Edward L. Daley's blog

1) The modern American "peace movement" is responsible for the deaths of far more people than the U.S.-involved wars its members have protested over the past half century. Why then are so many Americans still convinced that going to war is the worst thing our country can do?

2) Over the course of its existence, our planet has been much colder and much warmer than it is today, having endured periodic ice ages and various cataclysmic natural events. That being the case, why would anyone choose to believe that human beings are responsible for the earth's most recent, and relatively mild, climatic shift?

Apparently the entire Republican party has lost its collective mind, as is evidenced by the fact that the GOP's presidential candidates agreed to let a partisan, liberal hatchet-man like Chris Matthews[1] run their first national debate[2] on Thursday evening. Along for the ride were John Harris[3] and Jim VandeHei[4] of The Politico.com, who's questions actually made Matthews' blatantly anti-rightwing interrogatives seem almost unbiased in comparison.

The ten politicians who showed up for the event were Mitt Romney[5], Sam Brownback[6], Jim Gilmore[7], Mike Huckabee[8], Duncan Hunter[9], Tommy Thompson[10], John McCain[11], Ron Pail[12], Rudy Giuliani[13] and Tom Tancredo[14], and before the night was over, none of them had managed to avoid being rhetorically shivved by at least one of the three questioners. Of course, the candidates had nobody but themselves to blame for the shameful, 90-minute display.

Ever since the new Defeatocrat party took control of our Congress less than two months ago, the snarling anklebiters who make up its support base have allowed their irrational hatred for the Bush administration to propel them to new heights of lunacy, and it doesn't look as if they're going to be piloting the starship moonbat toward planet reality anytime soon.

Of course, there has never been a time when the word rational could have been used to accurately describe this particular generation of leftists, however, with each passing day it's becoming more and more difficult to refer to them as anything but a gaggle of frothing nutjobs.

If the truth be known, I'd rather be locked in a room with a few dozen hysterical 5-year-olds for a week than spend half an minute listening to the sort of mindless gibberish that routinely flows from the mouth of Cindy Sheehan. Unfortunately, the Jurassic media feels the need to report every idiotic phrase uttered by that brainsick rube, while virtually ignoring the opinions of the most honorable people in America; the men and women of our armed services.

It's no secret that Iran, and to a lesser degree, Syria, are responsible for supplying weapons to our enemies in Iraq, as well as encouraging would-be terrorists from their own lands to join the ranks of the blood-thirsty Islamo-fascist militias that our military and the Iraqi Army faces on a daily basis in the area known as the Sunni Triangle.

Both of these countries also directly support Hezbollah, the most well-organized terrorist group in the world, and next to Al-Qaeda, the most deadly. The United States and Israel know full well the threat posed by this extremist faction and their patron states, yet year after year passes with no substantial military action being taken against them. Why?

It's all well and good that we are expending every available resource to destroy Al-Qaeda and its confederates worldwide, but for some inexplicable reason the terrorist organization which was responsible for more American deaths prior to 9/11 than any other in history is largely ignored by the Bush Administration. Israel as well seems to have concluded that taking the fight to these parasites isn't worth the trouble, and every time I think about what's going on in Lebanon these days, my stomach begins composing an overture to the next 'Star Wars' sequel.

A few weeks ago I wrote an article titled 'The Underrepresented Conservative Base' 1, in which I speculated that "Maybe losing the House of Representatives for a couple of years is exactly what the Republican party needs to wake it up and give it a great big shove back toward its conservative roots." This statement evoked a considerable amount of anger from Republican party loyalists, who denounced my opinion as defeatist, and even questioned my ideological integrity. Their reaction only served to reinforce my belief that the GOP is in big trouble at the moment, and will remain so until its blind supporters and increasingly wimpy leaders pull their collective head out of the sand and move back to the right where true Republicans belong.

