Senate Liberals Are "Acluistic"

4 03 2006

Acluistic – adj, one or group who is without a clue.

Well, WW III has not yet been declared. Nuclear winter is not building on the far horizon, and the public’s business has not ground to a halt.

We all remember when senate liberals warned darkly last fall that all of the above would break loose on the floor of the U.S. Senate if the President nominated a conservative for the Supreme Court. Ignoring the liberals’ hysteria, George W. Bush nominated Samuel Alito, and so far, the world has not come to an end. That brought to my mind a memory—the time when, as a little boy, I got into a fight with one of my brothers. He started it, but by the time our mother broke it up, we were both into it.

“What’s going on here,” she asked sternly. My brother’s reply was one for the ages: “He hit me back first,” he said. That fooled mom for a second, but only for a second. In an effort to distract her, he exposed the truth.

And so have the Senate Democrats and their leftist allies. They said last year that they did not want the president to send up an “ideologue” for confirmation to the Supreme Court, yet that’s the very thing they want. They argue that an “ideologue” is one who is “out of touch with mainstream America,” but the landscape they envision, as described in a new report by Curt Levey of the Committee for Justice, a pro-Alito alliance, is surreal.

No Christmas or Hanukkah displays, no “under God” in the pledge, no Easter vacations for kids, same-sex marriage, a right to polygamy, transsexuals in the military, unisex restrooms, a ban on Boy Scouts’ use of public places, no abstinence education, freedom for online pornography, no school choice, an end to the U.S. “occupation” of Iraq, and for illegal aliens: drivers’ licenses and in-state college tuition breaks.

The liberal coalition, which includes the ACLU and, alleges that Alito is someone who will turn back the clock on civil rights, block progress for women, and ignore the precedent of earlier rulings.

By the precedent argument, they mean only those rulings that advance their causes, such as Everson, 1947 and Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that overturned pro-life laws in all 50 states. They don’t mention that every leftist ruling, of course, is a break with previous precedent. By the “progress for women” argument they mean they want no limits on abortion. By the civil rights argument they mean they want a justice who would force religious groups which oppose homosexuality to hire homosexuals.

Not all of the leftist coalition members hold each of these views, but collectively, the country they want is unrecognizable to most Americans. In leftist rhetoric, then, an “ideologue” is a nominee who opposes their ideas, by holding to what the Constitution actually says, rather than how they want it interpreted.

My brother could have told them it wouldn’t work.

Linked with: Argghhh!, Blue Star Chronicles, Don Surber, Right Wing Nation, Samantha Burns, Third World County, TMH’s Bacon Bits, The Liberal Wrong, Voteswagon, Stuck on Stupid, Adam’s Blog, Uncooperative Blogger, Stop The ACLU




Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: