Next Right
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened." - Winston Churchill


How lost is really lost?
That's how I feel about school. Supposedly everybody should feel lost to some degree in law school, this early. But how lost, is truly being lost?
Civ Pro and Legal Methods have me feeling like a moron. LOL.

posted by Sean McCray | 11:59 PM |

David Ignatius shows just how much ,THEY don't get IT.
The left really doesn't get it.
No matter how many times something is repeated. Once the words enter their ears, it somehow gets scrambled and comes out saying something that is completely false. Then they usually like to call other a liar.

To most liberals, you must be stupid if you don't agree with them. So he belittles our troops by assuming that most are so stupid, that they think they are fighting the people who attacked the Twin Towers.

"I suspect that if you polled U.S. soldiers in Iraq, this is what they would say they were fighting for: to avenge Sept. 11 and defeat the terrorists who were responsible for it. The characterization of Iraq as a battleground in the war against terrorism has been repeated frequently by President Bush -- so often, in fact, that it has assumed a life and logic of its own."

How insulting! I know many people who have gone to Iraq and fought. Not ONE of them thought that. They understand we are fighting an ideology, not a single group.

He mixes the two up in his statement, 9-11 and war against terrorism. He states it as if the two are synonomous. You cant be fighting a war on terrorism if you are not fighting ONLY the group who directly was responsible, is the implication. He does not understand that you can fight against terrorism, and not be fighting those who were directly responsible for 9-11. On its face, it makes no sense. Technically those really responsible are dead!

It really is just a verbal game they play, to try to justify their pacifist thinking.

Dems just have a hard time making that leap for some reason. They see our enemy as ONLY Al Queada, and ONLY those who directly attacked the US.

We will say it again, and I am sure you liberals will somehow mix the words up.
Say it one more time.
Every conservative I know, would state those words.
BUT.. here is the BUT, that you guys keep missing.
Our enemy is not ONLY Al Queada. Think about it, just for a second. I know its hard to think outside of trying to tie everything directly to the people who hit the towers. Because if you actually think outside of that, then you might have to consider...that Bush MIGHT be right. You wouldn't want to do that.

Al Queada did not attack Spain
Al Queada did not kidnap the French journalist.
Al Queada did not kill Danny Pearle

Get it?

BUT those groups shared the same ideology and goals as Al Queada. That is where the connection is. That's what we mean when we talk about a connection.
Is it that hard to comprehend an enemy larger than one group?

It is not a war on Al Queada. Nobody has ever said that. It is a war on terrorism, more specifically Islamic extremist.

Italy and Germany never attacked the US during WW2.
Why did we see them as a common enemy?
Japan attacked the US, but we went after Germany first, why??
Same goals and ideology. Get it? I know its difficult.
If we had destroyed Japan alone, the problem still would have existed. We had to destroy both.
We had to destroy them and their allies. We had to fight them everywhere (Africa, Europe, Asia).

That's what we are doing, attacking the allies of Al Queada. The same way these organizations are targeting our allies.
Its really hard for you to think we might have to actually kill people, BEFORE they get a chance to kill us. But try to, you might learn something.

He also makes another statement based on bad logic, and a false premise. "America's dilemma in Iraq now, so obvious that people rarely state it, is that a war meant to contain terrorism has had the effect of creating more of it. Most of the new terrorism is in Iraq itself, which was to be a platform in combating terrorism but has instead become a magnet for it."

Wrong! Again. It was not fought to make Iraq a platform to fight terrorism, or to contain terrorism, or to reduce terrorism in the short term. That has never, ever, ever been stated by those who support the war. NEVER! So he offers false reason, just so he can knock it down. What intellectual laziness. Guess what? That's why its not stated, because its not true!!

Amazing how people who oppose the war, keep trying to say why we are fighting the war.

I have never met a single person who supports the war, who does not understand the simple ideas I have stated. Those who don't support the war are the ones who constantly want to talk about fighting Al Queada only, or about Iraq being a magnet for terrorism.

