Lame Duck Democrats Can Do Nothing But Harass

---

POLITICS / LAME DUCK DEMOCRATS CAN DO NOTHING BUT HARASS THE ADMINISTRATION

---

The Democratic majority in the upcoming Congress is disunited, dispersed and divided into myriad caucuses and special interest groups.

There is no real danger of any legislative action emerging from this Congress. The president has a veto the Democrats cannot override. Nothing will ever make it as far as the desk at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., are just spinning their wheels.

Breaking from NewsMax.com

Dick Morris: Pitiful Democrats

For all of the dire warnings and pre-election commotion about the impact of a Democratic majority in Congress, the fact is that -- now that it is upon us -- it can do little or nothing but harass the administration.

There is no real danger of any legislative action emerging from this Congress. Yes, the president has a veto the Democrats cannot override, but nothing will ever make it as far as the desk at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., are just spinning their wheels.

In the Senate, there is no such thing as a majority. Ever since the elder Bush's administration, the filibuster has become routine. No longer reserved for civil-rights issues or for egregious legislation, it now is used to counter even motions for recess and adjournment. Members of the Senate are no longer subjected to the indignity of standing on their feet and reading a telephone book. Rather, the gentlemen's filibuster applies.

The majority leader phones the minority leader and asks if a filibuster is in effect. With his feet up on his desk, the Republican replies that it is and the Democrat, despite his majority, does not even think about bringing up his bill for consideration unless he has a good shot at the 60 votes required to shut off debate. In the Senate, 51 votes determine who gets the corner office, but to pass legislation, one needs 60.

In the House of Representatives, with its 435 members, the Republican Party needed a simple majority -- 218 -- to rule. The Democrats need considerably more. The normal rules of a mathematical majority do not take into account the fractious nature of the Democratic Party.

Where the Republican majority best resembled the Prussian Army -- disciplined, unified and determined -- the Democratic majority in the upcoming Congress is disunited, dispersed and divided into myriad caucuses and special interest groups. One could purchase the Republican majority wholesale by making a deal with the speaker and the majority leader. But to get the Democratic majority in line, one has to buy it retail -- caucus by caucus.

First, one has to go to check with the Black Caucus -- hat in hand -- to see if one's bill has enough liberal giveaways to round up its forty or so votes. Thence to the Hispanic Caucus for a similar screening. Then, with one's legislation weighted down with liberal provisions added by these two groups, one has to sell it to the Democratic Leadership Council moderates and, even worse, to the Blue Dog Democrats -- the out and out conservatives.

If you are fortunate enough to pass these contradictory litmus tests, you then have to go to the environmentalists, the labor people, and even the gays to see that your bill passes muster. Only then can you begin to hope for House passage.

The result of this labyrinth is that the relatively moderate bill you first sought to pass ends up like a Christmas tree, laden with ornaments added to appease each of the caucuses. Unrecognizable in its final form, it heads to House passage.

This road map will be familiar to all veterans of the Clinton White House of 1993 and 1994. The most recent administration that had to deal with a Democratic House, the shopping from caucus to caucus and the festooning of moderate legislation with all manner of amendments will seem dejà vu to all of the early Clintonites. When Clinton proposed an anti-crime bill with a federal death penalty, he needed to add pork projects in the inner city like midnight basketball to get it past the Democrats in the House.

Nancy Pelosi will face the same obstacle. By the time her legislation emerges from the lower chamber, it will bear little resemblance to what she had in mind, liberal as that might have been. As Clinton said, after he watched the mangling of his legislative program by the various caucuses in the House, "I didn't even recognize myself."

Once the highly amended liberal legislation emerges from the House, it will make easy fodder for a Senate filibuster. So left leaning that it stands no chance of attracting 60 votes, it will be dead-on-arrival.

So forget the nightmares about an amended Patriot Act or restrictions on wiretapping for homeland security. Don't worry about House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel's, D-N.Y., ravings about the draft or the rumors of a tax increase. It's not going to happen.

What is the Democratic majority good for? One thing and one thing only -- to give their party control of the committees and the subpoena power that goes with it. The two House Democratic majority can only make noise and make trouble. It can't pass legislation.

Eileen McGann co-authored this column.

Copyright 2006 Dick Morris, All Rights Reserved.

