Ashcroft is one of us!

"Our government? Tyrannical?"

Yeah, Teddy, and thanks in no small part to you.

I caught part of Rush Limbaugh's show today, and he listed some of the actions of Teddy's brother and liberal icon, AG Robert Kennedy. Bobby authorized the wiretapping of Martin Luther King Jr.'s phone, had Joseph McCarthy as the godfather to his child, and referred to the organizer of King's DC march as a "black fairy."

Anybody think a conservative could get away with that?

Dick
 
I watched that white headed old man spew forth his venom towards Ashcroft. His core beliefs are that liberal Democrats are "MAINSTREAM" and everbody else is out to bring down the country. Then, after his little 'speech' about how 'bad' Ashcroft was going to be for the country, he launched into a 'machine gun fire' of questions. Which Mr. Ashcroft tried to answer, only to be rudely interupted several times by old Teddy. To the point where the chair had to interupt Teddy's interuption and told him, point blank that Mr. Ashcroft would be 'afforded the time' to respond to any and ALL questions put forth by Teddy, if only he would allow him to answer in his own fashion. Teddy, properly chastised, hemmed and hawed for another few minutes.

At this point, I was so disgusted with the whole thing that I turned it off. Blechh!
 
This struck me:

This is Kennedy:
+++++++++++++
"Sen. Ashcroft is so far out of the mainstream that he has said that citizens need to be armed in order to protect themselves against a tyrannical government.

"Our government? Tyrannical?

"In fact he relies on an extreme reading of the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment to the Constitution to abolish virtually all gun control laws."

+++++++++++++

Kennedy, the woman killer, is the quintessential example of why we need to be armed. This clan would LOVE to be true 'royalty'.
 
Ted Kennedy... Mr. Tyrannical!

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/carr01172001.htm

Dems employing the old double-standard trick
by Howie Carr
Wednesday, January 17, 2001







Where does that old reprobate Ted Kennedy get off asking John Ashcroft any questions about anything?

Except maybe about whether Ashcroft thinks drunken driving should be made a federal crime.

Or maybe, ``Er, uh, um, Sen. Ashcroft, did you ever, uh, put a blonde in the pond?''

It was perplexing yesterday, this continuing hostility by some Democrats inside and outside the Senate to a God-fearing man like John Ashcroft.

Perhaps Teddy has forgotten that it was Clinton, not Ashcroft, who proposed dropping the OUI limit to .08.

And given the sworn testimony in Palm Beach about Ted's affinity for patrolling the perimeter without benefit of trousers, you'd think the sans-culottes solon would feel a natural bond to someone from the Show-Me State.

But no. And now John Ashcroft becomes a poster boy for the old double standard. For instance, when Joe Lieberman talks about God - good.

When John Ashcroft talks about God - bad!

Al Gore, sore loser - good! John Ashcroft, good loser - bad!

Bill Clinton, draft dodger - good! John Ashcroft, draft dodger - bad!

Of course you can understand John Forbes Kerry's no-Ashcroft stand. He's running for president in 2004. He's got to oppose this intolerant bigot, or he'll have to answer to such broad-minded members of the Rev. clergy as Jesse ``Hymietown'' Jackson and Al ``White Interlopers'' Sharpton.

Ashcroft knows this. But to have to take it on the chin from a certain white-haired party named Kennedy - that must really hurt.

``Will he be fully and fairly enforcing the nation's laws to benefit all Americans?''

Hey Teddy, turn the question around - will you be fully and fairly obeying the law, any law, including the inheritance law?

Teddy is also worried about Ashcroft's support of the Second Amendment, by way of assuring that tyrannical rule never reappears on our shores.

``Our government?'' Teddy bellowed. ``Tyrannical?'' Another memory lapse no doubt. Teddy was once behind a bill of attainder against the former owner of this newspaper - Rupert Murdoch. A bill of attainder is a measure aimed at one person. They are prohibited under the Constitution. It seemed quite tyrannical at the time.

``He has tried to advance his political and ideological goals.'' And you haven't, Teddy?

``His heart,'' Teddy read of Ashcroft, ``is not in some of the nation's most important laws.''

