Giving the Democrat response to President Bush's State of the Union speech tonight was Kansas Governor Kathleen Sibelius.
The full text of her speech is here.
Choosing Sibelius as the deliverer of the response was a bad move on a purely aesthetic basis - Sibelius's comments could be packaged and sold as a cure for insomnia. She hardly blinked and she spoke in a plodding monotone with facial expressions that were even less interesting. I don't even recall what she said, other than some drivel about an 'American majority'. I'm not going to waste time looking at the transcript - if she said anything useful, I'll hear about it tomorrow and pass it along to you then.
Ugh...
Monday, January 28, 2008
2008 State Of The Union
President Bush gave his final State of the Union speech tonight. Click here for the transcript.
Some notable excerpts:
The Economy and Tax Relief
As we meet tonight, our economy is undergoing a period of uncertainty. America has added jobs for a record 52 straight months, but jobs are now growing at a slower pace. Wages are up, but so are prices for food and gas. Exports are rising, but the housing market has declined. At kitchen tables across our country, there is a concern about our economic future.
In the long run, Americans can be confident about our economic growth. But in the short run, we can all see that that growth is slowing.
Unless Congress acts, most of the tax relief we've delivered over the past seven years will be taken away. Some in Washington argue that letting tax relief expire is not a tax increase. Try explaining that to 116 million American taxpayers who would see their taxes rise by an average of $1,800. Others have said they would personally be happy to pay higher taxes. I welcome their enthusiasm. I'm pleased to report that the IRS accepts both checks and money orders.
Most Americans think their taxes are high enough. With all the other pressures on their finances, American families should not have to worry about their federal government taking a bigger bite out of their paychecks. There's only one way to eliminate this uncertainty: Make the tax relief permanent. (Applause.) And members of Congress should know: If any bill raises taxes reaches my desk, I will veto it. (Applause.)
Just as we trust Americans with their own money, we need to earn their trust by spending their tax dollars wisely. Next week, I'll send you a budget that terminates or substantially reduces 151 wasteful or bloated programs, totaling more than $18 billion. The budget that I will submit will keep America on track for a surplus in 2012. American families have to balance their budgets; so should their government.
The people's trust in their government is undermined by congressional earmarks -- special interest projects that are often snuck in at the last minute, without discussion or debate. Last year, I asked you to voluntarily cut the number and cost of earmarks in half. I also asked you to stop slipping earmarks into committee reports that never even come to a vote. Unfortunately, neither goal was met. So this time, if you send me an appropriations bill that does not cut the number and cost of earmarks in half, I'll send it back to you with my veto. (Applause.)
And tomorrow, I will issue an executive order that directs federal agencies to ignore any future earmark that is not voted on by Congress. If these items are truly worth funding, Congress should debate them in the open and hold a public vote. (Applause.)
Health Care
The best way to achieve [the goal of more affordable and accessible health care] is by expanding consumer choice, not government control. (Applause.) So I have proposed ending the bias in the tax code against those who do not get their health insurance through their employer. This one reform would put private coverage within reach for millions, and I call on the Congress to pass it this year. (Applause.)
The Congress must also expand health savings accounts, create Association Health Plans for small businesses, promote health information technology, and confront the epidemic of junk medical lawsuits.
Education
Six years ago, we came together to pass the No Child Left Behind Act, and today no one can deny its results. Last year, fourth and eighth graders achieved the highest math scores on record. Reading scores are on the rise. African American and Hispanic students posted all-time highs. (Applause.) Now we must work together to increase accountability, add flexibility for states and districts, reduce the number of high school dropouts, provide extra help for struggling schools.
Members of Congress: The No Child Left Behind Act is a bipartisan achievement. It is succeeding. And we owe it to America's children, their parents, and their teachers to strengthen this good law.
Environment
Last year, I asked you to pass legislation to reduce oil consumption over the next decade, and you responded. Together we should take the next steps: Let us fund new technologies that can generate coal power while capturing carbon emissions. (Applause.) Let us increase the use of renewable power and emissions-free nuclear power. (Applause.) Let us continue investing in advanced battery technology and renewable fuels to power the cars and trucks of the future. (Applause.) Let us create a new international clean technology fund, which will help developing nations like India and China make greater use of clean energy sources. And let us complete an international agreement that has the potential to slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growth of greenhouse gases. (Applause.)
This agreement will be effective only if it includes commitments by every major economy and gives none a free ride. (Applause.) The United States is committed to strengthening our energy security and confronting global climate change. And the best way to meet these goals is for America to continue leading the way toward the development of cleaner and more energy-efficient technology.
Stem Cell Research
On matters of life and science, we must trust in the innovative spirit of medical researchers and empower them to discover new treatments while respecting moral boundaries. In November, we witnessed a landmark achievement when scientists discovered a way to reprogram adult skin cells to act like embryonic stem cells. This breakthrough has the potential to move us beyond the divisive debates of the past by extending the frontiers of medicine without the destruction of human life. (Applause.)
So we're expanding funding for this type of ethical medical research. And as we explore promising avenues of research, we must also ensure that all life is treated with the dignity it deserves. And so I call on Congress to pass legislation that bans unethical practices such as the buying, selling, patenting, or cloning of human life. (Applause.)
Judicial Nominations
On matters of justice, we must trust in the wisdom of our founders and empower judges who understand that the Constitution means what it says. (Applause.) I've submitted judicial nominees who will rule by the letter of the law, not the whim of the gavel. Many of these nominees are being unfairly delayed. They are worthy of confirmation, and the Senate should give each of them a prompt up-or-down vote. (Applause.)
Spending
Every member in this chamber knows that spending on entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is growing faster than we can afford. We all know the painful choices ahead if America stays on this path: massive tax increases, sudden and drastic cuts in benefits, or crippling deficits. I've laid out proposals to reform these programs. Now I ask members of Congress to offer your proposals and come up with a bipartisan solution to save these vital programs for our children and our grandchildren.
Immigration
America needs to secure our borders -- and with your help, my administration is taking steps to do so. We're increasing worksite enforcement, deploying fences and advanced technologies to stop illegal crossings. We've effectively ended the policy of "catch and release" at the border, and by the end of this year, we will have doubled the number of border patrol agents. Yet we also need to acknowledge that we will never fully secure our border until we create a lawful way for foreign workers to come here and support our economy. (Applause.) This will take pressure off the border and allow law enforcement to concentrate on those who mean us harm. We must also find a sensible and humane way to deal with people here illegally. Illegal immigration is complicated, but it can be resolved. And it must be resolved in a way that upholds both our laws and our highest ideals.
Foreign Policy
In the last seven years, we have witnessed stirring moments in the history of liberty. We've seen citizens in Georgia and Ukraine stand up for their right to free and fair elections. We've seen people in Lebanon take to the streets to demand their independence. We've seen Afghans emerge from the tyranny of the Taliban and choose a new president and a new parliament. We've seen jubilant Iraqis holding up ink-stained fingers and celebrating their freedom. These images of liberty have inspired us.
Since 9/11, we have taken the fight to these terrorists and extremists. We will stay on the offense, we will keep up the pressure, and we will deliver justice to our enemies. (Applause.)
Radical Islamism
We are engaged in the defining ideological struggle of the 21st century. The terrorists oppose every principle of humanity and decency that we hold dear. Yet in this war on terror, there is one thing we and our enemies agree on: In the long run, men and women who are free to determine their own destinies will reject terror and refuse to live in tyranny. And that is why the terrorists are fighting to deny this choice to the people in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Palestinian Territories. And that is why, for the security of America and the peace of the world, we are spreading the hope of freedom. (Applause.)
Afghanistan
In Afghanistan, America, our 25 NATO allies, and 15 partner nations are helping the Afghan people defend their freedom and rebuild their country. Thanks to the courage of these military and civilian personnel, a nation that was once a safe haven for al Qaeda is now a young democracy where boys and girls are going to school, new roads and hospitals are being built, and people are looking to the future with new hope.
Iraq
One year ago, our enemies were succeeding in their efforts to plunge Iraq into chaos. So we reviewed our strategy and changed course. We launched a surge of American forces into Iraq. We gave our troops a new mission: Work with the Iraqi forces to protect the Iraqi people, pursue the enemy in its strongholds, and deny the terrorists sanctuary anywhere in the country.
The Iraqi people quickly realized that something dramatic had happened. Those who had worried that America was preparing to abandon them instead saw tens of thousands of American forces flowing into their country. They saw our forces moving into neighborhoods, clearing out the terrorists, and staying behind to ensure the enemy did not return.
The Iraqis launched a surge of their own. In the fall of 2006, Sunni tribal leaders grew tired of al Qaeda's brutality and started a popular uprising called "The Anbar Awakening." Over the past year, similar movements have spread across the country. And today, the grassroots surge includes more than 80,000 Iraqi citizens who are fighting the terrorists. The government in Baghdad has stepped forward, as well -- adding more than 100,000 new Iraqi soldiers and police during the past year.
While the enemy is still dangerous and more work remains, the American and Iraqi surges have achieved results few of us could have imagined just one year ago.
Al Qaeda
Last month, Osama bin Laden released a tape in which he railed against Iraqi tribal leaders who have turned on al Qaeda and admitted that coalition forces are growing stronger in Iraq. Ladies and gentlemen, some may deny the surge is working, but among the terrorists there is no doubt. Al Qaeda is on the run in Iraq, and this enemy will be defeated.
Israel
We're also standing against the forces of extremism in the Holy Land, where we have new cause for hope. Palestinians have elected a president who recognizes that confronting terror is essential to achieving a state where his people can live in dignity and at peace with Israel. Israelis have leaders who recognize that a peaceful, democratic Palestinian state will be a source of lasting security. This month in Ramallah and Jerusalem, I assured leaders from both sides that America will do, and I will do, everything we can to help them achieve a peace agreement that defines a Palestinian state by the end of this year. The time has come for a Holy Land where a democratic Israel and a democratic Palestine live side-by-side in peace. (Applause.)
Iran
We're also standing against the forces of extremism embodied by the regime in Tehran. Iran's rulers oppress a good and talented people. And wherever freedom advances in the Middle East, it seems the Iranian regime is there to oppose it. Iran is funding and training militia groups in Iraq, supporting Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon, and backing Hamas' efforts to undermine peace in the Holy Land. Tehran is also developing ballistic missiles of increasing range, and continues to develop its capability to enrich uranium, which could be used to create a nuclear weapon.
Our message to the people of Iran is clear: We have no quarrel with you. We respect your traditions and your history. We look forward to the day when you have your freedom. Our message to the leaders of Iran is also clear: Verifiably suspend your nuclear enrichment, so negotiations can begin. And to rejoin the community of nations, come clean about your nuclear intentions and past actions, stop your oppression at home, cease your support for terror abroad. But above all, know this: America will confront those who threaten our troops. We will stand by our allies, and we will defend our vital interests in the Persian Gulf.
Tributes
America is a force for hope in the world because we are a compassionate people, and some of the most compassionate Americans are those who have stepped forward to protect us. We must keep faith with all who have risked life and limb so that we might live in freedom and peace.