NewsMax.com
4152 West Blue Heron Blvd, Ste 1114
Riviera Beach, FL, 33404 USA

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

---

Criticism Of Religion Reflected In Ignorance

---

RELIGION / HARSH CRITICISM OF ORGANIZED RELIGION REFLECTS CULTURAL AMNESIA, IGNORANCE, INDIFFERENCE AND INTOLERANCE OF WHAT CONSTITUTED RELIGION FROM ITS BEGINNING

---

ZENIT
The World Seen from Rome

- Daily Dispatch -

"In nearly all prosperous liberal democracies, atheism is strong."

"Apart from the crass vulgarity of some student speakers, what shocked me most was the apparent ignorance of many speakers about what constituted religion in general and Catholicism and Christianity in particular."

So many things that are taken for granted today -- education, hospitals, the very notion of a person, the distinction between sacred and secular -- owe their origin to Christian inspiration. "Cultural amnesia is a dangerous condition for any society."

"Tolerance, however, must never be confused with indifferentism, for any form of indifference is radically opposed to the deep Christian concern for man and for his salvation." A concern that means the Church will not allow itself to be intimidated by those who wish it to remain silent.

Religion In The Cross Hairs

Secular World Attacks Organized Belief

~ By Father John Flynn

LONDON, NOV. 26, 2006 (Zenit.org) - Organized religion is coming in for harsh criticism in many parts. English singer Elton John said religion turns people into "hateful lemmings." He also accused it of lacking compassion. His comments came in an interview with the Observer newspaper's Music Monthly Magazine, published Nov. 12.

The aging pop star's criticisms were sparked off by the matter of how religion deals with homosexuality. "I think religion has always tried to turn hatred towards gay people," he said.

He is far from being alone in this view. In the United States, talk-show host Rosie O'Donnell likened Christianity to radical Islam. Her attack, in a nationally broadcast program in October, was not well received, according to a Nov. 13 press release by the California-based Barna Group.

A nationwide survey by the Barna Group found that although few Americans would challenge O'Donnell's right to make such statements, just as few share her point of view.

Across the Pacific, Pamela Bone, writing in the Australian newspaper on Aug. 15, rejoiced over data which, she argued, showed that "in nearly all prosperous liberal democracies, atheism is strong."

Bone accused religion of being "directly responsible for countless world conflicts, resulting in the loss of millions of human lives." Religion is still a danger today, she contended: "The truth is that it is now too dangerous for religion to be given the special status it has always had."

Bone added: "The best hope for a less religious and thus safer world is for religion -- all religion -- to be open to rational and stringent examination and criticism, and yes, to ridicule."

Meanwhile, in Canada, author Christopher Hitchens recently explained why he "hates religion," reported the National Post on Nov. 18. Speaking at the University of Toronto, Hitchens declared he hates Islam because it exhibits a "horrible trio of self-hatred, self-righteousness and self-pity," while making a "cult of death, suicide and murder."

He also hates Judaism, because it leads to Christianity. His negative view of Christianity is well known, particularly after his infamous attacks on Mother Teresa of Calcutta in the 1990s.

In the midst of declaring his multiple hatreds, Hitchens declared: "I am absolutely convinced that the main source of hatred in the world is religion."

Anti-Religious Books

During the Toronto address Hitchens gave some details of his forthcoming book, "God Is Not Great." The book, he said, is "a general case against religion."

Anti-religious books are in fashion these days. American author Sam Harris has just published a brief (112-page) sequel to his 2004 book, "The End of Faith." At a recent presentation at the New York Public Library, Harris condemned the God of the Old Testament, in addition to the New Testament, "likening the story of Jesus to a fairy tale," the Washington Post reported Oct. 26.

For good measure Harris also attacked the Koran, calling it "a manifesto for religious divisiveness."

According to the Washington Post, "The End of Faith" has sold more than 270,000 copies. In that book, Harris described religion as "a desperate marriage of hope and ignorance." He also slammed religion for promoting intolerance. Nor was his argument limited to extremist groups. "One of the central themes of this book," Harris declared in the opening chapter, " … is that religious moderates are themselves the bearers of a terrible dogma."

In a curious use of religious terminology, Harris concludes the book by describing faith as "the devil's masterpiece." The book also appeals for a sustained campaign against religion, and faith in general: "We must find our way to a time when faith, without evidence, disgraces anyone who would claim it."

