Finding a Balance

"Unintended Consequences of Obamacare" Take One

2010-03-24T15:37:00.000-07:00

This letter from a physician was posted on National Review online. She states that 100% of the patients who have contacted her have been supportive.

March 23, 2010

My Dear Patient,

As you must know, Congress has just passed extensive legislation governing health care delivery and insurance systems. Whether you agree with what it does or not, we are all now subject to this law and its sweeping changes.

I have always conducted my medical practice with my patient’s best interests as my first priority. Although not legally obliged to do so, I have routinely provided you with a receipt that has all the codes necessary to bill your own health insurance company for any reimbursement to which you are entitled. Until now, that insurance company was a free enterprise despite the fact that it was heavily regulated by state and federal laws. Now the situation is quite different. Through the new law’s mandates, regulatory powers and reform, health insurance is and will be largely a government activity which will have an ever larger jurisdiction over how doctors practice, make clinical judgments and are paid.

The new law provides for about 150 new government agencies, many of which are designed to be ‘oversight’ bureaucracies which will have the right to decide what medical care is legal to provide through insurance. Among other things, they will have the right to review my medical care of you and read your medical record. Now, as soon as you submit our economic transaction to your insurance company for reimbursement, you have involved me in these regulations and put me in the jurisdiction of government for my activities, decisions and behavior as your doctor.

No one can have two masters. Either I can serve you as my patient or I can serve the government. Either I can continue to make your welfare and health my only concern, including the protection of your privacy and medical records, or I can abide by ever-increasing amounts of government regulations and dictates to my decisions. I can’t do both. I choose to continue to follow my conscience and practice medicine to serve you.

For this reason, I am responding to the situation created by this new law by exercising my right not to participate in any health insurance program. I will still provide you with the same medical services that I always have, but the interaction will be exclusively and privately between you and me. This means that I will provide you only with a receipt for the services you have paid for, but without the additional information that is required to submit your receipt for reimbursement to your health insurance company. That is the only way I can make sure there will be no conflict between following the law and serving you. Because the law is now in effect, so must these changes be to my practice.

Sincerely,

Linda Johnston, MD

Response to Feeble DHS "Right Wing Terrorist" Report

2009-04-18T06:45:00.000-07:00

Read this response from Senators Coburn, Brownback, DeMint, Burr, Murkowski, Inhofe, and Vitter to the latest, greatest work of fiction from the Obama administration--the Department of Homeland Security's outright attack on 50% of the American population.

Michelle Malkin has an excellent editorial on the subject.

My son was taught in ELEMENTARY SCHOOL that unattributed, wild-eyed assertions with no basis in fact do not belong in a work of non-fiction.

Our federal government is being run by a bunch of ideological amateurs with the worst possible combination of ignorance & arrogance.

Close to 5,000 People @ Madison Tax Day Tea Party

2009-04-15T15:20:00.000-07:00

Great Tea Party Protest in Madison, Wisconsin today at the State Capitol. Initial crowd estimates are around 5,000 people. The crowds were peaceful, but fired up. Paul Ryan kicked things off...recurring themes were:

*Enough is enough
*Government needs to serve the people--not the other way around
*No more taxes
*This is only the beginning
*We need to mobilize after today to get the word out

Here are some of my favorite signs:

The Constitution: The Other Document They Never Read

Read My Teleprompter, Cut Our Taxes

Flush the Doylet (for Governor Doyle)

The Real Pirates are in Washington

We Can't All Be Democrats...Somebody has to pay taxes

Right Wing Extremists Pay Their Mortgage

Whassup with Paul Ryan?

2009-03-24T12:39:00.000-07:00

Does ANYONE out there have a clue about why Paul Ryan voted FOR the "TARP Recipient Bonuses Act"? I tried to send him an email, but since I don't live in his district, the website blocked me. Tell me, is there something in the WATER in Washington????

If you live in his district, please give him an earful (or 'mail-ful', whichever is more convenient). Come to think of it, do BOTH!

At least we have ONE reasonable representative left in Jim Sensenbrenner.

As outraged as I am about the AIG bonuses in the wake of the bailout program, our 'leaders' are missing the point....

The problem is not the bonuses, the problem is the bailout. We have a number of ways to deal with these large, insolvent companies, including bankruptcy and receivership. These approaches have been around for a LONG time and have settled law that deals with contracts and other issues associated with a failing company.

Since a 'bailout' has virtually no rules associated with it, all sorts of 'unintended consequences' can result. We can't just jettison the Constitution and due process.....(ironic that libs want to give due process to enemy combatants on the battlefield, but not to law-abiding U.S. citizens).

Letting Congress selectively 'tax' citizens with no recourse is a BAD IDEA.

Check out Sensenbrenner's post on his website and send him your thanks. Send your raspberries to Paul Ryan here (if you live in his district).

Madison Wisconsin Tea Party Tax Protest

2009-03-24T12:26:00.000-07:00

Americans For Prosperity is helping sponsor a Tea Party on the steps of the Capitol in Madison, WI on April 15th, Tax Day (although April Fools' Day would be equally appropriate). They are scheduling busses from many of the major metro areas in Wisconsin.

If you are fed up with wasteful government spending and the disconnection between many of our elected officials and reality, plan to join this important event.

You can sign up at http://www.fightbackwisconsin.com/Feedback.php

How the Stimulus Package will Actually Work

2009-03-06T15:10:00.000-08:00

It all makes sense now...

Three contractors are bidding to fix a broken fence at the White House.

One is from Chicago, another is from Tennessee , and the third is from Minnesota. All three go with a White House official to examine the fence.

The Minnesota contractor takes out a tape measure and does some measuring, then works some figures with a pencil. "Well," he says, "I figure the job will run about $900: $400 for materials, $400 for my crew and $100 profit for me."

The Tennessee contractor also does some measuring and figuring, then says, "I can do this job for $700: $300 for materials, $300 for my crew and $100 profit for me."

The Chicago contractor doesn't measure or figure, but leans over to the White House official and whispers, "$2,700." The official, incredulous, says, "You didn't even measure like the other guys! How did you come up with such a high figure?"

The Chicago contractor whispers back, "$1000 for me, $1000 for you, and we hire the guy from Tennessee to fix the fence." "Done!" replies the government
official.

And that, my friends, is how the new stimulus plan will work.

Hey, it worked in Chicago!!!

From: SodaHead

I Have a News Flash for Obama...

2009-02-18T19:02:00.000-08:00

From Politico...

In a speech Wednesday in Mesa, Ariz., President Obama unveiled his plan to address the home foreclosure crisis, pledging $75 billion in federal aid to homeowners and mortgage lenders and outlining an expanded role for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in renegotiating mortgages on homes at risk of foreclosure.

"This plan will not save every home, but it will give families resigned to financial ruin a chance to rebuild,” Obama said, who described home foreclosures in the context of the broader economic crisis.

“Companies in your community that depend on the housing market – construction companies and home furnishing stores, painters and landscapers – they’re cutting back and laying people off,” Obama said. “In the end, all of us are paying a price for this home mortgage crisis.”

The crowd cheered wildly at the first mention of the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which the President signed yesterday in Denver. But Obama’s speech wasn’t a festive occasion, and the president had stern words for Americans who had made reckless or risky choices in their borrowing and lending practices.

The housing crisis, Obama said, was brought about by an “erosion of…common sense.”

“All of us need to learn to live within our means again,” he said.

I hate to break it to Barry, but there are a WHOLE LOT of us out here who are already living WITHIN our means. And how, exactly, will subsidizing those who have NOT learned to live within their means, help solve the problem?

Sounds to me like we are rewarding those who overextended themselves at the expense of those who live 'within their means.'

Call Your Senators Part II...Details of the "Spendulus"

2009-02-09T15:29:00.000-08:00

Here is the latest list of pork in the Obama-Reid-Pelosi "Drunken Sailor" Spendulus Bill...from the website of Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. of Oklahoma.

Wasteful and Non-Stimulative Spending in Nelson-Collins Substitute

• $2 billion earmark for FutureGen near zero emissions powerplant in Mattoon, IL
• $39 billion slush fund for "state fiscal stabilization" bailout
• $5.5 billion for making federal buildings "green" (including $448 million for DHS HQ)
• $200 million for workplace safety in USDA facilities
• $275 million for flood prevention
• $65 million for watershed rehabilitation
• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges and libraries
• $650 million for the DTV transition coupon program
• $307 million for constructing NIST office buildings
• $1 billion for administrative costs and construction of NOAA office buildings
• $100 million for constructing U.S. Marshalls office buildings
• $300 million for constructing FBI office buildings
• $800 million for constructing Federal Prison System buildings and facilities
• $10 million to fight Mexican gunrunners
• $1.3 billion for NASA (including $450 million for "science" at NASA)
• $100 million to clean up sites used in early U.S. atomic energy program
• $10 million for urban canals
• $2 billion for manufacturing advanced batteries for hybrid cars
• $1.5 billion for carbon capture projects under sec. 703 of P.L. 110-140 (though section only authorizes $1 billion for five years)
• $300 million for hybrid and electric cars for federal employees
• $198 million to design and furnish the DHS headquarters
• $255 million for "priority procurements" at Coast Guard (polar ice breaker)
• $500 million for State and local fire stations
• $180 million for construction of Bureau of Land Management facilities
• $500 million for wildland fire management
• $110 million for construction for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• $522 million for construction for the Bureau of Indian Affairs
• $650 million for abandoned mine sites
• $75 million for the Smithsonian Institution
• $1.2 billion for summer jobs for youth
• $412 million for CDC headquarters
• $500 million earmark for NIH facilities in Bethesda, MD
• $160 million for "volunteers" at the Corp. for National and Community Service
• $750 earmark for the National Computer Center in MD
• $224 million for International Boundary and Water Commission – U.S. and Mexico
• $850 million for Amtrak
• $100 million for lead paint hazard reduction

Call 'em again....

Milton Friedman Says it All...

2009-02-09T10:36:00.000-08:00

Watch this video as Milton Friedman defends capitalism.

Brilliant.

And I suppose that Phil Donahue did his show for 'free'.....

David Obey - Proof that there should be a minimum IQ test required for House members...

2009-02-06T14:23:00.000-08:00

From The Hill's Blog Briefing Room:

Of course, this is the guy that said that deaths in the Iraq war were down because the terrorists were "running out of people to kill". And he is the CHAIRMAN OF THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE!!!!! Yikes. Make us proud, David.

How money is spent should be far from the biggest concern about the stimulus package, its chief author, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wisc.) said Friday.

"So what?" Obey asked in response to a question on NPR's "Morning Edition" about the perceived lack of direction from Congress as to how money in the stimulus should be spent. "This is an emergency. We've got to simply find a way to get this done as fast as possible and as well as possible, and that's what we're doing."

Obey said that Congress is not responsible if money is misspent, but rather, whoever spends the money poorly.

"We simply made a decision, which took about three seconds, not to have earmarks in the bill," Obey told NPR. "And with all due respect, that's the least important question facing us on putting together this package."

As Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Obey had chief oversight in crafting the $825 billion package as passed by the House. The provisions in the bill have been criticized by Republicans and some centrist Democrats for not being as directly related to stimulating the economy as it should be.

""We have more oversight built into this package than any package in the history of man. If money is spent badly, we want to know about it so we can hold accountable the people who made that choice," the chairman said. "And guess what? Regardless of what we do, there will be some stupid decisions made."

Obama's Remarks to the Democrats on "Retreat"

2009-02-06T13:33:00.000-08:00

You have to read this twice to believe it. This is an address given to the Democrats in Williamsburg, VA at the House Caucus retreat.

I am only providing some excerpts of this speech...to read it in full, go to this post on NRO.

Here is our new leader at his best....the emphases are mine.

Thank you. Thank you, Democrats. (Applause.) Thank you. Please, everybody have a seat. Everybody have a seat. It is great to be here with so many friends. Thank you for giving me a reason to use Air Force One. (Laughter.) It’s pretty nice. (Laughter.)

No concern, of course, about his 'carbon footprint'. Of course, if we all turn our thermostats down, we can help pay for his consumption, including jacking up the White House thermostat. Per David Axelrod, "He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there." Nice.

I’m glad to see the House Democratic Caucus is getting by just fine without my Chief of Staff. (Laughter.) I don’t know how many of you were at the Alfalfa dinner, but I pointed out, you know, this whole myth of Rahm being this tough guy, mean, is just not true. At least once a week he spends time teaching profanity to underprivileged children. (Laughter and applause.) So he’s got a soft spot.

Nice guy. Teaching profanity to underprivileged children? This is funny?

...We can’t embrace the losing formula that says only tax cuts will work for every problem we face; that ignores critical challenges like our addiction to foreign oil, or the soaring cost of health care, or falling schools and crumbling bridges and roads and levees. I don’t care whether you’re driving a hybrid or an SUV if you’re headed for a cliff, you’ve got to change direction. (Applause.) That’s what the American people called for in November, and that’s what we intend to deliver. (Applause.)

He seems to forget that not ALL the American people voted for him....in fact, about 46% of us did NOT vote for him. And, right now, almost half of the American people do NOT support the 'stimulus' package.

By the way, tax cuts have proven to be the best way of increasing federal revenue...but Barack doesn't care about that. Don't confuse him with the facts when he is just warming up the audience.

So the American people are watching. They did not send us here to get bogged down with the same old delay, the same old distractions, the same talking points, the same cable chatter. (Applause.) You know, aren’t you all tired of that stuff?

The same talking points? The same 'cable chatter'? Why does this guy keep going after the minority conservative media? Doesn't he realize that a LOT of Americans watch and TRUST those outlets? More than the Obama-fawning MSM?

Then there’s the argument, well, this is full of pet projects. When was the last time that we saw a bill of this magnitude move out with no earmarks in it? Not one. (Applause.) And when you start asking, well, what is it exactly that is such a problem that you’re seeing, where’s all this waste and spending? Well, you know, you want to replace the federal fleet with hybrid cars. Well, why wouldn’t we want to do that? (Laughter.) That creates jobs for people who make those cars. It saves the federal government energy. It saves the taxpayers energy. (Applause.)

So then you get the argument, well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill. What do you think a stimulus is? (Laughter and applause.) That’s the whole point. No, seriously. (Laughter.) That’s the point.
(Applause.)

Wait a minute? I thought Obama was going to eliminate earmarks? And now ANY earmarks and spending are good? Spending = stimulus? And his comment about the hybrid cars shows his ignorance. The ROI on most hybrid car models (the point at which you actually SAVE enough money on gasoline to make up for the higher purchase price is SEVEN YEARS. Do we actually keep the federal fleet for SEVEN YEARS? If we don't, then we may be saving the government ENERGY, but we sure as heck ain't saving the taxpayers MONEY. (Note that he does not say we are saving money, just energy.)

As I was listening to his speech when he signed the S-CHIP legislation (and whatever happened to the 'five day cooling off' period he promised during the campaign, when the American people could weigh in on any legislation before he signed it into law?) -- it struck me.

The only thing this guy has been REALLY good at in his career is campaigning. That's why he can't seem to stop it.

I am afraid that this bill is going to pass. And there will be no turning back. Batten down your hatches. We are in for rough times ahead.

Look at the Bright Side - Way to Fund the Stimulus!

2009-02-05T11:22:00.001-08:00

I just thought of a way to help fund the 'stimulus' package.

Order an immediate audit of all Democratic elected officials.
Force them to pay all their taxes, including interest & penalties.

The stimulus shouldn't cost the American taxpayers ONE CENT!!!

We might even have enough left over to pay off the coronation ceremony!!!

Call Your Senators NOW!!! (and then call 'em again)

2009-02-05T10:46:00.000-08:00

I called my Senators' Washington offices (Kohl & Feingold) on Friday to weigh in on the Obama-Reid-Pelosi Drunken Sailor Spending Spree (oops-I mean, of course the 'stimlus package').

I got a busy signal the first time and had to keep re-dialing.

When I asked Feingold's office how the calls were running, the young man on the end of the line hesitated and then told me that they were overwhelmingly against the current bill.

Please, PLEASE, PLEASE call them (or your own senators) NOW and make your voice be heard.

I also emailed Senator Mitch McConnell and told him that he was the only thing standing between us & disaster.

The madness HAS TO STOP!

You can reach our senators at the following numbers. I put them on my speed dial (heh). Call early & call often!!!

Senator Herb Kohl: 202-224-5653
Senator Russ Feingold: 202-224-5323

Or call the general number for your own personal Senator: 202-224-3121

Victor Davis Hanson Predicts Obama Meltdown

2009-02-05T10:02:00.000-08:00

Interesting post by VDH on The Corner on The Impending Obama Meltdown. I am including it in its entirety.

The Impending Obama Meltdown [Victor Davis Hanson]

Some of us have been warning that it was not healthy for the U.S. media to have deified rather than questioned Obama, especially given that they tore apart Bush, ridiculed Palin, and caricatured Hillary. And now we can see the results of their two years of advocacy rather than scrutiny.We are quite literally after two weeks teetering on an Obama implosion—and with no Dick Morris to bail him out—brought on by messianic delusions of grandeur, hubris, and a strange naivete that soaring rhetoric and a multiracial profile can add requisite cover to good old-fashioned Chicago politicking.First, there were the sermons on ethics, belied by the appointments of tax dodgers, crass lobbyists, and wheeler-dealers like Richardson—with the relish of the Blago tapes still to come. (And why does Richardson/Daschle go, but not Geithner?).

Second, was the "stimulus" (the euphemism for "borrow/print money") that was simply a way to go into debt for a generation to shower Democratic constituencies with cash.

Then third, there were the inflated lectures on historic foreign policy to be made by the clumsy political novice who trashed his own country and his predecessor in the most ungracious manner overseas to a censored Saudi-run press organ (e.g., Bush is
dictatorial, the Saudi king is courageous; Obama can mend bridges that America broke to aggrieved Muslims—apparently Tehran hostages, Rushdie, serial attacks in the 1990s, 9/11, Madrid, London never apparently occurred; and neither did feeding Somalis, saving Kuwait, protesting Chechnya, Bosnia/Kosovo, billions to Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinians, help in two Afghan wars, and on and on).

Fourth, there was the campaign rhetoric of Bush shredding the Constitution—FISA, Guantánamo, the Patriot Act, Iraq, renditions, etc.—followed by "all that for now stays the same" inasmuch as we haven't ben hit in over seven years and can't risk another attack.

Fifth, Gibbs as press secretary is a Scott McClellan nightmare that won't go away, given his long McClellan-like relationship with Obama (McClellan should have been fired on day hour one on the job). Blaming Fox News for Obama's calamities is McClellan to the core and doesn't work. He already reminds me of Reverend Wright's undoing at the National Press Club—and he will get worse.

Six, Biden is being Biden. Already, he's ridiculed the chief justice, trashed the former VP, bragged on himself ad nauseam in Bidenesque weird ways, and it's only been two weeks.
And the result of all this?At home, Obama is becoming laughable and laying the groundwork for the greatest conservative populist reaction since the Reagan Revolution.Abroad, some really creepy people are lining up to test Obama's world view of "Bush did it/but I am the world": The North Koreans are readying their missiles; the Iranians are calling us passive, bragging on nukes and satellites; Russia is declaring missile defense is over and the Euros in real need of iffy Russian gas; Pakistanis say no more drone attacks (and then our friends the Indians say "shut up" about Kashmir and the Euros order no more "buy American").
This is quite serious. I can't recall a similarly disastrous start in a half-century (far worse than Bill Clinton's initial slips). Obama immediately must lower the hope-and-change rhetoric, ignore Reid/Pelosi, drop the therapy, and accept the tragic view that the world abroad is not misunderstood but quite dangerous. And he must listen on foreign policy to his National Security Advisor, Billary, and the Secretary of Defense. If he doesn't quit the messianic style and perpetual campaign mode, and begin humbly governing, then he will devolve into Carterism—angry that the once-fawning press betrayed him while we the people, due to our American malaise, are to blame.
02/04
07:15 AM

Is this just a case of "the bigger they are, the harder they fall?" If so, expect a crash of gargantuan proportions....

Merry, Merry.....?

2008-12-22T16:37:00.000-08:00

Hmmmm....I think that anyone who is offended by a greeting of "Merry Christmas" needs to be sent to diversity training to cure them of their intolerance.....

Just a thought.

NOW they tell us...

2008-11-07T14:09:00.000-08:00

Un-freaking-believable.

I would swear this is from SNL or The Onion....

But it's not.

The MSM is dead....Rest in Peace.

But it looked great on TV.....

2008-11-05T08:19:00.000-08:00

Priceless user comment from the Instapundit poll today...

From Mumblix Grumph on November 5, 2008 at 8:03 am.

Yesterday America ordered a RonCo Magic President. How could we not? They have been flogging the product for over 2 years with every Hollywood and media face giving testimonials on how it would change our lives for the better.

Now we wait the 6-8 weeks for shipping. Wait until America opens the box and reads the ingredients. A pinch of Ayers, a dash of Wright, a little Farrakahn and a lot of smoke and mirrors.

Not to mention the fraudulent fund raising.

Too bad he doesn't come with a return policy.

And the true cost is yet to be determined....

One silver lining of the Obama victory...

2008-11-05T06:21:00.000-08:00

Here is one 'silver lining perspective' of an Obama presidency and a stronger Democratic majority.

For the past eight years, I have found myself constantly having to defend conservative positions against the naysayers. Despite the majority in Congress, Bush and the Republicans were blamed for every social ill, every global conflict, every sad story of some poor individual who lost their job, didn’t have health insurance, and couldn’t realize the American Dream.

But, it is always easier to point out the flaws in a strategy than to actually create and enact a workable strategy. It is always easier to be against something than to be for it. It is always easier to oppose a war when one is not directly responsible for the safety of the American people. It is always easier to point out all the things that are ‘wrong’ with America than to craft policy and implement it in a way that actually solves the problem. It is always easier to promise a multitude of social programs than to actually make them a reality (and free from their logical consequences).

It is always easier to give a speech than to govern.

The country will have pure, unadulterated exposure to the Democrats and their leftist ideals. There will be no filter - no Bush to blame - no pretense that they lack the power to make the changes or solve the problems. We will see how their policies make us safer, more economically viable, more globally 'admirable', more influential with evil dictators, more egalitarian.

And we can stand back and criticize their failings.

Now the shoe will be on the other foot. I, for one, am looking forward to the role reversal.

The Pictures Tell the Story

2008-07-30T18:20:00.001-07:00

So, in the early days of Obama-mania, I asked the question, "What IS a 'community organizer'?" Sounds fairly nebulous...

Since Obama quoted his accomplishments as a community organizer and a state senator, I eagerly awaited a 'flagrant act of journalism' (Charlie Sykes) from the media to provide an explanation. Heh. Still. Waiting.

Check out this excellent set of posts from Doug Ross, who did some research into the truth about the housing projects of which Barack is so proud.

Also, check out this post which gives you even more background on BHO.

Wouldn't it be great if we could read this kind of stuff in the New York Times or Washington Post (or even the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel)?

Check this out -- Michael Yon Online

2008-07-30T18:11:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine turned me on to this blog by Michael Yon. Michael has reported what is going on in Iraq through firsthand knowledge and is planning to travel to Afghanistan to do the same.

I found his postings very interesting and thought I would pass them along.

Too many times, the politics surrounding the war have created a polarization that does not lead to creative problem-solving. We all need to agree that the war on terrorism is real and is worth winning and is different than any war we have fought before.

Thanks, John. Sorry it took so long to get around to this.

Obama Explains it All

2008-07-30T15:40:00.001-07:00

So, the Obama campaign theme "we are the ones we've been waiting for" is starting to make sense. We actually hold the keys to solving all of OUR OWN problems.

So....

If we just would all learn to speak Spanish (and French), we can solve all of our immigration problems.

If we just would talk to Ahmadinejad, we can solve all of our terrorism problems.

If we would just stop driving SUVs and turn our thermostats down, the rest of the world would stop hating us.

And today, we discover that if we would all just inflate our tires properly, we could solve our energy problems.

Here's a link to his comments.

Thank heavens Obama has been sent to us to explain it all!

P.S. One problem with the new energy policy. To quote Michelle Obama, "of course as a black man, Barack can get shot going to the gas station." Perhaps the Obamas will have to inflate their own tires at home.

See Powerline for a shot at the calculation of potential energy savings from properly inflated tires.

Finally....Hillary Simplifies the Tax Code!!!

2008-02-20T07:15:00.001-08:00

In a breakthrough announcement, Hillary Clinton revealed her solution for simplifying the U.S. Federal Tax Code.

Clinton's campaign manager, Maggie Williams, said,

This out-of-the-box thinking shows that Hillary is also for 'hope' and 'change' and is ready to lead the country on DAY ONE!!!

Well, it will definitely cut down on tax preparation expense!!!

Live Blogging Obama - Houston Tuesday night speech

2008-02-19T18:52:00.001-08:00

Live blogging Obama speech with my comments thrown in at no additional charge. Comments indicated in parentheses and italics....

So, Obama (the great uniter) starts by stepping on the end of Hillary's speech....

The crowd is cheering wildly. Barack thanks them multiple times to try to get them to quiet down.

Y'all know how to do it in Texas.

Houston, I think we have achieved lift off here. (Hillary will definitely accuse him of plagiarism again .)

He thanks specific people for their contributions. Then he talks about how people can start voting today in Texas. I want you to start voting tomorrow. You have from February 19-29th to vote and you can also vote on Election Day March 4th (Eerily reminiscent of 'vote early, vote often', but apparently Texans can vote AND attend a caucus ).

Now he thanks the people of Wisconsin for voting and for his win in the primary.
When you vote in Wisconsin it is 5 degrees outside. (Yeah, but that's a heat wave. At least it wasn't hailing!.)

...

What we are trying to do is not easy and it won't happen overnight. Will take more than big rallys, rousing speeches, more than policy papers and positions and websites. Will require something more.

The problem that we face in America not the lack of good ideas, but Washington has become the place that good ideas go to die. Lobbyists crush them with their money and their influence. Politicians don't spend enough time bridging their differences. We need leaders that can inspire a higher purpose.

We know how difficult it will be. Why are we here tonight? We still believe change is possible. Never needed it more than we do right now.

Workers in Youngstown, Ohio watching job after job disappear, watching jobs disappear in bad trade deals like NAFTA. They have seen machines unbolted to be shipped to China. (Huh? NAFTA has nothing to do with China....) We need jobs in America that pay well, provide health insurance and a pension.

I met a mother today in San Antonio. She has two year old twins who are legally blind. Somehow she got into a predatory loan. (Somehow??? I hope the blogosphere looks into the background of this woman. Don't people bear some responsibility for understanding the terms of loans they are signing? ) She saw her mortgage payments double in two weeks. She is on the verge of packing. She doesn't know where she is going to go.

Struggling homeowners are being tricked out of owning their dream. (So, again -- do we expect them to read the fine print? Or just close their eyes and 'hope' that the government will bail them out if they overextend themselves??? )

I'm here because of a mother I met in Green Bay Wisconsin. She gave me this bracelet, enscribed with the name of her son Ryan. Twenty years old and killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq. All gave some, but he gave all. It is time to ask ourselves as a nation if we are serving Ryan, and our young brave men and women. We need us to end this war and bring them home and give them the care and the benefits they deserve.

Year ago, I stood on the steps of the capital in Springfield, Illinois. Those who said, "Why are you running so soon? You're relatively young, you can afford to wait." I had to explain I'm not running because of some long-held ambition. not running because it is owed to me.

I'm running because of the words of Dr. King - the fierce urgency of now. (Note - he will be careful from now on to attribute any quotes!!!)

There is such a thing as being too late. Our nation is at war, our planet is at peril. Dream feels like it is slipping away. Everywhere I go, people are working harder for less. They have never paid more for college or at the pump.

There are 47 million people without health insurance.

Millions of children being left behind. Unable to compete in an international economy. Need to fix our schools, health care, bring an end to global warming, bring good jobs back to America and can't wait to end war in Iraq.

We cannot wait.

Size of our challenges have outstripped the capacity of a broken system to solve. Need politics that will lift the country up. People have grown weary of politics based on spin and PR. Want politics based on truthfulness and honesty to the American people.

Change doesn't happen from the top-down, but from the bottom up. (I don't understand this -- how is big government a bottom-up solution???)

I did volunteer work on the south side of Chicago. Best education I ever had. I know that ordinary people can do extraordinary things when they are given the opportunity (So why do we need the government to do it for us???) Americans are decent and generous people -work hard and sacrifice.

Bridge the divides - black, white, Hispanic, Asian, rich, poor, Republican, Democrat, challenge the special interests, challenge ourselves to be better neighbors, citizens, Americans....no destiny we could not fulfill.

After a year of traveling across the country....my faith in the American people has been vindicated. We want to move forward into a better tomorrow. The American people (interrupted by people chanting "yes, we can") have spoken out and they are saying we need to move in a new direction.

As aware as i am of my imperfections....as aware as I am that I am not a perfect vessel. (Vessel? Whoa! This is the kind of comment that leads people to accuse Obama of a 'messianic' complex.)

I can't do it by myself. No president can. Change happens because of you. Question I have for you tonight, Houston, are you really ready for change?

Tell the lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda are over. They have not supported my campaign, will not run my White House, will not drown out the voices of the American people.

We have to stop talking about the 'outrage' of 47M people without health insurance (My quote marks. Outrage?). I will make sure that people have at least as good as the plan I have as a member of Congress. If you already have health insurance, will lower your premiums by $2500 per family per year. If you can't afford, we will subsidize you . Focus on prevention so we have a health care system, instead of a disease-care system...we will do it by the end of my first term as President of the United States of America.

Start restoring balance to our economy. I believe in the free market. We don't believe in government doing what we can do for ourselves. (Huh? So this is a direct contradiction to his entire platform.)

CEOs making more in 10 minutes than ordinary workers are making in one year. CEOs getting a tax break and ordinary workers are left with nothing (Left with nothing? Does he mean no tax break? Or nothing nothing?), something is wrong and has to change.

I want to take away those tax breaks to companies that are shifting jobs overseas. (Does this mean that all global companies who are based in the U.S. will have to pay higher taxes? That will be a GREAT incentive for them to create more jobs in the U.S. How is he going to accomplish this? Almost all large U.S. corporations employ people overseas in their operations.)

Give tax breaks to companies that invest right here in America. Roll back tax cuts that went to wealthy. (Okay. The top 5% of taxpayers already pay over 50%--53.8% to be exact--of all individual income tax. In fact, the Treasury Department says that Bush's tax cuts have shifted more tax to higher wagearners. See great post on this topic at about.com.)

I will give tax cuts to ordinary families that make less than $75K, we will offset your payroll tax. Seniors making less than $50K don't have to pay income tax. You're already having a hard enough time making ends meet.

I will promote trade & embrace globalization. (By taxing the bejeepers out of US-based companies that hire workers overseas.) But we will enforce work standards and safety standards so our children aren't playing with lead paint toys.

I will raise minimum wage, because if you work in America, you should not be poor. (Define poor. Minimum wage? What type of standard-of-living does he think that people who work in minimum-wage-type jobs should earn?)

Asssure that every child in America...has the best education that this country has to offer from the day that child is born to the day that child graduates from college. Not the lack of plans. Lack of political will & urgency.

Those children in the inner city...we think that is somebody else's problem...not our child. Young child in south Texas, rural east Texas, with a lower property tax base, is someone else's problem. (Wa-a-a-a-it a minute. I thought we were 'decent' and 'generous'. Now he makes us sound like a bunch of selfish slobs. hat happened to bottom-up problem solving?)

I am here to say that every child is our problem.

Invest in early childhood education to close the achievement gap....reward teachers for their greatness. By giving them higher salaries and giving them more support. (Teacher salaries are determined by local school boards. Is he suggesting that we 'federalize' teachers??? How will he accomplish this?) Highest standards of excellence. Don't want standards measured by a single standardized test - don't want teachers teaching to the test. (So... how ARE you going to measure it??? I know! Let's have the teachers report on it!!!)

Want students learning art and music and science and literature and social studies. (People cheer wildly. Is this new? I am missing something.)

About time we make college affordable for every young person in America.

We're going to provide a $4,000 tuition credit for every student every year. (Hmmm...even for those CEOs and evil wealthy people???) Students will have to participate in community service. Work in a homeless shelter, veterans' home, under-served school, or the Peace Corps. We invest in you and you invest in America. Together we will march this country forward. (Great idea, but how do we police it, since presumably the students will get their stipend while they are IN college and won't be expected to serve until after they are THROUGH with college??? )

Need an energy policy that makes sense. We send $1B to foreign nations every single day and we are melting the polar ice caps in the bargain. (Huh? Just us? Has he been to China lately?)

That has to change. I will cap emission of greenhouse gases. Generate billions of dollars from polluters to invest in solar, wind and biodiesel. Raise fuel efficiency standards on cars - only way we can actually bring gas prices down long term. (Can someone explain to me how raising efficiency standards on cars will reduce gas prices in a global economy?)

I talked about this in Detroit in front of the automakers. They have to change their ways. Nobody clapped. Room got very quiet.

What you need as President is someone will tell you not what you want to hear, but what you need to hear. Will tell you the truth.

Stop using immigration as a political football and start solving the problem. Nation of laws and immigrants. We can get serious about our borders and crack down on employers who take advantage of undocumented workers and undermining US labor. Make a pathway for those who are here. Pay a fine, learn English, go to the back of the line....we have to give them an opportunity, too. We are a nation of immigrants.

Start reinvesting in the cities. Spending $9B a month in Iraq. Could invest that money in rebuilding roads, schools, hospitals, laying broadband lines, (whoa -- that one snuck in there--think he got a major contribution from a broadband company???), putting people back to work, employ young men and women. (but not in helping people in the Middle East).

We can create the kind of foreign policy that will make us safe and lead to renewed respect for America around the world. As your Commander-in-Chief, my job will be to keep you safe.

I will not hesitate to strike against any who would do us harm. I will do whatever is required. Part of keeping you safe - provide troops with proper equipment, training, proper rotations...no more homeless veterans. No more begging for disability payments, no more waiting in line for the VA. Solemn obligation to honor those who have served on our behalf.

Part of keeping you safe is deploying our military wisely. War in Iraq was unwise. Distracted us from the fight that needed to be fought in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda. They're the ones who killed 3,000 Americans. (This will be a BIG surprise to them, since they are fighting us in Iraq!) Fanned flame of anti-American sentinment. (As evidenced by the fact that Germany, Canada and France all voted for pro-American leaders since the outset of the war! ) Cost us dearly in blood and in treasure. I opposed this war in 2002, will bring this war to an end in 2009. It is time to bring our troops home.

End the mind-set that got us into war. End politics based on fear. Some use Uses 9/11 as a way to scare votes vs. bring our country together against a common enemy. (Reference to John McCain.)

Rediscover the power of our diplomacy. Will meet with our enemies. Folks in Washington said 'You can't do that" and I said "Yes i can". JFK said "should never negotiate out of fear, but should never fear to negotiate'. (Obama quotes that in every speech and has it on his website. But how do you negotiate with countries who refuse to cooperate? have no interest in negotiation? sponsor terrorism? call for the destruction of Israel?) Strong countries and strong presidents talk to their enemies and tell them where America stands. (I don't think that Iran, North Korea or Venezuela have any false impressions about where American stands -- at least, not with Bush in the White House. But I'm sure that a 'stern talking to' from Obama will set them straight immediately!)

Try to resolve differences without resort to war. World is waiting. Go to world community and say "America is back and we are ready to lead". But we will lead not just militarily - yes we will hunt down terrorists, yes we will lock down loose nuclear weapons.

Also going to lead on climate change. Lead on helping countries deal with HIV-AIDs. Lead on bringing an end to the Genocide in Darfur. Lead by example. Highest standards of civil liberties and human rights. I will close Guantanamo. Restore habeus corpus (for terrorists???) and say no to torture. If you are ready for change, you can elect a president who has taught, believes and will obey the Constitution.

All these things are possible if you are ready for change.

A lot of people don't want you to believe. Obama hasn't been in Washington long enough. We need to season and stew him a little bit more and boil all the hope out of him. Same old folks making the same old mistakes over and over again. Need new leadership.

Those who would say...be wary of inspiration because you may be disappointed. Obama may make a good speech, but...what will make a difference is how you work our government. My central premise, the only way we will bring real change...bring new people into the process. Attract new people, independents, stop fighting with Repblicans and bring Republicans over to our side. I want to reach out to everybody.

What about John McCain? I revere and honor his service to our country. But when he embraces George Bush's failed economic policies. Says he is willing to send our troops into 100 years in Iraq...he reps the policies of yesterday and we want to be the party of tomorrow....I am looking forward to having that debate with McCain.

(Still waiting to hear him 'reach out'....)

I talk about hope a lot. Not surprising. Odds of me standing here are very slim. (vs. getting shot on way to gas station, like most other black men -- see Michelle Obama interview ).

I was born to a teenage mother. My father left when I was two. Raised by single mom and grandparents. Didn't have money, didn't have fame. Gave me love, education & hope. I talk about hope. Speech, signs, I wrote a book.

Some suggesting I must be naive--peddling false hope -- you need a reality check. Don't realize how mean and tough the world can be.

That's not what hope is -- hope is not blind optimism. Not ignoring the challenges that stand between you & your dreams. I know how difficult it will be to provide health insurance to every American. Change our energy policy. The status quo serves many powerful people. Fix schools. Alleviate poverty that has built up over centuries. Changing schools will require work...parent better, turn off the TV set and put the video games away, instill a sense of excellence in our children. (I totally agree with him here... ) Will take time.

Easy for politicians to turn us on each other....use immigrants or gay people or folks who aren't like us as scapegoats for what they do. (Whoa - totally random 'gay people as victims' panderment! )

I have fought in the courts, fought on the streets.

Nothing in this country has happened, except someone somewhere was willing to hope.

How country was founded. Group of patriots founded our nation. They had hope. How slaves and abolitions resisted an evil system. How the greatest generation -- my grandpa fought in Patton's army. Grandma stayed home with a baby working on anassembly line. Defeated Hitler and fascism and lifted itself out of Great Depression. Pioneers, immigrants, women right to vote, young people in the sixties, marched, sat in, were beaten ....died for freedom's cause. That's what hope is.

Hope is imagining and then fighting for and then working for, struggling for what did not seem possible before. Moment in every generation when that spirit has to come through if we are to make our mark on history. Cast aside the fear and the doubt. Not willing to settle for what the cynics tells us to accept.

When we decide that the next generation deserves the same chances that somebody gave us. (I thought we were all screwed up. How did the broken system provide the chances that we got? )

We're going to keep the dream alive for those who still hunger for opportunity and thirst for justice? (but not the Iraqis)

It will not be easy, but at some point in our lives...we all have to decide as hard as it is going to be, we are going to join together, lock arms and go about the difficult but noble task of remaking this nation, block by block, county by county, state by state.

Houston, this is our moment. This is our time. If youa re willing to vote for me, stand for me, caucus for me. We will not just win Texas, will win the general election.

(Long speech -- got interrupted by a couple of phone calls and ran out of DVR space - so a lot of paraphrasing, but I think I captured the 'essence'.)

Michelle Obama Strikes Again

2008-02-19T17:24:00.000-08:00

Michelle Obama opens mouth, inserts foot....AGAIN. Does her latest comment about being proud of her country for the first time in her adult life really surprise anyone?

After all, remember that this is the woman who said "the realities are, that you know, as a black man, you know, Barack can get shot going to the gas station."

What was THAT all about?

I suppose if you really think that black men take their lives into their hands every time they run an errand, you wouldn't feel very proud of the U.S.

So, maybe she has issues with paranoia, rather than patriotism.

UPDATE: Check out this post from James Joyner. He summarized the blogosphere reaction to Michelle's comment about her pride in her country.

Quote of the Day

2008-02-19T17:05:00.001-08:00

God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?

-Thomas Jefferson

Open Letter To Russ Feingold

2007-11-06T15:34:00.000-08:00

Dear Senator Feingold,

I am disappointed (but not surprised) by your vote against Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey, based on his refusal to make a 'ruling' on waterboarding when he has yet to review the classified material on the practice.

The American people understand full well that Congress has the ability to make waterboarding illegal, if you felt strongly enough about it to risk the political fallout.

It is highly imprudent during times of war to tip our hand to the enemy about what specific techniques we are willing to use in order to gather valuable intelligence.

I have yet to see one constructive recommendation from you on how to protect your constituents from terrorists who are determined to eliminate us. You seem more concerned about their civil rights and material comfort than our lives.

Perhaps instead of wasting your time on fruitless censure resolutions, you could research what has historically worked against fascism and terrorism (not appeasement and retreat -- see WWII and Vietnam). That would equip you to work positively with the current administration to protect the American people.

While I am obviously not a fan of the anti-war far-left fringe of the Democratic Party to which you pander, I have a strong belief in the two-party system. In order for this system to work, both parties must come to the table with a realistic view of the situation at hand and work together for the best solution(s) possible.

Merely obstructing and taking the opposite stand on anything the administration does is a waste of time and energy and is NOT what the people of Wisconsin are paying you for.

When the Pitbull Meets the Porcupine

2007-07-17T08:27:00.001-07:00

No comment necessary...

Is There Any Doubt?

2007-04-20T11:54:00.000-07:00

Is there any doubt that we live in a fallen world?

~Columbine
~The Oklahoma City bombing
~The terrorist attacks of 9/11
~The Beslan massacre
~And Monday’s murder of 32 college students at Virginia Tech…evil perpetrated by individuals—senseless, purposeless, meaningless evil.

Why does such evil exist?

People use this question to challenge our faith. How can we reconcile the existence of evil with an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good God? If God is so knowledgeable, good and powerful, why does He permit evil? Why doesn’t he stop it? Or maybe he is powerless to stop it…so He isn’t really so great. In fact, maybe God does not even exist.

We do have an answer – but the problem of evil is not just a problem for Christians to explain. How do atheists and naturalists deal with the problem of evil?

Can you honestly believe that man is somehow the random product of millions of years of evolution and that we are reaching the pinnacle of civilization? That man in his current state represents the epitome of goodness? Not unless you have spent your life in a cave. Man’s inhumanity to man is staggering. How does naturalism explain murder, rape, torture, child abuse? What hope does atheism provide for a world filled with pain, injustice and suffering?

So what is our answer?

Clearly, the world is not as it was meant to be. Evil first appears in the creation story of Adam and Eve. God created a paradise for them with but one caveat – do not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Notice that he left them open to the possibility of eating from the tree. He didn’t lock it up, fence it off, or put a force field around it. He gave them a choice and explained the consequences -- but they chose to disobey. Man has been intimately familiar with evil ever since.

God gave us free will – a precious gift. C.S. Lewis once said,

Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free, but has no possibility of going wrong. I cannot. If a thing is free to be good, it is also free to be bad. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having.

Of course, God knew what we happen if his creatures used their free will to do wrong, but he thought it worth the risk. Imagine a world without free will – we all would be robots, puppets, automatons – devoid of all significance and value.

The good news is that God had a Plan B. Knowing where free will would lead us, he decided to defeat evil once and for all through his son Jesus Christ. Jesus suffered terrible injustice, physical pain, torture and evil at the hands of people of his own creation. Although he was completely blameless, he suffered a criminal’s death on the cross.

Why?

Isaiah 53:5 says

He was pierced for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
And by his wounds we are healed.

Jesus took on evil – head on – as the punishment for our wrongdoing. He spared us the awful consequences of the wrongful exercise of our free will and our fallen nature. By putting our faith in him and claiming his gift of eternal life, we gain significance, meaning and hope.

I Peter 1: 3-5

He has given us new birth into a living hope
Through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.
And into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade –
Kept in heaven for you,
Who through faith are shielded by God’s power
Until the coming of the salvation that is ready
To be revealed in the last time.

What an awesome God. He freely chose to become human and bear the penalty for our wickedness. Because of this choice, he is intimately familiar with our pain and suffering resulting from evil in a fallen world.

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,
That whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:16

Hypocritical Liberal Outcry Over "The Path to 9/11"

2006-09-13T23:26:00.000-07:00

Great post from Bruce Thornton about the liberal outcry over the ABC television special The Path to 9/11. If you haven't seen the special yet, find a friend who taped it and watch it. It is some of the most riveting television I have ever seen (second only to "24").

The whining of Democrats and ex-Clintonistas about the “docudrama” The Path to 9/11 has given us all another example of liberal mendacity and hypocrisy. Start with the total silence of the usual civil liberties suspects to say a word about this attempt at stifling someone’s First Amendment right to free speech. Where are the ACLU and its usual clichés about the “chilling effects” of such attempts? Where are all the blowhard academics who noisily defended the noxious Ward Churchill?

Read the whole thing.

Just Keep On Spending....

2006-05-31T22:15:00.000-07:00

Excellent post from Frank Lasee, who is a big proponent of the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights. It is too good to carve up, so I include it here in its entirety.

You can read about TABOR here and sign up for his e-mailings by sending an email to LaseesNotes@yahoo.com.

It is very hard to argue with his logic. But logic never stops the left.

What if I told you that you and your family owe more than half-a-million dollars (I bet you don’t recall borrowing that money either)? Worried about the payments? You should be.

According to a recent analysis in the USA Today, federal, state and local governments have added $10 trillion in the past two years in more borrowing - 13% above inflation. Our government’s debt now stands at nearly $60,000,000,000,000 (sixty-trillion).

That’s more than $500,000 and growing for every American household. For each family it’s growing about $25,000 per year. That’s more than some people make in a year!

Should you be concerned? What should we do?

Our governments will continue to increase taxes and borrowing to cover the interest on the debt. Unless we do something different.

Who is going to make good on this debt?

Do you think our governments should be able to continue to spend more money than they take in year in and year out? (Click here to register your vote – here for Yes, there for No).

For the last several decades, Congress – under the control of both Republicans and Democrats – has increased spending, taxing and borrowing. When they don’t have enough to cover their spending, they borrow more, and more, and more.

This Washington mentality has infected many state governments and is becoming a disease increasingly popular among local governments as well. In Wisconsin, our state debt is nearly $9 billion. That’s about $6500 for a family of four and that’s just part of the government debt.

Match this with the fact that many family incomes are stagnant. Withincreased costs of energy, health care, taxes, and other living costs eroding modest pay raises, it is clear we have a long term issue. Every year government gets more expensive. The price we all pay goes up.

Our government is piling up debt and continues to grow at levels we cannot sustain long term. We must get a handle on this. Taxpayers need protection from a government that takes ever more.

We must require all governments to live on a responsible budget and ask all of us before they dig deeper in our pockets. We need another check on our government. Because our government is setup on the principle of checks and balances.

The Taxpayer Bill of Rights (click here for an explanation) will put a growth ceiling on taxes, spending, and borrowing for all governments. As I have written it, it recognizes the relationship that exists between the state and local governments for the delivery of valuable government services. The delivery of government services is a federal, state, and local partnership that has to be recognized.

The Taxpayer Bill of Rights provides taxpayers with more input into how and what our government does for us and how much it costs us.

What do you think about this issue? Click on this link and send me an email with your thoughts.

Lasee’s Notes is a weekly column by Representative Frank Lasee, 2nd Assembly District, covering events in the Legislature and statewide.

If you know of anyone else who would like to receive Lasee’s Notes, please send an email to LaseesNotes@yahoo.com.

Another great video

2006-04-05T20:47:00.000-07:00

Check this one out, too.

This ad for the new Honda Accord required 606 takes, cost $6M to shoot and took three months.

This is all real--no computer graphics involved.

Fascinating.

Bush Was Right

2006-04-05T20:44:00.000-07:00

So, this video is making the rounds. Check it out here.

Send it to your favorite liberal. It will make his/her head spin.

Sanity 1, Feingold 0

2006-03-02T21:12:00.000-08:00

So, the Senate voted 89-10 to renew the Patriot Act, despite the best efforts of our own Russ Feingold, chief Senatorial Blowhard (well maybe not chief--he does have a lot of competition--Kennedy, Durbin, Leahy, Kerry).

Really, when are the people of Wisconsin going to tire of his political antics and ego? He blatantly wastes time and money in his lust for political gain. Culture of corruption? How about culture of disruption? He is a disgrace to our state.

This Guy is Absolutely Nuts

2006-03-02T21:00:00.000-08:00

Unbelievable story about the loony high school teacher, Jay Bennish, and his unbelievable rant caught on tape by one of his sixteen-year-old students.

He doesn't just stop at comparing Bush to Hitler (honestly, this one is getting old...is it because liberals have such a limited knowledge of history that they can only think of Hitler to compare Bush to? How about Stalin? Mussolini? Attila the Hun? Really, variety is the spice of life!). Here are a few of Bennish's other choice themes.

*He suggests that the U.S. has no right to destroy Columbian drug fields and suggests that the Peruvians, Iranians and Chinese have the right to drop chemical weapons over North Carolina to destroy the tobacco fields.

*He says that the economic system of capitalism is at odds with humanity and human rights. (Huh...which economic system does he think is aligned with human rights?)

*He says that the U.S. is the single most violent nation on the planet.

*He suggests that the United States is deliberately killing innocent people.

*He says that we want to keep the world divided. He calls the CIA dirty minds and dirty tricks who want to kill people just for the sake of killing people.

*He accuses the U.S. of over 7,000 terrorist attacks against Cuba.

*He suggests that when Al Qaeda attacked America, in their view, they were not attacking innocent people. He suggests that the World Trade Center was a legitimate military target, because it housed FBI offices and "huge multinational corporations that are directly involved in the military industrial complex in supporting corrupt dictatorships in the Middle East....people with blood on their hands, as far as they (Al Qaeda) are concerned."

And here's a great quote, near the end of the tirade...

Here's the real homeland security (I assume that here he points to either a map of the U.S. or the U.S. flag), fighting terrorism since 1492, I mean, to many Native Americans, that flag is no different than the Nazi flag or the Confederate flag. It represents the people that came and stole their land, lied, brought disease, raped, pillaged, destruction, etc. So it all depends upon various peoples' perceptions.

You can hear the audio of the entire rant at Charlie Sykes's weblog. You have to listen to Bennish's tone of voice--the mere transcript (developing at Michelle Malkin) doesn't do it justice.

Student Sean Allen shows amazing restraint and maturity for a sixteen year old. He is the lone voice of dissent in a class full of seemingly brainwashed automatons (or kids too intimidated to argue).

I would be hopping mad at the thought of my son or daughter having to sit through this tirade, while this guy is being paid by the taxpayers to teach geography.

Check out Slapstick Politics for some other interesting info, as well as another student who had Bennish for an American history class.

This is why we read the blogs....

2006-02-27T11:32:00.000-08:00

...because you never will hear this type of information in the mainstream media.

Unfortunately, all the media seems capable of is giving us daily body counts of U.S. casualties and predicting that Iraq is on the brink of civil war.

Fortunately, 'the rest of the story' is readily available FOR FREE to anyone with internet access.

The Mudville Gazette posted this letter from the Mayor of Tell 'Afar, Iraq to the U.S. Third Armored Cavalry Regiment.

I include it here in its entirety.

In the Name of God the Compassionate and Merciful

To the Courageous Men and Women of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment, who have changed the city of Tall’ Afar from a ghost town, in which terrorists spread death and destruction, to a secure city flourishing with life.

To the lion-hearts who liberated our city from the grasp of terrorists who were beheading men, women and children in the streets for many months.

To those who spread smiles on the faces of our children, and gave us restored hope, through their personal sacrifice and brave fighting, and gave new life to the city after hopelessness darkened our days, and stole our confidence in our ability to reestablish our city.

Our city was the main base of operations for Abu Mousab Al Zarqawi. The city was completely held hostage in the hands of his henchmen. Our schools, governmental services, businesses and offices were closed. Our streets were silent, and no one dared to walk them. Our people were barricaded in their homes out of fear; death awaited them around every corner. Terrorists occupied and controlled the only hospital in the city. Their savagery reached such a level that they stuffed the corpses of children with explosives and tossed them into the streets in order to kill grieving parents attempting to retrieve the bodies of their young. This was the situation of our city until God prepared and delivered unto them the courageous soldiers of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment, who liberated this city, ridding it of Zarqawi’s followers after harsh fighting, killing many terrorists, and forcing the remaining butchers to flee the city like rats to the surrounding areas, where the bravery of other 3d ACR soldiers in Sinjar, Rabiah, Zumar and Avgani finally destroyed them.

I have met many soldiers of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment; they are not only courageous men and women, but avenging angels sent by The God Himself to fight the evil of terrorism.

The leaders of this Regiment; COL McMaster, COL Armstrong, LTC Hickey, LTC Gibson, and LTC Reilly embody courage, strength, vision and wisdom. Officers and soldiers alike bristle with the confidence and character of knights in a bygone era. The mission they have accomplished, by means of a unique military operation, stands among the finest military feats to date in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and truly deserves to be studied in military science. This military operation was clean, with little collateral damage, despite the ferocity of the enemy. With the skill and precision of surgeons they dealt with the terrorist cancers in the city without causing unnecessary damage.

God bless this brave Regiment; God bless the families who dedicated these brave men and women. From the bottom of our hearts we thank the families. They have given us something we will never forget. To the families of those who have given their holy blood for our land, we all bow to you in reverence and to the souls of your loved ones. Their sacrifice was not in vain. They are not dead, but alive, and their souls hovering around us every second of every minute. They will never be forgotten for giving their precious lives. They have sacrificed that which is most valuable. We see them in the smile of every child, and in every flower growing in this land. Let America, their families, and the world be proud of their sacrifice for humanity and life.

Finally, no matter how much I write or speak about this brave Regiment, I haven’t the words to describe the courage of its officers and soldiers. I pray to God to grant happiness and health to these legendary heroes and their brave families.

NAJIM ABDULLAH ABID AL-JIBOURI
Mayor of Tall ‘Afar, Ninewa, Iraq

Latest Greatest Bumper Sticker

2006-02-17T12:30:00.000-08:00

I love it!
The self-righteousness of the Democrats (especially Nancy Pelosi) is staggering.
Does anyone know where you can order this? I'd love to plaster it next to my W'04 bumpersticker on my SUV.

New Media...1.....Dick Durbin...0

2006-02-07T19:40:00.000-08:00

The blogosphere is abuzz with the story of Paul Mirengoff (of Powerline fame) questioning Ted Kennedy and Dick Durbin at a press event in Washington during the Senate Judiciary hearings on the NSA Wiretapping Program.

Here is the story from Powerline. Be sure to watch the video. Read this post, too.

It is fascinating to watch Durbin do a double take when he realizes that Mirengoff is asking him a real question that requires thought, rather than the 'puffballs' usually thrown his way, allowing him to pontificate at will.

Here'w what Hugh Hewitt had to say.

If you, like me, are just catching up on Powerline's Paul Mirengoff's posing tough but very fair questions to Senators Kennedy and Durbin, take the time to go and read up on the background.

Now that you are back, here's the key to understanding what Paul has done, and it isn't just exposing Durbin as an insecure blowhard.

Paul has illuminated the fact that much of the D.C. press corps that allegedly dogs the heels of the powerful are either (1)tame or (2)lightweights.

There are members of the press in both categories, but more often than not, the lamesness of the questions put to the powerful is because the "reporter" is simply unprepared to ask hard, complicated questions and to be ready with follow-ups. Look at Paul's questions: Do you think there are five reporters on the Hill who could have framed those questions? How much easier to ask: "Were you satsified with Attorney General Gonzales' candor today, Senator" and leave it at that.

Durbin et al are not used to tough questions because they are accustomed to lightweight reporters.

It should be a badge of honor among Hill reporters if a Senator or Representative bristles at a question that, while put respectfully, obliges the elected to actually pause and think.

Would that every reporter pulled a Mirengoff on a daily basis.

Can you imagine a world where the bloggers attend press conferences and ask real questions? Could be the beginning of the end of inarticulate blowhards in Congress.

Gonzales and the Judiciary Committee Part I

2006-02-07T07:00:00.001-08:00

I stayed up late last night reading the transcripts of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing with U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

The partisan rhetoric from Leahy, Feinstein and Feingold were stunning. Durbin was also out of line, but mainly incoherent. Gonzales has the patience of a saint.

Here, for your reading pleasure, are what I consider the 'highlights' (or 'lowlights' as the case may be) of the hearings.

I will blog more on this later, but wanted to get this published while it is fresh...

Your tax dollars at work. Anyone reading this who thinks we would be more safe if these people were making the counter-terrorism decisions is delusional. As you read this exchange from the beginning of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing with U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, imagine the President negotiating with these people to try to get their permission to wiretap a suspected conversation between Al Qaeda and their terrorist counterparts in the U.S., plotting an eminent attack.

This first section is long, but you need to read it--this is how the hearing opened.

SPECTER: We have told the attorney general we would require his presence all day. We will have 10-minute rounds, which is double what is the practice of this committee. And, as I've announced in advance, we will have multiple rounds.

There has been some question about swearing in the attorney general and I discussed that with the attorney general. He said he would be willing to be sworn.

After reflecting on the matter, I think it is unwarranted because the law provides ample punishment for a false official statement or a false statement to Congress under the provisions of 18 United States Code 1001 and 18 United States Code Section 1505.

The penalties are equivalent to those under the perjury laws.

There has been a question raised as to the legal memoranda within the department. And at this time and on this showing, it is my judgment that that issue ought to be reserved to another day. I'm sure it will come up in the course of questioning.

The attorney general will have an opportunity to amplify on the administration's position. But there is a fairly well-settled doctrine that internal memoranda within the Department of Justice are not subject to disclosure because of the concern that it would have a chilling effect; that if lawyers are concerned that what they write may later be subjected to review by others, they'll be less than candid in their positions.

SPECTER: This committee has faced those issues in recent times with requests for internal memoranda of Chief Justice Roberts. And they were not produced. And they were more relevant there than here because of the issue of finding some ideas as to how Chief Justice Roberts would function on the court if confirmed.

Here we have legal issues and lawyers on this committee and other lawyers who are as capable as the Department of Justice in interpreting the law.

One other issue has arisen, and that is the issue of showing a video. And I think that would not be in order.

The transcripts of what the president said and the transcripts of what you, Mr. Attorney General, said earlier in a discussion with Senator Feingold are of record --this is not a Sunday morning talk show -- and the transcripts contain the full statement as to legal import and legal effect. And I'm sure that those statements by the president, those statements by you, will receive considerable attention by this committee.

That's longer than I usually talk, but this is a very big subject.

FEINGOLD: Mr. Chairman?

SPECTER: This is the first of a series of hearings -- at least two more -- because of the very profound and very deep questions which we have here, beyond statutory interpretation and the constitutional implications of the president's Article 2 powers.

And this is all in the context of the United States being under a continuing threat from terrorism.

But the beauty of our system is the separation of powers, the ability of the Congress to call upon the administration for responses, the response of the attorney general in being willing to come here today, and then the Supreme Court to resolve any conflicts.

SPECTER: I'd like to yield now to...

FEINGOLD: Mr. Chairman, could I just ask a quick clarification?

SPECTER: Senator Feingold?

FEINGOLD: Heard your judgment about whether the witness should be sworn. What would be the distinction between this occasion and the confirmation hearing where he was sworn?

SPECTER: The distinction is that it is the practice to swear nominees for attorney general or nominees for the Supreme Court, or nominees for other Cabinet positions, but the attorneys general have appeared here on many occasions in the 25 years that I have been here and their might be a showing, Senator Feingold, to warrant swearing.

FEINGOLD: Mr. Chairman, I'd just say that the reason that anyone would want him sworn has to do with the fact that certain statements were made under oath at the confirmation hearing. So it seems to me logical that, since we're going to be asking about similar things, that he should be sworn in this occasion, as well.

LEAHY: And, Mr. Chairman, if I might on that point -- if I might on that point, of course, the attorney general was sworn in on another occasion other than his confirmation, when he and Director Mueller appeared before this committee for oversight.

And I had asked the chairman, as he knows, earlier that he should be sworn on this. And I made that request right after the press had pointed out where an answer to Senator Feingold appeared not to have been truthful. And I felt that that is an issue that's going to be brought up during this hearing, and we should go into it.

LEAHY: I also recall the chairman and other Republicans insisting that former Attorney General Reno be sworn, which she came up here on occasions other than her confirmation.

I think, especially because of the article about the questions of the senator from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, I believe he should have been sworn. That is, obviously, the prerogative of the chairman.

But I would state again, and state strongly for the record, what I've told the chairman privately. I think in this instance, similar to what you did in April with Attorney General Gonzales and Director Mueller, both of whom were sworn, and as the chairman did on -- insisted with then-Attorney General Reno, I believe he should be sworn.

SPECTER: Well, Senator Leahy and I have not disagreed on very much in the more than a year since we've worked together as the ranking and chairman, and I think it's strengthened the committee.

And I did receive your request. And I went back and I dug out the transcript and reviewed Senator Feingold's vigorous cross- examination of the attorney general at the confirmation hearings.

And I know the issues as to torture, which Senator Feingold raised, and the issues which Senator Feingold raised as to searches without warrants.

And I have reviewed the provisions of 18 USC 1001 in the case involving Admiral Poindexter, who was convicted under that provision; and have reviewed the provisions of 18 United States Code 1505, where Oliver North was convicted. And there are penalties provided there commensurate with perjury.

And it is my judgment that it is unnecessary to swear the witness.

LEAHY: But, Mr. Chairman, may I ask, if the witness has no objection to being sworn, why not just do it and then not have this question raised here? I realize only the chairman can do the swearing in.

LEAHY: Otherwise, I'd offer to give him the oath myself, insofar as he said he was willing to be sworn in. But if he's willing to be, why not just do it?

SESSIONS (?): Mr. Chairman...

SPECTER: Well, the answer to why I'm not going to do it is that I've examined all the facts and I've examined the law and I have asked the attorney general whether he would object or mind and he said he wouldn't. And I have put that on the record.

But the reason I'm not going to swear him in is not up to him. Attorney General Gonzales is not the chairman; I am. And I'm going to make the ruling.

(CROSSTALK)

LEAHY: I would point out that he's been here before this committee three times. The other two times he was sworn. It seems unusual not to swear him in this time.

FEINGOLD (?): Chairman, I move the witness be sworn.

SPECTER: The chairman has ruled. If there is an appeal from the ruling of the chair, I have a pretty good idea how it's going to come out.

FEINGOLD (?): Mr. Chairman, I appeal the ruling of the chair.

SPECTER: All in favor of the ruling of the chair, say "aye."

(UNKNOWN): Roll call.

SPECTER: Opposed?

FEINGOLD (?): Ask for a roll call vote.

SPECTER: The clerk will call the roll.
I'll call the roll.

(LAUGHTER)

SESSIONS: Out of the question.

(LAUGHTER)

SPECTER: Senator Hatch?

HATCH: No.

SPECTER: Senator Grassley?

GRASSLEY: No.

SPECTER: Senator Kyl?

KYL: Mr. Chairman, is the question to uphold or to reject the ruling?

SPECTER: The question is to uphold the ruling of the chair, so we're looking for ayes, Senator.

(LAUGHTER)
LEAHY: But we're very happy with the noes that have started on the Republican side, they being the better position.

HATCH (?): I'm glad somebody clarified that.

SPECTER: So the question is, "Should the ruling of the chair be upheld that Attorney General Gonzales not be sworn?"

(CROSSTALK)

SPECTER: By proxy for Senator Brownback, aye.
Senator Coburn?

(CROSSTALK)
SPECTER: We've got enough votes already.

Senator Leahy?

LEAHY: Emphatically, no.

(CROSSTALK)
SPECTER: Aye.
The ayes have it.

FEINGOLD: Mr. Chairman, I request to see the proxies given by the Republican senators.

(This guy is clueless. So, now is he accusing the other Senators of lying? This guy would make a GREAT President. His rhetorical skills are permanently stuck at the "Liar, liar, pants on fire" level. Next, he will be 'double dog daring' the chairman NOT to have Gonzales sworn in. Why does he HAVE to be from Wisconsin?)

SPECTER: Would you repeat that, Senator Feingold?

FEINGOLD: I request to see the proxies given by the Republican senators.

SPECTER: The practice is to rely upon the staffers. But without counting that vote -- well, we can rephrase the question if there's any serious challenge of the proxies.
This is really not a very good way to begin this hearing.

SPECTER: But I've found that patience is a good practice here.

(Really? Patience? What has that bought us so far, exactly? An insinuation that the Attorney General of the United States is likely to lie to a Congressional committee unless he is under oath? Puh-lease.)

SESSIONS: Mr. Chairman (OFF-MIKE) very disappointed that we went through this process.

This attorney general, in my view, is a man of integrity. And having read the questions, as you have, that Senator Feingold put forward, and his answers, I believe he'll have a perfect answer to those questions when they come up at this hearing.

And I do not believe they're going to show he perjured himself in any way or was inaccurate in what he said.

And I remember having a conversation with General Myers and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and one of the saddest days in their career was having to come in here and stand before a Senate committee and raise their hand as if they are not trustworthy in matters relating to the defense of this country.

And I think it's not necessary that a duly confirmed Cabinet member have to routinely stand up and just give an oath when they are, in effect, under oath and subject to prosecution if they don't tell the truth.

I think it's just a question of propriety and good taste and due respect from one branch to the other.

And that's why I would support the chair.

LEAHY: Mr. Chairman, I don't...

SPECTER: Let's not engage in protracted debate on this subject. We're not going to swear this witness, and we have the votes to stop it.

Senator Leahy?

LEAHY: Mr. Chairman, I have stated my position why I believe he should be sworn in. But I understand that you have the majority of votes.

(Now we progress rapidly into baseless FUD-slinging--fear, uncertainty and doubt. Here are some excerpts from the day. Bold indicates my emphasis.)

LEAHY: But my concern is the laws of America. My concern is when we see peaceful Quakers being spied upon, where we see babies and nuns who can't fly on airplanes because they're on a terrorist watch list put together by your government.

(No, really, he actually SAID this. I am not making this up.)

GONZALES: Our enemy is listening. And I cannot help but wonder if they aren't shaking their heads in amazement at the thought that anyone would imperil such a sensitive program by leaking its existence in the first place, and smiling at the prospect that we might now disclose even more or perhaps even unilaterally disarm ourselves of a key tool in the war on terror.

(A chilling thought that is totally lost on Leahy and the Dems.)

LEAHY: You talk about authorization for use of military force. We have a chart up over there; says that, "The president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons that he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations of persons, in order to prevent future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

Now, basically, what you're saying is that Congress must have understood to have authorized the president to do it: not that we actually did but that we must have understood it.
Now, this authorization is not a wiretap statute. I was a prosecutor, Senator Specter was a prosecutor, a lot of prosecutors here, we know what a wiretap statute looks like. This is not it.

(Here, Leahy tries to make the lame point that the Congress authorized the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against the terrorists, but that didn’t include wiretapping. In other words, we can shoot ‘em, blow ‘em up, lock ‘em up, but please, please, please, don’t listen in on their phone conversations??? Gonzales fires back with Hamdi…)

GONZALES: Sir, there is no specific language, but neither is there specific language to detain American citizens. And the Supreme Court said that the words "all necessary and appropriate force" means all activities fundamentally incident to waging war.

LEAHY: But there wasn't a law -- they didn't have a law specifically on this.

(Pay careful attention, here. Leahy just argued that there is no law against detaining American citizens without a warrant. Huh?)

GONZALES: Sure they did, sir.

LEAHY: Using the Jackson test, they have a law on wiretapping. It's called FISA. It's called FISA. And if you don't like that law, if that law doesn't work, why not just ask us?

GONZALES: Sir, there was a law at question in Hamdi. It was 18 USC 4001(a). And that is: You cannot detain an American citizen except as authorized by Congress.

And Hamdi came into the court saying, "The authorization to use military force isn't such a permission by Congress to detain an American citizen."

And the Supreme Court -- Justice O'Connor said -- even though the words were not included in the authorization, Justice O'Connor said: Congress clearly and unmistakably authorized the president to detain an American citizen. And detention is far more intrusive than electronic surveillance.

(Senator Grassley raises the question of whether Gonzales is looking into the leak from the New York Times. Where is the outrage from the Dems who were foaming at the mouth and calling for the firing of Karl Rove over the non-event of the year--the 'outing' of Valerie Plame???)

BIDEN: For if, in fact, the only people being wiretapped or e-mails read are Al Qaida operatives contacting American citizens, I don't think you're going to find anybody in America saying, "Oh, my God, don't do that."

(Shameless doublespeak. You won't find anybody in America saying don't do it--except a bunch of politically-motivated people on Capitol Hill, since that is EXACTLY what the Dems are saying. But, if they tell us frequently enough that they are NOT saying it, they think they can SAY it without any political ramifications.)

BIDEN: How will we know, General, when this war it over?

(Gotta love Biden. He thinks he's in a different hearing. Isn't this the "What are we doing in Iraq Hearing? Oh, no, that's over in the Hart Building!)

BIDEN: This is why the Intelligence Committee has the responsibility to be able to look at someone and have an absolute guaranteed assurance under no circumstance is any American being eavesdropped upon unless it's coming from a foreign soil and a suspected terrorist, and do it under oath and do it under penalty of law if they've misrepresented.

