I received this,and found it interesting, and most likely accurate. It alludes to the reductionist errors our courts and lawmakers make, while they profess to work for the American people. I cannot fathom why our Supreme Court is allowed to continue to make the absurd decisions they make, many of which ignore the goals of our Constitution.

The Democrat Party has become the Lawyers' Party. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are lawyers. Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama are lawyers. John Edwards, the other former Democrat candidate for president, is a lawyer, and so is his wife, Elizabeth. Every Democrat nominee since 1984 went to law school (although Gore did not graduate). Every Democrat vice presidential nominee since 1976, except for Lloyd Bentsen, went to law school. Look at the Democrat Party in Congress: the Majority Leader in each house is a lawyer.

The Republican Party is different. President Bush and Vice President Cheney were not lawyers, but businesspersons. The leaders of the Republican Revolution were not lawyers. Newt Gingrich was a history professor; Tom Delay was an exterminator; and, Dick Armey was an economist. House Minority Leader Boehner was a plastic manufacturer, not a lawyer. The former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is a heart surgeon.

Labels: businessmen, democrats, lawyers, republicans

It’s the Politics, Stupid:

Comparing Labor Market Data in 1996 and 2008

Democrats on the Economy in 1996:

“Our economy is the healthiest it has been in three decades.” (President Bill Clinton, State of the Union Address, January 23, 1996)

Democrats on the Economy in 2008:

“The bottom line is that this administration is the owner of the worst jobs record since Herbert Hoover." (Senator Charles Schumer, Press Release, March 7, 2008)

Labels: democrats, economy, MSM, politics, republicans

Here's the headline on a story in the Chicago Sun-Times: "Suburban Obama delegate quits over 'divisive' remark." Here's the subhead: "Says when she called black kids 'monkeys,' she was asking them to get out of tree."

Being a newspaperman of many years, I know a thing or two about headlines. They are supposed to accurately convey the essence of the story. Now, any reasonable person would have a problem with a woman, whether an Obama delegate or not, calling little black children monkeys. If she did. Check out what she really said (emphasis added):

Right Angles

Click over and see what the rest of the story entails. It's a horror piece of PC'ness in a poor Chicago world.

Labels: democrats, idiots, leftist, PC, Racism

The Chicago Sun-Times really pulled a whopper in their March 26th piece about a tax on bottled water that the Chicago City Council passed earlier this year. Chicago levied a 5 cent a bottle tax on each unit of bottled water sold in the city expecting to raise $875,000 a month on the tax. But somehow this windfall to the city has yet to be realized with the tax booty so far only amounting to $554,000. Because of this "below expected" revenue the Sun-Times claimed that this shortfall is "exacerbating a budget crunch" for the city.

I'm sorry Sun-Times but a tax shortfall isn't "exacerbating a budget crunch." The city itself is doing the "exacerbating" not the taxpayers. The City Council created a never before heard of tax and then spent the money it assumed it'd get. But then it didn't get it. How can we blame the taxpayers who avoided the tax -- legally avoided it, I might add -- for any "budget crunch"? The budget crunch is the fault of wild spending by the Chicago City Council, not by the taxpayers not being bled enough.

NewsBusters

Click through and read the rest; it's enough to make you wonder (unless of course you believe in the power of the almighty government, then you'll simply wonder at the evil!! of the tax-payers that didn't buy the water).

Labels: democrats, taxes

Frank Schaeffer's column at the Huffington Post is headlined:

This Good Friday Let Us Not Crucify Barack Obama

Excuse me? Nobody is talking about crucifying anybody. It's just politics, Frank. The three remaining presidential candidates -- Obama, Hillary and McCain -- are all U.S. senators, and should they lose, they'll still be U.S. senators. So to suggest that criticizing them is akin to crucifixion is ... well, maybe it's not blasphemy, but it's pretty ridiculous.