British author Richard Dawkins also recently published a book decrying religion, "The God Delusion." Dawkins is well known for his hostility to religion. "The celebrated atheist and high priest of popular science" is how a review of the book in the Observer newspaper on Oct. 29 described him.

Dawkins is not limiting himself to publishing. The Sunday Times on Nov. 19 reported that he plans to set up a charity that will subsidize the publication of educational materials for distribution in schools.

His organization, according to the article, will also attempt to divert donations from the hands of "missionaries" and church-based charities. His foundation, which is in the process of seeking registration in the United Kingdom and the United States, will have a database of charities free of "church contamination."

The Times article cited the concern of Anglican clergyman John Hall, dean of Westminster. Hall criticized the project as not being based on reasoned argument.

Dawkins and other critics of religion have often come under fire for their superficial view of religion. This was repeated recently by Verbite Father Vincent Twomey, a retired professor of moral theology at St. Patrick's College, Maynooth, Ireland. He took part recently in a debate at the College Historical Society in Trinity College Dublin, on the topic "That Religion Is a Block to Progress."

"Apart from the crass vulgarity of some student speakers, what shocked me most was the apparent ignorance of many speakers about what constituted religion in general and Catholicism and Christianity in particular," Father Twomey noted, writing in the Irish Times on Nov. 13.

So many things that are taken for granted today -- education, hospitals, the very notion of a person, the distinction between sacred and secular -- owe their origin to Christian inspiration. "Cultural amnesia is a dangerous condition for any society," he observed.

Bring Forth Treasure

While not referring to these recent attacks specifically, Benedict XVI recently addressed the issue of how religion is portrayed as a negative force. "So often the Church's countercultural witness is misunderstood as something backward and negative in today's society," he commented to visiting Irish bishops on Oct. 28.

What the Church needs to do in these circumstances, the Pope recommended, is to act like the wise householder who brings forth from his treasure "what is new and what is old" (Matthew 13:52). In this way the faithful will be able to discern what society offers them today. "Help them to recognize the inability of the secular, materialist culture to bring true satisfaction and joy," the Holy Father continued. "Be bold in speaking to them of the joy that comes from following Christ and living according to his commandments."

Moreover, even though the bishops need to warn against the evils around us, "we must correct the idea that Catholicism is merely ‘a collection of prohibitions,'" Benedict XVI said. In order to do that Catholic teaching must be formulated in such a way that it communicates "the liberating power of the Gospel."

The Gospel is good for society, the Pope argued in his Sept. 28 address to the new German ambassador to the Holy See. Commenting on the favorable reception by the German people to his recent pastoral visit, Benedict XVI noted: "Wherever society is growing and people are strengthened in good, thanks to the message of faith, this also benefits social coexistence, and the readiness of citizens to assume responsibility for the common good is reinforced."

This message is not imposed by the Church, and therefore faith exists in the context of tolerance. "Tolerance, however, must never be confused with indifferentism, for any form of indifference is radically opposed to the deep Christian concern for man and for his salvation," the Pontiff pointed out. A concern that means the Church will not allow itself to be intimidated by those who wish it to remain silent.

ZE06112623

Copyright 2006, Innovative Media, Inc.

ZENIT is an International News Agency.

SEND US YOUR NEWS:
Please send press releases, statements and other information to our international news desk at:
news@zenit.org.

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

---

Democrats Continue To Oppose Conservative Judges

---

POLITICS / DEMOCRAT'S CONTINUE CORRUPTION AGENDA: NOMINATE ONLY THOSE LIBERAL JUDGES WHO WILL UNCONSTITUTIONALLY LEGISLATE FROM THE BENCH

---

This Is What Liberal Democrats Call "Change."

Senate Democrats, of course, are complaining that the president is reneging on his “promise” of bipartisanship made in a post-election speech last Wednesday. But they have not a shred of credibility on this point. Liberals in the Senate have turned the judicial confirmation process on its head, obstructing the president’s judicial nominees for political reasons. They even resorted to launching judicial filibusters, ignoring the constitutional directive to provide up-or-down votes on all judicial nominees. Why? Not because the nominees were unqualified. But rather because they didn’t like the nominees’ philosophy of judicial restraint. (Many liberals only like judges who will legislate from the bench.)