(This comment reveals the complete unreasonableness of the Dems. This is an unachievable standard. Even TRYING to attain it would tie our intelligence people up in knots while the terrorists will laugh all the way to the jihad. An ‘absolute guaranteed assurance under no circumstances…under penalty of law if they’ve misrepresented.” The American people do not want to see our intelligence community hamstrung by this impossible standard.

This next exchange occurs between Kohl & Gonzales. Kohl can’t decide whether he should be more outraged that the President is ‘breaking the law’ by ‘domestic spying’ on calls between Al Qaeda and people within the U.S., or that Bush is NOT wiretapping conversations that occur exclusively within the U.S. between known Al Qaeda operatives. His aides forgot to give him today's "Talking Points Memo".)

KOHL: Just to go back to what Senator Biden and then Senator Kyl referred to about Al Qaida-to-Al Qaida within the country, you're saying we do not get involved in those calls...

GONZALES: Not under the program in which I'm testifying, that's right.

(CROSSTALK)

KOHL: It seems to me that you need to tell us a little bit more because to those of us who are listening, that's incomprehensible. If you would go Al Qaida-to-Al Qaida outside the country -- domestic- outside the country but you would not intrude into Al Qaida-to-Al Qaida within the country -- you are very smart, so are we, and to those of us who are interacting here today, there's something that unfathomable about that remark.

GONZALES: Well, Senator, we certainly endeavor to try to get that information in other ways if we can. But that is not what the president...

KOHL: No, but isn't -- we need to have some logic, some sense, some clarity to this discussion this morning.

(I agree--a good start would be to eject Kohl & Leahy from the meeting.)

GONZALES: I will say that our staff at the Department of Justice -- these are the experts in the FISA process -- has in essence tripled since 2002. I think we all realized following the attacks of 9/11 that we needed to get more folks on board to help us with the FISA application.

It still takes too long, in my judgment, to get FISAs approved. I've described in my opening statement the process that's involved here.

FISA applications are often an inch thick. And it requires the sign-off by analysts out at NSA, lawyers at NSA, lawyers at the department, and finally me. And then it's got to be approved by the FISA Court.

I've got to tell you -- I was going to try to make this point in response to a question from the chairman -- the members of the FISA Court are heroes, as far as I'm concerned. I mean, they're available day or night, they're working on weekends and holidays, because they want to make themselves available. They're killing themselves, quite frankly, making themselves available to be there to sign off on a FISA application if it meets the requirements of the statute.

GONZALES: But we still have some problems.

(Anyone who has ever waited in line at the DMV to renew their driver's license does NOT want to see bureaucracy seep into our defense against terrorism.

Next at bat, Ms. Feinstein, who withers under counterattack from Gonzales.)

FEINSTEIN: The Intelligence Committees have not been briefed on the scope and nature of the program. They have not been able to explore what is a link or an affiliate to Al Qaida or what minimization procedures are in place. We know nothing about the program other than what we read in the newspapers.

(Really? What the heck is she doing all day? Getting her nails done? Doesn't she know anyone on the Intelligence Committee? And by the way, Diane, I wouldn't believe everything you read in the newspapers....)

FEINSTEIN: And so it comes with huge shock, as Senator Leahy said, that the president of the United States in Buffalo, New York, in 2004, would say, and I quote, "Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."

Mr. Attorney General, in light of what you and the president have said in the past month, this statement appears to be false. Do you agree?

GONZALES: No, I don't, Senator. In fact, I take great issue with your suggestion that somehow that president of the United States was not being totally forthcoming with the American people.I have his statement, and in the sentence immediately before what you're talking about, he said -- he was referring to roving wiretaps.

And so I think anyone...

FEINSTEIN: So you're saying that statement only relates to roving wiretaps, is that correct?

GONZALES: Senator, that discussion was about the Patriot Act. And right before he uttered those words that you're referring to, he said, "Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talk about wiretaps, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order."

GONZALES: So, as you know, the president is not a lawyer, but this was a discussion about the Patriot Act, this was a discussion about roving wiretaps. And I think some people are trying to take part of his statement out of context, and I think that's unfair.

FEINSTEIN: OK, fair enough. Let me move along.

(Geesh, the press never stops me when I quote the President out of context....)

Continued in Part II.....

This is what the Democrats Would "Protect" Us From

2006-02-07T07:00:00.000-08:00

From Powerline.

One of the most telling moments is when Debra Burlingame points out that prior to the September 11 attacks, the NSA was surveilling an al Qaeda member in Yemen who placed or received more than a dozen phone calls to and from a number in San Diego. Because these calls involved someone in the United States, the NSA didn't listen to them. It turned out that the "Kahlid" who was receiving the calls in San Diego was one of the September 11 hijackers. In fact, he was one of the hijackers who murdered Debra's brother, the pilot of American Airlines flight 77.

This is what Democrats and the news media call "domestic spying." Do the Democrats really want to return us to the days when al Qaeda could call its American operatives with impunity?

I think that would be a 'yes', if you ask Feingold, Leahy, Feinstein, Kohl or Durbin.

Islamic Riots Against Cartoons

2006-02-07T06:33:00.000-08:00

The recent riots and threats of death against the Danish cartoonist and editors who published unflattering images of the prophet Mohammed demonstrate another example of increased transparency in the middle East.

Muslims countries and their state-run newspapers have been publishing horrific cartoons showing Israelis as demons and blood-sucking vampires for years. Yet they have zero tolerance for anyone who exercises free speech in criticizing their religion--a religion, that, quite frankly, has been the inspiration for true terrorism and the deliberate spilling of innocent blood as a tactic.

In a startling move reminiscent of "Oh yeah? Well, YOUR mother wears army boots!" retort, an Iranian newspaper is sponsoring a "Holocaust Cartoon Contest".

"It will be an international cartoon contest about the Holocaust," said Farid Mortazavi, the graphics editor for Hamshahri newspaper - which is published by Teheran's conservative municipality.

He said the plan was to turn the tables on the assertion that newspapers can print offensive material in the name of freedom of expression.

"The Western papers printed these sacrilegious cartoons on the pretext of freedom of expression, so let's see if they mean what they say and also print these Holocaust cartoons," he said.

Are these guys a laugh riot, or what? An interesting thematic choice of topic, since their leader has proclaimed the Holocaust a 'myth'.

(By the way, I haven't heard any Hollywood celebrities recently admonishing us Midwestern rube-types that "Islam means peace" since Muslim youths started torching cars in Paris).

Victor Davis Hansen, as usual, provides thought-provoking analysis at RealClearPolitics.

He makes several great points:

*Despite all of their bluster during the lead-up and beginning of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the Europeans have not proven any better at dealing with Islamofascist regimes than George W. Bush.

*The Europeans appeasement strategy towards Islamic immigrants has not bought them any respite from terrorism and domestic uprising.

We have seen thousands of Muslims demonstrating in the street and heard their religious leaders calling for retribution against the cartoonists (tonight, one Imam called for his hands to be cut off). This is not some fringe minority of misguided terrorists. This is a large group of Islamic fundamentalists.

If there is a 'moderate Islam', which we are told actually exists, why are they silent? This would certainly be the time to come out against the rhetoric and violence and call for cooler heads to prevail.

Live Blogging the State of the Union Address

2006-01-31T21:29:00.000-08:00

I am watching the FoxNews coverage of Bush's State of the Union speech. So, the pre-speech patter.....apparently, Cindy Sheehan was removed from the hall before the President arrived. She was the guest of someone (?) to be determined. She tried to unfurl some sort of sign and was removed. I'm sure there will be more about this later. Send her back to Venezuela.

Ok. The President is introduced. Lots of loud cheering and clapping. All stand up.

He starts with a tribute to Coretta Scott King. Great opening.

Then makes an attempt to reach across the aisle with an olive branch, offering to do his part to work together and overcome differences for the good of the country.

Road of isolationisma and protectionism may seem wide and inviting....but ends in destruction.

Historic long term goal, seek the end of tyranny in our world. Future security of America depends upon it.

Democracies replace resentment with hope...and join the fight against terror. We will act boldly in freedom's cause.

in 1945, two dozen lonely democracies in the world, today there are 122.

More than half the people of our world live in democratic nations. We don't forget the other half. Demands of justice require their freedom as well.

No one can deny the success of freedom. But some men fight and rage against it.

Good. He comes out with an olive branch and then boldly re-states the rationale behind his foreign policy--spread freedom throughout the world. And explains why it is important. Gets a standing ovation from evryone. Nancy Pelosi is even standing.

If we were to leave these vicious attackers alone, they would not leave us alone. There is no peace in retreat and there is no honor in retreat.

We would signal to all that we no longer believe in our own ideals. The U.S. will not retreat from the world and we will never retreat from evil.

America rejects the false comfort of isolationism.

We accept the call of history to rescue the oppressed.

Now he lays out his plan for Iraq, explaining that we are helping them establish a government, build infrastructure and get rid of terrorists. He is reminding everyone of the progress we have made in Iraq.

We are in this fight to win and we are winning.

Democrats sit. Many do not clap. Wow....Democrats cannot clap that we are winning? These people are beyond belief. Of course, it is obvious to everyone that they only gain politically if we lose in Iraq. What a choice.

Will continue to reach out and seek your good advice.

Hindsight alone is not wisdom and second-guessing is not a strategy.

He hits them right between the eyes. They are sitting, stone-faced. Kerry looks down at his lap.

Our nation has only one option, we must keep our word, defeat our enemies and stand behind our military in this vital mission.

Bush now gives a tribute to the military. Mentions Dan Clay and reads from a letter he left to his family.

"I know what honor is...I faced death with the secure knowledge that you would not have to."

Dan Clay's parents and wife stand to applause.

The only way to defeat the terrorists is to...offer the hopeful alternative of political freedom and peaceful change.

He mentions Egypt, Palestine, calls for Hamas to reject terrorism and embrace peace.

Liberty is the right of all humanity.

Now he turns to Iran.

Regime sponsors terrorists and that must come to an end. Nations of the world must not permit Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons. America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats.

Speaks directly to the people of Iran.

Our nation hopes to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran.

Isolation ties our hands in fighting enemies, but helping abroad....AIDS, infant with malaria, young girl sold into slavery....nice sequeway from our military agenda to why the U.S. has a responsibility to help other countries.

Mentions offensive against terrorism in U.S. Thanks the Homeland Security, FBI, Law Enforcement.

They deserve the same tools they use to fight drug trafficking and organized crime....re-authorize the Patriot Act.

Before 9/11, our government failed to connect the dots. To prevent another attack, based on the authority given me by the Constitution.

Mentions NSA wiretapping.

Federal courts have approved. Appropriate members of Congress informed. Terrorists have been apprehended. Will not sit back and wait to be hit again.

Dems sit throughout. Hillary smiling and shaking her head. What the heck is her alternative?

To draw support, must be clear in our principals and always be ready to act. privilege to serve the values that gave us birth. Reject isolationism and defeat. Mentions Roosevelt and Truman.

Need steady, bi-partisan support. Protect our country, support men and women who defend us and lead this world toward freedom.

Now he moves to economy. Economy is healthy & vigorous. Created 4.6M new jobs more than Japan and the EU combined. Can't be complacent. Competitors like China and India. Old temptation. Protectionism. Wall off our economy. Government needs a larger role--centralize and increase taxes. Immigrants are important--economy can't function without them.

Agenda for a nation that competes with confidence, raise standard of living and create new jobs. Keep economy growing. Economy grows when Americans have more of their own money. Tax relief can set to expire. American families face a tax increase they do not expect. Calls for Dems to make the tax cuts permanent.

Dems sit.

Need to be good stewards of tax dollars. Cut spending. Reduce more than 140 programs performing poorly. Will save another $14B cut def in half by 2009. Lieberman claps.

Members of Congress work on earmark reform. McCain claps loudly. Pass line-item veto. Republicans stand.

In a few years, 78 million baby boomers turn 60--two of my dad's favorite people--me and President Clinton. Gets a laugh, presumably from both sides. Retirement of baby boomers will strain the federal government. When the boomers retire, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will comprise 60% of the entire federal budget. Congress did not act on my proposal to save Social Security. In un-classy act, Dems stand and clap. Bush gets excited and wags his finger at them.

Rising cost of entitlements is a rising cost that is not going away. Every year we fail to act the situation gets worse.

Calls for orderly and secure borders and an effective immigration enforcement and border protection. Rational, humane guest worker program.

A competitive America needs affordable healthcare. They all stand for this--including Hillary, who couldn't get it done when Bill was in office. Government has a responsibiloity to provide healthcare for poor and elderly. Help people afford insurance coverage. Health info technology to reduce cost and avoid medical error. Give small companies similar advantages to big companies. Make coverage portable - switch jobs without losing insurance.

Calls for Congress to pass medical liability reform this year.

Competitive America requires affordable energy. America is addicted to oil, often imported from unstable parts of the world. Will spend $10B to develop new energy sources. 22% increase in clean energy research. Change power sources-- low-emission coal, safe nuclear energy and wind power.

Also change how we power automobiles. Increase reserach to develop batteries for hybrid vehicles, hydrogen-power, and ethanol from other sources. Make new kind of ethanol practical and competitive w/in 6 years.

Also wants to reach another goal. Plan to reduce 75% of oil from mideast by 2025. Dramatically improve environment to move beyond a petroleum-based economy, make dependence on mid -East oil a thing of the past.

To keep America competitive, we need to lead the world in human talent and creativity. Tonight, I announce the American Competitiveness Initiative. Provde a firm grounding in math and science. Double federal commitment to research in the physical sciences. Develop nanotechnology, supercomputing, alternative energy.

Provide R&D tax credits to encourage private sector research. America will lead the world in opportunity and innovation for decades to come.

Need to encourage children to take more math & science. We will train 70,000 high school teachers to teach advanced math and science courses and recruit 30,000 math and science professionals to teach in schools.

Support the American Competitiveness Initiative.

We are a compassionate, decent, hopeful society. Violent crime fallen to lowest level since 1970s. Drug use down 19% since 2001. Fewer abortions. Number of children born to teenage moms has fallen 12 years in a row.

America is in a quiet transformation. Life of personal responsibility is a life of fulfillment. Welfare reform, abstinence, adoption, drug education has made a difference.

Many parents are concerned about the direction of our culture and the health of our basic institutions. Activist courts redefine marriage. Unethical politiicians. Must never give in to belief that America is in decline.

We need courts that deliver equal justice under the law. Announces two new justices - Roberts and Alito. Thanks Senate for confirming. Justices should be servants of law and not legislate from the bench. Thanks Sandra Day O'Connor for her years of service.

We need to prohibit egregious uses of research - cloning, human/animal hybrids, buying or selling human embryos. Life is a gift from Creator. Should not be put up for sale. Even Dems have to stand.

Elected officials need to uphold the public trust. Strengthen ethical standards of Washington. Dems stand for this, too, smiling They think it mainly applies to Republicans. Are hoping that the Abramoff scandal rubs off on Bush. 'Culture of corruption'....blah, blah, blah.

Encourage caring adults to get involved in the life of a child. Led by Laura Bush.

The Federal government has given over $85B to the people of the Gulf Coast. Need to address deeper challenges. Some citizens have felt excluded from promise of our country. We will work for the day when all Americans are protected by justice, equal in hope and rich in opportunity.

Brings up the fact that half of all AIDS cases are African American. Provide new funding to end waiting list for medication for AIDS in America. Working closely with African American churches and faith-based groups. Goal of no new infections in America.

Will we turn back, or finish well. History is written in courage. We will lead freedom's advance, compete and excel in global economy. America is optimistic, faithful and confident. May God bless America.

Jimmy Carter - International Embarrassment

2006-01-29T21:21:00.000-08:00

Really. This guy was a bad enough President. Is he really this out of touch?

According to this article in The Jerusalem Post, Jimmy Carter

urged the international community to directly or indirectly fund the new Palestinian Government even though it will be led by an internationally-declared foreign terror organization.

"The Palestinian Government is destitute, and in desperate financial straits. I hope that support for the new government will be forthcoming," Carter said at a Jerusalem press conference.

He added that if international law barred donor countries from directly funding a Hamas-led government than the US and the EU should bypass the Palestinian Authority and provide the "much-needed" money to the Palestinians via non-governmental channels such as UN agencies.

"Regardless of the government, I would hope that potential donors find alternative means to be generous to the Palestinian people [even] if the donor decides to bypass the Palestinian government completely," Carter said, stressing that his main concern was to avert the "suffering" of the Palestinian people, which he said could lead to a new cycle of violence.

He noted that the heavily funded Palestinian Government would run out of money at the end of next month.

I wonder if he thinks we should also send them guns, grenades and IEDs? Good grief.

Can we donate him to France?

Hamas in Charge - Now "Put Up" or "Shut Up"

2006-01-29T21:08:00.000-08:00

I actually believe that the recent Hamas victory in the Palestinian parliamentary election could be a good thing because it is time for Hamas to 'put up or shut up'.

At first glance, it appears to be the West's worst nightmare--an argument against democratic elections in extremist Islamic nations. And although it may be more of a Palestinian uprising against the corruption and greed of the Fatah party, it may have a very positive effect in the middle East in the long run.

First of all, Hamas is now not only out of the shadows, but clearly in charge of the Palestinian future. They have the responsibility (and now the authority) to make life better for the Palestinian people. They are now in charge--of mundane but critically important things such as schools, healthcare, infrastructure, jobs, the economy. They are not deep in the skill-sets required for running a country (which presumably involves more than shooting AK-47s into the air and blowing themselves up).

Add to this the 'double-whammy' of losing billions in international aid as legitimate countries decline to assist a terrorist-run state. (According to this FoxNews story, the U.S. has contributed more than $1.7B to the area since 1993. I am shocked.)

So, Hamas will no longer have the luxury if sitting on the sidelines and fomenting insurrection against the Palestinian Authority for all of their internal and external political failures. They can no longer secretly leverage the misery of their people to induce them to produce suicide bombers.

They can no longer hide in the shadows and disavow knowledge and responsibility for terrorist activities that occur under their noses.

They can now decide whether they want to gain legitimacy in the court of world opinion by renouncing their desire to obliterate Israel and begin seeking peaceful solutions for their problems.

They have a clear choice--and a choice that will be transparent to all--do they continue down the path of destruction, war and terrorism or do work to create a better life for their people--a life of peace, prosperity and freedom?

As Golda Mier once said, "We can only have peace with the Palestinians when they start loving their children more than they hate Israel". The next few months will be interesting ones, indeed.

Feingold Supports Fruitless Filibuster

2006-01-29T20:00:00.000-08:00

According to an article in Sunday' s Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, bylined by Craig Gilbert, Russ Feingold says that he will support a filibuster of the vote on Samuel Alito for Supreme Court Justice, even though he said Friday in Milwaukee that he did not expect the filibuster to succeed.

So, in other words, Russ is willing to waste taxpayer dollars in an incredibly divisive politically-motivated tactic. He is willing to filibuster an eminently qualified candidate for the Supreme Court--not on fitness--but on purely speculative ideological grounds.

Do the Democrats honestly believe that the American people are not paying attention here? The bottom line is that George Bush won the last election. One of the reasons people voted for him was because of the upcoming vacancies on the Supreme Court.

Since the Democrats have been unable to defeat Bush at the polls (despite him being an idiot, a warmonger, a liar, a toady of Dick Cheney and the puppet of Karl Rove), they have decided that they will try to force the will of the minority on the rest of us through protracted obstructionism.

I have a few words for them, "Get over it. You lost. Get on with it."

They seem to have forgotten all about Ruth Bader Ginsburg (a former attorney for the ACLU--for heaven's sake), who held such mainstream political views as a constitutional right to prostitution and support for co-ed prisons, who was passed through the Senate by a vote of 97-3.

I resent Feingold, who was elected to represent all the people of Wisconsin, ignoring a large part of his constituency in order to further his own personal political career (which is an additional thing not likely to succeed, but that is a blog of another day).

I resent his willingness to smear a good and qualified man for the sake of making a political statement. (What happened to all of the liberal rage about 'smearing' that arose during the ridiculous Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson debacle?)

I resent his complete disregard for the judicial nomination process to get his name into a few headlines.

I think that Feingold would be wise to think long and hard before going down the filibuster trail. We have heard him accuse the Bush administration of being a 'culture of corruption'. Well, what is more corrupt than wasting taxpayer time and money on a futile filibuster of a qualified SCOTUS candidate? To me, that is just the same as out-and-out stealing of taxpayer money.

Guilty until Proven Innocent on Wiretapping Charges

2006-01-24T20:53:00.000-08:00

The Left is hinging their main objection to the NSA wiretapping on the basis of its legality. They are accusing President Bush of engaging in 'illegal' wiretapping (domestic spying).

So, I have a few questions for them....

If it was proven that Bush acted within his legal rights as the President protecting U.S. citizens in wartime, would you still object to the wiretapping? Is your objection purely on a legal basis, or do you just object to wiretapping in general?

The fact is, that everyone is leaping to the conclusion that the President broke the law when nothing of the kind has been proven. What happened to the presumption of innocence?

What source of information is being used to determine that the NSA wiretapping was illegal? The New York Times article? Other media sources?

There is a some excellent analysis on this topic on Powerline, which, by the way, is authored by three very smart attorneys in the Minneapolis area. I was going to bombard you with them, but it's probably better if you go there at your leisure and read them yourself.

I think they raise some very reasonable and informed questions about whether the wiretapping is truly illegal.

Since much of the mainstream media and the left-wing of the Democratic party seem obsessed with opposing anything that Bush does, I think that mainstream America is starting to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. Frankly, many of the predictions of vast civil rights violations (little old ladies being dragged screaming from the library) have not come to fruition, whereas we know that there has not been a successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. Hard to get all lathered up about some vague 'potential' for civil rights violations when we have evidence that what we are doing is working.

I think the public is tiring of "the sky is falling" politics of the left and looking for some good old-fashioned bi-partisan problem solving. And, by the way, if listening in on phone conversations between know Al Qaeda operatives and unknown persons in the United States is illegal, then I think most people would agree that the law needs to be changed.

The world is a vastly different place than it was before 9/11 and the rapid advent of communication technology, such as cell phones, Blackberries, instant messaging and the like. I want our legislators to start working with the President to do whatever they can to make sure our laws make sense in this new age. I'd like to see more determination to protect law-abiding American citizens than protect the rights of those who would abolish ANY laws or liberties throughout the world.

The Democrats are scaring me more & more about their ability to govern our country in the post-9/11 era.

Bush Speech Today at Kansas State University

2006-01-23T12:44:00.000-08:00

Bush just finished an amazing speech at Kansas State University. In it, he reminded the audience about who we are fighting in Iraq, why we are fighting them and what are the consequences of NOT fighting them.

He also talked about the wiretapping program. This is not 'domestic spying'--it is listening in on conversations between known Al Qaeda operatives and people within the U.S.

I will look later to see if it is available on C-SPAN or the Internet and post a link her

Bush needs to repeat this over and over to combat the misinformation in the media. The Democrats need to quit fighting him and start working with the Republicans to update our ability to gather the intelligence we need in a wireless, cell-phone, Blackberry/Treo, instant messaging world.

At the end of the speech, Bush offered to take questions. There was a moment of silence and then someone in the crowd yelled out, "You done good, Mr. President!" and the hall erupted into applause and cheers.

Update: You can read the text of the speech here, although it is not as good as hearing it delivered.

End of the Spear Premiere

2006-01-21T16:00:00.000-08:00

We went to see "The End of the Spear" last night at the Marcus West Towne Theater. It was probably the most amazing movie I have ever seen. By the end of the movie, there was not a dry eye in the house, including the male viewers.

It told the story of five missionaries--Nate Saint, Jim Elliot, Roger Youderian, Ed McCully and Peter Fleming--who were martryed by the fierce, isolated Waodani tribe in the Ecuadorian jungle. This event happened fifty years ago and is narrated through the eyes of Steve Saint, who was five years old when his father was speared to death.

The Waodani was the most murderous culture on the planet, with a homicide rate of 50-60%, due to their practice of revenge killing. (50-60% of ALL deaths from the late 1800s to the 1950s were homicides).

One fact that the movie did not really bring out was the reason for the missionaries' urgency in reaching the Waodani. According to articles written by Steve Saint, they felt that the Waodani were in danger of extermination. Besides killing themselves in record numbers, they were drawing the ire of the government and Big Oil. According to a 10-year old article from Steve Saint (accessible here), the Waodani had attacked and killed workers from Shell Oil, making them a potential military target. This increased the urgency of the missionaries trying to reach them.

The widows of the slain missionaries demonstrated incredible love and faith in God's calling by going to live in the jungle with the Waodani after their husbands were killed.

The production quality of the film was excellent and I appreciated the fact that the actors were NOT marquee-names who would have distracted from the believability of the movie. The aerial shots of the forest and river were breathtaking. I would highly recommend it, although some of the spearing scenes--while not as graphic as many--are probably too intense and frightening for children. A mature teenager could probably handle it.

There is a book, Through the Gates of Splendor, by Elisabeth Elliot and a documentary movie, Beyond the Gates of Splendor, which both sound very worthwhile.

I predict that Hollywood will generally ignore this movie, or give it unfavorable reviews. This is ironic, because this film depicts the values that Hollywood elites always pretend to espouse, but truly do not understand--love, self-sacrifice, forgiveness, courage, faith, belief and humility.

Go see it. You won't regret it.

Insanity in Power in Iran--Past Behavior is a Great Predictor of the Future

2006-01-15T20:28:00.000-08:00

In an editorial last July, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel had this to say about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president-elect of Iran...I have marked some items in boldface for emphasis...

Editorial: Is leader a hostage-taker?

So what if it turns out that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's president-elect, really was among the young militants who kidnapped U.S. diplomats and others in Tehran in 1979 and held them hostage for 444 days? Several of the former hostages swear that he was, and like many statements emanating from Tehran in recent years, denials from Ahmadinejad and other Iranian officials don't have a whole lot of credibility.

It would hardly be surprising if the ex-hostages were right about Ahmadinejad. But it seems to us that what Ahmadinejad was and did as a young man more than 25 years ago is much less important than the kind of man he is now, what kind of leadership he intends to supply and what kind of policy the United States and other countries adopt in dealing with him and other Iranian leaders.
Several countries, especially those that have recently emerged from revolution, are led by people with controversial and even bloody biographies. It wouldn't be surprising, therefore, if the leaders of Iran today should include a man who was directly involved in the revolution of 1979, of which the takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran and the kidnapping of Americans was perhaps the most spectacular part.

That kidnapping was not only a violation of international law and the protocols of diplomacy but a cruel and criminal act perpetrated against men and women who had devoted their professional lives to the peaceful resolution of disputes. But many Iranians, at least at the time, believed the embassy and the hostages to be symbols and agents of U.S. support for a hated dictator.
Ahmadinejad was a member of the Revolutionary Guards and was supported by Iran's conservative clerics during the recent presidential campaign. But he and his aides insist he was not among those who took over the embassy. Another claim, that he was involved in the assassination of an Iranian Kurdish leader in 1989, also has not been documented.

Several other facts about Iran, however, are not only obvious but exigent: It is a nation of 68 million people and the seat of an ancient civilization, is a major oil producer, holds a pivotal geographic position in the Middle East (it borders, among other important countries, Iraq), has long supported the Hezbollah terror group and may be secretly attempting to build nuclear weapons. For these and several other reasons, its relations with the U.S. and other countries are extremely important.

When he takes office on Aug. 4, Ahmadinejad will not be Iran's top ruler; conservative clerics hold most of the instruments of power in that country. But Ahmadinejad apparently has the trust of these clerics, which means he probably has their ear, and he also has the demonstrated support of the Iranian people. It just makes sense for the U.S. and other countries to get a better fix on him - not so much what he was like more than 25 years ago but what he is now and what he wants to do.

So what if he kidnapped Americans 25 years ago? Well, how about this--the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. I think the fact that he participated in a hostage-taking indicates the kind of person he was and is. This was not just a frat prank. Perhaps if he had admitted his role in the kidnapping and apologized to the world, it might have been reasonable to reserve judgement.

But, based on his comments about the Holocaust as a myth, the desire to wipe Isral off the face of the earth and the celebratory glee over Ariel Sharon's medical emergency, it looks as though the hostage incident was a great predictor of what kind of leader Ahmadinejad would become.

But perhaps we should wait until he launches a nuclear attack on Israel to really decide "what he is now and what he wants to do".

Or maybe not.

Just Do It - Confirm Alito

2006-01-15T20:15:00.000-08:00

In a stunning editorial today, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel urged confirmation of Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court of the United States. Why stunning? Because the J/S rarely supports anything proposed by the Bush administration.

You can read the whole editorial here. Here is a quote from the piece.

Democrats are understandably concerned about specific red flags in Alito's record but should nonetheless reject a filibuster. Nor should they move, as it appeared likely late last week they would, to delay the committee's vote. Both would be antithetical to the democratic process in this specific case.

That's because, though we would have preferred Alito to be more open about his judicial philosophy, he did make one case quite effectively. He is a conservative jurist. This is what the electorate, albeit narrowly, indicated it wanted when it re-elected George W. Bush as president in 2004. There can be no reasonable claim that voters did not know this to be a likely consequence of their votes.

I couldn't agree more. In fact, I made the same argument here in my editorial published in the Journal Sentinel on November 5th.

Here is the whole editorial.

Battle lines have been drawn.

Democrats have their talking points memorized. By "caving to the far right" and nominating U.S. Appeals Court Judge Samuel Alito, "a conservative ideologue" for the Supreme Court who will "turn back the clock on human rights," President Bush is "dividing the nation."

Dividing the nation? Let's take a deep breath here.

Someone needs to remind these folks of the basic concept of our form of government. We have three branches - executive, legislative and judicial.

The citizenry gets to choose the first two through the election process. The president (elected by the people) gets to select the judges for the Supreme Court, and the Senate gets to approve them.

So, indirectly, even though people don't get to vote for judges, they elect the people who can select and influence who is appointed to the bench.

Since Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, this works fairly well. When the Democrats win, they appoint liberal judges. When the Republicans win, they appoint conservatives. This helps achieve a balance on the court that represents the interests of the American people.

As a reminder to many who seem to have forgotten, Bush won the last election by a 3 million popular vote margin. (Remember all the gnashing of teeth in 2000, when Democrats claimed that Bush "stole the election" because Al Gore won the popular vote? We haven't heard any reference to "popular vote" from the Democrats since November 2004.)

When the majority put Bush in the White House, one of their expectations was that he would nominate conservative jurists who would bring the Supreme Court back into balance.

That's the way it works. It worked that way for President Clinton when he nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is about as "centrist" as Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.

Republicans voted overwhelmingly to confirm her, since they seem to understand how our government works. The Senate gets to vet the nominees and make sure they have the qualifications to fulfill their duties - not to overturn the president's right to place judges.

At the conclusion of the hearings, their job is to vote "yea" or "nay" on the confirmation. It is a simple and logical process that has served this country well for many years.

Unfortunately, Democrats cannot come to grips with the fact that they lost the last election. Since they can't legitimately appoint their own judges, they have come up with the loony concept that the president should nominate Supreme Court justices that will "bring the country together."

Even if this were an achievable result, the Democrats are the last people on Planet Earth that have any credibility in this area. Listen to the vindictive rhetoric from Democratic Sens. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer on a daily basis and picture them playing a role in "bringing the country together."

But let's stop laughing for a moment and consider their suggestion. There is one simple problem. There is no way to nominate a justice that will "bring the country together."

The voters who elected Bush expect him to follow through on his campaign promise to appoint conservative judges. We are not interested in having him compromise on this point. We are not interested in having him nominate judges he thinks will be conservative.

We want a nominee with a track record and judicial experience. We want a nominee with the capability of providing thought leadership on the bench. We want a justice with the personal power to persuade his more liberal colleagues to consider an alternative viewpoint.

We are not interested in having Bush play some sort of political appeasement game with our judicial appointments. If the Democrats want the right to appoint judges, they need to earn that right, fair and square.

Until then, they can start "bringing the country together" by dropping their oppositional defiance and starting to do their jobs. One of their jobs is to give serious consideration to Bush's nominee and vote him up or down based on his qualifications.

Anything less is a repudiation of our system of government and a disenfranchisement of the 62 million voters who put Bush in the White House.

I'm glad to see that the Journal Sentinel agrees. Their editorial was well-written, logical and reasonable. It should have the anti-Bush contingent foaming at the mouth.

Debate Continues Over Intelligent Design

2006-01-15T17:15:00.000-08:00

Very interesting article on Intelligent Design from the Center for Science & Culture. The CSC is sponsored by the Discovery Institute and is focused on supporting scientists and research on intelligent design vs. neo-Darwinism and encouraging schools to teach a less biased view of Darwinian evolution.

The article is written by Stephen C. Meyer, the director of the CSC who received his Ph.D. in the History & Philosophy of Science from Cambridge.

I have oftened wondered why it is that any questioning whatsoever about the theory of natural selection drives the mainstream scientific community (and mainstream media) insane? Any attempt to get schools to at least acknowledge that the theory of evolution contains a lot of logical holes and inexplicable assumptions raises cries of "separation of church and state".

The media mischaracterizes intelligent design as back-door Creationism and leaves it at that. Dr. Meyer provides a thoughtful defense of intelligent design:

But what exactly is the theory of intelligent design?

Contrary to media reports, intelligent design is not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins-one that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution. According to Darwinian biologists such as Oxford's Richard Dawkins, living systems "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." But, for modern Darwinists, that appearance of design is entirely illusory.

Why? According to neo-Darwinism, wholly undirected processes such as natural selection and random mutations are fully capable of producing the intricate designed-like structures in living systems. In their view, natural selection can mimic the powers of a designing intelligence without itself being directed by an intelligence.

In contrast, the theory of intelligent design holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause. The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it does dispute Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.

Either life arose as the result of purely undirected material processes or a guiding intelligence played a role. Design theorists favor the latter option and argue that living organisms look designed because they really were designed.

Dr. Meyer goes on to give some examples of how recent discoveries in nanotechnology support the idea that pure random chance could not produce the variability and complexity of life on this planet.

But why do we say this? What tell-tale signs of intelligence do we see in living organisms?

Over the last 25 years, scientists have discovered an exquisite world of nanotechnology within living cells. Inside these tiny labyrinthine enclosures, scientists have found functioning turbines, miniature pumps, sliding clamps, complex circuits, rotary engines, and machines for copying, reading and editing digital information-hardly the simple "globules of plasm" envisioned by Darwin's contemporaries.

Moreover, most of these circuits and machines depend on the coordinated function of many separate parts. For example, scientists have discovered that bacterial cells are propelled by miniature rotary engines called flagellar motors that rotate at speeds up to 100,000 rpm. These engines look for all-the world as if they were designed by the Mazda corporation, with many distinct mechanical parts (made of proteins) including rotors, stators, O-rings, bushings, U-joints, and drive shafts.

Is this appearance of design merely illusory? Could natural selection have produced this appearance in a neo-Darwinian fashion one tiny incremental mutation at a time? Biochemist Michael Behe argues 'no.' He points out that the flagellar motor depends upon the coordinated function of 30 protein parts. Yet the absence of any one of these parts results in the complete loss of motor function. Remove one of the necessary proteins (as scientists can do experimentally) and the rotary motor simply doesn't work. The motor is, in Behe's terminology, "irreducibly complex."

This creates a problem for the Darwinian mechanism. Natural selection preserves or "selects" functional advantages. If a random mutation helps an organism survive, it can be preserved and passed on to the next generation. Yet, the flagellar motor has no function until after all of its 30 parts have been assembled. The 29 and 28-part versions of this motor do not work. Thus, natural selection can "select" or preserve the motor once it has arisen as a functioning whole, but it can do nothing to help build the motor in the first place.

This leaves the origin of molecular machines like the flagellar motor unexplained by the mechanism-natural selection-that Darwin specifically proposed to replace the design hypothesis.

The article goes on to give additional supporting evidence and is well worth the read.

Science derides advocates of Intelligent Design as utter ignoramuses who base their theories on blind faith and circular reasoning. However, the very theory of natural selection is completely circular. Natural selection, or survival of the fittest, states that the most fit organizations produce the most offspring and therefore, survive and dominate the population. The problem? There is no definition of what makes an organization more 'fit' other than that it has produced offspring and therefore survived. This fails to really explain anything.

In addition, evolution is based on the blind faith in completely random events occurring over and over again which strain the imagination. In Meyer's example above, the odds of all 30 proteins coming together simultaneously (and this is just one example) are beyond astronomical. It would be akin to throwing a plate of spaghetti against the wall and having it form an exact replica of the Mona Lisa.

When it all comes down to it, both evolution and intelligent design represent their own system of beliefs. Evolution requires as many leaps of faith (actually more) as intelligent design. Someday, even 'rational' scientists may update the theory of evolution with a new theory based on recent discoveries. How will they explain to generations of people who were taught evolution as a 'fact' that it is no longer 'true'? Better to present it as a theory and discuss the facts that support the theory, as well as the evidence that disputes it.

Isn't the whole idea of education to teach children to think for themselves? To question, explore and discover? To challenge the 'status quo' and seek new paradigms?

Science cannot claim a superiority over religion when it suppresses any dissent or debate. Intelligent design advocates are happy to acknowledge the existence of evolutionists and debate them on the merits of their theories. Why are evolutionists afraid to do the same?

MSM Coverage Disaster in Mine Collapse

2006-01-04T20:58:00.000-08:00

This morning, as I was getting ready for work, my husband bounded up the stairs with good news--the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel was reporting that 12 of the 13 trapped miners in the West Virginia coal mine collapse had survived.

The front page story, with the bold headline "Miners Found Alive", bylined by the Associate Press, Cox News Service and the Washington Post, ran in Wednesday's J/S.

Wonderful news! Unfortunately, it proved to be completely untrue. Editor & Publisher commented on the failure of the media on their website.

NEW YORK In one of the most disturbing media performances of its kind in recent years, TV news and many newspapers carried the tragically wrong news late Tuesday and early Wednesday that 12 of 13 trapped coal miners in West Virginia had been found alive and safe. Hours later they had to reverse course.

For hours, starting just before midnight, newspaper reporters and anchors such as MSNBC's Rita Cosby interviewed euphoric loved ones and helped spread the news about the miracle rescue. Newspaper Web sites announced the happy news and many put it into print for Wednesday at deadline. "They're Alive!" screamed the banner headline in the Indianapolis Star. Even the Los Angeles Times, three hours behind on the West Coast, carried the front page headline: "Suddenly There is Joy: 12 Miners Found Alive." The Boston Globe at least added a qualifier in its banner hed: "12 Miners Reportedly Found Alive."

In many cases, the same papers stopped the presses later, after tens of thousands of copies were printed and distributed, to carry the correct report. USA Today, for example, printed an update under the headline: "Official: 1 Miner Survived."

Some editors blamed officials, including the governor, for misleading reporters. In reality, rescuers had only confirmed finding 12 miners--and were checking their vital signs. But what leaked out to anxious family members was that 12 were found alive. The coal company, it later admitted, knew that the early reports were false 20 minutes after they started circulating, but did not quickly correct them.

A coal company spokesman explained, ''Let's put this in perspective. Who do I tell not to celebrate? I didn't know if there were 12 or 1 [who were alive].''

The Washington Post story by Ann Scott Tyson, which appeared on the front page, opened: "A dozen miners trapped 12,000 feet into a mountainside since early Monday were found alive Tuesday night just hours after rescuers found the body of a 13th man, who had died in an explosion in an adjacent coal mine that was sealed off in early December.

Later in the story, she even added this explanation: "The miners had apparently done what they had been taught to do: barricaded themselves in a pocket with breathable air and awaited rescue."

The New York Times story on the Web by James Dao was also headlined with no doubt raised: "12 Miners Found Alive 41 Hours After Explosion." But the story, which also ran in print on Page One, pulled back a bit from reporting the news as proven fact: "Forty-one hours after an explosion trapped 13 men in a West Virginia coal mine here, family members and a state official said 12 of the miners had been found alive Tuesday night.

"Joe Thornton, deputy secretary for the West Virginia Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety, said the rescued miners were being examined at the mine shortly before midnight and would soon be taken to nearby hospitals. Mr. Thornton said he did not know details of their medical condition." It then reported family members calling it a miracle.

In its print edition, the Times story carried this qualfied headline: "12 Miners Are Found Alive, Family Members Say."

An Associated Press dispatch first carried the news at 11:52 pm: "Twelve miners caught in an explosion in a coal mine were found alive Tuesday night, more than 41 hours after the blast, family members said. Bells at a church where relatives had been gathering rang out as family members ran out screaming in jubilation." But many newspapers, and all of cable TV news, reported the rescue as fact, not merely based on family claims.

A later AP account by Allen Breed grew more, not less, certain: "Twelve miners caught in an explosion in a coal mine were found alive Tuesday night, sending family members streaming from the church where they had gathered during the nearly two-day ordeal. Joyous shouts rose of 'Praise the Lord!'"

Today, AP carried a story explaining that Gov. Manchin "spoke to The Associated Press from his cell phone shortly after relatives said they had received word the miners were safe. 'The rescue people have been talking to us. They told us they have 12 alive,' Manchin said. He said later he went to the mine site to try to confirm the news when rescuers said there had been miscommunication and not all had survived."

Anderson Cooper, the CNN host, ripped the coal company at 3 a.m. for not correcting the wrong reports for so long, but did not explain why CNN went with the good news without strong and clear confirmation.

The Chicago Tribune, which had reported the rescue, later carried a new story on its site opening with, "Jubilation turned to anger early Wednesday when relatives of 12 coal miners believed alive in a West Virginia coal mine blast were told that 11 of their loved ones were dead. One survivor was in critical condition at an area hospital."

It took nearly three hours for the coal company to correct the reports. It is unclear why the media carried the news without nailed-down sourcing. Some reports claim the early reports spread via cell phones and when loved ones, and the governor, started celebrating most in the media simply joined in.

"About the confusion, I can't tell you of anything more heart- wrenching than I've ever gone through in my life. Nothing," Gov. Manchin, who had helped spread the good news, said.

The sole survivor of the Sago, W.Va., disaster, identified by mining officials as 27-year-old Randal McCloy, was in the hospital in critical condition, a doctor said. When he arrived, he was unconscious but moaning, the hospital stated.

The governor later indicated he was uncertain about the news at first. When word of survivors began circulating through the church, he hadn't heard it, he said.

Scott Libin, a faculty member at the Poynter Institute, wrote today,
"This case reminds us of a lesson we learned, at least in part, from Hurricane Katrina: Even when plausibly reliably sources such as officials pass along information, journalists should press for key details....If we believe that when your mama says she loves you, you should check it out, surely what the mayor or police chief or governor says deserves at least some healthy skepticism and verification. I understand how emotion and adrenaline and deadlines affect performance. That does not excuse us from trying to do better."

PROGRESSION OF AP HEADLINES

Families Say 12 W.Va. Miners Found Alive (11:59 PM)

12 Trapped W.Va. Miners Found Alive (12:34 AM)

Singing Erupts After Miners Found Alive (2:49 AM)

Families Say 11 of 12 W.Va. Miners Dead (3:06 AM)

Miners Reported Alive After Blast Are Dead (4:08 AM)

12 Confirmed Dead in W.Va. Mine Blast (5:26 AM)

Feds Vow Full Probe of W.Va. Mine Blast (6:58 AM)

Jubiliation [sic] Turns to Anger, Outrage (7:20 AM)

So, does this remind anyone of post-Katrina New Orleans, where we were being told by the media that people were resorting to cannibalism in the Superdome?

What is the policy of major news outlets in deciding whether to run a story? What kind of 'vetting' is going on within these organizations before they release major newsbreaks? In a situation like the mine explosion (as well as Katrina) where local officials may be very emotionally involved with the circumstances, does it call for additional source-checking before running a story?

And....does this mean that the media 'lied' and 'deliberately misled the country' about the status of the miners?

Will the heads of the Associated Press volunteer to resign in the face of this scandal?

I think that the MSM should be very careful the next time they criticize the internet for being 'less accurate'.

2005 In Review

2006-01-02T18:40:00.000-08:00

Excellent end of the year in review from Charlie Sykes' blog. Read the whole thing.

Some of the highlights:

More than 70% of Iraqis turned out to vote in the country’s first free parliamentary election. This came as a surprise since Iraq is supposed to be a Vietnam-like quagmire.

Unlike Wisconsinites, Iraqis can’t vote twice, because they have to dip their fingers in purple ink. Thanks to Gov. Jim Doyle, you don’t need a photo ID to vote, but you do need one to buy cold medicine.

Ted Kennedy "Weighs In" On Spying

2005-12-28T20:42:00.000-08:00

Pardon the pun.

This interesting tidbit from the FoxNews Political Grapevine on Tuesday.

Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy has said the vice president "ought to reread the constitution" if he thinks President Bush can approve domestic surveillance without congressional oversight or a court order.

But Institute for Homeland Security director Randy Larsen says that on the day after 9-11, with the Pentagon still smoldering, Kennedy invited Larsen to his office for a briefing and asked Larsen whether the attacks meant that the government should unleash the NSA and CIA inside the United States. After a pause, Larsen says he told the Senator "we may have to look at that, but we'd need a lot of oversight." Senator Kennedy could not be reached for comment.

Heh. I'll bet he couldn't.

Americans aren't fooled by Media Bias on 'Spying'

2005-12-28T20:40:00.000-08:00

So...what are we to make of the latest Rasmussen poll?

December 28, 2005--Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Americans say they are following the NSA story somewhat or very closely.

Just 26% believe President Bush is the first to authorize a program like the one currently in the news. Forty-eight percent (48%) say he is not while 26% are not sure. Eighty-one percent (81%) of Republicans believe the NSA should be allowed to listen in on conversations between terror suspects and people living in the United States. That view is shared by 51% of Democrats and 57% of those not affiliated with either major political party.

It appears that, despite the breathless outcry from the MSM, the American public is smart enough to know that we need to be able to 'spy' on people with links to terrorists in the United States to protect ourselves against future 9/11-style attacks.

The problem with the hysteria on the left & the media is that their objections are all based on hypothetical situations. There have been very few disruptions to any civil liberties--no little, grey-haired ladies dragged screaming from libraries. However, there have been no terrorist attacks in the U.S.