Speaking of ridiculous, here's the first paragraph of Schaeffer's column:

Labels: Democratic Primary, democrats, politics

Obama is everything that ever bothered me about the Democrats, embodied in one empty suit. In a country of 300 million, there are thousands of people truly qualified to serve as President. Hundreds of them are black. And this is the best the Democrats could do? An ethically challenged Illinois machine pol with, at the least, a profound tolerance for vicious racist and anti-American views, skating into the election on a paper-thin resume, and forced to spend his campaign time explaining why we should all make allowances for the insane rants he’s quietly bathed in for 20 years? Are there no black Democrats who haven’t had chummy dinners with murderous terrorists, and who could take the campaign stage with a joyous, sincere cry of “God Bless America!” at every rally? I had the same sad feeling after the 2004 elections. The Democrats needed a military veteran to run against Bush… couldn’t they find one who wasn’t a fraud?

Are we asking too much to insist that our presidential candidates be qualified, and their patriotism unqualified?

Doctor Zero on March 19, 2008 at 6:00 PM

Labels: Democratic Primary, democrats

Labels: Democratic Primary, democrats, Racism

Labels: Democratic Primary, democrats, Racism

CHICAGO -- Sen. Barack Obama, seeking to put to rest lingering questions about his relationship with indicted fundraiser and developer Antoin Rezko, met for roughly three hours Friday with investigative reporters and editorial board members of Chicago's two biggest newspapers.

Few details appeared new. Obama revised upward his estimate of the money that Rezko raised for his early campaigns, and he reiterated his mea culpa about coordinating the purchase of his Chicago home with Rezko and buying a piece of an adjoining property from Rezko and his wife.

WashingtonPost

It's only 9 paragraphs but is about a scandal and you can bet if the person was a Republican, it would be in the 1st paragraph. (^*game is from Don Surber)

The great one himself linked (thanks)

Hey Surber readers, feel free to look around the site :) also, does anyone know why this page (the main page) loads correctly in IE but not in Firefox? The site will load in FF but then load some blank page after... any help would be greatly appreciated.

update: It has to be a bad post as lordnazh.com is working fine (to me)

update(update): fixed (I think), not sure what it was, removed some code that was no longer doing anything, but that code had been there awhile so it shouldn't have just started messing up O.o

Labels: democrats, name that party, washington post

Labels: congress, democrats, politics, taxes

Labels: democrats, MSM, scandal

Labels: democrats, Hillary, idiots, Obama, politics, thaiphoon

Labels: debate, democrats, health care

Labels: democrats, global climate change, oil

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” — From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

“This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” — From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

“Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities” — From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.” — Madeline Albright, 1998

“(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983″ — National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

“Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.” — Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.” — Robert Byrd, October 2002

“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.” — Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

“What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad’s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.” — Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

“I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” — Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

“Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.” — Tom Daschle in 1998

“Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

“The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

“I share the administration’s goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.” — Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — Al Gore, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” — Bob Graham, December 2002

“Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction.” — Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.” — Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002
“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” — John Kerry, October 9, 2002

“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. …And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.” — John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” — Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

“Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.” — Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

“Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq’s denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq’s claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction.” — Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” — Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

“Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production.” — Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources — something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

“Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.” — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

Those are just some quotes from famous RepublicansDemocrats that were stated before the evil Bush took us into this illegal war!@#!!

Labels: BDS, democrats, war

Murtha pushes new troop withdrawal plan
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer 9 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A leading Democratic House Iraq war critic said Wednesday he'll soon push legislation that would order U.S. troop withdrawals to begin in two months and predicted Republicans will swing behind it this time.

In response to Murtha's proposal, House Republican Leader John Boehner said Democrats were ignoring progress in Iraq.

"If they are not listening to reports from our generals today, how does anyone believe they will make an honest and objective decision in September?" Boehner, R-Ohio, said. "Our national security is not a political football, and Republicans aren't going to treat it as such."(link)

Labels: congress, democrats, war

The plan, which was still being finalized, allows the estimated 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens in the United States to come forward and receive probationary status

President Reagan set out to correct the loss of control at our borders. Border security and enforcement of immigration laws would be greatly strengthened—in particular, through sanctions against employers who hired illegal immigrants. If jobs were the attraction for illegal immigrants, then cutting off that option was crucial.

