I've been largely absent from this blog, the internet, news, and so on for much of the last two weeks. I guess I've posted a little bit, but not as much as I normally do. I've been busy with unusual tasks and I've tried to devote the rest of my time to rest. If you didn't notice, the comments sections of a couple of my posts were hijacked during this time. Somebody whose opinion isn't unique or rational enough to attract readers to a blog of his own decided to put his intelligence on display in my comments sections.

The reader's intelligence may be summed up in this comment: "Kerry and Liberman are moderates who hide their liberalism because they were trying to reach a broader constituency." This is, of course, one of the most asinine statements I've ever heard. Lieberman actually is a moderate. He doesn't really have liberalism to hide. That's why he's being lynched right now by liberal Democrats. He has failed to bow down to the Mother Sheehan crowd who dominates the money supply of the Democratic Party with donations from rich liberals who are obsessed with easing their wealth-guilt by sending money to people who claim to "support human rights" and "believe in reproductive freedom." The idea that John F. Kerry is a moderate is just funny, and it reveals how ignorant of the real world the reader is. My guess is that the reader is a college student. Their brains are usually not fully-developed and that is a likely explanation for this massive, though hopefully not eternal, lapse of reason.

Do you see the phrasing game here? Lightweights think peace supporters support peace, human rights supporters support human rights, and so on. Yet one would get the impression from these groups that the United States is the only nation guilty of "human rights violations," "violating international treaties" and so on. The nations who exercise restraint in warfare, arguably too much restraint, are accused of war crimes, targeting civilians, and so on. Groups like Hezbollah who hide missiles under civilians' beds aren't condemned. Israel is condemned for blowing up the building. People who detonate suicide bombs in crowded markets and mosques in order to deliberately target the innocent, however, need to be understood. Moreover, the international community needs to recognize that the person who committed the crime was himself a victim of the United States and/or Israel and that is what led him to commit the heinous act. This is all wrong. Isaiah 5:20 says, "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil, who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness..." That's what this is, regardless of whether or not you want to admit it.

The reader apparently also believes that a Nobel Peace Prize serves as confirmation that a president's policy was correct and effective. First off, the only reason Jimmy Carter was given the Nobel Prize was because he traveled around the world bad-mouthing Bush. Secondly, the U.N., with all of its peacekeeping minor-rapists and fraudulent officials, also received a Nobel Peace Prize. The prize doesn't mean anything of substance. It doesn't validate true peace, or true and effective efforts to hold peace. The Nobel people and American liberals only care about the idealistic version of peace. This is a world in which you sit down and converse with terrorists and solve your problem verbally. It leaves out the part where they saw your head off and publish a video of the decapitation on the internet. It also leaves out the slightest possibility that dropping an atomic bomb on an island ruled by nationalist fanatics could yield a peaceful nation friendly to the nation that bombed it.

As for charges that I am an angry name-caller, whatever. Read all of my posts and you will find that I am always respectful. Even when I am, in truth, angry - I reign it in and I am almost always composed. Calling someone a liberal is not "name-calling." During political discourse, it is often verbally expedient to classify groups of people. If someone is, for all intensive purposes, a liberal - it is not "name-calling" to call them that. The word "liberal" is just an adjective. In the previous paragraph when I mentioned "peacekeeping minor-rapists," that wasn't really an insult or a label so much as it was just an invocation of fact. It's not necessarily my job to explain to people the ways in which people are liberal or peacekeeping minor-rapists. I may choose to do that sometimes, but a lot of times people already know what makes the person liberal or a minor-raping peacekeeper. So, I don't really need to explain it.

I asked the reader to send comments directly to me at my email because I didn't really like the idea of my blog becoming his platform. However, as long as the comments section looks like a message board with many participants and not just a megaphone for the intellectually deficient I will leave the comments alone. I encourage participation and engagement on my blog, but if one person has a whole lot to say - he needs to get his own blog.

This week's issue of LEO is ridiculous at best, deceptive at worst. The front cover has a picture of Anne Northup at last week's press conference outside the LEO office. "Your tax dollars at work!" it declares.

Can I ask what the $%&# that means? Last week all of Congress was on vacation. Part of Northup's vacation was spent at a press conference calling LEO Founder Yarmuth on his liberalism. Is there some sort of crime here? Why not show a picture of Anne Northup taking a nap on her couch and put a headline up that says, "Asleep at the Wheel!"?

The cover story is, of course, ridiculous as well. I'm just baffled by the tax dollars cover headline.

