"ALL CAPS IN DEFENSE OF LIBERTY IS NO VICE."

Monday, March 07, 2005

DID SGRENA FAKE IT TO RAISE MONEY FOR THE TERRORISTS SHE SIDES WITH?

There are reports that Italy paid $6 MILLION to get the communist reporter released. That's a HUGE WINDFALL for the terrorists - ESPECIALLY now.

And, that's HUGE motivation for this "kidnapping" and for future ones.

DRUDGE is also linking to a report from the WASH TIMES that asserts that the Italians kept the whole mission a SECRET - NO WONDER they got shot at as they SPED toward a checkpoint!

MY PET JAWA is SGRENA SKEPTICS CENTRAL.

BUSH SELECTS BOLTON!

I just watched C-SPAN and saw Condi announce that John Bolton will become our next UN Ambassador, which is GREAT! He's a "no BS" neocon in the tradition of our two best previous UN Ambassadors: Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Daniel P. Moynihan. He'll be a GREAT UN Ambassador at an especially critical time: In the coming weeks, Syria and Iran and North Korea each have dates with the UNSC and DESTINY!

THE POLITICAL DIVIDE IS IDEOLOGICAL NOT SOCIOLOGICAL

Powerline has another must read post on the current political divide in America. The post suggests that the divide is sociological; it relates articles and a book by NYTIMES columnist David Brooks, and a book by David Lebedoff.

Pundits - like Brooks and Lebedoff and Powerline's Hindera - who claim that geography or sociology determine which side of the political divide one is one ARE WRONG. And I am proof of it - because I have crossed the divide. My crossing-over was gradual and predates 9/11; (many MANY others crossed the divide AFTER 9/11 - hence the term "9/11 Democrat. For these people, 9/11 was a life-changing/EYE-OPENING event which changed their entire worldview).

The fact that people move across the divide without changing membership in any sociological groups (wheter elite or plebe or managerial or whatever) proves that the change is not sociological.

Here's my case: I was a Leftie from the 1960's until the Fall of the Wall; (my gradual drift to the center actually began from McGovern's massive defeat - which led me to believe that, (since the lesser of two evils is almost always a good choice), Democrats had to nominate more moderate politicians than McGovern to get, hold, and use power effectively. After the Fall of the Wall and the collapse of OSLO, I looked back and had to admit that Reagan and Thatcher (and Netanyahu and Sharon) had been right all along. I don't feel as if admitting that Reagan was right makes me suddenly "un-educated" - it makes me intellectually honest, and more commited to results than ideology.

Undeniably, in the USA there IS a great Left versus Right divide. The two things which are the BEST predictors of which side of the divide one is on are not sociological; they are better described as philosophical or metaphysical or ideological. They are: (1) how one feels about universalism versus relativism in the moral realm; and (2) how ones feels about individualism versus statism.

Those on the Left are relativists who believe in a strong state, and believe that individuals are defined by which groups they belong to. Those on the Right are universalists who believe that each person is sovereign over himself, and that the State derives its just powers ONLY from the consent of individuals. (This is why Leftists call Right-wingers "selfish.")

Hayek argued - and Thatcher and Reagan (and Teng Xiao Ping in China and Singh in India) proved - that Statism is the "road the serfdom," and that the Free Market is not only the most moral system, but the most efficient, creative and productive one, too.

Eventually, Leftists will be forced to admit this is as true in pension/retirement and health markets as it is in every other market. When that happens their jig is up. (Already sensing that their jig will be up soon, many of the Leftists are already fighting tooth and nail - deperately staving off having to admit they were wrong about everything either by using vicious attacks - as in "Bush is Hitler" or "BUSH LIED!"- or by just putting their head in the sand and denying reality - as when they deny that captialism saved China or that toppling Iraq is causing a klatogenetic explosion of democracy in the Middle East - just as the neocons said it could).

The demographic arguments - that Brooks and Lebedoff and Hindera make - are hollow compared to the ideological battle between what has failed (Leftist policies) and what is working (Rightist policies)!

That more Leftists live in cities - (Blue America is largely urban) - is partly a vestige of Democratic coalition politics and the welfare state - and partly a result of the fact that for too long the GOP never battled for voters in those hardcore Leftist urban centers. As the GOP continues to broaden its appeal to Hispanics and Blacks and Jews - (traditional city-dwellers and, generationally, core members of the Democratic coalition) - this will change.

