I hope everyone is not surprised by the ruling of the 9th Circuit to ignore the rule of law and promote Judicial Activism as an Olympic Sport.

We have been seeing the team roster include a bevy of liberal judges from around the country.  No wonder the democrats want to keep a stronghold on the nomination process to insure that their agenda is met whether legally, or through the overreaching strong-arm of the court. Very clever, but how does the old saying go?

What goes around comes around.

If the courts are invested with unfettered, unconstitutional control to basically make and interpret laws apart from the whole cloth of the constitution, then the precedent will be set, no matter who is sitting on the bench.

Would the mouthpiece for the ACLU have claimed the decision of the 9th Circuit a “masterpiece” if it was comprised of three ultraconservatives as opposed to three ultraliberals? No, they would be screaming that judicial activism is destroying the country. They would have been particularly peeved if the New Jersey Candidate for Senate in 2002 had been a Republican who dropped out less than the legal time limit for replacing his name on the ballot, naming a “shoe-in” as his replacement.

And, if Gore had been leading Bush in Florida, they would have thrown themselves in the road to prevent a re-count, no matter how many election-challenged voters were being “disenfranchised.” Everyone tends to forget that regardless of what the Supreme Court said in declaring the Florida’s actions to allow a recount of just a few districts as unconstitutional, the recount went ahead anyway under the watchful eye of unbiased observers . . . members of the media.

Ok, that is an oxymoron, but not one of them can deny that in that final vote count, that Bush still won. Even if he had won by one vote . . . he would still have won.

Do you think the Republicans would have gotten the traction with accusations of “voter disenfranchisement” had Gore been the front runner, inspite of the fact that thousands of military ballots were discounted, discarded and basically denied? They would have done what they did in Missouri when John Ashcroft was cheated out of a seat won by a dead man, or what they did in New Jersey when the machine forced Torricelli out, clearly in violation of the election laws. Nothing.

How many other races around the country were squeekers in favor of the Democrats but no cry of disenfranchisement was ever heard from Republicans?

Ask Jim Bradshaw how he felt losing a Texas congressional seat by less than 127 votes, when 120,000 votes were cast. He took it like a man of honor and went on with his life instead of resorting to name calling and empty accusations of stolen elections that the Dems drag out when they lose by far more than that. It makes you really wonder if they know something we don’t . . . that they know these things can be rigged and Republicans are just too naive and trusting.

The question everyone should ask Al Gore is, in which recount in Florida did he get the majority of votes? Not one. So how is it that Bush is not the legitimate president? He is as legitimate as John Kennedy was in 1960 or John Quincy Adams was in 1824. That is the electoral process no matter how many judges the Democrats have in their hip pocket, or how many sour grape tears of vengeance they keep boring the country with.

So what are we to learn from the actions of the 9th Circuit? That the courts all agree that California Democrats are too stupid to punch a voter card? That any race prior to this ruling should be considered null and void because obviously a large percentage of the electorate were disenfranchised and unequally represented at the polls? Oh, wait that can’t happen, because the assumption is that only Democrat voters would have gotten it wrong.

If it was an equal opportunity disenfranchisement, and an equal number of Republicans punching ballots were as stupid as the Democrats, then the statistical range of error would be equally dispersed. So, is the assumption, from this point on, that any time a Republican wins, that the election is invalid because the mentally-challenged Democrats didn’t really know how to vote? Are these guys that desperate for power?

I was born and bred a Democrat and really didn’t know any better. It wasn’t until someone, in all seriousness, told me in college, that the difference between the two parties is that the Democrats are the party of the poor, ignorant and downtrodden, and the Republicans are the party of the rich and powerful. I responded in the same mood of seriousness . . . “What idiot would actually choose to be a Democrat then?”, and immediately switched parties.

Interestingly, 30 years later, that still seems to be the general impression of the two parties except for one very important distinction. The elitists in the Democrat party count on their members being sheep, following blindly what their leaders tell them to do because they too believe it is the party of the poor, ignorant, and downtrodden who are easily led.

The Republicans on the other hand have to work for every vote, in every election and can never take a vote for granted, because they attract individuals who think for themselves and reject the herd mentality. And, while Democrats see themselves as the party of the disenfranchised, they really represent status quo and the establishment. The Republicans on the other hand, are considered and treated as the redheaded step children of politics, but everyone is being told they are the establishment.

But this begs an even bigger question. If the Republicans are so rich and powerful, why do the Democrats control the media, the universities, the entertainment industries, the public schools the unions AND the courtrooms? It seems that the only power the Republicans have over the Democrats is in the voting booth.

And that is where the rubber hits the road. With the vast majority of all power and influence resting with a handful of self-proclaimed spokesmen for the Democrat party, both houses of congress and the White House are controlled by the Republicans because what we are witnessing is a silent revolution taking place that is pitting those with real power . . .the voter, against those with feigned power who use intimidation deception, and hypocrisy as their standards of leadership.

So, the more the powerful elite play games like they have in California, New Jersey, Missouri, and yes even Florida with their red herring voter disenfranchisement claim, the more the “little people” . . . the smart ones who are sick of being lied to, manipulated and told they are irrelevant and marginalized will vote to separate them from their power and force judges to judge . . . not legislate.