Tom Kovach
Short Bursts: Volume 06-02
Alito "surprise," Hamas "no surprise," a use for the number "i"
By Tom Kovach
Alito "surprise"
In his very first decision as a Supreme Court Justice, having just been confirmed by the Senate, Justice Samuel Alito decided against the State of Missouri in a death-penalty case. One headline specified, "Alito Splits With Conservatives on Inmate." How can Alito "split" with conservatives, when he isn't a conservative in the first place?
Conservatives should not be surprised by Alito's decision. At least, not any serious conservatives. Why? Because credible voices have been bringing up facts for months, proving that Alito was not the conservative that the "mainstream" media had labeled him. (As a general rule, true conservatives are described as ultra-conservatives by the MSM. Other routinely misleading labels include: fringe, radical, extreme, Right-wing, repressive, and — in a subtle tip of the hat to Chairman Mao — reactionary.) Since none of those misleading labels was used "against" Alito during the confirmation process, it is 97% assured that he is not a true conservative.
I dread the day when Justice Alito — who decided to delay the execution of a murderer, even though the murderer confessed to committing the crime, and admitted to being high on crack cocaine during the murder — has to hear a case on illegal immigration in the future. President Bush has been more than transparent, during his lame-duck period, in his attempted purchase of the Hispanic voting bloc with "guest worker" programs. What a coincidence that two phony conservatives were put onto the Supreme Court during the same time period when Bush has pushed these anti-American policies regarding illegal immigration.
I don't make many predictions. (But, when I used an Islamic calendar to predict a terrorist attack, I successfully predicted the attack three months in advance.) Here's a rare exception to my prediction rule. When some future case comes before the Supreme Court, regarding the deportation of a group of confessed illegal aliens, it will be Justice Alito that writes the opinion that creates more "rights" for them out of thin legal air. And, one of his citations will be ... Roe v Wade!
Hamas "no surprise"
In a landslide vote, the pro-terrorist political group Hamas won a parliamentary victory over the pro-terrorist political group Fatah. Hamas will now have the opportunity to rule over the Palestinian Authority — a quasi-"country," whose is existence was made possible by the capitulation of the real country that Hamas has pledged to destroy. Here is a point to ponder: the "Palestinians" are the descendants (ideologically, if not genetically) of the Philistines — whose capital in Bible times was Gaza, as it is today. God told Israel to destroy the Philistines, not to give them a home. (You won't read comments like these in the "mainstream" media.) And, as I expected, Hamas has not backed away from their long-standing policy of wanting the destruction of Israel.
President Bush, the US State Department, and others, have made comments to the effect that Hamas now has "a choice to make" regarding their strategic goals. Hello! They've had a choice since their inception, and their choice has been consistent: kill Jews, attack Israel, and export terrorism against America and other allies of Israel. As Jeff Jacoby wrote recently in the Jewish World Review, the Hamas victory is good news. He said that it was good news, "...because its lopsided win is an unambiguous reality check into the nature of Palestinian society. And if there is one thing that the West badly needs, it is more realism and less delusion about the Palestinians." Bravo!
Jacoby made a very specific point about how Hamas came into power in the recent elections. He quotes President Bush as stating that the Palestinians, "...want to be able to raise their children in an environment in which they can get a decent education and they can find healthcare." On the same day that those statements were made, a Palestinian mother (and political delegate!) named Maryam Farahat was seen in a news video, where she declared that she hopes all her sons will die killing Israelis (as her first three already have)! Talk about a reality check. Hamas may have promised more "bread and circuses" than Fatah. But, in the long run, they promise to kill more Jews, and that is why they were elected.
The whole "bread and circuses" technique for Hamas to edge out Fatah fits exactly with the Socialist underpinnings of Islamism. My 2003 column "Louder Than Words" showed that Islamism, Socialism, and Nazism all have common themes. As I wrote then, "Over a thousand years before Hitler, the Muslims forced Jews to wear a yellow patch on their clothing." And, just how will Hamas pay for the "services" that they provide to their "citizens"? (Excuse me, but you must have a country to have citizens! Grrrrrr.) Will it be via foreign aid from America? Not if I have anything to say about it.
a use for the number "i"
One of the hidden gems of conservative thought in modern America is the under-stated, razor-sharp wit of Pat Sajak. The soft-spoken and always polite host of TV mega-hit Wheel of Fortune is not an expected source of incisive political humor. But, one of his recent columns missed an opportunity to make a larger point.
In his column "Meet i," Mr. Sajak describes an encounter with his son's algebra homework. There, he learns of an imaginary number called "i," which is the impossible square root of — 1. According to the textbook, i is the number by which the positive square root of a number is multiplied to get the negative number that one actually desires. Unfortunately, the column limited the discussion to Mr. Sajak's distaste for algebra homework.