Also: now that the "McGovern Wing" of the party has once again reasserted control of the party apparatus - (making the more centrist Clinton era seem more like an aberration when copmpared to the post-LBJ party) - they will drive out many of the remaining centrists - either to the GOP or or to official independence. And as a result, the sociological indicators will change - and be less predictive than they seem now.

In addition, as people like David Horowitz (with the unintended help of "Ward Churchillians") wrestle away the control of the Academy from the Leftists, fewer of our youngsters will be brain-washed into Leftist, anti-West, anti-traditional family, anti-American, morally relativist ideologies, (a Leftist program that - up until now - has been in full swing since the 1960's and the advent of "the counter-culture").

And as the Bush Doctrine is vindicated, more Leftists will be forced either to admit they were wrong - or condemn themselves to inane insignificance - the Loony Left.

When all this happens - (when the old Democratic coaliton splinters; when the Leftist Dems drive the rest of the Centrist Dems out of the party; when the Academy is liberated from Leftist control; and when the Middle East is more fully democratized) - the Left will simply fade away, vanish with a whimper - leaving an embarrassing question to posterity: "how could ANYONE have EVER really bought that Leftist CRAP anyhow!"

THIS NEEDS REITERATING: One of the major reasons many educated people "bought that crap" and became are Leftists is that they were BRAINWASHED BY THE LEFTIST ACADEMY. This is NOT hyperbole; it is fact. Here is an example: the "political spectrum" that we were all taught in the Academy places Communism on the Left and Fascism on the Right. BUT THIS IS FALSE. Need proof!? Where do you put ANARCHISM in that spectrum!? NO WHERE!

The TRUE poltical spectrum places communism and fascism on the extreme Left, and anarchism on the extreme Right, and mixed systems in the middle; (the USA system goes just Right of center and the Scandinaviam system goes just Left of center). Not only is this LOGICAL (first, because there is a proper place for anarchism, and second because it allows for a simple continuum of rights from MOST STATIST on the Left, to MOST INDIVIDUALIST/LIBERTARIAN on the Right), but it is HISTORICALLY ACCURATE: Mussolini and Hitler were BOTH SOCIALISTS - as were LENIN AND STALIN. Hilter was a National Socialist (= NAZI) who was ANTI-MARXIST; Mussolini was also a national socialist; the Russians were Marxists. They each had more in common with each other than with FDR or Churchill OR EVEN CHAMBERLAIN! Stalin and Trotsky and Hitler were all socialists - who hated each other as much as they LOVED the state and sought to get inidividuals to subordinate their personal liberty to the will of the state (as determined by an elite).

What does this have to do with BRAIN-WASHING!?!?!? EVERYTHING! The false spectrum was created by the Leftist Academy to make Marxism seem more like the IDEOLOGICAL OPPOSITE and enemy of Hitler and to have more in common with FDR than it did with Hitler - which is COMPLETELY FALSE.

There is another major LIE being foisted on to the students in the academy: that Gorbachev was more responsible for the Fall of the Wall than Reagan. And the reason for this lie is the same as the reason for thie other lie: to protect their FAILED Leftist ideology from utter disrepute.

Fortunately, the truth will win. As will markets that function. And, as will the universal human desire for liberty. Therefore, the Right will win, too.

ENDNOTE: because of the tenure-system, the Academy has become a closed system without the checks-and-balances necessary to prevent it (or any other system) from being taken over one group - and those who "play ball" with that group. This happens in ALL closed systems and is the basic reason why all system need checks-and-balances. Lack of checks-and-balances is also why the Catholic priesthood in America is such a mess. Opening up the Academy to Conservatives and the Catholic priesthood to married men will not only bring each system a balance of perspectives, but a natural and much needed check-and-balance.

ADDENDUM: There's another simple reason why I know that a sociological explanation isn't the best: it's too Marxist; it seeks to explain how individuals think by putting them into heuristic groups - managerial; urban; black; religious; rural - these are all epistemological groups that do not really exist; they have no ontological veracity. NEED PROOF?! A person is a member of many MANY groups/classes; how that person sees himself AT ANY GIVEN TIME is too complex for any prediction. During elections, politicians and pundits often want a people to see themselves - identify themselves - as mostly members of one group over the others - if they think it will help their candidate - but that doesn't make people more one thing or another. Take me as an example, again: I am an urban, Jewish, registered Democrat, graduate school educated person, in the Arts. And I voted BUSH! Like I wrote above: neither the Brooks, Lebedoff or Hindera dichotomies can explain me.