From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:

Bush Re-Nominates Conservative Judges

This week the president sent a signal to Capitol Hill that he is only willing to go so far in the “spirit of cooperation” with Senate Democrats. This according to the San Jose Mercury News: “On Wednesday the White House indicated that it will renominate six candidates during the lame duck session who have not earlier received a Senate floor vote because of Democratic opposition.”

Senate Democrats, of course, are complaining that the president is reneging on his “promise” of bipartisanship made in a post-election speech last Wednesday. But they have not a shred of credibility on this point. Liberals in the Senate have turned the judicial confirmation process on its head, obstructing the president’s judicial nominees for political reasons. They even resorted to launching judicial filibusters, ignoring the constitutional directive to provide up-or-down votes on all judicial nominees. Why? Not because the nominees were unqualified. But rather because they didn’t like the nominees’ philosophy of judicial restraint. (Many liberals only like judges who will legislate from the bench.)

Republicans in the Senate made matters worse by folding in the face of Democratic resistance. Remember the so-called “Gang of 14” moderates in the Senate? Seven Republicans broke ranks and brokered a deal with seven Democrats to allow a few of the president’s judicial nominees through, while leaving open the possibility of future judicial filibusters. This compromise struck a fatal blow to the president’s attempts to push some key conservative nominees through by undermining any leverage the Republicans held in being the majority party. (Check out an op-ed I wrote last summer on the subject, Senate Abandons Judicial Nominees.)

The president should be congratulated for standing by his conservative judicial nominees. Unfortunately, no one -- not even the president, I’m sure -- expects these nominees to receive an up-or-down vote before the end of this lameduck session. And in January, when Democrats gain control of the Senate, what incentive will they have to fairly treat judicial nominees?

Republicans in the Senate had an opportunity to confirm conservative judges to the bench, and they blinked. Conservative candidates had an opportunity to educate voters on the importance of the “judge issue” in the last election cycle, but they did not. We must look no further than the recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision on gay marriage to see the price we will pay for these failures.

Thomas Fitton

President

Judicial Watch is a non-partisan, educational foundation organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Judicial Watch is dedicated to fighting government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to ethics and morality in our nation's public life. To make a tax-deductible contribution in support of our efforts, click here.

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

---

Harry Reid's Democrat ''Culture Of Corruption''

---

POLITICS / HARRY REID'S DEMOCRAT "CULTURE OF CORRUPTION"

---

Reid, who recently came under fire for failing to properly report a $700,000 land deal, allegedly accepted more than $30,000 of Abramoff-tainted money in return for his “cooperation” in matters related Nevada Indian gaming. The Nevada senator vehemently denies any wrong-doing, but according to an ABC News online report, Abramoff reportedly told investigators the contributions “were no accident and, in fact, were requested by Reid.”

The Democrats, and the liberal media, would have you believe Abramoff was a Republican-only problem, but Reid’s alleged involvement suggests Abramoff played both sides of the aisle. In fact, according to ABC news, Abramoff has allegedly pointed the figure at "six to eight seriously corrupt Democratic senators."

From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:

Abramoff Finally Behind Bars

Soon-To-Be Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) Allegedly Accepted More Than $30,000 Of Abramoff-Tainted Money, Failed To Report A $700,000 Land Deal.

Former lobbyist Jack Abramoff is finally behind bars. On November 15, Abramoff reported to a federal prison in Maryland to begin his 5-year, ten-month sentence for defrauding banks of $23 million in Florida in 2000. This, of course, far from closes the book on Abramoff and his congressional co-conspirators. He remains at the center of a massive public corruption investigation by the Department of Justice that, in the end, could involve as many as a dozen members of congress.

The web of influence peddling scandals involving Abramoff has already claimed more than a few politicians. First, former Republican Majority Leader Tom Delay resigned earlier this year rather than face Abramoff questions at election time. You also may recall that Ohio Republican Congressman Bob Ney resigned in early November, three weeks after pleading guilty for his role in an Abramoff-related scandal. Ney was the first Abramoff-connected Congressman to be convicted of a crime in the Abramoff matter. He may not be the last. Reports suggest Abramoff has been cooperating with authorities and naming names, including soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

Reid, who recently came under fire for failing to properly report a $700,000 land deal, allegedly accepted more than $30,000 of Abramoff-tainted money in return for his “cooperation” in matters related Nevada Indian gaming. The Nevada senator vehemently denies any wrong-doing, but according to an ABC News online report, Abramoff reportedly told investigators the contributions “were no accident and, in fact, were requested by Reid.”

The Democrats, and the liberal media, would have you believe Abramoff was a Republican-only problem, but Reid’s alleged involvement suggests Abramoff played both sides of the aisle. In fact, according to ABC news, Abramoff has allegedly pointed the figure at "six to eight seriously corrupt Democratic senators."

Abramoff, who hobnobbed at the highest levels of government while living lavishly, will have to work in food service and similar jobs that pay anywhere from 12 to 40 cents an hour. His federal inmate number is 27593-112. It is good to know that sometimes crime doesn’t pay.

Thomas Fitton

President

Judicial Watch is a non-partisan, educational foundation organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Judicial Watch is dedicated to fighting government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to ethics and morality in our nation's public life. To make a tax-deductible contribution in support of our efforts, click here.

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

---

Pelosi's Democrat ''Culture Of Corruption''

---

POLITICS / PELOSI'S DEMOCRAT "CULTURE OF CORRUPTION"

---

Pelosi’s initial decisions as House Speaker call to question her commitment to rooting out corruption in Congress. In addition to backing Hastings, Pelosi’s first choice for House Majority Leader was Iraq war critic Frank Murtha, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1980 “Abscam” scandal, which led to the conviction of five House members for bribery and conspiracy. Murtha ultimately lost his bid for leadership to Maryland Congressman Steny Hoyer earlier this week. In light of her bluster about corruption, Pelosi has been rightly criticized for throwing her lot in with the ethically-suspect Murtha. The more things change …

From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:

JW To Pelosi: Hastings Unfit For Leadership Position

On November 15, I sent a letter to Nancy Pelosi, urging the House Speaker to reject Florida Democratic Rep. Alcee Hastings for the chairmanship of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. According to a number of press reports, Hastings is Pelosi’s choice to assume the chairmanship when the new Congress convenes in January.

For Speaker Pelosi, who has been an outspoken critic of what she has mislabeled “the Republican culture of corruption” on Capitol Hill, Hastings is a terrible choice for this sensitive leadership post. As I noted in my letter, Hastings is one of only six federal judges to be removed from office through impeachment and has accumulated “staggering liabilities” ranging from $2,130,006 to $7,350,000.

Here’s an excerpt from my letter. (You can read it in its entirety by clicking here.)

“Any ordinary citizen with Rep. Hastings’ demonstrated record of lack of integrity, ethical misdeeds and financial problems would be denied a security clearance. Respectfully, you should not put our nation’s security at risk by placing Rep. Hastings at the head of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

“That (Hastings) was elected to Congress simply does not mean he meets the high standards that might entitle him to committee leadership posts, let alone ‘select’ committee posts that concern highly secret national security information. I am confident there are other members of your caucus who could serve as head of the Committee.”

Some background on Hastings: On August 3, 1988, the House of Representatives adopted articles of impeachment against then-Judge Hastings. After a trial, he was convicted by the Senate and removed from office on October 20, 1989, for perjury and conspiracy to obtain a bribe. As The Washington Post reported in 1989, the Senate found that Hastings “engaged in the bribery conspiracy and repeatedly lied under oath at his [criminal] trial and forged letters in order to win acquittal.”

Moreover, according to his most recent financial disclosure statements, Hastings indicated that he has no more than $15,000 in assets … while listing millions of dollars in liabilities in the form of legal fees.

Pelosi’s initial decisions as House Speaker call to question her commitment to rooting out corruption in Congress. In addition to backing Hastings, Pelosi’s first choice for House Majority Leader was Iraq war critic Frank Murtha, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1980 “Abscam” scandal, which led to the conviction of five House members for bribery and conspiracy. Murtha ultimately lost his bid for leadership to Maryland Congressman Steny Hoyer earlier this week. In light of her bluster about corruption, Pelosi has been rightly criticized for throwing her lot in with the ethically-suspect Murtha. The more things change …

Thomas Fitton

President

Judicial Watch is a non-partisan, educational foundation organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Judicial Watch is dedicated to fighting government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to ethics and morality in our nation's public life. To make a tax-deductible contribution in support of our efforts, click here.

