Of whom do I speak?  Most Democrats, of course, especially those of the liberal and vocal variety.

Atty. Gen. Gonzales is being raked over the coals on a number of issues all starting with the firing of seven U.S. Attorneys.  You all know the story and the “outrage” being expressed by the likes of Diane Feinstein that these firings were “politically motivated.”  D’uh.  U.S. Attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the current President, but you have all heard that countless times by now.

What continues to torque my skivvies whenever this story bubbles up again is that there is NEVER any mention, much less commentary, about the fact that in 1993, shortly after taking office, President Clinton fired all 93 then sitting U.S. Attorneys. Oops.  But that wasn’t political, was it?

Speaking of politically motivated outrage, the commutation of Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s sentence is being spun as one of the most reprehensible Constitutional end-runs in history (forgetting the fact that it is the Constitution, itslef, that gives any President the power to commute sentences and grant pardons).  Hillary Clinton has said:

“Today’s decision [to commute Libby’s sentence]is yet another example that this Administration simply considers itself above the law. This case arose from the Administration’s politicization of national security intelligence and its efforts to punish those who spoke out against its policies. Four years into the Iraq war, Americans are still living with the consequences of this White House’s efforts to quell dissent. This commutation sends the clear signal that in this Administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice.”

But since the Dems are talking major outrage here over the exercise of a Presidential prerogative,  let us take a look at the list of pardons (396 total) and commutations of sentences (stopped counting at 60) issued by the good President Clinton.

The point here isn’t to dispute that Clinton did not have the power and right (he did), but that there was no major political outcry by Republicans.

[By the way, Hillary is a two-faced, hypocritcal beeyatch.]

Liberal Democrats remain one of the stupidest species on the planet.  Recently they tried to attach an amendment to a defense authorization bill that would have brought all of the Guantanamo Bay detainees to the U.S.

Fortunately, that bill never got to a vote but, get this, a Republican alternative prohibiting such a move overwhelmingly passed the Senate the following week and every Democrat sponsor of the original amendment voted for the Republican alternative. So not only are they stupid, but cowards as well, not having the backbone to stand up for their principles.  But of course the only principle exhibited by liberal Dems these days is that of doing and saying whatever it takes to get elected even if that means adopting ridiculous far-left positions in order to keep your lunatic, but ever vocal, fringe happy.

Imagine what most Americans would conclude if asked whether it was a good idea to move the terrorists we house at Gitmo to prisons on American soil.  I think I can safely say that the answer would be a resounding “What are you, crazy!” except for perhaps in an enclave or two in upper Manhattan and in the Bay area.

The good sense of the vast majority of the Americans would cause them to rebel against the notion of having these types of people voluntarily moved amongst us.

It’s a very busy day for me with one of our dogs in the vet hospital (for Meatbrain, that’s “veterinary” not “veterans” ), two appellate issues to analyze and brief and prepping to spend a week on the water in San Diego with the family Hounds! But some light social commentary is always in order.

Lindsay Lohan will be dead before she hits her 25th birthday. Sorry, not so light, is it. She’s been picked up again for DUI, what is it, two weeks after getting out of rehab, and while she has a prior DUI charge pending. The cocaine found in her pocket during booking isn’t going to help matters. Can you imagine if she was actually old enough to drink legally?

Although she has her defenders who explain that she’s young and oh, such a great actress, the bottom line is that Lindsay is an accident that has already happened. Remember when we were being told that Michael Jackson was just as normal as you and me, just with a bit more cash in the bank. You don’t hear that anymore now that he’s officially changed races and moved to Bahrain, where I guess he believes Muslim sensibilities are so much more open to eccentric behavior, including sleeping with pre-pubescent boys.

No. Lindsay Lohan is a drunk, drug abusing narcissistic loser who made some cute movies when she was a child but has now pretty much torpedoed her career. Good riddance. My only hope is that when her train wrecks, it crashes into Brittany Spears.

* * * * *

Every once in awhile this idea pops into my head, so I figure it’s about time to write it down.

