Quote:

---

I love being a conservative. We conservatives are proud of our philosophy. Unlike our liberal friends, who are constantly looking for new words to conceal their true beliefs and are in a perpetual state of reinvention, we conservatives are unapologetic about our ideals. We are confident in our principles and energetic about openly advancing them. We believe in individual liberty, limited government, capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society and national security. We support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner rights and the war on terrorism. And at our core we embrace and celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any nation--the U.S. Constitution. Along with the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes our God-given natural right to be free, it is the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled us to flourish as a people.

We conservatives are never stronger than when we are advancing our principles. And that's the nature of our current debate over the nomination of Harriet Miers. Will she respect the Constitution? Will she be an originalist who will accept the limited role of the judiciary to interpret and uphold it, and leave the elected branches--we, the people--to set public policy? Given the extraordinary power the Supreme Court has seized from the representative parts of our government, this is no small matter. Roe v. Wade is a primary example of judicial activism. Regardless of one's position on abortion, seven unelected and unaccountable justices simply did not have the constitutional authority to impose their pro-abortion views on the nation. The Constitution empowers the people, through their elected representatives in Congress or the state legislatures, to make this decision.

Abortion is only one of countless areas in which a mere nine lawyers in robes have imposed their personal policy preferences on the rest of us. The court has conferred due process rights on terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay and benefits on illegal immigrants. It has ruled that animated cyberspace child pornography is protected speech, but certain broadcast ads aired before elections are illegal; it has held that the Ten Commandments can't be displayed in a public building, but they can be displayed outside a public building; and the court has invented rationales to skirt the Constitution, such as using foreign law to strike down juvenile death penalty statutes in over a dozen states.

For decades conservatives have considered judicial abuse a direct threat to our Constitution and our form of government. The framers didn't create a judicial oligarchy. They created a representative republic. Our opposition to judicial activism runs deep. We've witnessed too many occasions where Republican presidents have nominated the wrong candidates to the court, and we want more assurances this time--some proof. The left, on the other hand, sees the courts as the only way to advance their big-government agenda. They can't win national elections if they're open about their agenda. So, they seek to impose their policies by judicial fiat. It's time to call them on it. And that's what many of us had hoped and expected when the president made his nomination.

Some liberal commentators mistakenly view the passionate debate among conservatives over the Miers nomination as a "crackup" on the right. They are giddy about "splits" in the conservative base of the GOP. They are predicting doom for the rest of the president's term and gloom for Republican electoral chances in 2006. As usual, liberals don't understand conservatives and never will.

The Miers nomination shows the strength of the conservative movement. This is no "crackup." It's a crackdown. We conservatives are unified in our objectives. And we are organized to advance them. The purpose of the Miers debate is to ensure that we are doing the very best we can to move the nation in the right direction. And when all is said and done, we will be even stronger and more focused on our agenda and defeating those who obstruct it, just in time for 2006 and 2008. Lest anyone forget, for several years before the 1980 election, we had knockdown battles within the GOP. The result: Ronald Reagan won two massive landslides.

The real crackup has already occurred--on the left! The Democratic Party has been hijacked by 1960s retreads like Howard Dean; billionaire eccentrics like George Soros; and leftwing computer geeks like Moveon.org. It nominated John Kerry, a notorious Vietnam-era antiwar activist, as its presidential standard-bearer. Its major spokesmen are old extremists like Ted Kennedy and new propagandists like Michael Moore. Its great presidential hope is one of the most divisive figures in U.S. politics, Hillary Clinton. And its favorite son is an impeached, disbarred, held-in-contempt ex-president, Bill Clinton.

The Democratic Party today is split over the war and a host of cultural issues, such as same-sex marriage and partial birth abortion. It wants to raise taxes, but dares not say so. It can't decide what message to convey to the American people or how to convey it. And even its once- reliable allies in the big media aren't as influential in promoting the party and its agenda as they were in the past. The new media--talk radio, the Internet and cable TV--not only have a growing following, but have helped expose the bias and falsehoods of the big-media, e.g., Dan Rather, CBS News and the forged National Guard documents. Hence, circulation and audience is down, and dropping.

The American left is stuck trying to repeat the history of its presumed glory years. They hope people will see Iraq as Vietnam, the entirety of the Bush administration as Watergate and Hurricane Katrina as the Great Depression. Beyond looking to the past for their salvation, the problem is that they continue to deceive even themselves. None of their comparisons are true. Meanwhile, we conservatives will continue to focus on making history.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Skywalken:
Rush Limbaugh has written a great article titled, "Holding Court: There's a crackdown over Miers, not a crackup." It's about the conservative reaction to President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers.

It's a good read:

Quote:

---

I love being a conservative. We conservatives are proud of our philosophy. Unlike our liberal friends, who are constantly looking for new words to conceal their true beliefs and are in a perpetual state of reinvention, we conservatives are unapologetic about our ideals. We are confident in our principles and energetic about openly advancing them.

---

---

Quote:

---

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Knibblet:
If you don't like abortion - don't have one.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Howard:
Do you people even realise how outside of
the USA the notion of anyone listening to
the likes of Rush Limbaugh is enough to
make millions of people die from laughing
so hard???!!!!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Knibblet:
What's the difference between Rush Limbaugh and the Hindenburg?
One's a flaming nazi gasbag and the other a durigible.

In the words of the flaming nazi gasbag: "Abortion is only one of countless areas in which a mere nine lawyers in robes have imposed their personal policy preferences on the rest of us."

If you don't like abortion - don't have one.

Keep your friggin hands and religion off my ovaries. Keep your prudish narrow-minded bigotry out of my bedroom and shut the hell up about your addictive need for superstition and how your favorite made up deity can beat up someone else's favorite made up deity.