The strength -- the secret of our strength, the miracle of America, is that our greatness lies not in our government, but in the spirit and determination of our people. (Applause.) When the Federal Convention met in Philadelphia in 1787, our nation was bound by the Articles of Confederation, which began with the words, "We the undersigned delegates." When Governor Morris was asked to draft a preamble to our new Constitution, he offered an important revision and opened with words that changed the course of our nation and the history of the world: "We the people."
By trusting the people, our Founders wagered that a great and noble nation could be built on the liberty that resides in the hearts of all men and women. By trusting the people, succeeding generations transformed our fragile young democracy into the most powerful nation on Earth and a beacon of hope for millions. And so long as we continue to trust the people, our nation will prosper, our liberty will be secure, and the state of our Union will remain strong. (Applause.)
So tonight, with confidence in freedom's power, and trust in the people, let us set forth to do their business. God bless America. (Applause.)
He spoke about a number of other topics, too, so check out the transcript for all the details. Analysis of this speech will be forthcoming...
Some notable excerpts:
The Economy and Tax Relief
As we meet tonight, our economy is undergoing a period of uncertainty. America has added jobs for a record 52 straight months, but jobs are now growing at a slower pace. Wages are up, but so are prices for food and gas. Exports are rising, but the housing market has declined. At kitchen tables across our country, there is a concern about our economic future.
In the long run, Americans can be confident about our economic growth. But in the short run, we can all see that that growth is slowing.
Unless Congress acts, most of the tax relief we've delivered over the past seven years will be taken away. Some in Washington argue that letting tax relief expire is not a tax increase. Try explaining that to 116 million American taxpayers who would see their taxes rise by an average of $1,800. Others have said they would personally be happy to pay higher taxes. I welcome their enthusiasm. I'm pleased to report that the IRS accepts both checks and money orders.
Most Americans think their taxes are high enough. With all the other pressures on their finances, American families should not have to worry about their federal government taking a bigger bite out of their paychecks. There's only one way to eliminate this uncertainty: Make the tax relief permanent. (Applause.) And members of Congress should know: If any bill raises taxes reaches my desk, I will veto it. (Applause.)
Just as we trust Americans with their own money, we need to earn their trust by spending their tax dollars wisely. Next week, I'll send you a budget that terminates or substantially reduces 151 wasteful or bloated programs, totaling more than $18 billion. The budget that I will submit will keep America on track for a surplus in 2012. American families have to balance their budgets; so should their government.
The people's trust in their government is undermined by congressional earmarks -- special interest projects that are often snuck in at the last minute, without discussion or debate. Last year, I asked you to voluntarily cut the number and cost of earmarks in half. I also asked you to stop slipping earmarks into committee reports that never even come to a vote. Unfortunately, neither goal was met. So this time, if you send me an appropriations bill that does not cut the number and cost of earmarks in half, I'll send it back to you with my veto. (Applause.)
And tomorrow, I will issue an executive order that directs federal agencies to ignore any future earmark that is not voted on by Congress. If these items are truly worth funding, Congress should debate them in the open and hold a public vote. (Applause.)
Health Care
The best way to achieve [the goal of more affordable and accessible health care] is by expanding consumer choice, not government control. (Applause.) So I have proposed ending the bias in the tax code against those who do not get their health insurance through their employer. This one reform would put private coverage within reach for millions, and I call on the Congress to pass it this year. (Applause.)
The Congress must also expand health savings accounts, create Association Health Plans for small businesses, promote health information technology, and confront the epidemic of junk medical lawsuits.
Education
Six years ago, we came together to pass the No Child Left Behind Act, and today no one can deny its results. Last year, fourth and eighth graders achieved the highest math scores on record. Reading scores are on the rise. African American and Hispanic students posted all-time highs. (Applause.) Now we must work together to increase accountability, add flexibility for states and districts, reduce the number of high school dropouts, provide extra help for struggling schools.
Members of Congress: The No Child Left Behind Act is a bipartisan achievement. It is succeeding. And we owe it to America's children, their parents, and their teachers to strengthen this good law.
Environment
Last year, I asked you to pass legislation to reduce oil consumption over the next decade, and you responded. Together we should take the next steps: Let us fund new technologies that can generate coal power while capturing carbon emissions. (Applause.) Let us increase the use of renewable power and emissions-free nuclear power. (Applause.) Let us continue investing in advanced battery technology and renewable fuels to power the cars and trucks of the future. (Applause.) Let us create a new international clean technology fund, which will help developing nations like India and China make greater use of clean energy sources. And let us complete an international agreement that has the potential to slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growth of greenhouse gases. (Applause.)
This agreement will be effective only if it includes commitments by every major economy and gives none a free ride. (Applause.) The United States is committed to strengthening our energy security and confronting global climate change. And the best way to meet these goals is for America to continue leading the way toward the development of cleaner and more energy-efficient technology.
Stem Cell Research
On matters of life and science, we must trust in the innovative spirit of medical researchers and empower them to discover new treatments while respecting moral boundaries. In November, we witnessed a landmark achievement when scientists discovered a way to reprogram adult skin cells to act like embryonic stem cells. This breakthrough has the potential to move us beyond the divisive debates of the past by extending the frontiers of medicine without the destruction of human life. (Applause.)
So we're expanding funding for this type of ethical medical research. And as we explore promising avenues of research, we must also ensure that all life is treated with the dignity it deserves. And so I call on Congress to pass legislation that bans unethical practices such as the buying, selling, patenting, or cloning of human life. (Applause.)
Judicial Nominations
On matters of justice, we must trust in the wisdom of our founders and empower judges who understand that the Constitution means what it says. (Applause.) I've submitted judicial nominees who will rule by the letter of the law, not the whim of the gavel. Many of these nominees are being unfairly delayed. They are worthy of confirmation, and the Senate should give each of them a prompt up-or-down vote. (Applause.)
Spending
Every member in this chamber knows that spending on entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is growing faster than we can afford. We all know the painful choices ahead if America stays on this path: massive tax increases, sudden and drastic cuts in benefits, or crippling deficits. I've laid out proposals to reform these programs. Now I ask members of Congress to offer your proposals and come up with a bipartisan solution to save these vital programs for our children and our grandchildren.
Immigration
America needs to secure our borders -- and with your help, my administration is taking steps to do so. We're increasing worksite enforcement, deploying fences and advanced technologies to stop illegal crossings. We've effectively ended the policy of "catch and release" at the border, and by the end of this year, we will have doubled the number of border patrol agents. Yet we also need to acknowledge that we will never fully secure our border until we create a lawful way for foreign workers to come here and support our economy. (Applause.) This will take pressure off the border and allow law enforcement to concentrate on those who mean us harm. We must also find a sensible and humane way to deal with people here illegally. Illegal immigration is complicated, but it can be resolved. And it must be resolved in a way that upholds both our laws and our highest ideals.
Foreign Policy
In the last seven years, we have witnessed stirring moments in the history of liberty. We've seen citizens in Georgia and Ukraine stand up for their right to free and fair elections. We've seen people in Lebanon take to the streets to demand their independence. We've seen Afghans emerge from the tyranny of the Taliban and choose a new president and a new parliament. We've seen jubilant Iraqis holding up ink-stained fingers and celebrating their freedom. These images of liberty have inspired us.
Since 9/11, we have taken the fight to these terrorists and extremists. We will stay on the offense, we will keep up the pressure, and we will deliver justice to our enemies. (Applause.)
Radical Islamism
We are engaged in the defining ideological struggle of the 21st century. The terrorists oppose every principle of humanity and decency that we hold dear. Yet in this war on terror, there is one thing we and our enemies agree on: In the long run, men and women who are free to determine their own destinies will reject terror and refuse to live in tyranny. And that is why the terrorists are fighting to deny this choice to the people in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Palestinian Territories. And that is why, for the security of America and the peace of the world, we are spreading the hope of freedom. (Applause.)
Afghanistan
In Afghanistan, America, our 25 NATO allies, and 15 partner nations are helping the Afghan people defend their freedom and rebuild their country. Thanks to the courage of these military and civilian personnel, a nation that was once a safe haven for al Qaeda is now a young democracy where boys and girls are going to school, new roads and hospitals are being built, and people are looking to the future with new hope.
Iraq
One year ago, our enemies were succeeding in their efforts to plunge Iraq into chaos. So we reviewed our strategy and changed course. We launched a surge of American forces into Iraq. We gave our troops a new mission: Work with the Iraqi forces to protect the Iraqi people, pursue the enemy in its strongholds, and deny the terrorists sanctuary anywhere in the country.
The Iraqi people quickly realized that something dramatic had happened. Those who had worried that America was preparing to abandon them instead saw tens of thousands of American forces flowing into their country. They saw our forces moving into neighborhoods, clearing out the terrorists, and staying behind to ensure the enemy did not return.
The Iraqis launched a surge of their own. In the fall of 2006, Sunni tribal leaders grew tired of al Qaeda's brutality and started a popular uprising called "The Anbar Awakening." Over the past year, similar movements have spread across the country. And today, the grassroots surge includes more than 80,000 Iraqi citizens who are fighting the terrorists. The government in Baghdad has stepped forward, as well -- adding more than 100,000 new Iraqi soldiers and police during the past year.
While the enemy is still dangerous and more work remains, the American and Iraqi surges have achieved results few of us could have imagined just one year ago.
Al Qaeda
Last month, Osama bin Laden released a tape in which he railed against Iraqi tribal leaders who have turned on al Qaeda and admitted that coalition forces are growing stronger in Iraq. Ladies and gentlemen, some may deny the surge is working, but among the terrorists there is no doubt. Al Qaeda is on the run in Iraq, and this enemy will be defeated.
Israel
We're also standing against the forces of extremism in the Holy Land, where we have new cause for hope. Palestinians have elected a president who recognizes that confronting terror is essential to achieving a state where his people can live in dignity and at peace with Israel. Israelis have leaders who recognize that a peaceful, democratic Palestinian state will be a source of lasting security. This month in Ramallah and Jerusalem, I assured leaders from both sides that America will do, and I will do, everything we can to help them achieve a peace agreement that defines a Palestinian state by the end of this year. The time has come for a Holy Land where a democratic Israel and a democratic Palestine live side-by-side in peace. (Applause.)
Iran
We're also standing against the forces of extremism embodied by the regime in Tehran. Iran's rulers oppress a good and talented people. And wherever freedom advances in the Middle East, it seems the Iranian regime is there to oppose it. Iran is funding and training militia groups in Iraq, supporting Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon, and backing Hamas' efforts to undermine peace in the Holy Land. Tehran is also developing ballistic missiles of increasing range, and continues to develop its capability to enrich uranium, which could be used to create a nuclear weapon.
Our message to the people of Iran is clear: We have no quarrel with you. We respect your traditions and your history. We look forward to the day when you have your freedom. Our message to the leaders of Iran is also clear: Verifiably suspend your nuclear enrichment, so negotiations can begin. And to rejoin the community of nations, come clean about your nuclear intentions and past actions, stop your oppression at home, cease your support for terror abroad. But above all, know this: America will confront those who threaten our troops. We will stand by our allies, and we will defend our vital interests in the Persian Gulf.
Tributes
America is a force for hope in the world because we are a compassionate people, and some of the most compassionate Americans are those who have stepped forward to protect us. We must keep faith with all who have risked life and limb so that we might live in freedom and peace.
The strength -- the secret of our strength, the miracle of America, is that our greatness lies not in our government, but in the spirit and determination of our people. (Applause.) When the Federal Convention met in Philadelphia in 1787, our nation was bound by the Articles of Confederation, which began with the words, "We the undersigned delegates." When Governor Morris was asked to draft a preamble to our new Constitution, he offered an important revision and opened with words that changed the course of our nation and the history of the world: "We the people."
By trusting the people, our Founders wagered that a great and noble nation could be built on the liberty that resides in the hearts of all men and women. By trusting the people, succeeding generations transformed our fragile young democracy into the most powerful nation on Earth and a beacon of hope for millions. And so long as we continue to trust the people, our nation will prosper, our liberty will be secure, and the state of our Union will remain strong. (Applause.)
So tonight, with confidence in freedom's power, and trust in the people, let us set forth to do their business. God bless America. (Applause.)
He spoke about a number of other topics, too, so check out the transcript for all the details. Analysis of this speech will be forthcoming...
Bipartisanship Is Overrated
What's the big deal with the word 'bipartisan'? Why is it supposed to be such a good thing?
There seems to be some kind of self-affirming warm fuzzy that occurs when politicians use the word 'bipartisan' in relation to any particular piece of legislation or action. They seem to think it's the holy grail of political accomplishment. What they don't seem to realize is that Americans are starting to get wise to them. Thanks largely to the New Media, a wave of understanding is spreading through the American public that when something is done with 'bipartisan' support, it usually means that American citizens are getting screwed.
Take a look at some recent examples. Amnesty was strongly supported by Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton, but also by Republicans including Senators McCain and Graham, and even President Bush. The results of amnesty would have been disastrous for American citizens in the form of vastly expanded government services, which would all have been for by American taxpayers. Add to that the increased criminal element flooding into the country (think public safety here), the decreased border security (think terrorism here), millions of new low-cost job-seekers (think union opposition here), and the blatant disregard for American law by the very same people who wrote it (think any law-abiding American here), and it's no wonder this 'bipartisan' bill got lynched by Americans of all stripes.
Judicial appointments was another hot issue in recent years. According to the Constitution, the President of the United States has the authority and responsibility of appointing federal judges, including Supreme Court justices. The Senate is to provide an up-or-down vote in an 'advise and consent' role. You can think of the Senate's function in this process as a check that prevents any President from appointing his idiot high school drop-out nephew to the highest (or any) court in the land. If the judge being appointed is competent in his or her record and ability, the appointee should be given a "yes" vote and moved to their new station as quickly as possible. However, during George W. Bush's presidency, a 'bipartisan' group of 14 Senators (seven Republicans and seven Democrats) stepped forward to prevent any appointment from coming to a vote unless their personal views met with the approval of the 'gang of 14'. This 'bipartisanship' ground judicial nominations almost to a halt, and is costing Americans from having court cases handled by competent federal judges in a timely manner, adding more delays and costs to an already-swamped court system all over the country. And don't forget the effects it has on these judges' livelihoods, being stuck in employment limbo for months or even years.
And how about President Bush's 'new tone', where he pledged to reach across the aisle and work with Democrats? He reached out first, letting Ted Kennedy write the new education bill; that got Bush one of the largest increases in government spending in recent history, despite Bush's supposed conservative (which means less government) platform. In return, Kennedy has been one of the most outspoken critics of Bush throughout his time in the White House. American citizens got a more bloated government and even more power funneled into the agenda-driven brainwashing factory that is the Department of Education, which has the education of children at the bottom of its list of priorities.
These are just three of many issues that illustrate the dangers of 'bipartisanship'. The reality is that those who stand on principle lose just as much through 'bipartisanship' as they do through actual losses. Consider the education bill mentioned above. Not only did Bush violate his principle of smaller government, but he also ended up losing whatever position he might have tried to hold on the educational system in this country. In return for his compromise, he got only negatives: insults, attacks, and political opposition on literally everything he tried to accomplish. What good was 'bipartisanship' for Bush on this bill?
Stop and think about this for a moment, because this is the key. By definition, a principle is a fundamental doctrine or tenet, and as such should not be diluted in any way. It is the core of belief that a group of people can rally around, the common ground that people can stand on when things get tough. Any compromise to a principle essentially negates its importance, and a party that prizes no consistent principles is a party that will wander aimlessly into oblivion. You hold your particular principles because you think they are the correct ones. You want your principles advanced, and you want others to be persuaded to see your view of the country and agree with it, right? By definition, then, you are partisan. Everyone is. [Caveat: moderates are those who refuse to follow any principles at all, and they should therefore not be followed anywhere!] Bipartisanship, then, is compromise, implementing some of your principles alongside some of your opponent's principles, which are presumably the opposite of yours. The question, then, is why would you want the principles opposite of yours to be implemented at all? By invoking 'bipartisanship', you are by definition watering down your own principles, settling for a glass that's not just half empty, but half empty and poisoned.
Political parties should be more interested in advancing their constituencies' core principles rather than in practicing 'bipartisanship'. A leader is elected for a reason, and that is to advance the principles of the voters who elected that leader. The leader represents those voters, and it is the voters' expectation (and the leader's responsibility) that those principles are advanced, even if it means acting in a partisan way.
So how will anyone gain enough support to get anything done? By focusing on persuading more Americans to understand and agree with a certain set of principles. As more voters are persuaded to support those principles, those voters will elect more leaders who support those principles, and when more leaders support those principles, those principles will be implemented more easily. That's the way our representative republic government was designed to work - with persuasion and partisanship.
The point is not to cooperate, but to WIN.
A perfect example is when former President Ronald Reagan once said, "Here's my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose." Beautiful! It worked, too, didn't it? Reagan applied his partisanship in a persuasive way that captured huge majorities -- from both parties -- of the country along the way to winning a number of political battles, including the Cold War.
It's extremely difficult to accomplish, especially for conservatives in today's toxic liberal media atmosphere, but it must be done. It's been done before, and there's no reason it can't be done again, but it has to be done right, and that means without compromise (i.e. 'bipartisanship'). If elected conservatives compromise, they will not only forfeit their base's support, but also their reason for existing as a political party. If they don't stand on conservative principles, all that's left is liberalism, and why would anyone pick a Republican liberal over a Democrat liberal? The Democrats have been doing it much longer and are much better at it. If the Republican party becomes the Diet Democrat party, what's the point?
Let's see an example in real life. Let's say I'm an elected conservative who believes the principle that lower taxes stimulates the economy and is in the best interests of Americans. If a liberal opponent proposes a tax increase of 10%, am I upholding that principle if I, in the spirit of 'bipartisanship', counter-propose a tax increase of only 5%? Sure, I didn't allow the bigger tax increase, but I still allowed a tax increase. Here's another way to think about it. There are two sides to this principle - higher taxes, and lower taxes. The liberal holds the principle of higher taxes, and the conservative holds the principle of lower taxes. If we negotiate down from 10% to 5%, who remains true to their principle? While the liberal may have gotten less than he wanted, he still got higher taxes; on the other hand, I completely failed whether I got 10% or 5%. So, why should my constituents, who elected me on my promise of supporting the principle of lower taxes, continue to support me?
They shouldn't.
This kind of compromise -- 'bipartisanship' -- never benefits the conservative unless it is advancing purely conservative principles. For example, the bipartisan support of the War on Terror (remember, way back in 2001, both parties supported President Bush) was an advancement of the conservative principle of strong national defense. That was good bipartisanship, but it was a sadly rare example, and very short-lived because liberals soon realized they were the ones who had compromised.
This is one of the biggest problems in politics today - very few of our elected conservative leaders are willing to stand on their principles, instead stumbling through a series of half-hearted 'bipartisan' motions. This is why so many Americans are so thoroughly disgusted with our elected leaders today, and why those same leaders are so vastly out of touch with Americans. This is also why many of the leaders of the conservative movement are not elected leaders at all, but rather personalities in the New Media. They can stand on their principles because they work in the free market of ideas, where conservative principles find a great deal of traction with American citizens. If more of our elected leaders would figure this out and develop a spine, we'd be back in business.
Bipartisanship is overrated. In fact, we could really use a lot more partisanship. Coupled with the appropriate persuasion of our principles, there is no limit to what steadfast partisanship could accomplish.
There's my two cents.
There seems to be some kind of self-affirming warm fuzzy that occurs when politicians use the word 'bipartisan' in relation to any particular piece of legislation or action. They seem to think it's the holy grail of political accomplishment. What they don't seem to realize is that Americans are starting to get wise to them. Thanks largely to the New Media, a wave of understanding is spreading through the American public that when something is done with 'bipartisan' support, it usually means that American citizens are getting screwed.
Take a look at some recent examples. Amnesty was strongly supported by Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton, but also by Republicans including Senators McCain and Graham, and even President Bush. The results of amnesty would have been disastrous for American citizens in the form of vastly expanded government services, which would all have been for by American taxpayers. Add to that the increased criminal element flooding into the country (think public safety here), the decreased border security (think terrorism here), millions of new low-cost job-seekers (think union opposition here), and the blatant disregard for American law by the very same people who wrote it (think any law-abiding American here), and it's no wonder this 'bipartisan' bill got lynched by Americans of all stripes.
Judicial appointments was another hot issue in recent years. According to the Constitution, the President of the United States has the authority and responsibility of appointing federal judges, including Supreme Court justices. The Senate is to provide an up-or-down vote in an 'advise and consent' role. You can think of the Senate's function in this process as a check that prevents any President from appointing his idiot high school drop-out nephew to the highest (or any) court in the land. If the judge being appointed is competent in his or her record and ability, the appointee should be given a "yes" vote and moved to their new station as quickly as possible. However, during George W. Bush's presidency, a 'bipartisan' group of 14 Senators (seven Republicans and seven Democrats) stepped forward to prevent any appointment from coming to a vote unless their personal views met with the approval of the 'gang of 14'. This 'bipartisanship' ground judicial nominations almost to a halt, and is costing Americans from having court cases handled by competent federal judges in a timely manner, adding more delays and costs to an already-swamped court system all over the country. And don't forget the effects it has on these judges' livelihoods, being stuck in employment limbo for months or even years.
And how about President Bush's 'new tone', where he pledged to reach across the aisle and work with Democrats? He reached out first, letting Ted Kennedy write the new education bill; that got Bush one of the largest increases in government spending in recent history, despite Bush's supposed conservative (which means less government) platform. In return, Kennedy has been one of the most outspoken critics of Bush throughout his time in the White House. American citizens got a more bloated government and even more power funneled into the agenda-driven brainwashing factory that is the Department of Education, which has the education of children at the bottom of its list of priorities.
These are just three of many issues that illustrate the dangers of 'bipartisanship'. The reality is that those who stand on principle lose just as much through 'bipartisanship' as they do through actual losses. Consider the education bill mentioned above. Not only did Bush violate his principle of smaller government, but he also ended up losing whatever position he might have tried to hold on the educational system in this country. In return for his compromise, he got only negatives: insults, attacks, and political opposition on literally everything he tried to accomplish. What good was 'bipartisanship' for Bush on this bill?
Stop and think about this for a moment, because this is the key. By definition, a principle is a fundamental doctrine or tenet, and as such should not be diluted in any way. It is the core of belief that a group of people can rally around, the common ground that people can stand on when things get tough. Any compromise to a principle essentially negates its importance, and a party that prizes no consistent principles is a party that will wander aimlessly into oblivion. You hold your particular principles because you think they are the correct ones. You want your principles advanced, and you want others to be persuaded to see your view of the country and agree with it, right? By definition, then, you are partisan. Everyone is. [Caveat: moderates are those who refuse to follow any principles at all, and they should therefore not be followed anywhere!] Bipartisanship, then, is compromise, implementing some of your principles alongside some of your opponent's principles, which are presumably the opposite of yours. The question, then, is why would you want the principles opposite of yours to be implemented at all? By invoking 'bipartisanship', you are by definition watering down your own principles, settling for a glass that's not just half empty, but half empty and poisoned.
Political parties should be more interested in advancing their constituencies' core principles rather than in practicing 'bipartisanship'. A leader is elected for a reason, and that is to advance the principles of the voters who elected that leader. The leader represents those voters, and it is the voters' expectation (and the leader's responsibility) that those principles are advanced, even if it means acting in a partisan way.
So how will anyone gain enough support to get anything done? By focusing on persuading more Americans to understand and agree with a certain set of principles. As more voters are persuaded to support those principles, those voters will elect more leaders who support those principles, and when more leaders support those principles, those principles will be implemented more easily. That's the way our representative republic government was designed to work - with persuasion and partisanship.
The point is not to cooperate, but to WIN.
A perfect example is when former President Ronald Reagan once said, "Here's my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose." Beautiful! It worked, too, didn't it? Reagan applied his partisanship in a persuasive way that captured huge majorities -- from both parties -- of the country along the way to winning a number of political battles, including the Cold War.
It's extremely difficult to accomplish, especially for conservatives in today's toxic liberal media atmosphere, but it must be done. It's been done before, and there's no reason it can't be done again, but it has to be done right, and that means without compromise (i.e. 'bipartisanship'). If elected conservatives compromise, they will not only forfeit their base's support, but also their reason for existing as a political party. If they don't stand on conservative principles, all that's left is liberalism, and why would anyone pick a Republican liberal over a Democrat liberal? The Democrats have been doing it much longer and are much better at it. If the Republican party becomes the Diet Democrat party, what's the point?
Let's see an example in real life. Let's say I'm an elected conservative who believes the principle that lower taxes stimulates the economy and is in the best interests of Americans. If a liberal opponent proposes a tax increase of 10%, am I upholding that principle if I, in the spirit of 'bipartisanship', counter-propose a tax increase of only 5%? Sure, I didn't allow the bigger tax increase, but I still allowed a tax increase. Here's another way to think about it. There are two sides to this principle - higher taxes, and lower taxes. The liberal holds the principle of higher taxes, and the conservative holds the principle of lower taxes. If we negotiate down from 10% to 5%, who remains true to their principle? While the liberal may have gotten less than he wanted, he still got higher taxes; on the other hand, I completely failed whether I got 10% or 5%. So, why should my constituents, who elected me on my promise of supporting the principle of lower taxes, continue to support me?
They shouldn't.
This kind of compromise -- 'bipartisanship' -- never benefits the conservative unless it is advancing purely conservative principles. For example, the bipartisan support of the War on Terror (remember, way back in 2001, both parties supported President Bush) was an advancement of the conservative principle of strong national defense. That was good bipartisanship, but it was a sadly rare example, and very short-lived because liberals soon realized they were the ones who had compromised.
This is one of the biggest problems in politics today - very few of our elected conservative leaders are willing to stand on their principles, instead stumbling through a series of half-hearted 'bipartisan' motions. This is why so many Americans are so thoroughly disgusted with our elected leaders today, and why those same leaders are so vastly out of touch with Americans. This is also why many of the leaders of the conservative movement are not elected leaders at all, but rather personalities in the New Media. They can stand on their principles because they work in the free market of ideas, where conservative principles find a great deal of traction with American citizens. If more of our elected leaders would figure this out and develop a spine, we'd be back in business.
Bipartisanship is overrated. In fact, we could really use a lot more partisanship. Coupled with the appropriate persuasion of our principles, there is no limit to what steadfast partisanship could accomplish.
There's my two cents.
Florida GOP Primary Update
Well, the spotlight now comes back to the Republican party, with the Florida primary coming up tomorrow. Again, this state is a bit different than the ones that have already gone, for a couple reasons. First, it's a closed primary, which means that only Republicans can vote for the Republican candidates (no Independents or Democrats are allowed); second, it's a winner-take-all state, where the winner of Florida will receive all 57 delegates the state has to offer.
So, what's the latest on the GOP candidates?
Up until this past weekend, Romney was running slightly ahead of McCain in Florida polls, but Florida Governor Charlie Crist endorsed McCain on Saturday, so things have pretty much evened up. At this point, Rasmussen Reports shows McCain and Romney tied at 31%, Giuliani is a distant third at 16% and Huckabee is in fourth place at 11%. The number of persuadable voters is also dwindling. Only 2% are undecided and just 6% say there's a good chance they could change their mind. Romney and McCain have pulled away from Giuliani and Huckabee in national polls.
Mud-slinging
There's plenty going around. The short version is that McCain is accusing Romney of favoring withdrawal timetables for Iraq (which isn't true, and even the MSM figured that out), and Romney is pointing out all the ways in which McCain has supported liberal (rather than conservative) issues. Here's a bit more information related to that.
McCain's people
Information is coming out about some of McCain's highest-placed advisers. For example, one of McCain's top advisors -- his Hispanic Outreach Director -- is Dr. Juan Hernandez, a known open-borders advocate with a history of vehement opposition to border security and immigration crackdown. Hernandez also worked for Mexican President Vicente Fox on the "Presidential Office for Mexicans Abroad" program, which was designed to allow Hernandez to travel across the country, meddling with local, state, and federal immigration enforcement on behalf of millions of illegal aliens in America. He lobbied for illegal alien driver's licenses and Mexico first, defended Mexican bus operators carrying illegal aliens to the USA, and promoted extending banking privileges to illegal aliens. In an interview on ABC News's Nightline, Hernandez stated bluntly that he was betting that the Mexican American population in the United States –all generations– "will think Mexico first…"I want 'em all to think Mexico first." When McCain was questioned about this appointment by a Florida voter, he gave a non-answer answer.
Next up is McCain's National Finance Co-Chair. Buckle your seatbelts on this one! Jerry Perenchio is the billionaire founder of Spanish-language media conglomerate, Univision. He also heads up a charitable foundation (the Chartwell Foundation) that has showered gobs of money on extremist green lobbying groups. Some examples:
He has also provided major funding to Planned Parenthood and open-borders L.A. mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. But, he's not done there:
These guys are poster boys for far-left liberal causes. If McCain has truly 'learned his lesson' from the American people on illegal immigration, and if he's truly a 'Reagan footsoldier' as he claims, what in the world is he doing using people like Hernandez and Perenchio as his top advisers??
In regard to illegal immigration, an issue that many Republicans see as critical, McCain admitted in a recent interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer that he would sign last year's amnesty bill if it ever came to his desk as President! Has he really 'learned his lesson'?
One thing that McCain has relied on in the past is his integrity. Regardless of his positions, pretty much everyone considered him a straight shooter. Unfortunately, it appears that now, at the twilight of his political career, he has traded that integrity for some easily-disproved lies about his opponents and his relationship with the American people. For those of you who like McCain, you'd better think very, very hard about whether you really want this guy running the country. Also, use your common sense...if the New York Times -- which is one of the most obviously anti-Republican, anti-conservative 'news' outlets in the world -- endorses McCain, doesn't that make you wonder why?
Aside from national security, McCain is essentially a liberal Democrat. It's not an accusation, it's a fact based on his own record.
There's my two cents.
So, what's the latest on the GOP candidates?
Up until this past weekend, Romney was running slightly ahead of McCain in Florida polls, but Florida Governor Charlie Crist endorsed McCain on Saturday, so things have pretty much evened up. At this point, Rasmussen Reports shows McCain and Romney tied at 31%, Giuliani is a distant third at 16% and Huckabee is in fourth place at 11%. The number of persuadable voters is also dwindling. Only 2% are undecided and just 6% say there's a good chance they could change their mind. Romney and McCain have pulled away from Giuliani and Huckabee in national polls.
Mud-slinging
There's plenty going around. The short version is that McCain is accusing Romney of favoring withdrawal timetables for Iraq (which isn't true, and even the MSM figured that out), and Romney is pointing out all the ways in which McCain has supported liberal (rather than conservative) issues. Here's a bit more information related to that.
McCain's people
Information is coming out about some of McCain's highest-placed advisers. For example, one of McCain's top advisors -- his Hispanic Outreach Director -- is Dr. Juan Hernandez, a known open-borders advocate with a history of vehement opposition to border security and immigration crackdown. Hernandez also worked for Mexican President Vicente Fox on the "Presidential Office for Mexicans Abroad" program, which was designed to allow Hernandez to travel across the country, meddling with local, state, and federal immigration enforcement on behalf of millions of illegal aliens in America. He lobbied for illegal alien driver's licenses and Mexico first, defended Mexican bus operators carrying illegal aliens to the USA, and promoted extending banking privileges to illegal aliens. In an interview on ABC News's Nightline, Hernandez stated bluntly that he was betting that the Mexican American population in the United States –all generations– "will think Mexico first…"I want 'em all to think Mexico first." When McCain was questioned about this appointment by a Florida voter, he gave a non-answer answer.
Next up is McCain's National Finance Co-Chair. Buckle your seatbelts on this one! Jerry Perenchio is the billionaire founder of Spanish-language media conglomerate, Univision. He also heads up a charitable foundation (the Chartwell Foundation) that has showered gobs of money on extremist green lobbying groups. Some examples:
| Funding to Activist Groups | Total Donated | Time Frame |
| Natural Resources Defense Council | $90,000.00 | 1995 – 1999 |
| Environmental Media Association | $30,000.00 | 1997 – 2000 |
| American Oceans Campaign | $25,000.00 | 1996 – 1996 |
He has also provided major funding to Planned Parenthood and open-borders L.A. mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. But, he's not done there:
Perenchio also poured millions of dollars into fighting the California movement to teach schoolchildren English.
