Meaning of "Majority"

Bob, a caller to the Michael Medved program that I was listening to on Friday on XM satellite radio in my rental car, unintentionally made Ann Coulter's point for her. A result which would probably annoy Bob.

Ms. Coulter had argued in a recent column that the Republican leadership in the Senate should simplify down it's argument in the never ending filibuster and "nuclear option" debate to the following: "Majority vote wins".

This quaint historical essential element of American politics seems to have eluded Bob and his more vocal peers on Air America, which I also listened to that day, and in the Democrat leadership in this country.

Bob opined at length in his moment in the sun as a on-air caller about the need for the filibuster to make it fair because, after all, "you Republicans got control of the Congress and the White House."

Uh, no Bob. Nobody "got control" - like I "got" a speeding ticket, or Bill Clinton "got" caught with an intern.

Bob, I don't want to surprise you or anything, but Republicans "won" control of the Congress and the White House. Winning elections, Bob, that's how it's done. I know that's only incomprehensible theory to most Democrats of late, but it's about winning elections.

That's how you dominate the agenda, Bob. You win the right to do that. That's what being a majority means.

If you win the majority of votes for President, Bob, then you win the right to nominate judges. That's what President Bush, who won the election Bob, did - he nominated judges of his choosing. If you win the majority of seats in the Senate, Bob, then you win the right to confirm (or reject) judges. And that's what the majority party in the Senate (Republicans) will do.

Why is this suddenly a hard concept to understand?

It's apparently hard for Bob, who went on to complain that, without the filibuster as a protection for the minority, "the majority will just confirm all of Bush's judges". Which they are entitled to do, Bob. They won the majority by winning elections. Remember? I know I brought this up two paragraphs ago and that's a long time to keep an attention span, Bob, but stay with me. Majority vote wins.

You do have a way to protect your point of view, Bob, as a minority party. Don't be one. Convince enough people that you're right. Win elections. It's that simple.

Photo ID's and Our Security

From today's USA Today, page 11A, "Driver's license act likely to pass":

"Legislation that would require states to verify the citizenship or legal status of anyone applying for a driver's license will likely become law because Senate Democrats don't have the votes to stop it, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said Monday."

Why would they want to stop it?

What is it about Democrats and their constant efforts to block improvements in our security?

I fly every week. To get on an airplane, even to get through the security checkpoint, I have to present a "Government issued photo ID".

Two questions:

How many "Government issued photo ID" cards do you carry for domestic flights? I have two. My driver's license and an Illinois Firearm's Owner ID (FOID) card. I imagine most people only have the first. I, of course present my driver's license and am allowed through security. Therefore, the driver's license is the de facto standard for security authorization in post 9/11 America.

Why do they require a "Government issued photo ID"? Easy. Because that's supposed to confer authority and legitimacy. If however, the government hands them out like candy then they lose that authority. And agencies, like the TSA, which count on them for authority and proof of identity are lessening our security.

That has to change, because it threatens our security. And the Democrats, as usual, are not on the side of our security.

Call a Lie a Lie on Judges

I'm glad to see the Republicans showing some backbone on the fate of the nominations that the Democrats in Congress are blocking.

The headlines today indicate that leading Republicans, including Karl Rove and Bill Frist are rejecting Democrat blackmail, called a "compromise" by the press, to stop fillibustering judges if the Republicans will kill some nominations. Good for them. Both rejected the deal and called for votes on the judges and the nominee for UN Ambassador, John Bolton.

The Democrats, the Petty Party, are embarrassing themselves with their petty name calling and obstructionism.

On Bolton: their main charge being that he was "mean" to subordinates. Is that the standard they want to set in a power hungry town like Washington D.C.? Especially in the U.S. Senate, where the Senators consider themselves to be 100 princes? Do they want to start calling in some of their staff from years ago to ask about their manner. It's petty, and it's ridiculous.

On the Predident's judicial nominees: the Democrats are, as we've all heard, accusing the judges of being "outside the mainstream". It's a lie. And it should be labelled as a lie every time a Republican leader gets in front of a microphone.

The judges have been approved by the ABA as qualified. The reason that the Petty Party is trying to block the judges in the Judiciary Committee is that the judges will be approved by a majority vote if a vote is allowed by the full Senate. That places them in the mainstream.