The Democrats continue to position themselves as the party one would least like to have in charge during wartime. They need to start putting national security above politics if they want to win future elections.

Interesting Poll Results from Strategic Vision

2005-12-27T16:10:00.000-08:00

Results out from a recent poll of likely Wisconsin voters from Strategic Vision.

Below are the results of a three-day poll of likely voters in the state of Wisconsin. Results are based on telephone interviews with 800 likely voters in Wisconsin, aged 18+, and conducted December 16-18, 2005. The margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

Do you approve or disapprove of Governor Jim Doyle's job performance?
Approve 46%
Disapprove 44%
Undecided 10%

If the Republican primary were today, whom would you vote for? (Republicans only)
Mark Green 47%
Scott Walker 40%
Undecided 13%

If the election for Governor was held today, and the choice was between Jim Doyle, the Democrat and Mark Green, the Republican, whom would you vote for?
Jim Doyle 45%
Mark Green 43%
Undecided 12%

If the election for Governor was held today, and the choice was between Jim Doyle, the Democrat and Scott Walker, the Republican, whom would you vote for?
Jim Doyle 46%
Scott Walker 39%
Undecided 15%

Do you approve or disapprove of United States Senator Russ Feingold's job performance?
Approve 56%
Disapprove 29%
Undecided 15%

Do you approve or disapprove of Senator Herb Kohl's job performance?
Approve 54%
Disapprove 26%
Undecided 20%

If the election for United States Senate was held today, and the choices were Herb Kohl, the Democrat or Tommy Thompson, the Republican, whom would you vote for?
Tommy Thompson 45%
Herb Kohl 42%
Undecided 13%

If the election for United States Senate was held today, and the choices were Herb Kohl, the Democrat or Robert Gerald Lorge, the Republican, whom would you vote for?
Herb Kohl 59%
Robert Gerald Lorge 29%
Undecided 12%

If the election for United States Senate was held today, and the choices were Herb Kohl, the Democrat or Tim Michels, the Republican, whom would you vote for?
Herb Kohl 56%
Tim Michels 37%
Undecided 7%

Do you think Wisconsin headed in the right direction or wrong direction?
Right 32%
Wrong 56%
Undecided 12%

Very interesting. You can check out the whole poll here.

King Kong vs. Aslan

2005-12-21T20:33:00.000-08:00

Interesting series, "King Kong vs. Aslan" by Mark D. Roberts on his blog site.

I saw a movie on Friday. Here's the basic plot:

Some people travel to a mysterious land where they find strange beasts and unsought for adventures. This land is ruled by an awesome animal, whose kingly roar is deafening and who instills awe in the creatures of the land. When one member of the party is taken captive, the others seek to rescue that person, even though they'd rather just go home. As they are looking for their captured colleague, the rescue party is chased by ferocious beasts, who almost kill them. Ultimately, the captured person is saved from certain death by the sacrificial intervention of the animal king. Thereafter the captive, now rescued, feels a strong connection to the savior beast. Yet because of this captive, the great animal ends up losing his life.

So here's your quiz: What movie did I see on Friday?

Mark, as usual, provides an insightful commentary on the messages contained in both movies. Worth a read.

Democrats Need Definition of Victory

2005-12-19T21:45:00.000-08:00

Remember the endless publicity from the media over the Murtha amendment? The furor caused by the Republicans for calling the Democrats bluff and forcing a vote on immediate withdrawal from Iraq?

Well, I had to dig long and hard to find this story.

House disavows calls for Iraq withdrawal

By LIZ SIDOTI ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

WASHINGTON -- For the second time in as many months, the House rejected calls for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq with a vote Friday that Democrats said was politically driven and designed by Republicans to limit debate on the war.

In a 279-109 vote, the GOP-controlled House approved a resolution saying the chamber is committed "to achieving victory in Iraq" and that setting an "artificial timetable" would be "fundamentally inconsistent with achieving victory."
Democrats voted against the resolution by 108-59, while 32 of them voted "present," a rarely used option that signals neither support nor opposition. That split underlined divisions within the party over alternatives to President Bush's Iraq war policies.

Among Republicans, 220 supported the proposal, none were opposed and two voted "present," while the House's lone independent voted "no."

So, you can read the entire amendment on my December 16th post. What do you suppose were the Democrats' objections?

Murtha sent his fellow Democrats a letter objecting to the GOP resolution. "It calls for 'complete victory' which does not define victory, is open-ended, and therefore means that our troops could be there for ten or fifteen years," Murtha said.

And this one...

"What is victory? Nobody has defined what victory is," Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., objected.

These people rejected a resolution calling for victory in Iraq. Their reason? No one has told them what victory in Iraq means. This is probably why they are so completely clueless about what DEFEAT in Iraq means.

It is hard to understand the motivation of the Democratic party on a purely philosophical basis. After all, isn't the Democratic Party the champion of the 'little guy'? The Party of taking care of those who can't care for themselves? The compassionate party who doesn't believe that people should raise themselves by their own bootstraps? The party of government intervention in every aspect of life?

So, why are they so absolutely unconcerned about the Iraqi people? Ask yourself...if the Iraqi people could vote in OUR elections, do you think the Democrats' outlook would change? In a New York minute.

This is all political. The irony is that they accuse Bush of being political (yeah, right, let's start a war in the Middle East--that'll boost my popularity) when he is not political enough. Notice how his approval ratings have soared once he started fighting back?

Really. These people need to get their act together and start standing FOR something. They have been trying to build a platform of being AGAINST Bush for so long, I'm not sure that they have it in them. For America's sake, I hope I am wrong.

The Real Progress of Freedom in the Middle East

2005-12-19T21:30:00.000-08:00

So, how much actual evidence have you heard from the anti-war crowd about 'no progress in Iraq'? Remember the people at the onset of the war who argued that people in Arab countries didn't want democracy 'foisted' upon them? (I actually had a conversation with a very smart colleague who told me that maybe the Arab peoples just couldn't handle democracy! He was dead serious.)

An organization called The Freedom House conducted a scientific survey to gauge the progress of freedom in the Middle East. Their findings?

The people of the Arab Middle East experienced a modest but potentially significant increase in political rights and civil liberties in 2005, Freedom House announced in a major survey of global freedom released today.

The global survey, "Freedom in the World," shows that although the Middle East continues to lag behind other regions, a measurable improvement can be seen in freedom in several key Arab countries, as well as the Palestinian Authority. In another key finding, the number of countries rated by Freedom House as Not Free declined from 49 in 2004 to 45 for the year 2005, the lowest number of Not Free societies identified by the survey in over a decade. In noteworthy country developments, Ukraine and Indonesia saw their status improve from Partly Free to Free; Afghanistan moved from Not Free to Partly Free; and the Philippines saw its status decline from Free to Partly Free.

According to Thomas O. Melia, acting executive director of Freedom House, "The modest but heartening advances in the Arab Middle East result from activism by citizen groups and reforms by governments in about equal measures. This emerging trend reminds us that men and women in this region share the universal desire to live in free societies."

Freedom is like a virus. Once it starts spreading, it is very difficult to stop. Emboldened by U.S. support in Afghanistan and Iraq, the people of the Middle East are putting pressure on their governments, with astounding results.

On the whole, the state of freedom showed substantial improvement worldwide, with 27 countries and one territory registering gains and only 9 countries showing setbacks. The global picture thus suggests that the past year was one of the most successful for freedom since Freedom House began measuring world freedom in 1972.

"These global findings are encouraging," said Arch Puddington, director of research. "Among other things, the past year has been notable for terrorist violence, ethnic cleansing, civil conflict, catastrophic natural disasters, and geopolitical polarization. That freedom could thrive in this environment is impressive."

You can read the whole study and the statistics behind it at the Freedom House website. And lest you be cynical about who might be behind this organization, it was founded by Famous Democrat Eleanor Roosevelt and gets contributions from the Soros Foundations (flaming liberal) as well as the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation (neo-con).

Best Argument by a Democrat for Voting Republican in '06

2005-12-15T20:58:00.000-08:00

Vying valiantly with Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean for the "Best Argument by a Democrat for Voting Republican" Award is John Kerry.

Kerry pulls ahead of the competition with his latest remarks at a dinner December 14th for his '04 Campaign Workers.

This statement should whip the 'undecideds' and moderate Democrats into a voting frenzy for the Democratic Party in '06...John Kerry predicts that if Dems retake the House, they should start impeachment proceedings against Bush.

Story in The Hotline.

In a short speech, Kerry praised Dems who were working on Senate and House campaigns, and then said, according to one listener: "If we take back the House, there's a solid case to bring articles of impeachment against this president." Another listener heard a slight variation: "If we win back the House, I think we have a pretty solid case to bring articles of impeachment against this President." Kerry then quickly added, according to several in the audience, "Don't tell anyone I said that."

His communication director, David Wade, later said Kerry was "just kidding".

Hah. He is a laugh riot.

The Dems are always accusing Bush of 'dividing the country'. Is this their idea of 'bringing it together'?

Forget Condi vs. Hilary, My Money is on Betty vs. Murtha

2005-12-15T20:52:00.000-08:00

For those of you who missed this priceless video clip on Fox News Wednesday night, you can catch it at The Political Teen.

Iraqi citizen and voter, Betty Dawisha, tells it like it is. I guess she isn't one of the 80% of Iraqis who want us out of the country. Too bad the BBC doesn't do any polls in Iraq on what they think of Howard Dean!

House Republicans Call Democrats' Bluff

2005-12-15T20:17:00.000-08:00

The House Republicans drafted legislation tonight and plan to force a House vote tomorrow on the commitment of the U.S. to achieve victory in Iraq.

The Resolution is as follows:

RESOLUTION expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to achieving victory in Iraq.

Whereas the Iraqi election of December 15, 2005, the first to take place under the newly ratified Iraqi Constitution, represented a crucial success in the establishment of a democratic, constitutional order in Iraq; and

Whereas Iraqis, who by the millions defied terrorist threats to vote, were protected by Iraqi security forces with the help of United States and Coalition forces: Now, therefore, be it resolved that--

1. the House of Representatives is committed to achieving victory in Iraq;

2. the Iraqi election of December 15, 2005, was a crucial victory for the Iraqi people and Iraq's new democracy, and a defeat for the terrorists who seek to destroy that democracy;

3. the House of Representatives encourages all Americans to express solidarity with the Iraqi people as they take another step toward their goal of a free, open, and democratic society;

4. the successful Iraqi election of December 15, 2005, required the presence of United States Armed Forces, United States-trained Iraqi forces, and Coalition forces;

5. the continued presence of United States Armed Forces in Iraq will be required only until Iraqi forces can stand up so our forces can stand down, and no longer than is required for that purpose;

6. setting an artificial timetable for the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq, or immediately terminating their deployment in Iraq and redeploying them elsewhere in the region, is fundamentally inconsistent with achieving victory in Iraq;

7. the House of Representatives recognizes and honors the tremendous sacrifices made by the members of the United States Armed Forces and their families, along with the members of Iraqi and Coalition forces; and

8. the House of Representatives has unshakable confidence that, with the support of the American people and the Congress, United States Armed Forces, along with Iraqi and Coalition forces, shall achieve victory in Iraq.

(It was online in Adobe format here. I re-keyed it, hopefully without typos!)

You can tell it was a great move, because Nancy Pelosi is already foaming at the mouth...(from Fox News)

Ron Bonjean, a spokesman for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said House Republicans hope Democrats will stand with them in backing the resolution.

But a Pelosi spokeswoman, Jennifer Crider, said: "Talk about playing politics with the Iraq war, American troops and the American troop deserve a real debate — not the Republican stunt."

This is a direct response to Jack Murtha and his silly suggestions (let's redeploy our troops to Okinawa???), Howard Dean and his ranting (the idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq...is just plain wrong) and Nancy Pelosi's mind-boggling claims that the majority of Dems are for immediate troop withdrawal (after they all voted against it a few weeks ago).

Once again, the Republicans are forcing the Democrats to vote and go on the public record as to where they stand on this war. And finally putting to rest the silly notion that withdrawing the troops is somehow the best strategy to achieve victory in Iraq (well, it is...but for the wrong side!)

C-SPAN will be 'must-see TV' tomorrow!!!

William Proxmire Dies at Age 90

2005-12-15T11:28:00.000-08:00

I just heard on the news on the way to work this morning that William Proxmire, a former Wisconsin Democratic Senator, passed away today at the age of 90.

The AP has a story here in the Washington Post.

Proxmire was known for his "Golden Fleece" awards, which he gave out regularly to highlight waste in government. He drank his own Koolaid, too, by spurning campaign contributions, being a frugal money manager of his own office (he never went on an international trip in 20 years of service and fighting senatorial perks and salary increases.

Whether you agreed or disagreed with him, you had to admire his energy, dedication and "practice what you preach" approach to government. His passing reminds me of how far our elected officials have fallen from his example of hard work, integrity and dedication.

Make December 15th "Purple Finger Day"

2005-12-13T10:53:00.000-08:00

Timmer over at Righting America is urging everyone to follow William Bennett's advice and color their fingers purple in a show of solidarity with the Iraqi people on December 15th, election day in Iraq. Check out his post here.

What a great idea! I have my purple Sharpie ready! Pass it along!

Another good man killed by terrorists

2005-12-13T10:24:00.000-08:00

I got tears in my eyes the other night when I saw Jennifer Griffin's Fox News report that Lebanese journalist and politician Gibran Tueni had been killed in a bombing in a Beirut suburb Monday.

Tueni had predicted that he would be a target of assassination attempts back in August. I blogged last March on an interview Griffin did with Tueni where he said:

Huge impact. A huge impact. (note: he is referring to President Bush's State of the Union address) You know, really, people felt very happy when President Bush was re-elected. Believe it or not, we had a headline that day which was on eight columns--one word--Bush. Like that. You know why? Simply because, we think that is the first time that an American president is speaking clearly about democracy and is serious about implementing democracy in the Middle East.

Really, the Lebanese were always cautious about the American policy in the Middle East. The Lebanese always thought that the Americans bartered them with the Syrians. Lebanese are still cautious and afraid that one day or another, you will have a Syrian/American agreement, you know, and Lebanese will pay the price.

What helped a lot also, I think, really, is that this is the first time that we felt that maybe we are not going to pay the price alone. Because at the time we were outspoken, but you were killed.

So, in the end Tueni did pay the price alone and was killed for what? For speaking out. For encouraging freedom. For calling for Syrian troop withdrawal.

He was not threatening a violent overthrow of the government. He wasn't recruiting suicide bombers. He was speaking out--voicing what many Lebanese were thinking. He was a 48-year-old father of four, including twin daughters a few months old.

Totalitarianism is the enemy of human freedom. Freedom is the God-given heritage of all people. Why have Americans suddenly become confused about this? Do we want to be on the side of people who yearn and struggle for freedom and self-determination? Or do we want to tacitly support dictators whose regimes suppress their people in order to amass personal wealth and power? What do we want to stand for? What heritage do we want to leave to our children?

In addition, the situation in Lebanon provides an interesting counter to the liberal argument that the U.S. presence in Iraq is a cause of the terrorist violence there. We are not in Lebanon. We were not in Beslan. What explains the violence going on in countries where we are not?

The bottom line is that evil exists. (Did Hitler just have a 'different perspective'?)

The bottom line is that it is futile to try to explain terrorism through a rational thought process. They are not just people with a different point of view, a la Chris Matthews:

If we stop trying to figure out the other side, we’ve given up. The person on the other side is not evil. They just have a different perspective.

Really, sometimes I am embarrassed to be an American.

Chronicles of Narnia

2005-12-13T05:44:00.000-08:00

We saw the movie "Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" this weekend. I have long been a fan of C.S. Lewis and have read many of his books (although he was a prolific writer, so I still have a few to go!).

The movie was very well done. Not surprising, since Douglas Gresham, Lewis' stepson by his marriage to Joy Davidman, was involved in the film as a producer. It was very true to the book and the graphics were absolutely amazing. (I saw it on the Ultrascreen and kept wanting to reach out to touch Aslan's furry mane!)

It was a good family movie. Young children would enjoy it (I found it less scary than Harry Potter) and there is enough depth to the story to keep adults interested. We went Friday night and the large Ultrascreen theater was packed.

It is fascinating that C.S. Lewis wrote one of the world's most beloved set of children's books, but was a confirmed bachelor until age 59, when he married Joy, a friend who had been recently diagnosed with cancer.

You can see the influences of his life--being wounded in France during WWI, his loss of his mother at an early age, his friendship with J.R.R. Tolkien and his Christianity--in the story. The story is a good one on its own merits and even better when you consider some of the truths that Lewis is trying to convey through the story.

I would highly recommend reading the entire set of Chronicles. Another good fiction book is The Screwtape Letters and his science fiction trilogy, Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra and That Hideous Strength.

But my favorite Lewis book would have to be Mere Christianity.

Sounds Like Progress to Me...

2005-12-08T20:52:00.000-08:00

Okay, does this sound like "no progress in Iraq" or "civil war" or "80% of the Iraqis want the U.S. out" to you?

BAGHDAD, Dec. 7 -- Tucked into a bunker-like former headquarters of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party, a type of war room unfamiliar in this country buzzed with life Wednesday. Halfway through a 14-hour shift, campaign workers from the Iraqi Islamic Party, a Sunni Arab group that boycotted the country's previous elections in January, munched rice and kebabs, their faces lit by computer screens.

Across town, hundreds of black-clad followers of the radical Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr -- who decried balloting 10 months ago as something imposed under American occupation -- beat their backs with chains and stomped across a large poster of former interim prime minister Ayad Allawi. Sadr's political wing has joined forces with the alliance of Shiite religious parties that leads Iraq's current government and opposes Allawi's secular movement.

As Iraqis nationwide prepare to go to the polls for the third time this year on Dec. 15 -- this time for a new parliament -- candidates and political parties of all stripes are embracing politics, Iraqi style, as never before and showing increasing sophistication about the electoral process, according to campaign specialists, party officials and candidates here.

From The Washington Post.

You'd Think They Would Have Learned from the Last Election...

2005-12-08T20:18:00.000-08:00

Finally. The GOP has had enough. After months of taking it on the chin and letting the Dems rule the airwaves with gross factual misrepresentation, the Republican National Party has decided to fight fire with....well, actual video! (from Drudge)

It was interesting today to hear Howard Dean accuse the Republicans of 'cherry-picking' his comments. He claimed that his remarks were taken out of context.

In case you missed it, he said "the idea that we are going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong". So, try to imagine a possible context in which that comment would mean anything different than it does standing alone. In case you would like to hear the entire interview for yourself to see whether you can divine an alternative meaning, check it out here at the website of San Antonio radio station WOAI. There is an audio file of the entire interview.

I still can't quite figure out why the Democratic leaders persist in making loony remarks on the record (on television, radio, in interviews) and then protest that their remarks are being twisted in some Machievellian Republican plot. (I'm sure that Karl Rove is at the bottom of it all!)

I keep thinking that they are stuck in the past, where their version of the story was supported in the mainstream media and the general public had no way to verify the facts. For example, without the internet, you or I would have no idea what he actually said in San Antonio (unless we lived there and happened to catch the show).

However, now that anyone with a computer and an internet connection (or, heck, a library card) can replay EXACTLY what Howard actually said and decide for themselves whether the 'context' changed his meaning, why would he try to 'spin' his way out of it?

I don't know, but either Howard is pretty stupid, or he thinks we all are.

John Kerry--the gift that keeps giving

2005-12-06T10:59:00.000-08:00

I've decided that, this year, all I want for Christmas is for John Kerry to keep attempting to articulate the Democratic position on the war on terror (with some assistance from Howard Dean--but that's another blog for another day).

On Sunday's "Face the Nation" program, John Kerry accused U.S. troops of terrorizing innocent Iraqi civilians.

Bob Schieffer says, "Democrat Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, he takes a very different view, Senator Kerry. He says basically that we should stay the course, because he says real progress is being made. He says, 'This is a war between 27 million Iraqis who want freedom and 10,000 terrorists.' He says we're in a watershed transformation. What about that?"

JOHN KERRY: I don't agree with that. But I think what we need to do is recognize what we all agree on, which is, you've got to begin to set benchmarks for accomplishment; you've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis, and there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the -- of -- of -- of -- historical customs, religious customs, whether you like it or not. Iraqis should be doing that. And after all of these two and a half years, with all --

(transcript from Rush Limbaugh's website)

So, Kerry's position is:

~American troops are terrorizing kids and children (are these two different groups?) in the middle of the night (adding women as an afterthought). Is he serious? Is this what he thinks of our troops? Where is his concern for what Saddam Hussein was doing, which was terrorizing men, women, kids AND children in the morning, in the afternoon and in the middle of the night?)

~Breaking historical and religious customs (against breaking into people's homes in the middle of the night??). To what historical and religious customs is he referring? Here Kerry displays the breathless grasp of Middle Eastern culture and religion that would make him a great President. It is obvious that he has no idea what he is talking about. Watch the other Dems and the media for this new talking point--maybe Kerry was just trying it out to see if it had any 'legs'.

~The Iraqis should be doing this, not the American troops. I don't get this at all. Is he advocating that Iraqis should be terrorizing kids and children and women in the middle of the night and breaking their historial and religious customs?

~He doesn't agree that the war is between the Iraqi civilians who want peace and freedom and the terrorists? Who DOES he think the participants are in the war, exactly?

Really, it is scary that this guy is considered worthy of interviews on television, let alone an elected official who came anywhere close to winning a presidential election. I don't know if I can handle three more years of this....

Marquette Punishes Student for Blog Comments

2005-12-06T10:15:00.000-08:00

In a controversial ruling, the Marquette University Dental School has decided to make an example of a student blogger who wrote uncomplimentary remarks about his professors and fellow students on his blog.

From the MJS article in today's JSOnline edition:

A dental student at Marquette University has been suspended for the rest of the academic year and ordered to repeat a semester after a committee of professors, administrators and students determined that he violated professional conduct codes when he posted negative comments about unnamed students and professors on a blog.

So, will the university start suspending students who make negative verbal comments about other students and professors?

Read the excellent analysis of this situation at Marquette Warrior.

The student is considering suing the university on First Amendment Grounds. This will be one to watch.

Just Do It

2005-12-01T20:25:00.000-08:00

Per Kevin McCullough's blogsite, Musclehead Revolution, join the "Send the ACLU a Christmas Card" brigade.

We are excited to be launching the opportunity today...between now and Christmas we are asking you to send the ACLU direct "MerryChristmas" cards.

And we aren't talking about these generic "happy holiday" (meaning nothing) type of cards...

Go get as "Christmas" a Christmas card as you can find... something that says.. "Joy To The World", "For Unto Us A Child Is Born", but at least "Merry Christmas", put some of your own thoughts into it, sign it respectfully and zip it off in the mail to:

ACLU
"Wishing You Merry Christmas"
125 Broad Street
18th Floor
New York, NY 10004

While you're at it, send one to your local ACLU Chapter. For Wisconsinites, it is:

State Office
ACLU of Wisconsin
207 E. Buffalo Street, Suite 325
Milwaukee, WI 53202-5774

Just think what might happen if everyone who opposes the ACLU's constant interference with our freedom of religious expression would send them a card.

If there's hope for the Grinch, maybe....