Perenchio aggressively bankrolled opposition to [California] Prop. 227, which dismantled "bilingual education"–the oxymoronic program that holds foreign-language-speaking students hostage and forces them to maintain their native tongues instead of transitioning to English as quickly as possible–in 1998. He donated millions directly to the opponents and also donated millions of dollars in anti-227 "public service announcements" on Univision railing that "The dreams of millions of Hispanic families are being destroyed." Despite Perenchio's massive campaign to prop up language segregationism, the pro-English Prop. 227 won in a landslide
Perenchio also donated to opponents of Prop. 187, the California measure banning social services to illegal aliens. And he has given money to many soft-on-illegal immigration Democrats. In fact, before jumping ship to Arnold Schwarzenegger's gubernatorial campaign, he was the largest individual campaign donor to Gray Davis–contributing at least $500,000 to the liberal Democrat. When voters demanded Davis's recall after he pushed driver's licenses for illegal aliens (among other failed policies), Perenchio chipped in another $50,000 to help Davis supporters fend off the measure. He also gave generously to Bill Richardson's campaigns–$100,000 from him another $50,000 from his wife for the New Mexico Democrat governor's failed presidential bid last year, plus about $167,000 from Perenchio and one of his companies to Richardson's 2002 campaign.
Perenchio aggressively bankrolled opposition to [California] Prop. 227, which dismantled "bilingual education"–the oxymoronic program that holds foreign-language-speaking students hostage and forces them to maintain their native tongues instead of transitioning to English as quickly as possible–in 1998. He donated millions directly to the opponents and also donated millions of dollars in anti-227 "public service announcements" on Univision railing that "The dreams of millions of Hispanic families are being destroyed." Despite Perenchio's massive campaign to prop up language segregationism, the pro-English Prop. 227 won in a landslide
Perenchio also donated to opponents of Prop. 187, the California measure banning social services to illegal aliens. And he has given money to many soft-on-illegal immigration Democrats. In fact, before jumping ship to Arnold Schwarzenegger's gubernatorial campaign, he was the largest individual campaign donor to Gray Davis–contributing at least $500,000 to the liberal Democrat. When voters demanded Davis's recall after he pushed driver's licenses for illegal aliens (among other failed policies), Perenchio chipped in another $50,000 to help Davis supporters fend off the measure. He also gave generously to Bill Richardson's campaigns–$100,000 from him another $50,000 from his wife for the New Mexico Democrat governor's failed presidential bid last year, plus about $167,000 from Perenchio and one of his companies to Richardson's 2002 campaign.
These guys are poster boys for far-left liberal causes. If McCain has truly 'learned his lesson' from the American people on illegal immigration, and if he's truly a 'Reagan footsoldier' as he claims, what in the world is he doing using people like Hernandez and Perenchio as his top advisers??
In regard to illegal immigration, an issue that many Republicans see as critical, McCain admitted in a recent interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer that he would sign last year's amnesty bill if it ever came to his desk as President! Has he really 'learned his lesson'?
One thing that McCain has relied on in the past is his integrity. Regardless of his positions, pretty much everyone considered him a straight shooter. Unfortunately, it appears that now, at the twilight of his political career, he has traded that integrity for some easily-disproved lies about his opponents and his relationship with the American people. For those of you who like McCain, you'd better think very, very hard about whether you really want this guy running the country. Also, use your common sense...if the New York Times -- which is one of the most obviously anti-Republican, anti-conservative 'news' outlets in the world -- endorses McCain, doesn't that make you wonder why?
Aside from national security, McCain is essentially a liberal Democrat. It's not an accusation, it's a fact based on his own record.
There's my two cents.
Radical Islam Continues To Spread
There are some very disturbing developments in the fight against radical Islamization. The 2008 election will be critical in that fight, as the new President will either continue Bush's efforts of taking the fight to the terrorists, or sit back and let Islamic forces surround us in the name of multiculturalism.
First, a small bit of good news. Plaintiffs who sued for Constitutional protections while being held at Guantanamo Bay have lost their lawsuit:
This is such a refreshing change to hear! Too many activist judges have taken it upon themselves to re-write the law. This judge, however, correctly interpreted the law as it was already stated, ruling that these prisoners of war are not guaranteed the same rights as American citizens. Just to be clear, it's not that these terrorists are not "persons", but rather that they are not recognized as American citizens, and therefore do not get the same rights as you and I.
Though this particular case came out well, it is a disturbing signal of the latest weapon in the terrorists' arsenal: lawfare. John Yoo is a lawyer who was sued by Jose Padilla, a man recently convicted of being a part of an Al Qaeda cell in America and trying to carry out a dirty bomb attack on a major American city. He says:
Though Yoo has the means (and friends) to protect himself, he questions what has brought America to the point where an enemy combatant can sue the very military personnel who defeated him on the battlefield, and warning that not everyone is in his fortunate position. If Padilla's lawsuit (and others like it) succeed, Yoo predicts bad things will follow, saying:
I've blogged about many of these problems before, but they're only getting worse. Take, for example, how banks in Canada are being taken over by Muslims and then offering special programs to Muslim customers and implementing Sharia along the way. This faulty understanding of the goals of Islamism and their methods (including lawfare and multiculturalism) reaches far and wide. Even our own military is not immune.
Stephen Coughlin is a Major in the Army Reserves who was working as a civilian contractor for the Joint Chiefs of Staff as the Army's greatest expert on the Islamist ideology of our enemies. He studied the Holy Land Foundation trial, including this chilling passage from a 1991 Muslim Brotherhood memorandum about its mission:
In return for his verbal straight shooting, Hashem Islam, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England's point-man for the Pentagon outreach to the Muslim community and an admirer of (ISNA) [Islamic Society of North America, an organization designated by the Justice Department as a front for the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan)], apparently took exception to Coughlin's unvarnished look at radical Islam and the goals of those who practice it, and complained. So, Coughlin's contract with the Defense Department has not been renewed.
That's right, an Islamic radical in our own government got our leading expert on radical Islam fired.
The story, and Hashem Islam's background, in particular, goes much deeper, and is worth a few minutes of your time to check out.
So, would the results really be that bad? Aside from all my previous documentation on radical Islamists, here's a current and concrete example from the Netherlands, where Muslims have effectively taken over the political leadership of the country:
If you haven't read my Radical Islam Revealed series, take some time to do it. The fight against radical Islam is the fight of our generation, and without the proper understanding of who we face and what they want -- not to mention what's at stake -- we will most certainly lose.
There's my two cents.
First, a small bit of good news. Plaintiffs who sued for Constitutional protections while being held at Guantanamo Bay have lost their lawsuit:
Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson of U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington wrote that the religious freedom act does not apply to the Guantanamo detainees because they are not "persons" for the purposes of U.S law."
This is such a refreshing change to hear! Too many activist judges have taken it upon themselves to re-write the law. This judge, however, correctly interpreted the law as it was already stated, ruling that these prisoners of war are not guaranteed the same rights as American citizens. Just to be clear, it's not that these terrorists are not "persons", but rather that they are not recognized as American citizens, and therefore do not get the same rights as you and I.
Though this particular case came out well, it is a disturbing signal of the latest weapon in the terrorists' arsenal: lawfare. John Yoo is a lawyer who was sued by Jose Padilla, a man recently convicted of being a part of an Al Qaeda cell in America and trying to carry out a dirty bomb attack on a major American city. He says:
I worked on the legality of the decision to place Padilla in the hands of military authorities in June 2002. The 9/11 attacks on our nation's capital and financial center, and the loss of 3,000 American lives, placed the United States at war with al-Qaeda, a fact that Padilla's lawyers do not accept. They have always asserted that Padilla could be considered only a criminal defendant and must enjoy the benefits of the civilian criminal-justice system.
They are wrong. Both the president and Congress have agreed that the United States is at war, and Congress passed an authorization for using force against any groups, nations or people responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Capturing prisoners has been a permanent feature of war throughout human history; hundreds of thousands were detained during World War II alone. Sometimes, unfortunately, the enemy has included U.S. citizens - in the Civil War, every Confederate soldier was a citizen, and in World War II some Americans fought in the Axis armed forces. They never had a right to sue the soldiers who caught them.
Though Yoo has the means (and friends) to protect himself, he questions what has brought America to the point where an enemy combatant can sue the very military personnel who defeated him on the battlefield, and warning that not everyone is in his fortunate position. If Padilla's lawsuit (and others like it) succeed, Yoo predicts bad things will follow, saying:
[W]e will have a government that will avoid any and all risks, shun making any move that is not an exact repetition of locked-in procedure of 20th-century vintage, and keep plodding along the same path regardless of contemporary circumstances. These are exactly the conditions that make a nation susceptible to a surprise attack, whether a Pearl Harbor or a 9/11.
I've blogged about many of these problems before, but they're only getting worse. Take, for example, how banks in Canada are being taken over by Muslims and then offering special programs to Muslim customers and implementing Sharia along the way. This faulty understanding of the goals of Islamism and their methods (including lawfare and multiculturalism) reaches far and wide. Even our own military is not immune.
Stephen Coughlin is a Major in the Army Reserves who was working as a civilian contractor for the Joint Chiefs of Staff as the Army's greatest expert on the Islamist ideology of our enemies. He studied the Holy Land Foundation trial, including this chilling passage from a 1991 Muslim Brotherhood memorandum about its mission:
"The Ikwan['s]…work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah's religion is made victorious over all other religions."
Based on his analysis of the Islamofascist roots and agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood, Stephen Coughlin was given to warning his military audiences that it was no "moderate" organization. For example, he notes that one of the Ikhwan's most prominent leaders, Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, has declared: "The abduction and killing of Americans in Iraq is an obligation so as to cause them to leave Iraq immediately."
In return for his verbal straight shooting, Hashem Islam, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England's point-man for the Pentagon outreach to the Muslim community and an admirer of (ISNA) [Islamic Society of North America, an organization designated by the Justice Department as a front for the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan)], apparently took exception to Coughlin's unvarnished look at radical Islam and the goals of those who practice it, and complained. So, Coughlin's contract with the Defense Department has not been renewed.
That's right, an Islamic radical in our own government got our leading expert on radical Islam fired.
The story, and Hashem Islam's background, in particular, goes much deeper, and is worth a few minutes of your time to check out.
So, would the results really be that bad? Aside from all my previous documentation on radical Islamists, here's a current and concrete example from the Netherlands, where Muslims have effectively taken over the political leadership of the country:
"You filthy idiot. WE ARE HERE TO STAY hahahahahahhahah DROP DEAD." That's an email by a Dutch Labour Party politician to a constituent.
According to the Dutch news agency NIS News,"Labour (PvdA) politician Bouchra Ismaili is refusing to resign. She is ignoring requests from her party to step down because she lied about signing a petition of the radical Muslim organisation Hizb Ut Tahrir." That's the violence-promoting Islamist party that has been banned in Germany "due to its extremist and anti-Semitic character."
A spokesman for the HUT group named Okay Pala explains their beliefs: "We do not agree with freedom of expression, as we reject democracy ... what you need is a big bomb attack!'
If you haven't read my Radical Islam Revealed series, take some time to do it. The fight against radical Islam is the fight of our generation, and without the proper understanding of who we face and what they want -- not to mention what's at stake -- we will most certainly lose.
There's my two cents.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Link Roundup
Some links to get you started for this week:
Have a great week!
- French bank employee causes $7 billion loss in fraud
- Political separation can be painful
- Is Hillary's team fractured?
