Categories

Archive for April, 2007

Follow this link if you want to read an utterly biased article about Iraq. Here’s an example of their bias:

On the surface, there’s not much suspense about what happens next in the battle between President Bush and Democratic lawmakers over the war in Iraq. Bush says he will veto the $124-billion war spending bill passed by both houses of Congress last week that requires him to begin withdrawing troops this year; when he does, Democrats say, they will protest and then send him the money without binding conditions.

That noisy script, however, is just a prelude to a debate, under conditions likely to be more difficult for Bush, that could turn into a decisive moment for the course of the war.

Why does the LA Times think that the September debate will happen under “conditions likely to be more difficult for Bush”? Why are they assuming that the trends we’re now seeing won’t continue? Why is it a forgone conclusion that our military can’t defeat the jihadists?

Most importantly, why is the LA Times ignoring stories like this one in the NY Times? Let’s take a look at the NY Times article.

Anbar Province, long the lawless heartland of the tenacious Sunni Arab resistance, is undergoing a surprising transformation. Violence is ebbing in many areas, shops and schools are reopening, police forces are growing and the insurgency appears to be in retreat.

“Many people are challenging the insurgents,” said the governor of Anbar, Maamoon S. Rahid, though he quickly added, “We know we haven’t eliminated the threat 100 percent.”

This article leads me to this question: If the American and Iraqi troops continue in tamping down the AQI, why will the September vote happen under conditions hostile to President Bush? Is it because that’s the predetermined storyline that the LA Times ‘reporters’ are expected to follow?

Before you dismiss that last question as utter snarkiness, I’ll remind you that Harry Reid’s been denying that they’ve changed strategies. I’d further say that the LA Times, the Washington Post and the NY Times haven’t called him on his denial. Look at what the NY Times also reports:

Many Sunni tribal leaders, once openly hostile to the American presence, have formed a united front with American and Iraqi government forces against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. With the tribal leaders’ encouragement, thousands of local residents have joined the police force. About 10,000 police officers are now in Anbar, up from several thousand a year ago. During the same period, the police force here in Ramadi, the provincial capital, has grown from fewer than 200 to about 4,500, American military officials say.

At the same time, American and Iraqi forces have been conducting sweeps of insurgent strongholds, particularly in and around Ramadi, leaving behind a network of police stations and military garrisons, a strategy that is also being used in Baghdad, Iraq’s capital, as part of its new security plan.

Think of the implications behind these paragraphs. Sunni tribal leaders are turning on AQM terrorists. Police forces are growing steadily. The NY Times’ article even says that there’s a new “security plan” in place. Now that it’s in the NY Times, how much longer will Reid, Pelosi and Murtha deny the successes? Here’s another hint at Mr. McManus’ antiwar bias:

By September, the troop buildup will have been underway for more than six months. Unless there is dramatic improvement in Iraq, public support for the war will probably have eroded further. And by September, skittish Republicans will be four months closer to starting their reelection campaigns.

Again, Mr. McManus is assuming that things won’t improve. Based on the information that I’ve already laid out, that’s a risky assumption at minimum. Personally, I’d say that it’s a foolish assumption but that’s another matter.

Furthermore, the public likely wouldn’t be souring on this war if the media wasn’t cheering for America’s defeat. As for those “skittish Republicans”, I don’t think that they’ll materialize because they know that they’ll be face primary challenges if they adopt a defeatist position, thanks in no small part to the Victory Caucus movement.

Democrats have to hope that things deteriorate because signs of victory being possible would doom the candidacies of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. It would also expose the foolishness of defeatists like Ms. Pelosi and Rep. Murtha.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Think of how breathtaking that headline is. That’s a stunning statement but that’s what happened when Bob Schieffer interviewed Murtha for Face The Nation:

Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) said Sunday that Democrats in Congress could consider impeachment as a way to pressure President Bush on his handling of the war in Iraq.

What I’m saying, there’s four ways to influence a president. And one of them’s impeachment,” Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

As I pointed out last week, John Murtha ignored the Constitution’s guarantees of due process and the right to a fair trial when he ‘tried and convicted’ the Haditha Marines before he had any firsthand knowledge of what happened. Now Murtha is willing to throw the Constitution aside to put political pressure on President Bush over a policy dispute. That doesn’t pass constitutional muster because it doesn’t rise to the level of high crimes or misdemeanors.

