Weyrich points out that the reasons for the silence from the Bush Administration on the matter has been for National Security reasons–in other words, what we should espect from an honorable Commander-in-chief.

Now that this story has broken over the AP wire, we can fully appreciate what Pres. Bush has endured from the lying opposition of the Left. Weyrich asks the question, will these people finally apologize for their persecution of Pres. Bush and his associates? Probably not. But, will Scooter Libby finally be pardoned? Let’s hope so.

I have heard some conservatives criticizing the video as “derogatory” to those who were interviewed. I think maybe they have not really paid attention to the details behind the film. According the the website,

On Election day twelve Obama voters were interviewed extensively right after they voted to learn how the news media impacted their knowledge of what occurred during the campaign. These voters were chosen for their apparent intelligence/verbal abilities and willingness to express their opinions to a large audience. The rather shocking video below seeks to provide some insight into which information broke through the news media clutter and which did not.

Zogby also conducted a telephone poll using these same questions, with similar results. The details on the Zogby poll are here.

I think this helps to put to rest the ongoing debates with friends over whether or not there is a liberal media bias. This may not conclusively prove it, but it certainly indicates that some topics were more heavily covered by the media, especially the negative messages about Sarah Palin, while the negative messages about Barak Obama were not given as much air time as evidenced by the lack of familiarity  with those issues by people who get their news primarily from the “establishment media,” i.e. CNN, the NY Times, MSNBC, etc.

I haven’t been able to verify them yet but, if they are correct, the question must certainly be asked of the gay community why they are focusing so much attention on the LDS Church and its people.

1. Mormons make up less than 2% of the population of California. There are approximately 800,000 LDS out of a total population of approximately 34 million.

2. Mormon voters were less than 5% of the yes vote. If one estimates that 250,000 LDS are registered voters (the rest being children), then LDS voters made up 4.6% of the Yes vote and 2.4% of the total Proposition 8 vote.

3. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) donated no money to the Yes on 8 campaign. Individual members of the Church were encouraged to support the Yes on 8 efforts and, exercising their constitutional right to free speech, donated whatever they felt like donating.

4. The No on 8 campaign raised more money than the Yes on 8 campaign. Unofficial estimates put No on 8 at $38 million and Yes on 8 at $32 million, making it the most expensive non-presidential election in the country.

5. Advertising messages for the Yes on 8 campaign are based on case law and real-life situations. The No on 8 supporters have insisted that the Yes on 8 messaging is based on lies. Every Yes on 8 claim is supported.

6. The majority of our friends and neighbors voted Yes on 8. Los Angeles County voted in favor of Yes on 8. Ventura County voted in favor of Yes on 8.

7. African Americans overwhelmingly supported Yes on 8. Exit polls show that 70% of Black voters chose Yes on 8. This was interesting because the majority of these voters voted for President-elect Obama. No on 8 supporters had assumed that Obama voters would vote No on 8.

8. The majority of Latino voters voted Yes on 8. Exit polls show that the majority of Latinos supported Yes on 8 and cited religious beliefs (assumed to be primarily Catholic).

9. The Yes on 8 coalition was a broad spectrum of religious organizations. Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims all supported Yes on 8. It is estimated that there are 10 million Catholics and 10 million Protestants in California. Mormons were a tiny fraction of the population represented by Yes on 8 coalition members.

10. Not all Mormons voted in favor of Proposition 8. Our faith accords that each person be allowed to choose for him or her self. Church leaders have asked members to treat other members with “civility, respect and love,” despite their differing views.

11. The Church did not violate the principal of separation of church and state. This principle is derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .” The phrase “separation of church and state”, which does not appear in the Constitution itself, is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, although it has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court in recent years. The LDS Church is under no obligation to refrain from participating in the political process, to the extent permitted by law. U.S. election law is very clear that Churches may not endorse candidates, but may support issues. The Church has always been very careful on this matter and occasionally (not often) chooses to support causes that it feels to be of a moral nature.

12. Supporters of Proposition 8 did exactly what the Constitution provides for all citizens: they exercised their First Amendment rights to speak out on an issue that concerned them, make contributions to a cause that they support, and then vote in the regular electoral process. For the most part, this seems to have been done in an open, fair, and civil way. Opponents of 8 have accused supporters of being bigots, liars, and worse. The fact is, we simply did what Americans do: we spoke up, we campaigned, and we voted.

So far, these people have proven themselves to be irrational, violent, hypocrites who resort to vandalism and book-burning–all the things they have always claimed to hate–when they don’t get their way.

They live in a free society where they are protected by more special legislation, more than any other group in America. But they will not accept the rules of that society and resort to sedition. They don’t deserve the blessings of a free society.

This is one of my primary gripes about the current state of Washington DC; the rule of law is almost meaningless now. What’s more, the use of Executive Orders, by either Republicans or Democrats, contributes to the erosion of the rule of law in America. Both sides wield them as political weapons to undo the previous administration’s “mistakes.” In their selfish grabs for power, neither party recognizes the consequences of their actions.

For example, oil companies watched the repeal of the EO that prohibited drilling off the continental shelf, and yet did nothing. But their inaction was a carefully considered response to Washington’s instability. Most oil companies expected the Democrats to reinstate the prohibition on drilling on the shelf as soon as they possibly could, and so did not move to take advantage of the opportunity. They knew that doing so would simply be a waste of time and money.

If Washington really followed the rule of law, these companies could move ahead confident that the actions of government generally could be predicted. As things now stand, predictability is limited to the party level, which results in being able to predict the actions of one party or another. But it is impossible to determine which party will hold power after the next election, and this uncertainty effectively freezes innovation and research in a host of industries including oil and gas.

The deemphasizing of the rule of law has other effects as well. Proposition 8 in California is an example of how the rule of law is ignored by the liberals in social policy. The people have spoken twice about their decisions on gay marriage, yet liberals vow to continue to challenge the voice of the People in court. How they intend to get the courts to overturn the State Constitution is yet unknown, but the fact that they are even considering it is disturbing.

Additionally, the disregard for the rule of law causes voter apathy, as people realize that politicians have only their own power and special interests at heart, and fail to show interest in the will of the people. This is specifically what the people were hoping Obama was promising to change. How disappointed those people will be.

The problem ultimately lies with unchecked Liberalism. Liberalism is an ideology that considers all things fluid. The Constitution is a living, breathing document. Law can be created or overturned by the courts. Any interpretation of the law is justified, while strict constructionism is rejected. The Rule of Law and Liberalism are mutually exclusive. Liberalism is truly the rule of will, which has historically been the definition of tyranny.

The people of California arrived at these decisions through legitimate democratic processes. But the result is not what Liberals want, so they refuse to acknowledge the results. This rejection directly undermines those democratic processes. In their stubborn selfishness, Liberals will ultimately destroy the very system of government, the beauties of which they are so fond of lecturing us about.

Modern Liberalism sees the state as the ultimate source of power and authority. The people are simply assets of the state. The elitist nature of Liberalism says that most of the people cannot take care of themselves, and therefore it is right and just that the elite should take care of them. The people have a voice only inasmuch as they are allowed a voice by the ruling elite, which happens only when the message matches that of the elite. The idea that the state should exist only to carry out the will of the people is anathema to Liberalism.

In summary, Liberalism, as pointed out by Jonah Goldberg, is another name for Fascism. Until we can root out Liberalism, America will decay and Liberty will continue to decline in America and around the world.

Jon Meacham and Evan Thomas of Newsweek talking about Obama’s “slightly creepy cult of personality.” I’m glad some of the Move-on Media have finally taken notice of the things conservatives saw many months ago. But why did they only start talking about this now?

I watched Nightline’s feature on Sarah Palin last night. They finally told the whole story about Mrs. Palin’s $150,000 wardrobe. It’s too bad they waited until the election was over to remember that they’re journalists rather than campaign staff.

Really, Emanuel’s appointment adds insult to injury. It signifies that Obama has no intention of working with the Republicans. He intends to ram through all his campaign promises without any thought of restraint or compromise. We can expect political discourse to degenerate to a level of decency comparable to that found in the commentary on Daily Kos, the Huffington Post, or anywhere else the more rabid liberal element of society lurks.

The Republicans now have to suffer through this level of in-your-face, Chicago style politics for at least two years, in large part due to their foolish insistence on compromising with these barbarians.

Now that the barbarians have been emboldened with a general election win, we are going to have to work three times as hard to keep them in check. First things first; time to clean house…

He predicted an Obama win would usher in a new Chicago gangland-style thugocracy. Most people won’t want to hear it, and will refuse to believe it or will call it crazy talk. Nevertheless, the two thugs in the video below are Obama supporters. These are the kind of people that Obama has befriended over the last 20 years, and the kind of people that are attracted to his campaign.

These are people who have not voted before because only white people were running. These are people who are not afraid to use violence to get what they want.

Don’t misunderstand me–these are not the only kind of people that Obama brings in. But the fact that people like this feel at home with Obama is very troubling.

We also point out that many of his supporters have not shown this same respect to past leaders. We encourage him to use his position to educate people on the need for civil discourse.

We encourage national Democratic leaders to show the same respect that has been afforded to them by their Republican colleagues, and to exercise restraint in passing legislation in light of their increased majority. We express our desire to be united as Americans around common causes, but we explicitly reject any policies or practices that promote Socialism in America.

We claim the Constitutional guarantee of a Republican form of Government which protects the rights of all men to LIfe, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.