So please stop writing articles assuming the American people are stupid, and don't understand. You are the ones who don't understand.

posted by Sean McCray | 8:31 AM |

Memo : Dear Terrorists
Just a reminder,

America = Bad

France = Good

Thank you, Chirac

Looks like the terrorists didn't get the memo that France is their friend. Seems even if you opposed the Iraq War, the terrorists still want to use terrorism to influence your policies.
What does this say to all the people who think if we had not gone into Iraq, they wouldn't hate us so much? You can't be their friend, unless you become one of them

These people have declared war on the rest of the world! Get It?
They are at war, they will not stop until they are stopped or they destroy all the infidels.
The only question is, if we will fight back?

( France's ban on head scarves also shows another side of their intolerant culture. Even after 9-11, this would not get anywhere in the US.)

posted by Sean McCray | 7:48 AM |


Miss America 2003 , Erika Harold, is at the Republican Convention!

"As a role model, I will also encourage young people to abstain from drugs, sex and alcohol and explain how this commitment helped me to protect, respect and define myself."

looks, brains and morals!!!

posted by Sean McCray | 10:51 PM |

McCain/Rice 2008
Just a thought.

posted by Sean McCray | 9:33 AM |


"Let every nation know,wether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price , bear anyburden, meet any hardship, support any friend , oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and success of liberty this much we pledge and more."
- President John F.Kennedy
Jan 20,1961 innauguration address

posted by Sean McCray | 5:05 AM |


Bush has moved outside the margin of error in Ohio and Missouri.

posted by Sean McCray | 7:23 PM |

I have to agree that Larry Brown should carry a large amount of responsibility for the US Men's Team only bringing home the bronze. His roster may not have been the best the NBA could put on the floor, but it was still the best of any team in the tournament. Brown is an extremely stubborn person who is very inflexible and did not adjust to the situation.

posted by Sean McCray | 6:46 PM |

Just wandering where is the left wing? The media has no problems saying "right-wing" and pretending that it is just reporting. But will somebody show me where they have ever called any of the "liberal" groups the left-wing?

posted by Sean McCray | 6:36 PM |

Nothing shows the media's bias more than Michael Moore being able to read a public letter to Bush. This is news? A man who made a so called "documentary" that had fewer truths in it's 2 hours, than both Swift Boat Vets ads.
I wander if the media will report that he did this with the backing of the left-wing group Probably not. Union, feminists and leftists are the norm, not extremes- at least as far as the media is concerned.

I have to admit I am actually surprised by how blatantly transparent the media has been in defending Kerry and attacking the Swiftboat Vets. They point to one or two people and a few discrepancies. It never crosses their mind that Kerry may be the one with the wrong story. They ignore the hundreds of other members of Swiftboat Vets, and their comments. They have ignored the official records from the military and the fact that Kerry has yet to release his records. How much more of a double standard can you have? Has Kerry EVER stated that Bush served honorably? Nope.

I personally don't care what the hell happened in Vietnam, and think it was stupid of Kerry to make it the center of his campaign. I expect people to exaggerate their actions in battle, but you don't then turn around and run for President based on those exaggerated acts. Dole didn't and McCain didn't. But Kerry has made this an issue, Kerry has implied that Bush is a liar, and didn't serve honorably. Nevermind the fact that he only volunteered to go, AFTER his attempts at getting a draft deferment failed. Nevermind that Kerry was still a member of the military while he protested the war and met with the enemy.

The problem I have is that Kerry continues the lies, he continues to try to portray himself on both sides of the issue. Instead of just saying, that he was young and said lots of things that he wish he hadn't.

posted by Sean McCray | 6:22 PM |

Let me see if I have this correct:
Kerry has made his service in Vietnam the center of his campaign. He has directly criticized Bush's National Guard service, and demanded that Bush release all the paperwork. Kerry has claimed that he has released all of the paperwork, but he has not. He claimed to have been in Cambodia for Christmas, but he was not. 17 of the 24 officers who served with him, are all lying according to Kerry. The medal he claims he recieved from the Navy, the Navy says it doesn't exist. Kerry is claiming four bronze stars, and the Navy says he only earned two. (Not sure if it is one of the medals he did, but didnt throw away- because it was really a ribbon and not a medal, but wasnt his anyway.) Now his wife says these attacks on Kerry are hurting our troops in Iraq?!?