Then I thought that maybe they were referring to the fact that a Northup campaign staffer needs a security guard to retrieve back-issues of LEO and take them to be photocopied. LEO says it is to ensure the safety of the issues, but I think the security guard is more necessitated by the possibility that some left wing fringe lunatic (a.k.a. "liberal Democrat") might attack the staffer while he tries to do his job. Regardless, I thought maybe Cary Stemle of LEO was saying that the guard is a waste of taxpayer money. However, I really don't understand why he would say that because Northup for Congress is ultimately paying for the security guard. Northup for Congress doesn't have any "tax dollars" in its bank account. It's all campaign contributions.

Bottom line: LEO's grasping to make something out of nothing. They're trying to make Northup look bad for unmasking Yarmuth's liberalism. Liberals have to hide their liberalism in order to get elected, and they do not like being exposed. LEO and the rest of Louisville's liberals are just mad.

It sucks that I have to talk about this on the day that Josh Northup was found dead, but I'm not the one who puts out the ridiculous paper. It must be responded to, though, and that's what I'm here to do.

Keep them in your prayers. Frankly, the people at LEO and John Yarmuth need our prayers also. They're wrong and they need to be shown the way.

Keep Rep. Anne Northup and her family in your prayers. Her son Joshua, 30, was found dead this morning at his apartment in Louisville. It appears to have been from natural causes.

He didn't show up to work yesterday or today and his Humana coworkers got concerned. Robert "Woody" Northup then went to check on his son at home and found him dead.

Just pray for them all over the next few days. It's tragic, and they'll need help getting through this tough time.

Any rational person who has ever read LEO Weekly knows what a dimwit John Yarmuth is. Up until a few years ago, liberal editor John Yarmuth wrote on "Hot Coals" every week. Truth be told, his ideas have infected thousands upon thousands of young Louisvillians. The paper is available for free on countless street corners in Louisville and just about every restaurant in the city it seems. Inside you find senseless run-ons by John Yarmuth, Molly Ivins, and numerous other intellectual lightweights. For every poor, young kid in the city, though, it is something to do. Thousands, maybe even millions (?), of people have been influenced in one way or another by the ideals of the paper.

Of course, in order to make some money, the paper had to take ads for an "Adults Only" section. How many of our children have been exposed to sexual perversion for the first time by John Yarmuth's LEO? How many youngsters called the 800 and 900 numbers listed in the back accompanied by tempting images?

It is a serious issue to consider. Hasn't Yarmuth's work contributed to moral decline? This is all aside from the fact that just about every idea he ever wrote about could have been written by a fifth-grader. Part of the problem is the insane availability and distribution of the paper. It's everywhere. They practically shove it in your face. Once you flip to the end you run into adult advertisements, no matter how old you are. All to turn a profit (or break even, if that).

Yarmuth said that he would own up to all of his columns if Anne would own up to all her votes in Congress over the last ten years. Northup called him on it today. She presented a stack of papers detailing her votes to Louisville today. Yarmuth now has to reveal every word. Unfortunately for him, he is going to look like a fool when this is all said and done. Frankly, I'm surprised Louisville Democrats even let him run.

The only way Northup (and Louisville) loses is if Conservatives and Republicans do not vote on November 7, 2006. I would be embarassed to be represented in Congress by John Yarmuth. You?

Hot Air covers the idea of the bin Laden trail going cold and the unit devoted to finding him being, how do you say it, discontinued?

Sounds to me like manipulation of the press. If bin Laden relaxes a little after reading this morning's Treason Times, he may come out of his cave for some sunshine. I bet we have a crazy Jack Bauerish secret team crawling around Afghanistan ready to pounce on this guy. I'm talking about guys who can like eat dirt and bugs and stuff, and like drink urine and whatnot.

In any event I bet bin Laden goes down before Bush leaves office. They might know where he is right now, they might not. If they do, then they're using bin Laden for intelligence gathering opportunities. If they don't, they will before Bush leaves because if the country goes nuts and elects a Democrat all hell could break loose.

The flip side to that is that if we get bin Laden then the country may come to believe that the Republicans' strengths regarding terror and war are no longer unnecessary.

I just wanted to point out a couple of good articles on Mitch McConnell (R-KY) becoming the next Senate Majority Leader. Chances are good that he will succeed Bill Frist (R-TN) at the post.

This isn't exactly news, but it is some decent reading for the mid-week weekend if you haven't read the articles already.

One is from October, 2005 and The Hill.

The other is from June 2, 2006 and National Journal.

Thanks to Colonel Steve for pointing out the latter (a long time ago).