Stop pretending to be the saviour of the downtrodden when what you're really after is more of what makes the world go round ... money, power and oil.

I used to be such a 'born again' prig. Once I gave up the idea on that train that never comes, I've been so much happier.

For those who found my comments offensive: I'm betting I'm offended more by the hubris of the current administration.

---

Quote:

---

Any honest neurologist will tell you that a human fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks. This is probably a conservatively late estimate, but it is scientifically solid. Elements of the pain-conveying system (spino-thalamic system) begin to be assembled at 7 weeks; enough development has occurred by 12-14 weeks that some pain perception is likely, and continues to build through the second trimester. By 20 weeks, the spino- thalamic system is fully established and connected.

---

Quote:

---

KNIBBLET: What's the difference between Rush Limbaugh and the Hindenburg? One's a flaming nazi gasbag and the other a durigible.

CAUSAL: Hmmm...offensive anyone? Nothing like unintelligent ad hominem attacks to bolster your case.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Thanks for the laugh Knibblet!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

KNIBBLET: What's the difference between Rush Limbaugh and the Hindenburg? One's a flaming nazi gasbag and the other a durigible.

CAUSAL: Hmmm...offensive anyone? Nothing like unintelligent ad hominem attacks to bolster your case.

---

Offensive??? Hell no! I spewed coffee all over the monitor when I read this, and ran around the lab repeating the joke to everyone who could understand it through the chuckling!

Thanks for the laugh Knibblet!

Please don't think they give a shit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reallykaylee:
integrity. it's what matters most in a (wo)man running for president. somehow i think we're a little better off with bush and cheney than coulter and limbaugh.




shakespeare: more words than God.

---

Quote:

---

Look at Ohio. Here we have a Republican Governor with the lowest approval rating in history and two Senators who are disliked from Erie to the Ohio. Are any of these seats vulnerable to democrats. Ask anyone outside Ohio and the answer is yes, send money. Here in the state, however, the answer is a deafening NO. We may not be voting for those guys, but we sure aint voting for your guys, so the Republicans will put up someone better and keep control, Democrats will spend millions and do no better then they did last time or spend much less and do no worse.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Conscience:


A 20-30 week old fetus actually will feel more pain than an adult. The period between 20-30 weeks is a uniquely vulnerable time, since the pain system is fully established, yet the higher level pain-modifying system has barely begun to develop.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Skywalken:
Rush Limbaugh has written a great article titled, "Holding Court: There's a crackdown over Miers, not a crackup."

---

Quote:

---

I can't imagine something more offensive than the whole made-up deity thing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by christhecynic:
By definition an originalist is one who follows the original intent of the constitution, by the English language:

Quote:

---

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

---

the intent of the Second Amendment was to strengthen a well regulated militia. As such an originalist in the Supreme Court would be forced to decide that either:
a) The Militia should be reinstated
b) The right to bear arms is not protected by the Second Amendment at this time

The National Guard does its job quite nicely and, to my knowledge, it is not in the power of the court to reinstate the militia anyway. As such an originalist in the court would be forced to overturn any gun rights claimed to result from the second amendment.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I more or less toss Jove and Minerva into the same bag as the ocelot god, Harvey, Jaweh, Moloch, Tiamat, and Shiva.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Conscience:


Any honest neurologist will tell you that a human fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Skywalken:
: We are confident in our principles and energetic about openly advancing them. We believe in... a color-blind society...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

I can't imagine something more offensive than the whole made-up deity thing.

---

I assume ALL deities are made up, don't you? I more or less toss Jove and Minerva into the same bag as the ocelot god, Harvey, Jaweh, Moloch, Tiamat, and Shiva. I guess I'm just an equal-opportunity offender.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RocketJock:
Huh? Excuse me, I was born in the fifties and grew up in the sixties. Back then, racial equality was a crazy liberal daydream. J. Edgar Hoover, you might recall, worked on the principal that the Civil Rights Movement received its orders direct from Moscow, since obviously Negroes couldn't have possibly organized the thing themselves.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by christhecynic:
By definition an originalist is one who follows the original intent of the constitution, by the English language:

Quote:

---

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

---

the intent of the Second Amendment was to strengthen a well regulated militia. As such an originalist in the Supreme Court would be forced to decide that either:
a) The Militia should be reinstated
b) The right to bear arms is not protected by the Second Amendment at this time

The National Guard does its job quite nicely and, to my knowledge, it is not in the power of the court to reinstate the militia anyway. As such an originalist in the court would be forced to overturn any gun rights claimed to result from the second amendment.

---

If you assume that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” actually means that the right should be infringed then you might have a point. But that’s not what it says. It says that since the framers of the Constitution believed that the states should have a Well Regulated Militia then the people should have the Constitutional right to form that Militia. What you are saying is since the people have not necessarily formed that Militia that the right should be taken away, but no where in the Constitution does it say that a right is lost if it is not exercised. So an originalist would insist that the right to keep and bear arms exists whether or not modern societies views the right necessary or not.

On another point, I would say this quite clearly defines the Postmodern Conservative philosophy as I’ve understood it.

“Unlike our liberal friends, who are constantly looking for new words to conceal their true beliefs and are in a perpetual state of reinvention, we conservatives are unapologetic about our ideals. We are confident in our principles and energetic about openly advancing them. We believe in individual liberty, limited government, capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society and national security. We support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner rights and the war on terrorism. And at our core we embrace and celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any nation--the U.S. Constitution. Along with the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes our God-given natural right to be free, it is the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled us to flourish as a people.”

And if those outside the US (or inside the US) wish to despise Americans for holding such beliefs, I think they should have such freedom.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

---

Quote:

---

2.2 That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
2.3 Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
2.4 But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

---