Ann Coulter Quote of the Day.

"If conservatives complained about CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, Vanity Fair, Vogue, Reader's Digest, NPR, etc. etc. half as much as liberals scream about Fox News, even I would say conservatives were getting to be a bore on the subject."

Great quote but why does Ann cite Readers' Digest as a liberal publication? They've always seemed pretty conservative to me.

Jonah Goldberg Quote of the Day.

"The myth — oft-repeated by Jim Carville and others — that America was beloved by the world until the Iraq war or George Bush is hogwash. Anti-Americanism — in France, in Greece, throughout the third world — has been raging for a long time and actually increased with the defeat of Communism and on Bill Clinton's watch. That's not to say it was Clinton's fault in any significant way. It was merely a fact of life. Iraq is an excuse for America-bashing among nations that clearly couldn't be counted on no matter who was in the Oval Office."

Ann Coulter Quote of the Day.

"Guns are our friends because in a world without guns, I'm what's known as "prey." All females are. Any male -- the most sickly 98-pound-weakling -- could overpower me in a contest of brute force against brute force. For some reason, I'm always asked: Wouldn't I prefer a world without guns? No. I'd prefer a world in which everyone is armed, even the criminals who mean to cause me harm. Then I'd at least have a fighting chance." -- "How To Talk To A Liberal (If You Must)"

George W. Bush is a conservative.

There are many of my fellow Republicans and conservatives who don't consider George W. Bush a conservative (i.e. he isn't their kind of conservative because, in the wake of the Miers nomination, he didn't nominate their kind of conservatve justice). The notion is absurd but is common nonetheless. Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard puts such nonsense in it's place in a recent editorial:

Bush, of course, is a conservative, but a different kind of conservative. His tax cuts, support for social issues, hawkish position on national security and terrorism, and rejection of the Kyoto protocols make him so. He's also killed the ABM and Comprehensive Test Ban treaties, kept the United States out of the international criminal court, defied the United Nations, and advocated a shift in power from Washington to individuals through an "ownership society." On some issues--partial privatization of Social Security is the best example--he is a bolder conservative than Ronald Reagan, the epitome of a conventional conservative.

Right on Fred!

Ann Coulter Quote of the Day.

I dug up this hilarious quote from Ann Coulter awhile back. Coulter wrote this during the 2004 election campaign:

"Kerry was indisputably brave in Vietnam, and it's kind of cute to see Democrats pretend to admire military service. Physical courage, like chastity, is something liberals usually deride, but are tickled when it accidentally manifests itself in one of their own."

Heh.

President Bush nominates Harriet Miers to the SCOTUS.

The only qualification a Supreme Court nominee need have is that he/she will be a strict constructionist or an originalist.

Frankly, it doesn't bother me that Ms. Meiers has never been a judge or that the bulk of her legal career has been spent in private practice (that's a plus, in my opinion). She is obviously a good lawyer. After all, one does not become the head of the Texas State Bar Association by being a mediocre attourney.

And keep in mind that as the president's counsel, she was part of the vetting process that led to Pricilla Owen, John Roberts and Janice Rogers Brown receiving federal judicial appointments.

The president should be lauded for selecting someone close to him--someone he trusts--for the Supreme Court. He is well aware of his father's legacy of Justice Souter. The president and his father talk about it and George H.W. Bush describes Souter as one of his biggest mistakes as president. Presidenr George W. Bush will not make the same mistake. To make sure he doesn't make that sort of mistake, he is nominating someone he trusts. The president knows Harriet Miers and he knows she will be a justice that moves the court to the right. President Bush is not taking chances. He's nominating someone who shares his judicial philosophy.

I support President Bush and his nomination of Harriet Miers.

Idiot of Last Week.

In a speech to college Democrats on Friday, Howard Dean said the following:

The president and his right-wing Supreme Court think it is 'okay' to have the government take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your house is. We think that eminent domain does not belong in the private sector. It is for public use only.

The president and his right-wing court?!?

First of all, none of the nine justices of the Supreme Court were appointed by President George W. Bush.

Second, It was the four liberals along with moderate Anthony Kennedy on the SCOTUS who rules it was okay for local government to take away private property. The three conservative justices--Thomas, Rehnquist and Scalia--along with moderate O'Connor ruled against such unconstitutional measures.

Third, only a moron would conclude that four liberal justices + two moderates + three conservatives = a right-wing court.

Either Dean is completely ignorant or he thinks college students are.

John Stockton: Great point guard but not the best.

Well the "Stockton is the best point guard ever" knuckleheads are out in force.

While Stockton is definitely one of the fifteen or twenty best players in NBA history, it is absurd to say he's the best point guard. That title belongs to Magic Johnson or Oscar Robertson (if you decide to count Oscar as a point guard). Those who say, "He's the all-time leader in assists and steals so that makes him the best" are intellectually dishonest. You are purposely selecting statistics to bolster your argument. If you cared about the facts, you'd also mention that Stockton is the second all-time leader in turnovers! You'd also note that Magic has a higher assists-per-game average. Magic didn't play anywhere near as long a Stockton so the assist totals aren't close.

But knuckleheads are on both sides.

Those of you who bash Stockton because he never won a championship don't get it. Athletes who play team sports should not be judged by how many championships they've won (or didn't win as the case may be). That's unfair and it doesn't say anything about individual greatness. Basketball is a team game and it takes a team to win it all. There are many factors as to why some great players never won it all: Lack of great players around them, level of competition, unsupportive ownership/management, injuries, etc. Not all of those applied to Stockton, of course, but you get my point. Team championships do not automatically equal individual greatness.

One idiotic myth perpetuated by Jazz fans--most of whom are complete morons in my experience--is that Stockton is the best pure point guard in NBA history. What nonsense. The "pure" tag is used to bring Magic and Oscar down while raising Stockton up. It's stupid. Stockton cannot compete for best point guard ever if all things are equal so Magic and the Big O must be brought down by applying the pure label. Look, Stockton fanatics, it's no insult that Stockton is the third best point guard in league history. Move along home, morons.

Stockton is the third best point guard in league history. And that's okay.

Jonah Goldberg Quote of the Day.

"To his critics, it seems, Bush's error is that he offered too many reasons to go to war, except when he offered too few. When the news is that no WMDs have been found, WMDs become Bush's only reason to go to war. Back when the WMD angle had yet to be verified, the problem was that Bush offered too many rationales. Which is it?"

Ever get the feeling that the left doesn't like President Bush not because of his decisions but because, well, he's President Bush--a Republican!

Ann Coulter Qoute of the Day.

"In the United States, more than 30 million babies have been killed by abortion since Roe v. Wade versus seven abortion providers killed. Yeah -- keep your eye on those Christians!"

Yeah, Christians are the dangerous ones--give me a f--king break. We don't murder children by the millions!

Jonah Goldberg Quote of the Day.

Jonah Goldberg is a conservative syndicated columnist. And he's very quotable. So I will occassionally dig up Jonah Goldberg quotes for the pleasure of the three people who read this blog. Enjoy!

"Take the two leading liberal columnists at the New York Times, Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman. As we all know, one's a whining self-parody of a hysterical liberal who lets feminine emotion and fear defeat reason and fact in almost every column. The other used to date Michael Douglas."

Ann Coulter is viciously funny.

This was part of an exchange on Hannity & Colmes last night. The guests in this segment were Michael Reagan and Ann Coulter. I found the exchange incredibly humorous:

COLMES: Michael, I want to ask you something you just said about Dick Durbin which was really unfair. You're accusing democrats of being against him (John Roberts) because of their religion, that is outrageous that you would even suggest that. Dick Durbin is a Catholic, Patrick Leahy is a Catholic, and he never said there was a litmus test. He in fact asked the same question John Cornyn asked, whether he could separate his personal believes in what the constitution says, and (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

REAGAN: Alan...

COLMES: That suggests that democrats are just people because of their faith.

REAGAN: Alan, I wrote an op-ed piece, interesting, over a week ago and it'scoming to play out pretty well, that the Democrats will accept him if he becomes a bad Catholic. See, now...

COLMES: Now, that's ridiculous.

REAGAN: A bad Catholic. But they will not take a good Catholic. I'm sorry, but that's a fact...

COLMES: A good Catholic, according to whom? Do you determine what a good Catholic is?

REAGAN: A good Catholic, according to the Catholic Church, how about that? Ask Schulman, you're neighbor.

COLMES: Well, I'm not one to tell people whether they're good or bad at practicing their faith, maybe you think you can determine that.

Ann, I...

REAGAN: No, but there's a standard and the Catholic — it's interesting, there's only one Catholic Church, it pretty well stands, you know, stands pretty solid where it feels on abortion and what have you, and so if you're a Catholic who becomes pro-choice, then the Democrats will, in fact, accept you, which means they will accept a bad Catholic.

COLMES: What if you're a Catholic — what if you're pro-death penalty and you're a Catholic where the church says that they happen to be against the death penalty? Can you be a good Catholic and for the death penalty?

COULTER: And if you if you kill a girl at Chappaquiddick you're really good.

COLMES: Pardon me, Ann.

COULTER: I said if you kill a girl at Chappaquiddick, you're really in.

COLMES: That's a low blow. That really is a low blow. You should be above that.

REAGAN: Oh, you're really in. You can stay in forever.

COULTER: What do you mean a "low blow?"

COLMES: You really ought to be above that?

COULTER: Why? Did or did he, Senator Kennedy, or did he not kill a girl at Chappaquiddick? What, we can't mention it?

HANNITY: All right, thanks Ann, appreciate it. And Michael, thank you.

Funny stuff. Ann's "And if you if you kill a girl at Chappaquiddick you're really good." line had me laughing hard. The nice thing about Ann Coulter is that she's there to remind us all that Democrats are FLAMIN' HYPOCRITES!!! Aw, Ann. I love you.

Further proof that college is a fantasy land isolated from reality.

I stumbled across an article written by one Matt K. Murphy in response to a supposedly fair anti-Bush study by a Robert S. McElvaine, a historian. Murphy evicerates McElvaine and his leftist professor pals.

