To Be Right!

I’m new and not sure how or if I am allowed to start a new topic. I am in South Central Pennsylvania (Carlisle). Our local newspaper, The Sentinel, has some liberal commentary and I read one the other day concerning Scooter Libby and the Valerie Plame kerfluffle. There were many inconsistencies and downright falsehoods in the article, which I will post here.

I would be interested in any comments before I go back to this guy.

Ron Slakie

Thanks, Ron, for bringing this one to my attention…. 

 The Sentinel is a local paper in south-central Pennsylvania.  Their editorial columnist, Francis Volpe, wins the prize - to serve as the first exhibit of a phenomenon we call “cerebral genocide,” the systemathic extermination of rational thought.  Although this phenomenon is most often observed in Democrat thought, or lack thereof, it is sometimes witnessed in Republican circles as well (see McCain, John; Hagel, Chuck; and Specter, Arlen).  This first attack on coherent thought is in the context of the Scooter Libby trial…

Volpe asserts that Scooter Libby is on trial for lying to investigators, and he is correct.  But his central proposition is suspect, to say the least.  Volpe doesn’t think that whether or not Libby had anything to lie about is material to the case.  Let’s walk through it, so even a cerebral genocide henchman can understand.

Let’s get a couple simple, known facts established:

1) Everybody, and their mothers, knew Valerie Plame was a CIA agent.
2) Roughly 4,000,000 people admitted to discussing Plame’s identity before Libby ever did.
3) Quick: Can you describe, in detail, every topic discussed when you spoke with your spouse on June 14, 2005?

So, when Scooter Libby was interviewed by special council, he couldn’t remember the details of a conversation he had months prior.  Richard Armitage has publically stated that he was the person who most likely first mentioned Plame’s status.  Moreover, several other journalists have said, under oath, ther her status was common knowledge.

So I ask you, why in the world would Libby lie?  To assert that this question is immaterial to the case is a classic example of cerebral genocide.  I can’t think of a single, more important question! 

To plagerize a little from Jack Nicholson…  Take a man, remove all common sense and judgement, and you get a liberal.  Volpe does a great job at systematically exterminating rational, critical thought - well done.

Here’s a question for our chief RINO - Arlen Spector… What part of “We the People of the United States of America…” don’t you understand?

The US Constitution (linked in the blogroll) is written by and for citizens of the United States.  It is not written for the people of France, Spain, Afghanistan, or Saudi Arabia or any other country.  It is clearly and specifically written for United States citizens and nobody else.

Now that we have established this basic fact, let’s take a look at Article I Section 9 of the US Constitution.  Paragraph 2 says, “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”  (Habeas corpus is simply the right to appear before a judge to determine if a person is serving a lawful sentence or imprisonment.) 

Can someone (Spector?) please explain to me how that applies to foreign warriors, picked up on the battlefield and being detained in a military prison outside the US?  In the context of the US Constitution, it does not apply.

If we are to apply Constitutional protections and rights to all the people of the world, should we not allow Iraqi citizens to vote in our general elections?  No.  Why?  Because the Constitution is written for US CITIZENS! How hard is this to understand?  A 4th grader could understand this.

Not Arlen Spector - he doesn’t quite get it.  He thinks that the Constitutional protection given by Article I, Section 9, paragraph 2 should be granted to foreign warriors trying to kill US soldiers in war. 

No foreign terrorist should ever be given the Constitutional protection of habeas corpus or any other, for that matter. 

We’re off!  The first installment of To Be Right is finally here.  So much to say and so little space.  If I were to say it all, it would be a free association exercise that would make Jefferson actually rise from the dead.  It’s not easy - deciding on topicality, that is.  Just look at what we have to choose from: Systematic extermination of common sense by Democrats in Congress (I call it cerebral genocide); Two articles on gas prices, both by liberals, one says we should increase gas taxes by $2 a barrel, the other says Ana Rosales may have to move her home (and her 10 month old daughter) if gas prices go any higher; Everything is bad - no matter what…growth is great!  Nah uh - it is making inflation rise; Hillary Clinton delivers her vote to go into Iraq “with much conviction” and now she’s a cut and runner; Who the heck is Obama?

As enticing as this little list is, I got to really feeling bad about poor Ana Rosales.  I mean - what’s she going to do?  Gas prices are driving her out of her home.  A recent article in the Seattle Post Examiner dragged her out as a victim of (Bush induced) gas prices.

Last week I paid $14.00 for 2 beers and didn’t bat an eyelash. I am prone to do this from time to time, sometimes even jumping the 2 beer bar.  Yet Ana Rosales might have to move because  gas prices are too high? 

Okay - let’s do some math - not my strong point…  If gas were $1.00 a gallon, and you have a Toyota that gets 20 miles to the gallon and you drive round trip 30 miles a day, you spend $12.00 every 8 days on gas (assuming 12 gallon tank).  So in a month, that’s roughly 50 bucks.  If gas prices are $2.00, Ana is out an extra 50 bucks a month.  This is enough to make her move?!  Come on!  What are moving expenses?  New cable hook up (wanna bet she can afford $75/month for cable?); New phone hook up - $25; Rental truck for the day - $65.00 ($35.00 + $1.00 per mile); Missed day of work - $80; Maybe a beer for her and her 10 month old after the hard move - $14.00.  So Ana is going to have to move her home and family because she spends 50 bucks more per month on gas today, than she did in 1987.  Puleeeze.  How about this - get rid of your cable TV and subscribe to a newspaper, or don’t get the 2 beers.  Problem solved.  

Meanwhile, David Ignatius (definitely not conservative) thinks we should have a $2 per gallon gas tax.  Hmmm, dueling liberal thought.  Well, I guess we could just put a 20% surcharge on all income over $60,000 (the rich) and subsidize Ana.

Funny - anybody ever think…if gas prices are too high, what if we had more of it?  Gee Linus, what do you suppose would happen?  But wait - we can’t get more.  If we were to drill in the Gulf of Mexico and off the Coast of California, what would China, Cuba and Venezuala do?