It's very apparent who here is "out of the mainstream". It's the Democrat leadership - who can't win elections for President and who can't win majority power in Congress and who rely on activist judges to enact their agenda from the bench.

I agree with Rove and Frist. Vote on the judges.

on Ethics, Part 2

So, Democrats are after House Majority Leader Tom Delay with old accusations of improper junkets paid for by lobbyists. I wondered aloud how in my last post how many Congressmen have taken junkets and whether they could survive scrutiny as well.

From today's USA Today, front page, about a study of trips taken by 600 members of Congress conducted by PoliticalMoneyLine:

- Rep Harold Ford, D-Tenn, took the most trips: 63.

- Delay took 14 trips, valued at $94,568. He ranked 28th for value of trips, and 114th in number taken.

- Democrats took 3,025; Republicans 2,375

Democrats should be wary of bringing on the charges.

On Ethics

I'm mildly amused by the pitched battle in Washington D.C. over the alledged ethics problems of House Majority Leader, Republican Tom Delay. Four reasons come to mind.

First, am I shocked that a Congressional leader is accused of taking golfing trips described as necessary political trips, funded by illegal lobbyists instead of legal public interests groups? Hardly.

Second, I am amused at the fury at which the left is hurling five-year old accusations at Rep. Delay. I know they are still mad at him about the Texas gerrymandering incident, and this is sweet revenge. But really, why so much fury? Do many people outside of Texas, the Beltway, Air America, or MoveOn.org even know who Tom Delay is, much less care if he is the Majority Leader? Will they care if he's taken down? Another anonymous pol, who could probably not survive deep financial scrutiny of junkets, will step in and life will go on, with one more grudge to settle later.

Third, the liberal bias of the press is blatantly on display in the feeding frenzy on the Delay death watch. Brent Bozell articulated the specifics well in his column called Tom Delay vs. Media Lite., which I thought was dead-on accurate. You could disagree. You could argue that the media is not showing a liberal bias, just a controversy bias. That they're drawn to what's news and this is the most controversial news out there. You could argue that, and you would be wrong. For one thing, it's not the most controversial news out there. Sandy Berger's theft of top secret documents from the National Archives to impede the work of the 9/11 Commission is much more serious, yet draws yawns from the national press. It's not a news bias, it's a liberal bias and they smell conservative blood in the water.

My own experience of sleuthing out liberal bias on this issue, not that it's hard or take more than a half hour of paying attention, involved a story about the House Ethics Committee that has jurisdiction on Delay's case. Our intrepid reporter, on some cable news channel or other, was opining about how the Ethics Committee was "unable to meet" to discuss his case. Unable to meet? Was the chamber on fire? Was there a natural disaster or a national emergency? Were they all out golfing? Oh no. They were able to meet, as we all know, but the Democrats are unwilling to meet because of a dispute about committee rules. A dispute too boring to go into. So why would a news reporter, with valuable air time at hand, downplay the actual story of partisan bickering with half of the squad "unwilling to meet" for the blander "unable to meet"? Because the reporter has a bias and couched his language, consciously or not, to shield the childish behavior of his team. That's why.

Finally, I have a simple question on the whole mess:

Why are politicians, a partisan group by nature and panderers all, voting on ethics violations anyway?

We're voting on bribery?

Why would you put ethics to a vote? If the Congressman took bribes from lobbyists, isn't that a violation of the law? Why isn't this turned over to the justice department? If he did it, he should indicted. Not trying to finagle the vote in a partisanly staffed committee of the Congress. The answer, as far as I can determine, is that the committee looks like a good ole boys protection network to give the appearance of an investigation to keep John Law at bay for their homegrown crooks. I'm not buying it.

So, if you ask me, I would leave the Ethics Committee shut down. Good Riddance. Bring on the prosecutors. They have the power of investigation, and if Congressmen are taking bribes, then indict them. If they're not, then call of the partisan dogs of the left, and their media enablers.

OKC, Ten Years Later, and the Iraq Connection

First, on the ten year anniversary of the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building, condolences and prayers for the families of the victims are in order. That should be the central focus of any anniversary activities, and I’m sure it will be. It is incomprehensible to me the grief that they must have experienced on that horrible day.

Second, the conspiracy theory angle involving Islamic terrorism in the bombing is unavoidable, given the post 9/11 lens with which we will observe the anniversary. Some OKC families have been pursuing these terror connections for years, without support from the Federal Government.

