Liberals Hate Free Speech **Dierker Update**
****UPDATE****
See the O’Reilly Factor interview with Judge Dierker here
FoxNews.com has more on Judge Dierker: 90 percent approval rating from Missouri Lawyers, re-elected in November with 70 percent of votes. Still, liberals want him crucified.
**************Â
 What do liberals—those self-proclaimed guardians of tolerance and free speech—do when a judge speaks the truth about the modern liberal idea of tolerance?
They call for his head on a pike, of course, but modern liberals tolerate only other modern liberals.
Missouri circuit judge Robert H. Dierker has enraged the leftists legal community in Missouri and across the country by penning a book about that exposes the hypocrisy and hatred that have become as synonymous with modern American liberalism as the swastika was with Nazism. (Judge Dierker will be a guest on “The O’Reilly Factor” tonight on Fox News.
In The Tyranny of Tolerance (order it today), Judge Dierker describes how liberal power-lust has corrupted the American judicial system, and why we must take it back. From the publisher:
Citing not only Judge Dierker’s own experiences but dozens of other recent court cases, The Tyranny of Tolerance shows how the courts enable left-wing activists to ram their dangerous agenda down the throats of the American people. Consider: • Why do the courts claim the power to tax us?
• Why is a Christian fired when he voices opposition to his employer’s favoring homosexuals?
• Why are airline pilots sued and sent to “diversity training” for recommending that suspicious-looking people of Middle Eastern appearance be kept off planes?
• Why does a judge who defends a monument to the Ten Commandments in a courthouse lose his job?
• Why are speech codes imposed on employers, university students, lawyers (and judges!), while “artistic” indecency is protected from even the mildest regulation?
• Why are peaceful abortion protesters thrown in jail, their right to free speech crushed?
• Why are white and Asian students denied admission to colleges and universities in the name of “diversity”?
• Why is an enemy fighter captured in Afghanistan granted access to U.S. federal courts, overturning judicial precedent safeguarding the president’s wartime powers—to say nothing of common sense?With this passionate insider’s account, Judge Dierker reminds Americans what’s at stake in the battle for the courts: the Constitution, the success of the war on terrorism, the freedom to worship God, the ability to keep our families safe, the institution of marriage, and much more.
Â
But in St. Louis, the leftists are calling for the injustice, as usual. They want Dierker removed from the bench.
 In a hysterical, shrill article in the St. Louis Post-Disgrace, reporter Robert Patrick editorializes:
Â
Â
A liberal-bashing book by a veteran St. Louis judge is to become available publicly this week, but it is already causing a stir in political and legal circles — and prompting some to say it could cost him his job.
The story details some of the hate-mongering from the left, particularly from a University City politician, and what Judge Dierker might call “femifascist,” Joan Bray.
State Sen. Joan Bray, D-University City, filed a complaint with the commission last month, citing her concerns with the first chapter. Bray said, “I’m still worrying about women in Missouri being treated fairly in the courtroom.” She said she plans a follow-up complaint, based on conversations with lawyers and judges, that would include a complaint that Dierker was violating judicial rules by using his position to promote the book.
Chances are, Judge Dierker will lose his seat. As we all know, nothing agitates the liberal mania more thoroughly than an accurate picture of liberalism’s evil lusts. Let’s hope his book sales will sustain him until we can put him on the Supreme Court.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Congress: We Can Hate Everything About It Again!
Most of my life, Democrats ran Congress . . . the way Hitler ran Germany. Then in 1995, Newt Gingrich took the gavel. I had to learn a whole new perspective. I had to pick and choose what I was for and against, and I had to cut back on the Congress jokes.
The only good thing about the current balance of power, in my book, is that we can safely oppose everything Congress does or tries to do with absolute confidence that our position is the correct one.Â
Democrats Oppose American Victory in Iraq
****UPDATE****
Mark Noonan posits several critical questions for Pelosi and Reid.
**************
Last September, a group of St. Louis Cardinals fans would call local sports talk shows and say they hoped the team wouldn’t make the playoffs. They commented similar sentiments on various Cardinals forums and blogs. When the Cardinals lost a game, they’d gloat, making fun of the “kool-aid guzzlers” who wanted the team to make the playoffs. Claiming that losing was in the team’s best interest, they cheered for any team the Cardinals played, including the Chicago Cubs. These traitors to Cardinal Nation simply knew better than the rest of us, they said. “If you had half a brain,” one wrote, “or was [sic] a true Cardinal fan, you’d agree with me.”
I can only assume these idiots are Democrats. If so, they must enjoy the news that their party’s Congressional leaders sent a letter to the President today admitting that they want the US to lose the war in Iraq.  (See Outside the Beltway and judge for yourself.)
For two years, Democrats have demanded more troops on the ground in Iraq. Â Since liberals will lie and say that Democrats do not want more troops, I point to this story on MSNBC.com filed December 6, 2006:
In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, the soon-to-be chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a stepped up effort to “dismantle the militias.”
And on December 18, 2006, now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told CNN:
The incoming Senate majority leader, however, offered qualified support for a troop surge, saying it would be acceptable for a few months as part of a broader strategy to bring combat forces home by 2008.
In June of 2005, both Kerry and Biden called for more troops while making the Sunday talk show rounds:
Sen. John Kerry, Bush’s Democratic opponent in last year’s presidential election, told NBC’s “Today” show that the borders of Iraq “are porous” and said “we don’t have enough troops” there.
Sen. Joseph Biden Jr., appearing on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” disputed Bush’s notion that sufficient troops are in place.“I’m going to send him the phone numbers of the very generals and flag officers that I met on Memorial Day when I was in Iraq,” the Delaware Democrat said. “There’s not enough force on the ground now to mount a real counterinsurgency.”
Biden argued, “The course that we are on now is not a course of success. He (Bush) has to get more folks involved. He has to stand up that army more quickly.”
And some liberal bloggers (Cryptogon.com) even expected Democrats to continue to beg for more troops:
Democrats have been calling for additional troops for years. Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) proposed an increase of 40,000 troops during his 2004 campaign against Bush, only to be dismissed by the administration.
We have established irrefutably that from 2004 through December 2006, Democrat leaders wanted more troops in Iraq. So when the President announced his intentions to deploy 20,000 troops to secure Baghdad, the Democrats shouted “It’s about damn time,” right?
Wrong.
Democrats shouted, “No, Mr. President.� That might cause the US to win, and we don’t want that.”
You lefties really should find another country to live in. Â This one has work to do.
UPDATE
The Astute Bloggers express appropriate sentiment
-
Recent Readers
Misc
Polls
Loading ...