In a previous blog I said I wanted to dispel some of the most common myths surrounding the War on Terror and the War in Iraq, so here's the first in a series of mythbusters. I hope you'll find them illuminating as background information for the war effort and future discussions on radical Islamic jihad.
Anyone who truly believes we went into Iraq for oil is either completely misinformed or completely nuts. We're not going to take over production of Iraqi oil - we fixed up their refineries so Iraq could begin their own oil production to get on their feet as a viable nation again. Is a free, democratic, and U.S.-friendly Iraq in our best interest? Of course. Any stabilizing presence in the Middle East is a good thing. Iraq is one of the world's largest oil producers, so a stable Iraq is good for the entire world. But does it help the U.S. specifically? No, not at all.
What about Halliburton? What about them? Part of the deal when Cheney became Vice President was that he was forced to sell of all his interests in Halliburton. He no longer gains by Halliburton's financial success. Furthermore, can you name one company that does the same kind of mass-scale infrastructure construction work that Halliburton does? I didn't think so.
There's my two cents.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Thursday, July 12, 2007
More on the New York Times
Remember my recent blog about the New York Times' descent into utter failure? This is a perfect example of why.
On July 8th, the Times published an editorial called 'The Road Home' which was one big surrender-fest. Here's the nutshell version: we've lost, it's all our fault, Bush is stupid, Bush is evil, we're all stupid for believing Bush, Al Qaeda isn't in Iraq, it's all our fault.
Is it any wonder Americans are migrating away from the 'paper of record'? Contrary to what the editors there seem to think, Americans aren't losers, nor stupid, nor at fault here!
Noted commentator Victor Davis Hanson writes a scathing piece today that completely obliterates the Times editorial point by point. I couldn't begin to do it justice to try to summarize, so I suggest you take a moment to read both pieces. Hanson's critique is a thing of beauty.
There's my two cents.
On July 8th, the Times published an editorial called 'The Road Home' which was one big surrender-fest. Here's the nutshell version: we've lost, it's all our fault, Bush is stupid, Bush is evil, we're all stupid for believing Bush, Al Qaeda isn't in Iraq, it's all our fault.
Is it any wonder Americans are migrating away from the 'paper of record'? Contrary to what the editors there seem to think, Americans aren't losers, nor stupid, nor at fault here!
Noted commentator Victor Davis Hanson writes a scathing piece today that completely obliterates the Times editorial point by point. I couldn't begin to do it justice to try to summarize, so I suggest you take a moment to read both pieces. Hanson's critique is a thing of beauty.
There's my two cents.
Shame In the House
The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill this afternoon to begin the retreat from Iraq by a vote of 223-201. To see how your reps voted, go here.
The bad news: this is exactly the sort of thing that demoralizes our troops by sending the signal that their elected leaders are bailing out. It also encourages our enemies by sending the same signal.
The good news: this is nowhere near the 2/3 majority that would be needed to make the bill veto-proof (it's a safe assumption that Bush will veto the bill).
This bill is likely not going anywhere, so it's not going to cause any damage that way, but the perception it sends could have huge negative ramifications. Time will tell.
There's my two cents.
***UPDATE: Michelle Malkin nicely summarizes the key points. Regarding the outcome, House Republican Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.) says, in part: "Democrats in the House once again this evening put themselves on record in support of a strategy of surrender in Iraq – this time passing a bill that satisfies their temporary political needs, but fails to consider the needs of our troops and commanders in the field."
When the 2008 election comes knocking, just remember which party is fighting to surrender, and which party is fighting to succeed.
The bad news: this is exactly the sort of thing that demoralizes our troops by sending the signal that their elected leaders are bailing out. It also encourages our enemies by sending the same signal.
The good news: this is nowhere near the 2/3 majority that would be needed to make the bill veto-proof (it's a safe assumption that Bush will veto the bill).
This bill is likely not going anywhere, so it's not going to cause any damage that way, but the perception it sends could have huge negative ramifications. Time will tell.
There's my two cents.
***UPDATE: Michelle Malkin nicely summarizes the key points. Regarding the outcome, House Republican Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.) says, in part: "Democrats in the House once again this evening put themselves on record in support of a strategy of surrender in Iraq – this time passing a bill that satisfies their temporary political needs, but fails to consider the needs of our troops and commanders in the field."
When the 2008 election comes knocking, just remember which party is fighting to surrender, and which party is fighting to succeed.
Don't Surrender Yet
NRO also reports on Missouri Republican Kit Bond's Tuesday remarks about an early retreat:
"Lincoln chose to fight a bloody and unpopular war because he believed the enemy had to be defeated. Despite being reviled for staying the course, President Lincoln did stay the course. Unfortunately, too many of my colleagues today don’t seem to be willing to see this one through. Here we are again, barely weeks into the full implementation of General Petraeus’s surge, and the naysayers continue to argue for defeat. It was only a few months ago this body had been calling for and looking for a new strategy, which I believed we must have, which changed the unsuccessful strategy we had, which argued for the Baker-Hamilton report, which said in essence you have to have a new strategy, you cannot precipitously withdraw. We came forward and General Petraeus drafted a counter-insurgency strategy. That is what he told us he was going to do, supported by the surge. Now people want to pull the rug out from under him. He said at least give him until September to see if this new counter-insurgency strategy works."
Says NRO: "Senator Bond quoted a Missouri National Guardsman, Colonel Bob Leeker, who has just returned from commanding the 507th Air Expeditionary Group in Iraq: 'I only hope that the American people will give us the time. The American people must understand that this is not only about Iraq, it is a fight against Muslim fanaticism, Muslim extremists. If we pull out in the near term, or at the wrong time, there will be an incredible amount of blood running throughout Iraq, and the blood and sweat that I and my brethren in arms have already given will be for nought.'
Bond underscored Col. Leeker’s plea: 'These are compelling words. They ought not to be taken lightly. Not only is the security and safety of our Nation and allies at stake, but so too is our credibility.'"
You'll have to make your own decision about which viewpoint you agree with, but make sure you truly understand both sides before you make that decision.
There's my two cents.
"Lincoln chose to fight a bloody and unpopular war because he believed the enemy had to be defeated. Despite being reviled for staying the course, President Lincoln did stay the course. Unfortunately, too many of my colleagues today don’t seem to be willing to see this one through. Here we are again, barely weeks into the full implementation of General Petraeus’s surge, and the naysayers continue to argue for defeat. It was only a few months ago this body had been calling for and looking for a new strategy, which I believed we must have, which changed the unsuccessful strategy we had, which argued for the Baker-Hamilton report, which said in essence you have to have a new strategy, you cannot precipitously withdraw. We came forward and General Petraeus drafted a counter-insurgency strategy. That is what he told us he was going to do, supported by the surge. Now people want to pull the rug out from under him. He said at least give him until September to see if this new counter-insurgency strategy works."
Says NRO: "Senator Bond quoted a Missouri National Guardsman, Colonel Bob Leeker, who has just returned from commanding the 507th Air Expeditionary Group in Iraq: 'I only hope that the American people will give us the time. The American people must understand that this is not only about Iraq, it is a fight against Muslim fanaticism, Muslim extremists. If we pull out in the near term, or at the wrong time, there will be an incredible amount of blood running throughout Iraq, and the blood and sweat that I and my brethren in arms have already given will be for nought.'
Bond underscored Col. Leeker’s plea: 'These are compelling words. They ought not to be taken lightly. Not only is the security and safety of our Nation and allies at stake, but so too is our credibility.'"
You'll have to make your own decision about which viewpoint you agree with, but make sure you truly understand both sides before you make that decision.
There's my two cents.
Claire McCaskill on 'Squandering'
NRO reports that Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill recently spoke on the Senate floor with these words: "We are stuck in a situation that is squandering the lives of our bravest, and it is also squandering the future of our nation because of the financial toll it is taking on our budget".
According to these remarks, she seems to be pushing for a rapid retreat from Iraq. Interestingly enough, I spoke with someone from her office earlier this week, and they assured me she is not in favor of any measure that puts Missouri troops in any greater danger. Since any kind of timetable (that is not based on success) will inevitably harm troop morale as well as actually cause more violence in the long run, something doesn't add up.
Playing politics here, Senator?
There's my two cents.
According to these remarks, she seems to be pushing for a rapid retreat from Iraq. Interestingly enough, I spoke with someone from her office earlier this week, and they assured me she is not in favor of any measure that puts Missouri troops in any greater danger. Since any kind of timetable (that is not based on success) will inevitably harm troop morale as well as actually cause more violence in the long run, something doesn't add up.
Playing politics here, Senator?
There's my two cents.
Benchmark Hypocrisy
Congress (Democrats and some Republicans, too) is accusing the fledgling Iraqi government of falling short on political benchmarks, using those accusations as justification for a retreat in Iraq. Hm, let's see. In the past six months of the current Congressional session, what have those same Congressional leaders accomplished?
One bill, on the minimum wage.
Not that the minimum wage isn't important, but it's certainly not on a par with immigration reform, health care reform, social security reform, judicial nominations, or any of the other major things that haven't been done yet. Democrats have led our Congress twice as long as Petraeus has led the U.S. forces in Iraq, but have accomplished nowhere near as much. And, if approval polls are what should be used to direct these things, then shouldn't we get rid of Congress since their poll numbers are far worse than Bush's?
Now, let's contrast the situations. American Congressional leaders live in luxury and complete safety, with chauffers and private jets to take them wherever they choose to go. They live in mansions (some more than one) with top-notch security and full staffs to cater to their needs. They're operating in a long-established process of legislation, with established rules and practices that are well understood. In Iraq, the governmental leaders literally risk life and limb every day, thwarting assassination attempts and fearing for the lives of their families to set up a brand new government out of a three-party country that is currently being torn by terrorist violence. How dare our spineless Congressional leaders squawk about a lack of Iraqi progress in the middle of a war when they can't accomplish anything in the most safe and prosperous society in the history of the planet!
The thing that this report should tell the American people is that real progress is being made in Iraq, especially in the area of the Iraqi military and security forces. Doesn't it make sense that those are the areas that need to be improved first? What good is a new government if there is no military power to enforce and secure it? By contrast, a military presence that provides security and safety will create the conditions that will allow the government to be formed. And don't forget - forming a government takes a lot of time and patience; it took the U.S. 12 years to begin operating under our Constitution.
Let's not allow panic to ensue here. Be patient, let Petraeus and the U.S. troops do their job. They're winning, and as I said before, the only way their success won't translate into ultimate victory is if Washington politicians get in the way.
There's my two cents.
One bill, on the minimum wage.
Not that the minimum wage isn't important, but it's certainly not on a par with immigration reform, health care reform, social security reform, judicial nominations, or any of the other major things that haven't been done yet. Democrats have led our Congress twice as long as Petraeus has led the U.S. forces in Iraq, but have accomplished nowhere near as much. And, if approval polls are what should be used to direct these things, then shouldn't we get rid of Congress since their poll numbers are far worse than Bush's?
Now, let's contrast the situations. American Congressional leaders live in luxury and complete safety, with chauffers and private jets to take them wherever they choose to go. They live in mansions (some more than one) with top-notch security and full staffs to cater to their needs. They're operating in a long-established process of legislation, with established rules and practices that are well understood. In Iraq, the governmental leaders literally risk life and limb every day, thwarting assassination attempts and fearing for the lives of their families to set up a brand new government out of a three-party country that is currently being torn by terrorist violence. How dare our spineless Congressional leaders squawk about a lack of Iraqi progress in the middle of a war when they can't accomplish anything in the most safe and prosperous society in the history of the planet!
The thing that this report should tell the American people is that real progress is being made in Iraq, especially in the area of the Iraqi military and security forces. Doesn't it make sense that those are the areas that need to be improved first? What good is a new government if there is no military power to enforce and secure it? By contrast, a military presence that provides security and safety will create the conditions that will allow the government to be formed. And don't forget - forming a government takes a lot of time and patience; it took the U.S. 12 years to begin operating under our Constitution.
Let's not allow panic to ensue here. Be patient, let Petraeus and the U.S. troops do their job. They're winning, and as I said before, the only way their success won't translate into ultimate victory is if Washington politicians get in the way.
There's my two cents.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Better Than Expected Progress
See? The surge IS working!
ABC News reports: "An eagerly awaited White House report on Iraq will be released tomorrow, which will claim that the Iraqi government has made satisfactory progress on eight of the 18 benchmarks set by Congress."
John McCain said in a briefing: "We adopted a new strategy, and this strategy is succeeding and should be given a chance to succeed."
The positives are mainly around the progress of Iraqi security forces; the negatives are mainly around the political progress. There are two benchmarks that are 'mixed'.
The most remarkable changes are in Anbar province, which has seen a dramatic drop in violence. Just a year ago, it was considered the most dangerous place in Iraq.
So, just more proof that the surge is working despite the fact that it's only been at full force for a couple of weeks. Petraeus' strategy is having a noticeable effect, and he just needs a little more time. We need to pressure our representatives to give him that time, and give our troops and our mission the best possible chance at success.
There's my two cents.
ABC News reports: "An eagerly awaited White House report on Iraq will be released tomorrow, which will claim that the Iraqi government has made satisfactory progress on eight of the 18 benchmarks set by Congress."
John McCain said in a briefing: "We adopted a new strategy, and this strategy is succeeding and should be given a chance to succeed."
The positives are mainly around the progress of Iraqi security forces; the negatives are mainly around the political progress. There are two benchmarks that are 'mixed'.
The most remarkable changes are in Anbar province, which has seen a dramatic drop in violence. Just a year ago, it was considered the most dangerous place in Iraq.
So, just more proof that the surge is working despite the fact that it's only been at full force for a couple of weeks. Petraeus' strategy is having a noticeable effect, and he just needs a little more time. We need to pressure our representatives to give him that time, and give our troops and our mission the best possible chance at success.
There's my two cents.
Pork, Success, Failure, and Hope - More Quick Hits
Another series of quick hits for you to consider...
Quick Hit #1: Pork, Pork, and more Pork. What is pork, in the political sense? In a word: overspending. A perfect example was the first Iraq war funding bill that Bush vetoed a few weeks ago. In order to get enough support for the withdrawal timeline included in the funding bill, the Democrat-led Congress sent a funding bill to the White House with $24 billion of pork - special projects (usually for specific areas/industries) meant to buy the support of individual Senators. Pork is a part of politics, but shouldn't be. Powerline has posted links to a pork index done by The Examiner. Check this out to see just how often your Senators are guilty of throwing pork into legislation. Hint: it ain't good, especially for Missouri...
Quick Hit #2: MO Senators Bringing Home the Bacon. Speaking of pork, Missouri is one of the worst states overall (especially since Jim Talent left office) at excessive pork. Bond has one of the worst scores on the chart, and McCaskill is only slightly better. This would probably be a good thing to complain to them about...
Quick Hit #3: The Surge Protector. Quin Hillyer at the American Spectator wrote a great column today about how Bush can pull success out of the war in Iraq. His ideas have merit:
1. change the terms of the debate with new communications strategies and tactics (it's no secret the Bush administration has never been very good at communicating their message)
2. do something dramatic (one example would be to utilize the growing unease of several Arab countries at Iran's continued bullying to marshall support for our efforts in Iraq)
3. redefine the benchmarks for success in Iraq (to show the real progress being made)
4. work to "flip" a few noted skeptics
Hillyer maintains that what our troops are doing over there is the right thing to do, and that Bush can still succeed if he is able to use these tactics to buy enough time to let the progress overwhelm the skeptics.
Quick Hit #4: Falling long and hard. The New York Times continues to struggle. Michelle Malkin posts a thread about how its ad revenue has dropped almost 9% over the past year and its financial outlook is very poor. Hm, that couldn't be because they hate everything about America, could it? As Malkin summarizes: "The market speaks."
Quick Hit #5: McCain and Lieberman on Iraq Failure. At least there are a couple of sane voices in the U.S. Senate about this retreat debacle-in-the-making! Powerline says today that McCain reports from his recent trip to Iraq, saying "Should the Congress force a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, it would mark a new beginning, the start of a new, more dangerous, and more arduous effort to contain the forces unleashed by our disengagement." He goes on: "Already, the terrorists are emboldened, excited that America is talking not about winning in Iraq, but is rather debating when we should lose." "If we leave Iraq prematurely, jihadists around the world will interpret the withdrawal as their great victory against our great power. Their movement thrives in an atmosphere of perceived victory; we saw this in the surge of men and money flowing to al Qaeda following the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. If they defeat the United States in Iraq, they will believe that anything is possible, that history is on their side, that they really can bring their terrible rule to lands the world over. Recall the plan laid out in a letter from Zawahiri to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, before his death. That plan is to take shape in four stages: establish a caliphate in Iraq, extend the “jihad wave” to the secular countries neighboring Iraq, clash with Israel — none of which shall commence until the completion of stage one: expel the Americans from Iraq. Mr. President, the terrorists are in this war to win it. The question is: Are we?"
Lieberman joins him in decrying a retreat. Rush Limbaugh reports on an interview Lieberman had with CNN, where Lieberman said, "I think it's worth winning and fighting to win because if we don't, Iran and Al-Qaeda win. Iraq falls apart. The Middle East is in chaos, and they come after us back here at home. I think we have a chance to turn this around, and shame on us if Congress, from here, legislates a defeat that our military will never allow to happen over there."
I only hope they can stem the tide of defectors and nay-sayers and give Petraeus and our troops the time they need to accomplish their mission. The only way our troops will lose is if Washington gets in the way.
There's my two cents.
Quick Hit #1: Pork, Pork, and more Pork. What is pork, in the political sense? In a word: overspending. A perfect example was the first Iraq war funding bill that Bush vetoed a few weeks ago. In order to get enough support for the withdrawal timeline included in the funding bill, the Democrat-led Congress sent a funding bill to the White House with $24 billion of pork - special projects (usually for specific areas/industries) meant to buy the support of individual Senators. Pork is a part of politics, but shouldn't be. Powerline has posted links to a pork index done by The Examiner. Check this out to see just how often your Senators are guilty of throwing pork into legislation. Hint: it ain't good, especially for Missouri...
Quick Hit #2: MO Senators Bringing Home the Bacon. Speaking of pork, Missouri is one of the worst states overall (especially since Jim Talent left office) at excessive pork. Bond has one of the worst scores on the chart, and McCaskill is only slightly better. This would probably be a good thing to complain to them about...
Quick Hit #3: The Surge Protector. Quin Hillyer at the American Spectator wrote a great column today about how Bush can pull success out of the war in Iraq. His ideas have merit:
1. change the terms of the debate with new communications strategies and tactics (it's no secret the Bush administration has never been very good at communicating their message)
2. do something dramatic (one example would be to utilize the growing unease of several Arab countries at Iran's continued bullying to marshall support for our efforts in Iraq)
3. redefine the benchmarks for success in Iraq (to show the real progress being made)
4. work to "flip" a few noted skeptics
Hillyer maintains that what our troops are doing over there is the right thing to do, and that Bush can still succeed if he is able to use these tactics to buy enough time to let the progress overwhelm the skeptics.
Quick Hit #4: Falling long and hard. The New York Times continues to struggle. Michelle Malkin posts a thread about how its ad revenue has dropped almost 9% over the past year and its financial outlook is very poor. Hm, that couldn't be because they hate everything about America, could it? As Malkin summarizes: "The market speaks."
Quick Hit #5: McCain and Lieberman on Iraq Failure. At least there are a couple of sane voices in the U.S. Senate about this retreat debacle-in-the-making! Powerline says today that McCain reports from his recent trip to Iraq, saying "Should the Congress force a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, it would mark a new beginning, the start of a new, more dangerous, and more arduous effort to contain the forces unleashed by our disengagement." He goes on: "Already, the terrorists are emboldened, excited that America is talking not about winning in Iraq, but is rather debating when we should lose." "If we leave Iraq prematurely, jihadists around the world will interpret the withdrawal as their great victory against our great power. Their movement thrives in an atmosphere of perceived victory; we saw this in the surge of men and money flowing to al Qaeda following the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. If they defeat the United States in Iraq, they will believe that anything is possible, that history is on their side, that they really can bring their terrible rule to lands the world over. Recall the plan laid out in a letter from Zawahiri to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, before his death. That plan is to take shape in four stages: establish a caliphate in Iraq, extend the “jihad wave” to the secular countries neighboring Iraq, clash with Israel — none of which shall commence until the completion of stage one: expel the Americans from Iraq. Mr. President, the terrorists are in this war to win it. The question is: Are we?"
Lieberman joins him in decrying a retreat. Rush Limbaugh reports on an interview Lieberman had with CNN, where Lieberman said, "I think it's worth winning and fighting to win because if we don't, Iran and Al-Qaeda win. Iraq falls apart. The Middle East is in chaos, and they come after us back here at home. I think we have a chance to turn this around, and shame on us if Congress, from here, legislates a defeat that our military will never allow to happen over there."
I only hope they can stem the tide of defectors and nay-sayers and give Petraeus and our troops the time they need to accomplish their mission. The only way our troops will lose is if Washington gets in the way.
There's my two cents.
Why Invoke Executive Privilege...
...if there's nothing to hide?
Scooter Libby.
As discussed previously, Libby was not guilty of any real crime (in fact, no crime had been committed by anyone). But, Fitzgerald got him on the stand and was able to twist Libby's testimony into falsehoods, thus getting Libby convicted in a farce trial.
So what is executive privilege? It's basically the freedom for the President to have candid and confidential discussions with his closest advisors without fear that those discussions could be forced into the public.
In addition to the further Libby investigations, Bush has invoked executive privilege for a couple other high-profile issues: the firing of trial attorneys and the terrorist surveillance program. In the case of the terrorist surveillance, the Editors of NRO write that the White House has already provided "stacks of records" on the topic, and there is no real cause to think that Congress will gain any new insights on the legal process involved by hearing testimony.
In the same article, NRO says that for the firing of U.S. attorneys, the White House has already provided 8,500 pages of documents (and, in this case, the testimony of numerous officials and former officials). But, that doesn't appear to be enough for a Congress that seems intent on chasing down every conspiracy theory about firings that were completely within Bush's authority to do.
Why would the White House want to avoid sending people to the stand in these non-scandal 'scandals'? Chances are good that enough grilling and enough testimony could trip up just about anyone, so it's safest not to even allow for the chance of that happening, even if there's nothing to hide. Don't believe me? Look at this story in the New York Times where the Bush administration has offered to have aides meet with committees privately in informal sessions with no transcripts, but Congress declined.
Besides, executive privilege is a completely legal Constitutional action that can be taken by the President.
The real hypocrisy here is that these same Democrat leaders in Congress seem to have conveniently forgotten that Bill Clinton fired all 93 U.S. attorneys when he became President (the rumor was that one of them was investigating a friend of Clinton's, but Clinton didn't want it to look like he was hiding something so he fired all of them). Where was the outrage then? There wasn't any - it was perfectly legal for Clinton to do it. The fact is that U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. They can be hired and fired at will, for no reason at all.
Congress needs to stop creating scandals where none exist. They have passed just a single piece of meaningful legislation in its first six months this year -- raising the minimum wage -- while firing off literally hundreds of inconsequential investigations into the Bush administration. When are we going to stand up and call them to account for their (lack of) actions?
There's my two cents.
Scooter Libby.
As discussed previously, Libby was not guilty of any real crime (in fact, no crime had been committed by anyone). But, Fitzgerald got him on the stand and was able to twist Libby's testimony into falsehoods, thus getting Libby convicted in a farce trial.
So what is executive privilege? It's basically the freedom for the President to have candid and confidential discussions with his closest advisors without fear that those discussions could be forced into the public.
In addition to the further Libby investigations, Bush has invoked executive privilege for a couple other high-profile issues: the firing of trial attorneys and the terrorist surveillance program. In the case of the terrorist surveillance, the Editors of NRO write that the White House has already provided "stacks of records" on the topic, and there is no real cause to think that Congress will gain any new insights on the legal process involved by hearing testimony.
In the same article, NRO says that for the firing of U.S. attorneys, the White House has already provided 8,500 pages of documents (and, in this case, the testimony of numerous officials and former officials). But, that doesn't appear to be enough for a Congress that seems intent on chasing down every conspiracy theory about firings that were completely within Bush's authority to do.
Why would the White House want to avoid sending people to the stand in these non-scandal 'scandals'? Chances are good that enough grilling and enough testimony could trip up just about anyone, so it's safest not to even allow for the chance of that happening, even if there's nothing to hide. Don't believe me? Look at this story in the New York Times where the Bush administration has offered to have aides meet with committees privately in informal sessions with no transcripts, but Congress declined.
Besides, executive privilege is a completely legal Constitutional action that can be taken by the President.
The real hypocrisy here is that these same Democrat leaders in Congress seem to have conveniently forgotten that Bill Clinton fired all 93 U.S. attorneys when he became President (the rumor was that one of them was investigating a friend of Clinton's, but Clinton didn't want it to look like he was hiding something so he fired all of them). Where was the outrage then? There wasn't any - it was perfectly legal for Clinton to do it. The fact is that U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. They can be hired and fired at will, for no reason at all.
Congress needs to stop creating scandals where none exist. They have passed just a single piece of meaningful legislation in its first six months this year -- raising the minimum wage -- while firing off literally hundreds of inconsequential investigations into the Bush administration. When are we going to stand up and call them to account for their (lack of) actions?
There's my two cents.
The Shame of the Senate, True Progress in Iraq
Tony Blankley writes a scathing piece at Real Clear Politics today about the shameful actions of the U.S. Senate. He points out several leading Senators who are advocating a retreat from Iraq based purely on bad feelings. He rightfully points out that if we give al Qaeda even a plausible claim at winning the war against us, they will be vastly emboldened and gain an even larger following. By not finishing the fight in Iraq, we will be inviting the fight here at home.
The big question Blankley illuminates is whether we are safer if we leave than if we stay (look at my previous blog if you want to know what key people involved think about that). Even Bush's war critics admit that chaos, violence, and war will erupt there (and spread outward) if we leave, so doesn't that answer the question right there?
He says that our staying power will do more to "win the hearts and minds" of Islamists all over the world than any words will do, and that even bin Laden said that people follow the strong horse. The question is: are we the strong horse, or are we on the way to the glue factory?
In a related story by Kimberly Kagan in the Wall Street Journal, she uses her first-hand experiences in a recent trip to Iraq to show that progress is being made there. She points out that in Washington, perception is often mistaken for reality. The perception is -- as we all know from the constant negative MSM drumbeat -- that the war is lost, the surge has failed, and that it's a disaster. The reality is that "[v]iolence in Baghdad and Anbar Province is down dramatically, grassroots political movements have begun in the Sunni Arab community, and American and Iraqi forces are clearing al Qaeda fighters and Shiite militias out of long-established bases around the country."
She details the specific ways that this progress is being made, including the strategy of General Petraeus to systemmatically cut off terrorist reinforcements while clearing them out of Baghdad and central Iraq. The fighting has turned in our favor, and the political machinations are slowly moving forward. She says that "[d]emands for withdrawal are no longer demands to pull out of a deteriorating situation with little hope; they are now demands to end a new approach to this conflict that shows every sign of succeeding."
Who are we going to listen to? Senators in Washington and MSM in New York offices, or people who are/were actually in Iraq watching these things first-hand?
If you have strong feelings on this, now would probably be a good time to send in your thoughts to your Senators and the White House.
There's my two cents.
The big question Blankley illuminates is whether we are safer if we leave than if we stay (look at my previous blog if you want to know what key people involved think about that). Even Bush's war critics admit that chaos, violence, and war will erupt there (and spread outward) if we leave, so doesn't that answer the question right there?
He says that our staying power will do more to "win the hearts and minds" of Islamists all over the world than any words will do, and that even bin Laden said that people follow the strong horse. The question is: are we the strong horse, or are we on the way to the glue factory?
In a related story by Kimberly Kagan in the Wall Street Journal, she uses her first-hand experiences in a recent trip to Iraq to show that progress is being made there. She points out that in Washington, perception is often mistaken for reality. The perception is -- as we all know from the constant negative MSM drumbeat -- that the war is lost, the surge has failed, and that it's a disaster. The reality is that "[v]iolence in Baghdad and Anbar Province is down dramatically, grassroots political movements have begun in the Sunni Arab community, and American and Iraqi forces are clearing al Qaeda fighters and Shiite militias out of long-established bases around the country."
She details the specific ways that this progress is being made, including the strategy of General Petraeus to systemmatically cut off terrorist reinforcements while clearing them out of Baghdad and central Iraq. The fighting has turned in our favor, and the political machinations are slowly moving forward. She says that "[d]emands for withdrawal are no longer demands to pull out of a deteriorating situation with little hope; they are now demands to end a new approach to this conflict that shows every sign of succeeding."
Who are we going to listen to? Senators in Washington and MSM in New York offices, or people who are/were actually in Iraq watching these things first-hand?