A popular media myth these days is that most voters want to see the two main parties move more toward the political center, and that the partisan bickering which has always existed between them will come to a screeching halt once the voice of America's "moderate majority" has finally been heard. Aside from the fact that one would have to be as naive as a 2-year old to believe such tripe, I think it's fair to point out that compromise, while being far less noisy and time-consuming than fighting, is also less productive in the long run, at least most of the time.

Tune your television to any political talk show during this venomous electoral season, and you're bound to hear a bunch of pundits speculating on the future of the Republican party. Even before the Mark Foley e-diddling scandal broke a couple of weeks ago, conventional wisdom held that the GOP was headed for a seriously weakened majority presence in Congress, and perhaps even minority status in one of the two houses.

For the first time in quite a while I've found myself agreeing with the conclusions of most political prognosticators on tv, yet I disagree with the reasons they usually give for the Republicans' decline in popularity. You see, the thing about conventional wisdom is that the truly wise among us have little to do with its evolution. The fact that the majority of opinion-meisters and political junkies sometimes reach the right conclusion, doesn't mean that the logic they've used to get there is sound. Their ability to occasionally place the right bet has more to do with the law of averages than anything else. Any blackjack dealer in Vegas will tell you that if you hold on 15 every time it's dealt to you, eventually the house will bust on a hit to a lower hand, but doing that doesn't make you a shrewd card player.

Cut And Run - Sung to the Tune of ''Let It Snow''
By Edward L. Daley

(Feel free to sing along with the instrumental version
http://www.geocities.com/lupey_107/LetItSnow.mid)

Oh the Weathermen all were Marxists
Their successors now are heartsick
So they beat their anti-Bush-war drum
Cut and run, cut and run, cut and run.

They're showing no signs of stopping
And their leadership's flip-flopping
Surrender-monkeys everyone
Cut and run, cut and run, cut and run.

When we finally win this war
I'll enjoy saying ''I told you so''
To the people who think Al Gore
Really won back in O-Ohhhh...

The peaceniks just keep on bitching
As their moles go right on snitching
John Murtha's their favorite son

Are you a conservative? If so, have you ever asked yourself why you sometimes feel obliged to inject painfully obvious statements into your debates with liberals? Here's what I mean. Suppose you're arguing in favor of criminal profiling at airports with a radical leftist, and you're making the point that most international terrorist groups are comprised of Muslim men between the ages of 18 and 40. Immediately following that statement you find yourself saying something like: "Of course, that doesn't mean that ALL Muslim men in that age group are terrorists." You mention this even though you know that the little voice in the back of your mind is about to say: "No Sh**, Sherlock! Did you figure that out all by yourself, or did you have to consult a five-year-old first?"

I think I've come up with a foolproof plan to end crime in America, and I have liberalism to thank for it. It consists of disbanding every police unit in the country and encouraging the United Nations Security Council to draft a binding resolution that places strict sanctions on domestic criminals who continue to break the law.

How do I know this will work? Well, I can't be 100% positive that it will, but most people in the world support that very same plan when it comes to dealing with the problem of international terrorism, and everyone knows that the majority is never wrong, so it only makes sense that such a strategy would be effective when applied to U.S. domestic crime prevention.

Practically every left-leaning society on earth, as well as every major mainstream news agency, has concluded that fighting bad guys doesn't work, and in fact, even attempting to stop them from committing antisocial acts only incites them to behave more objectionably later on. Just take a look at the current conflict in Lebanon. For the past couple of weeks, Israel has been viciously attacking members of Hezbollah, but is France, Spain, Russia, China, the BBC, CNN, or the New York Times congratulating the Israelis for their efforts? Of course not, because they all understand that only a ceasefire will bring peace to the region.

The dominant view today among legal scholars, law professors, practicing lawyers, and judges in this country is that the Constitution is a "living, breathing" document, and that judges on the highest federal benches are charged with "reinterpreting" its text so that it will better conform to "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society" such as ours.

That perspective is, in my opinion, completely asinine.

