Saturday, May 21, 2011

Dark-Elves Invade Mexico!

Elfish Excerpts:

"The customer known only as "Cesar of Huizache" had an odd request for shoemaker Dario Calderon: He showed him a cell-phone photo of a sequined cowboy boot with pointy toes so long, they curled up toward the knees. He wanted a pair, but with longer toes."

"But as with every youthful fad, the pointy boots already are being replaced by low-rise Roper style boots, which also have lower heels."

Death to Communism


Dear My Real Name,

The Obama Administration is out of control, and I need your help to stop it.

Last month, Obama's hand-picked Acting General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a complaint against Boeing for creating over 1000 jobs in Right to Work South Carolina rather than forced-unionism Washington state.

Imagine job providers like Boeing across America forced to close up shop at the whim of union-label Obama appointees, who only care about job growth if it pads Big Labor's coffers with forced union dues!

Our still-struggling economy can't afford another Obama assault of this magnitude.

Not only that, it's plain wrong to tell a business where it can and cannot create jobs in the United States.

That's why 34 Republican Senators introduced the Job Protection Act (S. 964) last week -- and why I need your help right away.

It's vital you contact your U.S. Senators right away and insist they protect American jobs and oppose the Obama Administration's scheme to undermine all 22 state Right to Work laws.

Please click here to send your Senators a free actionfax urging them to support the Job Protection Act (S. 964).

If you Senator was among the 34 original cosponsors, your faxed petition will encourage them to stand strong against the union bosses who will fight tooth-and-nail to keep their ill-gotten gains.

And your signed petitions will put the Senators who did not cosponsor on notice that there's a tidal wave of support for the Job Protection Act.

The NLRB's outrageous power grab is a tacit admission by the Obama Administration and Big Labor that Right to Work laws spur job creation and economic growth.

In fact, the evidence is clear, as economists Art Laffer and Stephen Moore argued recently in the Wall Street Journal:
As of today there are 22 right-to-work states and 28 union-shop states. Over the past decade (2000-09) the right-to-work states grew faster in nearly every respect than their union-shop counterparts: 54.6% versus 41.1% in gross state product, 53.3% versus 40.6% in personal income, 11.9% versus 6.1% in population, and 4.1% versus -0.6% in payrolls.
In fact, many business won't even consider forced-unionism states when deciding to relocate or expand their businesses.

And now the Obama Labor Board is persecuting Boeing for daring to create new jobs while the national unemployment rate remains over eight percent for the twenty-seventh straight month.

The union czars and the allies in the Obama Administration want to send a message to every job provider nationwide: Create nonunion jobs at your own peril.

It's vital concerned citizens like you and me send a message right back.

So please, sign the petition to your U.S. Senators insisting they support the Job Protection Act (S. 964).

You can bet the union bosses will turn up the heat on every member of the Senate to kill the bill.

Your fax petition will be used to encourage the 34 cosponsors to push for passage even when the union bosses howl in protest and put the remaining Senators on notice that there's a tidal wave of support for the Job Protection Act.

That's why it's vital you act right away.

Thanks to the Obama bureaucracy's latest assault against the free enterprise system and worker freedom, every state Right to Work law is in jeopardy.

Click here to submit your free fax authorization toinsist your U.S. Senators support the Job Protection Bill (S. 964).

There's no time to waste. Please act NOW!


Mark Mix

P.S. The Acting General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board has agreed with International Association of Machinists union bosses who want to shut down Boeing's Dreamliner plant in South Carolina because they can’t force the 1000+ workers to pay any union dues or “fees.”

The complaint against Boeing is an assault on state Right to Work laws that spur job growth and innovation -- exactly why Boeing opted to create the new jobs in South Carolina.

Please click here to sign your free action faxauthorization urging your U.S. Senators to protect state Right to Work laws by supporting the Job Protection Act (S. 964).

The National Right to Work Committee is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, single-purpose citizens' organization dedicated to combating compulsory unionism through an aggressive program designed to mobilize public opposition to compulsory unionism and, at the same time, enlist public support for Right to Work legislation.  The Committee's mailing address is 8001 Braddock Road, Springfield, Virginia 22160.  The Committee can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-325-7892.  Its web address is

Friday, May 20, 2011


April 6, 2011

When Wisconsin Democrats fled the state in order to avoid voting on splendiferous public sector union contracts, did they happen to notice that the rest of the country is in the midst of a massive recession?