If you have strong feelings on this, now would probably be a good time to send in your thoughts to your Senators and the White House.
There's my two cents.
Great Ready - Here Come The Tax Increases!
One News Now reports on a little-publicized issue that will hit the pocketbook of every American: tax increases. Congress will try to hide this, though - in a brazen example of semantic wordplay, they'll say they're not raising taxes at all. Technically, that's true. They'll just allow Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to expire. If the appropriations bills currently in Congress go through, the American people will end up with a net increase of $100 billion in new spending. What does that mean to you? It means that, on average, each American household will end up paying another $3,026 in taxes every year. Plus, the effects that this increase will have on the economy at large will adversely affect on personal income to the tune of another $502 per year.
Increasing taxes is never good. Your income is yours; you earned it, the government didn't.
Here's how the whole thing works. When taxes are lowered, people have less money taken out of their paychecks. When people have more money, what do they do? They spend it. What does that accomplish? It adds profitability to businesses, allowing them to add jobs, lower costs, expand, invest, or some combination of those. Regardless, it gets pumped back into the economy. This is a cycle that feeds on itself, and the economy roars. According to the Limbaugh Letter (Feb. 2006), the result of Bush's tax cuts led to federal revenues increasing 5.5% in 2004 and 14.5% in 2005. The Heritage Foundation says tax revenues were 18.4% of GDP (gross domestic product) in 2006, which outpaced the 20-, 40-, and 60-year historical averages. Other effects include the federal deficit dropping sharply (almost 26%) through the first five months of 2007, the lowest deficit in four years, and the highest ever one-day individual tax haul. Today, Breitbart.com reports that the federal deficit continues to drop even more than was projected. Clearly, then, the lower the taxes, the better off we all are.
An interesting side note here is the disproportionate amount of taxes paid by the so-called 'rich'. What you really need to understand is that YOU are part of the 'rich'. The bulk of the middle class falls into that category because if you make more than about $50K per year, you're in the upper half. That's right, in 2005, the media household income in the U.S. was $46,326. Based on 2004 tax return data, here's a breakdown of the amount of taxes paid by each segment of American taxpayers:
- the top 1% of wage earners paid 37% of all taxes
- the top 5% of wage earners paid 57% of all taxes
- the top 10% of wage earners paid 68% of all taxes
- the top 50% of wage earners paid 97% of all taxes
- the bottom 50% of wage earners paid only 3% of all taxes
Congratulations, you 'rich' person! Now pay up.
So, when you hear members of Congress talking about tax cuts for the 'rich', there are two factors at play. First, what's the point of increasing taxes on the lower tax bracket? They only pay a tiny percentage of the overall taxes in any given year, so it would be political suicide and it would accomplish nothing. Second, the 'rich' are already paying the lion's share (a whopping 97%!) of taxes, so why shouldn't they be the ones to get the tax break?
Now that we've established who those mysterious rich people are, be aware: essentially every Democrat proposal by essentially every Democrat presidential candidate relies on higher taxes on the 'rich'. Barack Obama wants to raise taxes to fund universal health care. So does John Edwards. Chris Dodd wants new taxes on small businesses. Hillary Clinton has a track record of raising taxes in New York.
When you hear them talk about raising taxes on the 'rich', just remember that almost certainly includes YOU.
I bet you didn't know you were 'rich', did you? Don't worry, you'll be a lot less rich if these tax cuts expire and the Democrats get their way - the government will be happy to take more of your money away from you.
There's my two cents.
Increasing taxes is never good. Your income is yours; you earned it, the government didn't.
Here's how the whole thing works. When taxes are lowered, people have less money taken out of their paychecks. When people have more money, what do they do? They spend it. What does that accomplish? It adds profitability to businesses, allowing them to add jobs, lower costs, expand, invest, or some combination of those. Regardless, it gets pumped back into the economy. This is a cycle that feeds on itself, and the economy roars. According to the Limbaugh Letter (Feb. 2006), the result of Bush's tax cuts led to federal revenues increasing 5.5% in 2004 and 14.5% in 2005. The Heritage Foundation says tax revenues were 18.4% of GDP (gross domestic product) in 2006, which outpaced the 20-, 40-, and 60-year historical averages. Other effects include the federal deficit dropping sharply (almost 26%) through the first five months of 2007, the lowest deficit in four years, and the highest ever one-day individual tax haul. Today, Breitbart.com reports that the federal deficit continues to drop even more than was projected. Clearly, then, the lower the taxes, the better off we all are.
An interesting side note here is the disproportionate amount of taxes paid by the so-called 'rich'. What you really need to understand is that YOU are part of the 'rich'. The bulk of the middle class falls into that category because if you make more than about $50K per year, you're in the upper half. That's right, in 2005, the media household income in the U.S. was $46,326. Based on 2004 tax return data, here's a breakdown of the amount of taxes paid by each segment of American taxpayers:
- the top 1% of wage earners paid 37% of all taxes
- the top 5% of wage earners paid 57% of all taxes
- the top 10% of wage earners paid 68% of all taxes
- the top 50% of wage earners paid 97% of all taxes
- the bottom 50% of wage earners paid only 3% of all taxes
Congratulations, you 'rich' person! Now pay up.
So, when you hear members of Congress talking about tax cuts for the 'rich', there are two factors at play. First, what's the point of increasing taxes on the lower tax bracket? They only pay a tiny percentage of the overall taxes in any given year, so it would be political suicide and it would accomplish nothing. Second, the 'rich' are already paying the lion's share (a whopping 97%!) of taxes, so why shouldn't they be the ones to get the tax break?
Now that we've established who those mysterious rich people are, be aware: essentially every Democrat proposal by essentially every Democrat presidential candidate relies on higher taxes on the 'rich'. Barack Obama wants to raise taxes to fund universal health care. So does John Edwards. Chris Dodd wants new taxes on small businesses. Hillary Clinton has a track record of raising taxes in New York.
When you hear them talk about raising taxes on the 'rich', just remember that almost certainly includes YOU.
I bet you didn't know you were 'rich', did you? Don't worry, you'll be a lot less rich if these tax cuts expire and the Democrats get their way - the government will be happy to take more of your money away from you.
There's my two cents.
No Specific Threat
Hm, this is interesting. The White House today countered ABC's report from last night about an al Qaeda cell being here (or on the way here) in the U.S. Report is here.
In my opinion, after decades of porous borders, anyone who thinks there aren't already a few of them here probably has their head in the sand. I hope I'm wrong.
In my opinion, after decades of porous borders, anyone who thinks there aren't already a few of them here probably has their head in the sand. I hope I'm wrong.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Al Qaeda Cell In U.S. Or Already Here
A news report on ABC News' The Blotter this evening states that new intel indicates an al Qaeda cell is either on its way to the U.S. or is already here.
Read the report here.
Read the report here.
An Iraq Retreat Would Be Very, Very Bad
***UPDATE: links to all stories have been added.
The buzz right now is that Congress is putting some major pressure on President Bush to begin a retreat (aka 'pull-out' or 'drawdown' or 'redeployment') from Iraq. First, let's keep in mind the point of the surge. The whole idea was to beef up the U.S. presence to provide some breathing room for Iraqi diplomats to focus on getting the government rolling, not to remove literally all sectarian violence from the country. That would be impossible, and it's Iraq's issue to deal with, anyway. With that being said, there are a few monster-sized reasons a retreat is a bad idea.
Reason #1: We're almost there...! The surge is still in its early stages. Anyone who is truly informed about the situation on the ground knows it's a vastly different picture than what is portrayed by the Democrats and the MSM. The Washington Post reported as far back as March that there were signs of a change on the ground as reported by noted Iraqi and American commentators alike. The difference lies mainly in the fact that the U.S. is pushing terrorists out of hot areas and keeping them out, whereas previously we would clear out a hot area and move on. As stability is achieved in more areas, the terrorists are having to keep moving, which limits their effectiveness. Now is NOT the time for a retreat. The Wall Street Journal's Opinion page correctly points out that "Bush and al Qaeda's Ayman al Zawahiri agree that Iraq--not Afghanistan--is the central front in the war between them." As retired General Jack Keane told the New York Sun: "The tragedy of these efforts is we are on the cusp of potentially being successful in the next year in a way that we have failed in the three-plus preceding years, but because of this political pressure it looks like we intend to pull out the rug from underneath that potential success." Congress gave General Petraeus -- who, by the way, they approved unanimously as the commander to lead the surge -- until September 15th to show progress. So why are we talking retreat in July, two months early?
Reason #2: Iraq fears a U.S. withdrawal...a LOT! Both the citizens and members of the fledgling government -- all three sects -- know that disaster looms if the U.S. retreats. "This could produce a civil war, partition of the country and a regional war. We might see the country collapse," says Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari, a Kurd. Sadiq al-Rikabi, a senior adviser to Shi'ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki agrees: "We in Iraq believe, not just the government, but all political parties, that the presence of these forces is necessary to prevent increasing violence and to stop the country sliding into civil war." Amira al-Baldawi, a Shiite member of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's ruling coalition is quoted by Brietbart.com as saying "Everybody wishes them to leave, even the US forces themselves, but this initiative would be catastrophic if carried out before Iraq manages to set up its security forces." Sunni Arab Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi told Reuters "I would be very happy to see the last American soldier leave today ... We understand their worry about not seeing much political progress in Iraq. But the problem is: who will fill the security vacuum if these forces withdraw?" Lt. Col. Kenneth Adgie, commander of the 1st Battalion, 30th Infantry Regiment of the 3rd Infantry Division put it very succinctly when describing how the common Iraqi people feel: "They truly are scared to death." If the U.S. retreats from Iraq, the entire Middle East -- terrorists and other nations alike -- will go for the jugular there. Case in point: yesterday, the BBC reported that 140,000 Turkish troops are massed on Iraq's borders. A U.S. retreat would likely lead to a massive outbreak of violence that could evolve into World War III.
Reason #3: Iraq IS the War on Terror. Bush has known it from the beginning. Al-Zawahiri (Osama bin Laden's number two man) knows it, and said so in a video released last week, describing it as "a centerpiece of its anti-American fight". The video showed that he's feeling the pressure, and having a hard time controlling his forces. Several local militias and other Sunni insurgents have actually begun helping the U.S. forces in fighting against Al-Zawahiri. What does this mean? The surge is working.
Reason #4: Bush can recover the Republican party. It's no secret that the Democrat leadership has been saying the surge isn't working (even before it got implemented) and that the war is over, so I won't bother citing any particular quotes. They've positioned their entire party's position on ending the war and bringing the troops home, regardless of the consequences. As Rush Limbaugh is fond of saying, the Democrats "own defeat." This is a golden opportunity for Bush and the Republican party, if they only had the courage to take advantage of it. As we heard so often about 9/11, let's connect the dots. If the Democrats need the U.S. to fail in Iraq, and if the U.S. military is actually making progress in Iraq, then it only makes sense that the Democrats can't afford for any more time to pass before they pass judgment on the surge and begin the retreat. So, they're pushing for an early withdrawal. If Bush and the Republicans had the guts to hold on just a little longer, we could see the real results from the surge: victory by our military. Victory for the U.S. military means victory for America, and that means -- sadly, due to their own errant political positioning -- defeat for the Democrat leadership.
Is the Iraqi government struggling to meet benchmarks? Yes, without a doubt. Are they making progress? Yes, equally without a doubt. Let's put things into a historical perspective. The Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776. The U.S. Constitution was not put into effect until March 4, 1789, twelve years later! The Bill of Rights came two years after that. These things are not simple, and they need time to be worked out. Our American Founders had that courage and took that time, and look where we are today. Shouldn't we give Iraq the same chance?
There's my two cents.
The buzz right now is that Congress is putting some major pressure on President Bush to begin a retreat (aka 'pull-out' or 'drawdown' or 'redeployment') from Iraq. First, let's keep in mind the point of the surge. The whole idea was to beef up the U.S. presence to provide some breathing room for Iraqi diplomats to focus on getting the government rolling, not to remove literally all sectarian violence from the country. That would be impossible, and it's Iraq's issue to deal with, anyway. With that being said, there are a few monster-sized reasons a retreat is a bad idea.
Reason #1: We're almost there...! The surge is still in its early stages. Anyone who is truly informed about the situation on the ground knows it's a vastly different picture than what is portrayed by the Democrats and the MSM. The Washington Post reported as far back as March that there were signs of a change on the ground as reported by noted Iraqi and American commentators alike. The difference lies mainly in the fact that the U.S. is pushing terrorists out of hot areas and keeping them out, whereas previously we would clear out a hot area and move on. As stability is achieved in more areas, the terrorists are having to keep moving, which limits their effectiveness. Now is NOT the time for a retreat. The Wall Street Journal's Opinion page correctly points out that "Bush and al Qaeda's Ayman al Zawahiri agree that Iraq--not Afghanistan--is the central front in the war between them." As retired General Jack Keane told the New York Sun: "The tragedy of these efforts is we are on the cusp of potentially being successful in the next year in a way that we have failed in the three-plus preceding years, but because of this political pressure it looks like we intend to pull out the rug from underneath that potential success." Congress gave General Petraeus -- who, by the way, they approved unanimously as the commander to lead the surge -- until September 15th to show progress. So why are we talking retreat in July, two months early?
Reason #2: Iraq fears a U.S. withdrawal...a LOT! Both the citizens and members of the fledgling government -- all three sects -- know that disaster looms if the U.S. retreats. "This could produce a civil war, partition of the country and a regional war. We might see the country collapse," says Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari, a Kurd. Sadiq al-Rikabi, a senior adviser to Shi'ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki agrees: "We in Iraq believe, not just the government, but all political parties, that the presence of these forces is necessary to prevent increasing violence and to stop the country sliding into civil war." Amira al-Baldawi, a Shiite member of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's ruling coalition is quoted by Brietbart.com as saying "Everybody wishes them to leave, even the US forces themselves, but this initiative would be catastrophic if carried out before Iraq manages to set up its security forces." Sunni Arab Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi told Reuters "I would be very happy to see the last American soldier leave today ... We understand their worry about not seeing much political progress in Iraq. But the problem is: who will fill the security vacuum if these forces withdraw?" Lt. Col. Kenneth Adgie, commander of the 1st Battalion, 30th Infantry Regiment of the 3rd Infantry Division put it very succinctly when describing how the common Iraqi people feel: "They truly are scared to death." If the U.S. retreats from Iraq, the entire Middle East -- terrorists and other nations alike -- will go for the jugular there. Case in point: yesterday, the BBC reported that 140,000 Turkish troops are massed on Iraq's borders. A U.S. retreat would likely lead to a massive outbreak of violence that could evolve into World War III.
Reason #3: Iraq IS the War on Terror. Bush has known it from the beginning. Al-Zawahiri (Osama bin Laden's number two man) knows it, and said so in a video released last week, describing it as "a centerpiece of its anti-American fight". The video showed that he's feeling the pressure, and having a hard time controlling his forces. Several local militias and other Sunni insurgents have actually begun helping the U.S. forces in fighting against Al-Zawahiri. What does this mean? The surge is working.
Reason #4: Bush can recover the Republican party. It's no secret that the Democrat leadership has been saying the surge isn't working (even before it got implemented) and that the war is over, so I won't bother citing any particular quotes. They've positioned their entire party's position on ending the war and bringing the troops home, regardless of the consequences. As Rush Limbaugh is fond of saying, the Democrats "own defeat." This is a golden opportunity for Bush and the Republican party, if they only had the courage to take advantage of it. As we heard so often about 9/11, let's connect the dots. If the Democrats need the U.S. to fail in Iraq, and if the U.S. military is actually making progress in Iraq, then it only makes sense that the Democrats can't afford for any more time to pass before they pass judgment on the surge and begin the retreat. So, they're pushing for an early withdrawal. If Bush and the Republicans had the guts to hold on just a little longer, we could see the real results from the surge: victory by our military. Victory for the U.S. military means victory for America, and that means -- sadly, due to their own errant political positioning -- defeat for the Democrat leadership.
Is the Iraqi government struggling to meet benchmarks? Yes, without a doubt. Are they making progress? Yes, equally without a doubt. Let's put things into a historical perspective. The Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776. The U.S. Constitution was not put into effect until March 4, 1789, twelve years later! The Bill of Rights came two years after that. These things are not simple, and they need time to be worked out. Our American Founders had that courage and took that time, and look where we are today. Shouldn't we give Iraq the same chance?
There's my two cents.
More Urgings of Calm and Sanity
The Editors of National Review Online have written a piece aptly titled, "Don't Panic" about the pressure to retreat from Iraq. They write that any such retreat would be the result of political pandering rather than true policy changes, which is not the reason to make such a drastic change. The cite a few critical developments, including a lowering of the sectarian killings in Baghdad and civilian casualties around the country, and a turn of the tide of Sunni tribes against al Qaeda. They also point out that the increased level of troop casualties is "the inevitable result of our increased combat operations, and in no way a sign that the surge isn’t working." They rightly show the hypocrisy of those jumping ship: "[e]veryone in the American political debate professes to want to fight al Qaeda in Iraq, but now that we are finally doing it effectively Democrats and some Republicans are all but ignoring it. Defeating al Qaeda should be our minimum goal in Iraq no matter what broader policy we choose".
Similarly, William Kristol, a major name in conservative politics, writes that this is a moment of truth for Bush and his presidency. How explains that if Bush pulls back from the surge, he will be viewed by history as "a feckless, irresolute president, incapable of seeing his own strategy through a couple of months of controversy before abandoning it". Kristol also points out that the liberal left will not view any retreat as a "statesmanlike compromise"; rather, they'll go in for the kill.
General Petraeus, in an interview with the New York Post, said that there is noticeable progress in Iraq, citing the assistance of Sunni tribes, some Iraqi units operating very well, the high morale and performance of U.S. forces, and even some real political progress by the Iraqi government. When asked what he would want more of, Petraeus said "I can think of few commanders in history who wouldn't have wanted more troops, more time or more unity among their partners; however, if I could only have one at this point in Iraq, it would be more time. This is an exceedingly tough endeavor that faces countless challenges. None of us, Iraqi or American, are anything but impatient and frustrated at where we are. But there are no shortcuts. Success in an endeavor like this is the result of steady, unremitting pressure over the long haul. It's a test of wills, demanding patience, determination and stamina from all involved."
If Bush has been consistent on anything, it has been the War on Terror (and thus the War in Iraq), so hopefully he will remain resolute at this critical point in time. Congress has proven it doesn't collectively have the spine to stand firm, so the burden once again rests on his shoulders. I hope he handles it correctly.
There's my two cents.
Similarly, William Kristol, a major name in conservative politics, writes that this is a moment of truth for Bush and his presidency. How explains that if Bush pulls back from the surge, he will be viewed by history as "a feckless, irresolute president, incapable of seeing his own strategy through a couple of months of controversy before abandoning it". Kristol also points out that the liberal left will not view any retreat as a "statesmanlike compromise"; rather, they'll go in for the kill.
General Petraeus, in an interview with the New York Post, said that there is noticeable progress in Iraq, citing the assistance of Sunni tribes, some Iraqi units operating very well, the high morale and performance of U.S. forces, and even some real political progress by the Iraqi government. When asked what he would want more of, Petraeus said "I can think of few commanders in history who wouldn't have wanted more troops, more time or more unity among their partners; however, if I could only have one at this point in Iraq, it would be more time. This is an exceedingly tough endeavor that faces countless challenges. None of us, Iraqi or American, are anything but impatient and frustrated at where we are. But there are no shortcuts. Success in an endeavor like this is the result of steady, unremitting pressure over the long haul. It's a test of wills, demanding patience, determination and stamina from all involved."
If Bush has been consistent on anything, it has been the War on Terror (and thus the War in Iraq), so hopefully he will remain resolute at this critical point in time. Congress has proven it doesn't collectively have the spine to stand firm, so the burden once again rests on his shoulders. I hope he handles it correctly.
There's my two cents.
Not So Funny Anymore
Michelle Malkin has picked up the story about the $54 million pants lawsuit I have previously blogged about. Looks like the loser judge won't go away, but the dry cleaners have exhausted their own savings in fighting the lawsuit. Check it out at Michelle's website.
Recommendation: Blog by Hugh Hewitt
This is a down-and-dirty book by one of the biggest bloggers around right now. Hewitt goes into the history of the blogging 'industry', why it has become so prevalent, how powerful it is, and where he thinks it is going. He pulls no punches and provides a ton of information in a relatively few number of pages. Blog contains dozens of links to popular and powerful blogs, and also gives some advice on how to apply a blog to your current job or hobby. If you're interested in blogging or are thinking about starting your own blog, this is the book for you. Here is the Amazon.com page for it.
Monday, July 9, 2007
War, Jihad, and the Fight for Freedom
I'm going to be devoting some significant time in the near future to addressing the War on Terror, including Iraq (though I'll still work in other stories, too). I've been reading some very disturbing things lately, and I think that everyone needs to realize what we're truly dealing with. As I've blogged about before, the MSM (mainstream media) has become so one-sided that most Americans don't know nearly as much as they should about the true threats from Islamic jihadists such as al Qaeda, largely because of the MSM's determined effort to portray the jihadists as a glorified underdog and the U.S. as the evil oppressor.
Some of the topics I'm planning to address are:
- What do the terrorists really want?
- Is Sharia law really that bad?
- Where are the 'moderate' Muslims?
- Is Islam really the religion of peace?
I'd also like to address some of the most common myths, including:
- We went into Iraq for oil
- The US is provoking terrorism/Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before we took out Saddam's regime
- If only we understood the terrorists, we could possibly negotiate a peace with them
- Nothing good is happening over there
As the pressure builds on Bush to begin an Iraq pullout, I believe it is important for the American people to be educated about what we face in this war. I'm coming to believe it's the historical battle of our time, much like the previous generation faced the German Nazis. I intend to lay out the case for why it is so critical that we succeed on this, and provide the necessary information for you to make up your own minds on what we need to do about it.
So stay tuned - the fireworks will begin in the next few days.
There's my two cents.
Some of the topics I'm planning to address are:
- What do the terrorists really want?
- Is Sharia law really that bad?
- Where are the 'moderate' Muslims?
- Is Islam really the religion of peace?
I'd also like to address some of the most common myths, including:
- We went into Iraq for oil
- The US is provoking terrorism/Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before we took out Saddam's regime
- If only we understood the terrorists, we could possibly negotiate a peace with them
- Nothing good is happening over there
As the pressure builds on Bush to begin an Iraq pullout, I believe it is important for the American people to be educated about what we face in this war. I'm coming to believe it's the historical battle of our time, much like the previous generation faced the German Nazis. I intend to lay out the case for why it is so critical that we succeed on this, and provide the necessary information for you to make up your own minds on what we need to do about it.
So stay tuned - the fireworks will begin in the next few days.
There's my two cents.
Fun and Frivolity: Women, Running, and Cows
***UPDATE: My prettier, smarter, and better half suggested that the wit with which I was attempting to communicate this story didn't come through quite as precisely as I was hoping, so here's a revised version... :)
Reuters reports an odd little story from Pamplona, Spain where women are demanding their own version of the world-famous 'running with the bulls'. Women are allowed to participate in the traditional bull event, but they're apparently now looking for their own run using...cows.
One might question the excitement value in a 'running of the cows' event (I mean, seriously, when was the last time you saw a herd of cows in a ground-pounding, mouth-frothing, raging stampede), but it's a big world and there are lots of ESPN channels.
On perhaps a more significant note, gender equality is a very fine thing, but I would also question the...uh...wisdom...of choosing this particular issue on which to make a political statement. But, if they really want it, I suppose these Spanish women should have their moment in the sun and their very own chance at being bludgeoned into a pulp without the company of men, whether human or bovine.
Reuters reports an odd little story from Pamplona, Spain where women are demanding their own version of the world-famous 'running with the bulls'. Women are allowed to participate in the traditional bull event, but they're apparently now looking for their own run using...cows.
One might question the excitement value in a 'running of the cows' event (I mean, seriously, when was the last time you saw a herd of cows in a ground-pounding, mouth-frothing, raging stampede), but it's a big world and there are lots of ESPN channels.
On perhaps a more significant note, gender equality is a very fine thing, but I would also question the...uh...wisdom...of choosing this particular issue on which to make a political statement. But, if they really want it, I suppose these Spanish women should have their moment in the sun and their very own chance at being bludgeoned into a pulp without the company of men, whether human or bovine.
More on the Libby Commutation
The firestorm of political fallout from Bush's actions on Scooter Libby's commutation was as predictable as it was one-sided. Take, for instance, a story in the Los Angeles Times pointing out the stark hypocrisy from Hillary Clinton's scathing remarks on Bush's actions. Clinton said the action "sends the clear signal that in this administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice." Whether or not that is true, this is a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black: her husband, Bill Clinton, "hustled through pardons for 141 people and commutations for 36 more [at the end of his presidency]. Among those who received pardons were 27 men and women convicted of drug crimes, deserters from the military, a former member of the Clinton Cabinet who pleaded guilty to making false statements to authorities, and various perjurers and obstructionists. Clinton's half-brother walked away that day with a clean record, as did Patty Hearst and financier Marc Rich — at the time a fugitive from justice on charges of violating the embargo against trade with Iran, tax evasion and other unsavory deeds. Clinton's pardons were particularly offensive because they were issued just as his presidency ended, so there was no way for him to be held accountable for his misuse of power." To be fair, Hillary is not Bill. But, does anyone realistically think that a Hillary administration is going to have policies substantially different than what Bill's administration had?
Does Hillary have a point? Should the President be allowed to use the pardon as he sees fit? Let's look at history. P. S. Ruckman Jr., writing on National Review Online, makes the general case for the Presidential power to pardon by looking at the public records. He says that "[i]n the Annual Report of the attorney general, one can see pardons have been granted because criminals were 'reformed,' promised to reform, or because their release might cause others to reform. Pardons have been given to those who were insane, went insane in prison, and those who might have gone insane if put into prison. Pardons have also been granted so criminals could take care of someone else who went insane, was going insane or did not want to go insane. Benjamin Ogle (convicted of manslaughter) was pardoned by Abraham Lincoln, in part, because Ogle was 'rather remarkable for his good-humored disposition.' Now, imagine if Bush had written that! Lincoln was also moved by John Lawson’s 'reputation for honesty.' Lawson (alias John Lassano) had been convicted for passing counterfeit money." He finishes by saying, "[i]f you think Bush’s explanation was among the very poorest, you just don’t have a library card."
This is one of the instances where the Constitution -- once again, the final arbiter of the law in America -- is quite clear that the President can do exactly what Bush did without any explanation whatsoever. The fact that the liberal left doesn't like it doesn't make it wrong. The real question is not 'can he do it' but 'should he do it', and that decision is the President's alone. This is one of the privileges of the office, and one of the reasons that elections matter.
Was Bush correct to commute Libby's sentence? I believe that a close look at the facts of the situation shows he was. Anyone who keeps whining about it is simply trying to make political hay and drum up another scandal where none really exists. You can disagree with me if you want, but the fact remains that Bush had Constitutional authority to do it, and he did it. Move on.
There's my two cents.
Does Hillary have a point? Should the President be allowed to use the pardon as he sees fit? Let's look at history. P. S. Ruckman Jr., writing on National Review Online, makes the general case for the Presidential power to pardon by looking at the public records. He says that "[i]n the Annual Report of the attorney general, one can see pardons have been granted because criminals were 'reformed,' promised to reform, or because their release might cause others to reform. Pardons have been given to those who were insane, went insane in prison, and those who might have gone insane if put into prison. Pardons have also been granted so criminals could take care of someone else who went insane, was going insane or did not want to go insane. Benjamin Ogle (convicted of manslaughter) was pardoned by Abraham Lincoln, in part, because Ogle was 'rather remarkable for his good-humored disposition.' Now, imagine if Bush had written that! Lincoln was also moved by John Lawson’s 'reputation for honesty.' Lawson (alias John Lassano) had been convicted for passing counterfeit money." He finishes by saying, "[i]f you think Bush’s explanation was among the very poorest, you just don’t have a library card."
This is one of the instances where the Constitution -- once again, the final arbiter of the law in America -- is quite clear that the President can do exactly what Bush did without any explanation whatsoever. The fact that the liberal left doesn't like it doesn't make it wrong. The real question is not 'can he do it' but 'should he do it', and that decision is the President's alone. This is one of the privileges of the office, and one of the reasons that elections matter.
Was Bush correct to commute Libby's sentence? I believe that a close look at the facts of the situation shows he was. Anyone who keeps whining about it is simply trying to make political hay and drum up another scandal where none really exists. You can disagree with me if you want, but the fact remains that Bush had Constitutional authority to do it, and he did it. Move on.
There's my two cents.