Like Clinton, Teddy will decide which laws are important and which ones aren't. They don't need no stinkin' badges.

Speaking of Clinton, has Ashcroft ever been accused of rape? Bill Clinton has, and yet, in an editorial over the weekend, The New York Times lauded his ``great empathy'' for women.

And we learn yesterday in a New York tabloid that on election night, when El Presidente saw on TV in his Manhattan hotel suite that Ashcroft was going down, Clinton ``pointed at Ashcroft's name and said, `He's a mean guy.' '' And Clinton isn't? Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey could not be reached for comment.

Poor Ashcroft. He's anti-black too, you know, although his wife teaches at Howard University. The senior Democrat in the Senate, Robert Byrd, was once a member of the Ku Klux Klan. As for Clinton, as governor of Arkansas, he once signed a death warrant for a black killer named Rickey Ray Rector who was so far gone mentally that as he was about to be led to the electric chair, he put the pecan pie from his final meal under his bed, thinking he would soon be returning to his cell.

It was, as Christopher Hitchens noted yesterday, ``a photo-op execution.'' But seldom is heard a discouraging word about Clinton.

Did you ever hear the old saying that history is written by the victors? Not in the final days of the Clinton era. It's being written by the vanquished.
 
I posted this in another topic but it probably goes better here.
I am watching the confirmation hearings on FOX right now. Ashcroft just stated to Fienstien that he did not beleive that the 2nd forbids any controls. He did a great tap-dance around the issue but he did say that some gun control was okay under the law. He also said that he would support a continuation of the "assault" rifle ban and its renewal upon its sunsetting.

I wonder how much is needed for confirmation and how much is true?
Click to expand...
 
If Ashcroft is one of us he is hiding it pretty well. He noted that he supported gun show background checks as a Senator (didn't say which bill though) and went on to name a host of other recent gun legislation he would support.

I think we need to realize that just because Handgun Control hates him doesn't mean we should love him. Personally, I seriously doubt that any of this is relevant as the deal to confirm Ashcroft has already been done.

The only way it isn't going to happen now is if Ashcroft starts sacrificing virgins during the hearing - although he would probably win over Kennedy with that particular trick.
 
Yesterday I E-mailed my senators to support Ashcroft primarily because of his statements about the 2nd amendment.
Then I heard the hero of Chappaquidick lambasting Ashcroft and I knew that I had done good.
 
We're screwed, aren't we?

Either Ashcroft is Clintoning under examination by (Evil Incarnate) Schumer, and really does stand with us, or he is speaking forthrightly, and we really DON'T have the advocate we thought we did. Sigh...
 
Yeah, I just saw that on the news... Feinstein was grilling him about the "Sunset" and he said he would support it's reinstatement as would Presiden-Elect Bush... Are we screwed?
 
I suppose what most disturbs me about the Ashcroft confirmation hearings is that his religious beliefs seem to be heavily under attack. I'm not sure of the Article but I believe Article 4 or 5 of the Constitution prohibits a "religious test" to hold federal office. Are the Democrats now demanding that devout Christians not hold office while praising orthodox Jews?
 
norielX

RE: about the "Sunset" and he said he would support it's reinstatement as would Presiden-Elect Bush... Are we screwed?

Well, I've said all along IF "W" won, the heavy lifting would be just beginning-- we cannot stop or even let up our lobbying, our support for the NRA, GOA, JPFO, SAS, etc.

We have to hold politicians' feet to the fire & not let up a bit!
 
Is a re-upping of the so-called assault weapons ban really all that bad? Think about it:

You can get the same guns now that you could before the ban, minus cosmetic items.

If it makes the democrats get off our back for a little while, fine.

And before you scream "no compromise!"; is it really a compromise if it doesn't really change anything?

SO maybe Ashcroft and Bush are thinking the same thing.
 
"Is a re-upping of the so-called assault weapons ban really all that bad?"

Think about it; If the government can ban some guns based on arbitrary criteria, they can ban ALL guns based on arbitrary criteria. There's a very important principle at stake here. Either they've got the right to ban guns, or they don't, and if they do they can disarm us by banning every gun the next generation could afford.