For years, Democrats have been using taxpayer money so that their buddies in public sector unions never have to know when there's a recession. People who are already suffering have to suffer more so that those who are doing pretty well don't have to suffer at all.

The high salaries and magnificent benefits paid to government employees are used to fund the public sector unions, which then funnel a portion of that money back to the Democrats, who vote for the pay packages of government workers. The unions function as a pass-through from the taxpayers straight to Democrats running for re-election.

As a result, taxpayers are paying people to continually raise their taxes.

In 2010, three of the five top campaign contributors to the Democrats were public sector unions. Service Employees International was No. 2 at $11.6 million in campaign contributions to Democrats, the National Education Association was No. 3 at $8 million, and the American Federation of Teachers was No. 5 at $7 million. (To put that in perspective, that's even more than the $1 million given to Obama in 2008 by his second-largest contributor, Goldman Sachs!)

Liberals don't love big government because they think it's efficient, compassionate, fair or even remotely useful. They support big government because they are guaranteed the support of nearly everyone who works for the government.

Public sector employee contracts are written by the union and rubber-stamped by Democrats -- and the taxpayers only find out years later that public school teachers are allowed to get a full year's pay for 30 days' work over three years after they retire -- as is the case in Green Bay, Wis., where one out of every 12 teachers retired this year to take advantage of the "emeritus" scam.

This is what all the commotion is about in Wisconsin. Republican Gov. Scott Walker isn't even trying to eliminate collective bargaining for government workers' salaries. He only wants to eliminate collective bargaining over their conditions of employment, which has led to massive inefficiencies.

Thanks to union grievance procedures, the union representing school crossing guards filed a formal complaint over a sweet old man volunteering to get the kids across the street in Wausau, Wis. Warren Eschenbach, an 86-year-old retiree, had been volunteering each morning as a crossing guard at a school near his home. But according to the union, only a highly paid government employee should be permitted to do that job.

Fifth-grader Megan Sichterman, told WAOW, an ABC affiliate, "I was really sad because all the kids really like him. He's really nice to everybody, and I was kind of scared at the same time that we wouldn't see him on the corner anymore."

Even in the middle of the battle over collective bargaining rights for government unions, just last month the snowplow operators' union filed a grievance against Racine, Wis., to demand paid days off for snowplow operators ... after a snowstorm.

After a massive storm shut down the city for two days, snowplow operators thought they deserved two paid days off on account of all the snow, like other government employees got.

The snowplowers' union also filed a grievance against the city for hiring private plowing services to help with the snow removal. Perhaps it was that troublemaker Warren Eschenbach showing up with a snow shovel and volunteering to help clear the streets.

No government snowplow operators were laid off and plenty of them worked overtime after the blizzard -- but the union thought Racine should remain immobilized by snow for a week so that government snowplow operators could get even more overtime.

In the private sector, a company that capitulated to such ludicrous union demands would go out of business -- as would have happened to General Motors if the government hadn't taken it over. Offered substandard products at exorbitant prices, the consumer would buy from a competitor.

But with government, the consumer has no choice: We have to buy from the company store. Government employees will always have more passion and commitment about increasing their own salaries and perks than will the taxpayers, who have to worry about their own jobs and salaries. The public -- especially the taxpayer -- will always lose.

That is simply a fact about government jobs that can't be avoided. What doesn't make sense is to implement a system that invites this kind of mutual back-scratching between the Democrats and public sector unions -- to wit, collective bargaining where there is no "management," but only co-conspirators against the taxpayers on both sides of the bargaining table.


Calling All Facebook Friends

Do We Have a Soul? A Scientific Answer

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Roman salute

19th–20th centuries United States

Children performing the Bellamy salute to the flag of the United States
On October 12, 1892, the Bellamy salute was demonstrated as the hand gesture to accompany the Pledge of Allegiance in the United States. The inventor of the saluting gesture was James B. Upham, junior partner and editor of the The Youth's Companion.[23] Bellamy recalled Upham, upon reading the pledge, came into the posture of the salute, snapped his heels together, and said "Now up there is the flag; I come to salute; as I say 'I pledge allegiance to my flag,' I stretch out my right hand and keep it raised while I say the stirring words that follow."[23]

Because of the similarity between the Bellamy salute and the Nazi salute that emerged in Germany in 1920s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt instituted the hand-over-the-heart gesture as the salute to be rendered by civilians during the Pledge of Allegiance and the national anthem in the United States, instead of the Bellamy salute.[24] This was done when Congress officially adopted the Flag Code on 22 June 1942.[25] There was initially some resistance to dropping the Bellamy salute, for example from the Daughters of the American Revolution.[26]

Similarities between USA and Roman empire

Your Account  •  Become a Member  •  Help  •  Search    
    Forums ›› Main ›› Economics ›› Similarities between USA and Roman empire  

Post A Reply
    Page 1 of 4:   1  2  3  4  
Registered: Feb 2008
Posts: 1041

09-30-08 11:57 PM
Can we make a sensible comparision between the 2 ?

