Rightank

I know that the President’s SOTU address is now old news, but, I haven’t had time to post my “two cents” on President Bush’s Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) snub.

Comparing President Bush’s 2005 SOTU with his 2006 SOTU, Bush stepped back from directly supporting the FMA, completely ommitting any reference of support:

2005

Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.

2006

Yet many Americans, especially parents, still have deep concerns about the direction of our culture, and the health of our most basic institutions. They’re concerned about unethical conduct by public officials, and discouraged by activist courts that try to redefine marriage.

The difference in rhetoric is not a distinction without a difference. In 2005, Bush explicitly stated his support for a FMA. Yet, in 2006 Bush relegates marriage to a half a sentence, lumping it alongside scandalous conduct by Washington politicians. Bush implies that while activist courts still threaten to replace traditional marriage with same-sex marriage, the FMA is not part of the solution.

Bush’s decison–or perhaps that of his speechwriter(s)–to sidestep the FMA raises a gentle suspicion that Bush’s support of the FMA might be waning. One wonders how much VP Cheney’s nonsupport of the FMA in method (believes the decision should be left to individual state legislatures) or in priniciple (does not favor a complete ban on same-sex marriage) factors into Bush’s apparent neglect of supporting or encouraging the FMA’s passage. Looking back at the 2004 SOTU, Bush’s 2006 snub of support for a constitutional amendment protecting marriage is disconcerting:

A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act . . . That statute protects marriage under federal law as a union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states.

Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people’s voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their abitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

President Bush plays a crucial part in the constitutional amendment process he explicitly refered to in 2004 and 2005. Similar to Bush’s strident defense of wiretapping American communicants of Al Qaeda, Bush should vociferously urge Congress to pass the FMA when introduced again in the House and Senate. That is, if he still believes America should “defend the sanctity of marriage.” By failing to pass the FMA, America places its hope in an unelected branch of government which if unchecked by the masses, will redefine marriage, furthering acerbating the problems of family that threaten to cripple our nation’s social fabric. Please, Mr. President, don’t cloister your support for the FMA.

There is good news on the horizon for Marriage Amendment supporters. NRO’s Steve Spuriell revealed that Republican Study Committee (”RSC”) Chairman Mike Pence said that the top three areas of focus among the conservative Republicans who are members of the RSC are “budget, marriage, and ethics.” Further, each candidate for Majority Leader (Blunt, Boehner, and Shadegg) were questioned on “legislative strategy” and “timing” of the Marriage Amendment. Congressman Pence described the push for a Marriage Amendment as “standing up for the sanctity of marriage.”

This is great news for true conservative (economic and social) Republicans. I am very pleased with Congressman Pence’s position on the importance of marriage–placing it ahead of ethics, which is a striking and poignant statement, given the political buzz regarding Abramoff and the polished guffaw Democrats have been nervously confiding to the press about Republican corruption. The vast majority of Americans want to preserve and protect marriage, as evinced by the state majorities who have voted to constitutionalize the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Hopefully, whomever is selected to fill the Majority Leader’s seat, that Republican will be dedicated to putting the Marriage Amendment on the table and then advocating for its passage. Time is of the essence in preventing state and federal courts from usurping the legislature’s constitutional law-making power to force gay marriage on an unwilling American populace.

Nick Danger at RedState suggests that due to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid’s receipt of $60,000 plus in Abramoff money, Reid may be forced to relinquish his coveted Democratic leadership post. Since Abramoff’s multiple convictions for money laundering etc., Reid has insisted that Abramoff is a Republican scandal–perhaps an early attempt to dissuade attempts to uncover his own pocketing of Indian tribe money, courtesy of Abramoff.

However, 40 out of the 45 Democratic Senators received money linked to Abramoff. How will getting rid of Reid help free the dirty Dems from the potential of a scandalous quid pro quo with Abramoff?

It’s not surprising the Reid has denied being a part of Abramoff’s congressional coterie, yet, his dishonest denial of even receiving Abramoff money is characteristic of his duplicitious behavior.