Hat tip: Hugh Hewitt

Dems React to Bush's Plan

2005-12-01T16:26:00.000-08:00

Great post from Jon Henke at The QandO Blog on the Democratic reaction to Bush's strategy on Iraq. The best thing that could happen to Bush's approval ratings is to have John Kerry hold frequent press conferences and remind the American people how close we came to actually putting this nincompoop in the White House.

Here's what Kerry said:

"The truth is that the president draws a false line in trying to make his case to America. The troops don't belong to his point of view, they belong to America..."

Here is Jon's response:

Well, and I don't want to presume to tell a sitting Senator his business, but I seem to recall Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution giving the Executive branch just that—authority over the armed forces: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States".

Maybe John Kerry has a different edition of the Constitution.

In the Comments section, Steve Schippert has an additional response to this nonsense.

So what we should have is 52% of the troops fighting the war with conviction, 47% of them angrily testifying in Congress and/or protesting in Fallujah by tossing their medals over some fence still standing, and 1% of them refusing to go along with either crowd, confidently defiant to everything.

Earth to Kerry: We had an election. America chose. The title is "Commander in Chief". Not Military Democratic Procedural Facilitator in Chief.

Jon takes aim at the responses of other key Dems, including our own Russ Feingold, who said:

The problem here is that the president put out the wrong document. It should be strategy for victory against al Qaeda. Iraq is not the be-all and end-all of our national security.

So, for months (including just yesterday), Feingold has been calling for Bush to present a specific strategy for the war on Iraq. Now Bush presents one and Russ says it addresses the wrong thing? And I thought that Iraq had nothing to do with al Qaeda.

Read the entire post.

The Dems are clearly in a sorry state of disarray. It will be interesting to see how that master of politics, Hillary Clinton, rises to this challenge.

MJS Column Spreads Falsehood About Bush

2005-12-01T07:10:00.000-08:00

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel today chose to publish a stunning column from community columnist Marcia Thurnbauer, who in her column defending the right of Milwaukee citizens to vote on a referendum opposing the war, demonstrates that anti-war liberals are willing to spread out-and-out lies in order to support their cause. And, unfortunately, the mainstream media is all-too-willing to print them.

I quote from the column:

And whether you believe that the U.S. attack on Iraq is the result of innocent lapses in intelligence, the opportunity to seize control of Iraq's oil, or-as The New Yorker magazine chillingly reported--a mandate from God to President Bush to force democracy on the Middle East, there is little doubt that this ill-conceived war is depleting resources that are badly needed at home.

What I believe Marcia is referring to is that now-infamous BBC 'crockumentary' where Nabil Shaath, a Palestinian negotiator, made the following statement:

Mr Shaath said that in a 2003 meeting with Mr Bush, the US president said he was "driven with a mission from God".

"God would tell me, George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan. And I did, and then God would tell me, George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq... And I did.

"And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East. And by God I'm gonna do it."

So...speaking of God, let's use our God-given common sense and re-read the above quotes. Do you honestly think that George Bush really said this? Even if you think he thinks this way--would he be stupid enough to say this to Nabil Shaath and Mahmoud Abbas? (And if he is THAT stupid, how could he possibly be the criminal mastermind that 'duped' the Congress, Senate, American people and THE WORLD into attacking Saddam Hussein? Can't have it both ways, folks. But I digress.)

Apparently, to liberals opposing the war, it is okay to just make stuff up. To characterize this as a revelation from The New Yorker Magazine is blatantly misleading. I did an archive search on The New Yorker Magazine website and I can't find anything related to this story. I don't doubt her word that The New Yorker reported on the BBC story, but apparently, they did not have any independent 'scoop' on this topic.

So what? Maybe Marcia just failed to attribute the source of her comment incorrectly. And if that's all there was to it, it would just be sloppy research. But wait, there's more.

Of course, the White House flatly denied that Bush made these remarks. But since leftist Democrats and anti-war Liberals have called Bush an inveterate liar, I guess they value the word of a Palestinian negotiator more highly than that of the President of the United States.

But would they take the word of another Palestinian? One that was actually in the same meeting? If you had followed this story at all, you would know that Abbas, who was in the meeting, flatly denied that Bush made any such remarks.

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has denied an account by another Palestinian official of a meeting with US President George Bush in which Bush is cited as saying he believed that God told him to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

A statement in Abbas's name released by his office said an excerpt from an interview with Palestinian Information Minister Nabil Shaath due to be broadcast by the BBC in which Shaath described a meeting with Bush in June 2003 gave a "completely false" account.

In the interview for the series, Israel and the Arabs, Shaath described the meeting, at which he said Abbas was present.

"President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did. And then God would tell me, 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq.' And I did,'" Shaath said.

"This report is not true," the Abbas statement said today. "I have never heard President Bush talking about religion as a reason behind the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Bush has never mentioned that in front of me on any occasion and specifically not during my visit in 2003."

Shaath could not be reached for comment.

From an AP report quoted in The Sydney Herald (Of course, this got about as much coverage in the U.S. mainstream media as my Aunt Martha's funeral).

And even Shaath backed away somewhat from his remarks in an October 7, 2005 interview with the BBC, headlined "Bush God Comments 'Not Literal'".

But in an interview for the BBC Arabic service on Friday, he said the president - who had just announced an end to hostilities in Iraq, was merely expressing his heartfelt commitment to peace in the Middle East.

"President Bush said that God guided him in what he should do, and this guidance led him to go to Afghanistan to rid it of terrorism after 9/11 and led him to Iraq to fight tyranny," he said.

"We understood that he was illustrating [in his comments] his strong faith and his belief that this is what God wanted."

Despite this, the BBC chose to run the 'documentary' anyway. Do a Google search on "Bush God Iraq War BBC". It will give you goosebumps. This out-and-out lie from the Palestinians has been circulate all around the world. And apparently accepted as truth.

So, Marcia swallows it all, hook, line and sinker. Again, can we really blame her? Unless she was motivated to really question the story and do some further research, can we blame her for being duped by the story? Maybe, maybe not. But The Journal Sentinel has a responsibility, if not to its readers, then to its stockholders, who have to be appalled at dwindling circulation numbers, to vet the information contained in columns that they run.

In addition, I find it laughable that the mainstream media continues to knock the internet and the bloggers as being 'unreliable'.

And I wonder. If you can't attack the war strictly on its merits, then I guess you are reduced to just making stuff up. Ironic that this is what liberals are accusing the Bush administration of doing in the run-up to the war.

I think it is about time that American citizens, regardless of our feelings about the war, start demanding truth from our news sources. If we accept a press that is no longer 'free', but bound by their own ideology, we are on a slippery slope. A free, accurate and reliable press is a linchpin of democracy.

Bush Must Read the Journal Sentinel Editorial Page

2005-11-30T20:21:00.000-08:00

So....

Yesterday, the Journal Sentinel editorial page demanded, "Give specifics, Mr. President" (see yesterday's blogs).

So today, the White House published the specifics. "A National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.

Read it.

Hopefully, now, we can have a fruitful national debate about the plan instead of the incessant whining that there isn't one.

I can't wait to see what kind of coverage this gets in the mainstream media.

She was FOR withdrawal before she was AGAINST it

2005-11-30T13:12:00.000-08:00

WASHINGTON (AP) - Reversing course, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday endorsed a call by a prominent member of her rank-and-file to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

``We should follow the lead of Congressman John Murtha, who has put forth a plan to make American safer, to make our military stronger and to make Iraq more stable,'' Pelosi said. ``That is what the American people and our troops deserve.''

Pelosi, D-Calif., said she wouldn't be calling for a party caucus position on the plan by the Pennsylvania Democrat because ``a vote on the war is an individual vote.''

Nevertheless, she said: ``I believe that a majority of our caucus clearly supports Mr. Murtha.''

So, I have one question for Nancy Pelosi. Why didn't you vote FOR the November 18th Congressional resolution to withdraw troops from Iraq, if you were so convinced that it was the right thing to do?

Actually, I have two questions....

What has happened in the last week-and-a-half to make you change your mind?

Okay, okay, so make it three....

What sort of mind-altering drugs are you on?

The House voted overwhelmingly against immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Nancy is unwilling to put it to another vote, but she believes that a majority of Dems support Murtha.

Wow.

Is this specific enough for you?

2005-11-29T19:13:00.000-08:00

Latest Journal/Sentinel editorial on the progress of the war, entitled "Give Specifics, Mr. President".

Wednesday, President Bush is scheduled to make the short trip from Washington to Annapolis, Md., to give a speech at the U.S. Naval Academy assessing progress in Iraq and also in what he calls the broader war on terrorism. The president, who has often made reassuring statements about such progress, should take this opportunity to complement those words with convincing evidence.
Americans deserve to know whether at home they are safer from terrorists today than they were on 9-11. They also deserve to know whether in Iraq progress is being made in taming the terrorist insurgency.

Yes, I agree. Wouldn't it be nice if the mainstream media would report on the facts surrounding these topics, instead of endlessly harping on the suicide bombings and Vietnam analogies? Why is the press absolutely silent on giving the American people any context by which to judge the true progress of the war?

So how's this for a specific? We win. We defeat the terrorists. We help the Iraqis establish a representative government and a constitution. We help them rebuild their infrastructure--roads, schools, power. We train their troops and fight alongside them until terrorism subsides. "No end but victory." I think that qualifies as a strategy.

What do the Democrats offer? Well, according to golden boy Jack Murtha (whom no one can criticize, since he is a Vietnam veteran--a rule that only applies to Dems and libs, since the Swift Boat Vets were certainly 'fair game' in the last election), and I quote..."There is no exit strategy. The path to victory--victory is not a strategy." (from Hardball transcript)

Victory is not a strategy? Well, is defeat a strategy? Is surrender a strategy?
To help us understand this concept, the Journal Sentinel goes on to explain how a non-victory strategy might work.

The most effective way to make progress against the terrorists is the establishment of a target date for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. (emphasis mine)

The most effective way to make progress against the terrorists is to announce to them when we are going to withdraw? Come again? (Take that, you terrorists! We are going to run away!) The Journal Sentinel editorial writer must have graduated from the French school of warfare....

Iraqi soldiers will have little motivation for the difficult work of fighting terrorists as long as they know the Americans will be there to help them out.

How can they possibly think that the Iraqis have insufficient motivation for fighting terror? This is their country. Their lives are at stake. Their children's futures are at stake. To think that they have no motivation to protect and rebuild their own country is an insult to their integrity and bravery.

Unfortunately, Bush has rejected target dates. Instead, his strategy can be summed up in the phrase, "As they stand up, we will stand down." That is, as Iraq's security forces become better prepared to take on the insurgents and defend their country's fledgling government, America's forces will be able to leave. That process, Bush insists, will not be driven by a calendar.

And I thank God every day for his integrity.

As a practical matter, however, Bush cannot ignore the calendar. Because the war has become unpopular, he will be under irresistible pressure next year to make troop reductions before midterm elections. In fact, plans for such cutbacks have already been made. Also, it is very possible that the Iraqi government will demand a troop reduction; recently, some 100 Iraqi political figures meeting in Cairo called for a timetable for a withdrawal of U.S. forces.

Unlike his political counterparts in the Democratic party (whose hypocrisy was unveiled for all to see on Friday, November 18th, when they spent hours accusing Bush of lying, calling the war a mistake and a quagmire and then refused to vote to withdraw our troops), Bush is more interested in doing the right thing for our country and for the Iraqis than in the latest 'popularity poll' on the war.

Actually, the mere thought of trying to measure the 'popularity' of a war is really ridiculous. No wars are popular. No troops deaths are desirable. No civilian casualties are 'acceptable'. But an America who is unwilling to fight its enemies, to protect its allies, to protect its national interests--that would be an America 'not worth dying for' to quote Cindy Sheehan.

This pressure to reduce U.S. forces adds urgency to the job of training, equipping, motivating and fielding a home-grown Iraqi army and police force. Bush's upbeat remarks about progress in this effort have been echoed by a leading Democrat, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, who recently returned from Iraq. Lieberman reports, in an opinion article Tuesday in The Wall Street Journal, that under a strategy of "clear, hold and build," Iraqi forces are now holding several cities formerly occupied by terrorists.
But how long will they hold them, and will they really build? Reports about these Iraqi troops are mixed and therefore confusing. The Pentagon told ABC News in mid-November that only one Iraqi battalion - about 700 troops - is capable of fighting without U.S. help. There are continuing reports of a lack of discipline in the ranks of the Iraqi army and also reports that terrorists and militias have infiltrated Iraqi police units.
That is why Bush needs to supply abundant and, above all, credible evidence when he talks about Iraq in Annapolis today. Only when he stands up with convincing facts, not slogans, will his critics stand down.

No, I think the Journal Sentinel has it backwards. I think it is high time that the opponents of the war start standing up with convincing facts. We need to see their plan. We need to understand their definition of success. We need a serious discussion of our level of commitment to the Iraqi people and to the success of establishing a representative democracy in the middle East. We need to understand the ramifications of a U.S. withdrawal--not only in Iraq, but also in our dealings with Iran and others.

We need our elected representatives to stop the partisan sniping and work together to have a serious debate about the issues and agree on a plan that all can support (and continue to support, even if it becomes uncomfortable or unpopular). But, unfortunately, I don't think the Democrats have it in them.

Maybe, since they don't have a plan, they should cut and run.

Pix of Cindy you WON'T see on the cover of the New York Times

2005-11-28T20:32:00.000-08:00

Here's Cindy, at her book signing near Crawford, last Saturday (November 26th).

You could almost feel sorry for her.

There IS and WAS and HAS ALWAYS BEEN...a timetable

2005-11-28T19:39:00.000-08:00

Great article from Asharq Alawsat, the leading Arabic International Daily, owned by the Saudi Distribution Company. It is written by Amir Taheri.

In the circles opposed to the toppling of Saddam Hussein one word is making the rounds these days: timetable.

Having failed to stop the war that liberated Iraq, and with their hopes of the insurgents marching triumphant into Baghdad dashed, they are now focusing on one issue: the withdrawal of the US-led coalition forces. Some want this to happen immediately, while others are prepared to grant a few weeks or months.

Those Democrat politicians in Washington, who had backed the war with as much enthusiasm as George W Bush, are now using the issue of withdrawal as a means of distancing themselves from their initial positions. The Arab reactionaries who shuddered at the thought of a despot being toppled by foreign intervention are now clinging to the withdrawal slogan in the hope of sabotaging the process of democratisation in Iraq. In Europe, professional anti-Americans of all ilks are trying to cover their political nakedness with the “ withdrawal” fig leaf.

The truth, however, is that a timetable has been in place from the first day of the war that ended the Ba’athist tyranny in 2003.

Yes. Makes you think. Who are the Democrats aligning themselves with, exactly, in calling for us to withdraw from Iraq? The Ba'athists? Al Qaeda? Zarqawi? They all want the same outcome....

Any checklist would clearly show that the Iraq project has been more successful than Saddam nostalgics with to portray. The first objective, to bring down Saddam Hussein, was achieved in three weeks. The next objective was to break the apparatus of oppression created by the Ba’ath. Despite some residual problems that objective, too, has been achieved. Another objective was to break Saddam’s war machine that had been used against Iraq’s neighbours as well as the Kurds and the Shi’ites. After just three years nothing is left of that infernal machine.

One could continue the checklist with the formation of the Governing Council representing the first step towards the restoration of Iraqi sovereignty.

Next on the checklist we have the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis that was accomplished in June 2004.

That was followed by the formation of an interim government, a series of municipal elections, a general election leading to the formation of Iraq’s first pluralist government, the writing of a new constitution and a referendum to get it approved. The next item on the checklist is the general election scheduled for 15 December.

The checklist clearly shows that every objective included in the political programme has been achieved within the exact timeframe fixed by the new Iraqi leadership and its coalition allies.

Indeed. But Ted Kennedy calls the war a 'quagmire'. Russ Feingold calls it a 'flop'. What, exactly, is their definition of success?

With the exception of the Zarqawi gang and its residual Ba’athist allies, almost no one in Iraq wants an immediate withdrawal of he coalition forces. The Iraqis know that their country is located in a rough region with predatory neighbours that cannot be trusted. They see the presence of the coalition forces as a kind of insurance policy against even more brutal intervention in their affairs by several of Iraq’s neighbours.

The idea of a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq has been built into the entire project from day one. It was on that understanding that the Iraqi people chose not to fight for Saddam, thus allowing the coalition to win a rapid and easy military victory. That fact created a moral contract between the people of Iraq and the US-led coalition as co-liberators of the country. The Iraqi people’s part of the bargain was not to prevent the dismantling of the Ba’athist machinery of repression and war and to welcome the chance to build a new political system. The coalition’s part of the bargain was to protect Iraq against its internal and external enemies until it was strong enough to look after itself.

A voice of reason. The Democrats, backed by their allies in the mainstream media, have been yelling 'no plan to win the war', 'we need a timetable', 'the war is a failure' so often that, unfortunately, I think people are starting to believe it. This is extremely dangerous for the U.S.

What matters, however, is that it is up to the people of Iraq and its coalition allies to decide the moment an the modalities of the withdrawal It is a judgment that no outsider could make .. Those who opposed the liberation and those who have done all they could to undo it have no moral right to join that debate.

Read the whole thing.

Nobody's Senator But....

2005-11-28T19:14:00.000-08:00

The latest wisdom from Senator Russ Feingold...

"People, I think, feel overall this has been a flop," Feingold said of the war.

A flop? Does he think he is talking about a new sitcom?

and from the Associated Press via Newsday:

"But I do think one thing we can all agree on is that this country is overdue for a cheesehead president. We've never had one," he told ABC's "This Week."

A cheesehead is a native or resident of Wisconsin, a leading dairy state. The term also refers to the yellow "cheese" wedges worn on the heads of Green Bay Packers football fans.

Jeesh. And the Democrats complain that Bush is a dummy.

Poll Results on War Pulled from Murtha's Website

2005-11-23T13:20:00.000-08:00

This is priceless. From World News Daily.

The congressman at the center of the battle last week over withdrawal of troops from Iraq removed the results from his own Internet poll on the subject after online voters overwhelmingly opposed his stance.

Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pa., posted the poll after he ignited a firestorm in the House that led to Republicans forcing a quick vote on the issue Friday.

While a revised poll page remains on the site, the link to it from his homepage has been removed, making the survey effectively invisible to the public.

A contributor to Web forum Free Republic.com, however, posted results as of 3:34 p.m. Eastern time.

The call for immediate withdrawal garnered just 12 percent of the more than 12,000 votes.

Please indicate which of the following best summarizes your view on what the United States should do in Iraq:
A. We should immediately remove all troops. 1,562 votes, 12.3 percent

B. We should redeploy to the periphery of Iraq as soon as practical to protect troop safety and give the Iraqis incentive to take charge sooner, not later. 3,239 votes, 25.6 percent

C. We should maintain current troop levels until Iraq builds an army to defend and stabilize their country, even if that takes years. 6,726 votes, 53.1 percent

D. We should re-institute the national draft to increase troop levels to where we can seal the Iraqi borders and stop the passage of insurgents and insurgent-supply missions. 1,146 votes, 9 percent

E. None of the above. 3 votes, 0.0 percent

Hat tip: Jessica McBride's Media Matters

CNN Apologizes for X-ing Cheney's Face

2005-11-23T12:23:00.000-08:00

Okay, so here is CNN's response to the flashing X over Cheney's face this week...

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - CNN apologized on Tuesday and offered a rare explanation from its control booth for a technical glitch many viewers failed to notice -- a large "X" the network flashed over Vice President Dick Cheney's face.

The wayward graphic, which CNN said lasted for about one-seventh of a second, appeared during the network's live coverage of Cheney's speech on Monday addressing critics of the Bush administration's conduct of the war in Iraq.

Word of the snafu quickly surfaced on the Internet, including still photos of the image posted by online columnist Matt Drudge, along with a story suggesting that some who saw the momentary "X" thought it might have been deliberate.

CNN, a unit of Time Warner Inc., later issued a mea culpa saying an investigation by senior management concluded "this was a technical malfunction, not an issue of operator error" and expressing regret for the incident.

The network followed up with a special on-air segment during its "CNN Live Today" broadcast, in which anchor Daryn Kagan joined the network's technical manager, Steve Alperin, in the control room to offer a fuller explanation.

The "X" image, a place-holding marker used by technicians to cue up graphics, is not supposed to be visible to viewers but was inadvertently projected onto the screen by a malfunction in a "switcher" device, they explained.

"So, for all the conspiracy theories out there," Kagan said, " ... that's not what this is about. It's a computer bug that people deal with everyday. It's just that ours was in front of millions of people."

A spokesman for the vice president said Cheney had no comment on the incident.

Democratic Schizophrenia

2005-11-23T12:15:00.000-08:00

You must read the latest column from Victor Davis Hanson. He provides a brilliant analysis of the pickle the Democrats find themselves in today, as a result of their inability to take a stand (and stick to it) on the initiative in Iraq.

Hanson is much more articulate than I, but basically, their problems include the following:

*They were for the war before they were against it.

*They run the risk of aligning themselves with the lunatic fringe of the Left.

*They cannot refute the progress we are making in Iraq--so they focus on U.S. casualties.

*They are not sure that the American people are ready to give up on Iraq.

*They are not sure how Iraq is really going to turn out.

This is why you see them doing crazy things like last Friday's vote in Congress--spending hours decrying the war and then voting overwhelmingly against a resolution to withdraw our troops.

Read the whole article.

This Says it All....

2005-11-22T12:00:00.000-08:00

CNN Hits New Low

2005-11-21T22:30:00.000-08:00

From Drudge:

In a televised broadcast of Vice President Dick Cheney's live speech from the American Enterprise Institute earlier today, CNN flashed a large black "X" over Cheney's face.

See my earlier posts on the manipulation of photo-journalism to make subtle, political points. This is a new low, even for CNN. They had better get to the bottom of it and fire the person responsible. I can't believe that this was just a random broadcasting error.

'War Hawk' Jack Murtha Urged Pullout from Somalia that Emboldened OBL

2005-11-21T21:42:00.000-08:00

From NewsMax.com:

After terrorists attacked U.S. troops in Mogadishu, Somalia 12 years ago, anti-Iraq war Democrat, Rep. John Murtha urged then-President Clinton to begin a complete pullout of U.S. troops from the region.

Clinton took the advice and ordered the withdrawal - a decision that Osama bin Laden would later credit with emboldening his terrorist fighters and encouraging him to mount further attacks against the U.S.

"Our welcome has been worn out," Rep Murtha told NBC's "Today" show in Sept. 1993, a month after 4 U.S. Military Police had been killed in Somalia by a remote-detonated land mine.

The Pennsylvania Democrat announced that President Clinton had been "listening to our suggestions. And I think you'll see him move those troops out very quickly."

...

In a 1998 interview with ABC's John Miller, Osama bin Laden said that America's withdrawal from Somalia had emboldened his burgeoning al Qaida force and encouraged him to plan new attacks.

"Our people realize[d] more than before that the American soldier is a paper tiger that run[s] in defeat after a few blows," the terror chief recalled. "America forgot all about the hoopla and media propaganda and left dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat."

We have met the enemy and he is.....us

2005-11-21T19:12:00.000-08:00

this powerful email from Lieutenant Colonel Joe Repya. I am including the post in its entirety.