And somebody in his campaign actually has Kerry convinced that making Bush's character an issue, is a good idea? And they actually are getting paid for that advice.

posted by Sean McCray | 2:18 AM |


Finally got my book for Civil Procedure, the bookstore had run out of their stock.

Sat down to review my notes and cases for the past week. Wow!!
I really dont know anything. LOL.

posted by Sean McCray | 1:29 PM |

Question for my Democratic friends:
If Kerry loses...
Will Democrats give up on class warfare? Will they stop the "stolen election" talk? Will they accept the election results, and accept Bush as their President also? Will they be even more driven to discredit and even attempt to destroy Bush's Presidency? Will they blame Nader instead of their own candidate and ideas? Will there be 75 more anti-Bush books published? Will the Hitler comparison's continue? Will there be more Michael Moore psuedo-documentaries? Will they pressure the congressional Democrats to push for deficit reduction? Will they stop undermining Iraq, and actually stand with our troops?

posted by Sean McCray | 1:16 PM |

Bush moves ahead of Kerry in most national polls, and in most of the battleground states. This occurring prior to the Republican Convention is not good news for Kerry. A 3-4 point bounce from the convention would move Bush outside of the margin of error in most of the polls. Situations can still change drastically, in Iraq and cause the President problems. Bush could give a convention speech as bad as his last State of the Union, which would give the media room to pounce. Bush could also have a very bad performance in the debates.

At this point his opponents have given Bush their best shots, hit him as hard as they could, and had the press to help them. There are not many means of attack left available to Bush's opponents.

Bush has many means of attack still available regarding Kerry. Fortunately for Bush, Kerry seems to give him another flip-flop every week. Kerry's attacks on Bush's troop reorganization, was an example. Just two weeks prior, Kerry had suggested the exact same actions. Two weeks! Does he forget? Does he just hope others do? In the internet age, a candidate can't run a campaign like they did 20 years ago.

posted by Sean McCray | 1:00 PM |


Kerry's defenders are attacking the Swiftboat Vets, by saying they never served with Kerry, in his boat. They only served near him, and can only offer a second or third hand account of what happened.


So does that mean when Kerry testified in 1971 before the Senate, that he was just as wrong as the Swiftboat Vets are today? He never actually saw any of those acts, he was just repeating what had been told to him. Not just repeating them, but testifying under oath!

Just a thought!

posted by Sean McCray | 12:56 AM |

Started first week of classes at law school. Not completely lost yet. LOL.
I have been reading a lot of law student blogs lately, just trying to see where they are .

Most of the professors are liberal, its pretty obvious, but that is not a surprise. I got this one liberal student in my classes that is five minutes from getting a serious verbal thrashing from me. He keeps throwing out little comments in class, that are anti-Bush. I can tell he is very young, and probably has no clue why he believes what he believes. So it would be pretty easy to embarrass him. He keeps throwing out little comments in class, that are anti-Bush.

posted by Sean McCray | 12:02 AM |


4-5 Points
That's how large the bounce will be for Bush from the convention. I think anything below 4% is a failure. The biggest thing to watch is how large a bounce he will get in the battleground states. Will Bush be able to move outside the margin of error in many of those states. He needs to put distance between him and Kerry in places like Tennessee, Virginia, N. Carolina, Florida and Ohio.

The incumbent gains on their opponent in the closing month of a Presidential election. Many of the undecided begin to fall back to the incumbent. This happened with Carter and Bush 1, and even Gore benefited from this trend If that holds then you have to add about 2 points to the Presidents numbers. The convention will be a turning point if they do it well.

I think Kerry has a lot more things to explain and clarify during the debates. Bush only needs to clarify why he went to war, and explain it in a way that the average person can understand.

posted by Sean McCray | 11:53 PM |

WSJ has a great summary about the bloggers who have been given official access to the Republican National Convention.

posted by Sean McCray | 11:50 PM |


Kerry Was Warned
Many professional consultants and well known politicians warned Kerry about focusing too much on his Vietnam service. ( The Clinton's for one, Hillary also told him not to vote against the $87 Supplement )
Now it is all coming back to haunt him. How long did he really think he could continue to double talk?
What really will cause him problems, is most people still dont know who he is, or what he believes.
He says Bush attacks him, and he has never attacked Bush, but right here on his campaign website, they bring up the National Guard issue. If that is fair game, then so is Kerry's service in Vietnam.
If he had been runnign a campaign based on real ideas, and not just an oppositional campaign this wouldnt be such a big deal. Many people will excuse him, if it look like just some exaggeration, but he will also have to give them something more to hold onto. Something FOR Kerry, not just anti-Bush.