Angela Moore, the Democrat running for Georgia Secretary of State now infamous for her "Vote 4 Miss Angela" rap recorded by 13 year old rapper Pootah and found on AngelaSOS06, apparently believes that the right to vote of thousands of Georgians is close to being infringed upon by the state. Her website proclaims, "In a collaborative effort to protect the right to vote for thousands of Georgians who may be unable to obtain the restricted forms of voter ID . . ."

Georgia recently began requiring voters to show identification when voting. Originally, 17 forms of identification were acceptable. Now, only 6 meet the requirement.

Correspondence with the Democrat reveals that Mrs. Moore is aware that "Many people across Georgia have been unable to obtain these forms of ID's mainly because they do not have a birth certificate or drivers licence." An Atlantan state Representative takes the complaint a bit further. In a June 25th edition of USA Today, Tyrone Brooks called the recent measures a "poll tax." Brooks stated, "We think it's an impediment, really a violation of your rights, and we still say it's a poll tax, because you still have to pay money to get to a registration office."

All I'm saying is, under that line of thinking, I pay a poll tax every time I vote because I have to pay for the gas that is required to operate my vehicle and make it roll to the voting center. I suppose the government should pay people to come to my house with a ballot when I am not working so I can vote without being taxed.

Complaining really must be reduced in America.

Regardless, Moore and Pootah do believe it is imperative for Georgians to vote. In Pootah's now famous/infamous rap he echoes Diddy numerous times, commanding Georgians to "vote or die."

I wish Moore luck.

John Yarmuth and Company is either grossly incompetent, or grossly arrogant. Whatever the reason, Yarmuth for Congress failed to comply with simple FEC laws governing radio advertisements. The ads do not state who paid for the advertisements. Plus, Yarmuth's annoying "Screw George Bush" endorsement of the ads is just ridiculous.

Northup for Congress has the full scoop HERE along with the official FEC complaint. You can listen to the ridiculous ads HERE. Be sure to sit through the end of them so you can hear Yarmuth's annoying endorsement.

Typical liberals . . . too busy bashing everyone else's alleged incompetence and wallowing in their own self-loathing to avoid making themselves look like idiots.

I wonder how Yarmuth would deal with the legislative process in Congress . . . Oh, well. We'll never find out!

At a speaking engagement in Louisville today, the Rev. Jackson urged the organization of a September rally to support school desegregation. This is a result of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to hear a case originating in Louisville in which a child who lived across the street from I.N. Bloom Elementary School was not permitted to attend that school because of racial quotas.

The rally would be effective, as Jackson explained, because "Judges read the papers, too."

Hasn't that been part of the problem in America for the last forty years? Judges have been reading newspapers and other nations' constitutions more than our U.S. Constitution, the one on which our laws are based. The judges are supposed to interpret the laws and whether or not they fit with the Constitution. Newspapers should be irrelevant to judges.

Please also visit Northup for Congress >> Photo Gallery for some great photos of the Congresswoman, most of which are courtesy of yours truly.

Self-promotion ends now.

American leftists appear to have some obsession with flogging themselves and the rest of us over America's past mistakes. They will tell you that America has done nothing good for the world at large. They will tell you that our democratic republic disenfranchises voices it does not wish to hear. They will remind you that African-Americans were once slaves in this country. They will remind you that women could not vote until the 20th century. They might remind you that originally, it was only land-owning men of a certain age that could vote. Although, that might negate some of their charges of racism and sexism beginning with the Founders and, of course, continuing to this very day. To hear them talk, we are the product of racist bigots and Americans have not changed anything for the better over the last 200 years.

The Founders of this nation did not start the nation without slavery. What they did was put a system in place that would allow the people of this nation to abolish the evil practice. Many of them clearly expressed their feelings on the matter, and less than 90 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence slavery was officially eliminated in the United States. Of course, the rights of the newly freed individuals were often neglected, infringed upon, and so forth. African-Americans were persecuted for decades after the Civil War. However, the nation as a whole was moving toward becoming better. In the 1960's, civil rights were again defined, granted, and measures were taken to assure that all Americans lived with the same rights and abided by the same laws.

The important thing to remember is that America as a whole was becoming better than it was when it was founded and positively influenced Europe, if not the rest of the world, tremendously on at least the slavery issue.

As much as American leftists love to describe the invisible hand which guides capitalism and produces so much wealth and prosperity for the people of this nation as a glass ceiling which oppresses women and minorities and limits their potential to succeed, there is little, if any, wisdom in this line of thinking. Many of these "progressives" are in fact and by their own admission Communists and Socialists. I believe they have little ground to stand on seeing as how neither of these systems have ever succeeded in any way unless you consider mass-starvation, mass-murder, and restriction of freedoms successful implementation of social and political theory.

In fact, capitalism has had the exact opposite affect on America. Capitalism was the vehicle by which Americans were able to abolish slavery. The creation and ultimate growth of the U.S. Treasury and the New York Stock Exchange provided a means by which many people could provide for their families and themselves outside of solely agrarian endeavors which relied on slavery. Investing, banking, retail, etc. boomed. The result was a society and an economy which did not rely on slavery for prosperity. This society then followed its collective moral conscience and the words of its Constitution which advised that "all men are created equal" and took steps to abolish the institution that the entire world had used for millenia. The industrial revolution created more opportunity in the U.S., as did every economic boom throughout the 20th century. That trend will continue all the way through the 21st century and beyond because it is built on solid rock.

Today the trend of beating ourselves up over past mistakes continues. Still, the American left has no intention of learning from the mistakes, changing what needs to be changed, and moving on. Of course, some of this attitude is driven by politics, but their words and actions are reprehensible. They can not be trusted with power.

Representative John Murtha (D-PA) believes that the U.S. military should "redeploy." The leader of this asinine and intellectually empty proposal often cites numerous mistakes made during the Iraq War. He cites Abu Ghraib. He cites possible errors in initial troop levels, and possible errors in current troop levels. Location is wrong. Timing is wrong. Zarqawi did not matter. Hussein is really a very nice guy. Not enough civilian casualties were avoided. The "Haditha Incident" is now his favorite criticism, even though nobody really knows what happened in Haditha yet. We have to say "allegedly" about crimes possibly committed by American civilians, but when a member of the American Armed Forces is accused of something, Murtha and others simply do not have time to wait and see if they are actually guilty. They immediately run to the closest camera and start blabbing about the murders as if a verdict had just been handed down. They refuse to accept that the mistakes are part of a greater good and are almost exclusively unintentional. They refuse to accept the remarkable restraint the U.S. has shown while fighting the War on Terror and Islamic Jihad as a truly progressive step forward from previous methods of fighting that is at times crippling and self-hindering.

One mistake that Rep. Murtha and the rest of the American left should acknowledge is the 1993 Mogadishu pullout. In 1993, Murtha boasted that he had gotten President Clinton's ear regarding the troops stationed in Somalia. He told "Today" that President Clinton had been "listening to our suggestions. And I think you'll see him move those troops out very quickly." "Our welcome has been worn out," Murtha said, explaining why he felt the troops needed to be redeployed. He also said, "There's no military solution. Some of them will tell you [that] to get [warlord Mohamed Farrah] Aidid is the solution. I don't agree with that."

Pulling out was, of course, the decision that President Clinton made following a battle which left 18 U.S. Rangers dead and humiliated. That proved to be a pretty bad decision, considering Osama bin Laden's remarks. This incident brought to life bin Laden's vision of America as a "paper tiger" that "did not have the stomach for war."

Well, that was true at the time. For Rep. Murtha, it is still true. He does not have the stomach for war. His advice and Clinton's decision did not work. It did nothing to benefit the United States or the people of Somalia. It embarassed our military and our country as a whole. It only helped warlords, al-Qaeda, and other terrorists. That way of thinking emboldened terrorists. It made them think that we were weak, and that all they needed to do was kill some of our soldiers and we would retreat. It was true at the time, but it is not true now. Reportedly, the terrorists in Iraq right now are seriously struggling with the U.S. presence.

Rep. Murtha was one of the first to condemn our military for alleged crimes committed in Iraq. However, when our soldiers have their hearts and genitals removed and placed in their mouths, he makes no effort to seriously condemn the crimes of the guilty. Desecration and decapitation are apparently only crimes if they are committed by Americans. Socialists parading around as Human Rights groups and civil libertarians make no mention of the Geneva Conventions. Moreover, cases against Americans do not even need to be proved. Only allegations are necessary to fan the flames of Americans' self-hatred.

In 1993, America was weak. Today, we are strong. If we want to stay strong, we need to eliminate people like John Murtha from the U.S. Congress. We need to be proud of where we are today; not necessarily where we started, and we certainly regret our mistakes, but we are proud of the good that we have accomplished. Diana Irey is running against Murtha this year for Congress. I strongly suggest showing your pride by sending her a few dollars to help her defeat this blundering, power-hungry buffoon.

