It's 2006 – Get Over It

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” - John Adams


Yesterday I saw 5 cars with “Kerry/Edwards” stickers on them, and 2 others with 2 “Kerry 2004.” In today's newspaper (which I swear says the year is 2006) even had an editorial about the 2000 election! I don't make this stuff up. The editorial was still insisting, after all this time, that Bush somehow “stole” the election, and/or a predominantly Republican SCOTUS “decided” that the country “needed” a Republican president “despite the votes and wishes of the people.”

First of all, GET OVER IT! Now if that was not enough, let's examine the facts. The vote did not “hand the victory to Bush.” The lawsuit was about recounts. SCOTUS actually voted 7-2, which means that at least 1 of the “liberal” judges voted in favor of stopping any additional recounts and certifying the vote totals as then existed. At the time of the SCOTUS vote, there was no official count certified, and thus there was no way for SCOTUS to guarantee that Bush would be the ultimate victor. The so-called partisan vote of 5-4 was a separate vote that decided no new recount with uniform standards could be conducted.

No less a bastion of the far-left news media, CNN, had this to say regarding the election: “A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.” (CNN, 2001 no author listed) Mind you, CNN was one of the sponsors of the study, and they clearly had an interest in a different outcome.

In the interest of fairness, it should be noted that the study used several different standards to recount both under- and over-votes. Under three of the four standards, Bush still won. Only under the most lenient standard (one where any mark on a chad was considered as a valid vote), did Gore receive enough votes to win the election (by a margin of 332 votes). It must be noted, however, that that standard 1) violated several laws then in effect in the State of Florida, and 2) was not the standard Gore specifically identified in his court filings. Indeed, using Gore's preferred standard (both in terms of what counts as a vote and which counties to count) Bush's total margin of victory actually increased almost 3x. So even had SCOTUS not “handed the victory to Bush,” Bush still would have won. GET OVER IT!

Not enough for you? There were 111,261 so-called “over-votes” in the disputed counties. Of those, activists claim that approximately 1500 were erroneously discarded in predominantly Democratic (and black) districts. The assumption, of course, being that all blacks are Democrats and would have voted for Gore. The study concluded, however, that less than 3% of those votes were legally marked, meaning that around 105K or so votes were improperly awarded to Gore (remember all blacks are Democrats and voted for Gore). On top of that, a Democrat election official intentionally withheld the delivery of approximately 20,000 overseas military votes until after the deadline for delivery in order to ensure those votes were never counted (the assumption being that overseas military are all white males who vote Republican).

So let's do the math using the most lenient standard: Gore +332-106468-20000 = Gores loses by 126136. Of course, using these revised vote totals, that still means Bush lost the popular election by around 300,000 votes. However, winning the popular vote does not mean winning a majority of the votes. No matter who won in 2000, neither would have had a plurality. In fact, prior to 2004, the last President to be elected with >50% of the popular vote was...wait for it...George H.W. Bush! Yep, in neither 1992 nor 1996 did the saintly Clinton win a plurality. So no matter how you look at at, Bush did not “steal” the election. GET OVER IT!

Moving on to 2004, just because you did not vote for Bush does not mean that others did not. It just happens that the mainstream media is biased so far left that this particular meme enjoys a vocal position making it seem like no one voted for him. But saying something repeatedly does not make it true, except in the hearts and minds of those who already believe in the truth of the statement. In 2004, Bush received a majority of the votes cast (51%). This was, as has been noted, greater than the vote totals for either of Clinton's elections. He won. There is no controversy. GET OVER IT!

It's not rocket science. In 2004, only 52% of the eligible voters bothered to turn out to cast a vote. If you weren't one of them, you don't get to complain. GET OVER IT!

When A Truce Is Not A Truce

If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace. " - Thomas Paine

It certainly did not take long for the far Left defeatists (at least here in CA) to rise to the bait of OBL's latest message. Since the Hollywood elite is too busy decrying America (and gleefully making money off of the very system they claim to deplore) to have ever bothered to study history, I feel it is necessary to remind them of just what a “truce” means to radical Islam.

The word “truce” derives from Arabic during the time of Mohamed. To Islamofascists, the word has a very specific meaning, more appropriately translated as “regrouping.” Indeed, the Koran only allows a “truce” with infidels for the purpose of reforming the army. When the Caliph's troops were beaten back, he would suspend the battle until such time as he could restore the strength of his army. Truce did not mean an end to hostilities, it meant a temporary delay. This is a very important historical lesson – a truce was only offered from a position of weakness.

Predictably, the leftists who know their history are saying, “that was then, this is now.” Apparently they fail to remember what happened in Spain in March and April of 2005. Here's a quick refresher: following terrorist bombings in Madrid, al Qaida offered a “truce” to any European country that withdrew its troops from Iraq within 3 months. The Spanish people promptly elected an anti-war Socialist government which immediately announced plans to withdraw. Spanish troops then started leaving Iraq en mass, and as we all know, the Spanish people were “rewarded” in April (fully two months before the deadline) with another bombing (as well as an attempted bombing which was thwarted).

Americans as a whole have a difficulty understanding the idea of a “stateless” organization. We are constantly reminded of the presence of government, from the traffic laws we (mostly) obey on our daily commutes, to the annual ritual of paying taxes. Everywhere we turn the long arm of government is present. Whether comforting or not to know that “the man” is always there, one result is that our understanding of world politics necessarily involves official representatives of legitimate governments.

That is the problem with OBL's “truce.” A “truce” in the true sense of the word as we know it is a legal agreement binding on the parties involved to cease hostilities in exchange for certain provisions. As a legal agreement between two legitimate parties, there are means of enforcement. However, al Qaida is not a legitimate government, nor does it have means to enforce legal agreements. Even if OBL's offer were sincere (which, as explained above, it cannot be) there is no way to ensure adherence to the terms. While we would be morally bound to stop fighting, he would be free to recruit, plan, and attack without fear of reprisal.

Incidentally, OBL's remarks about his religion not permitting him to lie is internally consistent with his offer for a "truce." Since any "truce" with infidels is permitted to the followers of Islam provided that it is used to restore strength to the army in order to effect a better attack in the future, he would not be in violation of his religion. Thus, the appeal to religion as to his "sincerity" does not hold any weight.

Beyond the fact that this is yet another attempt to defeat us by exploiting the left and the mainstream media, is that only a weak or tired force has a need for a truce. If the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq were going well for OBL's troops, why would he consider even a temporary end to hostilities with “The Great Satan?” It defies logic to believe that a man who has shown no restraint in the wanton killing of innocent civilians, who professes to be winning the battles, and who insists that he is still relevant, would make such an offer.

So what could possibly be his motivation? The reasonable answer, of course, is publicity. Over the past few months, al Qaida has realized that they cannot win a war against the finest fighting force the world has ever known. They cannot win a battle of attrition. And due to a series of colossal PR blunders, they are losing support among the very people they need to exploit for recruiting purposes – the Muslim poor. Because of all of this, they desperately need some good publicity. And who better to provide it for them than the predictable, left-wing, anti-America Hollywood crowd.

Because America's troops are better equipped and better trained, most of al Qaida in Iraq's recent actions have been against softer Iraqi targets – police and civilian institutions. No one seriously believes them when they claim homicide attacks on Mosques and wedding parties were done by Americas. Despite the mainstream media's continuous portrayal of Iraq as a new Viet Nam, we are actually winning on all fronts. But don't take my word for it, just ask Sen. Joe Lieberman. Oh wait, he failed to toe the liberal party line, so he “no longer counts.” In fact, for having the courage to tell the truth regarding the situation in Iraq, the Democratic Party itself is seeking to unseat him at this year's election. That's right – Lieberman does not have to worry about the Right portraying him as too liberal, he has to worry about the Left portraying him as not liberal enough.

It's not rocket science. OBL cannot win the war without the active participation and defeatist attitude of the Hollywood elite – a group that will campaign loud and long to keep a convicted mass murderer from receiving justice, while simultaneously fighting to oust a President who had the audacity to stop the oppression of women and minorities in a far away land. The world will know no peace until Islamofacism is eliminated. Far better to do it now when the enemy is weak than to accept his “truce” and wait for the next attack. Whether the left will admit it or not, the fact remains that there was Islamofascism long before the US was in Afghanistan and Iraq, indeed long before there even was a US.

It's Stare Decisis not "Castin Cementum"

“No man can be a competent legislator who does not add to an upright intention and a sound judgment a certain degree of knowledge of the subjects on which he is to legislate.” James Madison, Federalist 58

I watched with dismay the appalling behavior of certain Senators recently during the confirmation hearings for Judge Alito. In the past I have commented how their infantile antics remind me of how many high-school class president elections are run. Indeed, after last week's showing, many other articles have been written expressing substantially this same opinion. Worse, however, was the main stream media's portrayal of these Senator's actions as heroic attempts to curtail the “obvious” racist and sexist beliefs of Judge Alito. I note both of these facts only in passing, as I believe that all parties involved missed an opportunity to educate the American public on a very misunderstood Supreme Court ruling.

Let's get one indisputable fact on the table as a starting point: Roe v. Wade did not legalize abortion. No honest reading of the Majority Opinion of the Court, or the Dissent can lead to this conclusion. The central issue in the case was a right of privacy. The substantial discussion on the history of abortion and the meaning of the word “people” (i.e., the intent) of the 14^th Amendment in Blackmun's Opinion was an ancillary topic undertaken for the express purpose of defining when the State's compelling interest in protecting life took precedence over a doctor-patient privilege. That right to privacy was what Plaintiff had sued to restore. Rehnquist's Dissent did not seek to criminalize abortion, nor does it even take a stand on whether it ought to be criminalized. Rather, the Dissent focuses on technical aspects of the case – standing and interpretation.

Quoting at length the Majority Opinion,

“With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the 'compelling' point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.

"This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this 'compelling' point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State.

"With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the 'compelling' point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.” (Blackmun, Roe v. Wade 1973, Majority Opinion)

This is a lot to digest, so Blackmun helpfully added the following:

“To summarize and to repeat:

"1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.” (ibid)

Blackmun noted that there was no indication that common law ever considered abortion before “quickening” as any type of offense. Indeed, even Christian theology up until the 19^th Century did not recognize the fetus as being distinct from the mother prior to 40 days for males and 80 days for females after conception. Thus, any law which made abortion prior to some “compelling point” would be unconstitutional, as it would deny a woman a “fundamental right to privacy” (Blackmun) governed by doctor-patient privilege. He further observed that “throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, [which] persuades us that the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.” (ibid)

In continuing his historical analysis, Blackmun observed that the earliest laws governing abortion were done for the stated purpose of protecting the life of the mother. This is a key point which led him to his complete ruling on the subject of laws regarding abortion. This is also the point that neither side in the debate ever bothers to acknowledge.

Blackmun reasoned that at some point in the due course of a pregnancy, the State might have some compelling interest that could outweigh even a fundamental right to privacy. He affirmed the prior common law of regulating certain aspects of the procedure for the express purpose of protecting the mother's life. He then went even further to argue that there was in fact a point where the fetus' right to life had priority over the mother's right to privacy, thus granting the State a right to regulate the performance of the procedure itself.

It is further interesting to note that in writing his Dissent, far from being the affirmation of a pro-life stance as the Right would like us to believe, Rehnquist actually makes no claims as the the legality of the procedure or the law. Instead, the Dissent raises issues which could be characterized as technical in nature – namely, that the plaintiff lacked standing, there is no privacy issue, and the 14^th Amendment didn't apply.

Rehnquist argued that in order to have standing to bring suit, the plaintiff had to be suffering actual harm. Since she was not currently pregnant, the Court could not provide injunctive relief, and therefore she was not entitled to a hearing. The Majority Opinion effectively dealt with this by noting that pregnancy was one of those things “capable of repetition, yet avoiding review,” a principle the court recognized as requiring an exception to the rules governing standing.

Further, Rehnquist noted that “privacy is not involved insofar as the resulting transaction would not be private 'in the ordinary usage of that word'.” (Rehnquist, Roe v. Wade, Dissent) By this he meant simply that to qualify as a privacy issue, in the absence of a proscription against the act, the fact that it had occurred would not become otherwise known. Logically, if a woman used to be pregnant and no longer was, this would be known and thus pregnancy was not a privacy issue. Of course, the cause would not be known, but the Texas statute did not deal with causes, only effects.

Finally, Rehnquist concluded that the Majority Opinion smacked more of “judicial legislation than determination of intent” as “the Texas statute struck down today was, as the majority notes, first enacted in 1857 and 'has remained substantially unchanged to the present time.' There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter.” (ibid)

The net result of both opinions was that had the Texas law been narrowly construed to support, after some appropriate compelling point, either protecting the mother's health or the State's interest in promoting life, the law would have passed Constitutional muster. Further, Roe actually upheld the State's right to regulate abortion, including it's outright banning under specifically defined circumstances. Roe does not legalize nor criminalize abortion – it merely delineates the point at which privacy is no longer a compelling interest.

Which brings us back to Judge Alito and stare decisis. Sen. Kennedy, et. al. repeatedly tried to get Alito to put forth the opinion that Roe was the “settled” law of the land. This is not what the principle of stare decisis says. The courts have long recognized the importance of precedents, and have given due deference to them. However, SCOTUS has also recognized that in certain situations, and with good reason, precedents can and must be set aside. Thus, even if Roe said what the liberals think it says, it is not exempt from future review given the right set of circumstances.

It is rather ironic that the Senate 'Dems were trying to confer some sort of cloak of immunity on this one ruling given that at one point in our nation's history, Plessy v. Fergusson was also the “settled” law of the land. And lest the revisionist historians forget, Plessy was decided in favor of Southern Democrats and made segregation legal. If SCOTUS had applied the desired standard of immunity to this case, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka could never have been decided in favor of the plaintiff.

It's not rocket science, Senators. You cannot have the principle of stare decisis apply absolutely in cases which favor your position, and (effectively) not at all when the political mood suits you. Due to the system of checks and balances in our Constitution, no legal opinion can ever be considered as cast in concrete. That is the brilliance of our American system.