If Bush comes out of the covention with even a small 3-4 point bounce, and momentum. Then Kerry will enter the debates on the defensive.

(I think Bush will get a bigger bounce from his convention for a few reasons. I think people are paying more attention now, and I think people will be reminded of why they liked him in the first place. No other candidate has had as much money spent on negative ads, movies attacking them and over 75 books published attacking them. )

posted by Sean McCray | 3:59 PM |


Kerry Takes Both Sides Of An Issue Again
This article by William Kristol, backs up my statement that Kerry has no clear positions, he just opposes Bush. When he appeared on ABC's This Week on August 1, this is what Kerry said about reducing troops:
"I will have significant, enormous reduction in the level of troops. . . . I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops, not just there but elsewhere in the world. In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps. There are great possibilities open to us. But this administration has very little imagination."

This type of thinking works when you are a Senator, but not when you are President.

posted by Sean McCray | 5:14 PM |


John Kerry Says is wrong, Bush is right about troop reductions

"Democratic White House hopeful Senator John Kerry warned that President George W. Bush's plan to withdraw 70,000 troops from Europe and Asia would hinder the war on terrorism and embolden North Korea
This hastily announced plan raises more doubts about our intentions and our commitments than it provides real answers,"

Let me get this correct. According to Kerry it is a good thing to publicly say you will bring troops home from a war zone within six months (In a weak country trying to establish democracy), but its dangerous for Bush to propose a 10 year plan to reduce our troop levels in nations that are established democracies with their own militaries, and are not at war.


Having 70,000 mostly non-combat troops in Germany makes more sense to Sen. Kerry, than having 70,000 combat troops able to hit an enemy anywhere in the world within 72 hours.

I will ask the unanswerable Kerry question. Where is the logic??

Kerry does his best, when he says nothing. He has no position other than opposition. It appears pathological, he just wants to disagree with Bush. That's why his views are inconsistent and confusing. Even his supporters don't really know what he believes, except on abortion.

Bush is moving troops into a position where they can better defend the actual homeland, and be flexible enough to challenge terrorists anywhere in the world. It will move our troops from peaceful situations, where those countries can afford to defend themselves.
Everybody knows a fixed target is the easiest target to hit.

Here is the amazing part. A standing military is the greatest evidence of an empire. Democrats complain about the American hegemony, and empire. When Bush makes a move to reduce that "empire" they respond with silly complaints.

This plan has been in the making since Bush took office and has a 10 year time frame. That is far from rushing. (But if you believe that waiting 12 years to take out Saddam was a rush to war, then I can see how a measly 10 years is almost hyperspeed.)

All of our allies have been included in the process of making these plans. (Turkey, Russia, all of NATO).

This reduces our entanglement with other nations. The libertarian in me loves this idea. Hopefully it will be the beginning of a different attitude, where the US ONLY maintains strategic military ties, and does not provide for the defense of other capable nations for over 50 years. This will allow the US to move against threats anywhere, but not be a threat to an allies culture or stability. It is, in effect, taking the special forces strategy to a global scale.

posted by Sean McCray | 4:34 PM |


Saddam Failed the Test
Stephen Sestanovich, a former ambassador at large for the Soviet Union, asks the question "When policymakers have imperfect information about a serious problem (which is almost always), what should they do?"

"The answer, then as now, is to shift the burden of proof to the other guy."

" In our debate about the war, we need to acknowledge that the administration set the right test for Saddam Hussein -- and that he did not pass it.
When America demanded that Iraq follow the example of countries like Ukraine and South Africa, which sought international help in dismantling their weapons of mass destruction, it set the bar extremely high, but not unreasonably so. The right test had to reflect Saddam Hussein's long record of acquiring, using and concealing such weapons. Just as important, it had to yield a clear enough result to satisfy doubters on both sides, either breaking the momentum for war or showing that it was justified."