I simply argue that the current political divide is the result of the effects of the persistent bias in certain specific institutions, and the fact this bias is Leftist. (And I didn't even mention the MSM!) These institutions are gradually opening up to a plurality of views - and as a result the Left is losing their monopoly - and more and more people are seeing the Light, and the Left will be left in the shadows... Still Need proof? Look at Congress: it's been getting steadily more Right-wing since 1980. Want more proof? Only centrist southern Democrats have won the presiency since 1964! YUP: The country has been moving Right since at least 1980. And if the Democrat Party moves Left - as they seem to be - they will simply fall off the table, and into the dustbin of history. Where they'll belong.

Sunday, March 06, 2005

BUSH'S "LEBANESE SQUEEZE-PLAY" CRUCIAL IN "GWOT"

UPDATE - 3/8: Welcome CHRENKOFF readers (and if you're not one yet YOU SHOULD BE - EVERYDAY! And while you're here, please check out a few other posts.

UPI: ALGIERS, Algeria, March 5 :

Top Syrian official said Saturday the United States asked Syria to disarm the Lebanese Shiite Hezbollah guerilla organization. Syrian Information Minister Mehdi Dakhlallah told the government-run Algerian Radio that Washington asked Syria "for many things that have nothing to do with international peace, demanding things we have nothing to do with like disarming the Lebanese resistance," in clear reference to Hezbollah. He insisted this was a purely Lebanese issue and had nothing to do with Syria.

In my opinion, this means that ONLY if Syria pulls out ALL of its forces - military and secret police - can they get "off the hook" for this demand. Which is why it was made: it ramps up the pressure on Syria to withdraw - even if it means they abandon Hizballah (leaving it only a client of Iran).

If Assad withdraws (which - due to the Bush Doctrine - is now LIKELY), then I PREDICT that the Bush Administration will make the following two NEW demands: (a) that Hizballah be kept off the ballot of the impending Lebanese election UNLESS they disarm; (b) that if Hizballah refuses to disarm VOLUNTARILY, that any new Lebanese government forcibly disarms them.

These two demands will be made possible IF AND ONLY IF France and the UK allow the EU and the UN to classify Hizballah as an international terrorist organization - which now, ACCORDING TO THIS REPORT seems likely.

In addition, according to this report from HAARETZ, Israel is now demanding that IRANIAN MILITARY FORCES EVACUATE LEBANON:

Israel's official position is that the Syrian forces deployed in Lebanon are not the only foreign army in that country. Despite the fact that the Syrian force is a large one, and includes numerous units and an extensive intelligence set-up, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards play a significant and negative military role in Lebanon - a role that undermines Lebanese sovereignty.

I predict that (with the help of France - YUP FRANCE, believe it or not) the UNSC will reiterate the demand (already contained within UNSC #1559) that Iran voluntarily remove their forces from Lebanon. And that Iran will do so.

(If Iran won't withdraw NOW, then this will mean MORE SEVERE UNSC SANCTIONS - followed by WAR if Iran continues to keep the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in Lebanon AFTER the Lebanese elections. Lebanon will try to expel them, and this could foment another WAR in Lebanon - only this time the Druze, Christians, and Sunnis will have US Joint Forces support against the Shias and the Iranian backed Hizballah, so this time around, the Shia/Iran strongholds will be destroyed much in the way Fallujah was - and just as quickly.)

The strategy behind these moves is CLEAR: By clearing out Lebanon, BUSH would accomplish TWO HUGE THINGS: (1) improve the chances of a peaceful settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs - IMMENSELY; and (2) considerably weaken both Syria and Iran - by hemming them in even more than they are now (because of the presence of USA forces in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean).

These two accomplishments - a comprehensive Israeli-Arab peace settlement (sans Syria), and further isolation of Syria and Iran - will strengthen our diplomatic efforts at regime change in both Syria and Iran.

Which is why I predict ORANGE REVOLUTIONS in Syria AND Iran by next autumn - with or without war.

IN THE NAME OF THE BUSH DOCTRINE


"By the way, when's the next Not In Our Name rally? How about this Saturday? Millions of NIONists can flood into the centers of San Francisco, New York, Brussels and Paris to proclaim to folks in Iraq and Lebanon and Egypt and Syria and Jordan and Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority that all the changes under way in the region are most certainly Not In Their Name. "
HEH!