He also agreed with the legislation in adjusting the status of immigrants—even if they had entered illegally—who were law-abiding long-term residents, many of whom had children in the United States. Illegal immigrants who could establish that they had resided in America continuously for five years would be granted temporary resident status, which could be upgraded to permanent residency after 18 months and, after another five years, to citizenship. It wasn’t automatic. They had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam and register for military selective service. Those with convictions for a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible.

The National Academy of Sciences in a very comprehensive study of the fiscal impact of immigration said that each high school dropout immigrant coming into the United States costs the taxpayers of the United States about $100,000 over the course of his lifetime. That would mean if you took that figure, and that's net of the taxes that he puts in, if you took that figure and applies it to the current illegal population it would indeed result in something like a net cost of a half a trillion dollars over the course of lifetime.

Now, with respect to the costs of the Senate bill, the Senate bill one of its key features is to give amnesty to around 10 million current illegal immigrants. That means that they will probably pay more in taxes, but it also means that they're eligible for a much wider variety of welfare programs. And as a result of that increased welfare eligibility, I calculate that the amnesty alone would have a direct cost of around $16 billion a year.

We have a very expensive, very large welfare system in the United States. We simply cannot make it unconditionally available to huge numbers of people from less developed nations

Labels: amnesty, democrats, illegal immigration, politics, republicans, thaiphoon

Good Lord are those Democrats touchy!

Yesterday afternoon, I posted about allegations that Howard Dean had manipulated KS Governor Sebelius into criticizing the White House about federal response to the Greensburg tornado, as did others (a Technorati search should enlighten you as to how viral the story has become in the blogosphere).

The offended souls at the DNC have whittled down the reaction time to a very impressive overnight. Their lawyers sent a letter to both XM Satellite Radio (the ones who originally got the purported information) and to our buddies over at Free Republic. Both letters are not only denials of the facts as I mentioned them yesterday, but they also contain injuctions to cease and desist any further dissemination of allegations relating to this matter.

Did I just witness the 1st Amendment take a pick axe to the head?(link)

This is from Stop the ACLU and he links through to Michelle and others. Of course the story didn't originate from the blogosphere, merely grew wings there.

UPDATE:

I have received a comment from Coffee260, the Free Republic poster who is the subject of one of the above mentioned letters. I think it is definitive enough in its affirmation of the facts to pull it out of the dark recesses of the comment gallery and give it the exposure it belongs:

Coffee260 Says:
May 11th, 2007 at 12:32 pm e

RagingAnura–I posted the original post over at freerepublic, Howard Dean told Kansas Gov. Sebelius to Lie. I’ve since had correspondence with Jim Quinn of the Quinn & Rose show. He’s standing by the whole thing and had this to say about his source:

“i just got off the phone with my source. solid.”

And this about the C&D order by the KGB…oops…I mean the DNC:

“FUNNY. THEY HAVEN’T CONTACTED US”

So the stories specificity is so detailed that I think intimidation is their only defense.

Labels: BDS, democrats, MSM, scandal

PHOENIX (Reuters) - Demonstrators toting placards and bullhorns rallied across the United States on Tuesday to demand rights for illegal immigrants, although the turnout was down from mass rallies a year ago, organizers said.

Demonstrations, consumer boycotts and school walkouts got under way by groups calling for an end to a recent crackdown on undocumented immigrants and better treatment for the estimated 11 million people living and working in the shadows of American society.

A year ago, hundreds of thousands of mostly Hispanic immigrants walked off the job and packed streets of major cities from New England to California in a massive show of their economic clout.

By David Keene

April 30, 2007

Anyone who knows much about real power in Congress knows that almost every member of the House and Senate lusts after a seat on the Appropriations Committee and hopes one day to achieve the status of Cardinal. The Cardinals, of course, are the folks who chair the various Appropriations Committee subcommittees and literally control the billions of dollars that pass through their hands. California Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) chairs the Senate Rules Committee, but she’s also a Cardinal. She is currently chairwoman of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies subcommittee, but until last year was for six years the top Democrat on the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies (or “Milcon”) sub-committee, where she may have directed more than $1 billion to companies controlled by her husband.

Labels: democrats, illegal immigration

Peter Franklin Paul, in a civil fraud suit filed against Bill and Hillary Clinton, claims the former president destroyed his entertainment company to get out of a $17 million deal in which Clinton promised to promote the firm in exchange for stock, cash options and massive contributions to his wife's 2000 campaign. Paul contends he was directed by the Clintons and Democratic Party leaders to foot the bill for a lavish Hollywood gala and fund-raiser prior to the 2000 election that eventually cost him nearly $2 million.

Sen. Clinton has claimed through her spokesman Howard Wolfson that Paul gave no money to her campaign, and her supporters have denied she had any anything to do with coordinating the August 2000 event or soliciting contributions directly from donors. Doing so would make Paul's substantial contributions a direct donation to her Senate campaign rather than her joint fundraising committee, violating federal statutes that limit "hard money" contributions to a candidate to $2,000 per person. Furthermore, knowingly accepting or soliciting $25,000 or more in a calendar year is a felony carrying a prison sentence of up to five years

Clinton's campaign has counted the more than $800,000 of in-kind contributions it reported in a 2006 amended FEC report for the Hollywood Gala as indirect, or "soft money," given to the New York Senate 2000 Committee, a state account that was run jointly by Clinton, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the New York State Democratic Party.

But the videotape, with clear audio of Sen. Clinton, documents her direct knowledge and involvement with Paul in producing the Hollywood fund-raiser and indicates she participated in solicitation of entertainers, whose in-kind contributions of their services would also constitute illegal contributions exceeding $25,000.

Labels: democrats, Presidential campaign, thaiphoon

Labels: democrats, England, W, war

In contradistinction to the claims of many earlier historians, Weber argues persuasively that the Northern anti-war movement was far from a peripheral phenomenon. Disaffection with the war in the North was widespread and the influence of the Peace Democrats on the Democratic party was substantial. During the election of 1864, the Copperheads wrote the platform of the Democratic party, and one of their own, Rep. George H. Pendleton of Ohio, was the party’s candidate for vice president. Until Farragut’s victory at Mobile Bay, Sherman’s capture of Atlanta, and Sheridan’s success in driving the Confederates from the Shenandoah Valley in the late summer and fall of 1864, hostility toward the war was so profound in the North that Lincoln believed he would lose the election.

The fact is that many Union soldiers came to despise the Copperheads more than they disdained the Rebels. In the words of an assistant surgeon of an Iowa regiment, “it is a common saying here that if we are whipped, it will be by Northern votes, not by Southern bullets. The army regard the result of the late [fall 1862] elections as at least prolonging the war.”

Weber quotes the response of a group of Indiana soldiers to letters from Copperhead “friends” back home:

Your letter shows you to be a cowardly traitor. No traitor can be my friend; if you cannot renounce your allegiance to the Copperhead scoundrels and own your allegiance to the Government which has always protected you, you are my enemy, and I wish you were in the ranks of my open, avowed, and manly enemies, that I might put a ball through your black heart, and send your soul to the Arch Rebel himself.

For instance, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Rep. Charles Rangel have suggested that soldiers fighting in Iraq are there because they are not smart enough to do anything else. Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois has suggested a similarity between the conduct of U.S. troops in Iraq and that of Nazi soldiers in World War II. His Illinois colleagues, Sen. Barack Obama, claimed that the lives of soldiers lost in Iraq were “wasted.” And recently William Arkin, a military analyst writing online for the Washington Post, said of American soldiers that they are “mercenaries” who had little business taking critics of the war to task.

The Copperheads often abandoned all decency in their pursuit of American defeat in the Civil War. One Connecticut Copperhead told his neighbors that he hoped that all the men who went to fight for the Union cause would “leave their Bones to Bleach on the soil” of the South. The heirs of the Copperheads in today’s Democratic party are animated by the same perverted spirit with regard to the war in Iraq. Nothing captures the essence of today’s depraved Copperhead perspective better than the following e-mail, which unfortunately is only one example of the sort of communication I have received all too often in response to articles of mine over the past few months;

Dear Mr. Owens

You write, "It is hard to conduct