Similarities :

1. Roman empire : bread and circuses
USA : burger and baseball

2. Strongest military force (correct me if I am wrong, I have never been good in history)

3. Extreme decadence

4. Romans <> christians
USA <> Moslims


    Edit/Delete Quote Complain
Registered: Jan 2006
Posts: 1013

10-01-08 12:07 AM

Quote from fluttrader:

Can we make a sensible comparision between the 2 ?

Similarities :

1. Roman empire : bread and circuses
USA : burger and baseball

2. Strongest military force (correct me if I am wrong, I have never been good in history)

3. Extreme decadence

4. Romans <> christians
USA <> Moslims


6. Republic lead by corrupt senate.

7. Currency devalued (gold coins contained less gold towards the end) as debt levels and government expenditures blew out.

8. ...
    Edit/Delete Quote Complain
Registered: Jun 2005
Posts: 5114

10-01-08 12:25 AM
Rome had colonies all over the world
America has military bases all over the world

Rome had the best & most extensive road system in the world
America has the best & most extensive roads in the world

Rome was famous for their gluttonous desire and expenditure of, not only food, but also power.

Americans put their hand over their heart during the national anthem. The Romans were the only other people to do this.

In Rome, if you didnt want a child, you killed it.
In America, if you dont want a child, you kill it. (a.k.a Abortion)

Rome had huge graineries to feed the poor.
America has food stamps.

Roman customs were loosely based of the customs of other nations
America is the cultural "melting pot" of the world.

Rome was over-extended and eventually had trouble maintaining their empire.
America is in a credit crisis.

Rome was then sacked by barbarians...
America was sacked by....oh wait...hasnt happened yet. Guess we will know the answer to this question soon.

    Edit/Delete Quote Complain
Registered: Jan 2004
Posts: 1500

10-01-08 12:26 AM
who cares. how do we make money trading
    Edit/Delete Quote Complain
Registered: Oct 2008
Posts: 1

10-01-08 12:29 AM
8. More soldiers deployed outside the nation offensively than inside defensively.

9. Democracy for american citizens in America only. The rest are treated like iraqis

Quote from peilthetraveler:

Rome had colonies all over the world
America has military bases all over the world

Rome had the best & most extensive road system in the world
America has the best & most extensive roads in the world

Rome was famous for their gluttonous desire and expenditure of, not only food, but also power.

Americans put their hand over their heart during the national anthem. The Romans were the only other people to do this.

In Rome, if you didnt want a child, you killed it.
In America, if you dont want a child, you kill it. (a.k.a Abortion)

Rome had huge graineries to feed the poor.
America has food stamps.

Roman customs were loosely based of the customs of other nations
America is the cultural "melting pot" of the world.

Rome was over-extended and eventually had trouble maintaining their empire.
America is in a credit crisis.

Rome was then sacked by barbarians...
America was sacked by....oh wait...hasnt happened yet. Guess we will know the answer to this question soon.

    Edit/Delete Quote Complain
Registered: Mar 2008
Posts: 589

10-01-08 12:34 AM
Rome 23bc - 476 ad = 499 years

America 1776 - present = 232 years


    Edit/Delete Quote Complain
    Page 1 of 4:   1  2  3  4  
Post A Reply

Receive an email whenever a new post is added to this thread by subscribing to it.
Rate This Thread:

Forum Jump:


Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Magical thinking

Magical thinking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Magical thinking is causal reasoning that looks for correlation between acts or utterances and certain events. In religion, folk religion and superstition, the correlation posited is between religious ritual, such as prayer, sacrifice or the observance of a taboo, and an expected benefit or recompense. In clinical psychology, magical thinking is a condition that causes the patient to experience irrational fear of performing certain acts or having certain thoughts because they assume a correlation with their acts and threatening calamities.
"Quasi-magical thinking" describes "cases in which people act as if they erroneously believe that their action influences the outcome, even though they do not really hold that belief".[1]