It’s apparent that Murtha doesn’t think he’s bound by the Constitution. It’s equally apparent that he thinks it’s ok to do whatever he wants because his goals are right. That’s the epitome of arrogance. It’s also the picture of injustice. Frankly, if Mr. Murtha attempts to impeach President Bush, he should be evicted from the House of Representatives for willfully violating the Constitution.

Many is the time that I’ve heard the phrase that “this is a nation of laws, not men.” Unfortunately, Mr. Murtha doesn’t believe that anymore. He thinks that laws don’t apply to him. It’s time that we let Rep. Murtha that his ignoring the Constitution isn’t acceptable. It’s time we told him that he’d better change his ways or we’ll have him fired next November.

Technorati: , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Once Katherine Kersten started writing about MAS, CAIR and other Muslim ‘civil rights organization’, it was predictable that someone would write that Kathy was an ‘Islamophobe’. That eventuality happened in Friday’s Strib in this op-ed by Ahmed Tharwat. Here’s a sample of Mr. Tharwat’s propaganda:

From the “flying imams” fiasco at the airport, to the cabdrivers facing off with the Metropolitan Airports Commission about transporting alcohol, to the current flurry of articles about plumbing adjustments to accommodate foot-washing at Minneapolis Community and Technical College, Kersten’s interest strikes me as paranoia, or even out-and-out phobia.

Allow me to utterly destroy Mr. Tharwat’s complaint against my friend. First, Kathy’s writing about the defiant cabbies pointed out how the Muslim American Society (MAS), a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood, was part of a much bigger agenda:

Omar Jamal, director of the Somali Justice Advocacy Center, thinks he knows why the society is promoting a “no-alcohol-carry” agenda with no basis in Somali culture. “MAS is an Arab group; we Somalis are African, not Arabs,” he said. “MAS wants to polarize the world, create two camps. I think they are trying to hijack the Somali community for their Middle East agenda. They look for issues they can capitalize on, like religion, to rally the community around. The majority of Somalis oppose this, but they are vulnerable because of their social and economic situation.”attempting to stir up trouble by claiming that the Qu’ran forbade Muslims from transporting alcohol.

Based on that information, it’s pretty difficult to say that Kathy’s writing was based on paranoia or “Islamic-phobia.” It sounds more like Kathy exposed MAS’s political agenda.

As for the “plumbing adjustments to accommodate foot-washing at Minneapolis Community and Technical College”, perhaps Kathy wouldn’t be so concerned if not for the Muslim Brotherhood’s goal of a worldwide Muslim caliphate. The plan to build the caliphate is summed up in a set of documents known as “The Project”, which is their 100 year plan to make Sharia law the law of the United States. Here’s a portion of Patrick Poole’s article:

What makes The Project so different from the standard “Death of America! Death to Israel!” and “Establish the global caliphate!” Islamist rhetoric is that it represents a flexible, multi-phased, long-term approach to the “cultural invasion” of the West. Calling for the utilization of various tactics, ranging from immigration, infiltration, surveillance, propaganda, protest, deception, political legitimacy and terrorism, The Project has served for more than two decades as the Muslim Brotherhood “master plan”. As can be seen in a number of examples throughout Europe, including the political recognition of parallel Islamist government organizations in Sweden, the recent “cartoon” jihad in Denmark, the Parisian car-burning intifada last November, and the 7/7 terrorist attacks in London, the plan outlined in The Project has been overwhelmingly successful.

Once people know that a terrorist organization has a 100 year plan to build a Muslim caliphate one piece at a time, it isn’t unreasonable to think that installing wash basins isn’t the goal. Rather, it’s quite reasonable to think that it’s just part of The Project.

As for Mr. Tharwat’s worries about Kathy’s “phobia”, I wouldn’t think that fits. According to Dictionary.com, the definition of phobia is “a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.” Since Kathy’s reporting isn’t based on fear, it isn’t credible to call her reporting phobic. I’d add that Kathy’s reporting isn’t irrational since it’s fact-based and rational. Furthermore, I’d doubt that anyone would buy into the notion that reporting on a terrorist group’s attempts to stir up trouble is phobic. I’d bet that most people would call that rational.

Whatever her motive, Kersten is consistent in her attempts to agitate the reader about Muslims living in the United States and their perceived “threat” to Western civilization. Her zealous coverage of issues of the Muslim community is both puzzling and frightening.

Mr. Tharwat is partially right in the sense that radical Islamists should be frightened by Kathy Kersten’s reporting. They prefer implementing things in the Project without scrutiny. As for Mr. Tharwat’s accusation of Ms. Kersten’s “attempts to agitate the reader about Muslims”, I’d characterize her writing as her attempt to educate Americans about Muslim extremists.

Kersten seems intent on stirring up negative public opinion on relatively minor topics in her apparent crusade to save American culture from the Muslims.

If she were involved in a crusade against Muslims, which she isn’t, she wouldn’t have interviewed Somali Muslim taxi drivers to get their side of the story, would she?

One last thing: The first time I heard the term Islamophobia, I contacted the American Psychologists Association to see if they recognize such a phobia. They said that they didn’t. In fact, the young lady with whom I talked said it sounded more like a slang term than anything else.

Technorati: , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

With the 7th overall pick in the NFL Draft, the Vikings took Oklahoma RB Adrian Peterson. Once Washington took LaRon Landry, this was the pick I expected them to make.

I hope that Mike Mayock’s information isn’t accurate:

The running back thing really fascinates me. I spoke to two teams earlier today; both teams told me that the medical on Adrian Peterson’s collarbone is pretty significant. You may have to re-break the bone, insert a plate. If so, he’s probably ’08. And if you try to play him this year, there’s a chance it could re-break.

This might’ve been another team planting some misinformation, hoping that AP would drop to them in the middle of the first round. NFL teams have been known to do that to get an edge. Only time will tell.

On the positive side, ESPN’s Chris Mortenson said that famed orthopedic surgeon James Andrews said that the injury isn’t serious & shouldn’t affect his career. One that’s undeniable is that this kid’s got the work ethic & the talent to be another Ladanian Tomlinson. One of the ESPN announcers said that his Oklahoma teammates nicknamed him AD, as in ‘All Day’, because of his work ethic. He doesn’t have any red flags in terms of character.

Check back throughout the day for more draft updates. I’m outta here. I’m now heading out to the back yard to grill up a thick steak.

Technorati: , , , , , , ,

The guys at RedState interviewed Brian Rooney from the Thomas More Center. According to the article, Mr. Rooney is a former JAG officer. Here’s one of the appalling things that Mr. Rooney said:

RS: There seems to be a coordinated program of damaging leaks directed against the Marines in this case. Especially the leak that John Murtha hinted came from the Commandant of the USMC. Can you give us other examples of leaks prejudicial to the Marines in this case. Any idea on why these leaks are happening or who is behind them?

BR: I was told from a very reliable source that the leaks of the NCIS investigation and the Bargewell report came from a anti-war politician on one of the armed services committee. All of the leaks have been given to Josh White of the Washington Post; his source is on one of the armed services committees. These leaks seem to come out every time press against these Marines starts getting favorable. Murtha for instance said that the Marines murdered in cold blood and officers covered it up…this was all done before Bargewell was complete…One of the main findings of Bargewell was there was “no cover-up.”

This is proof positive that Murtha actively tried to railroad these Marines before the investigation was finished. Why else would he make these allegations? It’s disgusting enough that he threw out the Constitution’s due process protections and these soldiers’ right to a fair trial. It’s more disgusting that he attempted to railroad our patriotic, heroic soldiers on a pack of lies. Let’s examine this is a bit.

He had to be attempting to railroad these soldiers because he didn’t have the truth. He wasn’t acting on unassailable information from the investigation. There’s only one logical explanation: he’s as corrupt as the leaker, who clearly had a political agenda in this matter. What causes a man to do that? Talk about corrupt.

It’s noteworthy that Murtha’s timing was called into question, too:

These leaks seem to come out every time press against these Marines starts getting favorable.

That’s the quintessential definition of a hatchet job, something that Rep. Murtha has actively participated in. Again, Rep. Murtha has done this without verifiable information. Rep. Murtha has done this before the investigation has issued its findings.

We also know that Rep. Murtha, in his capacity of chairman of the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee, holds the Pentagon’s funding in his hands. If he tells someone in the Pentagon to jump, they’re expected to ask how high. This is the essence of corruption. This is what a power-drunk megalomaniac does.

Let’s also ask what other things Rep. Murtha has done to ‘support’ the troops. How can a man railroad innocent soldiers into murder convictions and still say that he supports the troops? Why should we believe anything he says? Who was his Pentagon source for this misinformation? Let’s remember that Murtha said he got his information from “real guys who know what they’re talking about.” It appears as though those sources didn’t know what they were talking about or they were intentionally lying about what they knew.

Another thing we know beyond a shadow of a doubt is that these leakers, like Rep. Murtha, don’t worry about these soldiers’ constitutional protections. If they did, they’d let the truth be discovered, at which point they’d follow the truth wherever it took them. Clearly, that isn’t what they did here.

Here’s the article that’s made its way around the internet that talks about the exculpatory evidence that NCIS withheld:

Although the prosecutors said they needed more time to prepare their cases, there is much more to the story than that NewsMax.com has learned, and it paints a shocking picture of a prosecution that should never have been pursued.
In a nutshell, the case exploded when an intelligence officer dropped a bombshell on prosecutors during a pre-hearing interview when he revealed the existence of exculpatory evidence that appears to have been obtained by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) and withheld from the prosecutors.
This officer, described by senior Marine Corps superiors as one of the best and most dedicated intelligence officers in the entire Marine Corps, was in possession of evidence which provided a minute-by-minute narrative of the entire day’s action — material which he had amassed while monitoring the day’s action in his capacity as the battalion’s intelligence officer. That material, he says, was also in the hands of the NCIS.

This begs a series of questions, like:

  • When did NCIS first obtain this information?
  • Why did NCIS knowingly withhold this information?
  • Did John Murtha know about this information?
  • If he did, why didn’t he backtrack on his initial allegations?
  • If Murtha knew about NCIS withholding this information, why didn’t he push to get the Haditha Marines cleared of the charges?

Most importantly, will Rep. Murtha apologize to the Haditha Marines when they’re cleared of these charges? That’s what an honorable man would do.

At this point, I don’t have proof that Rep. Murtha is an honorable man.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at Murtha Must Go

One of the things that’s been missing in the debate on the Iraq War supplemental bill has been Democrats talking about listening to the generals. Instead, they’ve been talking about President Bush not listening to the American people. This Washington Times article provides us with a typical Harry Reid quote:

“We hope the president will reconsider his stubbornness and his refusal to listen to the American people,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat.

That’s quite a contrast from what Reid and Pelosi said just a couple months ago. Here’s some of their quotes (H/T Captain Ed):

Senate Democrats voted unanimously to confirm General Petraeus in January.

  • “Listen to the generals.” – Sen. Harry Reid, 01/19/2007
  • “If the President won’t listen to generals, he won’t listen to the American people, who have spoken for a new direction, then perhaps he will listen to us, Congress, when we send him a supplemental bill that acknowledges reality in Iraq.” – Reid, 03/26/2007
  • “Just listen to the generals.” – Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 02/27/07

What’s obvious to the trained observer is that the Democrats have now bought into the Insane Left’s agenda, lock, stock and barrel. Gone is the pretense that they believe in defeating the jihadists.

In fact, there’s proof that if they controlled both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, they’d make us fight this war blind. That proof comes in the form of the legislation that John Conyers would “correct the Patriot Act”. The proof comes in the End Racial Profiling Act that Conyers and Pelosi co-sponsor.

In other words, it’s obvious that Reid and Pelosi would have us (a) obey “the will of the people”, (b) ignore THE GENERAL in Iraq and (c) fight the terrorists blind.

That’s what I’d call a disaster waiting to happen. One man fighting to avoid that disaster is Joe Lieberman. Here’s what he said during the debate:

The lone member of the Democratic caucus to vote against it was Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent, who blasted his colleagues for saying U.S. troops don’t belong in the middle of Iraq’s “civil war.”

“Al Qaeda’s own leaders have repeatedly said that one of the ways they intend to achieve victory in Iraq is to provoke civil war,” he said in the floor debate. “They know that this is their best way to collapse Iraq’s political center, overthrow Iraq’s elected government, radicalize its population and create a failed state in the heart of the Middle East that they can use as a base.”

While we’re on the subject of civil wars, what’s the big deal about them? Democrats want us out of Baghdad because our soldiers are getting caught “in the middle of a civil war.” John Murtha’s used that mantra seemingly forever. Despite the calls for getting our troops out of harm’s way in Iraq’s ‘civil war’, Joe Biden is calling for military intervention in Darfur, which is in the midst of a true civil war.

I don’t recall Biden, Murtha, Reid or Pelosi whining about Bill Clinton sending in troops into the civil war known as Bosnia-Herzegovina. That war pitted Muslims against Christians, which is infinitely more explosive than what’s happening in Iraq.

The first inescapable truth in all this is that Democrats have frequently shifted the goalposts in this debate. The other inescapable truth in all this is that they’ve done this solely for political gain. This has nothing to do with national security. This has nothing to do with preventing future terrorist attacks.

The only thing this has anything to do with is winning more seats in the House and Senate and recapturing the White House. It’s one thing to play politics with taxes or social policy. It’s quite another when we’re dealing with life and death matters. Playing politics with that is as unacceptable as it is morally reprehensible. Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for their reprehensible behavior.

Then again, for that to happen would require a conscience, something that hasn’t been seen in a Democrat in years.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

In what should send the clearest signal on what’s at stake in Iraq, an Iraqi government spokesman criticized the Senate’s vote. Here’s what he said:

“We see some negative signs in the decision because it sends wrong signals to some sides that might think of alternatives to the political process,” Ali al-Dabbagh told The Associated Press.

He went on:

“Coalition forces gave lots of sacrifices and they should continue their mission, which is building Iraqi security forces to take over,” al-Dabbagh said. “We see (it) as a loss of four years of sacrifices.”

Undeterred, Democrats launched a media counteroffensive:

“It is with great pride that I stand with you after the passage in the Senate today, and yesterday in the House, of this legislation that takes us in a new direction in Iraq.

“I have said that the war in Iraq is the greatest ethical challenge facing our nation. How ethical is it to send our troops into harm’s way, into war without the training, the equipment and a plan for success? How ethical is it to place them in the middle of a civil war, undermining and straining our military?

“How ethical is it to do that, to diminish our capacity to fight the war on terrorism, to fight any threat to the interest of the United States wherever it may occur, at home or abroad?

“How ethical is it to destroy our reputation in the world, diminishing our ability to be a force against terrorism and a leader in the world?

“In the last election, the American people called for a new direction. Nowhere were they more firm in that new direction being necessary than in the war in Iraq.

“This legislation presents that new direction by supporting the troops; indeed, giving the president more than he asked for, for the troops; by honoring our commitments to our veterans.

“How ethical is it for us to dishonor our commitment to our veterans when they come from war, instead of treating them as the heroes they are?

“It holds the Iraqi government accountable. It holds the Administration accountable as well. And it helps to rebuild our military.

“It’s a good bill. It’s a bill for a new direction in Iraq. It is a bill that, hopefully, will wind down this war and bring our troops home safely and soon.

This woman dares speak about ethical behavior after voting to destroy the alliance we’ve built with Iraq’s democratically elected government? This woman dares speak about ethics after she permits a disgraced ex-Marine to write legislation that violates the Constitution? I’m speaking of John Murtha, who declared that it’s Congress’s “job to micromanage the war.”

Frankly, that’s grounds for getting Rep. Murtha getting kicked out of the House on the grounds that he violated his oath of office, which states that he will uphold the Constitution. I can’t think of anything more deserving of expulsion than ignoring the Constitution whenever it suits his purposes.

Here’s a portion of Barack Obama’s official statement on the Senate surrender vote:

“We are one signature away from ending the Iraq War. President Bush must listen to the will of the American people and sign this bill so that our troops can come home. I opposed this war from the start. I said then that it would distract us from pursuing those who attacked us and would entangle us in an occupation of undetermined length, cost and consequences. This war has no military solution, and the Iraqi people need to take responsibility for their own future.”

This statement ignores what David Petraeus said at today’s press briefing:

“My sense is that there would be an increase in sectarian violence, a resumption of sectarian violence, were the presence of our forces and Iraqi forces at that time to be reduced,” General Petraeus said at a Pentagon news conference.

Here’s more of what he said:

In his comments on Thursday, as well as in private briefings to lawmakers a day earlier, according to one lawmaker who was involved, he talked about numerous obstacles to stabilizing the country, including evidence of new assistance going to Al Qaeda of Mesopotamia from outside Iraq and what he called “exceedingly unhelpful activities” by Iranian-backed Shiite militants.

American forces, he said, found evidence of this in a 22-page document on a computer seized during a raid last month that outlined details of a Jan. 20 attack on the provincial headquarters in Karbala in which five American soldiers were abducted and killed.

General Petraeus also said that Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq lacked enough power to single-handedly push through measures sought by the United States that were aimed at easing tensions between Shiite and Sunni Arabs. In order to have any hope of results, the general said, pressure would be needed on factional leaders in the government and Parliament.

In other words, Ms. Pelosi is lecturing Republicans about how unethical we’ve been while she ignores today’s briefing by Gen. Petraeus. She says that she met with Gen. Petraeus before voting to tie his hands. For the sake of argument, let’s take her at her word.

If it’s true that she was briefed by Gen. Petraeus, then she’s admitting to voting for U.S. troops to be pulled from Iraq, which would result in an immense increase in sectarian violence that would likely destroy the elected government while giving al Qa’ida a new training center. Meanwhile, it also means that she isn’t interested in the 22 page document that Al Qaeda of Mesopotamia and Iran were trying to destabilize Iraq’s government by fomenting civil war.

We know that Ms. Pelosi has said that she’d meet with the Iranians. Now we know that the Iranians who are working against us in stabilizing Iraq. Therefore, we know that Ms. Pelosi’s vote would destabilize the entire Middle East, would assist al Qa’ida build a new training center in Iraq & give Iran huge sway over oil production in that region.

Have we sunk that low as to accord such a person the title of leader?

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

The Treasury Department is reporting that they just experienced a record one-day tax collection of $48.7 billion on April 24. Here’s the full story:

U.S. tax receipts from individuals hit a record one-day high of $48.7 billion on April 24, a Treasury Department official said on Wednesday. The previous record was $36.4 billion, set on April 25, 2006, said Jennifer Zuccarelli, a Treasury spokeswoman.

The record reflects taxes not withheld from individuals over the course of the year, but paid to the government before this year’s April 17 income-tax deadline.

While some of those tax payments come from taxpayers who withheld less tax from their paychecks than they owed, much of it was owed on income from investments or profits. “This reflects the fact that Americans in high-income brackets had a very good year in 2006,” said Lou Crandall, chief economist at Wrightson ICAP in Jersey City, New Jersey.

The one-day total is a small fraction of the estimated $2.5 trillion in overall tax receipts the government is likely to collect in fiscal 2007, Crandall said. But strong tax revenues point to the likelihood of a shrinking budget deficit, he said.

Democrats will cast this as proof that the rich aren’t paying their “fair share”. Democrats will also seek to marginalize the impact that the Bush tax cuts have had on the economy. Then they’ll point out that President Clinton had a budget surplus, making his economic plan better.

Of course, they won’t point out that he didn’t bother defeating the jihadists in Iraq and Afghanistan. They won’t talk about how Clinton’s surplus came at the expense of the military budget, either.

They say that facts are stubborn things. In this instance the facts say that the Bush economic model is a pretty solid model, despite the amount of overspending they did.

Technorati: , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

When it comes to propaganda, you’ve really got to hand it to the NY Times. This article is a perfect example. Here’s what I’m talking about:

The Supreme Court put defenders of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law on the defensive on Wednesday in a spirited argument that suggested the court could soon open a significant loophole in the measure.

Memo to the NY Times: It isn’t that the Roberts Court might open ” a significant loophole” in BCRA. It’s that they’re likely to restore a portion of the First Amendment that five liberal idiots stole from us in December, 2003. They’re taking the First Amendment to mean what it says, namely that Congress can’t write laws that prohibit the exercise of free speech. They’re saying that we can say what’s on our mind, especially when it’s about the political process in general and politicians specifically.

They did get it right when they said that the Supreme Court put BCRA lawyers on the defensive, though. They’ve got a right to be worried because they can’t count on Sandra Day O’Connor to make her policy wishes come true. Instead, they’ve got to worry that Samuel Alito will take the Constitution literally. The BCRA good government types had best worry that their tinkering with the Constitution is about over.

At issue is a major provision of the five-year-old law that bars corporations and labor unions from paying for advertisements that mention the name of a candidate for federal office and that are broadcast 60 days before an election or 30 days before a primary. By a 5-to-4 vote in December 2003, the court held that the provision, on its face, passed First Amendment muster.

But a new majority may view more expansively the Constitution’s protection of political messages as free speech, and invite a flood of advertising paid for by corporations and unions as the 2008 elections move into high gear.

Get this language: “a new majority may view more expansively the Constitution’s protection” of free speech. Or perhaps they’ll just refer back to the First Amendment, which says:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make NO LAW…ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH” literally means that it’s unconstitutional for Congress to write legislation that takes away my right to free speech, especially on political issues. That means that politicians who want to ‘tidy up the system’ because it’s difficult to deal with constituents who have complaints can’t just say “You can’t do that because there’s a complaint-free zone right before an election.”

The fact is that Supreme Court justices have thought for too long that the Constitution means whatever they say it means. For far too long, they’ve sought to put their imprint on the Constitution instead of simply deciding what the Founding Fathers meant.

The Supreme Court justices have acted capriciously and arrogantly for far too long. It’s time that we worked hard to elect another GOP president so we can restore sanity to the judiciary. It’s time that we said that we stand with those who believe that the Constitution, literally interpreted, is the greatest governing document in the history of mankind.

Technorati: , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Sen. Lieberman, easily my favorite Democrat, has written an op-ed in this morning’s Washington Post that offers us a great perspective on the war in Iraq. Here’s part of what I’d call the ‘Lieberman Perspective':

Last week a series of coordinated suicide bombings killed more than 170 people. The victims were not soldiers or government officials but civilians, innocent men, women and children indiscriminately murdered on their way home from work and school.

If such an atrocity had been perpetrated in the United States, Europe or Israel, our response would surely have been anger at the fanatics responsible and resolve not to surrender to their barbarism.

Unfortunately, because this slaughter took place in Baghdad, the carnage was seized upon as the latest talking point by advocates of withdrawal here in Washington. Rather than condemning the attacks and the terrorists who committed them, critics trumpeted them as proof that Gen. David Petraeus’s security strategy has failed and that the war is “lost.”

And today, perversely, the Senate is likely to vote on a binding timeline of withdrawal from Iraq.

Perverse is a great word to describe the Democrats’ voting for unilaterally declaring defeat with our military still risking their lives. Other words that aptly describe the Democrats’ willingness to cut off funding are appalling and disgusting. One word that couldn’t be credibly used, though, is wise.

Sen. Lieberman is right though in pointing out how, if it were any other situation, people would be screaming for retaliation and retribution and a massive military operation. That’s how far removed the defeatist Democrats are from solid policy. Here’s a better explanation that highlights the Democrats’ foolish policy:

In the two months since Petraeus took command, the United States and its Iraqi allies have made encouraging progress on two problems that once seemed intractable: tamping down the Shiite-led sectarian violence that paralyzed Baghdad until recently and consolidating support from Iraqi Sunnis, particularly in Anbar, a province dismissed just a few months ago as hopelessly mired in insurgency.

This is information that Democrats won’t acknowledge. They might admit it away from microphones or cameras. Nonetheless, this is the reality that the Agenda Media won’t report and the Democrats won’t admit to.

How corrupt is a political party that seeks political gain even if it means denying the truth? Can we not say that the defeatist Democrats don’t seek the truth? Can’t we also say that the defeatist wing of the Democratic Party aren’t interested in the truth if it stands in the way of any political gains?

Indeed, to the extent that last week’s bloodshed clarified anything, it is that the battle of Baghdad is increasingly a battle against al-Qaeda. Whether we like it or not, al-Qaeda views the Iraqi capital as a central front of its war against us.

How often have we heard Democratic leaders talk about fighting “the real war on terror” right before talking about Afghanistan? Why don’t they consider the Iraq War part of the “real war”? Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for willfully mischaracterizing the Iraq War as an optional war. They know better than that. They just won’t admit it in public.

That is the picture of a political party without a soul. It’s the picture of a political party that views political gain as the only thing that’s worth fighting for.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative