Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Supremes United

Those of us who understand the Islamo-fascist existential threat to Western Civilization see no sensible alternative to victory in Iraq. We support whatever else needs to be done to eradicate the threat at its source whether that means wiping out the terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq, bombing the Iranian nuclear facilities before they produce atomic bombs or stomping on the genocidal maniacs in Africa.

What is discouraging is not the progress of the war but the opposition in America that threatens to repeat our Vietnam mistake. After writing 29 posts on the subject last year and debating endlessly with anti-war friends, I’ve concluded that they are in denial and cannot be influenced by logic. Democratic politicians and some Republicans see the war as a political opportunity.

Thus my decision: No more posts trying to convince people who have no clue, but all the effort I can muster to defeat the politicians who are on the wrong side of history.

I’m convinced that President Bush, with the support of the military and a strong majority in Congress, will continue to fight and win the battle and provide for the defense of America. I’m not worried about the government’s highest priorities.

I believe that the President’s next highest priority is the effort to change the federal judiciary by placing more conservative judges on the courts. In that effort Bush has already had a spectacular success punctuated by the appointments of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Sam Alito. With yet only a four-justice minority, the Roberts court has already had a significant positive effect.

Monday's decision rejecting a free-speech challenge to having military recruiters on college campuses marked the ninth consecutive ruling in which all of the justices agreed. Roberts wrote that the Solomon amendment "regulates conduct, not speech. It affects what law schools must do — afford equal access to military recruiters — not what they may or may not say."

In a recent abortion case from New Hampshire, the court ruled that states could not restrict access to abortions when the health of the mother was at stake, while reviving a state law that requires minor girls to notify their parents before having an abortion. This was another good decision.

Last week, in another abortion-related ruling, liberal Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote the opinion saying that racketeering laws did not extend to abortion protests, even if they turned violent. Well done, again a unanimous decision.

Two weeks ago, Roberts spoke for the court and gave a mild rebuke to the Bush administration for its refusal to allow a small Brazilian sect in New Mexico to serve hallucinogenic tea at religious services. In the "high tea" case, his opinion made an important statement about religious liberty. Federal authorities cannot infringe on religious practices unless they have a truly compelling reason for doing so, Roberts said.

There have been 29 written opinions, 21 of which were unanimous, largely due to Roberts’ leadership. During recent oral arguments, he suggested he wanted to cut back on the reach of the Clean Water Act, wanted to strike down all campaign spending limits, and would vote to uphold the controversial Texas redistricting plan.

In the next year I see the court (1) disposing of the hideous practice of partial birth abortion; (2) reversing the Kilo travesty that allows public entities to take private property and give it to another private person in order to increase tax revenues; (3) working to dismantle the artificial “wall of separation” between Church and State.

If, God willing, Bush has the opportunity to replace one more liberal judge (John Stevens or Ruth Bader Ginsberg) the effect on American liberties and society will be a legacy that will long outlast the President’s other domestic policies.


Anonymous Anonymous said...


If this is your last post on Iraq then that's probably a good thing, because you show no sign of getting any closer to accepting the reality there.

You say the progress of the war Iraq is NOT DISCOURAGING. What on earth are you smoking? We've created a nightmare which isn't going to end soon.....and you know it. I can see, however, that when the American people finally run out of patience with this disastrous venture, it will be their fault for not "staying the course" and not this inept administration's fault for getting us in there the first place. I can see the Lama escape strategy taking shape nicely. You've probably already written the post.

So, yes, focus on the Supreme Court. I'm sure your quest to write about merging church (presumably yours rather than anyone else's) and state already has a dozen long posts forming in your mind..... alternatively you could find something useful to do with your time. Your choice.


8:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah Bill, you're analogy to Vietnam is very apt. Typically you blame anti-war critics for our failures both there and in Iraq. How about in Vietnam, after losing 58K and 150K wounded, and seeing a corrupt South Vietnamese government, we realized we had made a huge strategic blunder? Once the last helicopter leaves the Green Zone, I predict that you will blame the "liberals" for our failures, not the failure of the policy or implementation by a Republican owned and operated government. I can hardly wait to see what you will post when this happens!

8:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a Christian nation, and if you goddam liberals can't handle it, then leave the country!

8:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't understand these liberals who compare Iraq to Vietnam....we've only lost 2500 soldiers vs. 58000! There's no comparison. Besides, Saddam had WMD's!! And there is some evidence that Saddam helped with 9/11! According to our top general, things are going very well in Iraq. I would suggest that the moonbats come to grips with reality and trust our president!

9:28 AM  
Blogger Bill Lama said...

As I said, I will no longer argue the war with the CLUELESS. That's my last word.

However, on other subjects I maintain a naive faith that liberals can actually conduct a logical argument. We will see.

But I'm confused about your last point. If you believe my writing is useless, I wonder why you take the time to read it and even write long comments.

Strange. Is it a liberal mental disorder?

9:46 AM  
Blogger Bill Lama said...

The only valid analogy to Vietnam is that liberal anti-war sentiment caused us to withdraw support from our South Vietnam allies when they were fighting the commies on their own. The antiwar crowd in Congress have blood on their hands. The antiwar crowd are trying it again in Iraq.

The war fighting strategy is totally different. In Vietnam we had the opportunity to bomb the hell out of North Vietnam but Johnson did not have the courage. Instead he micro-managed the war from Washington and we lost 58,000 soldiers. Just imagine if Johnson was president instead of Truman, we would have invaded Japan and lost another 100,000 men.

9:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great post!!!


10:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"valid analogies"
1. Gulf of Tonkin = WMD's/Al Qaeda
2. Spread of Communism = Spread of Islamofascism
3. Vietnamization = Iraqization
4. "Peace with honor" = "As they stand up, we stand down"
There are too many parallels to ignore. Unfortunately, this war will probably be more costly for us by unleashing a new generation of terrorists. We did Iran and Bin Laden a big favor by invading...we've made Iraq weak, and proved Bin Laden's point that the US is an aggressor nation. Blaming the critics for our losses is totally weak, and a defense for those who have lost the argument.

10:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The rats are jumping ship! Those who understand the "existential threat of Islamofascism" are now changing their minds. I love it when chickenhawks talk so bravely about bombing Iran and "wiping out the terrorists" from the comfort of their keyboards. They have no fricking clue what war really is, and how stupid this administration was to think that by toppling one dictator that we could reverse a thousand years of animosity with "shock and awe". The neocons are over, and those who hold similar views will be shown in the future to be monstrously wrong on all counts.

10:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, and Bill, the Japan analogy is just so weak! Read your history books (you must have access to a library). JAPAN ATTACKED US AT PEARL HARBOR. IRAQ DID NOT ATTACK US. This ain't WWII where there really was an existential threat. If Iraq were truly an existential threat, why didn't we just go ahead and detonate 2 nuclear bombs over Baghdad and Mosul? Ah, yeah, because they really weren't an "existential threat"

10:44 AM  
Blogger Roseville Conservative said...

Bill - Look at all the moonbats!!!

Great post and I can tell how good it was by the hysterical responses of the anon coward moonbats...


2:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, Placer County!! Woo hoo! Dude, I can tell by your substantive reply that you really know your stuff.

3:13 PM  
Blogger SactoDan said...


Good post, and the comments prove the point. Always critical, but never offering anything constructive, kool-aid drinkers abound in the comments section.

Gleeful of conservatives jumping ship (not true), and wondering why we didn't nuke Iraq? How absurd. We do not interntionally target civilians in the era of ultra accurate weapons.

Sadly some still die, but not as a result of firebombing their cities or nuking them.

Thousands died after we left Vietnam as the communists purged their enemies, and there should be no doubt that thousands would die in Iraq if we left prematurely.

Not every post-Vietnam era war is another Vietnam, but don't expect the kool-aid drinkers to get it.

8:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

BRAVO, Bill!..well said..which part, you ask?..ALL OF IT!


8:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was wondering when your patience was going to run out!!
~ Carolynne

10:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Talk about Kool Aid!! So, you think Vietnam was a good idea and if we just went ahead and lost another 50000 troops, things would be fine, right? You are way off the radar screen, definitely kookoo. And your really ignorant quote about how absurd it is to use nukes when we have "ultra accurate weapons" is just so completely stupid, it's clear you've never served in a war zone. I'll show you some cute pics demonstrating the precision of our ultra accurate weapons
Enjoy the Kool Aid!

5:37 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home