Here’s the setup: I like Rudy Giuliani as a presidential candidate. He’s a straight shooter, who has his priorities in order with keeping this country safe and fighting terrorism at the top of the list. That’s why I can look past his stated pro-choice position (made easier by the fact that he has clearly stated he would appoint judges in the mold of Scalia and Roberts). But whenever he, and pretty much every other pro-choice candidate, makes the comment that despite the fact he is personally antiabortion, he will not impose his personal moral beliefs on anyone else, or when Hillary righteously intones that she wishes to keep abortion safe, available and rare (or whatever), I begin to wretch.

I simply don’t understand how you can have heartfelt personal convictions on an important moral issue but then not believe that those convictions ought be applied to others. It makes no sense to me. How is that any different than a candidate saying he finds racism morally repugnant, evil and abhorrent, but would not dream of imposing his personal moral convictions concerning racism on others. What would the response of the American people be to something like that? “Oh, sure I understand. If a person wants to refuse to rent to, or offer a job to, someone simply because they’re African-American, that’s their own personal moral choice.”

As to Hillary, I would ask her to identify what other constitutional right we should ensure is only “rarely” exercised.

Barack Obama is for “age appropriate” sex education for kindergartners.

The spin on this is that Obama was talking about teaching these children about how to recognize sexual predators, etc and that parents can opt their kids out from the instruction. Thank you, but I think it’s best to leave discussions with 5 and 6 year olds about what is “inappropriate touching” to their parents, and it’s a sad reflection on our times when there are things being taught in kindergarten classes that parents might rightfully want to exclude their children from.

Furthermore, isn’t it about time we stopped stealing away our kids’ innocence bit by bit and earlier and earlier?

For those who don’t understand why the prosecution, conviction and sentencing of “Scooter” Libby was such a judicial farce, the following excerpt from Hugh Hewitt’s interview with Robert Novak should prove explanatory:

HH: Why was Armitage not charged if Valerie Plame’s identity was a secret, and Patrick Fitzgerald was investigating its leak?

RN: Because there was no crime committed under the Intelligence Agents Identity Act. That bill was passed, Hugh, to protect intelligence agents overseas from being outed by left wing forces, and then marked for assassination. It was really a deadly serious act, nothing like somebody sitting in Langley in the CIA headquarters as Mrs. Wilson was, doing analysis. There was no crime committed under that act, and therefore, he was not charged. And so that is the whole problem with the Libby indictment. He was charged for obstructing justice when there was no underlying crime committed, or allegedly committed.

HH: Why did Fitzgerald, do you think, in your opinion, continue on with the investigation once Armitage had revealed it was he who was the leaker?

RN: Because…you know, when he entered the case, he was told that Armitage was the leaker. That information was given to him, because it had been known for three weeks before he was named as special prosecutor. And therefore, I think the Justice Department should have bitten the bullet and taken care of him itself. Why he did not reveal that is something that is in the mysteries of the whole, strange relationship of special prosecutors. It is very difficult for them to say no crime was committed, you’ve named me for nothing, and I’ve established a staff for nothing. But that’s in fact what he should have done.

And, by the way, Libby was not “pardoned” by the President.  His prison sentence was commuted but his conviction remains on the books (pending appeal) as does the $250,000 fine and disbarment.

Our first elected Muslim Congressman has given a speech analogizing President Bush and 911 to Hitler and the Reichstag fire.  As you would expect, he’s of course a Democrat.

For the historically-challenged, the Reichstag was the German parliament and, in 1933, the building which housed it was substantially consumed by a suspicious fire at the time blamed on Communists.  Hitler’s National Socialist Party (”Nazis”) used this event to arrogate to Hitler as newly elected Chancellor the power to pass laws by decree.  It is suspected that the Nazis were complicit in that fire knowing that it could then be used by them for political purposes.

So President Bush was in some way complicit in 911 in order to put in place this totalitarian state in which we now live.  Quite obviously one need not be particularly intelligent or mentally stable to be elected to high public office in certain quarters of our fair land.