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

---

Fasten Your Seatbelts - Rough Ride Ahead

---

POLITICS / FASTEN YOUR SEATBELTS - WE ARE IN FOR A ROUGH RIDE AHEAD

---

We now have an unholy alliance to deal with, a Bush-Pelosi team for socialism and world governance. Look for social reforms that will put the new deal to shame. An amnesty for law-breaking illegal aliens is a certainty, which is a gleeful prospect for Mr. Bush who will then be a step closer to that North American Union that he dreams of. Continuing social depravity, which a Republican majority failed to engage, is now a foregone conclusion with humanist Democrats in charge. Fasten your seatbelts, brothers and sisters; we are in for a rough ride.

A NEW BURNS AND ALLEN SHOW

~ By Jim R. Schwiesow

November 14, 2006
NewsWithViews.com

Those of us old enough to remember the comic act of George Burns and Gracie Allen will recall that the recurring theme of the show was the interaction between a shrewd and astute husband, George Burns, and a simple-minded and intellectually vacuous wife, Gracie Allen. The show provided many hours of merriment for thousands of radio and TV listeners and viewers throughout the United States. I now announce that the country is soon to be introduced to a new Burns and Allen show in an all-new format. It will be called the George Bush and Nancy Pelosi show. I welcome you to view the new king and queen of vaudeville in a brand new serial comedy with an entirely new congressional cast.

George Bush has played straight man to socially debauched Democrats since the day that he first stepped into office. Not possessed of the sapience of a George Burns or the verbal expertise - he has done more to commit to genocide the English language than anyone I know - he has nevertheless stepped forward with craggy countenance and subservient deportment to play fool to the fools. In this regard we have to give tribute to his acting abilities, which rival, if not exceed, those of George Burns. Mr. Bush’s obsequious attention to the political wacko’s of our congressional la la land during his six years as president was not without a purpose, a purpose that I will enlarge upon herein.

I understand that Gracie Allen was possessed of superior intelligence and wisdom, and that her on-stage personality was simply the result of the high quality of her role-playing. Nancy Pelosi on the other hand is naturally possessed of naiveté and a room temperature I.Q. All one has to do is to catch her on the tube to discern that she is not the sharpest stick in the bundle. Actually I am being kind to her with that statement. Like Gracie Allen she also has an on-stage personality and an off-stage personality. And the two diverge significantly. Ever the woman of the common people with disdain for the tax-paying rich in her on-stage personage, she actually lives in capitalist splendor, with a personal wealth of $55 million, in her off-stage reality. It makes one wonder what these nitwits are going to do, and how they’re going to cope, when they have completely destroyed our constitutional republic and are forced to live under the dominance of communistic style despotism. I would imagine that Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy, the Laurel and Hardy of the party of the Democrats, have never contemplated the ultimate consequence of their political stupidity.

The gentleman, who wrote me in behalf of his hero, George Bush, and substituted name calling for articulate discourse, is not going to like the content of this column. A perfectly legitimate and airtight case can be made that George W. Bush deliberately engineered the election debacle, which doomed the continuance in office of many congressional Republicans.

There are Republicans who in their hearts do value the freedoms granted by the constitution, and agonize over the socially repugnant course of the nation. There may be one or two Democrats also; we’ll just have to send out a search party to beat the bushes to find them. The real tragedy is that these people have attached more significance to a slavish commitment to party loyalty than to maintaining the freedoms and liberties wrought by constitutional principles. Their integrity can, and should, be called into question when they have not the courage to stand against the passage of tyrannical laws, which steal the freedoms of U.S. citizens. And if their party, or their president, insists that they capitulate to an ideology, which they know to be wrong and inimical to the best interests of a sovereign nation, they ought to remove themselves from that ideological cesspool, and realign themselves with a party, which better reflects their ethics and their values. If enough would do so a viable and competitive third party could be built and expanded.

I believe, and contrary to what some may think it is my perfect right to do so, that George Bush is extremely pleased by the election slaughter, which sunk the political hopes of so many of his fellow Republicans in congress. Too many of these Republicans had worked in opposition to his goal for a North American Union. Too many were furious over his continual refusal to secure the borders and to bring to a halt an ever-increasing influx of illegal aliens. Too many were angered by his completely dumb insistence on amnesty for law-breaking border intruders, and more than a few were beginning to question the wisdom of his policies in relation to an increasingly casualty ridden war in Iraq. The old adage, which holds that you can’t fool all of the people all of the time was coming into play.