Fox News is buzzing today about “new evidence” that Iraq may have been connected to the bombing, and that Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols did not act alone. Here’s a newsflash for Fox News – this is not new. Granted Rita Cosby is getting her information from a source that hasn’t talked before – Terry Nichols. But the information itself is not new. The fact that the news media may pay attention to it this time, post 9/11, is new.

I’ve followed the details of OKC in the Islamic terrorism context almost since it happened. Without rehashing all of the details, which I’ve covered in previous posts such as “Let the Witnesses Speak”, here’s what I believe:

1. That the bombing was sponsored by Iraq, and Sadaam Hussein, as part of a revenge campaign for the Gulf War. They couldn’t project force here to invade us, but they could sponsor terrorism.

2. That the bomb was an Iranian design, with Iraqis as the foot soldiers to carry it out in support of McVeigh and Nichols who were willing accomplices for their own purposes. Jayna Davis, investigative reporter from OKC, covers this well in her book “The Third Terrorist”, which I have on my bookshelf of course.

3. You can confirm the Iranian design for yourself by just comparing:

a: photo of the bombed Murrah building in OKC to
b: photo of the bombed Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia a few years later. The 9/11 commission report attributes that bomb design to Hezbollah in Iran.

4. The Iraqi connection, which Rita Cosby verifies in her interview with Terry Nichols, goes through Ramzi Yousef – an Iraqi and Al Qaida’s bomb maker.

5. Terry Nichols was in contact with Yousef in the Philipines, including phone calls and visits. Yousef taught him to make the bomb. This is well documented in “The Third Terrorist”.

6. Yousef’s other plans, to put bombs on American airliners leaving the Philipines, was converted by his uncle, Khalid Sheik Muhammed, into a plan presented to Osama bin Laden that became the 9/11 plan. This is well documented in the 9/11 Commission Report.

7. They’re connected. 9/11 and OKC are at least connected through Ramzi Yousef. And the involvement of both Iranians and Iraqis in OKC indicates to me an organized terrorist plot.

8. The bottom line: America was under Islamic terrorist attack, as revenge for the Gulf War, well before 9/11.

9. The Federal Government, chiefly in the Clinton administration, had this information and deliberately did not act on it. Why?

a. They were not prepared to go to war over OKC.
b. They had a separate working agenda, which was to focus Justice Department resources on internal “right-wing terrorists”. Hence Waco. Hence Ruby Ridge. Hence Federal Marshalls posted at abortion clinics. Etc. Timothy McVeigh played into that agenda and an Iraqi plot did not. So, all of the Yousef information fell on deaf ears in Washington.

Thank you Bill Clinton and Janet Reno.

Wake up people. They are connected. And we cannot continue to avoid that knowledge as we continue to fight the War on Terror.

White Smoke!

I’m not a Catholic, but I’ve been fascinated, as almost everyone is, with the death of Pope John Paul II and the election of his successor over the last two weeks.

First with the outpouring of feeling and respect for the late Pope.

Second, with the pageantry and ritualistic ceremony of Conclave to elect the new Pope.

And today, marked by the ceremonial white smoke from the most-watched furnace chimney pipe in history, there’s a new Pope. The first German pope in 1000 years, Cardinal Ratzinger – now to be called Pope Benedict XVI.

I had my own points of interest throughout the process.

One is that I admired Pope John Paul II. His tenure as pontiff mirrored my tenure as an adult. He was chosen in 1978 as I was graduating from high school and going off to make my way in the world. Some has been made in the media about his impact on the political structure of the world in those years of the late 70’s and early 80’s. What I remember is how dangerous that time was and how real and scary it was with the superpowers facing off.

That dangerous world, and the Pope’s role in it, are symbolized to me by one event that I remember well. It was the meeting of the Pope and President Reagan in Anchorage Alaska. Seemingly, it wasn’t much – just a photo op at a logistical crossroads for two men’s overseas travel. One coming, one going. And they met in a small room at the airport in Anchorage for a short time. But it was important beyond the logistical details or the happenstance meeting. It was two political giants meeting in a land that itself is bigger than life and magical. And it was important to symbolize that these two men, representing their giant spheres of influence in the historic and critical battle of East and West, stood together. It’s the event I remember most from the Pope’s tenure.