Evan Longoria's Crazy Bare Hand Catch

Lewis Black

"The only thing dumber than a Democrat or a Republican is when those pricks work together. You see, in our two-party system, the Democrats are the party of no ideas and the Republicans are the party of bad ideas. It usually goes something like this...A Republican will stand up in Congress and say, 'I've got a really bad idea,' and a Democrat will immediately jump to his feet and declare, 'And I can make it shittier.'"
 ~Lewis Black

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Robert F. Nagel

Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty
Robert F. Nagel

Rothgerber Professor of Constitutional Law
Constitutional Law University of Colorado Law School
430 Wolf Law Building
401 UCB
Boulder, CO  80309-0401
Phone: (303) 492-8428

Curriculum Vitae:  View (PDF format)
Educational Background:
B.A.   Swarthmore College      with High Honors, Phi Beta Kappa
J.D.   Yale Law School     

Robert Nagel joined the faculty of Colorado Law School in 1975, leaving a position as a deputy attorney general in Pennsylvania. Since that time, he has focused on constitutional law and theory. For an audience of legal scholars, Professor Nagel has written prolifically, including four books and over 50 law review articles. However, he has also contributed to the popular debate on constitutional issues, including free speech, hate codes, and federalism, by addressing his ideas to the general citizenry in articles and opinion pieces in publications such as The New Republic, the Wall Street Journal, First Things, and Washington Monthly. Much of his work has focused on the relationship between the judiciary (and its interpretation of the Constitution) and the wider context of American political culture. His two earlier books on this topic, Constitutional Cultures: The Mentality and Consequences of Judicial Review and Judicial Power and American Character: Censoring Ourselves in an Anxious Age, were widely read and reviewed. He has recently completed The Implosion of American Federalism, a book on the cultural and constitutional ramifications of political centralization. Professor Nagel has testified before several congressional committees. He was formerly the director of the Law School's Byron R. White Center for the Study of American Constitutional Law. In 2003, he was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Published Books
Unrestrained: Judicial Excess and the Mind of the American Lawyer, Transaction Publishers (2008).
The Implosion of American Federalism, (Oxford University Press) (2001).
Judicial Power and American Character: Censoring Ourselves in An Anxious Age, (1996).
Constitutional Cultures: The Mentality and Consequences of Judicial Review, (1989).

Stevens, the Radical, The Weekly Standard, Apr. 26, 2010, at 11. (2010).
The Hot Seat, Nat'l Rev., June 8, 2009, at 46 (reviewing Lucas A. Powe, Jr., The Supreme Court and the American Elite, 1789-2008) (2009).
Questioning Sotomayor: The Senate Hearings Needn't Be Worthless, The Weekly Standard, July 13, 2009, at 8 (2009).
The Incivility Epidemic: How the Supreme Court's Defamation Decisions Coarsened Our Public Life, The Weekly Standard, Dec. 7, 2009, at 18 (2009).
R-e-s-p-e-c-t: The Next Stage in Litigating Same-Sex Marriage, The Weekly Standard, Oct. 13, at 16. (2008).
Voting Rights and Wrongs,, Claremont Rev. Bks. 40 (Winter 2008/09) (reviewing Anthony A. Peacock, Deconstructing the Republic: Voting Rights, the Supreme Court, and the Founders' Republicanism Reconsidered (2008).
Marriage and Practical Knowledge, 50 S. Tex. L. Rev. 37 (Symposium: Gay Marriage in the Conservative Movement) (2008).
Conservative Judicial Activism?: Inventing a Constitutional Right to "Medical Self-Defense", The Weekly Standard, Feb. 5, at 25. (2007).
Nagel (with Brad Bernthal et al.), Collaborative Networks and the Alaska Land Mobile Radio System: A Framework for Analyzing Inter-Agency People Problems Which Frustrate Public Safety Interoperability, (TPRC Sept. 2007) (2007).
Bowing to Precedent: A Decent Respect for the Constitution Should Cause the Supreme Court to Reconsider Some Past Decisions, The Weekly Standard, Apr. 17, 2006, at 24. (2006).
Journalists and Judges: Neither Can Be Trusted to Make Good Decisions About Secrecy, The Weekly Standard, Dec. 4, 2006, at 14. (2006).
Limiting the Court by Limiting Life Tenure, in Reforming the Court: Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices 127, Roger C. Cramton & Paul D. Carrington eds. (2006).
On the Decline of Federalism, Daedalus, Winter 2006, at 127. (2006).
Ignoring the Obvious, Claremont Review of Books (2005).
A Comment on "Everything I Know About Marriage I Learned from Law Professors", San Diego L. Rev. (2005).
The Problem With the Court: Well, the Justices, Being Lawyers, Think Like Them, Nat'l Rev., Nov. 21, 2005, at 43. (2005).
Diversity and the Practice of Interest Assessment, 53 Duke L.J. 1515 (2004).
Common Sense and Common Law, First Things 42 (February) (2004).
States and Localities: A Comment on Robert Nisbet's Communitarianism, 34 Publius 125 (2004).
Selective Justice, Claremont Rev. Books, Fall 2005, at 58-59 (reviewing Michael Comiskey, Seeking Justices: The Judging of Supreme Court Nominees (2004).
Marbury v. Madison and Modern Judicial Review, 38 Wake Forest Law Review 613 (2003).
Six Opinions by Mr. Justice Stevens: A New Methodology for Constitutional Cases?, 78 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 509 (2003).
Justice Stevens' Religion Problem, First Things 9 (June/July) (2003).
Judicial Power and the Restoration of Federalism, 574 Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 52 (2001).
Nationalized Political Discourse, 69 Fordham Law Review 101 (2001).
Privacy and Celebrity: An Essay on the Nationalization of Intimacy, 33 U. Richmond L. Rev. 1121 (2000).
Indirect Constitutional Discourse: A Comment on Meese, 63 Law and Contemporary Problems 101 (2000).
Judges and Federalism: A Comment on "Justice Kennedy's Vision of Federalism", 31 Rutgers Law Journal 539 (2000).
Lies and Law, 22 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 605 (1999).
Judicial Supremacy and the Settlement Function, 39 William & Mary Law Review 849 (1998).
Playing Defense in Colorado, First Things 34, May (1998).
Advice, Consent, and Influence, 84 Nw. U. L. Rev. 858 (1990).
Political Law, Legalistic Politics: A Recent History of The Political Question Dectrine, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 643 (1989).
Controlling the Structural Injunction, 7 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Policy 395 (1984).

Other Publications
Judicial Power and Cultural Damage: Lessons from America, in Public Interest Litigation: New Zealand Experience In International Perspective 101 (Bigwood ed., LexisNexis) (2006).
American Judicial Review in Perspective, in Protecting Human rights in Australia 225 (Campbell, et al. ed., Ashgate) (2006).
Limiting the Court by Limiting Life Tenure, in Carrington & Crampton (eds.), Life Tenure (2005).
Supreme Chaos, Wall Street Journal, March 7, at A18 (2005).
Law Schools Are Bad for Democracy, Wall Street Journal at A16 (2004).
Nationhood and Judicial Supremacy, in (Wolfe, ed.) That Eminent Tribunal: Judicial Supremacy and the Constitution (Princeton University Press) (2004).
From U.S. v. Nixon to Bush v. Gore, Weekly Standard 20 (2000).
The High (and Mighty) Court, Wall Street Journal, June 30 at A18 (2000).

Book Chapters
Nagel (Stanley N. Katz), Judicial Power, in The Oxford International Encyclopedia of Legal History 406 (2009).
Federalism and Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), in, Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court of the United States (David S. Tanenhaus ed., Macmillan Reference USA) (2008).
Principle, Prudence, and Judicial Power, in The Judiciary and American Democracy: Alexander Bickel the Countermajoritarian Difficulty and Contemporary Constitutional Theory 9 (K. Ward ed., State University of New York Press) (2006).

Spring 2011 Constitutional Law LAWS 6005-802
Spring 2011 Constitutional Theory LAWS 8015-801
Fall 2010 First Amendment LAWS 7015-001
Fall 2010 Constitutional Theory LAWS 8015-001
Spring 2010 Constitutional Law LAWS 6005-802
Spring 2010 Constitutional Theory LAWS 8015-801
Fall 2009 First Amendment LAWS 7015-001
Fall 2009 Constitutional Theory LAWS 8015-001
Spring 2009 Constitutional Law LAWS 6005-802
Spring 2009 Constitutional Theory LAWS 8015-801
Fall 2008 First Amendment LAWS 7015-001
Fall 2008 Constitutional Theory LAWS 8015-001
Spring 2008 Constitutional Law LAWS 6005-801
Spring 2008 Constitutional Theory LAWS 8015-801
Fall 2007 First Amendment LAWS 7015-001
Fall 2007 Constitutional Theory LAWS 8015-001
Spring 2007 Constitutional Law LAWS 6005-802

Monday, May 16, 2011


"Humanitarian" seems to be the Democrats' new word for "absolutely no national interest."

