On The Right Side Read online

  Secondly, the story was written by James Risen, a New York Times reporter who, by coincidence, has a book coming out about this very topic in less than a month. Even a liberal would have a hard time justifying the timing of this article. I take this back. These individuals will stoop to anything, including blatant lying, if it makes our president look bad. Does Dan Rather come to mind?

  I think it’s time to act tough. James Risen and his “sources” should be tried for treason for aiding and abetting the enemy with these leaks. It is clear that this top- secret, LEGAL program, which has already been proved to have thwarted potential attacks against our country, is now compromised.

  The blood of any additional American lives lost through terrorist acts will now be on the hands of these traitors and anyone else who supports the release of this LEGAL spying program.

  You liberals have to learn to read beyond the title of an article and study the facts provided by more-reputable newspapers. Contrary to the lie that Bush was using the Patriot Act to spy on American citizens without a warrant, only e-mails and phone calls originating outside the United States and made by known or suspected terrorists were being tapped.

  I would like a liberal to tell me how a warrant is supposed to be asked for in time to catch a two-minute phone call that could have catastrophic consequences if not monitored and acted upon immediately.

  Also, while you are thinking, make a list of all the “abuses” that have occurred by these actions. Do the same for the Patriot Act abuses. The answer is none in both cases. Don’t you think that with all your hate for our president, you could come up with a few?

  The last item to point out is that members of both House and Senate Intelligence Committees, as well as other prominent congressional leaders, were repeatedly briefed about this NSA wiretapping policy. We now have Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Jay Rockefeller claiming to have “discovered” letters in their files that indicated their strong concerns or objections to these policies. Liars!

  The Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee suggested Wednesday that Sen. Rockefeller was suffering from amnesia or selective memory loss given his criticism of the Bush administration’s surveillance tactics (Human Events Online, Dec. 21, 2005).

  The committee was briefed repeatedly. “There was always time for questions, always time for any point of view, and Senator Rockefeller was always in the end result very supportive,” Senator Pat Roberts said.

  I am sick and tired of liberal radicals taking the liberty to paint President Bush in a negative light, whether the accusations are intentionally a lie or not. Any American with the smallest amount of common sense should appreciate that President Bush is doing everything within his constitutional power to protect the lives of Americans.

  Please wake up. There is an enemy out there who will resort to anything to destroy our way of life. Remember, there are no civil rights if our freedom is lost.

  To all you liberals out there, try being more supportive and less negative once in a while. You’ll feel better about yourself, and people might start taking you more seriously.

  Liberals need to wake up, be patriotic

  I’ve heard enough. It’s time to take the gloves off. I am sick and tired of hearing my commander-in-chief and legitimately elected president (twice legally) being belittled, joked about, and especially being called a liar.

  It’s not that it shouldn’t be expected toward a public figure (which we conservatives can take), but rather for the blind hypocrisy on the part of those behind it.

  After all, it’s not long ago we conservatives were saying the same things about our president’s predecessor. One difference though: We were right.

  I have a multiple-choice test for you liberals to take. You are either:

  (a)Ignorant of the facts;

  (b)Ignoring the facts;

  (c)Envious

  (d)Unpatriotic

  (e)All of the above.

  I can’t believe you are still whining about 2000. Grow up and get over it. I would love to have serious, mature discussions with responsible people, but I don’t have a bit of time for the uninformed, over-emotional individuals described above.

  Some quotes from your leaders:

  John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003: “Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an oppressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.”

  This was your presidential candidate. Did I mention your leader missed 76 percent of Senate Intelligence Committee meetings of which he was a member?

  Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998: “If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.”

  Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002: “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”

  Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002: “We know he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”

  If you need more, send me an e-mail and I’ll get them to you.

  Not to let facts get in the way, but what about the 10 times Saddam used WMDs previously, according to Sandy Berger? How about the pictures of weapons inspectors being held up at the front gates while all the trucks were hauling things away out the back? How about all the U.N. resolutions Saddam consistently ignored and violated?

  Where are these weapons, you ask? What about the Downing Street memo? I will happily address those issues in a future column.

  Now, how about the Democrats’ plan for Iraq. Oops, they don’t have one. They are getting worried, however. They are trying to come up with one so they can attempt to take credit for a U.S. victory when it happens.

  Bush’s plan for victory was and still is the most logical and sensible one. He is the one who is most serious about his No. 1 obligation to U.S. citizens. That is our national security.

  Notice how he doesn’t care about polls? He knows we are on the right course and will continue this strategy to completion. That is a sign of a true leader.

  Liberals base all their decisions on which way the political winds are currently blowing without even considering what is best for the country.

  You liberals huffed and puffed, exuding patriotism shortly after 9/11 because that is what the public wanted. Now you have completely changed your position and want to bring our troops home, even if it would be disastrous for U.S. security.

  “I support the troops but not the war.” That is such a hypocritical statement. It might make the person saying it feel good about himself or herself, but it is quite harmful to our troops. Even though all the anti-war talk hurts their morale, you continue to make such idiotic comments.

  Even though you hear about all the good, positive things our men and women are accomplishing over there, you don’t give them any credit whatsoever as they return home.

  They are bravely fighting the global war on terror. It just so happens that this war is currently taking place in Iraq. At least appreciate the fact that they are fighting for you and me, for our country.

  Yes, I do question your party leaders’ patriotism (and yours if you support them). When was the last time they said something, anything, good about our country that wasn’t politically motivated? Can you think of one or two? I doubt it.

  We seem to forget the horrors of 9/11 so soon. Remember the innocent men and women who chose to jump to their deaths rather than burn alive? Remember the unbelievable acts of courage and heroism that occurred that day?

  How about the vicious beheadings (two to three minutes each with screaming the whole time), the burned bodies and other acts of cruelty that have happened since then? We should all be required to watch those horrible images over and over so we don’t forget.

  Please wake up
and get on the Right side.

  Democrats can’t handle Samuel Alito

  Nothing less than a slam dunk.

  Samuel Alito made the eight Democrats at the confirmation hearings look overmatched and mean-spirited. The Republicans couldn’t have asked for a better process. Their job was quite simple, to sit back and correct the misleading and intentional smear tactics the Democrats were attempting. I am not referring to all the Democrats. Senators Kohl, Feinstein and Feingold were the most professional of the eight.

  I must have watched over 90 percent of the hearings, either live, on tape delay that same evening or the video clips that anyone can find on the C-SPAN website.

  The first day was a total waste with the Democrat senators taking advantage of the photo opportunities as they strutted and preened for their special-interest groups. The only thing worth watching was the opening statement by Judge Alito.

  It was day two when the fireworks began and when the Democrats began to realize how overmatched they were. Republican Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona said it best. He stated that the Democrats were already determined to vote no. They just had to justify their reasons through their questions.

  Let me cover some of the most ridiculous statements made by the remaining five Democrat senators:

  Patrick Leahy is the ranking Democrat on the committee. Everyone must remember him as having to resign from the Senate Intelligence Committee under allegations of leaking sensitive information to the press. Mr. Ethics himself, second only to Ted Kennedy - his questions centered on all the typical topics: torture, right to privacy and illegal searches (where he insinuated that Judge Alito was in favor of child molestation).

  Alito handled his answers so that Leahy had no way to counter with additional questions. Later in the week, Leahy could only think of questions about whether an inmate on death row could be subpoenaed as a witness before the Senate! Even Alito was stumped by that question!

  Senator Biden, who actually is an intelligent Democrat, was so caught up in himself that most of his time was spent lecturing, as if getting the answer was unimportant. One newscaster stated that Biden spoke for 26 of his allotted 30 minutes the first day. If I were Alito, I would have asked him, or anyone else whose question went over ten minutes, to please repeat the question

  Senator Durbin enjoyed taking one or two sentences out of Alito’s rulings and had to be repeatedly corrected and chastised by the Republican members for misstating the facts of each case. He had to be corrected in almost every instance.

  Senator Schumer - where do I start? He was the one waving a copy of the Constitution as he questioned the judge about issues that he knew Alito shouldn’t answer. I can’t believe that he asked if the right to free speech was in the Constitution.

  When Alito very diplomatically reminded the senator that it was stated in the first Amendment, Schumer then asked why the judge couldn’t answer whether the right to an abortion was in the Constitution. Alito tried to answer the question, but the answer appeared to be over the head of the senator.

  Now to Senator Kennedy. You remember him, the swimming champion of Chappaquiddick. It is difficult to understand why he was, of all people, assigned the responsibility of asking questions on ethics. His biggies were a former Vanguard case, where he repeatedly accused the judge of being unethical for not recusing himself, and the judge’s membership in an association called Concerned Alumni of Princeton.

  The judge answered to everyone’s satisfaction, but Kennedy refused to let the facts get in the way. I could just see Judge Alito sitting there, staring at Kennedy with a cartoon bubble over him asking, “Why has this idiot asked me the same question ten times?”

  Now to the witnesses. The American Bar Association interviewed more than 2,000 individuals and gave Alito its highest rating for the second time. Every judge he ever worked with and three individuals who clerked for him had nothing but the highest praise for him.

  The list of witnesses included people from the entire political spectrum. It is too bad that the Democrat committee members didn’t stick around to hear their praise.