Likely, some Republicans and Democrats will be forced to faced the music over potential Abramoff corruption–which they should.  Giving Reid the boot, whatever Dean or other Democrats think, will not give them the elasticity to pin Abramoff on the Republicans.  Rather, the tail of Abramoff’s corruption has already been pinned . . . on the donkey.

Ah, to be Senator Joe Lieberman. In 2000, he was the Democratic Party’s Vice Presidential nominee. Along side Mr. Internet, Lieberman spoke to a different part of the Democratic party. Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew, was seen as a person who could captivate the “moderate” independent vote for the Gore campaign. Upon learning of the VP nomination, CNN called Lieberman a “moderate Democrat” and portrayed Lieberman as a “style-styled moral crusader.” How times have changed.

Now, Lieberman is in the fight for the right to keep his party’s nomination in his (perhaps) final run for the Connecticut Senate. This change in direction–from running on a presidential ticket to running for his political life– is politically salient not only because of the raucus anti-war crowd mustering Democratic Party support against Lieberman. The ostracism of Lieberman is symptomatic of the takeover of the Democratic Party by the Hard Left, who are anti-war, anti-democratic, and social nihilists–in short, they reject American nationalism, the source of our liberty and freedom.

Lieberman, unlike “genuine political superstar ” Harry Reid and John Kerry, has rejected the Hard Left’s modality of thinking. Lieberman has supported the war effort from the beginning but, unlike most Democratic Senators and most House Democrats who now oppose the War on Terror, Lieberman has not yielded to the pressure of liberal bloggers to give Bush the middle finger.

Today, Lieberman’s fear of retaining his seat forced his decision to vote “No” against the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito. However, his peace offering will not fool those who oppose his re-election. Rather, it signals that 2006 marks the death of the moderate Democrat.

Thirty-three years ago, Justice Harry Blackmun (a recent appointee of President Richard Nixon) wrote the most farcical and constitutionally inaccurate opinion of the 20th Century–Roe v. Wade.

Roe was premised upon the so-called right to privacy which Blackmun “found” in the Constitution. Blackmun, after conducting a judicial séance of the Constitution, found in the murky shadows of due process, liberty, and the prohibition of unlawful searches and seizures penumbras of privacy that guaranteed a woman’s right to abort her child on a whim. The Democratic Party (and Specter) hold Roe up as a holy relic of constitutional history, despite its weak constitutional footing.

I still find in hard to understand how Blackmun could believe that a fetus, the child creation of a mother and father, which he called “unborn” could not be a “person” worthy of protection under the Constitution. I find it harder to believe, constitutional questions aside, that he felt that in his heart and mind, which was the basis of his decision.

My wife and I are expecting are first child. There is absolutely no way you can tell me that our baby is not a person, a living and sentitent being. Blackmun used the label “unborn” to imply that the fetus had no independent life, that it was not a child. However, we are all dependent beings, not independent. Those not “unborn” need oxygen to breath, water to drink, etc. It is impossible to create these vital necessities on our own.

Every child born is precious and deserves protection. Speaking to those who participated in the “March for Life”, President Bush stated:

You believe, as I do, that every human life has value, that the strong have a duty to protect the weak, and that the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence apply to everyone, not just to those considered healthy or wanted or convenient. These principles call us to defend . . . all who are weak and vulnerable, especially unborn children.

Despite my misgivings about Roe, I do believe in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother’s health is in danger, that abortion should be permitted. However, abortion is not the answer for unwanted pregnancy–which is want Roe and its progeny have sanctioned.

Mark Steyn on the problem European demography and its Islamic transformation:

Radical Islam is an opportunistic infection, like AIDS: It’s not the HIV that kills you, it’s the pneumonia you get when your body’s too weak to fight it off. When the jihadists engage with the U.S. military, they lose–as they did in Afghanistan and Iraq. If this were like World War I with those fellows in one trench and us in ours facing them over some boggy piece of terrain, it would be over very quickly. Which the smarter Islamists have figured out. They know they can never win on the battlefield, but they figure there’s an excellent chance they can drag things out until Western civilization collapses in on itself and Islam inherits by default.

The collapse Steyn writes about is not a military collaspe, but a volatile societal collapse beckoning for eruption:

What will Europe be like at the end of this process? Who knows? On the one hand, there’s something to be said for the notion that America will find an Islamified Europe more straightforward to deal with than M. Chirac, Herr Schroeder & Co. On the other hand, given Europe’s track record, getting there could be very bloody. But either way this is the real battlefield. The al Qaeda nutters can never find enough suicidal pilots to fly enough planes into enough skyscrapers to topple America. But unlike us, the Islamists think long-term, and, given their demographic advantage in Europe and the tone of the emerging Muslim lobby groups there, much of what they’re flying planes into buildings for they’re likely to wind up with just by waiting a few more years. The skyscrapers will be theirs; why knock ‘em over? . . .

To avoid collapse, European nations will need to take in immigrants at a rate no stable society has ever attempted. The CIA is predicting the EU will collapse by 2020. Given that the CIA’s got pretty much everything wrong for half a century, that would suggest the EU is a shoo-in to be the colossus of the new millennium. But even a flop spook is right twice a generation. If anything, the date of EU collapse is rather a cautious estimate. It seems more likely that within the next couple of European election cycles, the internal contradictions of the EU will manifest themselves in the usual way, and that by 2010 we’ll be watching burning buildings, street riots and assassinations on American network news every night. Even if they avoid that, the idea of a childless Europe ever rivaling America militarily or economically is laughable. Sometime this century there will be 500 million Americans, and what’s left in Europe will either be very old or very Muslim. Japan faces the same problem: Its population is already in absolute decline, the first gentle slope of a death spiral it will be unlikely ever to climb out of. Will Japan be an economic powerhouse if it’s populated by Koreans and Filipinos? Very possibly. Will Germany if it’s populated by Algerians? That’s a trickier proposition.

If you’re European, you have reason to fear. The amalgamation of “like-minded” states called the European Union won’t save you from the festering population deficiency and Muslim immigration boom influx are facing. The engendered socialism lauded and instilled by the Euro elite has sedated the masses from thinking about the future and what type of European (say Algerian Muslim) is supposed to be counted upon to provide welfare’s suckle thirty years down the road. More Steyn:

What does the Islamification of Europe heed for Americans, apart from the need to promote and reward stable families–two parent, male-female households–from raising children to sustain the American population?

What will London–or Paris, or Amsterdam–be like in the mid-’30s? If European politicians make no serious attempt this decade to wean the populace off their unsustainable 35-hour weeks, retirement at 60, etc., then to keep the present level of pensions and health benefits the EU will need to import so many workers from North Africa and the Middle East that it will be well on its way to majority Muslim by 2035. As things stand, Muslims are already the primary source of population growth in English cities. Can a society become increasingly Islamic in its demographic character without becoming increasingly Islamic in its political character?

Steyn’s last question answers itself (No!) and raises a good point for Americans to ponder: Can our society remain free if religion, particularly Christianity, is stripped from the public square? What will happen if America’s religious demographic is prevented from expressing itself politically?

To deny American’s political character is to deny its religiousity. The adulation of secularism in our law and in our law-making institutions will cripple our will and resolve. An unfettered and allegiant resolve is what we will need to confront the growing crawl of Islamofacism. Eurabia, I’m afraid, is only the beginning.

I’m sure many of you are as frustrated as I am that much of the conservative agenda, such as drilling in ANWR, has not yet been implemented.

Paul Weyrich has an excellent article reasoning that Liberal Republicans–not the House and Senate Republican Leadership–are preventing a more conservative agenda from being enacted into law. Weyrich explains that because the Dems are voting as a block in both the House and the Senate, the 22 to 26 Liberal House Republicans and 7 Liberal Senators have blocked conservative legislation from either moving out of committee or coming to a vote. Here’s Weyrich’s solution:

What is to be done? Most Liberal Republicans have been in Washington long enough to chair either committee or subcommittee. The Leadership should get the Republican Conference in both Houses to adopt a legislative agenda. Senators and Congressmen would be told in advance that the agenda would include party discipline votes. If a Senator or Congressman would not vote for the GOP agenda he or she could not chair a committee or subcommittee. Just watch how reasonable some Liberal Republicans would become. Chairmanships bring prestige. They bring the opportunity to move issues of interest to the chairs. They bring additional staff and monies with which to run the committee or subcommittee. Few willingly would give up those chairmanships for the sake of voting against ANWR or other divisive issues.

Threatening Republicans with the loss of their chairmanships is a great idea though many Republicans would throw a political tantrum. Weyrich expects this but feels the tantrum and potential fallout would be worth it:

The GOP Leadership won’t propose an agenda because it fears that Liberal Republicans would defect to the Democratic Party. I doubt they would. Many of them could not be elected as Democrats. If they were to defect, so be it. If it meant that because of defections the Democrats would control Congress, well and good. Then at least the situation would be clarified, Liberals in one party, Conservatives in the other. Conservatives then could do the real work for which they were elected free of political blackmail by Liberal Republicans. It would be tough medicine to administer. Some Conservatives wouldn’t like it either because they would not want that kind of penalty hanging over their heads.

The Republican Leadership find themselves in a quandry: Get tough with the Liberal Republicans or face voter dissatisfaction at the polls and within the conservative Republican base. It’s time to get tough and let the Liberals fall where they may.

Victor Davis Hanson has a great piece on what lessons American can learn from the ongoing French riots. Importantly, he recognizes that certain facets of the American ethos are necessary in order for national stability and strength:

[T]he United States should return to its former ideal of a multiracial society under the inclusive aegis of Western culture. True, Americans are enriched by cultural diversity in food, fashion and the arts. Yet our core American values of democracy, human rights, private property, a free economy, an unfettered press and unbridled inquiry are not optional or up for discussion. In other words, we succeed precisely because we are the antithesis of a tribal Mexico, unfree China, intolerant Islamic Middle East–or socialist and statist France.

Neither multiculturalists nor moral relativists understand that there is a level of inflexibility in American values. For example, patriotism, faith in God, and hard work, are American values are krypontite to some cultural affirmations or liberal ideals. The core values of Americanism are something we need to immerse youngsters and immigrants–not some Farenheit 9/11 version of America’s founding.

France is hemorrhaging from within because of their lack of a national identity within their immigrant masses. A return to an emphasis in Americanism in our public discourse and places of learning will prevent a cultural rupture within our borders that might occur within a generation’s time.

As a taxpaying citizen, it is agonizing to see money sucked from my wallet and the wallets of other Americans wasted. It is quite another thing to see taxpayer money distributed to non-profit organizations for the betterment of the poor and downtrodden used to promote and financially sustain liberal thought.

Air America, the liberal-leaning, Bush-bashing, talk radio wannabe head-lined by Al Franken received money earmarked for the elderly and inner-city children. The money was funneled from the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club, whose mission statement omits subsidizing terrible talk radio like Air America.

Interestingly, the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club has a program called “Camp Air America.” Camp Air America is a week-long camping extravaganza for kids 8-12, jam-packed with learning opportunities such as ping-pong, cultural fun, and journalism. And of course, Camp Air America is open to all 8 year-old kids regardless of their sexual orientation!

That money is being funneled from a liberal non-profit to sustain a beleaguered station like Air America is not that surprising. Moreover, the clear attempt to indoctrinate impressionable youths to the garbage and sludge that flows from the mouthpieces of Air America by the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club is very disturbing. Their federal and state funding should be cut. The executives should be investigated. They should be ashamed and disgusted. Taking money from the poor and giving it to the an elitist station like Air America. I guess that made the liberals that run Gloria Wise feel better than helping impoverished kids.

How much more can Air America take (besides the bad ratings, mediocre performance, and lack of ad revenue?)

Check out Michelle Malkin’s blog for an excellent wrap-up of events and persuasive analysis of Al Franken’s botched attempt to smooth over the fraudulent business of Air America.

Sandy “Burglar” Berger, former National Security Adviser to “Slick Willy” Clinton, commented that he felt John Roberts is very conservative.

That’s interesting, coming from Burglar. If his remarks are true, it makes me feel a little better. However, coming from a guy who stole then destroyed top-secret documents from the National Archives, I’ll take his opinion with a grain of salt.