The Democrats were not so interested in a "humanitarian" intervention against a much more brutal dictator in Iraq. But, of course, taking out Saddam Hussein, a state sponsor of terrorism who harbored one of the perpetrators of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, would make Americans safer.

Democrats are furious whenever American boys (girls and gays) are put in harm's way -- unless the troops are on a mission that has nothing whatsoever to do with defending the United States.

Obama ignored the murder, imprisonment and torture of peaceful Iranian protesters demonstrating against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's theft of an election in 2009. But he was hopping mad about Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak getting rough with a mob in Tahrir Square with less distinct objectives.

We knew what the Iranian students wanted: a stolen election overturned.

What did the Egyptians want? At the time, liberals angrily cited the high unemployment rate in Egypt as proof that Mubarak was a beast who must step down.

Have they, by any chance, seen the recent employment numbers for the U.S.? The only employment sectors showing any growth are Hollywood sober-living coaches and medical marijuana dispensaries. Are we one jobs report away from liberals rioting in the streets?

As The New York Times recently reported, since Mubarak stepped down, the driving force in the new government is the Muslim Brotherhood. America is worse off because Mubarak stepped down, which was Obama's exact foreign policy objective.

On Monday night, Obama gave a speech intended to explain America's mission and purpose in our new Libyan adventure. He said: "Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different."

He forgot to add: "However, the United States of America will be turning a blind eye to atrocities in Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, the Ivory Coast and Bahrain."

One searches in vain for a description of some American interest in supporting the rebels in Libya.

True, Gadhafi was responsible for numerous terrorist acts against Americans in the 1980s, including blowing up Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, killing 270 people, including 189 Americans.

Soon after President Bush's 9/11 speech vowing to go to war not only with terrorists, but those who supported them, Gadhafi accepted responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing and paid the victims' families $8 million apiece.

After Bush invaded Iraq, Gadhafi suspended Libya's nuclear and chemical weapons program, inviting international inspectors to verify that the programs had been halted.

A few years after that, Gadhafi paid millions of dollars to the victims of other Libyan-sponsored terrorist attacks from the '80s. In return, President Bush granted Libya immunity from terror-related lawsuits.

Only Fox News' Bill O'Reilly thinks Obama is intervening in Libya to avenge the Lockerbie bombing.

However far off the mark Gadhafi is from being the Libyan George Washington, he poses no threat to the U.S. -- whereas the rebels we are supporting might.

But Democrats couldn't care less about the interests of their own country. Indeed, if there were the slightest possibility that our intervention in Libya would somehow benefit the United States, they would hysterically oppose it.

When it came to the Iraq War -- which actually served America's security interests -- Democrats demanded proof that Saddam Hussein was 10 minutes away from launching a first strike against the U.S. They denounced the Iraq War nonstop, wailing that Saddam hadn't hit us on 9/11 and that he posed no "imminent threat" to America.

What imminent threat does Libya pose to the U.S.? How will our interests be served by putting the rebels in charge?

Obama didn't even suggest the possibility that our Libyan intervention serves the nation's interest. Last weekend, his defense secretary, Robert Gates, said the uprising in Libya "was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest." So, not a vital interest, but an interest. Like scrapbooking, surfing or Justin Bieber.

When it came to Iraq, liberals proclaimed that invading a country "only" to produce a regime change was unjustifiable, contrary to international law, and a grievous affront to the peace-loving Europeans.

But they like regime change in Egypt, Libya -- and the Balkans. The last military incursion supported by liberals was Clinton's misadventure in the Balkans -- precisely because Slobodan Milosevic posed no conceivable threat to the United States.

Indeed, President Clinton bragged: "This is America at its best. We seek no territorial gain; we seek no political advantage." Democrats see our voluntary military supported by taxpayer dollars as their personal Salvation Army.

Self-interested behavior, such as deploying troops to serve the nation, is considered boorish in Manhattan salons.

The only just wars, liberals believe, are those in which the United States has no stake. Liberals warm to the idea of deploying expensive, taxpayer-funded military machinery and putting American troops in harm's way, but only for military incursions that serve absolutely no American interest.


Sunday, May 15, 2011


-view CSL mobile version -

Webring Translator Thingamajig

Well, you've scrolled to the bottom, press start and help CSL for free!