  Hypocrites all. Why do they question the ethics of Alito and not Senator Byrd of West Virginia, a past Kleagle of the KKK?

  What do the Democrats do after having pie thrown in their face? They pout and refuse to honor a previous gentlemen’s agreement. They originally stated that if the hearings could be moved to January, they would not delay any committee vote. So much for their integrity.

  After Alito is confirmed, there is a bright future ahead. Bush might get to nominate one or two more justices. John Paul Stevens is 85 and Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer are 72 and 68, respectively, each with health problems. Let us conservatives keep our fingers crossed. Janice Roberts Brown, Edith Brown Clement and Emilio Garcia are waiting in the wings.

  Two Kinds of Liberals

  I can’t believe this is my sixth column already. I want to thank everyone who has sent me e-mails as well as the many people who have come up to me on the street, thanking me for writing the column. To date, my e-mails have run 33 positives and 4 negatives.

  It is now time to provide some definitions and differences between conservatives and liberals. A good friend of mine, (E.F.), who knows me well suggested that I define my two classes of liberals. Good idea.

  I have many friends who would label themselves liberal. They are individuals with whom I enjoy rational, intelligent discussions, and I have a respect for their viewpoints.

  They won’t change any of my stances, as I won’t theirs, about 98 percent of the time. I would call these individuals moderate Democrats. They are good people to associate with, along with my many conservative friends. Fortunately, they are much more numerous than the second class.

  The other type of liberal, the one I am usually referring to in my column, is much more dangerous. They are extreme, left-leaning, irrational, radical liberals normally associated with the far left of the Democratic Party. They use as their role models such people as Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Pat Leahy, Dick Durbin, Charles Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and others of their ilk.

  Extreme, left-leaning individuals are those people who have one set of rules for themselves and another for those who disagree with them. They are still crying about the 2000 and 2004 elections, and the mention of President Bush causes them to go crazy.

  They will blame the President for absolutely everything that has gone wrong, no matter how foolish the association is: Hurricane Katrina, global warming, oil prices, starving children, cutting Social Security for the elderly, any world catastrophe or hardship, even for cutting themselves shaving.

  They blame Bush for polluting our air and waters, poisoning our food and allowing our economy to destroy the world. When they state their opinion, they expect you to accept it as fact (Cheney and Halliburton engineered the Iraq war for oil profits being one example of literally hundreds). It matters not that it has no basis in fact.

  Their opinions are emotionally driven rather than well-thought-out. If you disagree with them, you hurt their feelings, or they become enraged. In the second case, their faces turn red, their blood pressure shoots up, veins bulge from their temples and small bits of froth appear at the corners of their mouths. You might as well walk away. They will keep ranting and raving and will probably not notice you have left.

  Their strategy is to smear or attempt to demean their opponents when they cannot win using facts (the latest confirmation hearings proved this repeatedly). How about their claim that Mrs. Alito staged her crying episode? They believe that the more things they can blame Bush for, the stronger their case.

  One of the three negative letters I received, in response to my weapons of mass destruction column, threw in at least eight other issues that Bush was responsible for. They were simple statements of opinion, having nothing to do with my column. These were very shallow statements illustrating no depth of thought.

  I think the Democratic Party puts out a tape of these one-liners tha
t all radical extremists memorize and regurgitate on command. It reminds me of a parrot that can be trained to speak a few phrases - a very cute pet, but no one takes it seriously.

  This same letter-writer made numerous futile, feeble attempts to insult me. It also displayed a typical level of arrogance commonly found in this radical group. My Manhattan letter-writing friend said, “Most NYC residents—who are among the brightest and best-informed people in the U.S…” Give me a break! Two of the four negative letters were rambling and disjointed diatribes and were actually longer than my column!

  So, in conclusion, you can assume that my style will continue to be in the mode of Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Thomas Sowell and David Limbaugh. They pull no punches, back up their statements with fact, and don’t worry about political correctness. If you don’t want your toes stepped on, don’t put them under my big, heavy, conservative foot.

  P.S. Three excellent books to read that you won’t be able to put down: How to Talk To A Liberal (If You Must), by Ann Coulter; Do As I Say (Not As I Do), Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy, by Peter Schweitzer; and Unleashed: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild, by Michelle Malkin.

  As a matter of fact, here are some of the things Malkin’s liberal enemies said about her: “ought to be shot between those Viet Cong eyes!,” “an ugly, obnoxious and semi-literate gook,” “one hideous-looking and tremendously stupid woman,” “some gook out there pandering to the radical right.”

  Double standards anyone? If anyone thinks I am going to stand by and allow that to go unchallenged, think again.