I think more to the point though, that ban was opposed by virtually every last Republican only a few years ago. Most of the members who fought it are still there. They got control of Congress promising to try to repeal it, and reneged. Now, a mere 8 years later, it's too much to ask them not to re-enact it??? Do we get NOTHING for our support at all????

In this game, if you'll settle for nothing, that's what you'll get.
 
Saying the write words does not make him one of us. Look at his deeds.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/kantor/kantor24.html

No Great Conservative Hope

by Myles Kantor

Ted Kennedy, whose belief in federal corpulence corresponds to his own indulgence, opposes John
Ashcroft’s confirmation as Attorney General. Senator Chappaquiddick’s opposition tends to be a
trusty indicator of sound policy. (Look at what a fine justice Clarence Thomas turned out to be.) Alas,
a reasoned assessment of Ashcroft’s suitability requires more investigation than Senator
Chappaquiddick’s views.

Ashcroft looks like a solid man of the right: pro-rule of law, anti-affirmative action, even respectful of
the ephemeral Confederate republic. He’s probably the most conservative nominee individuals on the
right can expect, and there’s the rub in this hullabaloo.

Joseph Farah of World Net Daily writes, "Ashcroft is a good man, a decent man, a man of principle,
character and virtue." I don’t take issue with any of this and particularly respect Ashcroft’s familial
affection, especially for his wife. ("After rebuffing me several times, my persistence overcame her
better judgment. She has stuck with me for thirty-three years. Members of the Committee, her name is
Janet Ashcroft. I’m privileged to have her with me today.")

Unfortunately, Ashcroft on the whole does not emerge as uniquely or even predominantly
conservative. Consider this anaphora in his opening statement:

"No American should be denied access to public accommodations or a job as a result of a
disability. No American family should be prevented from realizing the dream of home
ownership in the neighborhood of their choice just because of skin color. No American should
have the door to employment or educational opportunity slammed shut because of gender or
race."

Ashcroft subsequently cited these gubernatorial accomplishments: "I signed Missouri’s first hate
crimes statute. By executive order, I made Missouri one of the first states to recognize Martin Luther
King Day." He stated on the second day of his hearing, "Abraham Lincoln is my favorite political
figure in the history of this country."

Since John Ashcroft is a good man of principle and character, I don’t believe he’s dissembling, which
means he’s a far cry from mainstream conservatism. (By mainstream, I mean philosophically, not
operationally.)

We can infer Ashcroft’s support for the following laws from the previous sentences:

"No American should be denied access to public accommodations or a job as a result of a disability"
(The Americans with Disabilities Act).

"No American family should be prevented from realizing the dream of home ownership in the
neighborhood of their choice just because of skin color" (The Fair Housing Act).

"No American should have the door to employment or educational opportunity slammed shut
because of gender or race" (Titles II and VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act).

Ashcroft’s gubernatorial deeds become easy to understand in this light. It would be ridiculous to call
Ashcroft a leftist, but this record cannot be reconciled with federalism or property rights. None other
than E.J. Dionne Jr. recently noted how "the Civil Rights Act of 1964 consciously [emphasis added]
overrode both states’ rights and property rights."

Like the man who nominated him, Ashcroft is what may be termed a traditionalist nationalist. They
affirm a Biblical worldview and invoke the rhetoric of conservatism (adding an alliterative quality to it,
i.e., "compassionate conservatism"). Their attractive syllables do not yield conservative substance,
though.

It’s indisputable that John Ashcroft considers Roe v. Wade to have been improper adjudication and
objects to quotas. It’s also indisputable that he accepts and defends an antidiscrimination apparatus
antagonistic to constitutional order and proprietary discretion. As for his favorite American political
figure, suffice it to say Abraham Lincoln was less than superlative in preserving, protecting, and
defending the Constitution.

When a Senator, Ashcroft approvingly quoted James Madison’s observation in
Federalist No. 46 regarding "the advantage of being armed, which the
Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." He and the
Republican Party in general would do well to consider another piece of
Madisonian wisdom from Federalist No. 54: "Government is instituted no less
for protection of the property than of the persons of individuals."

January 19, 2001
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top