a serious subject, I'm afraid. I have been getting some e-mails from people complaining about the new format of this site and the comments of my fellow commentator, Grumbly Muffin. In regards to Grumbly Muffin's last post, I got this e-mail.

How dare Grumbly Muffin insinuate that Liberal America doesn't love it's nation? How dare he tell us to shut up about the injustices being done in our name? And how dare you let his words flow by unchallenged?

Well a few points. Grumbly Muffin is not a male. If you look at her Blogger ID it says that. We are going to update the website later on this week with a fresh look and links to our individual profiles.

But to the core question; how can I let Grumbly Muffin say what she want? Well because that's the only way to let me say what I want. She has a right to speak her mind. Also, the format of this website doesn't encourage me to argue with her directly. I present my point of view, and she presents hers.

More to the point, it's not my nature to strike such an accusatory tone. Certainly I would never attack her in the language you use; I believe it's important to focus on presenting a positive Democratic message rather than taking time to answer every charge hurled around by our political opposition.

Anyway I just wanted to clear that up so I can get back to our normal routine.

Liberals love their Country. Really. No Fooling.

Every year, around July 4th (and other Patriotic holidays like Memorial Day or Veterans Day), Liberal commentators write kind of a set column, designed to show that they love America. The fact that they feel the need to underline their love for America makes it clear that there is some REASON to doubt it. You don't spend a lot of time defending yourself unless you have something to defend, right?

So let's look at Liberal's love of America. Well here's an article by John Nichols that equates President Bush with King George the Third. Not sure how far to take that; does Mr. Nichols see AL-QAEDA as the colonial army? He then quotes some isolationist words from Mr. John Quincy Adams, words that just don't seem as reasonable in a 20th century world where the oceans no longer protect us.

Here's an article by Dorothy M. Ehrlich that suggests that, in order to honor the patriotic ideals of July 4th, we ABANDON the protections offered by the U.S. Patriot Act.

And here's an article by William F. Schulz suggesting that Liberals really are patriotic after all.

I love hot dogs and apple pie - too much, in fact. I'm a big baseball fan (though I admit that because I grew up in Pittsburgh, I root for the hapless Pirates). I relish our verdant prairies and majestic mountain peaks. And I'm deeply moved every time I watch CBS News' Fallen Heroes and learn of one more brave young man or woman who died for our country.

It's not just because my American credentials are impregnable, however, that the anti-American charge rankles me. It's because we in the human rights business are among the most appreciative of what America stands for. We are the ones who so often witness what frequently happens in other countries to people who disagree with their governments.

If you are so appreciative of America, why don't you SHUT UP about bogus charges of torture and abuse? I'm just saying.

Frankly the most patriotic thing that most liberals could do is just to SHUT UP in general.

Hooray for America

Hi Everybody! : )

Armstrong Williams, who got in a little trouble a while back, has a new column in which he writes about the everyday people who make this country great! In fact, that's the name of his column. The everyday people who make this country great!

In it he talks about the soldiers who defend us and the normal people who just do their thing and do good in their communities. However, he also talks about the things he thinks aren't good for America. Like too much prosperity.

A century later and America is glutted with prosperity, but increasingly empty in spirit. For no accumulation of objects can truly lessen the burden of human anxiety. How do we keep this spiritual numbness from inhibiting and destroying us? The answer is straightforward: we must revel in the greatness of fundamental pleasures: family, civility, and the striving for moral excellence. Therein lies the means by which everyday Americans may ensure the survival of this country.

I totally agree with this. Americans are too focused on their own pleasure and not enough on being friendly to other people. Like when I walk down the street I try to smile at people. Sometimes they smile back and that makes me happy. But lots of times they don't and I'm always like "Look, how hard is it to smile."

Anyway I don't want to end on a negative note. Hooray for America! :-))

Returning to Form

I just want to let you know why this website was not updated over the last couple of days. Apparently SOMEBODY loyal to the previous writer at this website placed a hack in our system so that any time we updated the website, pro-Bryant propoganda would also appear. Fortunately we have this mostly cleared away now, and so will resume our normal printing schedule.

GRUMBLY MUFFIN LOOKS LIKE THE CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON WITHOUT THOSE HOLLYWOOD GOOD LOOKS.

I'd just like to comment about the punks who would try such a mean-spirited trick; it just shows your LACK of REAL IDEAS. If you had a real alternative you would be presenting that rather than playing mean spirited tricks.

Anyway we will resume our tag team commentary today.

GRUMBLY MUFFIN LOOKS LIKE AN APE AND SMELLS LIKE ONE TOO.