- U.S. birth rate highest in 45 years, MSM still spins it as negative
- Senator Jeff Sessions on immigration
- New York Times officially endorses Clinton, McCain
- Download all you want...
- Senate set to push for more stimulus
Have a great week!
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Obama Wins Big!
The results are in, and Barack Obama won the Democrat South Carolina primary, bringing in 55% of the votes in a 3-way race.
Obama is still trying to keep race out of the race:
This may seem like an odd strategy, but it's exactly what they did in 1992 (but with the roles reversed), and the past year has shown a consistent pattern of Hillary's poll numbers going down when she takes the center stage.
It should be fun to watch the whirling vortex of spin that is about to ensue after this huge win by Obama. And, it will also be interesting to watch how the race card is played - will Rush Limbaugh and many other conservative pundits be right? Will the Clintons play the card subtly but mercilessly to try to scare up the white vote for themselves?
We'll see...
There's my two cents.
Obama is still trying to keep race out of the race:
"The choice in this election is not about regions or religions or genders," Obama said at a boisterous victory rally. "It's not about rich versus poor, young versus old and it's not about black versus white. It's about the past versus the future."As predicted, the Clinton camp is implying that Obama won easily because of race. What is a bit of a surprise is that the Clintons are saying it themselves:
"They are getting votes, to be sure, because of their race or gender. That's why people tell me Hillary doesn't have a chance of winning here," former president [Bill Clinton] said at one stop as he campaigned for his wife, strongly suggesting that blacks would not support a white alternative to Obama.Nearly six in 10 voters said the former president's efforts for his wife was important to their choice, which reflects many pundits' predictions that Bill Clinton was deliberately being the lightning rod to keep Hillary out of the forefront.
This may seem like an odd strategy, but it's exactly what they did in 1992 (but with the roles reversed), and the past year has shown a consistent pattern of Hillary's poll numbers going down when she takes the center stage.
It should be fun to watch the whirling vortex of spin that is about to ensue after this huge win by Obama. And, it will also be interesting to watch how the race card is played - will Rush Limbaugh and many other conservative pundits be right? Will the Clintons play the card subtly but mercilessly to try to scare up the white vote for themselves?
We'll see...
There's my two cents.
Some Historical Election Statistics
I don't recall where I got this, but I've had it for a long time without the opportunity to use it in a post. However, in the run-up to the 2008 election, I thought it was appropriate to pass along this interesting little tidbit of election trivia.
There's my two cents.
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:Draw your own conclusions.
Number of States won by:
Gore: 19
Bush: 29
Square miles of land won by:
Gore: 580,000
Bush: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by:
Gore: 127 million
Bush: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Gore: 13.2
Bush: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."
There's my two cents.
Quote: Government's True Nature
In the light of recent events and predicted election battles, here are three great quotes for you about the true nature of government:
Posted at Heavy-Handed Politics.
“Freedom was given to humanity by God. But, governments, if they can help it, never give freedom. They just hand out slavery with slogans.”
-- Taylor Caldwell --
“The love of liberty is the love of others; the love of power is the love of ourselves.”
-- William Hazlitt --
“What is euphemistically called government-corporate ‘partnership’ is just government coercion, political favoritism, collectivist industrial policy, and old-fashioned federal boondoggles nicely wrapped up in a bright-colored ribbon. It doesn’t work.”
-- Ronald Reagan --
Posted at Heavy-Handed Politics.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Fun & Frivolity: Technology Rocks!
I thought it might be fun to share some cool/interesting technology tidbits for your weekend reading pleasure. Enjoy:
Disappearing Car Doors
Personally, I think this would be great! In particular, with young children, anything that makes it easier to get in or out of the vehicle gets my stamp of approval!
Interpreting the Bark
Ever wonder what a dog means when it barks? Hungarian scientists have developed a software program to analyze dog barks, interpreting such things as "fight", "stranger", and "play":
I just have on question: how did they knew the answers were correct...?
Be an Astronaut
Virgin Galactic recently announced its plans for commercial flights into space. Test flights are expected to begin in June of this year, with booked commercial flights beginning about 12 months later. More than 200 people have already paid a deposit of 100,000 pounds (almost a quarter million dollars) for a 2-hour flight with 4.5 minutes of weightlessness. I think this is fantastic! If we really want to see advances in spaceflight technology, let the private sector take a crack at it. I guarantee you someone will come up with a way to get into space for less money and time than the government. Move over NASA...competition is coming!
Worst Gadgets of 2007
Popular Mechanics picks the worst techie toys from last year. From a vibrating fitness machine to a wi-fi rabbit, these are good for a chuckle.
Happy Friday!
Disappearing Car Doors
Personally, I think this would be great! In particular, with young children, anything that makes it easier to get in or out of the vehicle gets my stamp of approval!
Interpreting the Bark
Ever wonder what a dog means when it barks? Hungarian scientists have developed a software program to analyze dog barks, interpreting such things as "fight", "stranger", and "play":
The special programme analysed more than 6,000 barks from 14 Hungarian sheepdogs in six different situations. The computer correctly identified the different situations 43 per cent of the time. Although it was not a high success rate it was far better than human recognition, the researchers said.
I just have on question: how did they knew the answers were correct...?
Be an Astronaut
Virgin Galactic recently announced its plans for commercial flights into space. Test flights are expected to begin in June of this year, with booked commercial flights beginning about 12 months later. More than 200 people have already paid a deposit of 100,000 pounds (almost a quarter million dollars) for a 2-hour flight with 4.5 minutes of weightlessness. I think this is fantastic! If we really want to see advances in spaceflight technology, let the private sector take a crack at it. I guarantee you someone will come up with a way to get into space for less money and time than the government. Move over NASA...competition is coming!
Worst Gadgets of 2007
Popular Mechanics picks the worst techie toys from last year. From a vibrating fitness machine to a wi-fi rabbit, these are good for a chuckle.
Happy Friday!
War On Terror Updates
Just a couple updates on some peripheral (but critical) pieces in the War on Terror.
First, Frank Gaffney, Jr. sounds the warning on the LOST (Law of the Sea) treaty that is pending in Congress right now. Basically, this treaty would commit the United States to adhere to international authority in regard to environmental issues, meaning environmentalist wackos all over the world could dictate what the U.S. military does.
Surely you can understand how ludicrously insane this is.
President Bush recently allowed the Navy to ignore a federal court order to stop training with powerful sonar off the coast of California, but he has yet to ditch consideration of this treaty. As Gaffney points out, though, the consistent efforts by activist federal judges to limit the power of the U.S. military should be a warning that international judges -- who would have even less incentive to worry about protecting America -- will be even more destructive to our naval activities. Naval lawyers have been pushing for this treaty for decades (Reagan declined it back in the 80s), and if it weren't for them, it is unlikely that Bush would even consider it.
Some of the questionable things that LOST involves:
- it infringes upon American sovereignty
- imposes curbs on military operations inconsistent with routine U.S. practice and national-security requirements
- it empowers a U.N. agency with authority to exercise control over the world's oceans, seabeds, and even the airspace above them
- this agency — the International Seabed Authority — will have what amounts to the power to impose taxes in the form of various levies and fees
- it will also be able to decide who will be allowed to develop the resources on and beneath the ocean floor and to require transfers of technology and proprietary data from developed nations' companies to international bureaucrats and third-world states
- sweeping provisions requiring "protection of the marine environment" that could give rise to obligations to impose stricter environmental requirements than those of the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act
The underlying assumption for the entire thing is that the environment must not be harmed by anything, anywhere, anytime. Also, any disputes that arise must be settled by an international body, with no opportunity for appeal.
Basically, international environmentalists will be able to clamp down on the American military, and the U.S. will lose its ability to defend itself, even from terrorists and terrorist-supporting nations. For example:
Now, let's think about this. What happens if our sonar is legally prevented from being used around our major ports? Do you think that perhaps some foreign nation -- say, China, perhaps, or maybe Iran? -- could just sail right up to our shores and drop a few nuclear missiles on us? Nah, surely not. I mean, communist and terrorist nations ALWAYS respect international law, right?
If this is something that bothers you, you might want to contact your reps and the White House to mention your opinion. I just can't figure out why those idiot lawyers actually WANT this thing...!
Next subject is the review of the FISA extension that was put in place last fall. Michelle Malkin has an update:
Why is this immunity provision important? Because, if telephony companies fear legal repercussions for turning over phone records of terrorists, how likely do you think they're going to be to work with the government to identify terrorists and their associates? Exactly. So, for the FISA law to be effective in fighting terrorism, the telephony companies have to be on board; for them get on board, the immunity has to be there.
Malkin's thoughts:
This one issue precisely illustrates the difference in how the two parties look at the War on Terror, and how the next President is likely to act. We're in a war with terrorism, whether we want to be or not. They've declared war on us, not the other way around. The question you need to ask yourself is: which mindset do you want leading the country in that war? The 9/10 mindset, or the 9/11 mindset?
Call your Senators, and tell them not to be stupid.
There's my two cents.
First, Frank Gaffney, Jr. sounds the warning on the LOST (Law of the Sea) treaty that is pending in Congress right now. Basically, this treaty would commit the United States to adhere to international authority in regard to environmental issues, meaning environmentalist wackos all over the world could dictate what the U.S. military does.
Surely you can understand how ludicrously insane this is.
President Bush recently allowed the Navy to ignore a federal court order to stop training with powerful sonar off the coast of California, but he has yet to ditch consideration of this treaty. As Gaffney points out, though, the consistent efforts by activist federal judges to limit the power of the U.S. military should be a warning that international judges -- who would have even less incentive to worry about protecting America -- will be even more destructive to our naval activities. Naval lawyers have been pushing for this treaty for decades (Reagan declined it back in the 80s), and if it weren't for them, it is unlikely that Bush would even consider it.
Some of the questionable things that LOST involves:
- it infringes upon American sovereignty
- imposes curbs on military operations inconsistent with routine U.S. practice and national-security requirements
- it empowers a U.N. agency with authority to exercise control over the world's oceans, seabeds, and even the airspace above them
- this agency — the International Seabed Authority — will have what amounts to the power to impose taxes in the form of various levies and fees
- it will also be able to decide who will be allowed to develop the resources on and beneath the ocean floor and to require transfers of technology and proprietary data from developed nations' companies to international bureaucrats and third-world states
- sweeping provisions requiring "protection of the marine environment" that could give rise to obligations to impose stricter environmental requirements than those of the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act
The underlying assumption for the entire thing is that the environment must not be harmed by anything, anywhere, anytime. Also, any disputes that arise must be settled by an international body, with no opportunity for appeal.
Basically, international environmentalists will be able to clamp down on the American military, and the U.S. will lose its ability to defend itself, even from terrorists and terrorist-supporting nations. For example:
A case in point is the 2007 civil suit brought against the Navy by the Natural Resources Defense Council. The NRDC — a leftist organization whose "green" agenda often serves as a cover for anti-military activism — sought an injunction against the sea service on the grounds that its use of high-power sonar constituted violations of federal environmental statutes.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that the Navy's plan for protecting marine mammals off the West Coast during sonar training was inadequate, and ordered the case back to U.S. District Court Judge Florence-Marie Cooper. Judge Cooper proceeded to ban sonar use within 12 nautical miles of the coast and mandated shutdown procedures when the Navy spotted marine mammals. All this in spite of the fact that the Navy already employs 29 procedures to lessen the impact of sonar on marine life.
Now, let's think about this. What happens if our sonar is legally prevented from being used around our major ports? Do you think that perhaps some foreign nation -- say, China, perhaps, or maybe Iran? -- could just sail right up to our shores and drop a few nuclear missiles on us? Nah, surely not. I mean, communist and terrorist nations ALWAYS respect international law, right?
If this is something that bothers you, you might want to contact your reps and the White House to mention your opinion. I just can't figure out why those idiot lawyers actually WANT this thing...!
Next subject is the review of the FISA extension that was put in place last fall. Michelle Malkin has an update:
Lawmakers in the Senate defeated an initial attempt Thursday to strip immunity for telecommunications companies out of a bill reauthorizing the federal government's warrantless wiretapping program. Senators approved a motion to table an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that would have removed the immunity provision in the bill. The vote was 60-34. Democratic senators are planning at least two more amendments seeking to remove the immunity clause. If they both fail, then Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., has repeated his pledge to attempt to block a vote on the bill. Speaking to reporters earlier Thursday, Dodd said he was "vehemently" opposed to immunity and would do everything he could to prevent it."
Why is this immunity provision important? Because, if telephony companies fear legal repercussions for turning over phone records of terrorists, how likely do you think they're going to be to work with the government to identify terrorists and their associates? Exactly. So, for the FISA law to be effective in fighting terrorism, the telephony companies have to be on board; for them get on board, the immunity has to be there.
Malkin's thoughts:
The frenzy over FISA is a stark reminder of basic party differences on the War on Terror. The Republicans put security first. The Democrats put trial lawyers, terrorists' rights, and election campaigns first. The Republicans are acting to prevent another 9/11. The Democrats are stuck in a 9/10 world.
This one issue precisely illustrates the difference in how the two parties look at the War on Terror, and how the next President is likely to act. We're in a war with terrorism, whether we want to be or not. They've declared war on us, not the other way around. The question you need to ask yourself is: which mindset do you want leading the country in that war? The 9/10 mindset, or the 9/11 mindset?
Call your Senators, and tell them not to be stupid.
There's my two cents.
Weekend Election Update
The Democrat South Carolina primary is tomorrow, and the Florida primaries for both parties are next week (though Florida's Democrat primary delegates were stripped like Michigan's because Florida moved their primary up). Both are key for building and maintaining momentum. Let's look at South Carolina first.
The heat continues between Clinton and Obama. As I mentioned in a previous post, Hillary Clinton had accused Obama of representing a 'slum lord' named Tony Rezko. In an interview with NBC's Today Show, she also said that she didn't know Rezko, but in a fun (for me) twist, Matt Lauer presented a picture of Rezko standing in between Bill and Hillary years ago.
Just another example of Hillary padding her track record of misleading falsehoods. I'm surprised Lauer had the guts to do it.
An L.A. Times op-ed warns of the high price of another Clinton 'twofer' presidency. Excerpts:
Speaking of Hillary Clinton, this interesting tidbit came to my attention recently. If you think that government is overspending on ridiculous things, you need to know this:
Many of the organizations she helped with earmarks have employees who are substantial contributors to her campaign. Is this really what you want in a President? These practices border on illegal, and Clinton is one of the worst offenders. How likely do you think she's going to be to actually eliminate earmarks if she's in the White House? By contrast, Obama had 46 earmarks.
A leading poll currently shows the following for South Carolina:
Rush Limbaugh recently put forth the theory that the Clintons actually want Obama to win SC. According to Limbaugh, their plan is to utilize racial politics as much as possible to re-engage white voters on their side. To that end, a loss in SC would trigger the idea that 'of course, Obama won SC, there are a lot of black voters there...', thus scaring white Democrat voters to come back to the Clinton fold. The idea won't come from the Clintons (ahem, ahem), rather from their surrogates in the MSM and elsewhere. It will be interesting to see if Limbaugh's legendary ability to predict his opponents' actions comes true.
Now, on to Florida and the Republicans. McCain is the GOP flavor of the moment for the MSM, and it seems to be having at least a little bit of an effect on the voters. But, there are some serious problems with nominating McCain. As Robert Tracinski writes at RealClearPolitics:
Mark Krikorian at NRO agrees, but for a different reason: McCain is a multiculturalist. What does that mean? Francis Fukuyama described multiculturalism "not just as tolerance of cultural diversity in de facto multicultural societies but as the demand for legal recognition of the rights of ethnic, racial, religious, or cultural groups." McCain has supported the multicultural aspect of pretty much every issue, and none has been more apparent than immigration. From his amnesty bill in 2007 to his support of bilingual...well, everything (and opposition of the equivalent official English language everything) to opposing proof of citizenship for voting, McCain has constantly been against the rest of his party on immigration. This same philosophy applies to pretty much every other issue, too. The only issue he actually leads the party on is national security. For everything else, he's essentially a Democrat.
Rudy Giuliani is playing a risky strategy, skipping the early (more conservative) states and going straight for Florida. It will be interesting to see if his strategy pays off. Though he's a wreck on the social issues, two of Rudy's biggest strengths are national security and the economy. In particular, he has proposed an extremely aggressive tax plan that includes the following:
- largest tax cut in recent history
- an option to use the current system or a new system with a simple one-page form
- three tax rates on the new system: 10%, 15%, and 30%
- incentives to save through three programs (retirement account, general purpose savings account, training/education account)
- health care exclusion ($15K for families, $7500 for individuals) to increase access to private health care
This is a terrific tax plan, and would really help alleviate the centralization of power in the federal government; Steve Forbes endorses it.
The last piece of this update is the strategy of RNC Chairman Mike Duncan on how to beat the Democrat candidates. The short version is that Clinton's biggest weakness is trust, and Obama's is his lack of experience. Excerpts:
At the moment, a leading poll is showing the following numbers:
If Rudy doesn't pull out Florida, his campaign could be in some serious trouble. Romney shows signs of pulling ahead of the pack in several states, possibly due to snagging much of Fred Thompson's former support, so if he picks up Florida, he would definitely be the front-runner (despite the MSM anointing McCain) going into Super Tuesday.
Now you're up to date going into the weekend!
There's my two cents.
The heat continues between Clinton and Obama. As I mentioned in a previous post, Hillary Clinton had accused Obama of representing a 'slum lord' named Tony Rezko. In an interview with NBC's Today Show, she also said that she didn't know Rezko, but in a fun (for me) twist, Matt Lauer presented a picture of Rezko standing in between Bill and Hillary years ago.
Just another example of Hillary padding her track record of misleading falsehoods. I'm surprised Lauer had the guts to do it.
An L.A. Times op-ed warns of the high price of another Clinton 'twofer' presidency. Excerpts:
She wants to be judged on her own merits and not be treated as Bill's Mini-Me. But she also wants to reap the benefits of Bill's popularity, and offers voters the reassuring suggestion that if there's a crisis while she's in the White House, there will be someone around who really does have executive branch experience -- namely, Bill -- to lend a hand. But the Clintons are playing a dangerous game. The more they remind us of what we liked about Act I of the Bill and Hillary Show, the more they also remind us of what we hated.
On the whole, the Clinton era was a time of culture war and scandal, "triangulation" and botched reforms (healthcare anyone?), vacillation and paralysis.
On foreign policy in particular, Clinton's presidency was an era of missed opportunities. In Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Rwanda and Kosovo, U.S. policy was marred by hesitation and lack of commitment. Despite impressive rhetoric on the emerging challenges posed by globalization, nuclear proliferation, WMD and the rise of transnational terrorism and nonstate actors, Clinton developed few innovative ways to address these challenges; his approach to conflict and crisis was piecemeal.
Speaking of Hillary Clinton, this interesting tidbit came to my attention recently. If you think that government is overspending on ridiculous things, you need to know this:
A group that lobbies for needle exchanges, for allowing more immigrants with HIV/AIDS to legally enter the country, and for condom distribution in prisons received a $303,000 federal earmark pushed by Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.).
That was one of 261 earmarks Clinton personally helped usher through Congress. That's more earmarks than any other member of Congress seeking the presidency.
Many of the organizations she helped with earmarks have employees who are substantial contributors to her campaign. Is this really what you want in a President? These practices border on illegal, and Clinton is one of the worst offenders. How likely do you think she's going to be to actually eliminate earmarks if she's in the White House? By contrast, Obama had 46 earmarks.
A leading poll currently shows the following for South Carolina:
SC RCP Avg: Obama 38.2, Clinton 26.4
Rush Limbaugh recently put forth the theory that the Clintons actually want Obama to win SC. According to Limbaugh, their plan is to utilize racial politics as much as possible to re-engage white voters on their side. To that end, a loss in SC would trigger the idea that 'of course, Obama won SC, there are a lot of black voters there...', thus scaring white Democrat voters to come back to the Clinton fold. The idea won't come from the Clintons (ahem, ahem), rather from their surrogates in the MSM and elsewhere. It will be interesting to see if Limbaugh's legendary ability to predict his opponents' actions comes true.
Now, on to Florida and the Republicans. McCain is the GOP flavor of the moment for the MSM, and it seems to be having at least a little bit of an effect on the voters. But, there are some serious problems with nominating McCain. As Robert Tracinski writes at RealClearPolitics:
Many voters seem to be attracted to McCain because of his strong stance on the War on Terrorism, reinforced by his war-hero biography. This is part of the reason, for example, that Rudy Giuliani's poll numbers have declined precisely as McCain's have risen: both candidates are competing for the support of pro-war voters. But that raises another, far more important question: if John McCain saves Republicans, who will save Republicans from John McCain? The voters who support McCain over Giuliani are making a dangerously short-sighted trade. McCain is a suicidal choice for Republicans, because on every issue other than the war, he stands for capitulation to the left.
There are three big domestic issues that will be decided by the 2008 election: socialized medicine, higher taxes, and global warming regulations. The Democrats are in favor of all three--and John McCain won't stop them.
Mark Krikorian at NRO agrees, but for a different reason: McCain is a multiculturalist. What does that mean? Francis Fukuyama described multiculturalism "not just as tolerance of cultural diversity in de facto multicultural societies but as the demand for legal recognition of the rights of ethnic, racial, religious, or cultural groups." McCain has supported the multicultural aspect of pretty much every issue, and none has been more apparent than immigration. From his amnesty bill in 2007 to his support of bilingual...well, everything (and opposition of the equivalent official English language everything) to opposing proof of citizenship for voting, McCain has constantly been against the rest of his party on immigration. This same philosophy applies to pretty much every other issue, too. The only issue he actually leads the party on is national security. For everything else, he's essentially a Democrat.