Send Murtha and the rest of the Congress a message. Stop hating yourselves and your country. We are doing the right thing today. We will not allow the country to be turned over to a bunch of socialist, communist sympathizing, Holocaust-denying, Castro-loving, Che-t-shirt-wearing fools who understand neither human history nor human nature.

In Kentucky this year 263 out of 265 judicial positions are up for election, including 5 of 7 spots on the Kentucky Supreme Court. That makes this year a very important election year and one in which, perhaps more than ever, citizens need to make an effort to educate themselves on their judicial candidates. This is often a difficult task because there is little information on many of the candidates in mainstream print and there is not usually a great deal of name recognition. However, a little research effort will go a long way in making Kentucky better.

The truth is, liberals already know this. A concerted grassroots effort made by either side over the next few months could potentially change Kentucky forever. Kentucky Supreme Court Justices serve 8 year terms, and incumbents generally enjoy an advantage over opponents. Rich liberals have already begun pouring money into the campaigns of candidates who they hope will become activist judges. A simple search of the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance's online searchable database FOUND HERE will tell you a lot about the type of people who want your candidates to win.

Probably the most interesting of the judicial races this year is for the 6th District's Kentucky Supreme Court Justice position. This seat is being vacated by Justice Wintersheimer, and Wil Schroder is running against Marcus Carey.

This is a race in which Wil Schroder is claiming to be a "pro-life" Catholic, yet Marcus Carey received the endorsement of the Northern Kentucky Right to Life Association. That is a bit odd, and already Mr. Schroder reminds me of people like John Forbes Kerry (D-MA). It is well-known that liberals hide their opinions from the people in order to mask themselves and get elected before unleashing their tyrannical liberalism on the people of their states and the country, and it sounds to me like that is what is happening here. I would not be surprised at all to hear reports of Mr. Schroder claiming to be a Republican. This would afford him a wonderful opportunity to make a grandiose Clintonesque statement such as, "Yes, I did claim to be a republican and I (finger wagging begins) meant it. I think everyone involved in representative government is a republican, with a little "r." I'm being accused of associating myself with a political party during a judicial election which is strictly forbidden by the Kentucky Judicial Ethics Code. I never did such a thing."

Of course, Mr. Schroder would be on to something if he were to bring up judicial ethics. Currently, Mr. Schroder has an elected official serving as his campaign chairman. This is a very questionable practice, and is specifically forbidden in this 1997 judicial ethics opinion. Margo Grubbs, a NoKy gay rights activist, is also on Mr. Schroder's campaign team. Something tells me that she would probably refuse to serve on the judicial campaign of a pro-life Catholic because he would probably also be an anti-gay homophobe bigot racist. Mr. Schroder is beginning to look more and more liberal to me, and November is looking more and more like Christmas to Conservatives.

With all of this talk about Wil Schroder, you may now be wondering about who Marcus Carey is. The truth is he can't say. He can't say because Kentucky's current judicial ethics rules forbid free speech by judicial candidates despite the fact that the United States Supreme Court has already overruled clauses such as ours in the 2002 Republican Party of Minnesota v. White decision. Minnesota did, and Kentucky still does, violate the First Amendment by prohibiting judicial candidates from announcing "his or her views on disputed legal or political issues." The Court found this to be in direct violation of the candidate's rights. With that in mind, consider how Mr. Carey looks to voters when they ask him, "Are you a Republican or a Democrat?" He can't say and he looks bad. "How do you feel about abortion?" He can't say and he looks bad. Mr. Carey is following Kentucky's rules while Mr. Schroder ignores them, and therefore, following the rules is putting Mr. Carey at a significant disadvantage.

This is why Mr. Carey filed a lawsuit in federal court last week challenging Kentucky's current judicial ethics rules. Luckily for him, he has James Bopp arguing the case, who argued and won the R.P. Minn. v. White case before the U.S. Supreme Court. In a statement released on June 9th, Bopp stated, "Despite a federal court decision striking down Canon 5, the Kentucky Supreme Court continues to advance rules that unconstitutionally violate judicial candidates' free speech rights. Voters are being denied an opportunity to make an informed decision, and judicial candidates, including those running for the Kentucky Supreme Court, are not able to mount a meaningful campaign for their candidacies because their free speech rights are so excessively restricted."

Predictably, Kentucky's major news outlets derided Mr. Carey and his decision to file suit. An article from The Courier-Journal's June 12th edition read, "A candidate for the Kentucky Supreme Court wants a federal court to throw out the state’s judicial election rules because he says they prohibit him from offering his views on gay marriage, when life begins and other hot-button topics." The same article later added, "it would end nonpartisan judicial elections in Kentucky." The article does not mention the U.S. Supreme Court's distinction between non-partisan judicial elections and judicial campaigns.