Saturday, March 05, 2005

FOUR APPEASERATI TO MEET IN PARIS 3/18

(AFP) -
The leaders of France, Russia, Germany and Spain are to meet in Paris March 18 for a working dinner designed to accommodate Russian President Vladimir Putin's wish to see a closer EU-Russia dialogue, French officials said Friday. It will be the first time such a meeting will take place, the officials from French President Jacques Chirac's office said. As well as Chirac and Putin, the dinner's guests will include German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero.
More than any other nations on the world, these four nations now enable and appease the enemy; here are a FEW of their RECENT perfidious acts:
(1) France refuses to allow the UN or the EU to officially recognize that Hizballah is a terrorists group (thereby allowing them to continmue to raise money in Europe), and France recently gave all of ONE soldier to help train Iraqis; (2) Spain recently withheld information about a possible terrorists attack against the USA - and Grand Central Terminal in NY - for 5 months; (3) before the Iraq War, Germany and France twisted Turkey's arm in order to get Turkey to refuse to allow the USA to use its Turkish bases in the war; this prevented the USA military from entering Iraq from the north, and may be WHY the neojihadists and Baathists who were north and east of Baghdad were able to "fade away" and regroup; in other words, because of France and Germany and Turkey, the "insurgents" were given a route of escape, and this lead directly to the strength and persistence of their attacks against Iraqis and the coalition for the last year; (4) Russia is currently arming Syria with missiles and Iran with dual-use nuclear technology, and they're NOT helping us with North Korea at all.
These four appeaserati - Chirac, Schroeder, Zapatero and Putin - are NOT ALLIES; they are truly an AXIS OF TREACHERY. Replacing these four appeaserati with pro-democracy/libertarian leaders is as important to our eventual success in WW4 as getting rid of Assad and Khatami and Kim Jong Il.

LONDON'S SOCIALIST MAYOR LIVINGSTONE PROVES HE IS ANTI-SEMITE SCUM

(1) What Livingstone wrote in the Guradian, 0n 3/4/05: "Ariel Sharon, Israel's prime minister, is a war criminal who should be in prison not in office. Israel's own Kahan commission found that Sharon shared responsibility for the Sabra and Shatila [Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut] massacre."




Here is my response, and the FACTS:

(4)
1982: Sabra and Shatila Massacres

As discussed on the Palestine Facts topic page on Sabra and Shatila, on September 16, 1982 the Lebanese Christian Phalangist militia entered the Beruit refugee camps looking for PLO fighters. The Phalangist forces, allies of Israel and in an area controlled by the IDF, carried out a 62-hour rampage of rape and murder that left hundreds dead.

In 1983, an Israeli government commission of inquiry, known as the Kahane Commission, determined that Defense Minister Sharon was negligent and should have foreseen that permitting the Phalangist forces to enter the camps carried a potential for catastrophe. They charged that Sharon should have taken precautions against such a massacre. But the commission rejected the idea that Minister Sharon was directly responsible for the crime, an idea that was also rejected by the federal court in New York that heard Sharon's 1985 libel suit against Time magazine who repeated unfounded allegations about Sharon's role. Nonetheless, due to Israeli discomfort with the event, Sharon was forced to resign and face widespread public opprobrium that nearly ended his political career. The matter was therefore lawfully settled in Israeli and US courts with a reasonable conclusion and outcome.

For years, Mr. Sharon's political opponents, in Israel and abroad, along with a host of Arab leaders, have exploited Sabra and Shatila to score moral points against Israel -- even as Syria made an ally of
Elie Hobeika, the Phalangist personally responsible for carrying out the massacres. They continue to accuse Sharon of crimes for which he has already been cleared.

MORE FACTS ABOUT SHATILA HERE .

MY POINT:

Only an anti-Semite - like Livingstone - would blame a Jew and an Israeli (like Sharon) for crimes committed by Christian Arabs against Muslim Arabs. Blaming Sharon for crimes committed by the Arab Christian Phalange (like those committed at Shatila) in Lebanon is like blaming Rumsfeld for crimes comnmitted by the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. It's simply absurd. It's an absurd charge that reveals MORE about Livingstone than Sharon. It reveals that Livingstone is an anti-Semite.

(5) Yusuf al-Qaradawi [...] condemned the terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks but who advocates Palestinian suicide bombers against Israeli citizens as a "legitimate and recommended" means of deterring the Israeli "enemy." Livingstone agrees with - and has publicly praised Qardawi, and so implicitly agrees that neojihadist terror against Jews is okay. THAT'S ANTI-SEMITIC.

Livingstone has also FALSELY charged Israelis with ethnic-cleansing against Muslims and Arabs when the EXACT OPPOSITE is true. TAKE THE GAZA WITHDRAWAL AS AN EXAMPLE: Sharon is ethnically-cleansing Gaza of Jews - while 20% - THAT'S RIGHT TWENTY-EFFING PERCENT - of Israel's VOTING POPULATION is Arab Muslim!

Palestinian Arabs - like the "moderate" Abbas - want "Judenrein" in the West Bank too - by requiring that all Israeli/Jewish setlements be emptied as a condition to a settlement; therefore, IT IS THE ARABS WHO WANT ETHNIC-CLEANSING, NOT THE ISRAELIS!!!!

If these illustrate ethnic-cleansing by Jews against Muslims than Livingstone is Chief Rabbi of Lodz! Of course, Livingstone is NOT chief rabbi of anything; he is an abhorrent anti-Semite - like so many on the Left. Like Senator Byrd, Livingstone's recent tirade has exposed him for what he really is: a bigot.

Wednesday, March 02, 2005

THE LEFT'S FIXATION ON SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

Barry Lynn (of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State - and one of the Leftists who filed a brief in the "ANTI-TEN COMMANDMENTS" case before the SCOTUS) appeared on C-SPAN today.

Lynn said that, according to his reading of the first amendment - (which reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;) - "the government shall not own or operate or display religious symbols."

That's a DIRECT QUOTE.

I guess that means that he and the ACLU will next sue the Department of Defense to remove all the crosses from Arlington National Cemetery!!!
Don't laugh - they'll probably get to it right after they remove the word GOD from our motto our money and our pledge!

WHY IS THIS ANTI-RELIGION EFFORT SUCH AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE LEFT'S AGENDA? Because the Left worships the State - and they want the State run by atheistic socialist intellectuals; therefore traditional religion - and priests and rabbis - are quite simply THE COMPETITION!

PS: Another thing Lynn said today: that "the Ten Commandments is a symbol of just one religion." I wonder which one that is!? The "Judeo-Christian" one?! The Jewish one!? The Protestant one!? The Catholic one!? The Lutheran one!? And so on... IT'S EFFING RIDICULOUS! The constitution says the government shall not establish a religion; it does not say that it may not express or reflect some religiousness or any relgiousity - and the fact that Congress opens each day with a prayer IS PROOF that this is so.

The atheistic socialist intellectual elites have been trying to destroy Western Civilization since they fomented the Counter-Culture Revolution in the 1960's; (I know: I was part of it!). They have the same aim now, only now they're trying to use the courts to accomplish what they could not accomplish by popular revolution.

The Left's basic anti-Western attitude is why they've had such a hard time joining in with Bush and attacking the neojihadists; in the neojihadists the Left saw a powerful ally in their long-standing effort to destroy America, and with America the West and Western traditions. It's also why they would rather align themselves with Third World dictators like Fidel and Chavez and Mugabe ( and Ho Chi Minh and Pol Pot and Mao before them) than with the capitalist/industrialized/God-fearing West: to the Left, cultural and economic colonialism are the "capital crimes" that the West committed against the Third World; they're the reason why the West deserves to die - as far as the Left is concerned.

Here's another illustration of this essentially anti-West attitude: a sign at a "pro-Ward Churchill" rally at UW proclaimed: "Capitalism = terrorism" - (hat tip PRESTOPUNDIT) and this is EXACTLY WHY Churchill argued that the victims of neojihadist terror on 9/11 were "little eichmanns."

Of course the premise of the Left-wing attack on Western Civilization and capitalism and industrialization is preposterous on its face. NEED PROOF!? Well, the First World's excellent wealth and health is a result of capitalism, trade and industrialization; Third World poverty and short life-spans are a result of their LACK OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, TRADE AND INDUSTRIALIZATION.

If the Left truly wanted people in the Third World to have more wealth and live longer healthier lives, then they'd advocate more globalization and more industrialization for the Third World, and not less consumption or less production in the West, in the First World.