And I would be remiss here on Partisan Newsjunkie, given my “about me” mention of my affection for conspiracy theories, if I did not relate a conspiracy theory about the Pope.

**** Spoiler Alert. If end times discussions bother you, don’t read on.


It was a prophecy. I don’t remember the source. Nostradamus or somewhere. But I do remember the context. It was a discussion that I read about the biblical end times and when they would begin. The theory, which I read in an offhand way, has stuck with me – I’m not sure why.

The theory: that the Pope after John Paul would be a short lived interim Pope, maybe two years or so. And the Pope that follows – who would choose the name Peter – would usher in the biblical end times spoken of in the book of Revelations. Armageddon and all.

Why I remember that theory, which I read more than ten years ago, I don't know. But you can bet that I’ll be watching the next Conclave, and the name of the man who steps out on the balcony that day.

Mel's Revenge

USA Today had an article this week about Hollywood bemoaning their financial woes this year, with a box office dramatically down from last year because – in their words – they don’t have a hit like “The Passion of the Christ” this year.

Well, isn’t that special.

Mel Gibson almost single handedly saved Hollywood’s bottom line last year with the $400 million dollar box office of his privately financed movie. Not that it won him any friends there as Hollywood insiders loathed his movie and bashed him relentlessly for making it. Not to mention completely snubbing it at Oscar time. Oh, but they cashed the checks I’m sure.

Mel’s revenge, of course, was the $400 million box office and the freedom that will afford him from the Hollywood system. And Hollywood is left without a major hit this year.

Let them cry in their $300 power lunch soup.

Did Hollywood learn any lessons from all of this about what kind of movie is profitable? Of course not. They’ll continue to churn out ultraviolent R rated flops, and to cry about the lack of a hit.

Which they are entitled to do. It’s their money that they are losing.

Bomber's Logic Rejected

There is a lot of interesting news this week: choosing a new Pope, Senate confirmations of cabinet officials and ambassadors, baseball starting up, Tiger Wood's amazing ball roll at the Masters, etc. But the story that most interests me is the confessions of serial bomber Eric Rudolph.

He was, as you may recall, the serial bomber that was responsible for the bombing of the Olympics in Atlanta and at least one abortion clinic. Both actions killed and maimed people. After years on the lamb, Rudolph was captured and is in the hands of law enforcement – where he should be. The big news this week is his guilty pleas in court.

Media accounts indicate that Rudolph issued a statement while pleading guilty. The news story that I read called it a “rambling” statement, but that characterization may be in the biased eye of the media reader. I’d like to read it myself. Anyway, Rudolph attributed the motive for his bombings as a desire to embarrass the U.S. Government for it’s acceptance of abortion and homosexuality. He also indicated that, since he believed that abortion is murder, violence to end abortion is justified.

A lot of pro-abortion and media people believe that Rudolph is typical of the right-to-life movement. That we’re all fringe people capable of, and often guilty of, violence to achieve our ends. That’s not true, of course, but some people believe that, and Eric Rudolph being in the news this week will feed their most paranoid fears of anti-abortion activists.

I have been involved, at different intensity levels at different times in my life, with right-to-life activism for more than a decade. Always in spirit, even when not in direct action. And the truth is that the vast majority of pro-life activists are just normal people who believe that there is something terrible wrong with the mass practice of abortion in our country. However, I have never personally heard anyone advocate any use of violence in the efforts that I have been involved with. I’ve attended public lectures. I’ve participated in the Life Chain. I’ve participated in marches. I’ve prayed at abortion clinics. I’ve never heard anyone advocate violence.

I have, of course, seen it discussed academically in journals. Not advocated, but debated. The discussion usually centers around the Hitler analogy, which is – if you could go back in time before World War II, would you assassinate Adolph Hitler to prevent the mass murder of millions? If you would, then doesn’t the same logic apply to a doctor or a clinic who will perform thousands of abortion as their responsibility?

Also, the Civil War analogy. Slavery was wrong, and our nation fought a bloody internal war with in excess of 500,000 dead to stop it. Was that violence justified to end the practice of slavery? I know that pro-abortion folks recoil at that analogy, but it’s a perfectly valid one. Slavery was the moral test of their time, abortion is the moral test of our time. And we’re failing.