Rudy Giuliani is playing a risky strategy, skipping the early (more conservative) states and going straight for Florida. It will be interesting to see if his strategy pays off. Though he's a wreck on the social issues, two of Rudy's biggest strengths are national security and the economy. In particular, he has proposed an extremely aggressive tax plan that includes the following:
- largest tax cut in recent history
- an option to use the current system or a new system with a simple one-page form
- three tax rates on the new system: 10%, 15%, and 30%
- incentives to save through three programs (retirement account, general purpose savings account, training/education account)
- health care exclusion ($15K for families, $7500 for individuals) to increase access to private health care
This is a terrific tax plan, and would really help alleviate the centralization of power in the federal government; Steve Forbes endorses it.
The last piece of this update is the strategy of RNC Chairman Mike Duncan on how to beat the Democrat candidates. The short version is that Clinton's biggest weakness is trust, and Obama's is his lack of experience. Excerpts:
The RNC's polling on Clinton found that less than 50 percent of respondents see her as "honest and trustworthy." Sixty-five percent say she "will say or do anything to get elected" and 68 percent "agree that Sen. Clinton will raise their taxes."
Only 40 percent of respondents to the RNC's survey agree that Obama "has the experience necessary to be Commander-in-Chief." Forty-nine percent said Obama has a "record of accomplishment," but only 19 percent say they are "very familiar" with the senator's positions. Forty-four percent of respondents in the RNC poll view Obama as a uniter of Democrats and Republicans. "His rhetoric is very good. He's a great speaker. But at the end of the speech, people go, 'Where's the beef?' "
At the moment, a leading poll is showing the following numbers:
FL RCP Avg: McCain 25.3, Romney 25.0, Giuliani 18.5, Huckabee 15.5
If Rudy doesn't pull out Florida, his campaign could be in some serious trouble. Romney shows signs of pulling ahead of the pack in several states, possibly due to snagging much of Fred Thompson's former support, so if he picks up Florida, he would definitely be the front-runner (despite the MSM anointing McCain) going into Super Tuesday.
Now you're up to date going into the weekend!
There's my two cents.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Final 'Stimulus' Package Completed
The House passed a final version of the 'stimulus' plan to jumpstart the economy. Here are the basics.
$100 billion will go back to American taxpayers in the form of:
- $600 rebate for individual taxpayers earning less than $75,000/year
- $1,200 rebate for married couples earning less than $150,000/year combined
- $300 for each child
- incomes higher than $87,000 and $174,000 will get partial rebates
$50 billion will go to American businesses in the form of tax breaks.
The checks should -- assuming the Senate and White House sign off -- start coming out in May, with most being delivered by the end of the summer.
As stated before, if these tax refunds are good for the economy at times like this, why don't they keep it up all the time? Lower taxes means stronger economy, so why not make it permanent...?
There's my two cents.
$100 billion will go back to American taxpayers in the form of:
- $600 rebate for individual taxpayers earning less than $75,000/year
- $1,200 rebate for married couples earning less than $150,000/year combined
- $300 for each child
- incomes higher than $87,000 and $174,000 will get partial rebates
$50 billion will go to American businesses in the form of tax breaks.
The checks should -- assuming the Senate and White House sign off -- start coming out in May, with most being delivered by the end of the summer.
As stated before, if these tax refunds are good for the economy at times like this, why don't they keep it up all the time? Lower taxes means stronger economy, so why not make it permanent...?
There's my two cents.
Link Roundup
Thursday's link roundup:
- The American people don't trust the MSM to report accurately on Iraq.
- Kucinich withdraws from Democrat presidential race.
- We should follow France's lead in utilizing nuclear power.
- 'Three Little Pigs' too offensive for Muslims - more capitulation.
- Suddenly, the government figures out that the Mexican border is dangerous...!
- Israeli party backs out of Olmert's government; the end for Olmert is near.
- Democrats thrive on conspiracy theories.
- The Edwards Implosion - why the Democrat party is committing political suicide for the sake of minorities.
- 9/11 memorial is shady - actually a memorial to Islam...!
- More sleight of hand on 9/11 memorial.
- Pledge of Allegiance is under attack again.
Democrat War (Primary) Update
I recently blogged about the war inside the Republican party. There's also a war going on within the Democrat party, and while that one is perhaps less substantive, it is far more entertaining.
Since the early 90's, it has been commonplace for the Democrats (specifically, the Clinton machine) to slash, burn, and slander Republicans, playing the racism card, the sexism card, and any other 'ism' card they can think of at every opportunity. So, it is with more than a little amusement and satisfaction that I watch these same tactics turned on another Democrat. Even better is the fact that Hillary -- the 'inevitable' candidate with '35 years of experience' -- is rapidly losing ground to a rookie Senator who has done nothing and just happens to be a...gasp...black man.
I've often wondered what would happen if Condi Rice were to run for high office against the Clintons - would she, as an African American woman, get the same vicious treatment as, say, Newt Gingrich got from the party that supposedly best represents minorities? Obama's experience is providing us with the answer in vivid color, and he's not even in the opposition party!
These are the true colors of the Clinton-led Democrat party. Pay attention! They will stop at NOTHING to grasp the reigns of power.
It all started with some innocent little racial slurs after Obama started looking like a legitimate candidate. Starting out, Obama seemed to avoid taking the race bait, but did start fighting back, attacking Hillary's career as a corporate lawyer while he was on the streets helping real people. Not one to shy away from the gutter, Hillary accused Obama of representing a slum lord in Chicago. She also twisted his words about Ronald Reagan, accusing him of supporting Republican policies. Even Bill Clinton got involved, accusing Obama of putting a ' hit job' on him and whining about how there was no outrage when Obama claimed Hillary was not truthful. [side note here - I think we all KNOW that 'Clinton' = lie, so I'd be shocked if there actually WAS any outrage about that] Trying to compensate for the professional mud-slinging tag-team that is the Clintons, Michelle Obama defended her husband, suggesting the Clintons will say anything to attain power.
Another question mark is that voter fraud has already cropped up. The Obama campaign is citing hundreds of complaints about disenfranchisement and other irregularities in the Nevada caucuses. Hm, does that remind anyone of Florida in 2000...?
Even Democrats are getting nervous about the vicious in-fighting:
I'm not sure how much credibility John Kerry lends to the argument against lying, but I still find it fascinating that he's using these words against the Clintons. But he's not alone. Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle said Bill Clinton's behavior on the campaign trail is 'not becoming of a former president.' He added:
But there's still more from Democrats:
Republicans are enjoying this, and hope to parlay this discord into some permanent damage when the general election comes around. RNC Chairman Robert M. "Mike" Duncan released the following statement after a recent debate:
So, as you can see, both parties are in the midst of their own internal war. The main difference is the nature of that war. The Republican party is battling over issues, records, and its primary governing philosophy. The Democrat party, on the other hand, is battling over race, gender, and integrity. That's a big, big difference.
Regardless, all this really points to one more thing: the eventual Republican nominee needs to take the Democrat primary as a flashing red signal that the Democrats are going to play dirty. Be ready.
There's my two cents.
Since the early 90's, it has been commonplace for the Democrats (specifically, the Clinton machine) to slash, burn, and slander Republicans, playing the racism card, the sexism card, and any other 'ism' card they can think of at every opportunity. So, it is with more than a little amusement and satisfaction that I watch these same tactics turned on another Democrat. Even better is the fact that Hillary -- the 'inevitable' candidate with '35 years of experience' -- is rapidly losing ground to a rookie Senator who has done nothing and just happens to be a...gasp...black man.
I've often wondered what would happen if Condi Rice were to run for high office against the Clintons - would she, as an African American woman, get the same vicious treatment as, say, Newt Gingrich got from the party that supposedly best represents minorities? Obama's experience is providing us with the answer in vivid color, and he's not even in the opposition party!
These are the true colors of the Clinton-led Democrat party. Pay attention! They will stop at NOTHING to grasp the reigns of power.
It all started with some innocent little racial slurs after Obama started looking like a legitimate candidate. Starting out, Obama seemed to avoid taking the race bait, but did start fighting back, attacking Hillary's career as a corporate lawyer while he was on the streets helping real people. Not one to shy away from the gutter, Hillary accused Obama of representing a slum lord in Chicago. She also twisted his words about Ronald Reagan, accusing him of supporting Republican policies. Even Bill Clinton got involved, accusing Obama of putting a ' hit job' on him and whining about how there was no outrage when Obama claimed Hillary was not truthful. [side note here - I think we all KNOW that 'Clinton' = lie, so I'd be shocked if there actually WAS any outrage about that] Trying to compensate for the professional mud-slinging tag-team that is the Clintons, Michelle Obama defended her husband, suggesting the Clintons will say anything to attain power.
Another question mark is that voter fraud has already cropped up. The Obama campaign is citing hundreds of complaints about disenfranchisement and other irregularities in the Nevada caucuses. Hm, does that remind anyone of Florida in 2000...?
Even Democrats are getting nervous about the vicious in-fighting:
"The truth matters, but how you fight the lies matters even more. We must be determined never again to lose any election to a lie," 2004 Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry said in an e-mail to [Obama] supporters.
"The fight is just heating up — we won't let them steal this election with lies and distortions."
I'm not sure how much credibility John Kerry lends to the argument against lying, but I still find it fascinating that he's using these words against the Clintons. But he's not alone. Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle said Bill Clinton's behavior on the campaign trail is 'not becoming of a former president.' He added:
"We want to do everything we can to change the tone," Mr. Daschle said. "In the long run we have to have a united party."
But there's still more from Democrats:
Sen. Barbara Boxer, who represents the big Feb. 5 primary prize of California, called the campaign "very rough, very tough" and added: "It's a fight to the finish."
Some statements that were said could be worded differently," Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin.
A few prominent Democrats, including Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) and Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), have spoken to the former president about the force of his Obama critiques. There is some fear within the party that if Obama becomes the nominee, he could emerge personally battered and politically compromised.
Dick Harpootlian, a former chairman of the Democratic Party in South Carolina, accused the Clintons of using the "politics of deception."
Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), who endorsed Obama last week, castigated the former president for what he called his "glib cheap shots" at Obama, saying both sides should settle down but placing the blame predominantly on Clinton.
Republicans are enjoying this, and hope to parlay this discord into some permanent damage when the general election comes around. RNC Chairman Robert M. "Mike" Duncan released the following statement after a recent debate:
"For once, I found myself agreeing with Senators Clinton and Obama: Senator Clinton is right that Obama doesn't have enough experience to lead, and Senator Obama is correct that Clinton cannot be trusted. Tonight's debate was further evidence that Senators Clinton and Obama would lead America toward higher taxes and less security. With America's economy facing challenges, the Democrats' tax-and-spend policies would be catastrophic. The Democrats' liberal plans are a stark contrast to the Republican candidates' commitment to winning the War on Terror and keeping taxes low for hard-working families."
So, as you can see, both parties are in the midst of their own internal war. The main difference is the nature of that war. The Republican party is battling over issues, records, and its primary governing philosophy. The Democrat party, on the other hand, is battling over race, gender, and integrity. That's a big, big difference.
Regardless, all this really points to one more thing: the eventual Republican nominee needs to take the Democrat primary as a flashing red signal that the Democrats are going to play dirty. Be ready.
There's my two cents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)