Liberals are attacking the Ashcroft nomination by saying this:

Ashcroft is opposed to some laws, so he cannot enforce them as Attorney General.

As I keep pointing out, one thing you have to do to be a respectable conservative is to have no memory at all. In this as in so many other ways, I am not respectable. I remember.

I remember in 1977, when President Carter's Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service said that, if it were up to her, no immigrant would ever be turned away. She said she only enforced the law because she had to.

Nobody said a word except my boss, Congressman John Ashbrook.

You could find incidents of liberals being against laws they had to enforce in every administration, but if you did, it would convict you of having a memory, and therefore of not being respectable.

Remember that the liberal argument against Ashcroft is that you cannot enforce a law you do not approve of. That would seem to mean that every member of the entire Federal bureaucracy will have to be given ideological clearance. Their job is enforcing the laws. How do you think they would come out on prohibitions on abortion funding?

Another little memory. Remember that the Supreme Court voted five to four in the Florida decision that made Bush, Junior, president?

One of the four liberal justices who fought Bush all the way was Souter. After the liberals attacked his more conservative Supreme Court nominee, Bush, Sr., wimped out and appointed Souter, probably the most liberal justice on the Supreme Court.

So if you were worried about whether Bush Junior would do to Ashcroft what he did to Chavez, you had every right to be.

Respectable conservatives forget anything they are ordered to. When liberals come up for confirmation, they will forget what was done to Ashcroft.

Respectable conservatives forgot what was done to another conservative, Newt Gingrich..

When Hillary Clinton got her eight million dollar book deal, a few conservatives mentioned that liberals ruined Newt Gingrich because he had a four million dollar book deal.

But when liberals told them to, respectable conservatives shut up about the double standard between Hillary and Gingrich.

Thank God for Fox News! They are respectable conservatives, but they still dare to have a memory.

Everybody else barely mentioned the fact that Hillary was getting an eight million dollar book deal while Gingrich was ruined by the liberals for half that. On CNN, Greta Sustern told conservatives to forget the Gingrich campaign of personal destruction, and the respectables obeyed their orders as always.

But not on Fox News. Fox News has Gingrich himself on regularly and O'Reilly simply won't shut up about Hillary's book deal.

Fox is taking over conservative respectability, and they have more guts than the minor league conservatives they are taking over from.

A baby ape has just been genetically altered, and everybody is up in arms.

Until now, fashionable morality did not apply to genetics, because if you worry about genetics, you are anaziwhowsantstokillsixmillionjews.

To be respectable, I have to agree with today's genetics policy. Today, the countries in the world whose children are starving and live in misery produce the maximum number of children. The only morality we have is to wait for the hundreds of millions of children to be produced, and then cut back on families in developed countries so the third world overflow can move in.

That's the only "morality" we have, and if you question it, you're anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

It is moral to let any teenage welfare mother do anything to the gene pool she has the physical capacity to do. We breed for stupidity and ugliness the way Hitler tried to breed for Aryanness, but no one dares to question today's immoral genetic "morality."

Sure, scientists playing with the gene pool is dangerous. But what can they do to us that we are not, in the name of morality, doing to ourselves right now? If our so-called morality, agreed on by liberals and "Christians" (and a "Christian" is NOT a Christian) keeps on the way it is going, we all know very well the horror our descendants are going to face.

But you can't say that, because conservatives are like dogs waiting for a word from their master. If the liberals say "anzaiwhowsantstokillsicxmillionjews" or any other cliché, conservatives cease to pretend to have any kind of morality at all.

Nobody knows exactly what to do about cloning or genetic alteration, but everybody is demanding meetings and discussions on the subject - RIGHT NOW!

But if I bring up the genetic catastrophe we are uncritically sanctioning now, everybody tells me I have to know exactly what to do about it before I mention it. Even thinking about it makes me anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

It goes contrary to all of our conservative instincts, but it seems to me that scientists simply couldn't do much more harm to future generations than we are doing now.

What I am saying is that no person who joins in the fashionable panic about evil scientists has any right to open his mouth until he has the courage to take a stand on TODAY'S genetic immorality.