The Opinions of Brilliant Idiots -- Matt K. Murphy

And here is a link to McElvaine's original "study" that drew Murphy's ire:

Historians vs. George W. Bush -- Robert S. McElvaine

It's a good read and Murphy reveals how absurd and out-of-touch many in academia are.

Calvin Coolidge: Underrated President.

I've been doing a lot of research on Calvin Coolidge, the 30th president of the United States, and I've come to greatly admire the man and I now think he is one of the best presidents in American history--I'm talking top ten.

But everytime--everytime--a presidential poll is run, historians rank Coolidge near the bottom (generally bottom four). Is it a liberal thing? Not really. Modern conservatives rate Coolidge rather low, too. I think most have just accepted what everyone else has been saying about Coolidge and have failed to research the man for themselves.

So I will attempt to educate all three of you who read this blog with the following article which explains better than I why Coolidge was a great president:

A NEW LOOK AT CALVIN COOLIDGE
Remarks by Peter Hannaford

Coolidge should be an icon to libertarians and conservatives.

More links to pro-Coolidge articles to follow...

Steve Young is probably the best QB in NFL history.

The question is not what Young could do but rather what Young couldn't do.

Well, folks, what couldn't he do?

Steve Young is the most perfect quarterback the NFL has ever seen. He's the only QB in history who was consistently accurate from five yards to fifty. No one ran better. No QB in NFL history ran for more touchdowns (43). His 2.17 touchdown to interception ratio is the best in NFL history. When Montana came up, the Niners were the only team running the West Coast offense; teams were not adept at defending it yet. But by the time Young was starting, every team in the league was geared to stop the West Coast offense. Yet Young has the highest pass completion percentage in NFL history.

Some will point out that Young only won one Super Bowl as a starter which hardly compares to guys like Bradshaw and Montana (who won four apiece). That is NOT a legitimate point. It is grossly unfair to heap the failures and success of a team onto one player. Simply put, championships should not be a consideration when ranking great players in team sports. It's absurd.

Steve Young is the greatest quarterback I've ever seen. I didn't see Bradshaw and Tarkenton and Unitas in their heyday but in the twenty years I've followed the NFL, Young is clearly the best QB I've seen. Elway, Favre, Marino, Manning and, yes, Montana not withstanding.

President Bush picks a white guy to replace O'Connor--thank goodness!

Now hear me out.

I have no problem with women; I have no problem with women judges; I don't even have a problem with women supreme court justices (at least in theory--O'Connor and Ginsburg haven't been good justices). What I do have a problem with is any seat on the Supreme Court becoming the "female seat" or the "minority seat" or whatever. President Bush was under enoromous pressure to replace O'Connor with another woman (or a Hispanic). Even the First Lady suggested that Bush should fill O'Connor's vacancy with a woman. And while their were plenty of qualified female candidates--we're told that Judge Edith Clement was the runner-up to Judge Roberts--I'm glad Bush picked the person he thought would make the best justice. And in doing so, the president struck a deathblow to the nonsense of having seats on the supreme court reserved for specific types of people based soley on an accident of birth.

We know that if President Bush has the oppurtunity to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist or Justice Stevens or any other Supreme Court justice, sex, race and ethnicity won't be a consideration (conservative values will be but then that's the right of the president).

Say what you want about the president, but he does not pick people to fill jobs in government positions based on race or sex. He picks those he thinks will do the best job.

Because I like lists: The Top 10 Presidents of the United States.

1. George Washington - He set the precedent for all future presidents. It could have been disastrous for the young republic. But he did things right (though even Washington couldn't avoid controversy). Author and historian Larry Schweikart said it best, "It's hard to imagine, say, John Adams or Thomas Jefferson setting the same kinds of incredible precedents that Washington set, both for decorum and for efficiency. Adams would have (as he later did) alienated half the country, and Jefferson would have lacked the diplomacy to pull the Federalists along."

2. Abraham Lincoln - After the South left the Union and threw a tizzy fit because they couldn't get their way in regard to slavery (make no mistake, the South left because of slavery--the states's rights idea perpetuated by neo-Confederates is a myth), Lincoln did the right thing going to war to keep the Union together. Yes, he expanded the powers of the federal government but he had no choice. His detractors, many of whom favor small government, need to look at Lincoln in the context of the times. Lincoln did what needed to be done.

3. Thomas Jefferson - With the Louisiana Purchase, he doubled the size of the United States. Jefferson believed in small government and believed that people should govern themselves. He also banned the slave trade as president and had the vision to fund the Lewis and Clark Expedition.

4. Ronald Reagan - I don't think Reagan's greatness can be exaggerated. With his economic policies (i.e, tax cuts) he gave us the strongest economy we've ever had. On top of that, he put the Soviet Union out of business bringing hope to not just millions of Americans but millions of people worldwide. Always positive, Reagan made his enemies--both domestic and foreign--look foolish.

5. Grover Cleveland - Robert Higgs, Research Director for the Independent Institute, said this of Clevelsnd, "He kept the country at peace. He respected the Constitution, acknowledging that the national government has only a limited mission to perform and shaped his policies accordingly. He fought to lower tariffs; preserved the gold standard in its time of crisis; and restored order forcibly when hoodlums disturbed the peace on a wide front during the great railroad strike of 1894." Though I disagree with Mr. Higgs on many fronts, he nails my opinion of Cleveland perfectly.

6. (tie) Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge - It's hard to seperate Harding and Coolidge because Coolidge was an extension of Harding. A former Reagan economics advisor said this about the Harding/Coolidge term: "In another 50 years, Harding will look much better than he does today. His most sensational move was to name Andrew Mellon, the Pittsburgh banker, Treasury Secretary, which is why the Twenties roared. Mellon was the best Treasury Secretary after Alexander Hamilton. Harding's second great move (which preceded his Mellon pick) was to name Calvin Coolidge his running mate. Coolidge is derided because he didn't advocate Big Government, but he was Reagan's hero. RR was in high school in the Coolidge years, when Coolidge best expressed the ideas of low tax rates producing greater tax revenues than high tax rates. It was Mellon who inspired the JFK tax cuts of 1964 and the Reagan Revolution that followed. The only reason Harding is reviled by today's historians is that he MUST be entombed along with Hoover (and Coolidge) in order to elevate FDR." My thoughts precisely.

8. James Monroe - Monroe had one of the greatest cabinets ever assembled and he had the wisdom to let his cabinet secretaries do what they did best. The Missouri Compromise managed to keep the young republic together and the Monroe Doctrine laid the course for generations to follow.

9. Harry S. Truman - Did little to slow down the ineffective New Deal programs of FDR and, overall, he was fairly weak when it came to domestic issues. However, his dealings with the Soviets and Chinese at the beginning of the Cold War were extraordinary in vision and scope. Every Cold War president that followed Truman owes him a debt.

10. William McKinley - Karl Rove, George W. Bush's close friend and advisor, said this of McKinley (which I wholeheartedly agree with), "He modernized the presidency, he modernized the Treasury to deal with the modern economy, he changed dramatically the policies of his party by creating a durable governing coalition for 40 years, he took a special interest in finding the rising generation of young leaders and putting them into the government, he attempted deliberately to break with the Gilded Age politics, he was inclusive and he was the first Republican candidate for president to be endorsed by a leader in the Catholic hierarchy."

Maybe I'll post a "worst ten presidents" list later this week--Carter, Andrew Johnson, Lyndon Johnson, Jackson, Nixon, Ford, Buchanan, and Wilson will all be on it

More thoughts on Judge John Roberts.

As I've looked at other conservative blogs and websites, I've been dumbstruck by just how many conservatives are doubtful about John Roberts's conservative credentials.

They keep comparing Roberts to Souter.

I don't believe there is any evidence that Roberts is another Souter (who was George H.W. Bush's greatest mistake as president).

Roberts does have a conservative record. He is pro-business and, while he isn't the pure constitutional traditionalist many conservatives wanted, Roberts believes the Supreme Court should not legislate.

Comparisons to Souter are invalid. Souter did have a record, in spite of what some conservatives claim. The first Bush administration did not do their homework. If they had, they would have realized that Souter was a conservative in only the strictest definition of the word. He was a pragmatic conservative in the classic political sense. That means Souter felt that dramatic changes to the law was not good for society. He was truly conservative in that he did not like change which is why I believe he ended up becoming part of the liberal bloc of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had over the last forty years become increasingly more liberal (liberal in the modern sense) and Souter went with the flow--which is conservative in definition, if not philosophy.

There is no shred of evidence that Roberts has a judicial philosophy similiar to Souter's. If any current Supreme Court justices should be compared to Roberts, it is Rehnquist. Rehnquist is a mainstream conservative who has consistently been a good conservative justice. Roberts appears to be in the same mold.

I continue to praise President Bush's decision to nominate Judge Roberts. If nothing else, Roberts is more conservative than O'Connor. And if President Bush fills every Supreme Court vacancy with someone more conservative than his or her predecessor, I'll be happy.

President Bush chooses John Roberts to replace O'Conner. Yeah!

I admit, I was worried that President Bush would choose a "consensus" candidate to fill Justice O'Conner's shoes. While I have the utmost respect for Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, replacing a moderate with a moderate would have alienated much of Bush's conservative base and would have been a letdown (if Ginsburg or Stevens retires, Gonzalez would be a fine replacement). But President Bush did the right thing and now we have the conservative Judge John Roberts awaiting confirmation by the senate.

But will Roberts be confirmed?

Already, the pro-abortion whacko left is attacking Roberts as "extreme" and "anti-choice". It will likely be a fight to get Roberts approved by the senate. But with this nomination, President Bush has proven that he is willing to get down and dirty to see that judges who care about the constitution and the history of the United States make it to the Supreme Court.

Despite heavy opposition, Roberts has a couple things going for him:

1. Unlike Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Stevens, Roberts has actually read the U.S. constitution.

2. Roberts is affable and even some hardline liberals have lauded his honor and integrity over the years (this won't make much of a difference to many on the left as the smear campaign is already underway).