Cavalcade of Quick Hits
A lot of stuff is going on again, so instead of taking an in-depth look at just one item in this post, I'm going to hit the highlights of several things that I think are important for you to at least hear about.
Hit #1: More Clinton Wiretapping? In a previous blog I mentioned how the Clinton war room frequently used illegal wiretapping to gain the upper hand on political adversaries and infidelity accusers back in the '90s. Now, AP reports that Hillary Clinton's chief strategist, Mark Penn, is being accused of illegal eavesdropping a former associate who started a rival company. Granted, Penn has yet to be found guilty, but at the least there seems to be a Clinton trend here...
Hit #2: Racial Diversity is Devastating! Whoa, baby, this one could cause some friction! Robert Putnam, a Harvard political scientist (and no right-winger), is very nervous about releasing a new five-year study of his. It basically shows that immigration and ethnic diversity have a devastating short- and medium-term effect on the social capital, fabric of associations, trust, and neighborliness that create and sustain communities. In fact, he was so worried about it that he delayed the publishing of his results for months until he could come up with some "proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity." I'm really not sure what conclusions to draw from this, but it's certainly not something you hear every day. At the very least, it's thought-provoking...
Hit #3:Job Growth Better Than Expected. Forbes.com reports that the month of June saw 132,000 jobs added, keeping national unemployment at an incredibly low 4.5%. It also said workers saw solid gains in wages. This is a little strange given that the vast majority of economic news is doom and gloom, but who are you going to believe: Forbes, or the admittedly biased mainstream media? I also have to admit being a little perplexed at how these so-called 'experts' are constantly surprised by anything positive...
Hit #4: Live Earth Flops. The Al Gore-organized series of concerts around the world intending to promote environmental responsibility has proved to be quite a flop. Not only was the mostly-small-time cast of artists disappointing (barely getting the crowds really pumped up), but they seem to have done just the opposite of their intention. The only major performer, Madonna, has nine houses, a fleet of cars (including a Mercedes Maybach, two Range Rovers, an Audi A8 and a Mini Cooper S), and a private jet, prompting Britain's largest-selling newspaper, The News of the World, to call her a "climate-change catastrophe". For her latest tour, she used that private jet to haul 100 technicians and dancers around the globe. For all the performers of all the concerts, a conservative estimate is that they'll be flying almost 223,000 miles combined; add in the 'carbon footprint' of all the people traveling to attend the concerts and that of the television audience, and you'll have a staggering 74,500 estimated tons of carbon emissions generated by the affair. By comparison, the average British citizen (these estimates were done by a British firm) produces 10 tons of emissions per year. Oh, and don't forget about the estimated 1,025 tons of garbage left behind from the live audiences which will go straight to landfills. In the words of one commentator, Live Earth is "a massive, hypocritical fraud". And it doesn't sound like the concerts were any good, either...
Hit #5:Sicko is Doctored. I'm sure this comes as a shock to pretty much everyone, but Michael Moore's latest 'documentary' is in serious need of facts. Kurt Loder of MTV writes that although Moore's movie points out some legitimate problems with our health care system, he conveniently leaves out the negatives of the universal health care systems he trumpets as alternatives. Loder says that "[H]is cherry-picked facts, manipulative interviews (with lingering close-ups of distraught people breaking down in tears) and blithe assertions (how does he know 18,000* people will die this year because they have no health insurance?) are so stacked that you can feel his whole argument sliding sideways as the picture unspools." I think Moore has created a new category of movie: the mock-umentary.
I'll bet you haven't heard about any of these in the MSM; that's why I wanted to at least mention them. I'll have some more single-topic posts coming up soon.
There's my two cents.
***UPDATE:
I accidentally left this interesting tidbit out of my original post...
Hit #6: Wildfires. As you've probably seen, there are wildfires raging all over the western half of the United States. What you probably haven't seen is this article indicating the real cause of such huge forest fires: environmentalists. Basically, since the environmentalist lobby has prevented anyone from clearing out the old dead brush and wood (thus 'destroying' the delicate balance of nature), there is so much dry fuel laying around that any fire at all has the potential to become a huge out-of-control blaze.
Thank you, environmentalists.
Hit #1: More Clinton Wiretapping? In a previous blog I mentioned how the Clinton war room frequently used illegal wiretapping to gain the upper hand on political adversaries and infidelity accusers back in the '90s. Now, AP reports that Hillary Clinton's chief strategist, Mark Penn, is being accused of illegal eavesdropping a former associate who started a rival company. Granted, Penn has yet to be found guilty, but at the least there seems to be a Clinton trend here...
Hit #2: Racial Diversity is Devastating! Whoa, baby, this one could cause some friction! Robert Putnam, a Harvard political scientist (and no right-winger), is very nervous about releasing a new five-year study of his. It basically shows that immigration and ethnic diversity have a devastating short- and medium-term effect on the social capital, fabric of associations, trust, and neighborliness that create and sustain communities. In fact, he was so worried about it that he delayed the publishing of his results for months until he could come up with some "proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity." I'm really not sure what conclusions to draw from this, but it's certainly not something you hear every day. At the very least, it's thought-provoking...
Hit #3:Job Growth Better Than Expected. Forbes.com reports that the month of June saw 132,000 jobs added, keeping national unemployment at an incredibly low 4.5%. It also said workers saw solid gains in wages. This is a little strange given that the vast majority of economic news is doom and gloom, but who are you going to believe: Forbes, or the admittedly biased mainstream media? I also have to admit being a little perplexed at how these so-called 'experts' are constantly surprised by anything positive...
Hit #4: Live Earth Flops. The Al Gore-organized series of concerts around the world intending to promote environmental responsibility has proved to be quite a flop. Not only was the mostly-small-time cast of artists disappointing (barely getting the crowds really pumped up), but they seem to have done just the opposite of their intention. The only major performer, Madonna, has nine houses, a fleet of cars (including a Mercedes Maybach, two Range Rovers, an Audi A8 and a Mini Cooper S), and a private jet, prompting Britain's largest-selling newspaper, The News of the World, to call her a "climate-change catastrophe". For her latest tour, she used that private jet to haul 100 technicians and dancers around the globe. For all the performers of all the concerts, a conservative estimate is that they'll be flying almost 223,000 miles combined; add in the 'carbon footprint' of all the people traveling to attend the concerts and that of the television audience, and you'll have a staggering 74,500 estimated tons of carbon emissions generated by the affair. By comparison, the average British citizen (these estimates were done by a British firm) produces 10 tons of emissions per year. Oh, and don't forget about the estimated 1,025 tons of garbage left behind from the live audiences which will go straight to landfills. In the words of one commentator, Live Earth is "a massive, hypocritical fraud". And it doesn't sound like the concerts were any good, either...
Hit #5:Sicko is Doctored. I'm sure this comes as a shock to pretty much everyone, but Michael Moore's latest 'documentary' is in serious need of facts. Kurt Loder of MTV writes that although Moore's movie points out some legitimate problems with our health care system, he conveniently leaves out the negatives of the universal health care systems he trumpets as alternatives. Loder says that "[H]is cherry-picked facts, manipulative interviews (with lingering close-ups of distraught people breaking down in tears) and blithe assertions (how does he know 18,000* people will die this year because they have no health insurance?) are so stacked that you can feel his whole argument sliding sideways as the picture unspools." I think Moore has created a new category of movie: the mock-umentary.
I'll bet you haven't heard about any of these in the MSM; that's why I wanted to at least mention them. I'll have some more single-topic posts coming up soon.
There's my two cents.
***UPDATE:
I accidentally left this interesting tidbit out of my original post...
Hit #6: Wildfires. As you've probably seen, there are wildfires raging all over the western half of the United States. What you probably haven't seen is this article indicating the real cause of such huge forest fires: environmentalists. Basically, since the environmentalist lobby has prevented anyone from clearing out the old dead brush and wood (thus 'destroying' the delicate balance of nature), there is so much dry fuel laying around that any fire at all has the potential to become a huge out-of-control blaze.
Thank you, environmentalists.
Saturday, July 7, 2007
The Thought Police Have Arrived
I recently blogged about some legislation that would open the door to what would be in effect a thought police - that anyone in any self-described group could prosecute anyone else for a 'hate crime' based on that person's thoughts. I was thinking this would happen sometime down the road, but I was wrong. Here are two stories of the first steps in this direction RIGHT NOW. These should send up red flags, sound warning bells, and concern you a very, very great deal.
The first is a Washington Post article from a couple days ago about the Maryland State Board of Education's ruling on a sex-education curriculum. The short version is that the Board has rejected all legal challenges for a sex-education curriculum that fully promotes the homosexual lifestyle despite the objections of many of the parents. The opponents of the bill maintained the curriculum violates their free speech rights and rights to freedom of religion by only promoting the one viewpoint on the subject, but the Board still rejected over a dozen claims of constitutional violations. Perhaps the most disturbing part of this story is the official statement from the Board that said although a parent does have a right to control the upbringing of a child, "that right is not absolute. It must bend to the State's duty to educate its citizens."
The second story is by George Will in the Jewish World Review from a couple weeks ago. The city of Oakland, California has deemed the following statement to 'constitute something akin to hate speech':
Marriage is the foundation of the natural family and sustains family values.
The ultra-liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. Will points out that "overturning the 9th Circuit is steady work for the U.S. Supreme Court", so the hope is that the 9th's ruling will be overturned soon, but even if it is the attempt itself should cause much concern. Will goes on to describe the situation where a group supporting religious and family values was prevented from circulating a flier after other employees' groups had circulated similar fliers advocating 'Happy Coming Out Day' and other gay rights issues.
Now, I realize both of these stories are in relation to homosexuality. As I did in my previous blog on the topic, let me be clear: I don't want to start a debate about the moral rights or wrongs of homosexuality. I want to look at the overarching legal concept at play here. Just because this is happening with homosexuality today doesn't mean it will stop there; once this door is open, these legal challenges will crop up on literally any and every topic. Another example of this is smoking.
Personally, I don't like it. I won't ever do it, and I don't particularly like experiencing it when someone else is doing it. I don't especially like restaurants that have smoking sections. But, I will defend the freedom of people to light up while on private property (including restaurants). It's exactly the same principle - government cannot and should not attempt to control the freedoms of Americans (in this case, what happens on private property) unless a crime is being committed. Since smoking is legal for those who are 18 or older, it should be allowed on private property. [A side note here: for those of you who are thinking that second-hand smoke causes health risks, take a good hard look. For every study showing those risks, there is another that debunks them. I look at it this way: if second-hand smoke was truly that deadly, the whole thing should be outlawed; since that hasn't happened, there must not be enough conclusive evidence one way or the other. I could be wrong; I have not studied the issue in depth myself, so take my thoughts here with a grain of salt. But, practically speaking, if smoking bothers me that much, I simply won't go to a restaurant that allows it. If enough people stop patronizing a place that allows smoking, the business will either close down or voluntarily bar smoking without any government involvement. That's the beauty of capitalism.] By enacting smoking bans, the government is attempting to control individual behaviors of people, and that's just one step shy of controlling individual thoughts. The bans on transfats and foi gras are other examples that are already in progress. Do you see now how rapidly this problem will expand?
Both of these stories, however, show a clear objective on the part of government to control the thoughts of the American public. And let me ask you: are we really at a point where a simple statement about marriage being the foundation of family values (which, by the way, can be substantiated by statistical analysis) has become provocative hate speech?
These efforts fly directly in the face of religious freedom and freedom of speech, both of which are absolutely critical pieces of the U.S. Constitution and the American way of life. If you take away those two freedoms, America ceases to be what it was founded as, what it was meant to be, and what it has always been. The most disturbing thing here is that these efforts contradict those fundamental rights simply to prevent the discussion of a different viewpoint. That, my friends, is blatant censorship, and we can look to history to see who relied on censorship and thought police: Stalin, Hitler, and Hussein, just to name a few. Do we really want to go there? Do we really want George Orwell's 'Big Brother' to become reality in America? The Maryland Board's statement that a parent's right to raise their own children should be secondary to what the government wants sure sounds like we're already there!
As I stated before, the door must be completely shut on any and all attempts to control the thoughts of people. It is a Pandora's Box, a disaster waiting to happen. If you think this is something that can't possibly occur in America, you need to realize that it is already happening...before you're not allowed to think about it at all.
There's my two cents.
The first is a Washington Post article from a couple days ago about the Maryland State Board of Education's ruling on a sex-education curriculum. The short version is that the Board has rejected all legal challenges for a sex-education curriculum that fully promotes the homosexual lifestyle despite the objections of many of the parents. The opponents of the bill maintained the curriculum violates their free speech rights and rights to freedom of religion by only promoting the one viewpoint on the subject, but the Board still rejected over a dozen claims of constitutional violations. Perhaps the most disturbing part of this story is the official statement from the Board that said although a parent does have a right to control the upbringing of a child, "that right is not absolute. It must bend to the State's duty to educate its citizens."
The second story is by George Will in the Jewish World Review from a couple weeks ago. The city of Oakland, California has deemed the following statement to 'constitute something akin to hate speech':
Marriage is the foundation of the natural family and sustains family values.
The ultra-liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. Will points out that "overturning the 9th Circuit is steady work for the U.S. Supreme Court", so the hope is that the 9th's ruling will be overturned soon, but even if it is the attempt itself should cause much concern. Will goes on to describe the situation where a group supporting religious and family values was prevented from circulating a flier after other employees' groups had circulated similar fliers advocating 'Happy Coming Out Day' and other gay rights issues.
Now, I realize both of these stories are in relation to homosexuality. As I did in my previous blog on the topic, let me be clear: I don't want to start a debate about the moral rights or wrongs of homosexuality. I want to look at the overarching legal concept at play here. Just because this is happening with homosexuality today doesn't mean it will stop there; once this door is open, these legal challenges will crop up on literally any and every topic. Another example of this is smoking.
Personally, I don't like it. I won't ever do it, and I don't particularly like experiencing it when someone else is doing it. I don't especially like restaurants that have smoking sections. But, I will defend the freedom of people to light up while on private property (including restaurants). It's exactly the same principle - government cannot and should not attempt to control the freedoms of Americans (in this case, what happens on private property) unless a crime is being committed. Since smoking is legal for those who are 18 or older, it should be allowed on private property. [A side note here: for those of you who are thinking that second-hand smoke causes health risks, take a good hard look. For every study showing those risks, there is another that debunks them. I look at it this way: if second-hand smoke was truly that deadly, the whole thing should be outlawed; since that hasn't happened, there must not be enough conclusive evidence one way or the other. I could be wrong; I have not studied the issue in depth myself, so take my thoughts here with a grain of salt. But, practically speaking, if smoking bothers me that much, I simply won't go to a restaurant that allows it. If enough people stop patronizing a place that allows smoking, the business will either close down or voluntarily bar smoking without any government involvement. That's the beauty of capitalism.] By enacting smoking bans, the government is attempting to control individual behaviors of people, and that's just one step shy of controlling individual thoughts. The bans on transfats and foi gras are other examples that are already in progress. Do you see now how rapidly this problem will expand?