Again, those are the academic arguments. I’ve read them. I understand them. I don’t subscribe to them.

I believe in working to end abortion on two fronts:

First, persuasion. We make the case that the unborn are living human beings that have a right to protection. Medical advances are making the biological argument in our favor there. You might have been able to argue that the “fetus” was a “clump of tissue” in 1973 when Roe v. Wade was decided, but not today. Look at the most advanced ultrasounds today and tell me that is not a living human being you are looking at.

Second, support the alternatives with our time and money. Support adoption. Support Crisis Pregnancy Centers, where pregnant women in crisis can get help to make the choice to choose life.

No violence. We cannot, in a civilized country, choose violence to end even a practice as abhorrent to me as abortion. If you choose a terrorists means to your end, you are a terrorist even if your ends are valid.

As is Eric Rudolph – an American Terrorist. Guilty.

When Will I Learn?

Doh!!!!

Third post in a row that I've written online on a hotel's high speed internet connection that vanished into the ether when I hit the "Publish" button. Drats!

It was brilliant. I'm talking pulitzer prize winning, breathtaking, inspired political wisdom that you would have printed out and posted on your refrigerator for posterity.

Okay, it wasn't that good. But it was good, and it was long, and now I have to write it again.

When will I learn to write these offline?

Air Hysteria

I happened to catch the HBO documentary film about the launch of Air America, which is the liberal's attempt to have a left-wing presence on talk radio in the United States. Misguided, because the media already has a pronounced left-wing bias. But apparently not left-wing enough to these partisan "progressives" who feed out a daily diet of radical liberal stew.

That's fine by me. I enjoy good partisan passion on issues, even misguided ones. Plus, I want liberals to talk more in public. The more they talk, even rant, the more it's apparent that they do not represent mainstream thought. Talk more, I say.

The documentary intrigued me. So, I tuned in to Air America on the "progressive" radio station in the city I was visiting. After catching several hours of liberal-speak, which I enjoyed, I had three observations:

1. Worldview - it's amazing how much our "worldview" affects our opinions of each and every news item of the days. I say this as a former lefty and current right-winger. I understand both worldviews. If your worldview system is such that you believe that the current Administration and the Republican-dominated Congress is evil, then you can shape your facts to fit your belief that a conservative Christian right-wing cabal is trying to force a theocracy on America. I personally think that is ridiculous, but the hosts of Air America believe it with a passion.

I'm sure that, conversely, my worldview affects the way I process the facts of news stories as well. That's the nature of the bias that each of us bring to the table.

2. Hysteria - I've never heard so much ramped up hysteria in such a short time. Every topic was pushed to the maximum emotional extreme.

For example, I tuned in to the morning show mid-rant about the "traitors" on the right-wing involved in the Terri Schiavo matter. "Traitors", they ranted, who were intent on destroying the Constitution and imposing a theocracy. Traitors who were actually threatening violence against judges that they had labeled as arrogant. Traitors.

First, let me point out the irony of a show titled "Morning Sedition" accusing people of being traitors and threatening judges. (Sedition being defined as "incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority" by webster.com). Are liberals irony-impaired?

Second, do liberals have even an ounce of originality. I.e. "Morning Sedition" ripping off NPR's Morning Edition and of course "The O'Franken Factor" ripping off Bill O'Reilly. Gut check: if you can't think of an original name for your show, should I give you any credit for deep thinking on your issues?

Trying to validate their ranting about the traitors, the hosts played some audio clips. One in particular was instructive.

In the setup to the clip the hosts told their audience that they were about to hear the Rev. Frank Pavone incite his listeners to attack judges for their role in the Schiavo matter.

The clip essentially said this, in full:

This was not a death, it was a murder. I grieve for Terry Schiavo, and I grieve for our nation.

The hosts jumped in after the clip to rant about how treasonous it was to incite violence against the judges.

Really? Did Rev. Pavone say that? Did the clip they played back up their accusations? Of course not. That didn't stop them from ranting about traitors.

3. Liberals use the F-word a lot. A lot. Really. (Don't believe me? Watch the documentary). Someone apparently taught them that passionate swearing was a good substitute for intelligent discourse. Nice.

But, hey, it's a big marketplace for ideas. And it's no fun being a partisan without opposition. So, I'm glad Air Hysteria is out there. Rant on, lefties.