"A decision on war is almost never based simply on what we know, or think we know. Intelligence is always disputed. Instead, we respond to what the other guy does. This is how we went to war in Iraq. The next time we face such a choice, whether our intelligence has improved or not, we'll almost surely decide in the very same way."

This is an issue I have found those that oppose the war, do not understand. It was not the responsibility of the US to PROVE Saddam had WMD. It was the responsibility of Saddam to prove he no longer had them. That is why they were UN Inspectors, not UN Investigators. WMD are too easily hidden, especially chemical weapons. It would be insane for the US to attempt proving that WMD exists in a country the size of California.

An example is the North Korea situation. Nobody really knows if they have a nuclear missile or not. The only way to know conclusively is to inspect the actual missiles, or for North Korea to set off a test explosion. Just because North Korea says they have one, doesn't mean it is true. The only way we could inspect the missiles and the nuclear sites, is with North Korea's co-operation, or through military force. The same basic options we had with Saddam.

posted by Sean McCray | 4:36 AM |

Giving Osama Access to American Courts:
In my original post I called the idea stupid, but offered no explanation.

I think when you look at Osama Bin Laden, it opens up an entirely new area in the law. He is not a head of state, not a military leader but is definitely an enemy of the US.

Look at the Moussaoui case. It shows how the criminal system is not built to handle these issues. Our system presumes innocence, allows a person the right to remain silent. The idea of interrogating these people would be off limits. In a trial, would FBI/CIA and other sensitive intelligence personell be called to testify. This would also expose intelligence tactics. Anything that could prove to be exculpatory would have to be given some weight. All it would take is ONE judge with a liberal bend.

Look at the first World Trade Center trial. Three of the four did not get the death penalty, the jury chose not to give it to them. Most would not get the death penalty for the same reason many mass murderers dont. they are given life sentences in return for cooperating.

How would we stop Bin Laden from profiting, by selling his story outside the US?

Just because I dont feel he should have access to our courts, does not mean I feel the US should allow others to handle him. The US should handle Bin Laden, and that includes the death penalty. The Bush administration needs to be proactive in establishing clear rules for the legal context, terorists like Bin laden will recieve.

posted by Sean McCray | 4:09 AM |


Rep Goss's Nomination for CIA Director
This is a non-issue for me. I think the complaint that he is "too partisan" is disingenuous. All political nominees are partisan, and every CIA Director has been partisan. Remember a guy named Goerge Bush?
Goss appears to have a serious commitment to the intelligence community, and experience in the field. Interesting that for Dems, 4 months in Vietnam qualify Kerry for the Presidency, but 10 years in the intelligence field doesnt qualify Goss for the CIA.
Bush has definitely backed the dems against a wall on this nominee. They will have to come up with something more than Goss being partisan, to justify voting against this nominee.
What really matters is how the whole idea of an intelligence "czar" will end up working out.

posted by Sean McCray | 1:43 AM |


My Mother is leaning towards voting for Bush!!!
You have to understand, this is as close to a miracle as I have experienced in my life. Just a few weeks ago she made a comment to me about "needing to wake up" regarding Bush.
What happened? She stated two things in particular. The first one was that she saw Kerry tell a clear lie on television. The second one, was Edwards cancelled his appearance at NC AT&T due to sickness, but later made it to another NC university.
I think it has been a buildup of many things. She recently vacationed in Vegas with a close friend who is heavily involved in the Republican Party. Also, my step-father just recently became a Pastor, and I think it has them thinking more closely about the moral implications of their vote. She also mentioned a preacher they had seen who spoke about the history of Israel, and about how Bush has been a loyal supporter of Israel.

This just shows, many are waiting on the case to be made, and they will listen. I have been a critic of the Bush regarding the uneven outreach to African-Americans. More on that later..

posted by Sean McCray | 11:20 PM |


I am here in Wilmington Delaware. As I settle down here, my postings will increase.

posted by Sean McCray | 9:43 PM |
to open links in new window
Contact Me