Both of these stories, however, show a clear objective on the part of government to control the thoughts of the American public. And let me ask you: are we really at a point where a simple statement about marriage being the foundation of family values (which, by the way, can be substantiated by statistical analysis) has become provocative hate speech?
These efforts fly directly in the face of religious freedom and freedom of speech, both of which are absolutely critical pieces of the U.S. Constitution and the American way of life. If you take away those two freedoms, America ceases to be what it was founded as, what it was meant to be, and what it has always been. The most disturbing thing here is that these efforts contradict those fundamental rights simply to prevent the discussion of a different viewpoint. That, my friends, is blatant censorship, and we can look to history to see who relied on censorship and thought police: Stalin, Hitler, and Hussein, just to name a few. Do we really want to go there? Do we really want George Orwell's 'Big Brother' to become reality in America? The Maryland Board's statement that a parent's right to raise their own children should be secondary to what the government wants sure sounds like we're already there!
As I stated before, the door must be completely shut on any and all attempts to control the thoughts of people. It is a Pandora's Box, a disaster waiting to happen. If you think this is something that can't possibly occur in America, you need to realize that it is already happening...before you're not allowed to think about it at all.
There's my two cents.
Friday, July 6, 2007
Democrat Flop and Republican Fracture
Although the headlines regularly trumpet President Bush's hideous approval rating (recently at just 36%), what they're not telling you is that Congress is even worse: as low as 19%. Why is this? Well, quite simply, neither party has been doing what they promised.
Kimberley Strassel writes in the Wall Street Journal about the Democrats' sinking ship. She writes about how the Democrats took control of Congress by capitalizing on Republican failures, but that they have been almost totally unable to accomplish anything themselves. They tried to make their anti-war base happy by forcing a pull-out of troops from Iraq but ultimately failed, giving Bush the funding he needed without any timelines. They tried to make their union base happy by removing secret ballots and ultimately failed (while in the process forcing Democrats to go on the record in favor of something that 90% of Americans don't want). They've tried their hand at tax increases and energy independence and have failed at both. The only thing they've truly accomplished is in bogging down the government and White House with over 600 hearings in the first 100 days of the term (that works out to one hearing every 1.5 hours), bashing everything about the Bush administration. Don't forget, of course, about the strong-arming Democrat leadership on the amnesty bill, which also failed. As Strassel says, these unsuccessful subpoenas and hearings have taken precious time, and their failures have allowed Republicans to correctly point out that "of the 17 minor bills signed into law, 10 focused on naming post offices and courthouses." Her summary is that the lesson of the past six months is that Americans want a mature party that leads, not angry liberals who investigate. I would agree with her.
On the other side of the aisle, the Republican party is in danger of fracturing, and has been for some time. It became clear in 2006, when Democrats took control of both the House and Senate on a campaign that amounted to little more than "we-hate-Bush" and "get-out-of-Iraq". Without a compelling reason to vote for Democrats, then, it came down to an even more compelling reason not to vote for Republicans. The Republican (and largely conservative) base wants less spending, less government control, and stronger defense. The Republican leadership since 2000 has become spend-happy (President Bush didn't veto a single spending bill until recently) and the federal government was expanded time after time. Bush has been solid on defense and the War on Terror, but the support from his party is eroding along with that of the American people in general, especially after six years of incessant smearing by the liberal leadership and the mainstream media. The reality is that the Republicans in charge have become very similar to Democrats on many of their policies, and let's face it - the Democrats are much better at sounding good. Without a clear policy difference, then, who wouldn't rather have someone who sounds good? That's why the Democrats made great gains in 2006.
The amnesty debacle serves as a vivid reminder of how some Republicans are perilously close to 'out-liberaling' liberals, supporting blatant amnesty and yet another empty promise of enforcement. By doing this, they have generated more anger and frustration from their base than (if several major conservative commentators are to be believed) any other time in decades. If the Republicans as a party don't get their act together fast, the 2008 elections will make 2006 look like an appetizer.
So what now?
Right now would be a great time for a true conservative to step into the leadership vacuum that is so clearly evident. The American public votes conservative (whether Republican or Democrat) because it's a philosophy that empowers the individual, emphasizes family values, and limits the government. Fundamentally, that's what Americans want. Although several of the current presidential hopefuls have pieces of that conservative ideal, no one has the whole package. Without that, the door could very well be wide open -- via low conservative voter turnout -- for a left-wing liberal to enter the White House.
Would that be so bad? Well, let's see. Liberals have promised larger government, massive tax increases, complete surrender in the War on Terror (which, according to John Edwards, is only a 'bumper sticker slogan' rather than a real problem) and an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, as well as a steadfast refusal to protect American citizens and interests.
I'll let you decide.
There's my two cents.
Kimberley Strassel writes in the Wall Street Journal about the Democrats' sinking ship. She writes about how the Democrats took control of Congress by capitalizing on Republican failures, but that they have been almost totally unable to accomplish anything themselves. They tried to make their anti-war base happy by forcing a pull-out of troops from Iraq but ultimately failed, giving Bush the funding he needed without any timelines. They tried to make their union base happy by removing secret ballots and ultimately failed (while in the process forcing Democrats to go on the record in favor of something that 90% of Americans don't want). They've tried their hand at tax increases and energy independence and have failed at both. The only thing they've truly accomplished is in bogging down the government and White House with over 600 hearings in the first 100 days of the term (that works out to one hearing every 1.5 hours), bashing everything about the Bush administration. Don't forget, of course, about the strong-arming Democrat leadership on the amnesty bill, which also failed. As Strassel says, these unsuccessful subpoenas and hearings have taken precious time, and their failures have allowed Republicans to correctly point out that "of the 17 minor bills signed into law, 10 focused on naming post offices and courthouses." Her summary is that the lesson of the past six months is that Americans want a mature party that leads, not angry liberals who investigate. I would agree with her.
On the other side of the aisle, the Republican party is in danger of fracturing, and has been for some time. It became clear in 2006, when Democrats took control of both the House and Senate on a campaign that amounted to little more than "we-hate-Bush" and "get-out-of-Iraq". Without a compelling reason to vote for Democrats, then, it came down to an even more compelling reason not to vote for Republicans. The Republican (and largely conservative) base wants less spending, less government control, and stronger defense. The Republican leadership since 2000 has become spend-happy (President Bush didn't veto a single spending bill until recently) and the federal government was expanded time after time. Bush has been solid on defense and the War on Terror, but the support from his party is eroding along with that of the American people in general, especially after six years of incessant smearing by the liberal leadership and the mainstream media. The reality is that the Republicans in charge have become very similar to Democrats on many of their policies, and let's face it - the Democrats are much better at sounding good. Without a clear policy difference, then, who wouldn't rather have someone who sounds good? That's why the Democrats made great gains in 2006.
The amnesty debacle serves as a vivid reminder of how some Republicans are perilously close to 'out-liberaling' liberals, supporting blatant amnesty and yet another empty promise of enforcement. By doing this, they have generated more anger and frustration from their base than (if several major conservative commentators are to be believed) any other time in decades. If the Republicans as a party don't get their act together fast, the 2008 elections will make 2006 look like an appetizer.
So what now?
Right now would be a great time for a true conservative to step into the leadership vacuum that is so clearly evident. The American public votes conservative (whether Republican or Democrat) because it's a philosophy that empowers the individual, emphasizes family values, and limits the government. Fundamentally, that's what Americans want. Although several of the current presidential hopefuls have pieces of that conservative ideal, no one has the whole package. Without that, the door could very well be wide open -- via low conservative voter turnout -- for a left-wing liberal to enter the White House.
Would that be so bad? Well, let's see. Liberals have promised larger government, massive tax increases, complete surrender in the War on Terror (which, according to John Edwards, is only a 'bumper sticker slogan' rather than a real problem) and an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, as well as a steadfast refusal to protect American citizens and interests.
I'll let you decide.
There's my two cents.
Gitmo Detainees Don't 'Deserve' Anything Good
I'm sorry, but I can't hold this one in any longer - this genuinely angers me! I apologize in advance if I offend anyone with this blog, but you can consider this statement your warning of potential in-your-face-ness. If you want to know what's got me so steamed, read on...
I recently blogged about the Supreme Court making an originalist turn, but it looks like that may have been short-lived. Last Friday the Supreme Court decided it would hear an appeal from detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay, reversing their earlier decision and surprising everyone (even those representing the terrorists). Not only is this the first time in recent memory that the SC has reversed its decision on whether or not to hear a case, but it's pure folly and a clear departure from the laws of this country. Let me walk you through it.
The people being held at Gitmo are terrorists, pure and simple. These are the worst of the worst, and if any human beings can truly be called evil, these guys win the prize. Most are citizens of countries that are outwardly hostile toward American interests. They are prisoners of war, captured on the battlefield while they're attempting to kill American soldiers; but they are not normal prisoners of war: they hide behind women and children, they blow up churches, schools, and themselves. They wear no uniforms, they do not subscribe to the Geneva Conventions. They proudly behead Americans live on the Internet, and they repeatedly torture -- real, actual torture -- and mutilate their captives until death becomes true mercy.
Naturally, we should give them the constitutional rights of American citizens.
That's the argument of their defenders in the media and the liberal elite, and that's essentially what's happening here. Let's rewind. By not wearing any uniforms and not adhering to the Geneva Conventions, these murderous thugs are thus not legally entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. These guys are likewise not American citizens, and are thus not legally entitled to the rights of American citizens (like legal representation) according to the US Constitution. In the long history of the US military, the standard form of justice for people like them is a military tribunal. Despite those critical (and blatantly obvious) facts, the ACLU and other liberal groups who represent these terrorists have fought tooth and nail to give them the protections of Geneva and the US Constitution, and they've largely succeeded. These terrorists perform the most horrific acts of barbarism that can be conceived by man, and proudly display it for the whole world on the Internet, along with the promise of more to come. Despite that, the ACLU and other liberals maintain they're simply 'misunderstood' and 'mistreated'.
Bull.
There should never have been a doubt that what the US is doing at Guantanamo Bay is absolutely 100% legal. Look at the past - in World War II we rounded up Japanese Americans and put them into camps for doing nothing other than being Japanese. That was wrong. The questions raised about these terrorists in Gitmo are of night and day difference from that.
So what if we make them listen to Britney Spears a little too loud, dunk them in water (which, by the way, is standard training for US Navy personnel), or never give them a peaceful night of rest? These guys would just as soon cut your fingers off as look at you, and we're supposed to feel sorry for them for being tired? Get real! Keep in mind that the mental exhaustion incurred from long-term discomfort -- and that's truly all it is -- has given us some of the best intelligence of the War on Terror, allowing us to bag some of the major ringleaders of al Qaeda, and we're supposed to stop that to avoid offending their sensibilities? In what world does that make any kind of sense??
Back in June of 2005, Duncan Hunter (a current Republican presidential candidate) visited Gitmo. According to him, here's one of the horrible things these terrorists had to struggle through: "I sat down yesterday with the menu from Guantanamo so the average American can understand how we're brutalizing people at Guantanamo and I've got it right here. They're going to be having orange glazed chicken, fresh fruit Group A, steamed peas and mushrooms, rice pilaf, another form of torture for the hijackers. We treat them very well. If you go back to Sunday, it looks like it's lemon baked fish as an entrée". In addition, when these terrorists arrive they are given their own copy of the Koran and a prayer rug (which YOU pay for), told which wall of their cell faces East, and are given silent times to pray every day. They also tend to gain weight while in US custody since we feed them so well and give them high-quality health care. Hunter goes on to say that the rations given to US troops are considered a form of abuse by the Armed Services Committee! So, what you've got is terrorists being treated better than our own American soldiers, and yet it's our own soldiers that are being accused of torture!
The Washington Post ran a story around the same time about the alleged 'Koran abuse' that American soldiers were supposedly performing, including flushing pages of a Koran down the toilet. The ensuing riots by Muslims around the world left 16 people dead, but after further investigation, it turns out that they found very little that wasn't simply an unsubstantiated allegation. By the way, terrorists are trained to make such accusations when they're captured because they know the ACLU and the media will come to their defense. Hm, I bet you didn't hear that in the mainstream media, did you?
To be fair, the photos from the infamous Abu Graib scandal were clearly inappropriate, and I'm sure there have been a few other incidents of legitimate prisoner abuse. But, the few individuals responsible for those lapses of judgment have been tried and punished. Now, let's be honest - were those humiliating photos really on a par with cutting off someone's head? Dragging someone's body through the streets behind a car? Slicing off body parts? These are all acts that the terrorists have proudly committed against both American soldiers and civilians, and will continue to do so until they're stopped.
Who's guilty of torture? The terrorists, not us. So why are we the ones being accused?
The Supreme Court's decision to hear the appeals from these detainees is a clear signal that they're giving these terrorists the rights of American citizens, and that is absolutely, unconscionably WRONG. It ridicules the sacrifices of our American troops, who are fighting and dying to protect the rights of American citizens to grant those same rights to the dregs of human existence. My only hope is that the Supreme Court is hearing these appeals so they can make a final ruling that they are unconstitutional and will not be heard ever again.
If that doesn't happen, that creepy noise we'll hear is the sound of hysterical laughter coming from radical jihadists all over the world as they come to kill us while being protected by our own Constitution.
There's my two (angry) cents.
I recently blogged about the Supreme Court making an originalist turn, but it looks like that may have been short-lived. Last Friday the Supreme Court decided it would hear an appeal from detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay, reversing their earlier decision and surprising everyone (even those representing the terrorists). Not only is this the first time in recent memory that the SC has reversed its decision on whether or not to hear a case, but it's pure folly and a clear departure from the laws of this country. Let me walk you through it.
The people being held at Gitmo are terrorists, pure and simple. These are the worst of the worst, and if any human beings can truly be called evil, these guys win the prize. Most are citizens of countries that are outwardly hostile toward American interests. They are prisoners of war, captured on the battlefield while they're attempting to kill American soldiers; but they are not normal prisoners of war: they hide behind women and children, they blow up churches, schools, and themselves. They wear no uniforms, they do not subscribe to the Geneva Conventions. They proudly behead Americans live on the Internet, and they repeatedly torture -- real, actual torture -- and mutilate their captives until death becomes true mercy.