The Left, though, remains opposed to capitalism and industrialization - it's basically why they are pro-KYOTO (which is a horrifying "anti-economic/anti-industrial growth" treaty which threatens global economic ruin).

But reality has VERY LITTLE to do with the Leftist agenda; Marxist orthodoxy has EVERYTHING to do with it. And, after all, Marx was anti-religion. And that's basically why Barry Lynn is too. It has NOTHING to do with the First Amendment, and everything to do with Marxist socialism. Take it from me: I used to be a Leftist. Before I saw the Light.


The Left knows that they could never get any Amercian legislature to ban religious symbols and references to the Creator from all government auspices, events, objects, etc. That's why they've taken the issue to the courts: this is the Left's last chance at inflicting their atheistic, anti-traditional, anti-West program on to all Americans, and if we can defeat them on this issue NOW, then it will be as big a blow to them as the Bush Doctrine has been to tyranny in the Middle East.

I am praying that the SCOTUS does the right thing!

UPDATE - 3/7: Welcome DISSECTING LEFT readers! (And if you're not one - YOU SHOULD BE - EVERYDAY!

SPAIN'S ANTI-AMERICAN SOCIALISTS

ACCORDING TO THE SPANISH DAILY EL MUNDO:


Zapatero probably withheld the info deliberately. Probably because he and his pinko cohorts hoped that an attack by AL QAEDA against the USA between March 2004 and the election in Novemeber would tip the Amercian election to the socialistic Kerry juist as Atocha had tipped the Spanish election to the anti-war pinkos in Spain.

Socialist scum. Like the wise man once said about the Left: "They are not anti-war; they're on the other side."

Tuesday, March 01, 2005

SUPREME COURT CONTINUES LEFT-WING INFANTILIZATION

The SCOTUS ruled to day that the death penalty may not be applied to anyone under age 18.

Just 17 years ago, in 1988, the SCOTUS said the age limit was 16 and over.

But then - way back in the 1980's 18 year olds could drink, too.


NOW... if you're under 18, you are a JUVENILE - an as of yet un-formed adult - and not allowed to drink booze (legally) and not fully responsible for your actions even if those actions include premeditated murder.

WHAT'S HAPPENED SINCE 1988 TO CHANGE THINGS?!
ARE 18 year olds more infantile now than then!?

NO.

What's happened is that a few Leftists on the SCOTUS have succeeded in making 18 year old people LESS responsible for themselves - which is of course at the HEART of the Leftists agenda: they don't want people to be responsible for themselves; they want the state to be responsible for you, instead.

Well, I say: If you're old enough to volunteer for the armed forces, and old enough to vote, then you are old enough to drink booze and to suffer the death penalty if a jury says you deserve it.

If the Left had their way, illegal juvenile aliens (even those convicted of felonies) would have the right to vote, but not to smoke or drink or die for committing murder. HOW EFFING WEIRD IS THAT!? Maybe the Left will RAISE the voting age!? Or do they think that voting requires less thought and responsibility than killing?!

There is NO consisitency or sense to the Left's position EXCEPT as part of a program to make people LESS responsible for themselves - and the State MORE POWERFUL; that is the ONLY context in which this decision makes sense. It's court-ordered nanny-statism at its worst, and - now that the GOP controls the White House and the Congress - it's the ONLY way the Left can stuff their Leftist agenda down our throats.

Which also means it's further proof that the GOP controlled Senate ought to abolish the Senate rule that requires cloture for court nominees, so the GOP can get a few non-Leftist jurists on the court - - jurists who won't legislate from the bench, or aggrandize the state as they infantilize the citizenry.

GERMAN ECONOMY KEEPS SPEEDING IN THE FAST LANE...

... on the road to serfdom, that is!

BBC: More than 5.2 million Germans were out of work in February, new figures show. The figure of 5.216 million people, or 12.6% of the working-age population, is the highest jobless rate in Europe's biggest economy since the 1930s.

WHY IS GERMANY DOING SO BADLY?! Well, Germany is a socialist economy with a socialist government - one allied to environmentalists. Their economy - and Continental Europe's - is doomed unless and until Germany - and France - elect Thatcherite/Reaganite governments which embrace Hayekian principles and cut taxes and reduce the size of government.

THIS IS NOT DOCTRINAIRE; HAYEKIAN POLIICES MAKE ECONOMIES GROW BETTER BECAUSE THEY LIBERATE PEOPLE TO BE MORE INDUSTRIOUS AND CREATIVE!