Roberts has written in the past that he feels the Roe v. Wade decision was wrongly decided. While some may consider that extreme, Roberts knows that the founders did not intend for abortion on demand to be a constitutional right. Why? Because the constitution doesn't say anywhere that abortion is a right! Kinda obvious, huh?

Anyway, kudos to President Bush. He did the right thing.

But will the senate follow suit?

More dumb comments from the left.

I read the following on a blog called Rhetorical Imprints:

Out of roughly 1 billion Muslims, how many are involved in legitimate terrorist activities? 10,000? I'm not a terrorist expert or anything, but even that number seems a little high. If that number is roughly correct, that means that only .00001 percent of all Muslims have any connection to terrorism.

It is the height of arrogance to think only 10,000 Muslims are involved in terrorist activities--there are more than 10,000 Muslim terrorists in Sudan alone! While the number of actual terroists may be relatively low in the Muslim world, what about those Muslims who support terror? I daresay--and this is a conservative estimate--those Muslims who applaud terrorist activities against Israel, the U.S. and non-Muslim nations and people in general number in the millions. There is plenty of evidence for this number. Consider the hatred Muslims in Sudan show Sudanese Christians. Government sanctioned Islamist gangs rape and murder thousands of Sudanese Christian women and children every year. Consider the Palestinians. A huge portion of Muslim Palestinians (one-fourth of Palestinians are Christian and over the years not one single Palestinian Christian has ever participated in a suicide bombing) would (and do) kill there Jewish neighbors in the name of Islam. Even in "moderate" Jordan and Saudi Arabia, there exists extremist Islamist movements whose membership numbers in the thousands. And, yes, they support terror. As the saying goes in nearly every nation in the Middle-East "We will kill the Jews on Saturday and then the Christians on Sunday". The author clearly and without serious thought pulled the number 10,000 out of his ass. There is no basis for the number being anywhere near that low. One need only look around the world to see that.

One could argue that nearly all adult Muslims support terrorist activity. Most not directly, of course. But as long as the vast majority of Muslims continue to look the other way and won't speak out against their Islamist brethren, they (the so-called moderates) are allowing the extremists to lead the so-called religion of peace. Their silence encourages the extremists.

All numbers aside, why don't we hear the same exhortations after an abortion clinic bombing by a radical Christian pro-lifer? Can you imagine someone asking, "How do we determine which Christian is a decent person and which is a terrorist?"

The above is a silly statement. How many Christian pro-lifers have killed abortion doctors? Only twenty-five verifiable instances of serious violence against abortion doctors has been documented in the U.S. and Canada in the last thirty years. And not all of those twenty-five cases were committed by Christians nor were all twenty-five cases murder (or attempted murder).

Why should all members of a faith be expected to denounce, and even apologize for, the actions of a fringe element? Again, do we hold all Christians responible for the actions of Eric Rudolph or David Koresh? I'm absolutely perplexed by this kind of behavior.

Now that is a ridiculous statement. First of all, members of a specific religion should protect their religion from those who would destroy it from within--i.e. radical elements of their faith. Those who stand by and allow evil to flourish are committing evil themselves. In that way, moderate Muslims are committing a sort of evil.

Second, when one little incident involving a Christisn who allegedly does something bad is the name of Christianity happens, Christians are expected to denounce him. And they do.

Third, Eric Rudolph--the only example nuts like the author can come up with--isn't Christian! He's a pagan who has denounced Christianity. None of his terroist activites were committed in Christianity's name. You got me on Koresh, though. Congratulations.

Anyone want to make a prediction regarding the first reported incident against a mosque or an innocent group of Muslims? And so the cylce of senseless violence continues.

Have you read the reports on violence against Muslims in the U.S.? It's almost nil. One or two alleged incidents happen and the media headlines read "Muslims under assault!" or "Rash of violence against Muslims continues!" Absurd.

However, since Sept. 11th, 2001, the acts of violence Muslims have committed against Jews in the U.S. has skyrocketed. Ah, the religion of peace.

The Democratic Party: The Party of Corruption.

This is a history lesson, folks. It's a brief history of the Democratic Party. The real history of the Democratic Party.

Martin Van Buren founded the Democratic Party in the middle 1820s. Though many of the those early Democrats were disgruntled former Jeffersonian Republicans, Van Buren's claim that the Democratic Party's foundation was based upon Jeffersonian principles was a falsehood. Jeffersonian Republicans believed in a small centralized government. Andrew Jackson, the first Democratic president, clearly did not. That old scoundrel Jackson--the worst president in U.S. history--expanded the powers of the presidency and ignored congress and the courts whenever it suited him. Jackson's presidency laid the groundwork by which nearly every Democratic president has followed. Corruption, lust for power and contempt for the constitution have marked almost every Democratic administration since.

Corruption and lust for power are part of the Democratic Party--it's been institutionalized and you cannot seperate the Democratic Party from it. All you have to do is take a look at the most recent Democratic administration. President Clinton and his cronies got away with more corruption--thanks in part to a left-leaning media who looked the other way--than President Nixon ever dreamed of. Nixon's downfall was trying to cover-up the watergate break-in. Compared to the stuff--stuff we know for a fact--that the Clintons got away with, the Watergate break-in--which was done to expose members of the Democratic National Convention who were running a prostitution ring--seems almost unimportant by comparison. Think: Hillary Clinton's office covered up the death of Vince Foster (I'm not saying Foster was murdered), Bill Clinton lied under oath and was disbarred by the Arkansas State Bar, Al Gore held fundraisers in houses of worship (which is illegal) and the Clinton administration received campaign donations from foreign sources. These are all facts. And that's just the Clinton administration. Need I point out the ineptitude of Carter? The corruption in FDR's administration (we know now that communists held high positions in FDR's administration--and FDR knew it)? The power-hungry and disasterous economic policies of the LBJ and Wilson presidencies?

The Democratic Party is synomonous with corruption.

When I look back at Democratic presidents, I can only find two I would call great: Cleveland and Truman. Not Wilson who was a white supremacist and who's policies badly damaged the economy. Not FDR who's policies prolonged the Depression (keep in mind that he kept Hoover's economic policies in place his first six years in office). Just Cleveland and Truman.

That isn't much to hang your hat on if you're a card-carrying Democrat now is it?

Dennis Prager exposes one of the left's biggest lies.

Check out Dennis Prager's recent column where he decontructs the one of the left's biggest lies: The left doesn't support the troops and should admit it.

Christianity is better than Islam--by far.

In spite of the constant attacks on Cristianity by the left, Christianity is the only thing standing in the way of radical Islamists's quest for world domination (for those of you who don't know, Islam is the religion of beheadings). It was that way several hundred years ago during the Crusades--there are morons who blame Christianity for the Crusades forgetting that the Crusades were simply a response by European Christians to Muslim aggression--and it's that way now.

Visit leftist blogs, though, and you'd think Christianity is as dangerous as Islam (if not more so). But that is a fantasy conjured up by the left. No evidence supports their ridiculous notion. There exists plenty of evidence to the contrary, however.

Even if we somehow come to the whacky conclusion that Christianity was the aggressor during the Crusades, what happened hundreds of years ago is hardly relevant today. Christianity has apologized for any abuses that happened during the Crusades. What is relevant is how Islam and Christianity treat human beings today.

In many Islamic countries if you're homosexual, you're condemned to die. In America (and it's American Christians who are the ones who receive most of the anti-Christian hatred) if you're homosexual, you are allowed to do just about anything you want--even if it literally kills people.

In Islamic nations if you're Christian, you will likely be persecuted and perhaps even killed because of your beliefs. In America, if you are Muslim (or any other religion), you're allowed to worship just about anyway you like.

In Islam, if you write a book saying bad things about Islam, you might have a warrant for your death issued. In Christianity if you write a book saying bad things about Christianity, you might be chastised by Christians but never threatened and certainly never killed.

Oh, and if you piss off Christians, you don't have to worry about passenger jets being rammed into buildings. Piss off Muslims and you'd better keep an eye out for low-flying aircraft.

A lot of people will say that those Muslims who commit abuses aren't following Islam and/or practicing an extreme version of Islam. First, go read the Koran. Muslims are intructed--commanded even--to commit horrible abuses (please don't bring up Bible passages that allegedly state similar things because you have no idea what you're talking about). But that aside, it does not matter what the Koran states. It's what the practitioners of Islam do that matters. And while most Muslims are rather ordinary folks, a huge portion of Islam is extreme and wants to destroy and enslave everyone who isn't Muslim.

My condemnation of Islam goes far and wide and includes not just the extremists but the so-called moderates as well. Moderate Muslims have said little condemning there extremist brethren and deserve to be chastised for their silence.

Simply put, Christianity is better than Islam. If we converted all Muslims to Christianity, the world would be at peace.

Idiot of the Day.

In yesterday's evening broadcast of NBC Nightly News, anchor Brian Williams had this to say about the Iranian president-elect and allegations that he (the new Iranian president) may be a terrorist, "What would it all matter if proven true? Someone brought up today the first several U.S. presidents were certainly revolutionaries and might have been called 'terrorists' by the British crown, after all."

Congratulations, Brian, you're the Idiot of the Day.

A glimpse at a possible Supreme Court nominee: Michael McConnell.

I'm intrigued by the some of the names being bandied about by Supreme Court watchers as possible replacements for Chief Justice Rehnquist or Sandra Day O'Connor or John Paul Stevens (the three most believe are most likely to retire soon). One name that keeps popping up is Judge Michael McConnell of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver and a University of Utah law professor.

McConnell opposed Roe v. Wade because, as he states in a 1998 Wall Street Journal op-ed piece, "The reasoning of Roe is an embarrassment to those who take constitutional law seriously." The Supreme Court "brought great discredit on itself by overturning state laws regulating abortion without any persuasive basis in constitutional text or logic."

McConnell believes that the court's first mistake was finding a right of privacy in the Constitution. "But the right of privacy is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution," McConnell wrote. "Various judges, according to the Court, had found 'at least the roots of that right' in the First Amendment, in the 'penumbras of the Bill of Rights,' in the Ninth Amendment or in the 'concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment.' This vague statement is tantamount to confessing the court did not much care where in the Constitution this supposed right might be found. All that mattered was it be 'broad enough' to encompass abortion."

But McConnell is no partisan conservative. He's an intellectual conservative who holds some opinions that clash with mainstream Republican beliefs. For example, in Bush v. Gore, McConnell felt that the Supreme Court should have given Florida more time to do a proper recount.

McConnell also opposed the impeachment of President Clinton writing that, "The inviolability of elections may be the most important constitutional principle that we wave. The best test of whether presidential misconduct rises to the level of impeachment is whether members of his own party are willing to join in the motion."

McConnell's reasons for not supporting the Bush v. Gore decision and the impeachment of President Clinton I find valid even though I disagree with him. When I look at McConnell's legal views overall, I find him to be a strict constitutional contructionist not swayed by partisanship nor beholden to any politcal party. While conservative, it's important to note that he's not a demagogue. While some Republicans and conservatives are wary of McConnell turning into another Justice Souter if appointed to the Supreme Court, I don't think that's likely. I believe McConnell would make a fine Supreme Court justice.

Most miss the point of the anti-flag burning ammendment.

The ammendment is about giving congress the right to decide whether or not to ban flag burning. The Supreme Court over-stepped their bounds when they handed down their decision in '89 and many in congress simply wants to correct this mistake. Congress should be making the laws, not the courts. This is the constitutional, correct thing to do. I seriously doubt that flag-burning will be banned. Besides, if it is, we are only talking about a fine for desecrating the flag. This whole thing is not about banning flag burning. It's about restoring congress's constitutional duty. It's amazing to me that people think this ammendment will ban flag burning. It won't. It gives congress the right to decide if flag burning should be banned. Get the difference? Good. Now go away. You're bothering me.

Supreme Court nominees.

More rambling from the senior blowhard from Massachussetts:

"It is ridiculous for some to claim the founders would not have wanted consultation," said Senator Kennedy on the Senate floor. "Before any person can be appointed, we have to consider what's best for the whole country ... No president can avoid the requirement of advice and consent," he said. The Democrats desperately want President Bush to consult with them on Supreme Court nominees.

First of all, since when do Democrats like Kennedy consider what is best for the country?

Screw 'em.

The President has no obligation to consult the minority opposing party on his nominations. Do you think for one minute that a Democratic president would consult senate Republicans if they (the Republicans) were the minority? Hell no. And a Democratic president should not have to. Advise and consent simply is the process of an up or down vote. Nothing more. Yet Democratic senators are crying about :sniff, sniff: being left out. Boo-hoo.

Screw 'em.

The president should have the right to have his nominees voted on without the threat of a filibuster or other dishonorable tactics loved by Democrats. There is no guarantee that some of President's Bush's nominees will be approved by the senate in a straight up vote. There are some Republicans who will not like some of the president's nominees while there will likely be a few Democrats who do like most, if not all, of President Bush's nominees. Just let the president--any president--submit who he wants. Then the senate can have hearings and vote. That's the way it has always been done with Supreme Court nominees and that's the way it should still be done.

Senator Durbin is a traitor.

Senator Dick Durbin is a traitor to the United States of America. He should resign. I don't want an apology (it would be meaningless from human filth like Durbin), I want him forced from his position by he fellow senators.

Tuesday, on the senate floor, Senator Dick "Turbin" Durbin said the following:

On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold. ... On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor.

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime – Pol Pot or others – that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

Boo-hoo, Durbin, you big fat baby, so it was a bit cold or perhaps a tad hot. And rap music was being played. But you think that's analogous to what the Nazis did?!? You're scum, Durbin, you're not much better than a Nazi yourself. If it was up to me, you'd be tried, convicted and sentenced to life in prison for using language that will likely get Americans killed. Under the law, you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater; you cannot yell "American soldiers are Nazis" in a world that wants to see America destroyed. Your words incite are enemies and give aid and comfort to those who would destroy America (no, no, I'm not talking about your Democratic colleagues, I'm talking terrorists). You may as well join the terrorists since you are one by proxy anyway, you piece of crap.

If you had any decency whatsoever, you'd resign. I'd write more but I'd regret it: I'm not human scum like you.

Isn't the Democratic party a wonderful, loving, open-minded organization? Howard Dean hates Republicans, Senator Byrd compares senate Republicans to Nazis and now this nonsense.

Bill Russell is no Kareem nor Wilt.

There are certain absurdities sports fans and the sports media hold on to and won't let go no matter how illogical those viewpoints are. On the eve of the NBA finals, it's perhaps appropriate to point out some of the absurd notions that permeate NBA fandom and media:

Absurd notion #1 - Bill Russell is the greatest center in NBA history. While certainly Russell is one of the greatest, virtually the only argument Russell fans can put up as to why he's the greatest is the number of championship teams Russell was on (eleven). These fans fail to note that there are many factors as to why some teams win championships and some teams don't. To lay it all on one player is idiotic. Do I really need to point out who Russell had around him on those Celtic championship teams? Early on, when Russell was new to the league, the Celtics already had the seasoned backcourt of Bob Cousy and Bill Sharman and forward Tom Heinsohn--all three Hall-of-Famers. Those three were instrumental in helping Russell win his first few NBA titles. Cousy and Sharman retired soon into the Celtics dynasty but Sam Jones and K.C. Jones stepped up and the Celtics hardly missed a beat. And then there was John Havlicek--one of the best players in NBA history--and the Celtics continued their eleven-titles-in-thirteen-years championship run. Certainly Russell deserves a place among the NBA's greatest centers but his stats, his dominance just don't hold up to the Big Two: Wilt Chamberlain and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.

Compare the dominance and offensive capabilities of Russell to Wilt and Kareem and Russell just doesn't hold up. Russell averaged eighteen points a game in his best offensive year and has a career average of fifteen points per game! Compare that to Wilt's career average of thirty PPG--including a season where he averaged fifty (fifty!) PPG--and Kareem's career average of almost twenty-five PPG and it isn't even a contest. Yes, Russell was dominant on defense but then so were Wilt and Kareem. Sure, Russell was great rebounder but Wilt was his equal on the boards. Kareem wasn't the rebounder Russell was but then Russell only shot forty-four percent from the field (an embarassing average for a center)! No wonder Russell racked up the rebounds! And, of course, Kareem had the most dangerous shot in basketball history--the skyhook. Russell never had a shot.

So stop ranking Russell number one. The number of championships he has means nothing except that he was surrounded by other great players. When it comes to the number-one slot, it belongs to Kareem or Wilt.

I'll attack the purveyors of absurd notion #2 later this week. Utah Jazz fans, look out.

Leftists are stealing the site of World Trade Center.

Through the efforts of the American left, the World Trade Center memorial is about to become the International Freedom Center which will say little or nothing about the heroic efforts of the police, firefighters and rescue workers who sacrificed their lives. Nor will this so-called Freedom Center be a memorial to those murdered on 9/11. Instead, the Freedom Center will become a "tribute to freedom around the globe in a post-9/11 world". This means, of course, that nearly every exhibit will include a good dose of America bashing. The IFC's own mission-statement includes this load of crap:

MISSION AND VISION

The International Freedom Center - a multi-dimensional cultural institution combining history, education and engagement – will be an integral part of humanity’s response to September 11. Rising from the hallowed ground of the World Trade Center site, it will serve as the complement, and its building as the gateway, to the World Trade Center Memorial, playing a leading role in the Memorial’s mission to “strengthen our resolve to preserve freedom, and inspire an end to hatred, ignorance, and intolerance.”

This is so wrong on so many levels. And guess who is behind this nonsense? Far-left Columbia professors, a group headed by the ACLU and George Soros. Anti-Americans all. I encourage all clear-thinking Americans to rally and put a stop to this absurdity. The WTC memorial should only be about the heroes and victims of 9/11. It should not be used as soapbox for the left--or the right, for that matter. The memorial should belong to all Americans. Please contact your representatives in congress--because this is being partially funded by your tax dollars--to put a stop to this atrocity.

Amnesty International protects terrorists.

I'm a bit late on this story, but here goes:

Recently, Amnesty International compared the military prison at Guantanamo Bay to the Soviet Gulag. The left is infamous for making outrageous comparisons but this one really is absurd. Thousands upon thousands of ordinary Soviet citizens were murdered in the Soviet Gulag while Gitmo houses a few hundred terrorists. This Gitmo/Gulag comparison is simply idiotic. Amnesty International is a worthless organization that clearly has an anti-American agenda and to further that agenda, they ignore real human rights abuses. The Executive Director of Amnesty International, William Schulz, even admitted that Amnesty's accusations of human rights abuses at Gitmo are imagined when he said that they "didn't know for sure" if the military was running a gulag. So these accusations come out of left field. This admission by Schulz shouldn't come as a shock, really, since the left is truth-challenged when it comes to just about everything. If Amnesty International was really interested in human rights, they'd go after the the racially-motivated abuses by Muslim Arabs in Darfur where women are gang-raped and murdered everyday by members of the religion of peace. Where is Amnesty International on this one? They're more worried about what U.S. military prison guards at Gitmo may have done to terrorists than they are about what terrorists do to innocent women and children. Large-scale gang rape and murder just isn't a priority to Amnesty International. Protecting terrorists is.

Mark Felt isn't a hero.

Am I the only one sickened by the media lionizing Mark Felt aka "Deep Throat"?

There are some serious questions that need to be asked about Mark Felt and Watergate. For example, if Felt was really interested in bringing the Nixon administration to justice, why did he circumvent a legitimate FBI investigation? The fact that Felt went to two reporters suggests justice wasn't his motive. More like revenge. Remember, upon J. Edgar Hoover's death, Nixon passed over Felt for the FBI's number one job. It should also be noted that Felt did many of the same things (i.e. illegal break-ins) he accused the president of. In fact, Felt was convicted for illegal activities including illegal break-ins. This guy didn't care about justice. He had an axe to grind and conspired with Woodward and Bernstein to remove President Nixon. It was a coup d'tat. Going back to the 1950s, the media disliked Nixon intensely. After all, Nixon went after all those commie buddies the media had--including Alger Hiss. Felt and Woodard/Bernstein used eachother to take down a man they hated (albeit for different reasons). It's that simple. To lionize this rat is disgusting. And hippocritical to boot. Remember how Linda Tripp was treated by the media? She did the same thing Felt did but the media destroyed her (rightly so but Felt should suffer the same fate). But wait! The difference is, of course, that Nixon was a Republican and Clinton wasn't. I'm certainly not saying Nixon was a school-boy. I consider Nixon to be one of the worst presidents in U.S. history and I feel he deserved to be taken down--but not by an illegal coup. It should have happened through an FBI investigation and, subsequently, through the House and Senate of the United States. It should have happened properly and legally. As it is, Felt is as bad as Nixon--worse, really, because Nixon eventually came clean. Felt lied to everyone for thirty years. He should be hated and despised, not lionized.

Oh brother...

In a recent blog entry at www.msnbc.com, MSNBC "news" personality Keith Olbermann, who wouldn't know a fact if it smacked him across the head, wrote some pretty ridiculous things about the controversey over White House spokesman Scott McClellan's comments regarding Newsweek. Some highlights in silliness include:

"Of course, everybody in the prosecution of the so-called ‘war on terror’ has done something dumb, dating back to the President’s worst-possible-word-selection (“crusade”) on September 16, 2001."

Actually, Keith, crusade is the most appropriate term the president could have used. I wouldn't expect Mr. Olbermann to know much about the Crusades other than what he reads from Left-Wing Weekly but all five Crusades were a response by Europeans to Muslim aggression. Like European Christians in the middle-ages, we were attacked by Arabs in the name of Islam. Call a spade a spade: Any response to Muslim aggression should be called a crusade.

"The news organization turns to the administration for a denial. The administration says nothing. The news organization runs the story. The administration jumps on the necks of the news organization with both feet — or has its proxies do it for them."

"That’s beyond shameful. It’s treasonous."

So Keith Olbermann thinks the Bush administration are a bunch of traitors. Lovely. No wonder the White House has a problem with the media. Can you blame them (the administration, not the media)? Olbermann and his ilk love throwing around terms like "unpatriotic" and "treasonous" yet when a conservative hints that a liberal may not be acting in the best interest of the nation--a legitimate point--liberals immediatly cry foul and accuse the right of McCarthyism.

So much for tolerance.

"While places like the Fox News Channel (which, only today, I finally recognized — it’s the newscast perpetually running on the giant video screens in the movie “1984”) ask how many heads should roll at Newsweek, it forgets in its fervor that both the story and the phony controversy around it are not so cut-and-dried this time."

I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. Other than the obvious insecurity complex Olbermann exhibits with tired attacks on Fox News, Olbermann shows a complete ignorance when it comes to George Orwell's 1984. In that book, it's the tolitarian left that is the villain (you know, guys like Olbermann). I think it's much more likely that Countdown is being shown on those screens.

"Either way — and also for that tasteless, soul-less conclusion that deaths in Afghanistan should be lain at the magazine’s doorstep — Scott McClellan should resign. The expiration on his carton full of blank-eyed bully-collaborator act passed this afternoon as he sat reeling off those holier-than-thou remarks. Ah, that’s what I smelled."

Ah, I see. McClellan is soul-less. Nice. Coming from a godless commie heathen like Olbermann, this doesn't mean a whole heckuva lot, does it?

Holier-than-thou remarks? Keith, Keith, Keith. Do you ever listen to yourself?

Oh brother...

Pop singer acknowledges kids aren't born "gay".

Recently, pop singer Moby had this to say about homosexuality: "As a matter of fact, I was talking to my friend Laura, who sings on [my latest] record, and we're both getting to the point where we want to start families. We're convinced that if we have children, we're going to do everything in our power to make them gay."

How refreshing to hear this sort of thing from someone so far to the left. Finally, someone on the left is acknowledging that homosexuality isn't completely inherent.

But one has to question Moby's parental credentials. Why on Earth would any loving parent encourage a male child to be gay? That's nearly a death sentence what with the AIDS virus ravaging the homosexual community. Maybe I'm nuts, but I think children should be encouraged to engage in activities that won't kill them at age forty. Like--I dunno--monogamous heterosexuality.

Moby may be a good singer but people who encourage children to be homosexuals should not be parents. Period.

What's in a name?

I'm fascinated by names. Years before my wife and I had our first child, we'd already heavily discussed possible names. It was important to both of us to name our children after relatives. But we didn't want to use outdated or old-fashioned names just for the sake of naming our chilren after a relative. We wanted good, solid traditional names for our kids. But we wanted to avoid trendy names even if they were traditional, too. So the challenge was to find a family member whom we liked and who also had a traditional name as long as the name was currently not trendy.

So we named our first kid Robert after my grandfather.

But the middle name was important, too. My father-in-law's first name is LeRoy so we decided to give my son the middle name Roy. However, I wanted more. With a common last name like White, my wife and deceided that my son should have two middle names. So I gave my son my middle name as a second middle name.

When we had our second child, a girl, we decided to name her Mary after my wife's grandmother. For Mary's middle name, we decided on Kathryn which is both my sister's name and my great-grandmother's name.

I think it's important to name children after family members who have been important and beloved figures in your life. It's a way to pass on a family legacy and pay homage to your past. I think it isn't done enough, frankly, and I think more people should name their children after family members.

But my brother has a different view. He, like me, thinks middle names should be for family members but first names should be unique to that family. I guess it's all where your coming from: I'm named after a relative, he isn't.

The Portrayal of McCarthyism in Comic Books.

In a recent storyline in the comic book JSA (Justice Society of America) by DC Comics, the modern-day JSA traveled back in time to save the JSA of the early 1950s. It seems a time-traveling villain by the name of Degaton has it out for the JSA and he has traveled to the 1950s to destroy the team of that era so that the modern team will never exist. And what is Degaton's mode of destruction? Is it a bomb? Or will he murder the team members one-by-one? Nope. Degaton will be using Senator Joe McCarthy to permanently dismantle the JSA in the name of protecting America from communism.

Other than being an extremely predictable storyline by using McCarthy as the villian, the view of McCarthy as a threat to democracy is absurd. McCarthy is an easy target for anyone writing about the 1950s but nearly everything written about Senator McCarthy is libelous. Joe McCarthy was a patriot who was defending America from a very real threat: Communism. While McCarthy came into the game too late to really be of any use (we now know communist agents had already done irreperable damage to America before McCarthy got involved), his crusade to root out those who would sell our secrets to the Soviet Union was admirable.

Yet McCarthy is painted as a man who cared little about the truth and was going around falsely accusing people of being communists and trying to unjustly detain or imprison those same communists. Contrary to nutty claims by the left (who were sympathetic to the commies), no one was detained or imprisoned without due process. McCarthy was correct in that dozens of government employees were communists or communist sympathisers. The same lefties who had a tizzy fit about Joe McCarthy did not get worked up over New York Times columnist Walter Duranty covering up the crimes of Joe Stalin.

I like the writer of JSA (Geoff Johns) but his facts are in question. Especially when he tries to tie McCarthy in with the House Un-American Activities Commitee (HUAC). McCarthy had nothing to do with HUAC. Here's a little tidbit leftist "historians" gloss over: Senator McCarthy was (duh) in the Senate! The 'H' in HUAC stands for House as in the House of Representatives!

Where is the disdain for John F. Kennedy? Kennedy, who was a U.S. representitive and a U.S senator in the 1950s, was so anti-communist (yeah!), he made Joe McCarthy look like Alger Hiss. Kennedy was enthusiastically along for the ride in any attempt to root out communists in our midst. But Kennedy was a Democrat so I guess he gets a pass.

Leftists do not care about the constitution.

If leftists truly cared about the constitution, they wouldn't misquote it so often. How many times do we here leftists ignorantly (or malevolently) spout off about "seperation of church and state" when that phrase appears nowhere in the founding documents of our nation? How many times do we hear leftists wanting to trash the second ammendment? If they truly cared about the constitution, why then do they say these things? The answer is, of course, they don't care about the constitution.

To be clear, I'm not talking about true liberals like Senator Joe Lieberman. I'm talking about the left. The nutty, bigoted, hate-filled left. You know of whom I speak. The folks who have been physically attacking conservative speakers like Pat Buchanan and David Horowitz on college campuses. The folks who defend Ward Churchill. The folks who buy "Kill Bush" t-shirts. The folks who want to hold modern American Christians responsible for what European Christians did five-hundred years ago. Do you know how stupid that is? How bigoted and hateful that is? But this is the modern American left. The folks who think that those who view things as black and white are idiots yet they (the left) view Christianity as black, secularism as white.

Next time you think about bashing conservatives, think about this: Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill and their ilk can say the most idiotic, hateful things yet they never, never worry about being attacked. They don't need to hire bodyguards. But conservative speakers get attacked often. And some are forced to hire protection. The left is totalitarian and they don't tolerate disagreement. That's why you never hear guests that hold opposing viewpoints on Air America. But you hear opposing voices all the time on conservative talk radio. Dennis Prager and Sean Hannity have guests who disagree with them on their respective shows several times a week. Michael Medved only has guests who disagree with him (with rare exceptions). Conservatives tolerate dissent. We welcome dissent. The left doesn't want to hear that. They won't hear it.

Our universities are no longer about a universe of ideas.

Recent letters-to-the-editor in my local paper have me shaking my head at what people choose to believe. In response to a column published last week in the Ogden Standard-Examiner, many readers are taking the author of the column to task for pointing out the obvious: Colleges have become "monoversities" preaching only one viewpoint--a leftist viewpoint--as acceptable. These nuts who are writing into the paper and proclaiming that universities are open to all viewpoints are fooling themselves and ignoring the vast body of evidence that shows colleges to be havens for extremist leftist professors.

Over the last forty years, colleges have become increasingly hostile and intolerant to conservative ideas. Speech codes have targetted conservative ideas as "hate speech" in an attempt to silence anyone who isn't a leftist nut. Look at what recently happened at Colorado University and Harvard. These two cases illustrate exactly what I'm talking about. At Colorado, Ward Churchill spews out all sorts of extreme leftist nonsense even referring to victims of 9/11 as Nazis. He even lied about his racial background to get the job in the first place. Yet few of his colleagues have condemned Churchill and not one has asked him to resign.

Meanwhile at Harvard, an official spoke off the record about how he thinks men and women just might be different (what a concept) and he's suddenly on the hotseat and being asked to resign by nearly every leftist in the nation. His colleagues are asking him to resign. What is even more absurd about this is that the Harvard official's comments were off-the-record while Ward Churchill's comments were during a very public speech!

Professors in the social sciences are continually teaching kids to hate America. I've had these professors and they outweigh the conservative pofessors I've had by a six-to-one margin. And I know for a fact that the few conservative social science professors I've had are harassed by their colleagues for daring to have an opposing viewpoint. And the university I attend is considered conservative! It makes me wonder what kind of crap is happening at liberal colleges!

Ninety percent of our colleges have speech codes which try to enforce leftist intolerance in the name of social diversity and cultural sensitivity. So when it comes to the only diversity that really matters--intellectual diversity--only the left is allowed to speak.

Those who are defending colleges as "open to all viewpoints" are intellectually dishonest and sadly out-of-touch.

Ranking the most recent ten presidents, sans Clinton and George W.

I continue to rank presidents in groups of ten. Today, I will rank our last ten presidents up to but not including William Clinton and George W. Bush. I won't be ranking Clinton and Bush because, frankly, their presidencies are recent (and in W's case, current) and I don't think it's entirely fair to put their presidencies in historical context just yet. So from FDR to George H. W. Bush, this is how I'd rank them compared to eachother, 1 through 10:

1. Ronald Reagan - I don't think Reagan's greatness can be exagerated. With his economic policies (i.e, tax cuts) he gave us the strongest economy we've ever had. On top of that, he put the Soviet Union out of business bringing hope to not just millions of Americans but millions of people worldwide. Always positive, Reagan made his enemies--both domestic and foreign--look foolish.

2. Harry S. Truman - Did little to slow down the ineffective New Deal programs of FDR and, overall, he was fairly weak when it came to domestic issues. However, his dealings with the Soviets and Chinese at the beginning of the Cold War were extraordinary in vision and scope. Every Cold War president that followed Truman owed him a debt.

3. Dwight Eisenhower - Though he didn't do enough to stop the growth of government, he did slow it down. And he continued the foreign policy precedent Truman left him. Didn't do enough to root out communists--a very real threat--in America.

4. George H. W. Bush - Strong on foreign affairs, fairly weak on domestic issues. Fell prey to the Clinton Propaganda Machine which told the lie that Bush presided over the "weakest economy in fifty years".

5. John F. Kennedy - Though he made some unwise foreign policy decisions and didn't handle America's entry into Vietnam, Kennedy understood that across-the-board tax cuts actually increased government revenue.

6. Franklin Roosevelt - His New Deal policies actually deepened the Depression and expanded the size of government unnecessarily. FDR hesitated to get involved in WWII. He also did little to help European Jews from extermination before WWII when, through the State Department, he could have easily done so by issuing thousands of visas. His so-so attitude toward the Jewish plight is disturbing. However, getting rid of the gold standard was very helpful to the US banking system and his singular vision once the US entered the war was key to defeating Germany and Japan. FDR never wavered once the US engaged in hostilities with the Axis powers. Unfortunately, he misjudged Stalin and made one of the worst foreign policy mistakes--trusting Stalin--in history.

7. Richard Nixon - Though his dealings with China and the Soviets were two of the biggest foreign policy triumphs in history, his domestic policies--more government programs and more funding for existing programs--were a disaster. And, of course, there was the Watergate cover-up.

8. Gerald Ford - Though hampered by a hostile congress, Ford did nothing to stop the expanding government and help the failing economy. And he was weak at foreign policy.

9. Lyndon Johnson - The Great Society was a dismal failure as Johnson took the failed programs of FDR and expanded them which made more people dependent on government. His mishandling of the Vietnam War--a righteous cause--cost thousands of men their lives. LBJ is easily one of the worst presidents in US history.

10. Jimmy Carter - Perhaps the worst president in US history, Carter enabled terrorism through his weak actions against terrorists. His domestic policy lacked any sort of vision. When he finally left the White House, America was at it's lowest point in history.

Ranking the third ten presidents of the USA.

As I did in earlier posts when I ranked the first ten presidents one through ten and followed with ranking the second ten presidents one through ten, today I will rank the third ten presidents using quotes from a variety of sources:

1. Grover Cleveland - Robert Higgs, Research Director for the Independent Institute, said this of Clevelsnd, "He kept the country at peace. He respected the Constitution, acknowledging that the national government has only a limited mission to perform and shaping his policies accordingly. He fought to lower tariffs; preserved the gold standard in its time of crisis; and restored order forcibly when hoodlums disturbed the peace on a wide front during the great railroad strike of 1894." Though I disagree with Mr. Higgs on many fronts, he nails my opinion of Cleveland perfectly.

2. (tie) Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge - It's hard to seperate Harding and Coolidge because Coolidge was an extension of Harding. A former Reagan economics advisor said this about the Harding/Coolidge term: "In another 50 years, Harding will look much better than he does today. His most sensational move was to name Andrew Mellon, the Pittsburgh banker, Treasury Secretary, which is why the Twenties roared. Mellon was the best Treasury Secretary after Alexander Hamilton. Harding's second great move (which preceded his Mellon pick) was to name Calvin Coolidge his running mate. Coolidge is derided because he didn't advocate Big Government, but he was Reagan's hero. RR was in high school in the Coolidge years, when Coolidge best expressed the ideas of low tax rates producing greater tax revenues than high tax rates. It was Mellon who inspired the JFK tax cuts of 1964 and the Reagan Revolution that followed. The only reason Harding is reviled by today's historians is that he MUST be entombed along with Hoover (and Coolidge) in order to elevate FDR." My thoughts precisely.

4. William McKinley - Karl Rove, George W. Bush's close friend and advisor, said this of McKinley (which I wholeheartedly agree with), "He modernized the presidency, he modernized the Treasury to deal with the modern economy, he changed dramatically the policies of his party by creating a durable governing coalition for 40 years, he took a special interest in finding the rising generation of young leaders and putting them into the government, he attempted deliberately to break with the Gilded Age politics, he was inclusive and he was the first Republican candidate for president to be endorsed by a leader in the Catholic hierarchy."

5. Theodore Roosevelt - His anti-Trust, big government policies hurt the nation's economy significantly. However, when it came to foreign policy, TR got it right in the sense that he wanted to protect democracies from tyranny around the world. And his conservation policies turned millions of acres into our National Park system. A mixed legacy of unnecessary big government, sound foreign policy and visionary conservationist ideals makes TR just an average president in my book.

6. Chester Arthur - Arthur established the federal Civil Service which took thousands of federal jobs out of the patronage system so that their occupants would not be thrown out whenever a new president came into power. He deserves credit for starting the process of taking politics out of the day-to-day operations of the Federal government.

7. Benjamin Harrison - A presidency with mixed results, positive accomplishments include support for the annexation of Hawaii, establishment of the first American protectorate in Samoa, and pushing for an ocean-to-ocean canal in Central America. However, Harrison's support for the McKinley Tariff and Sherman Silver Purchase Act likely contributed to the economic collapse of 1893--the worst depression in US history up to that time.

8. Howard H. Taft - Though Teddy Roosevelt ended up despising his hand-picked successor, Taft was in most ways a carbon copy of TR. He continued TR's so-called "progressive" policies which further damaged the economy by busting more trusts than any president in history. But where TR had some redeeming qualities which made him a fair president, Taft did not.

9. Woodrow Wilson - Though a Democrat, Wilson was made from the same mold that produced TR and Taft. And Wilson continued the haphazard economic policies set up by TR and Taft. Wilson delayed US involvement in WWI costing Europe hundreds of thousands of young men. He was for a big centralized government and during the war, he seized much of the US economy. His Fourteen Points that he introduced after the war were vague and therefore meaningless.

10. Herbert Hoover - Hoover's economic policies led us to the Depression. Oddly, FDR continued to use those same economic policies for the first six years of his presidency which deepened the Depression. Like TR, Taft and Wilson, Hoover expanded the size and power of the Federal government.

Ranking the second ten presidents of the USA.

Last week, I ranked the first ten presidents of the United States from 1 to 10. Today, I will rank the second ten presidents:

1. Abraham Lincoln - After the South left the Union and threw a tizzy fit because they couldn't get their way with regards to slavery (make no mistake, the South left because of slavery--the states's rights idea perpetuated by neo-Confederates is a myth), Lincoln did the right thing going to war to keep the Union together. Yes, he expanded the powers of the federal government but he had no choice. His detractors, many of whom favor small government, need to look at Lincoln in the context of the times. Lincoln did what needed to be done.

2. James Polk - Expanded the boundaries of the United States and settled the border between Canada and the US. The war with Mexico led to the aquisition of California.

3. Rutherford B. Hayes - Though the controversial election of 1876 could have made Hayes's presidency a lameduck presidency, he instead chose men of merit to inhabit his cabinet and refused to appoint men based on political considerations. While Hayes did end Reconstruction, this process was already under way by the start of his administration and there was little he could do to stop it. Hayes also took the first real steps in ending rampant corruption within the civil service.

4. Ulysses S. Grant - Columnist John J. Miller said this of Grant, "Let us not insist that Grant was a great president. But he was a solidly good one, whose hard-money policies fought inflation and who kept the peace with foreign powers." Miller adds, "Some claim he didn't do enough to help blacks in the South secure their rights in the 1870s — but this is grossly unfair, because Grant was hobbled by a Congress and a public that didn't want to go as far as he did. Furthermore, Grant's administration may have been corrupt, but the corruption was not categorically worse than what has been found in several other administrations and it did not reach to the top of the organizational chart." Historians who continue to rank Grant near the bottom of the presidential pile are partisan and unfair. Grant deserves better.

5. James Garfield - As president he extended Federal authority over the corrupt New York Customs House making many enemies in the process. The senate balked at approving Garfield's list of appointments including an unpopular pick to run the Customs House asking Garfield to re-submit a new list. Garfield replied with, "This...will settle the question whether the President is registering clerk of the Senate or the Executive of the United States..." Garfield stood strong against a senate that exceeded its authority. While Garfield's presidency was cut short by an assassin, his accomplishments in his 200 days in office were remarkable.

6. Franklin Pierce - Historians are probably a bit too harsh in their criticism of Pierce. As an example, he had to send troops to Boston to secure the fugitive slave Anthony Burns--2,000 abolitionits had just murdered a U.S. marshal! Pierce felt the cause of abolition was just but that did not make the actions of the mob, in their zeal to free Burns, any less illegal. Still, there weren't many notable accomplishments during his term in office.

7. Andrew Johnson - Though Johnson deserves some credit for following many of Lincoln's Reconstruction policies, he didn't do nearly enough to protect the freedman against Southern aggression.

8. Zachary Taylor - Taylor had little impact on the presidency. And Taylor's months in office did little to delay the Civil War. To his credit, he would have likely used force to preserve the Union even though he was a slaveholder.

9. Millard Fillmore - Fillmore is most remembered as signing the controversial Compromise of 1850. The compromise only deepened divisions between the South and North.

10. James Buchanan - Writer Christopher Buckley said it best, "The Greatness That Was the Buchanan Era included Dred Scott, the economic panic of 1857, secession, and Fort Sumter. You have to look hard to find four more dismal nodes in American history. Open the Buchanan file to any random page and you'll find such accolades as: "never regarded as a brilliant speaker," "neither a brilliant nor visionary thinker," and even "expelled from college." Ouch!

Senator Harry Reid.

Democratic Minority Leader Senator Harry Reid continues making an ass of himself and, in the process, is increasingly becoming more and more of an embarassment to this member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (aka the Mormons; Reid is a Mormon). Senator Harry "Jackass" Reid's recent comments prove, once again, most congressional Democrats care little about the rule of law. Reid said the following when asked what will happen if the Republicans try to use the so-called nuclear option to stop senate Democrats from there unconstitutional filibusters of President Bush's judicial appointments, "they will rue the day they did it, because we will do whatever we can do to strike back. I will, for lack of a better word, screw things up." Oh boo-hoo, you big baby. This continues the pattern of Democrats acting like spoiled children whenever they don't get their way. This comment is just one of many truly moronic comments Reid has made over the years. Reid's near-racist remarks concerning Justice Clarence Thomas a few months ago (a refresher: Reid called Thomas "an embarassment to the Supreme Court" while praising Thomas's judicial clone Justice Scalia at that same time!) has made Reid look like an obstuctionist bigot. To be fair, Reid probably isn't really a racist--unless you're a black Republican. And a few years ago on Fox News Sunday, Reid said his father was too dumb to have a private retirement account!

Threatening to "screw things up" in the senate beacuse you aren't getting your way will only help Republicans in the 2006 elections--remember what happened to Tom Daschle--and that, coupled with Reid's other stupid comments, will continue to make Democrats look very bad in the eyes of most sensible Americans and only continue to hurt Democrats.

Reid feels that Justice Thomas is an embarassment to the Supreme Court? I feel that Reid is an embarassment to the Mormon faith.

Music.

My music tastes can be narrow as I just went through a long period where I only listened to heavy metal. But recently I've been listening to a lot of Willie Nelson and Merle Haggard, two of country music's greatest artists. I used to listen to Willie Nelson quite often in the late eighties and it's been fun rediscovering one of the giants of American music. His talent as a songwriter is matched by few and his abilities as a guitarist are simply amazing. But where he really can shine is when he covers other artists's material. "City of New Orleans" is a perfect example. Another cover I enjoy is Paul Simon's "Graceland" which is enhanced by Willie's guitar playing. So, because I like lists, my favorite Willie Nelson songs of the moment:

1. "Pancho and Lefty"
2. "City of New Orleans"
3. "Graceland"
4. "Stay All Night (Stay a Little Longer)" live
5. "Bloody Mary Morning"

Ranking the first ten Presidents of the U.S.A.

I'm something of a presidential historian and spurred on by my current reading of A Patriot's History of the United States by Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen, I thought it would be fun to rate the first ten Presidents of the United States as I see it:

1. George Washington - He set the precedents for all presidents to follow and it could have been disastrous for the young republic. But he did things right (though even Washington couldn't avoid controversies). Author and historian Larry Schweikart said it best, "It's hard to imagine, say, John Adams or Thomas Jefferson setting the same kinds of incredible precedents that Washington set, both for decorum and for efficiency. Adams would have (as he later did) alienated half the country, and Jefferson would have lacked the diplomacy to pull the Federalists along."

2. Thomas Jefferson - With the Louisiana Purchase, he doubled the size of the United States. Jefferson believed in small government and believed that people should govern themselves. He also banned the slave trade as president and had the vision to fund the Lewis and Clark Expedition.

3. James Monroe - Monroe had one of the greatest cabinets ever assembled and he had the wisdom to let his cabinet secretaries do what they did best. The Missouri Compromise managed to keep the young republic together and the Monroe Doctrine laid the course for generations to follow.

4. James Madison - Got us involved in the War of 1812 which many historians think was a completely unnecessary war. I disagree. Though Madison made many mistakes that led us into the War of 1812--like imposing economic sanctions on much of Europe which nearly ruined New England--the war itself was a good thing in the sense that we showed the world that we weren't to be taken lightly.

5. John Quincy Adams - The best Secretary of State ever, his presidency was "stillborn" because of the controversial election of 1824 and he never accomplished anything of note because of that.

6. John Adams - When you have the Alien and Sedition Acts synonymous with your presidency, you don't qualify as a very good president.

7. Martin Van Buren - Founded the Democratic Party (historians wrongly point to Jefferson as the first Democratic president) and helped Jackson become the first Democratic president. He had zero noteworthy accomplishments in office.

8. John Tyler - No accomplishments of note. He replaced Harrison after Harrison died in office. Congressional gridlock marred his tenure. But he's still better than Jackson.

9. William Henry Harrison - Perhaps it's unfair to rank Harrison (he was only president for thirty days). But he didn't damage the United States whereas Jackson did.

10. Andrew Jackson - Contrary to popular opinion, Jackson was not a small government guy. In fact, government expanded under Jackson even more than it did under Lincoln. Jackson's dislike of the second Bank of the United States has been misrepresented. He did take down the second BUS but he did it so he could appoint partisan political hacks in banks Jackson controlled. And Jackson virtually committed genocide against the Indians--Trail of Tears anyone? His presidency was filled with corruption and Jackson ignored the Constitution whenever it suited him.

It's interesting to note that seven of the first ten presidents rank below average to awful in my book. However, Jefferson, Washington and Monroe rank as three of the best presidents ever. No surprise that Jackson was the first Democratic president. He set the precedent that nearly all future democratic presidents would follow: Corruption and disregard for the rule of law. No wonder modern Democrats want to claim Jefferson, not Jackson, as the first Democratic president.

Ann Coulter nails the left--again!

I was visiting Ann Coulter's website (www.anncoulter.com) this afternoon when I came across this quote from her most recent article:

"Howard Dean — chairman of the party that supports murder, adultery, lying about adultery, coveting other people's money, stealing other people's money, mass-producing human embryos for spare parts like an automotive chop shop and banning God — has called the Republican Party "evil." One Democrat in the audience, a preschool teacher no less, complained that Dean was soft-pedaling his message."

All I have to say to this is "Go Ann!"

Heh.

I am Spock.

My friend and spiritual advisor (heh), Curtis Gibson (http://lordmhoram.blogspot.com/), turned me on to a website that dares ask the question: Which fantasy/sci-fi character are you?

My result: I am Spock. Quoting the website's profile of Spock:

"A focused advisor whose actions are dictated by almost pure logic, you believe in exploring the fascinating possibilities around you."

Well, I'm not sure if that's completely accurate but, hey, as a fan of Star Trek (Spock is one of my favorite Trek characters), I'll take it.

My friend Curtis has taken the test three times on three distinct occassions and he comes up as Yoda every time. Yoda's/Curtis's profile reads:

"A venerated sage with vast power and knowledge, you gently guide forces around you while serving as a champion of the light."

Now I may be about to embarass Curtis a bit here, but I think that fits him pretty well.

If you want to find out which fantasy/sci-fi character you are, here's the link:

http://www.tk421.net/character/

Have fun!

The totalitarian left clamping down on free speech again.

An incident that occurred February, 23rd at the Washington State Capitol has ignited a firestorm of controversy. Lou Novak, a vice-president of the Rental Housing Association of Puget Sound, made a comment in a private conversation with a colleague that was overheard by a group from the Long Life AIDS Alliance as the they hoppity-skipped down the hall.

The Associated Press reported the following:

(Olympia Washington) Legislators are demanding an apology from a businessman who made anti-gay comments to a group visiting the Capitol for an AIDS awareness day.

"Looks like it's anal sex week," Lou Novak loudly remarked as a group from the Life Long AIDS Alliance walked though the state House office building. The group included a 13-year-old girl and a 16-year-old boy. The boy's family had recently been forced to move because of anti-gay prejudice in his neighborhood.

Novak is first vice president of the Rental Housing Association of Puget Sound, a landlords' organization.

The leader of the AIDS awareness group, Suzie Saxton of Yakima, followed the man into the public Capitol cafeteria and asked him what he'd said. She said Novak repeated his comment and told her people shouldn't engage in irresponsible sex and ask for public money.

The incident happened Feb. 23. The Associated Press obtained a copy of a Senate report on the incident and spoke to Novak and Saxton on Wednesday. The Senate got involved when a woman sitting with Novak in the cafeteria called security. Senate Counsel Mike Hoover investigated the incident and wrote the report, which notes that the Legislature's rules of decorum and respectful workplace policy apply to visitors as well as lawmakers.

"It's not acceptable anywhere and certainly not at the state Capitol," said Saxton, executive director of an AIDS advocacy organization in Yakima. "He owes them an apology ... Certainly people are allowed their private opinions, but what he did actually borders on hate crime. He could be charged, and he's darn lucky that's not happening."

Novak said he regrets his remarks and will write a letter of apology. "The remark was made in private and they just happened to overhear it, and that's very unfortunate," Novak said Wednesday night. "I'm certainly sorry that anyone was offended by it."

Thursday, Novak resigned from the Association after its president wrote a letter of apology to several legislators. "RHA has a strong record of tolerance and understanding to all members of the community," president Cathy Jeney wrote. "We take these obligations seriously and, for that reason, included them in our member Code of Conduct. While an organization of 3,500 members cannot always control the individual actions of its members, I would like to assure you that RHA does not endorse or condone any comments which differ from our commitment to diversity."

The incident may affect consideration of House Bill 1515, which would ban discrimination against gays and lesbians in employment, insurance and housing. It passed in the House and is awaiting a hearing in the Senate. Opponents recently argued on the House floor that the bill is unnecessary because prejudice against gays and lesbians is dying out. Bill supporters point to Novak's comments. "The first vice president of a rental association attacking some kid ... is Exhibit A of why we need House Bill 1515," said Rep. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, who sponsored the bill. "It's one thing to speak your mind. It's another thing to use abusive language in front of a minor." Murray called the incident "a black mark" on the Legislature.

Sen. Darlene Fairley, D-Lake Forest Park, said she let the rental housing association know that Novak is no longer welcome to testify at her committee, which oversees housing issues. "I am a mother, and you do not say that kind of crap in front of children. You do NOT, I don't care what your feelings are," Fairley said. "You can't unring that bell for a child who's heard that, but for the parents and other people it will help to have letters of apology," Fairley said.

©Associated Press 2005

This "controversy" is so silly, I don't know where to begin. First of all, Suzie Saxton has lost her mind. The incident is a borderline hate-crime? Ms. Saxton, please. What Novak said may be crude but it is not a borderline hate-crime. Ms. Saxton is being silly. Besides, aren't gays proud of anal sex? Novak spoke the truth, Ms. Saxton. What are gay pride parades about? They're about celebrating anal sex. If you've ever seen a gay pride parade, you know precisely what I'm talking about.

Second, Rep. Ed Murray is out of his mind to say that Novak was attacking a kid. If mentioning anal sex in front of a 13-year old is an attack and a hate-crime, then gays should not be supporting teaching elementary kids about anal sex, should they? It's amazing that Washington State voters elected this moron to the legislature.

And Sen. Darlene Fairley's comments that "...you do not say that kind of crap in front of children. You do NOT, I don't care what your feelings are," are completely absurd. Again, people like the Long Life AIDS Alliance want anal sex taught in our schools.

Novak's comments should have amounted to nothing. But there has been an official investigation into it and Novak lost his job.

Once again, the left has proven they only support free speech for those they agree with. It's odd that the left accuses those on the right of being fascists and Nazis. Yet it's the left that wants to limit free speech by passing unconstitutional laws (like hate-crime legislation) limiting speech rights. So I ask: Who are the real fascists? It's the left.

Watch out, folks, soon "dirty looks" will be illegal.

Senator Robert "KKK" Byrd.

Why does Senator Robert Byrd, a "former" member of the Ku Klux Klan and current Democrat, keep getting elected by the people of West Virginia?

Mr. Byrd's recent comments on the senate floor where he compared senate Republicans to Hitler was just one more stupid statement in a long line of stupid statements from Byrd.

Senator Byrd's comments were as follows: "Hitler's originality lay in his realization that effective revolutions in modern conditions are carried out with, and not without, not against, the power of the State. The correct order of events was first to secure access to that power of the State, and then begin his revolution. Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality. He never abandoned the cloak of legality. He recognized the enormous, psychological value of having the law on his side. Instead, he turned the law inside out and made his illegality legal. And that is what the nuclear option seeks to do. To Rule 22 of the standing rules of the Senate."

So because senate Republicans support the constitution and the "advise and consent" clause when it comes to appointing judges and are against the unconstitutionality of the filibuster to stop the "consent" part of "advise and consent" they are Nazis?

Do you have any idea what it's like being called a Nazi by Robert "KKK" Byrd?

It's like being called immoral by Bill Clinton. It's like being called a racist by Andrew "I Murder Indians for Fun" Jackson. It's like being called stiff by Al Gore. Or being called a traitor by John "Benedict Arnold" Kerry.

It's time Senator Byrd retired. He's an embarassment to the U.S. Senate. He's an embarassment to the United States. He's a racist (not a term I use lightly) and a bigot. And as long as the Democrats in the Senate (or Democrats in general, for that matter) keep silent on Byrd's idiotic comments, they are saying it's okay to have a Ku Klux Klan wing of the Democratic Party. I wish Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada would stand up to Byrd and say "You went too far, Bob." But he won't. Like most Democrats in leadership positions, Reid doesn't care what you say as long as you have that "D" next to your name.

Jumping on the Detroit Pistons bandwagon.

In the 2004 NBA Finals, the Detroit Pistons pulled off one of the most stunning upsets in NBA history by defeating the powerful Los Angeles Lakers. The Lakers boasted four of the greatest players in NBA history (though two were well past their prime and one of those two was injured). The Pistons deserve all the credit in the world. No one expected them to beat the Lakers--especially in five games! I admire the Pistons and their remarkable victory. But a peculiar form of lunacy has gripped NBA analysts. A lunacy caused by the Pistons victory.

While listening to sports talk radio or watching ESPN, it is nearly impossible to avoid NBA analysts heaping accolades on the Pistons. Fine. But what's even more stunning is that these so-called "experts" are arguing that the Pistons defeat of the Lakers in the NBA Finals marks a new era of the NBA where teams do not need superstars to win titles! This is simply ridiculous. What the Pistons did was fantastic but it's something that rarely happens in the NBA: Superstar-less teams (or teams without superstar-caliber players) rarely win NBA championships. In fact, what the Pistons did was so rare, it's only the second time it's happened in the last forty-four years (in 1979, the Seattle SuperSonics won the NBA title with no legitimate superstar-caliber players)!

The Pistons also accomplished something equally as rare as winning an NBA title without a superstar-caliber player on the roster: Only one other NBA team in the last forty-four years has managed to pull off as big of an upset in the finals (the Warriors swept the heavily favored Washington Bullets in the 1975 NBA Finals).

The Pistons accomplished both rare feats in the same season! But that's not the only trend they bucked in 2004:

Since the NBA was founded in 1946 (then the league was known as the Basketball Association of America), only a handful of teams have won NBA Titles without a hall-of-fame center on the roster. Think about it: From the late 1940s to the mid '50s, George Mikan led the Minneapolis Lakers to five NBA Championships; from 1957 to 1969 Bill Russell and the Boston Celtics won eleven titles (the one year they didn't win the title in the '60s, it was Wilt Chamberlain and the 'Sixers who won it); in the '70s Lew Alcindor, Willis Reed, Bill Walton, Wes Unseld, Dave Cowens, Wilt Chamberlain and Nate Thurmond were on teams that won nine of the ten NBA titles in that decade; in the '80s, nine of the ten NBA champs boasted hall-of-fame caliber centers like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Moses Malone and Robert Parish. In the 1990s things changed when Jordan and the Bulls won six titles in eight years. But, c'mon, it's Michael Jordan we're talking about here! He's an obvious exception. When the Bulls didn't win championships in their eight year run, it was a Houston Rockets franchise led by none other than Hakeem Olajuwon! And when the Bulls dynasty ended in '98, the next five titles were won by teams led by Tim Duncan, David Robinson and Shaquille O'Neal! Great centers all!

My point? Stop jumping on that Pistons bandwagon. Put their victory into historical context. They are a rare exception to the rule that you need superstars and, more importantly, a superstar center to win NBA titles. Add to that the rarity of their upset, and I don't think we are looking at a trend. The teams that will be winning titles in the next few years will likely be teams like San Antonio, Miami or Houston: Teams with great centers.

Do team championships equal individual greatness in team sports?

NBA All-Star Karl Malone recently announced his retirement from professional basketball. Though universally hailed by columnists, sports talk radio hosts and fans alike, all kept dredging up the fact that Malone, despite three trips to the NBA Finals, never won an NBA Championship.

So what? Why is that relevant?

Individual greatness in team sports should not be dependant on whether or not a player won a championship. I could list a number of great players in the NBA, NFL, NHL and MLB that never won championships (Karl Malone, Dan Marino, Ted Williams...) but I shouldn't have to. A lot of factors explain why certain players didn't win a championship: Teammates, injuries, caliber of opponents, etc. In Malone's case, he arguably had the teammates (John Stockton and Jeff Hornacek though you could a better center could have pushed the Jazz over the top) and Malone never suffered a serious injury as a member of the Jazz (his key teammate, John Stockton, never suffered a serious injury, either). But what Malone and the Jazz did have was Michael Jordan and the Bulls. The level of competition was as high as it gets. The Bulls were a juggernaut that, unfortunately, the Jazz had to face twice in the NBA Finals. And while many people feel that Malone and the Lakers should have won the NBA Title in 2004, it certainly wasn't Malone's fault they didn't. Malone tried playing through a serious injury but, in the end, the injury limited Malone's ability to help his teammates substantially and Detroit pulled off the rare major NBA Finals upset (something that only has happened twice in the last forty-five years).

In nearly two decades of playing professional basketball, Malone did everything he could do to win a title. No one worked harder. Few, if any, power forwards in NBA history have been better (only Elvin Hayes, Kevin McHale and Tim Duncan can be ranked near Malone among power forwards). Yet some will still cite Malone's poor fourth-quarter play in the playoffs as a big reason why Malone didn't win a title. And I will concede that point. However, not every great player is a Michael Jordan or a Magic Johnson when it comes to clutch play. And, as I pointed out earlier, there are many reasons why great players don't win championships. The absence of an NBA Title on Malone's resume should have nothing to do with how great he should be considered.