Naturally, we should give them the constitutional rights of American citizens.
That's the argument of their defenders in the media and the liberal elite, and that's essentially what's happening here. Let's rewind. By not wearing any uniforms and not adhering to the Geneva Conventions, these murderous thugs are thus not legally entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. These guys are likewise not American citizens, and are thus not legally entitled to the rights of American citizens (like legal representation) according to the US Constitution. In the long history of the US military, the standard form of justice for people like them is a military tribunal. Despite those critical (and blatantly obvious) facts, the ACLU and other liberal groups who represent these terrorists have fought tooth and nail to give them the protections of Geneva and the US Constitution, and they've largely succeeded. These terrorists perform the most horrific acts of barbarism that can be conceived by man, and proudly display it for the whole world on the Internet, along with the promise of more to come. Despite that, the ACLU and other liberals maintain they're simply 'misunderstood' and 'mistreated'.
Bull.
There should never have been a doubt that what the US is doing at Guantanamo Bay is absolutely 100% legal. Look at the past - in World War II we rounded up Japanese Americans and put them into camps for doing nothing other than being Japanese. That was wrong. The questions raised about these terrorists in Gitmo are of night and day difference from that.
So what if we make them listen to Britney Spears a little too loud, dunk them in water (which, by the way, is standard training for US Navy personnel), or never give them a peaceful night of rest? These guys would just as soon cut your fingers off as look at you, and we're supposed to feel sorry for them for being tired? Get real! Keep in mind that the mental exhaustion incurred from long-term discomfort -- and that's truly all it is -- has given us some of the best intelligence of the War on Terror, allowing us to bag some of the major ringleaders of al Qaeda, and we're supposed to stop that to avoid offending their sensibilities? In what world does that make any kind of sense??
Back in June of 2005, Duncan Hunter (a current Republican presidential candidate) visited Gitmo. According to him, here's one of the horrible things these terrorists had to struggle through: "I sat down yesterday with the menu from Guantanamo so the average American can understand how we're brutalizing people at Guantanamo and I've got it right here. They're going to be having orange glazed chicken, fresh fruit Group A, steamed peas and mushrooms, rice pilaf, another form of torture for the hijackers. We treat them very well. If you go back to Sunday, it looks like it's lemon baked fish as an entrée". In addition, when these terrorists arrive they are given their own copy of the Koran and a prayer rug (which YOU pay for), told which wall of their cell faces East, and are given silent times to pray every day. They also tend to gain weight while in US custody since we feed them so well and give them high-quality health care. Hunter goes on to say that the rations given to US troops are considered a form of abuse by the Armed Services Committee! So, what you've got is terrorists being treated better than our own American soldiers, and yet it's our own soldiers that are being accused of torture!
The Washington Post ran a story around the same time about the alleged 'Koran abuse' that American soldiers were supposedly performing, including flushing pages of a Koran down the toilet. The ensuing riots by Muslims around the world left 16 people dead, but after further investigation, it turns out that they found very little that wasn't simply an unsubstantiated allegation. By the way, terrorists are trained to make such accusations when they're captured because they know the ACLU and the media will come to their defense. Hm, I bet you didn't hear that in the mainstream media, did you?
To be fair, the photos from the infamous Abu Graib scandal were clearly inappropriate, and I'm sure there have been a few other incidents of legitimate prisoner abuse. But, the few individuals responsible for those lapses of judgment have been tried and punished. Now, let's be honest - were those humiliating photos really on a par with cutting off someone's head? Dragging someone's body through the streets behind a car? Slicing off body parts? These are all acts that the terrorists have proudly committed against both American soldiers and civilians, and will continue to do so until they're stopped.
Who's guilty of torture? The terrorists, not us. So why are we the ones being accused?
The Supreme Court's decision to hear the appeals from these detainees is a clear signal that they're giving these terrorists the rights of American citizens, and that is absolutely, unconscionably WRONG. It ridicules the sacrifices of our American troops, who are fighting and dying to protect the rights of American citizens to grant those same rights to the dregs of human existence. My only hope is that the Supreme Court is hearing these appeals so they can make a final ruling that they are unconstitutional and will not be heard ever again.
If that doesn't happen, that creepy noise we'll hear is the sound of hysterical laughter coming from radical jihadists all over the world as they come to kill us while being protected by our own Constitution.
There's my two (angry) cents.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
A Forgotten Component of Immigration
A New York Post editorial by Michelle Malkin hits the nail on the head regarding a critical component of immigration that was completely absent in the recent amnesty debacle. She points out that an immediate backlash from militant illegal aliens (waving Mexican flags, burning American flags, etc.) last year prompted amnesty proponents to switch tactics to embrace the American flag and support learning English and pursuing citizenship. Now that amnesty is dead, she questions whether or not those tactics will change. We'll find out in time.
Malkin puts forward the theory that we are NOT a nation of immigrants since 85% of the population was born here; rather, we are descendants of immigrants. But, even if we were a nation of immigrants, why would we not want sensible immigration control? She cites our Founding Fathers -- including George Washington, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton -- who repeatedly stressed the importance of assimilation. We are a nation of laws, and the primary purpose of the government is "to provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty", not to "celebrate diversity" or to "embrace multiculturalism" or to give "every willing worker" in the world a job.
I ask you to recall when during the recent amnesty debate you heard the term assimilation. My guess is you never did, unless it was from someone opposed to amnesty saying assimilation was completely absent from the amnesty bill. As I said in my last blog, immigration is key to the success of our country, but it has to be done correctly. And that means assimilation.
There's my two cents.
Malkin puts forward the theory that we are NOT a nation of immigrants since 85% of the population was born here; rather, we are descendants of immigrants. But, even if we were a nation of immigrants, why would we not want sensible immigration control? She cites our Founding Fathers -- including George Washington, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton -- who repeatedly stressed the importance of assimilation. We are a nation of laws, and the primary purpose of the government is "to provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty", not to "celebrate diversity" or to "embrace multiculturalism" or to give "every willing worker" in the world a job.
I ask you to recall when during the recent amnesty debate you heard the term assimilation. My guess is you never did, unless it was from someone opposed to amnesty saying assimilation was completely absent from the amnesty bill. As I said in my last blog, immigration is key to the success of our country, but it has to be done correctly. And that means assimilation.
There's my two cents.
The Next Immigration Steps
A couple of interesting articles caught my eye today. First up is from La Shawn Barber in the St. Louis Examiner. The headline is 'Now that amnesty is dead, locals must act against employers'. He talks about how the amnesty bill was killed, but there is still a LOT of work to be done in securing our borders. To that end, since the federal government has proven unable (or unwilling) to take necessary steps, it falls to state and local governments to do the job. Barber cites as a prime examples the fact that governors of Arizona and Oklahoma have recently signed into law that would severely penalize employers who hire illegal aliens. The interesting thing to note about this is that both of those governors are Democrats, proving that this is not a Republican/Democrat issue at all; rather, it's a matter of American citizens of all stripes realizing that something needs to be done, but not amnesty.
Another very interesting article comes from Matthew Spalding and James Jay Carafano at National Review Online. They point out that immigration reform doesn't need to be 'comprehensive' or even difficult. It would take four simple steps:
1. Enforce the laws. Everything we need to secure our borders is already on the books. Just do it.
2. Regain control of the southern border. Some initiatives are in progress; just keep going.
3. Emphasize legal immigration. Obviously, legal immigration is a benefit to both the immigrant and the country, so keep it up.
4. Create flexible legal opportunities to work in the United States. This is an important point for both sides, and there's no reason a workable program can't be worked out.
Given the public furor over the amnesty bill, this issue is in the forefront of the public's mind, so now is the time to act. Poll after poll shows that most Americans want border security first, then these other programs afterward. If someone in Congress would be so bold as to propose this sort of approach, I think it would meet with great success, both in the public perception and in the effectiveness of the solution itself.
There's my two cents.
Another very interesting article comes from Matthew Spalding and James Jay Carafano at National Review Online. They point out that immigration reform doesn't need to be 'comprehensive' or even difficult. It would take four simple steps:
1. Enforce the laws. Everything we need to secure our borders is already on the books. Just do it.
2. Regain control of the southern border. Some initiatives are in progress; just keep going.
3. Emphasize legal immigration. Obviously, legal immigration is a benefit to both the immigrant and the country, so keep it up.
4. Create flexible legal opportunities to work in the United States. This is an important point for both sides, and there's no reason a workable program can't be worked out.
Given the public furor over the amnesty bill, this issue is in the forefront of the public's mind, so now is the time to act. Poll after poll shows that most Americans want border security first, then these other programs afterward. If someone in Congress would be so bold as to propose this sort of approach, I think it would meet with great success, both in the public perception and in the effectiveness of the solution itself.
There's my two cents.
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
God Bless The U.S.A.
This may be a tad bit cliche, but if the shoe fits...
I still get chills every time I hear this song, and I hope you do, too.
There's my two cents.
If tomorrow all the things were gone,
I’d worked for all my life.
And I had to start again,
with just my children and my wife.
I’d thank my lucky stars,
to be livin here today.
‘Cause the flag still stands for freedom,
and they can’t take that away.
And I’m proud to be an American,
where at least I know I’m free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.
And I gladly stand up,
next to you and defend her still today.
‘Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land,
God bless the USA.
From the lakes of Minnesota,
to the hills of Tennessee.
Across the plains of Texas,
From sea to shining sea.
From Detroit down to Houston,
and New York to L.A.
Well there's pride in every American heart,
and its time we stand and say.
That I’m proud to be an American,
where at least I know I’m free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.
And I gladly stand up,
next to you and defend her still today.
‘Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land,
God bless the USA.
And I’m proud to be and American,
where at least I know I’m free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.
And I gladly stand up,
next to you and defend her still today.
‘Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land,
God bless the USA.
I’d worked for all my life.
And I had to start again,
with just my children and my wife.
I’d thank my lucky stars,
to be livin here today.
‘Cause the flag still stands for freedom,
and they can’t take that away.
And I’m proud to be an American,
where at least I know I’m free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.
And I gladly stand up,
next to you and defend her still today.
‘Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land,
God bless the USA.
From the lakes of Minnesota,
to the hills of Tennessee.
Across the plains of Texas,
From sea to shining sea.
From Detroit down to Houston,
and New York to L.A.
Well there's pride in every American heart,
and its time we stand and say.
That I’m proud to be an American,
where at least I know I’m free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.
And I gladly stand up,
next to you and defend her still today.
‘Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land,
God bless the USA.
And I’m proud to be and American,
where at least I know I’m free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.
And I gladly stand up,
next to you and defend her still today.
‘Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land,
God bless the USA.
I still get chills every time I hear this song, and I hope you do, too.
There's my two cents.
Happy Independence Day!
Today is a day that we as Americans celebrate, and rightfully so. But, in our celebrations, let's not forget the true reasons for why we are free and prosperous, nor those who have sacrificed everything to grant and preserve that freedom and prosperity.
The Declaration of Independence is one of the key documents in our nation's history, and deserves a moment of reflection and review today.
Rush Limbaugh's father wrote a speech in December of 2000 that I think is worth reading, too. It's a bit lengthy, but since you probably have the day off today, please take a moment to read about the beginning of our great nation and the men who courageously stepped out in faith for a new nation and a new hope in the world despite grave risk to themselves and their families.
Read here.
Finally, in addition to those who have gone before, let us not forget those who are serving this great nation today, whether at home or abroad. Let us not ignore those brave men and women of the Armed Forces who are putting their lives on the line to guarantee our continued freedom and prosperity. Let us pray for them and their families, for strength, for courage, and for a safe return to that which they protect.
Happy Independence Day!
The Declaration of Independence is one of the key documents in our nation's history, and deserves a moment of reflection and review today.
Rush Limbaugh's father wrote a speech in December of 2000 that I think is worth reading, too. It's a bit lengthy, but since you probably have the day off today, please take a moment to read about the beginning of our great nation and the men who courageously stepped out in faith for a new nation and a new hope in the world despite grave risk to themselves and their families.
Read here.
Finally, in addition to those who have gone before, let us not forget those who are serving this great nation today, whether at home or abroad. Let us not ignore those brave men and women of the Armed Forces who are putting their lives on the line to guarantee our continued freedom and prosperity. Let us pray for them and their families, for strength, for courage, and for a safe return to that which they protect.
Happy Independence Day!
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
The Real Deal on Scooter Libby
You've probably heard that President Bush commuted the sentence of Scooter Libby this week. You've probably also heard a lot of complaining by the leading Democrats about how Bush is practicing 'cronyism' and showing blatant disregard for the criminal justice system.
What you've probably not heard is the real story.
The line in the media is essentially this: Scooter Libby 'leaked' the name of Valerie Plame, a CIA covert operative, to the press, therefore endangering her and her family. Plame is the wife of Joe Wilson, who had been sent to determine whether or not Iraq had tried to buy yellowcake -- a key ingredient to an atomic bomb -- from Africa. Wilson and Plame (and their willing shills in the mainstream media) have put together a string of lies and deceit longer than your left arm, and I really don't have the space to get into all of it, so I'll just hit a couple major points and then address Libby. Most of the details I'm getting are from a couple of Rush Limbaugh articles (Limbaugh Letter Dec. 2005 and Feb. 2007) about the topic.
Lie #1: Plame was a covert operator. She hadn't been a covert operator for years, well past the legal definition of a 'covert' operator.
Lie #2: Plame had nothing to do with Wilson's trip to Niger. In fact, Plame suggested her husband when the assignment came up.
Lie #3: Wilson's trip debunked the Iraq/Africa uranium deal. Actually, his report lent credibility to the deal. But, in public, he made heated and repeated arguments to the contrary. When questioned by the Senate committee who was investigating, he said he may have used 'a little literary flair'. Uh-huh...
If these lies weren't enough, the prosecutor in the case, Patrick Fitzgerald, should be investigated for misconduct. This whole thing was an example of a runaway prosecutor with a political axe to grind, seeking a crime that wasn't there. What was Fitzgerald trying to find out? He was searching for the leaker of Plame's name in a Bob Novak article.
Here's how the whole thing went down. Fitzgerald subpoened numerous people, held weeks of testimony, and generally hassled the administration until he finally found someone with a less-than-flawless memory - Libby, Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff. Based on a few tiny holes in Libby's memory, Fitzgerald was able to get an indictment of one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of making false statements, and two counts of perjury.
Notice, there's nothing in there about Plame or the actual reason that Fitzgerald was supposedly conducting an investigation. That's because no crime was actually committed! Plame wasn't a covert op, the statements made by the administration about the uranium deal were true, and there were no under-the-table shenanigans going on.
But, Fitzgerald was able to poke a few holes in Libby's testimony and take him down. Let's be honest - could you answer hours of detailed questions regarding a normal, daily event that happened three years ago? What were you doing at 10:17am on July 5th, 2004? Give me the exact words of every conversation you had that day. Come on, make it quick, you're under oath!
See what a sham this was? It was simply an attempt to smear any part of the Bush administration with anything they could find.
To top it off, the supposed 'leaker' -- again, the entire reason for appointing a special investigator -- was former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. Three years after the story first broke (and after Libby's career and life had been destroyed), Armitage came clean to CBS News, admitting that he was the one who mentioned Plame's name to Novak back in 2003. He went on to say that when he saw Novak's article, he contacted Fitzgerald about the fact that he was the 'leaker', but Fitzgerald asked him not to discuss this fact!!! I should also mention here that Armitage is favored by the media for his criticisms of Bush.
So, now you have a nutshell of the facts: Wilson and Plame lied, prosecution ignored early evidence, the investigation was a thinly veiled attempt to disrupt the Bush administration, and Libby was found guilty only of not having a perfect memory of something that happened years earlier.
And he got almost 3 years in prison for it.
Here's another fun fact - Libby is not a flight risk, and he never showed any sign of non-cooperation. In such a circumstance, a person in his position would normally be allowed to remain on house arrest while his appeals process played out. But, the judge, another Bush-hater, ruled that Libby had to report to jail immediately while waiting on his appeals.
Enter President Bush.
He commuted Libby's sentence, which essentially means that Libby will keep the conviction on his record, pay a stiff fine, and not go to jail. Was Bush helping out a friend in need? Absolutely. Was that friend simply avoiding his just punishment? Don't kid yourself.
Good call on the commute, Mr. President.
Oh, and in case you're wondering how previous presidents used their pardons...? Check out this website for a list of all the pardons granted by Bill Clinton, and this article where the former President explains himself. Interesting reading, if you like double standards.
There's my two cents.
What you've probably not heard is the real story.
The line in the media is essentially this: Scooter Libby 'leaked' the name of Valerie Plame, a CIA covert operative, to the press, therefore endangering her and her family. Plame is the wife of Joe Wilson, who had been sent to determine whether or not Iraq had tried to buy yellowcake -- a key ingredient to an atomic bomb -- from Africa. Wilson and Plame (and their willing shills in the mainstream media) have put together a string of lies and deceit longer than your left arm, and I really don't have the space to get into all of it, so I'll just hit a couple major points and then address Libby. Most of the details I'm getting are from a couple of Rush Limbaugh articles (Limbaugh Letter Dec. 2005 and Feb. 2007) about the topic.
Lie #1: Plame was a covert operator. She hadn't been a covert operator for years, well past the legal definition of a 'covert' operator.
Lie #2: Plame had nothing to do with Wilson's trip to Niger. In fact, Plame suggested her husband when the assignment came up.
Lie #3: Wilson's trip debunked the Iraq/Africa uranium deal. Actually, his report lent credibility to the deal. But, in public, he made heated and repeated arguments to the contrary. When questioned by the Senate committee who was investigating, he said he may have used 'a little literary flair'. Uh-huh...
If these lies weren't enough, the prosecutor in the case, Patrick Fitzgerald, should be investigated for misconduct. This whole thing was an example of a runaway prosecutor with a political axe to grind, seeking a crime that wasn't there. What was Fitzgerald trying to find out? He was searching for the leaker of Plame's name in a Bob Novak article.
Here's how the whole thing went down. Fitzgerald subpoened numerous people, held weeks of testimony, and generally hassled the administration until he finally found someone with a less-than-flawless memory - Libby, Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff. Based on a few tiny holes in Libby's memory, Fitzgerald was able to get an indictment of one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of making false statements, and two counts of perjury.
Notice, there's nothing in there about Plame or the actual reason that Fitzgerald was supposedly conducting an investigation. That's because no crime was actually committed! Plame wasn't a covert op, the statements made by the administration about the uranium deal were true, and there were no under-the-table shenanigans going on.
But, Fitzgerald was able to poke a few holes in Libby's testimony and take him down. Let's be honest - could you answer hours of detailed questions regarding a normal, daily event that happened three years ago? What were you doing at 10:17am on July 5th, 2004? Give me the exact words of every conversation you had that day. Come on, make it quick, you're under oath!
See what a sham this was? It was simply an attempt to smear any part of the Bush administration with anything they could find.
To top it off, the supposed 'leaker' -- again, the entire reason for appointing a special investigator -- was former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. Three years after the story first broke (and after Libby's career and life had been destroyed), Armitage came clean to CBS News, admitting that he was the one who mentioned Plame's name to Novak back in 2003. He went on to say that when he saw Novak's article, he contacted Fitzgerald about the fact that he was the 'leaker', but Fitzgerald asked him not to discuss this fact!!! I should also mention here that Armitage is favored by the media for his criticisms of Bush.
So, now you have a nutshell of the facts: Wilson and Plame lied, prosecution ignored early evidence, the investigation was a thinly veiled attempt to disrupt the Bush administration, and Libby was found guilty only of not having a perfect memory of something that happened years earlier.
And he got almost 3 years in prison for it.
Here's another fun fact - Libby is not a flight risk, and he never showed any sign of non-cooperation. In such a circumstance, a person in his position would normally be allowed to remain on house arrest while his appeals process played out. But, the judge, another Bush-hater, ruled that Libby had to report to jail immediately while waiting on his appeals.
Enter President Bush.
He commuted Libby's sentence, which essentially means that Libby will keep the conviction on his record, pay a stiff fine, and not go to jail. Was Bush helping out a friend in need? Absolutely. Was that friend simply avoiding his just punishment? Don't kid yourself.
Good call on the commute, Mr. President.
Oh, and in case you're wondering how previous presidents used their pardons...? Check out this website for a list of all the pardons granted by Bill Clinton, and this article where the former President explains himself. Interesting reading, if you like double standards.
There's my two cents.
The Supreme Court's Recent Decisions
I'm back, and there's been plenty to blog about while I was gone, so here we go!
If you've been reading my blog, you know I vehemently disagree with President Bush's policy on immigration. However, I couldn't agree more on his Supreme Court nominations (Harriett Meiers was an awful choice, but her nomination was withdrawn, so I'm not counting her). This could end up being one of the major components of Bush's post-Presidential legacy, and a real positive. Here's why.
There are two kinds of judges: originalist and activist. The basic difference is that the activist judge believes the Constitution (and thus all other law) is a living, evolving thing that should be interpreted based on current thought. The originalist judge believes the Constitution was written in a specific way for a specific reason by the Founding Fathers, and that it should be interpreted in light of the context and intent of those reasons. Another way to think about it is that an originalist will simply interpret the law as it is already stated; an activist will interpret the law as he/she believes it should be. That might sound like playing with semantics, but there's a world of difference when it comes to application, and the ramifications are immense. Here's an obvious example: in February of 2005, a judge in Nebraska overruled an amendment to the Nebraska state constitution that would have banned gay marriage. The amendment had passed with 70% approval, but this judge believed that the law should have changed to reflect today's culture, so he ruled accordingly. The problem as illustrated here is that a single activist judge can overrule 70% of a state's population -- or more, theoretically -- all by himself. This is a terrible abuse of power, and should be stopped at all costs.
How do most judges get their jobs? They're usually appointed by governors or the President (depending on whether they're state or federal). So, whoever wins the White House gets a major trump card in determining policy when judge vacancies come open. That's one of the privileges of the Presidency, and a key part of the checks and balances of our system of government.
So, to circle back around, Bush has made two appointments, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito to the Supreme Court, and both are undeniably brilliant, young, and solid originalists. The previous make-up of the Supreme Court was 4 activists, 3 originalists, and two wafflers (O'Connor and Kennedy) who usually leaned to the activist side. Now, with Roberts and Alito, the balance has shifted to 5 originalists and 4 activists, with Kennedy generally being the only occasional waffler. Again, it may seem small, but the differences are already showing.
A number of the recent decisions have been 5-4 in favor of the originalist viewpoint, and we're talking about some key issues. In 2002, the McCain-Feingold Act was passed, which effectively banned political ads from being run less than 60 days before an election. [Side note: unlike the shamnesty bill, this was a perfect example of not enough people paying not enough attention - this Act was a clear violation of the 1st Amendment right to free speech, but people thought sure it couldn't pass Congress; when it did, they thought surely the President wouldn't sign it into law; when he did, they thought surely the Supreme Court wouldn't let it stand; they did - shame on all of us for not getting outraged by this!] In a recent decision, the new Court reigned in the restrictions on political ads prior to an election. If you want more details, go here and here. By way of summary, the whole thing wasn't dismantled, but the new ruling was at least a step in the right direction, and Alito even left the door open for reviewing the whole kit and kaboodle again, so it may come up in the future. But, as the Editors of NRO said, speech is now "slightly freer". As it should be!
Another recent decision is that of striking down race-based school assignments. The short version of this is that many schools around the country use race as a deciding factor in where students are allowed to go to school; that practice has now been ruled unconstitutional. You'll probably hear a lot of whining about 're-segregation' due to this ruling, but don't believe it - the evidence shows there is more racial mixture happening in schools now than any time in our nation's history. Besides, isn't the whole idea of segregation bad? Wasn't that the reason for Brown v. Board of Education in the first place - to allow students of different races to mix? This ruling should be heralded as confirmation that racism is a poor substitute for giving children of all color the best opportunity to learn and succeed. But, since it's a political issue, you won't hear that.
Both of these decisions were 5-4. There is some talk of another potential retirement in the Supreme Court before Bush's second term is over. If that happens, you could see a definite change in the rulings coming down, and that would be a good thing for America. Any time you have a single activist judge that can (and will) override the will of the American people, it opens the door to major abuses, and that's something that should be avoided. Another thing that activist judges (especially at the Supreme Court level) like to do is quote international law. I don't know about you, but I think that when they're trying to interpret American law, they should stick to...American law.
There has been a shift in the views of the Court under Roberts, and that should be a good thing - it means less activism and more strict interpretation, which is, according to the Constitution, what they're supposed to be doing, anyway.
There's my two cents.
If you've been reading my blog, you know I vehemently disagree with President Bush's policy on immigration. However, I couldn't agree more on his Supreme Court nominations (Harriett Meiers was an awful choice, but her nomination was withdrawn, so I'm not counting her). This could end up being one of the major components of Bush's post-Presidential legacy, and a real positive. Here's why.
There are two kinds of judges: originalist and activist. The basic difference is that the activist judge believes the Constitution (and thus all other law) is a living, evolving thing that should be interpreted based on current thought. The originalist judge believes the Constitution was written in a specific way for a specific reason by the Founding Fathers, and that it should be interpreted in light of the context and intent of those reasons. Another way to think about it is that an originalist will simply interpret the law as it is already stated; an activist will interpret the law as he/she believes it should be. That might sound like playing with semantics, but there's a world of difference when it comes to application, and the ramifications are immense. Here's an obvious example: in February of 2005, a judge in Nebraska overruled an amendment to the Nebraska state constitution that would have banned gay marriage. The amendment had passed with 70% approval, but this judge believed that the law should have changed to reflect today's culture, so he ruled accordingly. The problem as illustrated here is that a single activist judge can overrule 70% of a state's population -- or more, theoretically -- all by himself. This is a terrible abuse of power, and should be stopped at all costs.
How do most judges get their jobs? They're usually appointed by governors or the President (depending on whether they're state or federal). So, whoever wins the White House gets a major trump card in determining policy when judge vacancies come open. That's one of the privileges of the Presidency, and a key part of the checks and balances of our system of government.
So, to circle back around, Bush has made two appointments, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito to the Supreme Court, and both are undeniably brilliant, young, and solid originalists. The previous make-up of the Supreme Court was 4 activists, 3 originalists, and two wafflers (O'Connor and Kennedy) who usually leaned to the activist side. Now, with Roberts and Alito, the balance has shifted to 5 originalists and 4 activists, with Kennedy generally being the only occasional waffler. Again, it may seem small, but the differences are already showing.
A number of the recent decisions have been 5-4 in favor of the originalist viewpoint, and we're talking about some key issues. In 2002, the McCain-Feingold Act was passed, which effectively banned political ads from being run less than 60 days before an election. [Side note: unlike the shamnesty bill, this was a perfect example of not enough people paying not enough attention - this Act was a clear violation of the 1st Amendment right to free speech, but people thought sure it couldn't pass Congress; when it did, they thought surely the President wouldn't sign it into law; when he did, they thought surely the Supreme Court wouldn't let it stand; they did - shame on all of us for not getting outraged by this!] In a recent decision, the new Court reigned in the restrictions on political ads prior to an election. If you want more details, go here and here. By way of summary, the whole thing wasn't dismantled, but the new ruling was at least a step in the right direction, and Alito even left the door open for reviewing the whole kit and kaboodle again, so it may come up in the future. But, as the Editors of NRO said, speech is now "slightly freer". As it should be!
Another recent decision is that of striking down race-based school assignments. The short version of this is that many schools around the country use race as a deciding factor in where students are allowed to go to school; that practice has now been ruled unconstitutional. You'll probably hear a lot of whining about 're-segregation' due to this ruling, but don't believe it - the evidence shows there is more racial mixture happening in schools now than any time in our nation's history. Besides, isn't the whole idea of segregation bad? Wasn't that the reason for Brown v. Board of Education in the first place - to allow students of different races to mix? This ruling should be heralded as confirmation that racism is a poor substitute for giving children of all color the best opportunity to learn and succeed. But, since it's a political issue, you won't hear that.
Both of these decisions were 5-4. There is some talk of another potential retirement in the Supreme Court before Bush's second term is over. If that happens, you could see a definite change in the rulings coming down, and that would be a good thing for America. Any time you have a single activist judge that can (and will) override the will of the American people, it opens the door to major abuses, and that's something that should be avoided. Another thing that activist judges (especially at the Supreme Court level) like to do is quote international law. I don't know about you, but I think that when they're trying to interpret American law, they should stick to...American law.
There has been a shift in the views of the Court under Roberts, and that should be a good thing - it means less activism and more strict interpretation, which is, according to the Constitution, what they're supposed to be doing, anyway.
There's my two cents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)