In response to these attacks on Mr. Carey, he released a rebuttal which, predictably, was not ran by major news outlets but will now be published by Blue Grass, Red State, in defense of free speech. The rebuttal, in its entirety, is found at the end of this entry.

I do not know a single voter who wants to cast his or her vote based on lies that they have led to believe are true and vague doublespeak that is indecipherable. The public has the right to ask candidates questions, and candidates have the right to answer them. Of course it would be wrong for them to "pre-judge" cases or promise decisions in advance, but that is not the issue in this suit or in this election. Political ignorance runs rampant throughout our country, and Marcus Carey's lawsuit will go a long way in reducing it in Kentucky. This suit is why we have courts, and it will be a light in our darkness.

If you are still curious about the merits of Mr. Schroder and how they hold up to Mr. Carey's, take a look at who is giving them money. Mr. Carey has a very diverse donor field. On his campaign finance report you will find donations from farmers, CEOs, business people, housewives, a U.S. Senator and some of his staff, engineers, attorneys, doctors, and so on. Wil Schroder's campaign is supported almost exclusively by attorneys. That is not a good sign, especially when you consider the reputations of some Mr. Schroder's donors.

Stan Chesley, owner of the home pictured above, donated $1,000 to Mr. Schroder's campaign. Are we to think that people like Mr. Chesley donate money for the fun of it? Mr. Chesley held countless Cincinnati fundraisers for President Clinton in the nineties. President Clinton then appointed Mr. Chesley's wife Susan Dlott to the bench of the Southern District of Ohio.

Birds of a feather flock together . . .

Mr. Chesley made a lot of his money by suing the Diocese of Covington over the recent sex-abuse craze in which Chesley and other attorneys forced the Diocese to sell Camp Marydale, which had served the community for decades. Of course, he was also involved in the Fen-Phen lawsuit craze, which ultimately led to the attorneys making more money than their clients and a Northern Kentucky judge resigning after being reprimanded for misconduct in the case. Judge Bamberger, essentially, granted the attorneys unusual class-action status and approved excess fees for the attorneys - one of which was a close friend of the judge. Mr. Chesley noted that they had made "an amazing settlement."

The aforementioned close friend of Judge Bamberger, Mark Modlin, brags that he is very close to Wil Schroder. Mr. Schroder sent back Mark Modlin's $1,000 donation to hide his association with him.

Sixteen different attorneys (in fairness, one of whom is likely related to Mr. Schroder) from liberal law firm Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP have contributed a total of $9,720 to Wil Schroder's campaign. That is about 12% of Schroder's total funds (without accounting for expenditures) and a definite sign that Mr. Schroder stands ready to be influenced by people who do not share in valuing the ideals of Kentucky's average citizens. These attorneys are a bunch of rich liberals who don't live anywhere near Kentucky and usually consider us "flyover country." They think we are idiots and do not really care what we think. They think we are a problem that needs to be solved - so they do what liberals always do whenever they think there is a problem that needs to be solved - they start mailing checks out to people.

Bill Lerach himself was a major left coast Clinton supporter and his legal action has resulted "in recoveries of billions of dollars."

$1,000 Lerach Coughlin contributor Eric Isaacson is a certified war protestor. Isaacson states in his memoirs of the occasion in which he was arrested, "On that day, I had picked up a flag and joined an antiwar demonstration as it passed by my law offices in downtown San Diego. The demonstration was a noisy but peaceful one." According to Isaacson, during the peaceful protest, "the police suddenly - - and without provocation - - descended upon us and attacked the demonstrators with billy clubs." Sure. Regardless, I do not believe that Kentucky citizens want to elect a Supreme Court Justice who could be influenced by this guy. Isaacson is also President of the San Diego Foundation for Change, which supports numerous radical leftist organizations and events of all types, including the Bisexual Forum, the Project on Youth and Non-military Opportunities, and V.A.G.I.N.A., which "wants to create visibility for the San Diego dyke community."

Another contributor to Wil Schroder's campaign is George Barrett, the ACLU lawyer and senior partner of Barrett, Johnston, & Parsley. Mr. Barrett is currently fighting to permanently remove the Ten Commandments from the Rutherford County, TN courthouse. In 2003, Mr. Barrett began fighting for the ACLU and "reproductive rights" in a suit that would force Tennessee to stop distributing "Choose Life" license plates.

The writing is on the wall, people. Wil Schroder is a liberal and he takes money from liberals. Money, power, and sex are the most important things to these people and they will do anything to further perversify this country's traditional views of those topics by way of judicial activism.

DO NOT LET THEM!! Educate yourselves on your judicial candidates and vote for the right person. As soon as Marcus Carey's suit is ruled favorably, he will be able to draw the distinctions between himself and his opponent. However, the circumstances surrounding this race which I have just laid out are likely not unique in Kentucky this year. I encourage all Kentuckians to investigate their dstricts' candidates and share the news with your fellow voters.

Remember, Kentucky Supreme Court Justices serve for 8 years. That is a long time to be stuck with a judicial activist. Sensible judges in the lower courts will increase judicial efficiency. Ultimately, the coming months could be a continuance of a dark age or the beginning of a new era in Kentucky characterized by unforeseen political knowledge and involvement. We have to be just as relentless in our causes and beliefs as the ACLU is in their attacks.

Carey rebuttal:

After reading recent editorials rebuking the First Amendment suit filed in Frankfort
seeking to clarify Kentucky’s rules of judicial campaign conduct, it is obviously
necessary to explain the true significance and reason for this important litigation.
Because these editorials are erroneous on some points and extremely misleading on
others, it would be a grossly unfair to the readers if these opinions were permitted to stand without rebuttal.

First, the suit does not seek to inject “hot button” issues into judicial races. Kentucky voters, every day, are asking judicial candidates questions regarding their beliefs and values. Unfortunately there is swirling doubt about what the law will allow judicial candidates to say. This suit seeks to clarify that issue for the benefit of all candidates and the public.

Second, many candidates have carefully restricted their conduct so as to comply with
Kentucky’s pronouncements. Conscientious candidates have sought ethics opinions and
politely refused to answer voters’ questions as directed by those ethics opinions. Voters however consistently recoil at a candidate’s refusal to answer questions, regardless how polite the refusal.

While some candidates refuse to answer voter’s questions other candidates, apparently
relying upon recent cases decided by United States Supreme Court have openly
announced their party affiliation and stated their views on a variety of other topics. The American notion of justice tells us that there is something inherently wrong that needs to be fixed in an election process where playing by the rules is a disadvantage.

Third, it is not the goal of the suit to “disintegrate” the public’s faith in the judiciary, but rather to encourage the public to become more fully engaged the selection process. The suit seeks to remove unconstitutional barriers that have for too long prevented valuable information from reaching voters. Such barriers have been labeled “incumbent protection policies,” and stricken down as unconstitutional.

Fourth, this suit does not seek permission for any candidate to “prejudge” cases. The suit does however seek permission for the public to prejudge would be judges. The suit very clearly empowers those whom our founding fathers intended to be the best judge of their own future, the public. And this suit reaffirms our faith that the public will not only make wise choices about the values of candidates for judicial office but also about his/her ability to remain independent and impartial from the influences of special interests. Keeping the public in the dark is not consistent with the American election process. And despite recently developed local traditions, the Supreme Court of the United States agrees.

The goals of this suit seek to promote the highest duties of a Supreme Court Justice –a constitutionalist who trusts the public to decide matters for themselves and commits to apply the law as the people have written it. It would seem that for a candidate to this high office to sponsor, advocate for, or abide by anything less would be a violation of the candidate’s solemn oath as an office of the court, to be faithful and true to the Constitution. There is no room in a nation ruled by law to discourage liberty for the sake of preserving unlawful traditions.

This suit will clarify and establish the rules all candidates will have to live by. And regardless which side prevails, and in contrast to other nations in the world, the very fact that this suit has been brought will reaffirm our faith in our ability to resolve disputes through the peaceful and orderly application of law and through our American system of civil Justice.

Am I missing something, or is there still a huge misunderstanding about the war on terrorism, Islamic jihadism, al Qaida, etc.? I wish I could have recorded the conversation I overheard today. I would have podcasted it.

Anyway, it was an attorney and a Sheriff's officer talking in a courtroom about a prosecutor being on vacation in Greece. The attorney said something to the effect of, "I don't think I would want to go to Europe right now. With the political climate and being an American and all, it just seems too dangerous." Now, maybe I'm a coward or a sissy or something, but I kind of agree with that. I don't really want to go many places right now. I might wait a decade or so to do a bunch of world traveling. That's probably not the best attitude to have, but I guess I'm just over-protective of myself and my wife.

Then the Sheriff's officer indicated that he isn't scared because he is "a brother." He said he hasn't bombed anybody and therefore he doesn't feel the need to be scared.

HELLO!?!?!? Where has this guy been for the last five years? Al Qaida and every other group of Islamic jihadists don't care if you are a brother or not. They don't care if you are white, black, native, Eskimo, Hispanic, Australian, British, a New Zealander, Spanish, Chinese, Iranian, Iraqi, Saudi, Sunni, Shiite, Canadian, French, or anything else. They will kill you because of how you live your life!! If you believe in the values of freedom, they will kill you. If you are Jewish, they will kill you. If you are Christian, they will kill you.

Even though Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is dead now, I think he made his feelings pretty clear while he was alive. They will kill you if you do not adopt their worldview and religion. We may scoff at the possibility that that is true now, but our scoffing doesn't take away truth from the statement. We scoff because we do not believe how it could be true. But it is true.

This reminds me of the idiotic Canadians who were surprised that al Qaida had chosen their back yard as a training camp and their buildings as targets. I suppose they felt like they would be exempted from the global Islamic jihadist mission to kill everyone who does not adopt their religion and worldview just because they refused to send troops to Iraq. People like these Canadians need to realize that Islamic jihadists do not believe in freedom. They do not believe they should have freedom, and they do not believe we should have freedom.

Unfortunately, the same goes for Michael Berg, father of the beheaded Nick Berg who died at the hands of Zarqawi. I understand he has dealt with an immense amount of grief and probably an abusive level of exposure, and I feel very sorry for him and his family. However, to blame his son's death on Bush and grieve the death of Zarqawi is simply insane. It is also wrong.

If you want to live your life - and that's any life, a life of religion, of family, of business, of living off of welfare, of drugs and alcohol, of music, of pure hedonism - you better support the cause of freedom in any way that you know how. Islamic jihadists do not want to allow you the opportunity to do these things. They want to do one of two things with you, Convert or Kill.

Christians do not do this. Jews do not do this. Americans do not do this. Convert or Kill is the method of Islamic jihadists. So, please, define freedom however you want. Define it as, "Being able to drink all day every day." Define it as, "Being able to go to church twice a week." Define it as, "Being able to pray." Define it as, "Being able to live as a starving artist." Think of these things next time someone on the news or in the coffee shop next to you ridicules the war on terror. These are the things that we are defending in this war. It is not imperialism. America could care less about owning Iraq or making money off of Iraq. Our interests are infinite, however, because they lie in the hearts of all 300 million Americans every day. It's your child. It's your car. It's your music. It's your church. It's your job. Islamic jihadists want to take it all away from you and then cut your head off. Please allow America to fight this war against them and defend our interests in freedom, no matter how sinful, righteous, or mundane they may be.

Once again, I'd like to say that I'm proud to have Senators McConnell and Bunning representing me in the Senate. They seem to be mostly in tune with Kentucky, if not America.

This McCain guy is quite a mystery, though. He wants to be President, obviously, but he's too scared to vote "yea" on the Marriage Amendment?

Check out the roll call on this thing. Oh, and by the way, if Senators Hagel, Dodd, and Rockefeller aren't voting on this, WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY DOING!?!? Go on the record, people!!

John Yarmuth's campaign was caught red-handed trying to plant a mole into the Northup (R-KY) camp. News just got out about this. The vice-president of the University of Kentucky College Democrats signed up to be a volunteer for Anne Northup. An alert Northup campaign staffer got suspicious and then witnessed the young man driving away in a car that had a Yarmuth! sticker plastered on the back. Nothup staff then discovered a fake name ("Bobby Conn") on his volunteer application as well as a Myspace and a LiveJournal account managed by the young man. His LiveJournal was filled with hatred toward Republicans, prominently displaying these sentiments:

"right now, however, i am watching a 7th heaven rerun, and it has reminded me of a fact about me which will more than likely never change. I Hate Republicans. to reiterate:

I
HATE
REPUBLICANS.

yes. hate. i hate them. all of them. i wish we could have a liberal inquisition and do like the spanish, where we would go up to people and say "Are you a Republican?" and then if they said yes, we would kill them. with swords of course, guns would be illegal."

The really bad thing is, this guy wasn't just a volunteer for Yarmuth, he was actually a paid intern. PAID. Yarmuth is denying that the young man was under orders to take the action that he did, but who believes that? Are we really expected to believe that a paid intern is going to go off on his own and do something so stupid and potentially damaging to his candidate. Still, the most amazing thing about this guy might be that he apparently thinks it is okay to kill people with swords, but not guns (because the latter would be "illegal").

Read the letter than Northup campaign manager Patrick Neely sent to Yarmuth here (PDF). The almost mole's LiveJournal: the journal of the man.