Babalu Blog

Basil's Blog

Cigar Intelligence Agency

Dean's World

Gay Patriot

Knowledge Is Power

Lifelike Pundits

Memeorandum

Not Exactly Rocket Science

Tammy Bruce

The Media Crunch

Tom Worstall

Wires From The Bunker

Question: "Can someone please explain something to me? I am hearing alot about the abortion issue and how each fetus deserves life.

What confuses me, however, is how can conservatives be pro-birth, and yet anti-programs to help children? It seems that conservatives strongly dislike "entitlement" programs for needy citizens (most of whom are children). The idea is that it's just giving handouts to undeserving, lazy people who "love" to live "lavishly" on welfare. How can conservatives fight so hard for the life of an unborn fetus, and then abandon them at birth? It's like saying "We'll fight for your right to be alive, but after that--don't come to me looking for a handout!"

Wouldn't the more caring, life-promoting idea be to help children that are born? Why not lobby for affordable child care for parents that DO keep their babies? Do all anti-abortioners volunteer to help out struggling parents? Are they willing to adopt the unwanted children they're fighting for? What about all the children NOW, right NOW, what about their lives? Are they on their own?

Also....Why support cutting child support enforcement when this was designed to make sure parents are supporting their children, and helping the parent that DID choose to have the baby?" -- rightwrong

Answer: First of all, in this country, needy children are not abandoned at birth by any stretch of the imagination. We have welfare, food stamps, public education, free lunch at schools, and countless other programs and agencies designed to make sure that the needs of children are met and that they're protected. If anything, we go way overboard on these sort of programs because all common sense seems to go right out the window for a lot of people when the words, "for the children," are used.

The reality is that the government, by its very nature, is clumsy, slow, stupid, and is institutionally ill-suited to become heavily involved in the lives of children. That's why the government's goal should be to simply enforce the rule of law and create an environment that makes it easier for children and their parents to succeed on their own, instead of trying to micromanage their lives.

The sort of smothering nanny state that some people seem to be enamored with -- where big government is always staring over the shoulders of children and their families and butting into their daily lives -- is something to be dreaded, not to be desired, because it is enormously expensive, creates dependency, and teaches people to wait for the government to take care of their problems. That's why we should work to save children from being killed by abortionists, but allow them to live their own lives.

How about helping me out by taking a look at just a few of RWN's advertisers? Even if you clicked on just 3 or 4 of them, it would really be great...

Tell Your Representative That You Want To Choose Which Cable Channels You Receive

Help Stop Bush's Censure

National Summary

Place A Bet On Iraq

Book: 3000 Years (Interesting Concept)

Realm Dekor's Urban Equipment

Tap Sport

Researchers At Harvard Want Your Opinion

"I`ve read that polls may be down and are down in some instances. They do tend to go up and down depending on circumstances. And if every time a poll went down, somebody changed their policy or changed their position or tossed in the towel, we wouldn`t have a country today. There have been plenty of times polls have down in our history when people have persevered and been resolute and prevailed ultimately. And that`s what will happen in this instance." -- Donald Rumsfeld

*** Update #1 ***: More from Rummy:

Reporter: Do you feel embattled at this point in your tenure? In a recent column, Maureen Dowd quoted an unidentified administration official who described you as an "eccentric old uncle who's ignored." She claims that you don't hold the same sway in meetings.

Rumsfeld: Did you get all that? You want to be on camera, right? That’s a sure way to get on the evening news. The answer to your question is no.

Reporter: Well, I'm asking about the facts reported in the column. Do you feel you hold the same sway in meetings?

Rumsfeld: I'm not going to comment on that.

(Pause)- Rumsfeld looks away for a moment, then...

Rumsfeld: If you believe everything you read in Maureen Dowd, you better get a life.

Give 'em Hell, Rumsfeld!

*** Update #2 ***: Dick Cheney is getting in on the act, too. Here's a quote from Cheney just provided to me via email by the RNC...

"Issues of national security will clearly be at the top of the agenda as the midterm elections near. The leaders of the Democratic Party have stepped into the debate – not with a positive message, but with a slogan proclaiming that the administration is 'dangerously incompetent.' The President and I welcome the debate, because every voter in America needs to know how the leaders of the Democratic Party view the War on Terror. This is the crowd that objects to the Terrorist Surveillance Program. Their leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, boasted publicly of his efforts to kill the Patriot Act. Their nominee for President in the last election viewed terrorism as mainly a law enforcement issue, and recently said that American troops are, 'terrorizing' Iraqis. The chairman of the Democratic Party is Howard Dean, who said the capture of Saddam Hussein did not make America safer. And leading Democrats have demanded a sudden withdrawal from the battle against terrorists in Iraq – the very kind of retreat that Osama bin Laden has been predicting. And with that sorry record, the leaders of the Democratic Party have decided to run on the theme of competence. If they're competent to fight this war, then I ought to be singing on American Idol." -- Dick Cheney

Ouch! I love it!

Question: "Now that Russia & China are presenting an united front and actually have made it clear they want iran to build a bomb - even they can not be stupid enough to think or try to convince us that they think that this is anything other than Iran wanting to build and likely use a bomb - do you think the WH will give up on the UN once and for all and deal with the reality that the rest of the world seems to want to be burned in nuclear fire?" -- AlexinCT

Answer: It's ludicrous that Bush is even going to the UN Security Council in the first place because they'd need Russia's cooperation to impose effective sanctions and the Russians are the ones helping Iran build the bomb!

The Bush administration could just say that publicly and get on with things, but maybe they're not ready to bomb yet or feel they need some political cover, and are just looking to kill some time at the UN.

Either way, when the time to act comes, I expect that the US or Israel will do whatever needs to be done, regardless of what the UN thinks about it.

*** Update #1 *** Here's some more interesting news about our Russian "pals":

"Russia provided intelligence to Iraq's government on U.S. military movements in the opening days of the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, a Pentagon report released on Friday said.

The report said an April 2, 2003, document from the Iraqi minister of foreign affairs to President Saddam Hussein stated that Russian intelligence had reported information on American troops plans to the Iraqis through the Russian ambassador.

The intelligence, the document stated, was that the American forces were moving to cut off Baghdad from the south, east and north, that U.S. bombing would concentrate on Baghdad and that the assault on Baghdad would not begin before around April 15. In fact, Baghdad fell about a week before that date.

"Significantly, the regime was also receiving intelligence from the Russians that fed suspicions that the attack out of Kuwait was merely a diversion," the report stated.

Army Brig. Gen. Anthony Cucolo of U.S. Joint Forces Command told a briefing he viewed Russia's decision to give intelligence to Saddam's government as "driven by economic interests." The report noted Russian business interests in Iraqi oil."

The "Evil Empire" may be gone, but that mercenary thug Putin certainly can't be considered to be one of the "good guys". That's sad to say, because there were such great hopes of a US/Russian partnership just a few years ago, but the Russians are such unprincipled backstabbers that you can't ever really trust them.

There were a lot of 2008 related questions, so I'm going to answer them all in one big block.

Question #1: "Hey, John. Love your site, I visit almost daily.

Anyway, I would like you to handicap the Republican primaries in 2008. Is McCain as strong as he looks? The conservative types I hang around with (but don't follow politics closely) really love McCain. You have to admit, he is a strong personality and has great name recognition. My personal choice would be Allen, but I would vote for John McCain.

Any dark horses?" -- fugazi

Answer #1: It's too early for me to handicap the primaries. Scratch that, it's too early for me to handicap the primaries even semi-accurately =D

Is McCain as strong as he looks? No, not even close. He's cruising along on name recognition now and he will fold under waves of withering assaults from the new media in 2007.

Any dark horses? It's almost too early to tell. But, two guys who might be particularly interesting are Mike Huckabee, Governor of Arkansas and if, he wins reelection, Tim Pawlenty, governor of Minnesota.

Question #2: "I'm thinking this has been asked before, but being a Bostonian, I feel like I should ask this myself. What do you think the chances of a Romney ticket are? Or how about a Romney/Allen ticket? (doesn't matter which one's pres/vp)" -- Pat_Meebles

Answer #2: I don't think you can do what it takes to be governor of Massachusetts and then still be a viable candidate in the Republican primary. Also, since I doubt that Mitt can deliver Massachusetts, I'm not sure there would be much value in bringing him on as a veep.

Question #3: "Hi John,

Just a quick question and believe me I certainly hope it never happens but.....Do you think Hillary Clinton would ever make it to the presidency?" -- karensp9

Answer #3: The Republicans are all worried that Hillary is nearly unstoppable, while the Democrats are worried that she can't be elected. The Democrats are more on target. Hillary has really high negatives, tons of baggage, a cold personality, she probably won't win a single state in the South, and she's a liberal, with a liberal voting record, from a liberal state. My guess is that there will be 7 or 8 Republicans running in 2008 who can beat her because she's just not that formidable of a candidate. Does that mean she's certain to lose? No, but she's still a very beatable candidate.

Question #4: "How will the republicans choose someone to back in the primary and will there be a grass-roots movement for an underdog? Who do you back as of now?" -- liberty

Answer #4: I can tell you the candidates that I don't like and why, but I haven't picked a fave yet and won't until it becomes clear which governors are getting in the race and whether they can raise money and build decent organizations. I do expect there to be a Howard Dean style grassroots movement for an underdog, but it's hard to say which underdog it'll be yet. There's one rule worth remembering though: governors almost always make better candidates than Senators.

Question #5: 2. "Could premature conservative backlash against McCain actually help his chances of getting the Republican nomination? As his name has been bandied about, he seems more interested in working with the party and strengthening his ties with Bush, and two years is quite a long time to rehab an image. By trying to torpedo McCain so early in the process, conservatives are giving him an awful long time to react. And conversely, could any of McCain's repositioning be genuine and make him a more desirable nominee?" -- Mike_M

Answer #5: McCain is permanently tarnished. He might be able to soften his image a bit by pretending to be more conservative than he is, but he's damaged goods and it's not fixable, especially since, as is the case with Hillary Clinton, everyone knows he's simply maneuvering to improve his chances in 2008.

Question #6: "I don't have time to read the posts today, or follow up, but I have had a question brewing for a week or two. So, here it is.

There has been much talk of governors, senators even former mayors for both parties nominations in '08. My question, have you ever heard of some one advancing from the judicial branch to the executive or legislative branches? Are there any members of the judicial branch currently (or recently) that you might think have the shot in '08 if the republicans do the PR to get them nation wide name recognition?" -- Chris_RC

Answer #6: Personally, I wouldn't want any Republican candidate for the Presidency who hasn't been battle tested by winning a partisan campaign. So, that means judges wouldn't cut it. Could they possibly make decent candidates for lower offices though? Sure.

Question: "Hey John,

Happy St. Patrick's Day! (I know im a week late but there was Q&A last friday!)

I have a (related) question. Do you get much international traffic to your site or is it predominantly american?

There is alot of interest in american politics here in ireland and I am just curious.

Keep up the good work." -- MrZero

Answer: RWN is primarily read by Americans, but here are the top 25 nations (+ other) my traffic has come from this year:

1. United States: 82.19%
2. Other: 6.88%
3. Canada: 3.63%
4. United Kingdom: 2.13%
5. Australia: 0.97%
6. Germany: 0.47%
7. Japan: 0.23%
8. Netherlands: 0.19%
9. Ireland: 0.18%
10. Sweden: 0.16%
11. France: 0.15%
12. India: 0.13%
13. New Zealand: 0.12%
14. Spain: 0.12%
15. Korea (South): 0.11%
16. Thailand: 0.11%
17. Italy: 0.10%
18. Denmark: 0.10%
19. Philippines: 0.09%
20. Finland: 0.09%
21. China: 0.09%
22. Israel: 0.08%
23. Switzerland: 0.08%
24. Singapore: 0.08%
25. Mexico: 0.08%
26. Norway: 0.08%

Question: Were you popular in high school? -- oneisnotprime

Answer: Early on in Junior High School and High School, I wasn't particularly good with people, lacked self-confidence, was shy, and wasn't particularly athletic. I did make my high school baseball team for one semester, but spent the whole season on the bench.

This was pretty much the case until I had one trivial, but ultimately very significant experience. Someone asked me who sang a really well known song, something by the Police. Like "Every Breath You Take." I had no idea, because I didn't care much about music, and I guessed something ridiculous like Loverboy, which produced incredulous laughter.

However, that gave me an idea. I knew I was really smart, so I figured, why couldn't I apply that brainpower to learning to be popular? And that's exactly what I did. I started watching MTV to learn about musical groups. I read Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends & Influence People (along with other books), to learn about how to deal with people. I started reading self-help books. I watched popular people and tried to find things I could use, in my own way, to make me popular.

Did it work?

Yeah, it did. I was never wildly popular or anything, but I hung out with the kids who were, got invited to their parties, ate lunch every day with a hot group of girls, dated regularly, and had a huge role in the school play my senior year (Cheaper by Dozen. I was the Father. I had about 4 bazillion lines).

So, it all worked out OK in the end.

Question: "Hi John,

I'm a longtime reader, 2+ years.

I was thinking about the problem of the liberal media lately and I wondered hwo the situation could be fixed. I recalled a recent article (who's source I cannot remember) that showed with unerring facts, how the broadcast media invitably drew it's "subject of the day" from the front page of The New York Times. It seems the old grey lady sets the agenda.

Since the NYT, and pretty much all newspapers with a libersl bent are seeing declining circulation and revenues, layoffs have begun and they are trying to find money anywhere they can. Heck, they are even letting a conservative blogger write for the opinion page now! (Hawkins note: I think he's thinking about the WAPO's new blog featuring Ben Domenech)

So this got me to thinking, what if? What if once the NYT, and several other prominent "newspapers of record" became weak enough, a prominant wealthy conservative stepped in a bought them up? It might have to be done through several shell/front companies to hide the real buyer, but it could be done. What if the new owner then converted them to unbiased or slightly conservative leaning publications? The result would be" -- Joe Borne (Via Email)

Answer: If conservatives bought out the New York Times and moved it to the middle, liberals would start taking their cues from the LA Times or the WAPO. If we bought out the LA Times and WAPO, they'd start looking to the Chicago Tribune. If it came right down to it, liberals would be much more likely to get story ideas from the Daily Kos or Firedoglake (Front Page Headline: Many Similarities Between Bush And Hitler Noted) than any conservative newspaper.

We won't beat the libs with sleight of hand tricks, we'll defeat them by defeating them in the war of ideas. As the number of Americans who believe were right and they're wrong grows, we'll get stronger and they get weaker. Eventually, if we do a good enough job, modern liberalism, like communism, will be totally discredited in America. That's a goal worth pursuing.

Question: "It's apparent that there's still a strong feeling of isolationism and protectionism in the American electorate. However, Republicans tend to favor open markets, Democrats tend to support international institutions, and both parties support open borders. Neither party is really catering to the isolationist/protectionist sentiment yet.

Do you think that either party (or perhaps a 3rd party) will begin to pick up on the isolationist/protectionist sentiment in the electorate and realign itsself to gain those voters?

Would an isolationist/protectionist political party be ideologically coherent or stable?" -- RepublicanPig1

Answer: Americans are and have always been isolationists at heart, but as the world has become more and more interconnected and the United States has become progressively more powerful in comparison to other nations, it has become less and less feasible to simply kick back in, "Fortress America," watch other parts of the world go to hell in a handbasket, and simply shrug our shoulders and say, "not our problem."

While neither the GOP or the Dems could fairly be described as isolationists, isolationism is never far from the surface in American politics. Pat Buchanan and the Paleocons make up a small percentage of the GOP, but they're isolationists/protectionists. Also, you remember Ross Perot and his, "giant sucking sound?" A significant part of his appeal was protectionism.

Furthermore, look at how the outsourcing issue popped up in the 2004 elections. Same deal with people worrying about lost manufacturing jobs. Those are both issues related to protectionism. Of course, the reality is that's just part of the changing world we live in. Like it or not, American workers are competing with people all over the globe and while we do just fine in areas where skilled manufacturing is required -- the simple lever puller, button pusher jobs, that people could make nice money and benefits on are, one way or the other, going to eventually go overseas.

When it comes to foreign policy, expect to see Americans become more isolationist because of the aftermath of 9/11. Before that day, the American people were famously uninterested in foreign affairs. But, now that they are paying attention, they're noticing that most of the Middle-East is not only crazy, they hate our guts. Then there's Europe where they don't like us much either and let's be honest, other than Britain, most European nations are appeasers with mediocre militaries that aren't very useful to us any more anyway. The UN? It's a corrupt, bureaucratic cesspool that's incapable of doing much more than writing sternly worded letters that can be safely ignored without consequence. Our neighbors to the North and South? Not such good neighbors.

All these things were happening before 9/11 as well, but now Americans are noticing and there will be consequences. A lot of American troops will be brought home from abroad. We'll be much less willing to get involved in places like Somalia or Kosovo. The opinions of Europe will become less and less important. Our "special relationship" with Britain -- don't be surprised if it ends when Tony Blair leaves office. NATO? It's a Cold War relic that's becoming more irrelevant by the year.

So, will we see a third "isolationist" party spring up? Doubt it. Will America become an isolationist nation? No. But, do expect to see, for good or ill, more isolationist views creeping into American politics in the coming years.

3 Ungrateful Peace Weenies Rescued By American And British Hostages In Iraq

Rice Calls Karzai on Christian Convert's Fate

Afghan Judge Won't Give In To Pressure. Islamic Clerics Say Even If Christian Convert Released, They'll 'Cut Off His Head'

A Newly Released Pre-War Iraqi Document Indicates That An Official Representative Of Saddam Hussein's Government Met With Osama Bin Laden In Sudan On February 19, 1995 After Approval By Saddam Hussein.

At Least 56 Dead In Latest Iraq Violence

Terrorist Doctor Killed 43 Wounded Iraqi Soldiers In Iraq Over A Nine Month Period

Danish Imams Threaten to Blow Up Moderate Muslim Politician

Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf: "All Foreign Militants Should Leave Pakistan, Otherwise They Would Be Crushed."

Attempts To Break UN Impasse On Iran Stall

A Former Aide Spills The Dirt On Fidel Castro -- A Member Of Fidel's Inner Circle Now Lives In Miami And Is Talking Up A Storm. He Even Knows Why The Cuban Leader Burns His Underwear

12 American Tourists Killed In Chile Bus Crash

U.S. Hiring Hong Kong Co. to Scan Nukes

ABC News Exec: Bush Makes Me Sick

FCC Chief Kevin Martin Yesterday Gave His Support To At&T And Other Telcos Who Want To Be Able To Limit Bandwidth To Sites Like Google, Unless Those Sites Pay Extortion Fee

Barry Bonds Sues Over Book That Reveals Details Of His Steroids Use

An Interview With Fred Barnes

Jonah Goldberg: Right Invasion, Wrong Explanation (Free LA Times Reg Req)

Patrick Hynes: Converting The Humble, The Meek, And The Dems

Larry Elder: The Economy -- The Good News Keeps Getting Worse

Michael Graham: Iraq: Just The (Damning?) Facts, Ma'am

Two Sheriff's Deputies Were Apparently Intentionally Poisoned With Methamphetamine In Their Food

Girl Missing For 10 Years Shows Up

Report: Cosmetics Firm Using Remains Of Executed Chinese

Humor: Beneficial Incompetence?

Humor: 29 Reasons Why America Sucks

Humor: 14 Year Old Who Had Sex With Teacher Seeks Medical Attention For "Excessive High-Fives"

Website Of The Day: The Media Crunch

Today is Q&A Friday #36 at RWN.

So, if there's a subject you've been wanting me to tackle or an issue you want to hear my opinion on, just ask your question in the comments section. Your question can be about politics, ideology, history, blogging, RWN, from a liberal, conservative, or libertarian perspective; heck, it can even be about movies, music, literature, or TV. Then, I'll select some of the more interesting questions and answer them.

So ask away!

Source

The "distraction" meme is one of the most regularly reoccurring conspiracy theories that you see on the left today. Here's how it works:

#1) An event happens

#2) Liberals point to poll numbers, some trumped up charge made by Democrats, or some other form of difficulty for the President being hyped by the media (and let's face it, it's always something)

#3) They claim that the event (#1) was actually orchestrated by the White House to "distract people" from #2.

This is an interesting conspiracy theory, because it basically portrays the Bush Administration as the root of all evil. Has anything bad happened? Well, obviously this couldn't have just happened on its own. It must be the Bushies doing it in order to distract people from something.

It's almost like some ancient tribe's concept of the devil. "Ugh. Sun disappear behind moon! The evil Python spirit must be trying to steal the sun!"

Here's a perfect example of this sort of thinking from The Democratic Underground, where they took note of this story:

"A man was taken into custody after throwing a suspicious package over the White House fence on Wednesday but no explosives were found, the Secret Service said.

Tom Mazur, spokesman for the Secret Service, said a similar incident had occurred before. Officials proceeded with bomb investigating procedures as a precaution though past incidents involving have not involved explosives.

Police sealed off the front gates of the White House and a bomb squad converged on the area to investigate the object."

Here's the reaction to this from some of the folks at the DU in a thread called: "Suspicious package" found at WH....right on cue.

AndyA: TERRA! TERRA!! TERRA!!! I could have told you this would be happening. Low poll numbers, lack of positive response to speeches, growing distrust...the response must be terra. That's all they have left, and that's all they've ever had. :eyes:

This is a rerun, we've seen this show before.

Skidmore: Anyone know where Rove is? This stinks like a Rove stunt.

rodeodance: yeah, right on cue. just before a war scare talk

sfexpat2000: Maybe Karl figured out that having to talk to people three days in a row might kill Junior.

Has the "speech" been cancelled?

LibDemAlways: If they do have surveillance video, chances are Rove ordered it destroyed. No way does he want his pasty self seen skulking around the gate package in hand

Marr: You know, I really think the FBI should go over the package and see if they can connect it to Rove- or one of his aids. I understand it must be nearly impossible to find the person who sent a package when you have no idea who did it whatsoever, but I'd say the list of suspects here is exceedingly short.

"Ugh! There is thunder, lightning, and rain in sky! It must mean we have displeased the great Platypus spirit and he has become angry with us!"

(Hillary) Clinton renewed her pledge to oppose a bill passed in December by the House that would make unlawful presence in the United States _ currently a civil offense _ a felony. The Senate is set to consider a version of that legislation, as well as several other bills seeking to address the seemingly intractable issue of immigration reform.

Surrounded by a multicultural coalition of New York immigration advocates, Clinton blasted the House bill as "mean-spirited" and said it flew in the face of Republicans' stated support for faith and values.

"It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures," Clinton said, "because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself.

...Among other things, Clinton said she would support legislation that would strengthen U.S. borders, boost technology to secure the borders, and seek greater cross-border cooperation with Mexico and other neighboring countries.

She also called for new enforcement laws, including penalties for employers who exploit illegal immigrants, as well as a system to allow the roughly 11 million illegal immigrants currently living in the United States to earn their citizenship."

So, stopping illegal aliens is like criminalizing Jesus? If Pat Robertson said something this staggeringly dumb, it would make front page news all across the nation.

Hillary Clinton has the same problem that John Kerry and Howard Dean have: they come across as hamhanded and insincere when they talk about religion. The reason that's the case is because they're trying to do something they regularly accuse Republicans of doing: exploit people's religious beliefs for their own political gain.

Also, it's worth noting that Hillary's position on illegal immigration has become as much of a mishmash as John Kerry's position on the war in Iraq was during the run-up to the election. Keep in mind that this is the same woman, who, back in 2003, said:

"I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants."

That was then, now according to Hillary, you're anti-Jesus if you want to get rid of illegals. But wait, since Hillary is calling for "new enforcement laws," does that mean she's anti-Jesus herself?

Of course, what Hillary wants to do here is have it both ways: she wants to be applauded for being tough on illegal immigration, but she also wants to cater to the liberal base that wants to turn illegal aliens into more votes...and make no mistake about it, that's exactly why Democrats want a "path to citizenship" for illegals. If you want a never ending flood of illegals to come into the US where they'll be rewarded with citizenship for breaking our laws, let Hillary Clinton and her Democratic ilk get back into power and that's exactly what you'll see.

Over at the Weekly Standard, Allan Carlson is claiming that social conservatives don't get the respect they deserve in the GOP:

"Moreover, when push comes to shove, social conservatives remain second class citizens under the Republican tent. During the 2004 Republican convention, they were virtually confined to the party's attic, kept off the main stage, treated like slightly lunatic children. Republican lobbyist Michael Scanlon's infamous candid comment--"The wackos get their information [from] the Christian right [and] Christian radio"--suggests a common opinion among the dominant "K Street" Republicans toward their coalition allies. Contemporary Republican leaders need to do better--much better--toward social conservatives."

This sort of poor, poor, pitiful me screed about social conservatives just isn't true and by the way, I had to actually look up Michael Scanlon, because he's such a non-entity. I'd never heard of him before (Apparently he's a former aide to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay who's enmeshed in the Abramhoff scandal).

Look, social conservatives are liked and respected in the GOP. When social conservative groups speak, conservative legislators listen -- except maybe not to Robertson and Falwell so much -- they're goofs, and everyone knows that. But, if you're talking about James Dobson, Gary Bauer, Phyllis Schlafly, Paul Weyrich, etc., they do have juice. Republicans in Congress have also taken up issues important to social conservatives as well -- like abortion, opposition to gay marriage, and cracking down on indecency.

Does that mean social conservatives get everything they want? No, they don't. But, who does? A lot of conservatives have been complaining about illegal immigration, border control, and deficit spending for years now and what do we have to show for that?

Reagan helped make social conservatives into an integral part of the Republican coalition that's just as important as all the other blocks, if not more so, and not only is that the way it should be, it's not going to change.

Who came up with this blockheaded idea?

The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission sent a message to bar patrons last week.

TABC agents and Irving police swept through 36 Irving bars and arrested about 30 people on charges of public intoxication. Agency representatives say the move came as a proactive measure to curtail drunken driving.

North Texans interviewed by NBC 5, however, worried that the sweep went too far.

At one location, for example, agents and police arrested patrons of a hotel bar. Some of the suspects said they were registered at the hotel and had no intention of driving. Arresting authorities said the patrons were a danger to themselves and others.

"Going to a bar is not an opportunity to go get drunk," TABC Capt. David Alexander said. "It's to have a good time but not to get drunk."

If you're in a bar, of course it's a good time to get drunk. That's part of the reason why you go to the bar in the first place, to get sloshed. But, if the police are so concerned about drunken driving that they feel compelled to actually arrest people for drunkenness in a bar, then it seems to me that what they really want is a dry county. Such places do exist, you know. If that's the direction they want to go, they should ask the local government to step up to the plate on that issue. If not, they should bust people who drink and drive, not folks who're simply getting hammered with a few friends at a bar.

-- Is it wrong that I wouldn't mind seeing this movie?

"When U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited this city last month, Egyptians had an unusual choice: watch her on TV as she expounded on issues of war and peace in the Middle East, or go to a neighborhood movie theater and see her portrayed by a look-alike actress belly-dancing and placed in "adult" situations.

The film in question is "The Night Baghdad Fell," which depicts Egyptian obsessions with war, sex and the United States. Wildly anti-American, it has done a brisk business for two months, a long screen life for Egyptian-made films. In "Night," Egyptians fret about a U.S. invasion of Egypt and the potential destruction of their capital. Americans are bullies, rapists and mindless killers.

By the way, "The Night Baghdad Fell" is a comedy."

Ok, I'd only want to see the Condi belly-dancing scenes, but still....

-- For the first time in American history, the President has mentioned blogs. I have a feeling it won't be the last time. From George Bush today:

"One of the things that we have to value is that we do have a media… there’s blogs, there’s Internet, there’s all kinds of way to communicate which is literally changing the way people get their information and so if you’re concerned I would suggest that you reach out to some of the groups that are supporting the troops, that got internet sites and just keep the word moving."

-- I received a media copy of Hitler's Legacy, a documentary about Nazi Germany. There was a lot of Hitler footage and it also spent a lot of time on Leni Riefenstahl. The movie was a bit chaotic, but there were some really fascinating sequences in it.

For example, they showed clips from an anti-semitic film called The Eternal Jews. It was particularly creepy because they were simply showing smiling Jewish children and raving about how evil they were. Another memorable sequence in the documentary featured a short from Vichy France that showed Popeye and Donald Duck bombing France. Then there were the French athletes, among others, "heiling" Hitler at the Olympics and Frenchmen striking American POWS whom the Germans walked past them. Let's just say it didn't present a very pretty picture. Overall, I'd give it a B for the rare footage, even though, as I mentioned before, they could have tied everything together a little better if you ask me.

-- Most of you have probably heard about the whole Claude Allen story. Here's a guy, who, if he's guilty, has ripped off Target and a few other stores with a refund scam. If this is true, there's one question that immediately comes to mind:

Why in the world was a guy who was making $161,000 a year risking his career, his reputation, and even his freedom all in order to bank a tiny fraction of his yearly salary?

-- I'm thinking about starting to use a RSS Feed Reader. Any suggestions of which one I should try out?

-- Alan Moore, the writer of the V for Vendetta graphic novel on the movie:

"It's been turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country. In my original story there had been a limited nuclear war, which had isolated Britain, caused a lot of chaos and a collapse of government, and a fascist totalitarian dictatorship had sprung up. Now, in the film, you've got a sinister group of right-wing figures -- not fascists, but you know that they're bad guys -- and what they have done is manufactured a bio-terror weapon in secret, so that they can fake a massive terrorist incident to get everybody on their side, so that they can pursue their right-wing agenda. It's a thwarted and frustrated and perhaps largely impotent American liberal fantasy of someone with American liberal values [standing up] against a state run by neo-conservatives -- which is not what "'V for Vendetta' was about. It was about fascism, it was about anarchy, it was about [England]. The intent of the film is nothing like the intent of the book as I wrote it."

-- "The Return of Chef!" show on South Park last night was sort of so-so. Using old clips of him speaking was funny, as was the death scene, and the veiled mockery of Scientology, but -- I don't know -- it seemed a little forced to me. Why come up with a "Super Adventure Club" instead of just mocking Scientology openly again?

-- Speaking of Scientology, Kabbalah, and these other wacky cults celebrities seem to get tangled up with -- here's a theory: these celebrities, like Madonna and Isaac Hayes, figure out there's something missing later in their lives, realize that it's religion, but to become Christians seems too plain, too run-of-the-mill. So, they pick an exotic faith like Scientology or Kabbalah or even the Nation of Islam, because it makes them feel special and different from the masses. Just a thought...

--

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police cannot search a home when one resident invites them in but another tells them to go away, provoking a strong objection from the new chief justice about the possible impact on battered women.

The 5-3 decision put new limits on officers who want to search for evidence of a crime without obtaining a warrant first.

....The court's liberal members, joined by centrist Anthony M. Kennedy, said that an officer responding to a domestic dispute call did not have the authority to enter and search the home of a small-town Georgia lawyer in 2001 even though the man's wife invited him in.

Janet Randolph called police to the home in Americus, Ga., and - over her husband's objections - led the officer to evidence used to charge Scott Randolph with cocaine possession. That charge has been on hold while courts considered whether the search was constitutional.

..."The law acknowledges that although we might not expect our friends and family to admit the government into common areas, sharing space entails risk," Roberts wrote in a dissent that was almost as long as the main opinion.

Justice David H. Souter, the court's only unmarried member, wrote the majority opinion. "We have to admit we are drawing a fine line," he said

..."This case has no bearing on the capacity of the police to protect domestic victims," Souter wrote. "The question whether the police might lawfully enter over objection in order to provide any protection that might be reasonable is easily answered yes.".

Are we getting into a situation here where whether the police can search a home depends not only on the crime committed, but on which people are home and giving them permission? What if there are 5 family members? Do all of them have to give permission to search? What about friends? Cousins? Grandparents? This ruling is pure hair splitting that's almost guaranteed to produce a lot of confusion.

-- A chilling quote from RWN advertiser Claire Berlinski's Menace in Europe : Why the Continent's Crisis Is America's, Too which I'm currently reading and, so far, enjoying:

"A policy widely applauded for its tolerance in fact permits Dutch doctors to kill deformed newborns, the retarded, and a great many elderly people who have specifically indicated that they have no desire to die. According to the Dutch government's own investigations, an average of sixteen people in the Netherlands are killed each day by their doctors without their consent."

British Terrorist Tried To Buy Nuclear Weapon From Russian Mob

A Spanish Judge Has Charged 32 Suspected Islamic Militants Over An Alleged Plot To Blow Up The National Court In Madrid

Britain Pushes For Military Option To Restrain Tehran

President Bush Said Wednesday That He Is "Deeply Troubled" That An Afghan Man Is Being Tried For Converting To Christianity.

Attack on 'Pro-Israel Lobby' Has Many Flaws

Reid Threatens Filibuster If Illegal Immigrants Aren't Rewarded With American Citizenship

Reid Criticizes President Bush As 'Dangerously Incompetent'

A Man Was Taken Into Custody After Throwing A Suspicious Package Over The White House Fence On Wednesday

GOP Trails Democrats In Senate Fund Raising

Tom Tancredo: Sam Brownback 'Miserable' on Illegal Immigration (Give 'Em Hell Tom)

DJ Fired For Calling Condoleezza Rice 'Coon'

National Review: An Affront to Civilization In Afghanistan

Ann Coulter: Poll -- Most Americans Love Coulter Columns!

Mark Steyn: Down With Stability (Free Jerusalem Post Reg Req)

Robert Samuelson: Why The U.S. Doesn't Need Guest Workers

Kevin Sites: Child Bride

Chris Edwards: Conservatives Can Rally Around A Spending Cap

Lorie Byrd: The War About More Than Hurt Feelings

Spinal Manipulation - Which Is Used By Chiropractors And Osteopaths In The UK To Treat Neck And Back Pain - Is Of Little Help, Researchers Have Said

Bird Droppings Prompts Orlando Warning Signs

Website Of The Day: Let's Replace Lincoln Chafee With A Real Republican. Laffey For US Senate.

A lot of conservatives have pointed out, correctly, that the critics of the war in Iraq lack perspective. For example, you constantly hear liberals comparing Iraq to Vietnam, but seldom do you hear their pointing out that the number of soldiers killed in Iraq throughout the entire length of the war is about the same as the worst month in Vietnam (Through March 20, 2006 in Iraq, there were 2,317 soldiers killed. In May of 1968 in Vietnam, there were 2,316 soldiers killed).

Here's another detail that you're not hearing from the gloom and doomers: we're losing less people in Iraq than we lost in peace time during the eighties.

For example, in 2004 there were 1,887 US active duty military deaths. Keep in mind, that's the total in Iraq, Afghanistan, at home, abroad -- everything. Guess how many there were in 1981, a year where we didn't lose a single soldier to "hostile action?" There were 2,380 deaths that year. How about 1983, the year we liberated Grenada? There were 2,486 soldiers killed.

The point is that even during peace time, being in the military is a tough, dangerous, and difficult job that requires our troops to risk their lives. It's not easy work and it's even harder during wartime. So when you hear people claim the troops can't take it, that what we're doing in Iraq is "unsustainable" or that we're "breaking the military," you can now tell them with confidence that what they're saying is complete hogwash.

Hat tip to the The QandO Blog for the story.

For the first time, RWN has made the incredibly hot Melissa McNamara's Blogophile column over at CBS. Here's a little background from Melissa's column and the quote she used:

New American Foundation fellow Phillip Longman's op-ed last week made lots of conservative bloggers jump for joy, and put some liberals on edge.

Longman uses population trends to conclude that progressives are less likely to have children than conservatives. He finds, for example, that among states that voted for President Bush in 2004, the average fertility rate is more than 11 percent higher than the rate of states for Sen. John Kerry. It's a pattern replicated globally as well. "An increasing share of all children born into the world are descended from a share of the population whose conservative values have led them to raise large families," Longman writes.

...And John Hawkins offers some tongue-in-cheek advice for those on the left. "Does that mean the left is doomed demographically? No, not necessarily," Hawkins writes on Right Wing News. "They might be able to make up for it in other ways. For example, giving Amnesty to illegals could help bring millions of new voters into the fold. They could also -- don't laugh -- freshen up their philosophy and ideas and gain a much higher percentage of new converts."

Thanks for the mention. Melissa!

A lot of liberals buy into flakey ideas and conspiracy theories, but they usually try to hide what they believe from the general public. However, there are two times when they tend to blurt out the truth.

The first is when they get particularly frustrated by something they perceive as a Republican/conservative victory. For example, after Bush's last victory, you had liberals talking about how much they hated Southerners, "Jesusland," and they flogged the whole, "The election must have been rigged because we lost," meme to death.

But, these days, there's the 2nd thing that causes liberals to get particularly nutty: the belief that they're winning. They're looking at the poll numbers for Bush, thinking it means that their ideas are having an impact, and suddenly you've got calls to censure and impeach Bush everywhere, liberal actors saying they know more about the war in Iraq than the troops serving there, and oh, you can't forget about the conspiracy theories.

There's a radio show run by a nutcase named Alex Jones. It's paranoid, "Look out for the global conspiracy that runs America, Bush is a dictator, the Illuminati are going to sacrifice your baby to Satan," gaga that no intelligent person would buy into for 5 seconds.

Which brings us to Charlie Sheen.

Apparently, Sheen has given an interview to Alex Jones' show about the 9/11 attacks, and it turns out that big melon on top of Charlie's head is emptier than one might think. Just take a look at this:

"We're not the conspiracy theorists on this particular issue," said Sheen.

"It seems to me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75% of their targets, that feels like a conspiracy theory. It raises a lot of questions."

Sheen described the climate of acceptance for serious discussion about 9/11 as being far more fertile than it was a couple of years ago.

"It feels like from the people I talk to in and around my circles, it seems like the worm is turning." (Hawkins note: See? To Sheen, bad poll numbers for Bush means "the worm is turning," which means more people may buy into his lunatic conspiracy theories.)

Sheen described his immediate skepticism regarding the official reason for the collapse of the twin towers and building 7 on the day of 9/11.

"I was up early and we were gonna do a pre-shoot on Spin City, the show I used to do, I was watching the news and the north tower was burning. I saw the south tower hit live, that famous wide shot where it disappears behind the building and then we see the tremendous fireball."

"There was a feeling, it just didn't look any commercial jetliner I've flown on any time in my life and then when the buildings came down later on that day I said to my brother 'call me insane, but did it sorta look like those buildings came down in a controlled demolition'?"

...Sheen outlined his disbelief that the official story of what happened at the Pentagon matched the physical evidence.

"Show us this incredible maneuvering, just show it to us. Just show us how this particular plane pulled off these maneuvers. 270 degree turn at 500 miles and hour descending 7,000 feet in two and a half minutes, skimming across treetops the last 500 meters."

...Sheen said that "September 11 wasn't the Zapruder film, it was the Zapruder film festival," and that the inquiry had to be, "headed, if this is possible, by some neutral investigative committee. What if we used retired political foreign nationals? What if we used experts that don't have any ties whatsoever to this administration?"

"It is up to us to reveal the truth. It is up to us because we owe it to the families, we owe it to the victims. We owe it to everybody's life who was drastically altered, horrifically that day and forever. We owe it to them to uncover what happened."

If you want to see a nice debunking of these sorts of claims, you can go here, but personally I'm not going to waste time refuting this nonsense. Being asked to prove that the damage at the WTC and Pentagon was done by planes is like being asked to prove the moon isn't made out of cheese.

Yet, the variations on these sort of wacky beliefs are widespread on the left. Isn't there a single politician on the left courageous enough to have a "Sister Souljah" moment with these kooks and set them straight?

Atrios, Kevin Drum, and Andrew Sullivan have been knocking heads over the economy. Here's a short summary from Outside The Beltway of the positions they're taking:

Duncan Black and Kevin Drum call B.S. on Andrew Sullivan’s statement that, “I’m in favor of Bush’s tax cuts, but want spending cuts to match them; I favor balanced budgets . . . .”

Black writes that, “It’s a nice little fantasy to fetishize ’small government’ and imagine that liberals fetishize ‘big government’ but that just isn’t the reality. Put up or shut up - what would you cut out of this budget?” Drum adds, “So: if you support the tax cuts, and you don’t want to cut defense spending, and you want a balanced budget, you need to slice about $400 billion out of the $500 billion that’s left.”

None of that makes much sense economically if you ask me.

To begin with, although tax cuts usually cause a short term dip in government revenues, they also lead to more economic activity which produces more money for the government. For example, as Bill Frist pointed out:

"Total government collections, in fact, increased more after President Bush's 2003 tax cuts than they did after President Clinton's 1994 tax hikes."

Granted, we could reach a point on The Laffer Curve where cutting taxes would reduce tax income, but given how ridiculously high our taxes are in this country, I seriously doubt if that's a big concern at the moment.

Given that government revenues were more than 350 billion dollars higher in 2005 than they were in 2003, why do we need spending cuts to match Bush's tax cuts? We don't.

Then there's Black's claim that liberals aren't for ‘big government.’ Of course they are. Every liberal candidate comes to office with oodles of new regulations they want to impose on businesses and massive new taxpayer funded government boondoggles that they're just dying to try out. Just to name one of many examples, look at socialized medicine, something that almost every liberal you run into seems to support; if that's not, "big government," I don't know what is.

While I'll grant you that Republicans often increase spending and the size of the government when they're in office as well, that occurs over the objection of their conservative base who are without question several orders of magnitude more concerned about deficit spending and the size and power of the Federal Government than liberals.

Next up is the idea that you have to "slice about $400 billion out of the $500 billion" off what we're currently spending to reach a balanced budget. To begin with, I support Mike Pence's plan to cut "$650 billion over five years" off of the budget (Incidentally, how many of those liberals who are supposedly concerned about spending will get behind Pence on that?)

However, contrary to popular opinion, it's not necessary to make those kind of cuts to balance the budget. All we'd have to do to get the budget under control would be to freeze the amount we're currently spending.

Just take a look at these government revenue and outlay numbers from the Congressional Budget Office and you'll see what I mean:

1972 -- 200 Billion Federal Revenues -- 220 Billion Expenditures
1976 -- 309 Billion Federal Revenues -- 345 Billion Expenditures
1980 -- 521 Billion Federal Revenues -- 532 Billion Expenditures
1984 -- 674 Billion Federal Revenues -- 816 Billion Expenditures
1988 -- 867 Billion Federal Revenues -- 995 Billion Expenditures
1992 -- 1,127 Billion Federal Revenues -- 1,313 Billion Expenditures
1996 -- 1,415 Billion Federal Revenues -- 1,511 Billion Expenditures
2000 -- 1,823 Billion Federal Revenues -- 1,714 Billion Expenditures
2004 -- 1,880 Billion Federal Revenues -- 2,293 Billion Expenditures

Take a look at the expenditures and then look at the revenues just four years later. You'll note that in every case, had the government simply held spending constant for four years, they could have balanced the budget. The problem the Federal Government has isn't that they tax too little, it's that they spend too much (Hat tip to Ronald Reagan). It would probably take some sort of Balanced Budget Amendment in order to force Congress to put the brakes on, which again is something that I'd support wholeheartedly, but it is very doable.

Evangelist Charles Colson on the travesty of justice unfolding in Afghanistan:

Abdul Rahman is on trial for his life in a Kabul court. His crime? Converting to Christianity.

According to reports, Rahman converted to Christianity sixteen years ago while working for a Christian group that helped Afghan refugees in Peshawar, Pakistan. When he returned to Afghanistan in 2002, he tried to regain custody of his daughters from his parents. They referred the matter to the police, and his conversion came to the attention of Afghani authorities.

While the Taliban no longer rules the country, conversion from Islam to another religion, called apostasy, is still punishable by death. The prosecutor offered to drop the charges if Rahman converted back to Islam, but Rahman refused. According to the prosecutor, Rahman “said he was a Christian and would always remain one.”

That fidelity could cost Rahman his life if the judge decides that his “attack on Islam” meets the requirements of apostasy.

The irony is inescapable: This is the country that we rid of the Taliban because of its religious oppression. This is the country in which we have spent at least $70 billion to establish a free democratic government. This is the country whose freedom cost us three hundred American lives and eight hundred casualties. And this is the country that is preparing to execute a man for becoming a Christian after he witnessed other Christians caring for his countrymen.

Is this the fruit of democracy? Is this why we have shed American blood and invested American treasure to set a people free? What have we accomplished for overthrowing the Taliban? This is the kind of thing we would expect from the Taliban, not from President Karzai and his freely elected democratic government. (via Kathy Shaidle)

No one expected Afghanistan to become Amsterdam overnight, but this is a slap in the face to every member of the Canadian Forces risking his life to rid that blighted country of the last remnants of the Taliban. If the last remnants of the Taliban are still running the judicial system, with the full knowledge and consent of Hamid Karzai and his government, then serious questions are raised about what we're doing there at all.

It's not surprising to see Christians speaking out against the impending martyrdom of Abdul Rahman - and I have no hesitation about using the word "martyrdom," since that brave man is risking no one's life but his own - but this is a golden opportunity for "mainstream" Muslim groups to show us just how moderate they really are. And not surprisingly, they aren't using it: there's not a word about Rahman's case on the websites for Cair, the Canadian Islamic Congress or the Muslim Council of Britain.

This content was used with the permission of Daimnation!

*** Update #1 ***: They must be feeling the heat in Afghanistan because it looks like they're reaching for a face-saving out:

An Afghan man facing a possible death penalty for converting from Islam to Christianity may be mentally unfit to stand trial, a state prosecutor said Wednesday.

Abdul Rahman, 41, has been charged with rejecting Islam, a crime under this country's Islamic laws. His trial started last week and he confessed to becoming a Christian 16 years ago. If convicted, he could be executed.

But prosecutor Sarinwal Zamari said questions have been raised about his mental fitness.

"We think he could be mad. He is not a normal person. He doesn't talk like a normal person," he told The Associated Press.

Moayuddin Baluch, a religious adviser to President Hamid Karzai, said Rahman would undergo a psychological examination.

"Doctors must examine him," he said. "If he is mentally unfit, definitely Islam has no claim to punish him. He must be forgiven. The case must be dropped."

So they'll probably rule that Rahman is crazy, they'll drop the charges, and he'll likely end up moving to Germany or some other civilized Western nation so that the radical Islamists don't murder him in the street for the "crime" of converting from Islam to Christianity.

Even if that's how it turns out, this is a disgraceful case that has undoubtedly destroyed a lot of goodwill Americans felt towards Afghanistan. Despite everything that America, a Christian nation, has done for Afghanistan, here they are getting ready to murder a man in cold blood for becoming a Christian. It's sick, it's sad, it's wrong and these sort of depraved practices are part of the reason why so many people have come to believe that Islam is a backwards and bloody religion.

The Shrub was handed a golden opportunity (yesterday) morning to level with the American People about his real reasons for attacking Iraq, reasons that Helen Thomas would be more than happy to explain to him if he’d just open his ears and listen. Instead, he used the solemn third anniversary of his illegal and immoral quagmire to exude an unrealistic confidence in our military and its mission, while insulting a beloved American icon in the process.

Helen Thomas, the Great Dane of the Washington press corps, has been the voice of honest journalism for over 175 years, and a thorn in side of both Batman and Commissioner Gordon. Her tough, take-no-prisoners style of questioning has often been mistaken for thinly disguised partisan attacks with question marks at the end of them, but she has inspired generations of progressive journalists with her dauntless courage in the face of a fascist administration, and the throes of a crippling mental illness. Since she was diagnosed with severe senile dementia in 1971, she has been unafraid to broach the questions more rational and sane reporters wouldn’t dare to. It’s a miracle she can even remember who she is, let alone find her way to the White House for one of Bush’s Lie Sessions, and she deserves his respect. If the Shrub won’t confess his crimes against humanity, bring our troops home from Iraq, legalize marijuana and step down for the good of America, then he should at least do it for her.

This satire was used with the permission of BlameBush!.

Some U.S. Officials Fear Iran Is Helping Al Qaeda They Say Intelligence Suggests That The Regime Lets Key Figures Plot. But The Picture Is Cloudy (Free LA Times Reg Req)

Bush Defends Decisions On Iraq War

U.S. Cautiously Backs Afghan Christian Set To Be Murdered For His Beliefs By The Government. Monitoring Situation While Italy Threatens To Pull Troops From 'Liberated' Afghanistan (Good For Italy)

An Inquiry Has Found That An American Public Relations Firm Did Not Violate Military Policy By Paying Iraqi News Outlets To Print Positive Articles, Military Officials Said Tuesday (Free NYT Reg Req)

Lefty Mayor Of London, Ken Livingstone, In Fresh Jewish Controversy

Neo-Nazis Threaten To Massacre Muslims At World Cup

The New Mexico Democratic Party Is Calling For President Bush's Removal From Office

A Bill That Allows Public High Schools To Offer Classes On The Bible Sped Through The Georgia House Today, Passing Overwhelmingly With No Debate

Gallup Polling Drops CNN After 'Low Ratings'; Full Memo Revealed

Nagin Rejects Limits On Rebuilding In New Orleans. Residents In Vulnerable Areas Can Reconstruct

Prosecutors Drop Sex Case Against Teacher, Debra Lafave

Jack Kelly: Ignorance Pervasive In Reporting From Iraq

John Stossel: Public Schools Evade Real Acountability

W. Thomas Smith: Our Country, Right Or Wrong

Jonah Goldberg: Do Conservatives Need Psychological Help?

Peter Schweizer: Noam Chomsky

Huffington Apologizes for Clooney Blog

Woman's Hair Bursts Into Flames, Causes House Fire

Audio: 9/11 Tape Of Guy Who Killed Kid For Walking Across His Lawn

Website Of The Day: Red America

Last night, on the fly, I came up with a little exercise that I, political wonk that I am, thought would be fun.

I decided to give myself 24 minutes to come up with 24 laws/policies/changes that should be put into effect in America on the domestic front. These changes could affect the powers of the Supreme Court, Congress, or the presidency and I decided that political considerations would be treated as irrelevant.

It took about 20 minutes to come up with this list, which IS NOT in the order of importance...

Here we go...

1) Amend the Constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

2) Term limits: Four 2 year terms in the House and two 6 year terms in the Senate.

3) A Balanced Budget Amendment of some sort.

4) The Supreme Court would be banned from considering foreign law to interpret the Constitution.

5) A Constitutional Amendment banning desecration of the American flag.

6) A bill that would build a fence between the US and Mexico, crack down on people employing illegals, prevent all government services from going to illegals, and put an end to dual citizenship.

7) Overturn Roe v. Wade.

8) Institute a flat tax with a minimum level below which nothing needs to be paid.

9) Institute a loser pays system where in most cases, the loser of a lawsuit has to pay the legal fees of the winner

10) Allow any business to fire employees for joining a union if they so choose.

11) All parents would be provided school vouchers that could be used at the public or private school of their choice as long as it met minimal standards.

12) Health Care reform bill which would include, Tort reform, streamlining the regulations that make bringing a new drug to market so slow and expensive, health care savings accounts, and allowing health insurance companies from anywhere in America to compete for business in any state.

13) Drill Anwr.

14) Change the rules so it takes the support of a supermajority in Congress to raise taxes.

15) Support Social Security reform including private accounts, raising the age limit incrementally until it reaches 70 by 2030, permanently tying the age limit to the average lifespan of Americans, & indexing Social Security payments to prices, instead of wages.

16) Completely dump the Medicare Prescription Drug Reform.

17) Declare Affirmative Action to be Unconstitutional.

18) Rewrite Sarbanes-Oxley to make it much less burdensome to businesses.

19) Get rid of the minimum wage entirely.

20) Set up non-partisan commissions in every state to create non-gerrymandered districts.

21) Set up simple and basic campaign finance laws that allow any American to contribute as much as they wish to any candidate or organization, as long as their identities are revealed.

22) Overturn Kelo.

23) Have the Supreme Court correctly interpret the Establishment clause of the First Amendment.

24) Allow organ donations from willing (and deceased) owners to go forward without the consent of family members.

PS: If any bloggers out there come up with their own lists, link back to this post, and let me know about it, I'll link to it later tonight. Also, I'd be particularly interested in see lists like this from liberals.

Other lists: The Hillary list from Demonrats
Mental Flush
Shots Across The Bow
Uncommon Sense
BeRight

Rock legend Carlos Santana gets all geopolitical and gives everyone the benefit of his like, wisdom man:

Carlos Santana quoted his old friend Jimi Hendrix in an anti-war message here today and said his philosophy is the antithesis of President George W. Bush's.

"I have wisdom. I feel love. I live in the present and I try to present a dimension that brings harmony and healing," the 58-year-old rock icon said. "My concept is the opposite of George W. Bush."

..."There is more value in placing a flower in a rifle barrel than making war," he said. "As Jimi Hendrix used to say, musical notes have more importance than bullets."

Like, yeah man! Yeah! We didn't need to fight the Nazis with like gun and tanks man, we should have just used crunchy grooves! And Saddam? After he raped and murdered a bunch of people, the people who weren't dead yet should have just walked up, stuck flowers in the soldier's guns, and then they could have just all held hands and turned Iraq into a big groovy commune, man.

So like when you're captured by a terrorist who's going to saw off your head cause you're like a Jew or something, don't wish for a bunch of Marines to kick in the door, just start singing Voodoo Child man, and everything will be all right! Cause music will produce harmony and healing dude!

This special message has been brought to you by the group: "Have a glass of shut the hell up Carlos Santana, you stupid, ^%$$&$^&^ hippie."

RWN made Howard Kurtz's Media Notes column in the Washington Post again. This time around, he quoted heavily from "The Conservative Case Against John McCain In 2008" article that I wrote last week.

"John Hawkins at Right Wing News reminds us that some ardent conservatives don't trust McCain either--and resent his media profile:

There is no Republican up on Capitol Hill more disliked by his own GOP brethren than John McCain. That's why, despite the size of his fan club in the mainstream media, McCain seems rather unlikely to capture the party's nomination for President in 2008.

"Here's a short, but sweet primer that may help explain why so many conservatives believe John McCain would be a very poor choice as the Republican nominee in 2008.

"John McCain will be 72 years old in 2008, which will make him 3 years older than Ronald Reagan was when he became the oldest man to ever be inaugurated as president back in 1981. In the Senate, where doddering fossils like Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd can be elected over and over, McCain looks like a spring chicken in comparison. But, Reagan's age turned out to be a campaign issue and McCain, who would be 80 years old at the end of his 2nd term, would certainly have a lot of people questioning --with good reason -- whether he's up to the job. Were McCain to be the nominee, his age could be the deciding factor that puts a Democrat in office.

"The mainstream media loves John McCain and they regularly write fawning articles referring to him as a 'maverick' and a 'straight-talker.' Because of this, McCain polls well among Democrats and Independents.

"However, the reason McCain is so well liked by the media is because they're liberals and they love it when he trashes other Republicans. But, what would happen if John McCain actually became the Republican nominee? The same members of the mainstream media who gush over him today would turn on him in a Minnesota minute and once his great press ended, his poll numbers with Independents and Democrats would start to drop precipitously."

A major question, it seems to me, is whether less ideological columnists defend McCain against some of these attacks, or at least point out why he is so popular (and not just with the press)."

Semi-interesting side note: One of the things I'm interested in doing this year is getting published in some A-list conservative mags. I contacted a couple of them and asked them if they'd be interested in an anti-McCain piece. One said "no," and the other didn't respond. That turned out to be the very same post that apparently generated enough buzz to make it into the WAPO today.

"Here at home, I'm also encouraged by the strength of our economy. Last year, our economy grew at a health 3.5 percent. Over the past two and a half years, the economy has added nearly 5 million new jobs. That's more than Japan and the 25 nations of the European Union combined.

The national unemployment rate is 4.8 percent. That's lower than the average rate of the 1970s and the 1980s and the 1990s.

Productivity is strong. Inflation is contained. Household net worth is at an all-time high. Real after-tax income is up more than 8 percent per person since the beginning of 2001.

The growing economy is a result of the hard work of the American people and good policies here in Washington." -- George Bush

If you want to see how the mainstream media plays the spin game, then take a look at a piece MSNBC has written about Naji Sabri, Saddam’s foreign minister, who became a CIA informant before the invasion.

To begin with, here's the headline and the opening of the article:

"Iraqi diplomat gave U.S. prewar WMD details
Saddam’s foreign minister told CIA the truth, so why didn’t agency listen?

In the period before the Iraq war, the CIA and the Bush administration erroneously believed that Saddam Hussein was hiding major programs for weapons of mass destruction. Now NBC News has learned that for a short time the CIA had contact with a secret source at the highest levels within Saddam Hussein’s government, who gave them information far more accurate than what they believed. It is a spy story that has never been told before, and raises new questions about prewar intelligence.

What makes the story significant is the high rank of the source. His name, officials tell NBC News, was Naji Sabri, Iraq’s foreign minister under Saddam. Although Sabri was in Saddam's inner circle, his cosmopolitan ways also helped him fit into diplomatic circles."

Now, if that's as far as you read, you could reasonably conclude that Sabri told the CIA that Saddam didn't have any WMDs and wasn't seeking them. But, as MSNBC reveals later in the article, that's not the case at all:

"For example, consider biological weapons, a key concern before the war. The CIA said Saddam had an "active" program for "R&D, production and weaponization" for biological agents such as anthrax. Intelligence sources say Sabri indicated Saddam had no significant, active biological weapons program. Sabri was right. After the war, it became clear that there was no program.

Another key issue was the nuclear question: How far away was Saddam from having a bomb? The CIA said if Saddam obtained enriched uranium, he could build a nuclear bomb in "several months to a year." Sabri said Saddam desperately wanted a bomb, but would need much more time than that. Sabri was more accurate.

On the issue of chemical weapons, the CIA said Saddam had stockpiled as much as "500 metric tons of chemical warfare agents" and had "renewed" production of deadly agents. Sabri said Iraq had stockpiled weapons and had "poison gas" left over from the first Gulf War. Both Sabri and the agency were wrong."

Not to rain on MSNBC's parade here, but if this is what Sabri told the CIA, it reinforced the case for war. If you have someone who's close to Saddam saying that he "desperately" wants a nuclear bomb and has, "500 metric tons of chemical warfare agents," that's not something that would have set anyone's mind at ease.

What you have here with Sabri is a perfect illustration of why intelligence work is so incredibly difficult. You have multiple sources, some better than others, all telling you different things. Moreover, you have foreign intelligence agencies offering you info from their sources and it differs from what your sources are saying. Meanwhile, our intelligence agencies have to sort through all of this and determine what's true and what isn't, while simultaneously keeping in mind that our national security is on the line and that there will be political consequences if they're wrong. It's an incredibly difficult job.

So why didn't MSNBC hit it from that angle? Heck, why didn't they suggest that if a member of Saddam's inner circle said that he had "500 metric tons of chemical warfare agents," maybe he did and it was destroyed right before the war, extremely well hidden, or shipped to Syria?

Instead of these sort of pertinent questions, we get a slanted MSNBC hit piece. And they wonder why so many people don't trust the mainstream media to play it straight with the news.

You know, it's funny. The media and Democrats have been running around like chickens with their heads cut off for years now telling everyone that all is lost in Iraq and it's Bush's fault.

We can't win! Civil War is right around the corner! We've got to cut and run! Woe is us! Abandon all hope ye who enter Iraq!

Meanwhile, back in the real world Bush's strategy in Iraq is starting to pay off big time.

"Iraqi Army forces may be able to take over the more volatile regions of their country by the end of this year, as long as they have the equipment and logistical support they need, the top U.S. military commander said Monday.

Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that by year's end the Iraqi army will have recruited all of the units it needs, and the U.S. will have trained "a vast majority of their Army."

"Right now the Iraqis have (control) over half of Baghdad, and Baghdad is a pretty tough neighborhood, so they're certainly capable, regardless of the area, of being in control," Pace said in an interview on a military aircraft en route to Pakistan. "It will be just a matter of time to see what makes sense."

Pace's comments expanded on assertions made late last week by Army Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, the second-ranking U.S. commander in Iraq, who said the goal is to have Iraqi security forces in control of 75% of the country's territory by the end of the summer."

What you have to understand is that although we want to do as much damage to the insurgency as possible, it's not necessary for American troops to destroy the insurgents. The goal is to build up the Iraqi military to the point where they're capable of handling security and then the US will step into the background.

Once the Iraqis can take care of themselves, the game is over for the terrorists because you don't win wars with suicide bombers and the insurgents will never be able to gain enough support in Iraq to build the sort of army they'd need to take over if they're regularly targeting Iraqis. Sure, they can continue to murder people -- for a time -- but can they accomplish anything beyond that? Highly doubtful.

On the other hand, US causalities in Iraq have plunged in March and within a few months, don't be surprised if a lot of US troops head for home because they're simply no longer needed in Iraq. By mid-to late 2007, the majority of US troops will probably be out of Iraq and the American casualty rate there will drop through the floor.

Invading Iraq was the right decision, Bush has handled the situation much better than most people give him credit for, and even as his opponents have claimed that he "has no plan," his strategy is winning the day.

Bin Laden Sought 'Joint Operations' With Saddam

Bush Warns Iran On Israel

Claim: 'US Could Wipe Out Iran Nuke Program In Two Days' (Free Jerusalem Post Reg Req)

Anger Over Christian Convert In Kabul Who Faces Death

EU To Hand Over $78 Million To Hamas Led Government

Afghan Ambassador Raps Protesters Who Said Country Was Better Under Taliban

Three Years Of Wrong Predictions On Iraq

Best Job Market In 5 Years: Economy Approaching Full Employment

Lawmakers Get Out Of The House

Daily Kos 2008 Presidential Poll: Feingold 48%, Wesley Clark 15%, Mark Warner 12%, John Edwards 6%, No Clue 4%, Other 3%, Hillary Clinton 2%

Mark Steyn: Getting There From Here

Iraq The Model: The Third Anniversary...Sacrifice, Fear And Hope

Scalia's Good Sense

Debbie Schlussel: Tattoos -- A Sign of Power? Not!

John Miller: 2006 Senate Breakdown

Turkmen President Offers A Place In Heaven To His Readers

Nepalese Buddha Boy 'Reappears'

Six-Legged Lamb Born In Belgium

Ohio Couple Lose Custody Of Adopted Kids After Making Them Sleep In Cages

Germany: Man Found With Wife's Head In Bag

Website Of The Day: Gina Cobb

No newspaper in America gets better pics from the anti-war rallies than Zombie, whose latest finds were from an anti-war rally in San Francisco on March 18th. Of course, that's largely by design. When you have liberal reporters, sympathetically reporting on an event you can be almost sure that they support -- like an anti-war rally -- they don't want you to see pics like this...

or this...

or worst of all, this...

See, if they showed you pics like these, it might raise embarrassing questions about the anti-war movement and some of the sentiments undergirding the left's unending attempts to undercut the war on terrorism. That's why the libs in the MSM who seem to look for the most controversial angle of every story, will bend over backwards to ignore the radicals who regularly attend these events.

(*** Note: On the one hand, there are lots of spoilers in this review. On the other hand, the film was terrible. Thumbs way, way, down. So, it's probably no big deal if you read the review because you're not going to want to see the movie anyway. ***)

One of the dilemmas conservative critics of Hollywood often have to face is whether to go see movies that they know beforehand are pieces of left-wing agitprop. Personally, I usually choose not to attend, for various reasons. For example, when it came to Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, I figured I'd be bored out of my mind and would spend the whole movie fighting the urge to yell, "But, that's not true," at the screen. When it came to Brokeback Mountain...well, I'm just not interested in relationship movies to begin with and I figure that about the only way you could make them worse would be by making the main protagonists gay sheep herders who slap each other around before they start mounting each other in a tent. But, when it came to V for Vendetta, it looked like an action movie and I'd heard Natalie Portman would be dressed up as a school girl at one point -- in other words, I thought it sounded tolerable.

Boy, was I ever wrong.

V for Vendetta begins in England, 2020, which is run by fascist Christians who murder gays, exaggerate the threat of terrorism, and who literally appear to listen in on everybody in Britain. If that sounds like some sort of Chomskyian vision of America, that's because the filmmakers intended it that way. In fact, the film goes out of its way at every turn to draw parallels between the bizarro world left-wing view of how America is becoming and the dystopian Britain of the future.

Political dissidents are jailed, criticism of the government is not allowed, gays are murdered, you see prisoners in Abu Ghraib style hoods, the government carries out germ warfare attacks and blames terrorists for them, the media is controlled by the government, and art is banned. All of this is done by the cartoonishly evil "Conservative" Party which is supported by at least one pedophilic priest, government operatives called "fingers" who apparently rape women for being out after curfew, and armies of generic government thugs.

Into this nightmarish world comes our, "hero," Osama Bin La...excuse me, V. If you asked a liberal like Michael Moore or Ted Rall to imagine himself as a terrorist, V is what you'd come up with. He's an extremely intelligent, witty, art lover who also enjoys old music, classic movies, and murdering members of the Conservative party -- but only with knives, no guns, presumably because guns should be banned.

Natalie Portman plays Zarqawi to V's Bin Laden after he rescues her from government rapists and over time, like a college professor instructing a student too naive to realize how "evil" Republicans are, he wins her over to his cause -- which is murdering members of the Conservative party and blowing up historic buildings for freedom's sake.

Now, before I go on, I know what many of you are probably thinking: "Come on, Hawkins, you're making this review too political. It's a movie and it's not even set in America..." What can I say? The movie isn't subtle. It uses a jackhammer to thunder home its political points. At one point it shows a "Coalition of the Willing" poster with a swastika on it. It blames the current troubles in Britain on, "America's war." The whole movie is built over top of the lunatic vision that wild eyed liberals have of America.

In any case, setting aside the, "Terrorism is wonderful and conservatives are evil," theme of the movie, is it any good? Well, my guess is that the movie going public will break down into three large groups. If you're conservative, you'll find it to be a depraved movie. If you're liberal and maybe a bit twisted, you'll enjoy the movie because you'll see it as sticking it to Bush and the fact that it glorifies terrorism, something that will horrify red staters, will make it all the sweeter for you. As far as everyone else goes, my guess is that they'll just be bored because politics aside, this movie isn't exactly, "fun for the whole family," or for that matter, anyone in the family, unless perhaps your last name is Arafat.

There's precious little action, the villains are bland and cartoonishly evil, and much of the film is wildly implausible. For example, the police officer who spends the whole movie chasing V stands aside willingly in order to allow Parliament to be blown up. In another sequence, Portman's character is tortured for weeks by V, a man with head to toe burns who doesn't even bother to disguise his voice, and she doesn't recognize that it's him. More implausibly, shortly after he reveals that he was the one torturing her, she apparently starts to fall in love with him. But, even that seems more likely than all of Britain rising up at the call of a terrorist who blew up a building, took over a TV studio while wearing a Palestinian style suicide belt, and then gave one generic speech about freedom.

On the "upside" -- if there is an "upside" of some sort to this movie -- if you had any doubts about how low Hollywood would sink, this movie should remove them. This movie is the equivalent of making a movie in 1944 that features Nazis saving Americans from a fascist, Jew hating dictatorship that has taken over their country in 1960. What's next? Maybe a "heroic" pedophile who saves lives by molesting "evil" conservative children? After V For Vendetta, there's really just no ethical sewer that seems too filthy for Hollywood to happily traipse though.

For -- I don't know -- at least, a good, solid three years now, conservatives have been yapping, complaining, and kvetching non-stop about two issues on the domestic front: out-of-control spending and our government's refusal to take a tough stand against illegal immigration.

Yet, here we are, in an election year and what are we seeing from Republicans in the Senate on these two crucial issues?

On spending:

"The Republican Party is now principally moderate, if not liberal!" exulted Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), after the Senate -- including a majority of Republicans -- approved his budget-busting amendment to spend an extra $7 billion on domestic programs."

Then there's illegal immigration:

"A rare bipartisan breakthrough on the first overhaul of U.S. immigration law in two decades began to take shape Thursday in the Senate Judiciary Committee with lawmakers moving toward offering a path to permanent residence for the 12 million illegal immigrants now in the country.

...The key compromise came when Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., embraced the thrust of a bill by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., which has the backing of several Republicans on the committee, including Sam Brownback, a social conservative from Kansas and possible GOP presidential contender.

That proposal would allow the 12 million illegal immigrants to apply for a six-year visa if they work, pay a $1,000 fine, back taxes, pass a background check and learn English.

...(Lindsey) Graham conceded that many conservatives call this approach amnesty.

...The committee has already turned back an effort to include the House's 700-mile fence in its bill. Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said a "virtual fence" using sensors and other technology would be less costly and more effective than a physical one."

It's almost like they're saying to conservative voters, "That's right, we don't care what you think. We dare you to do something about it at the ballot box in November if you've got the guts!"

You know, I don't want the GOP to lose control of the Senate, nor do I think the country would be better off if the Democrats took over. But, the truth is that the GOP probably deserves to lose control of the Senate and regrettably, if they keep going down this same path, they may get exactly what they deserve.

If you want to see what the American economy would look like if it were completely unionized, you don't need to look any further than France. The economy in France has long been stagnant and the rampant unemployment there is a huge problem:

"Unemployment is the top political issue in France, where the national average is 9.6 percent and youth joblessness is double that. The rate rises to 40-50 percent in some of the poor suburbs hit by several weeks of youth rioting last autumn."

All economies go through cycles, but when you have long-term problems that just don't seem to improve, it's almost always because the government has heavily interfered with the market. In France's case, they've fouled things up in a number of ways, but one of the big problems they have is that it's very difficult to fire workers. That has paradoxically led to businesses being very reluctant to hire people in the first place, because they can't get rid of them.

In order to address that problem, the French government proposed a:

..."First Job Contract" or CPE, which lets firms fire workers under 26 without explanation in their first two years on the job. He launched it to spur wary employers to take on new staff."

This led to another problem caused by government meddling to kick in: a sense of entitlement and dependency on government largesse.

Hundreds of thousands of students, workers and left-wing politicians took to the streets across France on Saturday to press the conservative government to scrap a new law they fear will erode job security.

...The marches were mostly festive and peaceful, but dozens of youths pelted police with missiles, overturning and setting fire to a car at the end of the main protest in Paris. Police fired many rounds of tear gas to clear them from Nation square.

Scattered violence was also reported in Marseille, Rennes and Lille, where police also charged and teargassed crowds.

...In the western city of Rennes, students wore plastic garbage bags with signs declaring: "I am disposable."

"I risk working for two years for nothing, just to be fired at any moment," said Paris student Coralie Huvet, 20, who had "No to the CPE" written on her forehead. Pointing to painted-on tears, she added: "That's depressing, that's why I'm crying."

Don't you just have the urge to look up Coralie Huvet, offer her a dream job, wait for her to accept, and then fire her on her first day of work just to see the look on her whiney, French mime face? Ok...that was kind of mean, but can you really blame French businesses for not wanting to hire people with Coralie Huvet's mentality? Why in the world would you want to bring someone into your business who looks at your company essentially as a welfare program that exists to take care of her?

Whether you're talking about these ridiculous French laws or unions, which produce people with the same sort of mentality, they're bad news for businesses.

"The worst month of U.S. military deaths in Vietnam was May 1968: 2,316 lives. The second worst month in Vietnam was February 1968: 2,293 lives. According to the website ICasualties.org, which tracks U.S. military deaths in Iraq, the total U.S. military deaths in Iraq since March 20, 2003 is 2,317 lives, one more than the worst month in Vietnam." -- Jim Lindgren

Byron York explains in terms that we laymen can understand why Bush was on firm legal ground with his warrantless surveillance program. Read his background and discussion of In re: Sealed Case from 2002 and you'll see why Bush's legal advisers believe that he is on quite firm basis for the NSA surveillance program.

And then the Court of Review did one more thing, something that has repercussions in today's surveillance controversy. Not only could the FISA Court not tell the president how do to his work, the Court of Review said, but the president also had the "inherent authority" under the Constitution to conduct needed surveillance without obtaining any warrant — from the FISA Court or anyone else. Referring to an earlier case, known as Truong, which dealt with surveillance before FISA was passed, the Court of Review wrote: "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

It was a clear and sweeping statement of executive authority. And what was most likely not known to the Court of Review at the time was that the administration had, in 2002, started a program in which it did exactly what the Court of Review said it had the power to do: order the surveillance of some international communications without a warrant.

Read today, In re: Sealed Case does more than simply outline the president's authority. It also puts the administration's warrantless-surveillance decision in some context. What was going on at the time the president made the decision to go ahead with the surveillance? Well, first Congress passed the Patriot Act, giving the administration new powers. Then the FISA Court refused to recognize those powers and attempted to impose outdated restrictions on the administration. Then the White House, faced with the FISA Court's opposition — and with what administration officials believed were some inherent weaknesses in the FISA law — began to bypass the FISA Court in some cases. And then, in In re: Sealed Case, the administration received irrefutable legal support for its actions.

After the decision was handed down, the American Civil Liberties Union, which had submitted a brief in support of the FISA Court's actions restricting the administration, asked the Supreme Court to review In re: Sealed Case. The justices declined to take any action. That is not the same as the Court's upholding the ruling, but it does mean that the justices looked at the decision and chose not to intervene.

Today, the opinion stands as a bedrock statement of presidential power. And ironically, it came from a case that was not about whether the president had overstepped his bounds, but about whether the courts had overstepped their bounds. The Court of Review ruled strongly in favor of the president, and the Supreme Court declined to reconsider that decision. Reading the opinion, it's no wonder that George W. Bush has so strongly defended the surveillance program. If the FISA Court of Review is right, he has the Constitution on his side.

I'm not a lawyer, of course, but this seems pretty persuasive to me. If it is not, I want to hear the arguments why a 2002 case that specifically mentioned the president's power to order warrantless searches and which the Supreme Court declined to review is not relevant to the entire discussion.

I wish that some reporter when interviewing Russ Feingold, instead of focusing on the politics of his censure proposal, would get into the weeds and talk about the actual legal arguments. I keep seeing liberal legal analysts on TV who talk about the surveillance program as if it's a given that the program is unconstitutional. What do they say when presented with this 2002 case? And how come no one in the media seems to have done enough research to ask informed questions when these people go on TV?

This content was used with the permission of Betsy's Page.

As Iraq War Heads Into 4th Year, Bush Pledges 'Complete Victory' (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Cheney: Iraq Not In Civil War, Predicts Success

Former Iraqi PM Iyad Allawi: "We Are Losing Each Day As An Average 50 To 60 People Throughout The Country, If Not More. If This Is Not Civil War, Then God Knows What Civil War Is." (Send The Man A Book On The US Civil War And He Will Then Know What One Is)

Saddam Hussein's Regime Provided Financial Support To Abu Sayyaf, The Al Qaeda-Linked Jihadist Group Founded By Osama Bin Laden's Brother-In-Law In The Philippines In The Late 1990s

Afghan Man Faces Execution After Converting to Christianity

U.S. Navy Ships Return Fire on Suspected Pirates

Released Document: Saddam 'Okayed WMD Strike' In 1987

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Blasts Bush As "Donkey" And "Drunkard"

Kathleen Harris Advisers Urged Her To Quit

Cindy Sheehan "Will Breakfast In Manhattan With Actress Susan Sarandon, Who Is Set To Portray Her In A Biopic Movie. A Crew Will Film Sheehan For A Weekly Reality Series On The Sundance Channel. Her Letters To President Bush Inspired "Peace Mom," A One-Woman Monologue Show In London. A Memoir Is Due To Her Publisher April 1." (Gag)

Actor/Comedian Richard Belzer Proclaims He Knows More About Iraq Than Uneducated Soldiers In Iraq

Donald Rumsfeld: What We've Gained In 3 Years in Iraq (Superb -- Free WAPO Reg Req)

Joe Mariani: A For Avoid ‘V For Vendetta’

Fred Barnes: The Republican Strategy For 2006

Greg Kane: Do We Really Want To See Felons Voting From Prison?

Strategy Page: Why "People Power" Will Fail In Iran

Mark Steyn: 'Bloody Battle' Strategies Are For Daily Life. God Forbid We Use Them In Bloody Battles

Betsy's Page Is Back

Index Of The 100 Science Fiction Books You Just Have To Read

'South Park'-Scientology Battle Rages On

Scientology, Again

Judge Gives Man 30 Days in Jail For Having Wild Party (Ludicrous)

Five Beheaded For Witchcraft In India (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Website Of The Day: JackLewis