Poor Republican

David Axelrod had this to say about Former Vice President Dick Cheney on CNN’s State of the Union:

“I find it supremely ironic,” Axelrod replied, “on a day when we were meeting with NATO to talk about the continued threat from al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where they’re still plotting against us eight years — or seven years — later. I think the question for Mr. Cheney is, how could that be? How could this have gone so long? Why are they still in business?”

Here is my question for Mr. Axelrod:  where were you on 9/11/2001?

Bill Clinton became president on January 20, 1993.

The first WTC attack happened on February 26, 1993.

On June 25, 1996 the Khobar Towers was bombed, killing 20, 19 of whom were Americans.

On August 7, 1998 three U.S. embassies in Africa were bombed killing 12 Americans and more than 200 others.

On October 12, 2000 the U.S.S. Cole was bombed while refueling in Yemen, killing 17 American sailors.

All of these attacks occurred during Bill Clinton’s term.

Where was Mr. Axelrod when Khobar Towers was bombed?  Where was Mr. Axelrod when our embassies were bombed?  Where was Mr. Axelrod when the Cole was bombed?  Eight years after the first WTC attack, after numerous other attacks, how is it that David Axelrod never asked President Clinton why Al-Qaeda was still around to stage the second WTC attack on 9/11?  Bill Clinton failed to put a stop to Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden from 1993 to 2001.

If he hadn’t failed, there would have been no 9/11 to blame Bush for, as liberals always do.  Had Bill Clinton stopped Al-Qaeda, there would have been no intelligence for Bush to supposedly ignore….there would have been no Al-Qaeda.

Such sneering questions as those you make to Dick Cheney sound clever only to those with short memories or without access to history books or that whole “interweb” thing, Mr. Axelrod.

One other minor point, Mr. Axelrod.

If Dick Cheney is not a “statesmen” because he criticizes The Messiah, then Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter are outright traitors by comparison.

Al Gore, referring to President Bush: “He betrayed this country!  He played on our fears.”

Bill Clinton spent most, if not all of Bush’s presidency attacking him.

And Jimmy Carter?

“I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history.”

Were these men also not behaving like statesmen, Mr. Axelrod?

Like all liberals, David Axelrod mistakes intellectual dishonesty for intellectual superiority.

This is actually a good thing for him, because Comrade Obama’s new Red Brigades can’t tell the difference either.

In Star Wars Episode V:  The Empire Strikes Back there is a scene where Lando Calrissian is protesting Darth Vader’s continued interference, in violation of a previous arrangement.  Vader says to Lando:

“I am altering the deal. Pray I don’t alter it any further.”

Transpose Comrade Barack Obama for Darth Vader and any bank CEO for Lando and you have the scene replayed in real life.  That is essentially what Comrade Obama told bank CEOs at a White House meeting.

The CEOs wanted to pay back the TARP money, saying they no longer needed it.  Comrade Obama said that was not a good idea, as it might “send a bad signal.”  And it wasn’t the only time.

From The Wall Street Journal:

“The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He’s been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with “adverse” consequences if its chairman persists.”

Translation?

Obama:  “As long as you have taxpayer money, I get to run your company.”

Bank:  “I have your money right here.  I want to pay it back.  With interest.  Now.”

Obama:  “No.”

Bank:  “Why not?”

Obama:  “Keep asking and see what happens to you.”

Bank:  “This wasn’t part of the deal.”

Obama:  “I am altering the deal.  Pray I don’t alter it any further (ominous breathing noises).”

So Comrade Obama, aka Comrade Stalin, aka Barack Hitler, aka Darth Obama, says if you have taxpayer funds he owns you.  If you try to pay it back, he won’t let you.  If you continue to try, he will punish you.  Oh, and by the way, since you CAN’T pay it back, he owns you.  Neat little circle huh?

Only if you like living in a dictatorship.  You know, a police state like the one they say we had under Bush, only for real.

Wait ’till he has a smart meter on your house, is dictating your wages, controls your doctor, and is telling the car companies what cars you are allowed to purchase.

Good thing Comrade Obama says “[w]e have no intention of running GM.“  Apparently, firing the CEO and telling the company what cars it is allowed to sell do not constitute “running GM” in Obama’s Bizarro World.

Only two months in office, and Barack Obama has taken our country from a free-market democracy to a Central Planning, State Uber Alles banana republic dictatorship.

Here’s a hint for you smirking liberals.  You’ll be in the same lines waiting for your rationed health care.  You’ll be in the same dark when Obama shuts off the power in the name of cap and trade.  You’ll be paying the same higher prices for everything including gas, food, etc. when Obama destroys the entire market system with government control.  You’ll be victims of State control just like everyone else.

Enjoy.

The Iowa Supreme Court declared a law that defined marriage as between a man and a woman to be unconstitutional in Iowa, as it violated the equal protection clause of that state’s constitution.

Gay marriage advocates are trumpeting the decision as proof that it’s “not just the liberal coasts” that are tolerant of gay marriage.  They could not be more wrong in their interpretation of the court’s decision.

The fact that there was a law against gay marriage to begin with proves that gay marriage is not exactly popular in Iowa.  In fact, even in liberal California and Massachusetts, gay marriage was ordered legalized by the courts after losing at the ballot box and in the legislature.  So no, the population is not generally in favor of gay marriage, even in liberal states.

As further proof, there is this from the summary ruling of the court:

“The court reaffirmed that a statute inconsistent with the Iowa constitution must be declared void even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion.”

In other words, the court ruled based on the state constitution as written because that’s what the court was supposed to do.  In plain language, the court made a conservative ruling.  It didn’t decide that a gay marriage ban was okay because it was popular.  It didn’t confer rights to the majority that didn’t exist.

It read the state constitution exactly as it was and based its ruling that way.

This is not an activist court victory for a non-existent right, such as Roe v. Wade.  This a conservative victory in that a court ruled exactly the way it should have.  There was no constitutional basis to ban gay marriage in Iowa, so the court threw it out.  It’s not affirmation of gay rights; it’s affirmation of proper use of the state constitution.

As a conservative, I support that decision.  I am not in favor of gay marriage; I am in favor of the Constitution as it is written because I am a conservative.  I do not want a court ruling against the Constitution just because I don’t agree with the issue.  I would rather have gay people getting married than have an activist court ignore its duty.

Ironically, had the Iowa Supreme Court acted as the U.S. Supreme Court frequently does, gay activists could easily have lost this case.  Judicial activism is what gave us rulings like Roe v. Wade, where the court invented a right out of thin air, or  Roper v. Simmons, where the court overturned death sentences for anyone under age 18 at the time of their crimes.  The court cited popular opinion and the laws of other countries in determining that executions of 17 year old murderers was “cruel and unusual” under the 8th Amendment.

In other words, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled exactly in the opposite fashion as the Iowa Supreme Court.

Liberals are always claiming that the Constitution is “living and breathing” and should reflect society’s whim of the moment.

Had they gotten their way, gay marriage would still be banned in Iowa.