Unquestionably President Bush did everything in his power to contribute to the disaffection and dissatisfaction of the people in regard to these issues, and he did nothing to dissuade them from their ever-increasing anger with their elected Republican representatives. What did he care, they were close to an election and he had two more years to dink with the fate of the nation. In his mind this was their misfortune and his good luck. He reasoned that the Democrats were more attuned to his quest for one world governance, so he opted to throw his lot in with the opposition. I would imagine that as time passes many of the losing Republicans, who were sold out by Mr. Bush, would most likely come to the inescapable conclusion that they were played for suckers, big time.

Some have taken issue with me concerning some of my contentions in previous articles. A very learned gentleman with a constitutional knowledge, which far surpasses mine, wrote and informed me that The Constitution, right or wrong, provided for one man to take control in times of military service, not War. Note: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; Not war, but service is the key.”

As I stated, this man’s credentials are impeccable when it comes to an understanding of the constitution. He also had this to say about presidential abuses of power, “Was there a check on this power? Of course there is. The Constitution provided for the impeachment of the President if he abused any power including the power of the Commander in Chief. Also, we have the right to vote him out of office at the end of his term. Remember that the same paragraph that gives him the role of Commander in Chief also says he has the power to overrule a court and even do away with a ruling the court has imposed except in cases of impeachment of officials. Instead of fighting what he is doing as being unconstitutional, we should be fighting to have a Supreme Court ruling or an Amendment to the Constitution to define the powers of the Commander in Chief more accurately. While Bush has done so many things he shouldn't to drag us further into socialism, his wiretaps and other "Patriot act" moves are all constitutional. As President he couldn't do any of those things but as Commander in Chief he can.”

I have no problem with a program to rid nation of the threat wrought by international terrorism. But, I do have a problem when a president, or anyone else, treacherously misrepresents the true nature of his actions. Ironically we find evidence of a similar kind of treachery in our historical archives. This has been documented, for readers, in an article by Devvy Kidd entitled, FDR and the Pearl Harbor Attack

Now, I know that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant of the most despicable kind. I also know that Kim Jong-il of North Korea and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran are of an equally contemptible disposition. And both of these countries are absolutely identified as having weapons of mass destruction.

Since we are nearly certain that Iraq posed no significant threat to our nation and that Iraq had not the means, or the intent, to launch an attack upon the United States, President Bush could not truthfully support a determination that Iraq was an immediate danger. So he did what most politicians do, he improvised and by subterfuge created the illusion that Saddam was poised for an act of aggression against the United States. Now, in my book this is called lying, and I have a very low tolerance for liars. My Dad taught me at a very early age that to be honest and forthcoming was a virtue, and that to be a liar was contemptible. In my boyhood to lie was to invite a session with the razor strop. God Bless him I am thankful that he instilled this in me. So, if Mr. Bush did not abuse his powers technically, he did so in substance. I submit that prevarication and misrepresentation to gain approval for a clearly uncalled for war indicates a moral deficiency too serious to ignore.

So, now we have an unholy alliance to deal with, a Bush-Pelosi team for socialism and world governance. Look for social reforms that will put the new deal to shame. An amnesty for law-breaking illegal aliens is a certainty, which is a gleeful prospect for Mr. Bush who will then be a step closer to that North American Union that he dreams of. Continuing social depravity, which a Republican majority failed to engage, is now a foregone conclusion with humanist Democrats in charge. Fasten your seatbelts, brothers and sisters; we are in for a rough ride.

© 2006 - Jim R. Schwiesow - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, and are not for sale or re-sale.

Jim Schwiesow is a retired sheriff with 46 years of law enforcement service. He served with the Unites States Army with the occupation forces in post war Berlin, Germany, and has a total of nine years of military service, which includes six years in the U.S. Army Reserve.

His law enforcement service includes: three years in the military police, fifteen years as an Iowa municipal police officer, and twenty-eight years as the duly elected sheriff of Sioux County, Iowa.

Jim has written a number of articles, which have been published in various professional law enforcement journals.

E-Mail: jimr@orangecitycomm.net

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

---