We've written here several times about Minnesota's Lt. Col. Joe Repya, who volunteered to return to active duty for service in Iraq at age 59. Joe's previous service includes command of a rifle platoon in Vietnam and flying helicopters in the first Gulf War.

Joe is a classic citizen patriot and activist. He first came to public attention in March 2003 when, disturbed by the anti-war campaign mounted by Minnesota liberals, he arranged for the production of lawn signs saying "Liberate Iraq -- Support Our Troops." His effort garnered a lot of publicity, and Joe eventually distributed 30,000 signs.

Today he writes:

Two weeks ago, as I was starting my sixth month of duty in Iraq, I was forced to return to the USA for surgery for an injury I sustained prior to my deployment. With luck, I'll return to Iraq in January to finish my tour. I left Baghdad and a war that has every indication that we are winning, to return to a demoralized country much like the one I returned to in 1971 after my tour in Vietnam. Maybe it's because I'll turn 60 years old in just four months, but I'm tired:

I'm tired of spineless politicians, both Democrat and Republican who lack the courage, fortitude, and character to see these difficult tasks through.

I'm tired of the hypocrisy of politicians who want to rewrite history when the going gets tough.

I'm tired of the disingenuous clamor from those that claim they "Support the Troops" by wanting them to "Cut and Run" before victory is achieved.

I'm tired of a mainstream media that can only focus on car bombs and casualty reports because they are too afraid to leave the safety of their hotels to report on the courage and success our brave men and women are having on the battlefield.

I'm tired that so many American's think you can rebuild a dictatorship into a democracy ove

Democrats don't seem to mind unilateralism....when it is exercised in retreat

2005-11-21T07:14:00.000-08:00

And another thing....

In Friday's heated debate in the House over the resolution to withdraw immediately from Iraq, I did not hear one word about the effect of our withdrawal on other coalition countries.

We have a number of allies who have joined us in Iraq. Their men and women are dying right alongside ours. Many of them joined us not only because they support the cause, but also because of their loyalty and friendship to the United States.

While the Dems were foaming at the mouth when we went to war (remember John Kerry's 'global test'?), I did not hear one of them suggest that we huddle with the coalition before making any decisions about our continued involvement in the war. I guess they have repeated the lie of 'unilateralism' so many times that they actually believe it.

How do we expect our allies to react to all this internal discussion of Iraq? Should they just stay in Iraq, holding the bag? Do we realize that all of this U.S. discussion about cutting and running might affect their policies and attitudes about Iraq?

How can we expect our allies to stand firm with us in Iraq (and elsewhere in the world), if we are publicly second-guessing our involvement? How do we think they might respond to accusations that Bush deliberately misled the country (and the world) to enter into war with Iraq? Do you think they might be dismayed? Do you think they might be reluctant to support us in future conflicts?

As our allies see our resolve and commitment begin to crumble, do you think they will just hang around? I suspect that they might want to remove their troops from harm's way. Once they begin pulling their troops, the Left will use this as further rationale for our immediate withdrawal.

Heaven help the U.S. if we prematurely withdraw from Iraq. If we leave these people to annihilation by the terrorists, I don't see how we can ever approach our allies in the future and expect them to support us in foreign conflicts.

It would be a self-inflicted wound from which we would never recover.

More Good News from Iraq

2005-11-21T07:07:00.000-08:00

While it looks like Zarqawi is still on the run, this good news was buried in an article in today's Washington Post...

Over the past month, the official said, there has been a series of raids following a surge in tips from Iraqis unhappy with Zarqawi and his operation. These tend to be traditional Iraqi leaders -- sheiks and imams -- upset with the organization, especially its recent execution of Sunni Arabs in Ramadi, the provincial capital of Anbar. "Their feeling is that al Qaeda in Iraq has overstepped its bounds," he said.

One of our biggest problems in dealing with an in-country 'insurgency' (read: terrorists) is the tacit complicity of their fellow countrymen. Iraqi leaders may have been willing to 'hedge their bets', by outwardly supporting the U.S., but yet doing nothing to stop Zarqawi and his thugs. If they are now willing to turn him in, I think his days are numbered.

Was Zarqawi Killed and Would that be 'Progress'?

2005-11-20T22:41:00.000-08:00

Rumors abound that Zarqawi was killed in a gunfight in Mosul on Saturday. Here is the latest story from ABC News. The Jerusalem Post has another article here.

FoxNews tonight reported that, while some of the terrorists were killed by U.S. gunfire, several of them blew themselves up, rather than be captured.

In any case, Zarqawi has been denounced by his family. Hopefully, as his supporters diminish, our chances of catching or killing him will increase.

So, do you think that the Dems would consider this 'progress in Iraq'? Probably not, since they don't consider the following as signs of progress:

*First elections ever
*Drafting of country's first Constitution ever
*Sunnis regretting not voting in first election; urging members to vote in upcoming election
*Rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure
*Creation of an Iraqi military, fighting side-by-side with U.S. troops
*Terrorist encounters changing from strategic military operations to suicide bombings

I think that the mainstream media should have the decency to at least report the number of terrorists killed and captured next to the U.S. death tolls printed daily in the newspapers. The American people need some sort of context in order to understand how the war is really progressing.

It will be a fatal mistake if we make cruicial decisions about our foreign policy based on opinion polls based on inaccurate, misleading information from the mainstream news media.

By the way, I know I'm rambling, but Jack Murtha quoted a statistic (twice) in the floor debate over the withdrawal resolution Friday night. He stated that 80% of the Iraqi people want the U.S. out of Iraq (or don't want us there--not sure of the exact wording--it was late and my blood pressure was soaring). Has anyone seen this particular survey? I would love to know who conducted the survey and how the question was worded.

While I am sure that the Iraqis eventually want the U.S. to leave, thus signaling Iraqi stability and sovereignty, I can't believe that they want us to leave NOW. It would be interesting if someone could do some fact-checking on this one.

Women and Heart Disease

2005-11-20T21:54:00.000-08:00

Fascinating blog post from Dr. Helen, who is the wife of Glen Reynolds, of Instapundit fame, on her mis-diagnosed heart attack.

Should be required reading for all women and their physicians.

Perhaps someone should start a 'pink ribbon' campaign for women's heart health.

Thoughts for the Day

2005-11-20T11:12:00.000-08:00

This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer. ~Will Rogers

Congress is so strange. A man gets up to speak and says nothing. Nobody listens - and then everybody disagrees. ~Boris Marshalov

Republicans Call Dems' Bluff

2005-11-19T22:20:00.000-08:00

In a brilliant stroke of genius last night, the Republicans in Congress called for a vote on the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. (Good post: A Spine is Detected). This forced the Democrats to basically 'put up or shut up' over the war in Iraq. We listened to the whole thing on C-SPAN Satellite Radio as we were driving up to Minneapolis.

The Democrats have been calling George W. Bush, the President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief a liar for the past several weeks. So, it is hard to understand their frenzy last night when the following occurred...

Members were heatedly debating a procedural rule concerning the Hunter resolution when Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) was recognized at 5:20 p.m. Schmidt won a special election in August, defeating Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett, and is so new to Congress that some colleagues do not know her name.

She told colleagues that "a few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bubp," an Ohio legislator and Marine Corps Reserve officer. "He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do."

Dozens of Democrats erupted at once, pointing angrily at Schmidt and shouting repeatedly, "Take her words down" -- the House term for retracting a statement. For a moment Schmidt tried to keep speaking, but the uproar continued and several GOP colleagues surrounded her as she sat down, looking slightly dazed. Presiding officer Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) gaveled in vain for order as Democrats continued shouting for Schmidt to take back her words. Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.) yelled "You guys are pathetic!" from the far end of the Democratic section to the GOP side.

Just as matters seemed to calm a bit, Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.) suddenly charged across the aisle to the GOP seats, jabbing his finger furiously at a small group of GOP members and shouting, "Say Murtha's name!" Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.), who had led the chants for striking Schmidt's comments, gently guided Ford by the arm back to the minority party's side.

At 5:31, when order was finally restored, Schmidt rose again and said softly, "My words were not directed at any member of the House." She asked that they "be withdrawn" from the record.

It was a very bad idea to have her words withdrawn from the record, because this gives license to the Dems and the media to reconstruct what she actually said. Watch for them to spin this as an 'attack' on Murtha.

Whoa. No sooner had I typed these words than I saw this great post at The California Conservative.

She didn't attack Murtha. She said that she got a call from a fellow legislator who asked her to remind Murtha that cowards cut and run. Since Murtha is suggesting that we cut and run, I guess the shoe fits. While he is (was?) a war hero and deserves our gratitude for serving his country bravely, this does not exempt him from criticism when he makes a cowardly suggestion. (And apparently doesn't keep him from making a cowardly suggestion).

But you had to hear the rest of the debate that evening (and this probably won't be reported in any major media outlet). Murtha used his time at the end of the debate to tell story after story of individual families and soldiers dealing with the tragedy of injury and loss of life.

Now, the American people place a high value on individual lives, unlike the terrorists. No one wants to lose our young men and women (or older ones, for that matter) in a conflict in a distant part of the world that few of us will ever see and most of us will never understand.

That is why the terrorists blow up innocent men, women and children. That is why they kidnap and behead unarmed contractors and drag burned bodies through the streets. To weaken our resolve and cause us to give up. So, by playing up the very same thing that the terrorists have identified as our weakness, isn't Murthau playing right into their hands?

Anway, after hours of bloviating, fist waving and foaming-at-the-mouth, in the end, the vote came down to 403 to 3. So, the 'heroic' Dems after arguing for weeks that...

*We should not be in Iraq.
*Bush deliberately misled the country to war.
*The Iraqi people don't want us there.
*We are making terrorism worse.
*We are causing the rest of the world to hate us.

...voted that *gulp* we should, "stay the course". Kind of makes your head spin, doesn't it?

It will be fascinating to see how the Democrats try to resuscitate the 'let's withdraw from Iraq' mantra after all of the them voted against it.

"Your comments may be recorded for training purposes....."

2005-11-15T19:46:00.000-08:00

Check this out.

The American Spectator has a post on their site courtesy of The Washington Prowler, listing quotable quotes from the Democrats on the subject of Saddam Hussein and Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Also, check out the excellent video posted on the Republican National Committee website, showing some of these quotes (and others) in video format.

Either the Democrats think the American people are incredibly stupid, or they are basing their tactics on the world of the 'old media', where they could manipulate history and remain unchallenged.

Rockefeller Lies, People Die

2005-11-15T06:20:00.000-08:00

If you have ever watched a magician, you know that one of their key techniques is diversion. While they are waving their wands in the air, or twirling their cape, they distract you so that you don't notice them pulling the coin out of their sleeve.

This has been the approach of the Democrats. Keep harping on the 'pre-war intelligence', "where are the WMDs?" and question Bush's motivations to keep the American people distracted from the true progress in Iraq and the vital strategic importance of nurturing democracy in the Middle East. The Dems have scrupulously avoided any real debate on the war itself or offered any alternative strategies for dealing with either garden variety or state-sponsored terrorism. Business as usual for the Dems.

But recently, they have crossed the line with their tactics. And Bush is finally responding. It is about time.

Senator Jay Rockefeller made an amazing and chilling confession on Fox News Sunday. Here is an excerpt from William Bennett's NRO article.

Yesterday, on Fox News Sunday, the following exchange took place between Chris Wallace and U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:

WALLACE: Now, the President never said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. As you saw, you did say that. If anyone hyped the intelligence, isn't it Jay Rockefeller?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. The — I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I'll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq — that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.

While Democrats in Washington are berating the White House for having prewar intelligence wrong, a high-profile U.S. senator, member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, who has a name more internationally recognizable than Richard Cheney's, tells two putative allies (Saudi Arabia and Jordan) and an enemy who is allied with Saddam Hussein (Syria) that the United States was going to war with Iraq. This is not a prewar intelligence mistake, it is a prewar intelligence giveaway.

Syria is not only on the list of state sponsors of terrorism and the country many speculate is where Hussein has secreted weapons, it is also the country from which terrorists are flowing into Iraq to fight our troops and allies. Jordan and Saudi Arabia have had, over the years, conflicted loyalties. What was Senator Rockefeller doing? What was he thinking? And all this before President Bush even made a public speech about Iraq — to the U.N. or anyone else.

We can have our umpteenth investigation into what the White House knew and when it knew it about Iraqi weapons — we will find the same answer: It knew what President Clinton, Sandy Berger, Madeline Albright, and William Cohen knew when they made speeches about the dangers of Iraq in the late 1990s and when President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act. How about an investigation, now, into what exactly Senator Jay Rockefeller told Syria and just what Syria might have done with the information made available to them presumably before it was made available to the U.N., the Senate, or the American people.

Senators and congressmen don't have to agree with their president's policies, and they should make the president robustly defend his policies — but they should not be acting as if they are the president or secretary of state; they should not be tipping off sometimes friends and definitive enemies about war plans that not even the president has yet made as policy. This is the true mockery of prewar intelligence, and Senator Rockefeller should fully explain his actions.

If Syria — or elements in Saudi Arabia — began acting on this information before we even went to war in Iraq (more than a year later), then Senator Rockefeller may have seriously harmed, impeded, and hindered our war efforts, our troops, and the entire operation in the Middle East. This should be investigated immediately; and perhaps Senator Rockefeller should step down from the Intelligence Committee until an investigation is complete.

This is incredible. So. Do you think any of the major media outlets who thought that our national security had been compromised by 'outing' Valerie Plame (which no one actually did, by the way, lest you forget the truth in the constant barrage of lies)--do you think any of them will even report this exchange? Do you think any of them will call for an investigation? Do you think that any of them will call for Rockefeller's resignation? Don't hold your breath.

Meanwhile, Bush has finally stepped up to the plate and is fighting back. He made these comments in his speech at Elmendort Air Force Base in Alaska on Monday.

Reasonable people can disagree about the conduct of the war, but it is irresponsible for Democrats to now claim that we misled them and the American people. Leaders in my administration and members of the United States Congress from both political parties looked at the same intelligence on Iraq, and reached the same conclusion: Saddam Hussein was a threat.

Let me give you some quotes from three senior Democrat leaders: First, and I quote, "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons." Another senior Democrat leader said, "The war against terrorism will not be finished as long as Saddam Hussein is in power." Here's another quote from a senior Democrat leader: "Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think the President is approaching this in the right fashion."

They spoke the truth then, and they're speaking politics now. (Applause.)

The truth is that investigations of intelligence on Iraq have concluded that only one person manipulated evidence and misled the world -- and that person was Saddam Hussein. ***

Some of our elected leaders have opposed this war all along. I disagreed with them, but I respect their willingness to take a consistent stand. Yet some Democrats who voted to authorize the use of force are now rewriting the past. They are playing politics with this issue and they are sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy. And that's irresponsible.

As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them into war continue to stand behind them. (Applause.) Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. (Applause.) And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory. (Applause.)

You can read the text of the speech here.

Go, George, Go. This message is long overdue. It is one thing to disagree with the President's policy. It is one thing to question whether our intelligence community is effective and how we might improve it in the future to gain better information on our enemies. It is another thing entirely to start accusing Bush of deliberately lying and misleading the country. It is another thing to visit leaders of other countries (one a known enemy) and lie to them--undermining our President and our government.

In the old days, we would call it treason. Now, some would call it 'patriotism'.

Bush and the Republicans need to stage a media blitz to refute the lying tactics of the Left. Even if you agree with the anti-war crowd, their tactics should alarm you. Let's debate the issue of Iraq on its merits, not on baseless accusations. And let's remember that our debate is no longer confined to the boundaries of the U.S. We live in a global culture. Messages here, designed for political ends and aimed at the American people, can and will find a very different audience. With very real consequences.

The danger of a campaign based on lies is this...

"...in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes. ...

Who said it?

Adolf Hitler.

Think about it.

Palestinian Reaction to Suicide Bombing in Amman

2005-11-11T07:32:00.000-08:00

Interesting snippet this morning at the end of an MJS article attributed to Knight Ridder/AP/Washington Post on the recent terrorist attack in Amman, Jordan...

Palestinians mourn: In the Palestinian village of Silet Al Thaher in the West Bank, the Akhras clan mourned 17 relatives killed by one of the suicide bombers in Jordan -- the first time Palestinians have been a target in a suicide attack. (emphasis mine)

"Oh my God, oh my God. Is is possible that Arabs are killing Arabs, Muslims killing Muslims?" asked a weeping Najah Akhras, 35, who lost two nieces.

Similar thoughts were heard over and over in the West Bank and Gaza Strip on Thursday, as Palestinians expressed outrage over attacks aimed at civilians. (emphasis mine, again).

Indeed.

Palestinians have been targeting Israeli civilians for years, using suicide bombers. It will be interesting to see if this event has any power to change their hearts, now that they have experienced the tragedy of senseless, cowardly attacks on innocent civilians. Note that the bereaved aunt is upset because Arabs and Muslims are killing each other. It would be interesting to know whether this particular family was a supporter of terrorist attacks on Israel.

Opinions on Alito

2005-11-08T18:51:00.000-08:00

So much to blog....so little time. I was in Boston this week on business and unable to blog. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel published my editorial on the Dems reaction to Bush's nomination of Samuel Alito.

They also published a great piece by Ann Althouse. In fact, if you aren't familiar with Ann, check out her blog at http://althouse.blogspot.com.

She writes good stuff.

Do we care what Prince Charles thinks?

2005-11-03T18:59:00.000-08:00

Someone forgot to tell Prince Charles that the U.S. is no longer a colony in the British Empire.

The Prince of Wales will try to persuade George W Bush and Americans of the merits of Islam this week because he thinks the United States has been too intolerant of the religion since September 11. The Prince, who leaves on Tuesday for an eight-day tour of the US, has voiced private concerns over America's "confrontational" approach to Muslim countries and its failure to appreciate Islam's strengths.

The Prince raised his concerns when he met senior Muslims in London in November 2001. The gathering took place just two months after the attacks on New York and Washington. "I find the language and rhetoric coming from America too confrontational," the Prince said, according to one leader at the meeting.<

From The Telegraph.

Too confrontational? Intolerant? What would be the appropriate level of "tolerance" in response to the horrors of 9/11? The murders at Beslan? The genocide in Darfur? The beheadings of innocent, unarmed civilians?

As far as I know, the American president never declared war against Islam, just against Islamo-fascist terrorism. If we were truly intolerant of Islam, why wouldn't we have banned Islam in Iraq? Why do we provide copies of the Koran and broadcast prayer times for the prisoners in Gitmo? Why don't we ban all Muslims from entering into the United States?

What specifically, does His Royal Highness think that the U.S. should do differently? (not that we care, but my curiosity is getting the better of me).

I think the non-Muslim world would find the 'merits of Islam' more evident if the mainstream Muslim world would become confrontational over the acts of the lunatic fringe. But their silence is deafening.

This excerpt from an article in the Telegraph by Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, the general manager of Al- Arabiya news channel, is compelling.

It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims.

The hostage-takers of children in Beslan, North Ossetia, were Muslims. The other hostage-takers and subsequent murderers of the Nepalese chefs and workers in Iraq were also Muslims. Those involved in rape and murder in Darfur, Sudan, are Muslims, with other Muslims chosen to be their victims.

Those responsible for the attacks on residential towers in Riyadh and Khobar were Muslims. The two women who crashed two airliners last week were also Muslims.

Bin Laden is a Muslim. The majority of those who manned the suicide bombings against buses, vehicles, schools, houses and buildings, all over the world, were Muslim.

What a pathetic record. What an abominable "achievement". Does all this tell us anything about ourselves, our societies and our culture?

These images, when put together, or taken separately, are shameful and degrading. But let us start with putting an end to a history of denial. Let us acknowledge their reality, instead of denying them and seeking to justify them with sound and fury signifying nothing.
We cannot tolerate in our midst those who abduct journalists, murder civilians, explode buses; we cannot accept them as related to us, whatever the sufferings they claim to justify their criminal deeds. These are the people who have smeared Islam and stained its image.

We cannot clear our names unless we own up to the shameful fact that terrorism has become an Islamic enterprise; an almost exclusive monopoly, implemented by Muslim men and women.

Read the whole thing.

Anyway, it will be fascinating to see what the bonnie Prince advises. I don’t think most Americans really care.

Problems at the CIA

2005-11-03T07:45:00.000-08:00

If you are not a regular Powerline reader already, check out "My Favorite Democrat, Part 21" for an excellent synopsis written in plain English on the fishy business surrounding Joe Wilson's trip to Niger.

Scott summarizes a Wall Street Journal article (subscribers only) from Victoria Toensing that contrasts the behavior of the CIA in the Wilson/Plame situation with their standard operating procedures and policies.

Either the CIA is woefully inept or they were clearly up to dirty tricks. Read it and draw your own conclusion. Our country needs a strong competent apolitical CIA, now in these days of international terrorism more than ever. Too bad we don't have a Congress who is more interested in getting to the bottom of this than of trying to destroy the White House.

It's Not Easy Being Green....

2005-10-31T20:32:00.000-08:00

Just in time for Halloween, the New York Times pubishes this photo of Samuel Alito, Bush's new SCOTUS pick. (From Confederate Yankee).

...and everyone is complaining because Bush picked a WHITE male.

If you haven't already, check out Michelle Malkin for altered pix of Condi and some great posts on the subliminal messaging of photojournalism.

It Depends On What Your Definition of "Corruption" Is

2005-10-31T18:03:00.000-08:00

Can you believe all of the liberal media hysteria over the indictments of Scooter Libby? Cries of "corruption", "smear campaigns", "outing a CIA covert agent" abound, even though there is absolutely no evidence that anything of the kind actually occurred!

Seems these folks have very short memories. Remember the Clinton administration? Now, there was a 'culture of corruption'. John at The Citizen's Journal has done a great job of providing a synopsis of the Clinton legacy as chronicled by The Progressive Review.

Check out the whole thing, but here are a few of the highlights.

THE CLINTON LEGACY
RECORDS SET
- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates**
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.

It goes on (and on, and on).

Remember the preachiness of the media during the Clinton era? The villification of Kenneth Starr? The vast right-wing conspiracy?

And they say that elephants have short memories.

More on Libby

2005-10-29T23:22:00.000-07:00

Here is another excellent article by Stephen F. Hayes on the Libby indictments. Here is what prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has to say about the relevance of the charges to the media assertions that this is all about the justification for the Iraq war

Fitzgerald was asked directly about the connection between the indictment and the Iraq war during his press conference Friday.

Question: A lot of Americans, people who are opposed to the war, critics of the administration, have looked to your investigation with hope in some ways and might see this indictment as a vindication of their argument that the administration took the country to war on false premises.
Does this indictment do that?

Fitzgerald: This indictment is not about the war. This indictment's not about the propriety of the war. And people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel.

This is simply an indictment that says, in a national security investigation about the compromise of a CIA officer's identity that may have taken place in the context of a very heated debate over the war, whether some person--a person, Mr. Libby--lied or not.

The indictment will not seek to prove that the war was justified or unjustified. This is stripped of that debate, and this is focused on a narrow transaction.
And I think anyone who's concerned about the war and has feelings for or against shouldn't look to this criminal process for any answers or resolution of that.

Watch for continuing swirls of hype around this story, completely obfuscating the actual facts.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.