I'd like to suggest that i has already been in use for quite some time. You see, i is an impossible number. And, it is used to produce other impossible numbers. (Because a negative number times another negative number equals a positive number. Therefore, there is no such thing as a negative square root.) But, certain Left-leaning politicians have masterfully used the number i in their press releases for decades! By using an impossible number, Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton, and countless others have been able to make the national debt "disappear" from the eyes of the "watchdog" news media!
As a master of things impossible, Bill ("I didn't inhale — and I was never at the Mena Airport, despite those photos by CIA pilot Terry Reed") Clinton was able to convince the MSM that there was a budget "surplus." It is impossible to have a budget surplus while in debt — period. But, Clinton must have multiplied his budget by i, then sprinkled some magic dust over the pages before giving the Federal budget to the media. Unfortunately, Bill must have forgotten the jar of magic dust while he was stealing the silverware from the White House, because President Bush has accrued the largest national debt ever. All of it can't be blamed on the war, because we are doing "more with less" when it comes to troop numbers.
Here's the amazingly simple reality. According to an oft-overlooked document called the Constitution of the United States, the Federal government only has to do six things: 1) secure the national borders, 2) coin money (FDR's paper money — which is not backed up by gold — is unconstitutional), 3) maintain the military (just in case somebody gets through the borders), 4) record and enforce patents on inventions, 5) collect excise taxes; and, 6) regulate interstate commerce. Now, in order to do those things, the government needs three tools: 1) the Executive Branch, 2) the Legislative Branch; and, 3) the Judicial Branch. To apply Lee Iacocca's famous quote, "Everything else is gravy."
If the government of the United States would stick to the duties of the Constitution, the national debt would vaporize quickly. But, so would welfare programs that give "poverty pimps" like Jesse Jackson a means of income. (Prior to FDR, welfare was almost the exclusive domain of churches and other charities.) So would largesse programs that give "graybeards" like Paul A. Weaver, Jr., the opportunity to make a huge income by becoming an illegal lobbyist for big defense contractors. If the government would stick to its Constitutional duties, our taxes would be so low that everyone could afford to have an investment portfolio, instead of planning their retirement around another unconstitutional program.
It will be a sad day for a lot of Left-leaning baby boomers when they become elderly, and discover that the number i is not programmed into the cash registers at the grocery store!
Perhaps I'd better call for an airdrop of food now ... while I reload.
© Tom Kovach
Alito "surprise"
In his very first decision as a Supreme Court Justice, having just been confirmed by the Senate, Justice Samuel Alito decided against the State of Missouri in a death-penalty case. One headline specified, "Alito Splits With Conservatives on Inmate." How can Alito "split" with conservatives, when he isn't a conservative in the first place?
Conservatives should not be surprised by Alito's decision. At least, not any serious conservatives. Why? Because credible voices have been bringing up facts for months, proving that Alito was not the conservative that the "mainstream" media had labeled him. (As a general rule, true conservatives are described as ultra-conservatives by the MSM. Other routinely misleading labels include: fringe, radical, extreme, Right-wing, repressive, and — in a subtle tip of the hat to Chairman Mao — reactionary.) Since none of those misleading labels was used "against" Alito during the confirmation process, it is 97% assured that he is not a true conservative.
I dread the day when Justice Alito — who decided to delay the execution of a murderer, even though the murderer confessed to committing the crime, and admitted to being high on crack cocaine during the murder — has to hear a case on illegal immigration in the future. President Bush has been more than transparent, during his lame-duck period, in his attempted purchase of the Hispanic voting bloc with "guest worker" programs. What a coincidence that two phony conservatives were put onto the Supreme Court during the same time period when Bush has pushed these anti-American policies regarding illegal immigration.
I don't make many predictions. (But, when I used an Islamic calendar to predict a terrorist attack, I successfully predicted the attack three months in advance.) Here's a rare exception to my prediction rule. When some future case comes before the Supreme Court, regarding the deportation of a group of confessed illegal aliens, it will be Justice Alito that writes the opinion that creates more "rights" for them out of thin legal air. And, one of his citations will be ... Roe v Wade!
Hamas "no surprise"
In a landslide vote, the pro-terrorist political group Hamas won a parliamentary victory over the pro-terrorist political group Fatah. Hamas will now have the opportunity to rule over the Palestinian Authority — a quasi-"country," whose is existence was made possible by the capitulation of the real country that Hamas has pledged to destroy. Here is a point to ponder: the "Palestinians" are the descendants (ideologically, if not genetically) of the Philistines — whose capital in Bible times was Gaza, as it is today. God told Israel to destroy the Philistines, not to give them a home. (You won't read comments like these in the "mainstream" media.) And, as I expected, Hamas has not backed away from their long-standing policy of wanting the destruction of Israel.
President Bush, the US State Department, and others, have made comments to the effect that Hamas now has "a choice to make" regarding their strategic goals. Hello! They've had a choice since their inception, and their choice has been consistent: kill Jews, attack Israel, and export terrorism against America and other allies of Israel. As Jeff Jacoby wrote recently in the Jewish World Review, the Hamas victory is good news. He said that it was good news, "...because its lopsided win is an unambiguous reality check into the nature of Palestinian society. And if there is one thing that the West badly needs, it is more realism and less delusion about the Palestinians." Bravo!
Jacoby made a very specific point about how Hamas came into power in the recent elections. He quotes President Bush as stating that the Palestinians, "...want to be able to raise their children in an environment in which they can get a decent education and they can find healthcare." On the same day that those statements were made, a Palestinian mother (and political delegate!) named Maryam Farahat was seen in a news video, where she declared that she hopes all her sons will die killing Israelis (as her first three already have)! Talk about a reality check. Hamas may have promised more "bread and circuses" than Fatah. But, in the long run, they promise to kill more Jews, and that is why they were elected.
The whole "bread and circuses" technique for Hamas to edge out Fatah fits exactly with the Socialist underpinnings of Islamism. My 2003 column "Louder Than Words" showed that Islamism, Socialism, and Nazism all have common themes. As I wrote then, "Over a thousand years before Hitler, the Muslims forced Jews to wear a yellow patch on their clothing." And, just how will Hamas pay for the "services" that they provide to their "citizens"? (Excuse me, but you must have a country to have citizens! Grrrrrr.) Will it be via foreign aid from America? Not if I have anything to say about it.
a use for the number "i"
One of the hidden gems of conservative thought in modern America is the under-stated, razor-sharp wit of Pat Sajak. The soft-spoken and always polite host of TV mega-hit Wheel of Fortune is not an expected source of incisive political humor. But, one of his recent columns missed an opportunity to make a larger point.
In his column "Meet i," Mr. Sajak describes an encounter with his son's algebra homework. There, he learns of an imaginary number called "i," which is the impossible square root of — 1. According to the textbook, i is the number by which the positive square root of a number is multiplied to get the negative number that one actually desires. Unfortunately, the column limited the discussion to Mr. Sajak's distaste for algebra homework.
I'd like to suggest that i has already been in use for quite some time. You see, i is an impossible number. And, it is used to produce other impossible numbers. (Because a negative number times another negative number equals a positive number. Therefore, there is no such thing as a negative square root.) But, certain Left-leaning politicians have masterfully used the number i in their press releases for decades! By using an impossible number, Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton, and countless others have been able to make the national debt "disappear" from the eyes of the "watchdog" news media!
As a master of things impossible, Bill ("I didn't inhale — and I was never at the Mena Airport, despite those photos by CIA pilot Terry Reed") Clinton was able to convince the MSM that there was a budget "surplus." It is impossible to have a budget surplus while in debt — period. But, Clinton must have multiplied his budget by i, then sprinkled some magic dust over the pages before giving the Federal budget to the media. Unfortunately, Bill must have forgotten the jar of magic dust while he was stealing the silverware from the White House, because President Bush has accrued the largest national debt ever. All of it can't be blamed on the war, because we are doing "more with less" when it comes to troop numbers.
Here's the amazingly simple reality. According to an oft-overlooked document called the Constitution of the United States, the Federal government only has to do six things: 1) secure the national borders, 2) coin money (FDR's paper money — which is not backed up by gold — is unconstitutional), 3) maintain the military (just in case somebody gets through the borders), 4) record and enforce patents on inventions, 5) collect excise taxes; and, 6) regulate interstate commerce. Now, in order to do those things, the government needs three tools: 1) the Executive Branch, 2) the Legislative Branch; and, 3) the Judicial Branch. To apply Lee Iacocca's famous quote, "Everything else is gravy."
If the government of the United States would stick to the duties of the Constitution, the national debt would vaporize quickly. But, so would welfare programs that give "poverty pimps" like Jesse Jackson a means of income. (Prior to FDR, welfare was almost the exclusive domain of churches and other charities.) So would largesse programs that give "graybeards" like Paul A. Weaver, Jr., the opportunity to make a huge income by becoming an illegal lobbyist for big defense contractors. If the government would stick to its Constitutional duties, our taxes would be so low that everyone could afford to have an investment portfolio, instead of planning their retirement around another unconstitutional program.
It will be a sad day for a lot of Left-leaning baby boomers when they become elderly, and discover that the number i is not programmed into the cash registers at the grocery store!
Perhaps I'd better call for an airdrop of food now ... while I reload.
© Tom Kovach
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
