Monday, February 19, 2007


Liberals think they have figured out a way to circumvent the U.S. Constitution without actually amending it.

The part of the Constitution that vexes them so is the section dealing with the election of a president. The left doesn't like the electoral college .. especially after the 2000 election where their hero, Al Gore, won the popular vote but lost the election.

The idea, being pushed by some leftist college professors, is to have the states pass legislation saying that they will award their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote. This would mean that Colorado, for instance, would award all of the Colorado electoral votes to the Democrat candidate if that candidate won the national popular vote, even if the Republican candidate carried Colorado 2 to 1. This would almost guarantee that presidential candidates would do most of their campaigning in California, Texas, New York and possibly Florida. Iowa and New Hampshire wouldn't see a candidate face after their primaries.

Legislation either has or will be introduced in no less than 47 states to implement this crackpot idea. These leftists are showing their absolute contempt for Constitution by trying to figure out a way to get around it. That, my friends, is pretty much par for the course.

Now .. before we let this particular topic go, let me be clear here. I want to restrict the "right" of the people to vote in presidential elections, not expand it. Our founding fathers did not believe that everyone should vote ... and they made no provision for a "right" to vote in federal elections. Now this is not to say that some people should be denied their Constitutional rights. Everyone gets equal protection under the law, and everyone should be protected by that law ... but it is sheer idiocy to allow those without a clue to participate in choosing who will lead our country.

Do any of you know of a successful business that allows the rank and file workers to decide who the next CEO will be? Of course not. The shareholders – not the employees, but the shareholders – elect a board of directors and that board then chooses the CEO. This works pretty well for businesses, and it's a system that would work equally well for our country. And just who would the "shareholders" be? Those who pay and have paid taxes; those who have invested in our country through hard work.


Here's another case of the government of Mexico running a prosecution of a Border Patrol agent. An illegal alien received legal documents and money from the U.S. Attorney's office for testifying against a Border Patrol agent recently. How can we expect people to police the border when we keep throwing them in jail? So how did this prosecution go down? Well, it's just as outrageous as the other case making news in recent weeks.

Here's the Reader's Digest version of what happened: a Border Patrol agent was convicted in 2001 of using excessive force and causing injury to a Mexican national. Boo hoo...I am sure said Mexican national was just minding his business, not trying to break into the United States. Right. So what did federal prosecutors do to try and win a conviction? They gave the illegal alien in question and a couple others such goodies as Social Security cards, living expenses, free use of telephones and they were even paid for their time! Nice work if you can get it. So what message does this send? You guessed it...just cry police brutality at the border and you can cash in.

On a more positive note, the agent's 2001 conviction was overturned and he received an acquittal at a recent new trial. So where does he go to get his reputation and his job back? And why is Mexico running the show at the border? Time for somebody to grow a pair and start knocking some heads...but it's not going to happen at this rate.


According to U.S. officials, Al-Qaeda is slowly rebuilding...this time establishing training camps in the remote regions of Pakistan. Evidently Zawahiri and Bin Laden have a direct hand in the new command structure. New terrorists are being trained daily...just in time for their allies in the Congress to look the other way when they want to attack America. Coming to a mall or sporting event near Al-Qaeda terrorist armed with a suicide bomb.

And yet, unbelievably, as the United States engages in this war on terror against Islamic terrorism, we have politicians in Congress trying to cut it off. And they're finally coming right out and saying what they stand for. It won't be long before more and more Democrats step forward and vote what they really believe. And what they really stand for is simple: American defeat in Iraq. They ran and won their seats in Congress by betting on American defeat in the Middle East. A victory is simply not in their best political interest.

Wherever they some cave or some tent in the middle of Pakistan...Zawahiri and Bin Laden must be smiling.


The Senate and House of Representatives – under Democrat control – seem to exist for one purpose --- to debate and pass meaningless resolutions relating to the Iraqi front on the war on Islamic fascism (sometimes called by those who haven't thought it out the "war on terror.").

OK .. enough. This "non-binding" resolution is getting a bit wearisome. If you peace-at-any-price Democrats and RINOS are so determined to undercut and weaken President Bush in his attempts to bring the war in Iraq to a successful conclusion .. why not just do away with your non-binding rhetoric and take a real stand!

Cut the funding for the war!

Come on .. .just do it! You've been waving your "Bush lied, people died" flags for years now. You've been lighting your candles at the altar of while dreaming of a Barbra Streisand – Susan Sarandon threesome ... just get it done! No more non-binding this, that and the other thing. If you're so damned sure that everything would be just fine if we would just get out of Iraq right now ... vote to cut the funding! The Constitution gives you control over the purse strings ... stand up for your convictions and exercise that control!

And as for you, Hillary ... time to show that you can be a leader. You want the troops out .. and you're saying that if you were president they would be coming home, right? OK ... then show some leadership in the Senate and announce that you're ready to vote ... right NOW ... for legislation that would end all funding for the war in Iraq in 90 days, except for funding directly related to withdrawing our troops and materials. Show you're a leader, Ms. Rodham .. not just a talker.

And just why won't the Democrats take this tact? Because they know that once again they would vividly illustrate to the American people that they are, have been, and will be weak on defense.

When Hillary wins and the Democrats increase their measure of control in the congress .. will things change? When the chips are down will they really send the unmistakable signal to the wonderful world of the Islamic Jihad that the U.S. no longer has the will to fight?
Looks like we're going to find out.