The fact is that if you believe in that sort of Constitution then you believe in no Constitution at all, because when any legal document's text can be redefined by judges anytime they feel like doing so, the ideas expressed therein cease to have any relevance. Supreme Court justices, as well as other federal jurists, who fail to be primarily concerned with what the drafters of our Constitution originally intended, must logically be more concerned with their own opinions of how the Constitution SHOULD have been written, and if that is the case, they have no business being judges. Simply put, if your agenda is to make changes to our Constitution, then present your amendment proposals to the American people like our founding fathers intended, and stop trying to circumvent the process by legislating from the bench!

What do Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter all have in common, aside from the fact that history will judge them to be among the most successful people in their respective fields? Why, they're right-wing extremists, of course, and although one of them is no longer with us, he's still regarded with as much contempt as any living conservative, by people like Dan Rather and Ted Kennedy.

Funny how the most popular conservatives are always labeled extremists by left-wingers and their lapdogs in the "mainstream" media. Apparently in the minds of liberals, if the majority of people find you to be bright, articulate, charismatic, talented, and well informed, you must be evil incarnate.

Indeed, if you've been voted the 'Greatest American' (1) of all time in a national poll by millions of your fellow citizens, created the most popular program (2) in the history of talk radio, or written 5 consecutive non-fiction bestsellers (3), you deserve nothing but ridicule from those enlightened few who, for some inexplicable reason, have a popularity rating on par with brussel sprouts.

Well, Pinko De Mayo has come and gone, and this year's celebration of the Bolshevik Revolution by communism's useful idiots had new life breathed into it in the United States. Hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens and their misguided supporters decided to protest against the rule of law in our country on the one day of the year that reminds most older Americans of the genocidal policies of men like Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot.

Hundreds of businesses across the country closed their doors in deference to the wishes of America's illegal workforce, and many teachers failed to prevent their dangerously naive students from joining demonstrations which only proved to the rest of us just how utterly foolish and immoral years of systematic liberal brainwashing has left them.

Every morning I log onto the worldwide web, not because I'm a computer geek, but because I want to understand what's going on in the world. I've long since turned my back on the print media for accurate and timely news reporting, and it's getting to the point where I can't even bring myself to watch a televised news broadcasts anymore, simply because tv networks can't seem to report on much of anything these days without insulting my intelligence with some sort of politically correct blather.

I also tune into various talk radio programs throughout the day, because the conservative hosts which dominate the AM dial usually manage to unearth interesting news articles that I just can't find anywhere else, and they are the best in the business at researching the facts behind the stories they cover, affording me a better perspective on the news than I would otherwise have.

This past Monday, CBS, otherwise known as See? BS!, Al-Jazeera West, and the Corrupt Broadcasting System, proved once again that it is nothing but a shameless propaganda tool of the Democrat party, by releasing the results of a poll it rigged... uh... conducted recently showing that President Bush's popularity rating has plummeted to an all-time low of 34 percent.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/27/opinion/polls/main1350874.shtml

Of course, when one looks at the internals of the poll, one sees that, of the 1018 people who responded to it, only 28 percent were Republicans. 38 percent, however, were Democrats (big surprise there), and the remaining 34 percent were described as Independents.

In her most recent Human Events column titled 'This Is Why We Don't Trust Democrats With National Security', Ann Coulter relates that "The Democratic Party has decided to express indignation at the idea that an American citizen who happens to be a member of al Qaeda is not allowed to have a private conversation with Osama bin Laden," adding that "If they run on that in 2008, it could be the first time in history a Republican president takes even the District of Columbia."

Once again Miss Coulter has managed to hit the nail squarely on the head, so to speak, just as she's done so many times in the past. Indeed, how suicidal do you have to be, both politically and actually, to argue that President Bush doesn't have the right to order the interception of communications between individuals in the U.S. and known terrorists overseas unless, as Congressional Democrats require, he first asks some lawyer in a black robe for permission?

I have several requirements for supporting Supreme Court nominees, among them being that Chucky Schumer and Harry Reid must hate them. Let's face it, if these two clowns support you, you have about as good a chance of being a rational human being as Al Gore has of developing a personality. With that in mind, it should not be hard to understand why I practically jumped for joy when I heard that Harriet Miers was withdrawing her nomination to the high court. Even though most of my Republican friends kept telling me that I needed to give her a chance, I just couldn't get past the fact that two of the most insanely liberal members of the U.S. Senate actually liked her.

Predictably, every radical left-winger in the country is now saying that President Bush needs to choose a "moderate" replacement nominee, which proves once again how completely out of touch with reality these people really are. In the first place, there's no such thing as a moderate judge, there's only originalists and activists. Secondly, whenever a liberal says they think we need more moderates anywhere, what they are really saying is we need more liberals who call themselves moderates.

The "mainstream" media today, in a stunning display of left-wing bias, engaged in a coordinated anti-war propaganda campaign designed to overshadow an attempt by President Bush on Thursday to rally America's troops. The effort was so gratuitously spiteful, partisan, and transparent that Joseph Goebbels himself would have applauded it.

In a video conference yesterday to members of the Army's 42nd Infantry Division based in Tikrit, the President did his best to boost the morale of U.S. fighting forces in Iraq, saying "We're never going to back down, we're never going to give in, we'll never accept anything less than total victory." This message was intentionally kicked to the curb by liberal journalists across the country and around the world this morning, when headlines began to appear stating that the teleconference had been "staged".

Here's a partial list of the stories I found on the internet today concerning the event.

ABC: Bush Teleconference With Soldiers Staged

You believe that the U. S. Constitution prohibits the open recognition of God by our federal (or any state) government, and the exhibition of religious symbols on public grounds.

Or you believe that Al Gore won the 2000 presidential election.

Or you believe that most television and print news outlets in this country are politically neutral.

Or you believe that outlawing private gun ownership will reduce crime.

Or you believe that the U. S. Constitution is a "living, breathing" document, and that Supreme Court Justices have the right to redefine its text in order to make it compatible with what they interpret to be the current moral standards of society.

Or you believe that Charles Darwin's macro-evolution theory is a proven fact.

I don't think I have to point out to anyone just how horrendous the situation down in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama is today. Hurricane Katrina has proved to be the worst natural disaster to strike the United States since the San Francisco earthquake of 1906, and the effects of this unprecedented catastrophe will surely be felt in this country for many months, and perhaps years to come.

As rescue workers from all over the country converge on the gulf coast states, millions of other Americans are donating much needed aid dollars to the relief effort, and community leaders from Birmingham to Baton Rouge are working day and night to save the lives of untold numbers of flood victims.

Average citizens around our nation are doing their best to stay focussed on the task at hand, and avoid complaining about the comparatively minor inconvenience of having to pay higher gas prices in the near future.

If one were to rely exclusively on the left-leaning media as a source for information on the war, one would be led to believe that you folks in our armed forces are getting your backsides kicked all over the Middle East these days, and what's more, the humiliating defeats you're suffering are coming at the hands of "insurgents", "militants", or "rebel fighters".

Thankfully, most U.S. citizens are no longer dependent upon propagandists at the Abu Ghraib Daily (aka the New York Times), or Al-Jazeera-West (aka CBS) for their news. Indeed, Americans like myself understand that the vast majority of butts getting kicked in Iraq and Afghanistan are attached to fascist parasites who think that Allah hands out rewards for the cowardly slaughter of children.

Want to find out how many Americans have died in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts over the past couple of years? The number of sources available for learning such information is astonishing, and many include a list of the names of our troops killed since the invasion of Afghanistan.

A lot of websites, newspapers, and tv/radio networks are also keeping track of civilian war casualties, particularly in Iraq, however, the numbers vary widely between them, and few seem to be able to distinguish between civilian innocents and civilian terror suspects when compiling their data.

While it may come as no surprise to most people that such sources rarely include any references to enemy war casualties, what I find to be truly disturbing is that I have yet to discover one truly authoritative source for the total number of enemy combatants killed and captured over the past three years and ten months.