Quote

CIA: Cyber Attackers Have Hacked into Utilities
A CIA analyst has disclosed that Internet hackers have attacked the computer systems of utility companies outside the U.S. and in at least one case caused a power outage in several cities.

“We do not know who executed these attacks or why, but all involved intrusions through the Internet,” Tom Donahue, the CIA’s top cybersecurity analyst, told a gathering of security officials from utility and energy companies in New Orleans.

“We suspect, but cannot confirm, that some of the attackers had the benefit of inside knowledge.”

He did not provide details about the attacks, but did say the hackers made demands for money.

Over the last decade in the U.S., electric utilities, pipelines, railroads, and oil companies have employed remotely controlled and monitored valves and other mechanisms that rely on wireless Internet connections linking them to central offices, the Washington Post reported.

That has made them vulnerable to sabotage or shutdown by Internet intruders seeking to perpetrate cyber extortion. Online gambling sites, e-commerce banks and other entities sometimes meet the hackers’ demands for money to prevent being shut down, according to Alan Paller, research director at the SANS Institute, the cybersecurity group that sponsored the gathering.

Ralph Logan, who heads the Logan Group, a cybersecurity firm, told the Post that over the past 18 months there has been a sharp increase in “attacks on our national infrastructure networks.”

The attacks have been coming from outside the U.S., he said, but he believes they were launched from computers belonging to foreign governments or militaries, and not terrorist organizations.

Quote

A Real Change State of the Union

by Newt Gingrich (more by this author)

Posted 01/28/2008 ET
 

In a few hours, President Bush will give his seventh State of the Union Address. 

 

There is much the President can rightly say that is good about the state of our union tonight. The men and women of our armed forces are succeeding in Iraq. President Bush will call on Congress to pass earmark reform legislation, something the Republican members have already agreed to do. And, thankfully, in the six-plus years since thousands were murdered on Sept. 11, 2001, America has not suffered another terrorist attack. 

 

But let's be honest: There is also much that is failing our union today.  

 

America is experiencing a failure of leadership on a scale that dwarfs the successes or failings of any individual elected official. It is a failure of our political parties to lead, the failure of Washington to respond to America's challenges, the failure of our mainstream media to tell the truth, and above all, the failure of our political system to provide the change we need. 

 

A System Designed by and for Consultants and Special Interests

It's no accident that "change" has become the watchword of the 2008 presidential election. 

 

But paying lip-service to "change" and actually producing it are two very different things. 

 

Our current system of politics and government can't deliver change, because that's not what it was designed to do. The system was created by consultants and special interests in order to keep the former employed and keep the latter in power. 

 

To get the change we need -- what you have heard me refer to many times as "real change" -- we need to break out of the current system and go straight to the American people. 

 

The Platform of the American People: Play Along at Home During the State of the Union

As you know, at American Solutions, going straight to the American people is precisely what we have done. We spent half a year meeting with you, holding solutions workshops in your towns and online, and asking you directly through a series of national polls what you would like to see changed about America and how. 

 

The result is something that many "Winning the Future" readers are familiar with by now. We call it the Platform of the American People because it is an agenda of solutions for America that are supported by a majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents. 

 

If you haven't read the Platform of the American People yet, you can at AmericanSolutions.com/platform. 

 

The principles that inspired the Platform and the lessons we learned compiling it are also in my new book, Real Change: From the World that Fails to the World that Works, available here. 

 

Will It Be a Real Change SOTU? Or Just Politics as Usual? You Make the Call

Here's one thing you can do: Go to AmericanSolutions.com and print out a copy of the Platform of the American People. And then tonight, as you listen to the President's speech and the subsequent Democratic response, compare and contrast both with the Platform of the American People. 

 

Will it be a Real Change State of the Union? Or just Washington politics as usual? 

 

You make the call. 

 

Tonight's speech is an opportunity for our political leaders in Washington to take up the challenge being clearly sent by voters in the presidential primary: America wants change -- real change -- in Washington.  

 

What To Look for in Tonight's Speech

With your Platform of the American People in hand, here are a few questions to ask yourself about tonight's speech.

• Is It an Appeal to Red Versus Blue America or to Red, White and Blue America? It's a media-perpetuated myth that Americans are sharply divided between so-called red and blue states. In fact, America has a natural, overwhelming, center-right majority -- a majority that has a better grasp of the challenges facing us then the professional Washington political class.
• Does the President Call for Abolishing the Capital Gains Tax? More than short-term gimmicks, the American economy needs real, permanent changes that will make us more competitive and productive. Abolishing the capital gains tax would create a foundation of new investments for long-term economic growth.
• Is There a Call for English as the Official Language of Government? Overwhelming majorities of Republicans, Democrats and independents support this and other changes to unify America and defend American civilization.
• Does Protecting Legal Immigration and America's Borders Get the Attention It Deserves? Americans favor legal immigration, control of the border, employer responsibility, immediate deportation of illegal aliens convicted of a felony, a requirement to return home to get in line for legal, temporary worker status, and assimilation of new American citizens and legal permanent residents.
• Does the Speech Call for Increased Investment in Math and Science Education? The next 25 years will bring four to seven times more advances in science and technology than the previous 25 years. America must seize this historic opportunity to meet some of our most pressing challenges or risk falling behind the rest of the world.
• Does the Speech Recognize Our Responsibility To Be Good Stewards of God's Creation? We can have a healthy economy and a healthy environment if we use innovation and new technology rather than litigation and regulation to protect the environment.
• What About the Future of Social Security? Americans believe that it is critical that the President and Congress address the health and welfare of Social Security in the next few years. The survival of the system requires optional personal Social Security savings accounts for younger workers.
• Does the Speech Rally America to a New Commitment to Freedom of Religious Expression in the Public Square? The best way to ensure religious freedom is to protect all religious references and symbols, including those on public buildings, lands or documents.
• Does the Speech Call for Steps to Defend America Beyond the President's Successful Change of Course in Iraq? The Platform of the American People calls for the defense of America and her allies and for the defeat of America's enemies. It also supports Congress' making it a crime to advocate acts of terrorism, the development of programs by the Department of Homeland Security to teach Americans what we can do as individuals to help fight terror, and the use of "computer warfare" to shut down terrorist websites at home and abroad.

President Bush has led the country honorably and ably on many of the questions listed above. Tonight, he and the United States Congress have opportunity to begin to do fundamentally more: 

 

An opportunity to break out of a system that resists real change. 

 

An opportunity to rally the American people to meet our greatest national challenges together. 

 

An opportunity to start moving government from the world that fails to the world that works.  

 

Tonight is truly a unique opportunity. For the sake of my children and grandchildren -- and yours -- I hope our leaders take it. 

 

P.S. -- I will share my reaction on whether or not it was a Real Change State of the Union Address during a webcast this Thursday. Click here to register for the webcast.

Quote

Gates misses the point on 'creative capitalism'

By Declan McCullagh, News.com

Editor's note: CNET News.com editor at large Michael Kanellos and chief political correspondent Declan McCullagh are facing off over Bill Gates' call for businesses to allocate resources that could alleviate problems in the developing world. Click here for Kanellos' take.

perspective Bill Gates wants the world's businesses leaders to embrace what he calls "creative capitalism." But would that really be wise?

Consider what the Microsoft chairman said in a speech Thursday to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The outlines are a little hazy, but creative capitalism seems to center around companies spending money (or taking on money-losing projects) that are seen as socially desirable. To Gates, it's "market-based social change" that amounts to "doing work that eases the world's inequities."

If this sounds familiar, it should. It's an attractively repackaged call for activism that's been kicking around for more than four decades under labels like "corporate social responsibility" and "caring capitalism." Gates' well-intentioned suggestions would shift these efforts from domestic charity to international charity aimed at poorer nations.

But what his Davos speech didn't acknowledge is that corporations already provide money to communities and charitable causes. They pay employees and managers, who are able to write checks to charities as they see fit. They pay suppliers, which do the same. Perhaps most importantly, they return profits to shareholders, who have the choice of what charitable projects to support.

And Americans tend to be incredibly generous, even after the government mandates forced giving through taxes. After the Asian tsunami, the U.S. government coughed up $900 million in taxpayer-funded relief. But private individuals donated around $2 billion. Overall, Americans give a staggering $260 billion to 1.4 million charities a year. (By comparison, NASA's entire budget for 2007 is around $16 billion.)

Would the world be well-served if this ecosystem became subject to the whims of managers writing checks to charities they personally prefer? There's no reason to believe CEOs can claim special competence in deciding how charity should be dispensed. If anything, the individual shareholders who participate and research nonprofit groups and churches (and know firsthand which are most deserving) are in a better position. Not all decisions benefit from centralization; there is wisdom in distributed decision-making.

Although it may not be politically correct to say in some circles, there is a stronger argument to be made against "creative capitalism," and it is that profits come from serving society. The larger the profits, the better job the company tends to have done. Profit maximization is a worthy goal by itself.

This is what the late Nobel laureate Milton Friedman wrote in his famous 1970 essay for the The New York Times Magazine titled "The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits." In 2005, Friedman elaborated on it, saying that the doctrine of social responsibility was a "socialist concept" and that activists are not stakeholders but "problems for running the business."

News.com Poll

Capitalist critique
Is Bill Gates right about the shortcomings of the free market--and what needs to be done?

Yes, businesses need to do more to help the less fortunate.
No, businesses should stick to making products and making money.

View results

Of course, some businesses have found that embracing "social" goals can boost profits: the list includes Ben & Jerry's, Celestial Seasonings, Patagonia, Stonyfield Farm, and Whole Foods. Cypress Semiconductor, run by the free-market capitalist T.J. Rodgers, has won trophies for the most food donated per employee in Silicon Valley for over a decade. Rodgers calls it "a big employee morale builder, a way to attract new employees, good PR for the company, and a significant benefit to the community--all of which makes Cypress a better place to work and invest in."

Rodgers is forthright enough to admit it: social responsibility tends to be savvy public relations efforts that generate favorable press coverage and save millions of dollars a year in advertising.

Ben & Jerry made themselves rich by selling the concept of "social responsibility" and the spirit of the 1960s to the aging baby-boomers who gobble up Cherry Garcia and Dave Matthews Band Magic Brownies.

But an article last month in Newsweek makes clear that the ice cream maker's "social responsibility" includes hardball tactics and disgruntled franchisees that accuse the company of not being nearly as sweet as its image. And Ben & Jerry cashed out long ago by selling the company to Unilever, maker of non-crunchy products like Axe body spray, Vaseline, and Lux hairspray.

Social responsibility, in other words, only goes so far.

Gates also warned that profits may not be enough of an incentive by themselves to feed the world's poor, clothe the needy, and feed the hungry. Gates said recognition should be a kind of alternate currency: "In markets where profits are not possible, recognition is a proxy; where profits are possible, recognition is an added incentive."

Related podcast
'Creative capitalism' showdown

News.com's Michael Kanellos and Declan McCullagh
share their differing views.

That's probably a great deal for executives who can be feted at gala dinners. But it's hardly clear that rank-and-file shareholders and 401K plan holders who individually own a tiny share of, say, a spoon-making company (and collectively own the vast majority of it), will value the "recognition" they receive for owning a sliver of a "socially conscious" spoon maker rather than one that isn't.

What's a little disappointing is that Gates missed the opportunity to make a crucial point: that the reason poor countries remain poor and their citizens can't afford life-saving drugs is not that they receive insufficient charity on the part of wealthy nations.

The reason is that governments in the poorest countries are corrupt, nondemocratic, and repressive. Property rights are not secure, denying would-be entrepreneurs the chance to take out loans against their homes to raise capital. Court systems are nonfunctional, limiting individuals' ability to enter into contracts with one another. Foreign aid is diverted by corrupt officials to Swiss bank accounts (in sub-Saharan Africa alone, the amount diverted was $150 billion in 2005). Food aid depresses prices, undercutting local farmers.

Those reasons, not "noncreative capitalism," tend to be the root causes of poverty and misery in those unlucky nations. Adam Smith, the father of modern capitalism, figured this out more than 200 years ago when he wrote: "By pursuing his own interest, (a businessman) frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good."

Quote

Sanity check: The 700 MHz auction will tip the wireless balance, but in which direction?

Date: January 28th, 2008         Author: Jason Hiner

It is one of the most talked about pieces of air in the history of civilization, and for good reason. The 700 MHz spectrum of radio waves currently being auctioned by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will have a major impact on the future of mobile phones and the wireless Internet in the United States.

The auction kicked off last Thursday, January 24, and during the first two days of the auction, $3.7 billion in bids were made. We know that there are 214 pre-screened bidders, but we won’t know the identities of any of the winning bidders until the auction closes. However, we do know that the three biggest players in this game are Google, Verizon, and AT&T, and there are a variety of other interesting bidders, including Chevron, Qualcomm, Vulcan Ventures (led by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen), EchoStar, U.S. Cellular, Alltel, Cox Communications, and Towerstream.

Why is 700 MHz worth billions?

All of these bidders want 700 MHz because the radio waves in that spectrum have long range (up to 20 miles) and can easily pass through walls and other physical obstacles. This makes it perfect for delivering broadband Internet over the airwaves at comparable speeds to cable and DSL. The spectrum has long been used for UHF television broadcasts in the United States, but on February 19, 2009, the TV broadcasts will go entirely digital, and the FCC decided to open up this valuable spectrum for commercial use. The graph below (based on data from Aloha Partners and GigaOm) shows how 700 MHz will allow a wireless carrier to cover the same area as higher slices of the spectrum but with much less infrastructure and at a much cheaper cost.

One company won’t win the entire 700 MHz spectrum at the auction. Some smaller players, such as Qualcomm, are looking to land specific pieces of the spectrum to further niche services, such as video for mobile phones. And regional telecom companies are naturally looking to grab regional slices of the spectrum they could use to offer local broadband Internet using a technology such as WiMAX.

Nevertheless, I would expect that when the results are released for all 1,099 licenses sometime in February, it is very likely that we will be able to declare a winner. The part of the spectrum to keep a close eye on is the highly coveted C block, which if one company were able to control it, would provide full nationwide coverage for a next generation wireless Internet network. However, in an effort to promote open standards and competition, the FCC has stipulated that licensees of the C block must “allow consumers to use the handset of their choice and download and use the applications of their choice in this spectrum block.”

It will take deep pockets to win the C block. The bidding was already up to almost $1.8 billion after two days and the FCC has set a reserve price of $4.6 billion. The conventional wisdom is that it will go in one of three directions: 1.) Verizon or AT&T, 2.) Google, or 3.) Someone else with deep pockets and a desire to enter the mobile Internet market. Let’s a take a look at the potential consequences for each of these three scenarios.

If Verizon or AT&T wins …

Both would likely hold onto the 700 MHz Class C block until their next generation 4G platforms are ready to deploy and they would probably do everything that they could to meet the absolute minimum requirements of openness. At different times, both of them have talked a big game about open platforms — especially Verizon recently — but both of them are primarily walled gardens that have a lot of opening up to do, and time and momentum are not on their side.

Market forces are pushing Verizon and AT&T toward open platforms, but both have long established legacies, policies, and infrastructures to overcome. They both covet 700 MHz Class C  to be able to more quickly compete against Sprint’s mobile WiMAX, which will launch in 2008 and begin the conversion of cellular providers to mobile Internet providers. Because of their stake in the current cellular business and their own infrastructure legacies, I have to believe that AT&T and Verizon would ultimately slow the growth and adoption of the mobile Internet if either of them won 700 MHz Class C. For the same reasons, these two are also likely to delay the move to open platforms.

If Google wins …

There would immediately be a debate about whether Google wants to become a wireless carrier or if it just wants to control the airwaves and rent them to wireless providers with the provision that they provide open access and are friendly to Google’s emerging mobile platform. Google’s ambitions are clear. It sees the Internet going mobile and it wants to build an ad network to monetize the Internet on mobile devices.

The question is whether Google would actually want to get into the messy and complicated business of becoming a service provider. That seems doubtful. So far in its short corporate history, Google has been content with letting others do all the hard work of building things and then Google has swept in and served as an information middle man with an ad network that scrapes money off the top of transactions.

If Google does actually win — which is a long shot — I think it would indicate that Google wants to jump into the service provider role. After all, Google has said again and again that it is a technology company and not a content company. If Google does win and start a new wireless broadband network, it would put tremendous pressure on the leading wireless carriers to open their networks and play fair. We’d also likely see 700 MHz implemented much more quickly because Google would have a clean slate to work with at the platform level and would be highly motivated to get something off the ground as soon as possible to start recouping its investment.

If someone else wins …

The unknown factor in the auction is the possibility of someone else swooping in and gobbling up the Class C licenses. Very few companies have the kind of money to play a hand at that table, but there are some, such as Vulcan and Chevron, who could make a run at it if they are serious about running a new national broadband network.

New competition for cable and DSL would be great. New competition for mobile phone providers in the United States would be even greater. A new vendor in this space with the valuable 700 MHz spectrum as its top asset would have major ripple effects across the cellular and Internet markets in the United States.

Of course, building a new nationwide network would be very, very challenging and risky. But the payoff could be enormous since the mobile Internet will revolutionize both the current Internet access industry and the mobile phone industry (by replacing the current cell networks with VoIP over the mobile Internet).

Additional resources

Conde Nast Portfolio has published an excellent visual illustration of the 700 MHz spectrum:

For more on the 700 MHz auction, see:

• Complete coverage of the 700 MHz auction (RCR Wireless)
• Wireless Spectrum Auction 700 MHz (Mahalo)
• Battle of the Cell Bands (Conde Nast Portfolio)
• 700 MHz explained in 10 steps (GigaOm)

Who do you think will win the 700 MHz auction? What do you think it will mean for the future of mobile and wireless in the United States? Join the discussion.

Quote

While The Cat's Away, The Terrorists Will Play
By Nancy Salvato
January 28, 2008

Now that the present administration's 150 billion dollar economic stimulus package has caused a substantial portion of the population to worry about the economy taking a nosedive and an ensuing recession, there is less incentive to discuss the more immediate threat of securing our borders from those who mean to cause our country substantial harm. While growing the economy is extremely important to maintaining the many comforts to which we've become accustomed, an incredibly large amount of damage can come to our economic well being from one well planned terrorist attack aimed at harming our infrastructure.

I recently read a human interest story about a cat that climbed into a piece of luggage. This animal was not discovered while going through security. Worse still, this particular piece of luggage was picked up at the terminal by a person who mistakenly thought it was his own. Upon returning to his house, he opened the suitcase and out popped the cat. Discovering his mistake, he called the owner and returned both the cat and suitcase. While this is a wonderful story about the cat's survival and the integrity of the person who made good, there was no mention of the bigger implications of an airport security system that clearly failed. Certainly, I am questioning the effectiveness of any and all the security measures we've willingly endured since 9/11.

It is true, that if a terrorist cares not about his or her own life, then a suicide attack will be fairly effective no matter what measures are taken to protect the populace. Such a targeted strike can occur almost anywhere. We can accept this reality and ignore it or we can accept this reality and take measures so that there is a lesser likelihood that this will occur. Safety measures have been taken at O'Hare Airport in Chicago, cars cannot sit curbside unless a passenger is actually being dropped off or picked up. Passengers and their belongings are forced to endure metal detectors and x-ray machines to help prevent the possibility of weapons being smuggled aboard an airplane. But how effective are these measures when a cat isn't detected and when such measures are not in place for the cargo holds or transporting of dead bodies? If we are willing to spend 150 million to stimulate the economy, we should be willing to spend 150 million to put into place additional measures to make our nation more secure.

To begin, let's start with ourselves. Instead of teaching future generations that they are entitled to the wealth of this country, that "choice" is an acceptable consequence of an unplanned pregnancy, and that being young and beautiful is more important that using the gift of intelligence and kindness in this world, our priorities need to become more grounded. It is well understood that when a person works hard and is taught the value of human life, integrity, and compassion, that person will become a contributing member of society. The likelihood is there will be no run-ins with the law and a person raised in this fashion will enhance the quality of life of those he or she touches. Within our own country, we need to emphasize and model these values in our public and private institutions. We need to place a priority on the importance of love, honor, and respect in families. We need to secure to the best of our ability everyone's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and balance that against what it means to be a contributing and participating member of a community.

The reason our Constitution works is because everyone who lives by the rule of law understands that there is no other law that takes precedence. Church and State are separate. Those who would place Sharia Law above our Constitution should not be able to live here as citizens. They can visit, but they cannot change the structure of our governing system or ask to be treated differently.

Outside of ourselves, we can place a high priority on accepted measures of right and wrong and ensure that those who violate these standards are made to pay the consequences; consequences should be meaningful and serve to detract people from breaking the law. Entertainers, people with money and influence, and even elected officials should not receive a pass when driving under the influence, stealing documents from the National Archives, or committing perjury under oath. These might be considered soft crimes but can be just as damaging as when terrorists succeed in detonating themselves in front of soft targets.

I'm all for immigration, in which people who want to take advantage of all the opportunities offered in this fantastic country become citizens. Illegal aliens damage our system of law. "For employers, the chief threat in illegal immigration is that it reduces their ability to conduct effective due diligence investigations -- one of the most important tools in protective security efforts." (Stratfor) As long as our elected officials, our law officials, and significant numbers are willing to look the other way with this particular crime, there is a greater likelihood that unsavory characters, such as "Angel Maturino Resendiz, a serial rapist and killer who illegally entered the United States several times," or "Lee Boyd Malvo (also known as John Lee Malvo), who confessed to a role in the 2002 sniper attacks in Washington, D.C., entered the United States illegally from Jamaica;" and "Abdel Basit (more widely known as Ramzi Yousef) was an illegal alien who came from Pakistan in order to carry out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing" can enter our borders. Illegal immigration contributes to identity fraud and a substantial amount of crime geared toward individuals.

It is unrealistic to expect that our law enforcement is capable of securing our trains and subway stations, our bus terminals, our shopping malls, or other places where mass amounts of people can be targeted. But we can take our rule of law and the values upon which it is founded more seriously. By doing so, we are taking more responsibility in our role as citizens and can help stave off some of the potential terrorist attacks and lower the threat to our overall security. Getting back to the human interest story, while a cat has 9 lives, each of us has only one. Are you willing to unnecessarily risk yours or those of your loved ones?

Quote

Independents to Help Pick Nominees
By BEN EVANS        Associated Press        January 28, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) -- More than half the states holding presidential contests next month on Super Tuesday allow unaffiliated voters to participate, giving millions of independents a chance to shape what is usually an insider affair among Democratic and Republican loyalists.

Two of those states -- California and New Jersey -- together have nearly 6 million unaffiliated voters who will be allowed to cast ballots. Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts and Alabama are among other prized catches with millions of independents eligible for the Feb. 5 contests.

The open voting is widely considered to benefit Democratic Sen. Barack Obama and Republican Sen. John McCain, who have fared well among independents in recent polls and primaries. It also is reflected in Obama's words, from his outreach to Republican voters to his recent credit to Ronald Reagan in the context of elections that represent shifts in political direction.

''Obama's trying to do two things at once. On the one hand, energize the liberal base, but also attract independents who are looking for a bipartisan problem-solver,'' said Jack Pitney, a former deputy research director for the Republican National Committee and a government professor at Claremont McKenna College in California. ''That's a very difficult balance, and (Hillary) Clinton is trying to highlight the contradiction there.''

Pitney and others said turnout will probably be high among independents because of the wide-open contests in each party. But it's tricky to predict the impact, they said.

In winning South Carolina's primary Saturday, for example, Obama drew 42 percent of voters describing themselves as independents, compared with 26 percent for Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, according to exit polls.

But he had similar advantages among independents in New Hampshire and Nevada, and lost both states as Clinton won stronger support from core Democrats.

''It makes a difference at the margin,'' Pitney said. ''I don't know of any cases where independents by themselves have decided a nomination, but in a very close contest, they might be able to tip it one way or another.''

Fifteen of the 24 states holding contests on Super Tuesday have some form of flexible voting system. Some are wide open, allowing voters to cast ballots in either party regardless of political affiliation. Others have semi-open primaries, allowing unaffiliated voters to participate if they register with a party on the day of the primary.

Obama could get the biggest boost, analysts said, because independents appear to be leaning toward Democrats this year.

Six in 10 opted to participate in the Democratic contest in New Hampshire's open primary. In exit polls, they have expressed dissatisfaction with President Bush and the war in Iraq, as well as strong concerns about the economy.

Among Republicans, McCain has continued to attract independent voters as he did against George W. Bush in 2000, but they haven't turned out as strongly.

In winning South Carolina's GOP primary on Jan. 19, McCain took 42 percent of the unaffiliated vote to Mike Huckabee's 25 percent. But those voters made up only 18 percent of the electorate, compared with 30 percent in 2000.

Another potential pitfall for McCain is that in California -- which has more delegates than any other state -- independents will not be allowed to participate in the GOP primary because party leaders decided to close their contest, while Democrats are keeping theirs open.

Speaking to reporters in Florida on Thursday, McCain said that while he appreciates his independent support, he can win only on the backs of fellow Republicans. Indeed, his 2000 loss to Bush proved the point.

''It's very good to get independents and it increases your lead and it shows that you are electable nationwide,'' he said. ''But you still have to rely on the Republican base.''

The ranks of unaffiliated voters have grown steadily since the 1960s. Experts estimate that about one in five eligible voters nationally are independents. But the figure is difficult to pin down because many states don't require voter registration by party, and many voters who call themselves independents lean strongly toward one party.

Among states with partisan registration, percentages vary widely.

California's 3 million unaffiliated voters account for about 19 percent of the state's total registered. In New Jersey, some 2.8 million are unaffiliated -- well over half. Kansas and Massachusetts, two other Super Tuesday states with flexible primary rules, have 447,634 (27 percent) and 2 million (50 percent) unaffiliated voters, respectively.

Quote

Bush, Fresh Off State of the Union, Set to Sign Order Directing Fed Agencies to Ignore Earmarks Not Voted On by Congress

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

WASHINGTON —  President Bush was set to act Tuesday on his State of the Union promise to sign an executive order directing federal agencies to ignore any future earmarks not voted on by Congress.

Bush warned lawmakers he would flourish his veto pen if Congress does not rein in the number of congressional earmarks — money set aside for pet projects — that make it into law without a vote.

As many as 95 percent of earmarks are inserted after Congress has voted on appropriations measures, and the pork is never seen by most lawmakers. Bush called on Congress during last year's State of the Union to cut the number of earmarks in half, but Monday night he chided lawmakers for failing to do so.

"So this time, if you send me an appropriations bill that does not cut the number and cost of earmarks in half, I will send it back to you with my veto," Bush promised. "If these items are truly worth funding, the Congress should debate them in the open and hold a public vote."

To that end, Bush was scheduled in the afternoon to sign an executive order called "Protecting American Taxpayers From Government Spending on Wasteful Earmarks."

The types of projects targeted would include the likes of which have been pilloried in the recent budget-writing session, such as an insert by Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens to provide $20 million for a "Ferry to Nowhere," or the $1 million earmark obtained by New York Sen. Hillary Clinton for a museum dedicated to the 1969 Woodstock festival.

Earmarks grew substantially in number in recent years while Republicans were in charge of Congress, and draw criticism because they often are inserted quietly into bills near the end of consideration, and often are approved unnoticed. Because they have been used by some lawmakers to curry favor with political donors, some lawmakers have begun to declare which earmarks they seek.

In his seventh and final State of the Union address, Bush also advised Congress to trust the American people and urged both houses to take quick action to prevent a recession. He also declared his intentions to continue ongoing operations in Iraq.

He acknowledged a slowing economy but said a $150 billion tax rebate and business investment deal reached by the White House and House leaders would prevent a downturn.

"In the long run, Americans can be confident about our economic growth. But in the short run, we can all see that growth is slowing," he said, acknowledging hikes in food and gas prices. "At kitchen tables across our country, there is concern about our economic future."

The House was set Tuesday to take up a stimulus package and likely will pass it as a "suspension" bill, suggesting it has overwhelming support. Though the White House and House leadership agreed on details of the plan, some senators say they want to add elements such as boosts to unemployment benefits and food stamps.

"The temptation will be to load up the bill. That would delay it or derail it, and neither option is acceptable. This is a good agreement that will keep our economy growing and our people working. And this Congress must pass it as soon as possible," Bush said.

The president spoke in programmatic terms in his last planned address to Congress but frequently repeated the refrain to trust in the American people, saying "the miracle of America is that our greatness lies not in our government but in the spirit and determination of our people."

"So long as we continue to trust the people, our nation will prosper, our liberty will be secure, and the state of our union will remain strong. So tonight, with confidence in freedom's power and trust in the people, let us set forth to do their business," he said.

But trust in the president is low, according to polls, and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who offered the Democratic response, suggested Bush should latch onto the ideas of the Democratic-led Congress instead.

"We are Americans sharing a belief in something greater than ourselves, a nation coming together to meet challenges and find solutions; to share sacrifices and share prosperity; and focus, once again, not only on the individual good but on the common good," Sebelius said.

"On behalf of the new American majority — the majority of elected officials at the national, state and local level, and the majority of Americans, we ask you, Mr. President, to join us. We are ready to work together, to be the America we have been— and can be once again."

In his blueprint for his final year in office, the president said that the collective wisdom of ordinary citizens should be the government's guide. And in a tone suggesting familiarity with Congress' historically low approval ratings, he suggested that Congress make it easier for Americans to help lift up the country by passing several economic and policy initiatives, including a permanent repeal of key tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 and set to expire in 2011.

"Some in Washington argue that letting tax relief expire is not a tax increase. Try explaining that to 116 million American taxpayers who would see their taxes rise by an average of $1,800," the president said to laughter from Republicans and silence from Democrats. "Others have said they would personally be happy to pay higher taxes. I welcome their enthusiasm, and I am pleased to report that the IRS accepts both checks and money orders."

Bush's presidency has been marked by job growth for 52 straight months, an increase in wages and exports. But a decline in the housing market is straining many Americans facing ballooning mortgage payments and little increase in home equity.

Earlier in the day, the Commerce Department reported that sales of new homes dropped 26.4 percent in 2007 and the median price of a new home edged up by only 0.2 percent, the lowest rise since the 1991 housing slump.

Bush, whose administration late last year helped broker a deal with mortgage lenders, has been looking for ways to stop an economic meltdown.

Among his proposals, he repeated his call for lawmakers to pass legislation to reform quasi-public lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to modernize the Federal Housing Administration and to allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to help homeowners refinance their mortgages.

The Federal Reserve, which already has slashed a key interest rate three-quarters of a percent, was expected Wednesday to cut rates once again in an attempt to jumpstart the slumping housing market.

The president also announced his desire to eliminate or trim 151 programs the White House calls "wasteful or bloated," creating a savings of roughly $18 billion.

Bush said with that savings, the 2009 budget he plans to send to Congress next week will keep America on track for a surplus in 2012.

"American families have to balance their budgets, and so should their government," he said to applause from both sides of the aisle.

Improving Quality of Life Through Innovation

The president suggested that to make quality health care more affordable, government must trust patients and doctors to make medical decisions and give them better options through expanding consumer choice.

He said he has proposed giving tax breaks to those who do not get health insurance through their employers and wants to expand health savings accounts, create Association Health Plans for small businesses, promote health information technology and stop "the epidemic of junk medical lawsuits."

On education, Bush praised Congress for passing the No Child Left Behind Act, his landmark education initiative that passed with a bipartisan vote six years ago. He asked Congress to expand the bill to increase accountability, add flexibility for states and districts, reduce the number of high school dropouts and provide extra help for struggling schools.

He said he wants to convene a White House summit aimed at strengthening opportunities for low-income students to receive good educations and proposed $300 million for children in struggling inner-city schools.

If approved by Congress, the "Pell Grants for Kids," named after the popular college grant program, would give money to families of poorer children so they could attend private or better public schools.

In addition, he promoted the American Competitiveness Initiative, which passed Congress but was never funded, calling it an opportunity to keep America on the cutting edge of science and technology by expanding the number of math and science instructors in schools as well as educational grants for research.

Bush also suggested trusting "in the creative genius of American researchers and entrepreneurs" and empowering them to develop the next generation of clean energy technology.

Bush noted that Congress started in the right direction when it passed an energy bill late last year that aims to reduce oil consumption over the next decade but said it still needs to pass a plan to fund technologies for clean coal, renewable fuels and emissions-free nuclear power.

He suggested helping pollution-prone developing nations such as India and China make greater use of clean energy sources through international agreements and said the U.S. is committed to strengthening energy security and confronting global climate change.

"The best way to meet these goals is for America to continue leading the way toward the development of cleaner and more efficient technology," he said.

Another area where science has had a breakthrough is the discovery of a way to reprogram adult skin cells to act like embryonic stem cells. Bush said he is expanding funding for that type of "ethical" medical research, which "has the potential to move us beyond the divisive debates of the past by extending the frontiers of medicine without the destruction of human life."

Maintaining a Strong Presence Abroad

While the president conceded that domestic priorities including Social Security and immigration were unlikely to be achieved this year, he did revisit foreign policy issues that have dominated his two terms in office and which the administration hopes will result in a legacy known for its "freedom agenda."

"In the last seven years, we have witnessed stirring moments in the history of liberty," Bush said. "And these images of liberty have inspired us. In the past seven years, we have also seen images that have sobered us … [and] serve as a grim reminder: The advance of liberty is opposed by terrorists and extremists — evil men who despise freedom, despise America and aim to subject millions to their violent rule."

Bush said the surge in Iraq he ordered a year ago on the advice of his top commanders enabled the Iraqi people to stop worrying "that America was preparing to abandon them" and instead see neighborhoods cleared of terrorists.

"While the enemy is still dangerous and more work remains, the American and Iraqi surges have achieved results few of us could have imagined just one year ago," he said, adding that though his opponents will continue to deny that the surge in Iraq is working, "among the terrorists there is no doubt — Al Qaeda is on the run in Iraq, and this enemy will be defeated."

After a burst of bipartisan applause, Bush said that because of the progress, the administration is implementing a policy of "return on success," and the surge forces will continue to come home — eliciting a standing ovation from Republican lawmakers while virtually all Democrats sat silent.

Already, some of the 20,000 U.S. troops on their way home have arrived, including one Army brigade combat team and one Marine Expeditionary Unit. They will not be replaced in the field.

"In the coming months, four additional brigades and two Marine battalions will follow suit," he said.

But after achieving so much success in Iraq, Bush said it would be foolish to ignore the recommendations of Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander there, who has warned that too fast a drawdown could result in lost ground.

"Members of Congress: Having come so far and achieved so much, we must not allow this to happen," he said, once again drawing a burst of applause from the Republican side of the aisle.

The president said the coming year will be used "to sustain and build on the gains we made in 2007, while transitioning to the next phase of our strategy. American troops are shifting from leading operations to partnering with Iraqi forces and, eventually, to a protective overwatch mission."

He also stressed that the Iraqi government is taking responsibility for that country's future.

"The national government is sharing oil revenues with the provinces. The parliament recently passed both a pension law and de-Ba'athification reform. Now they are debating a provincial powers law. The Iraqis still have a distance to travel. But after decades of dictatorship and the pain of sectarian violence, reconciliation is taking place," he said.

Bush said that the "difficult work" must be done now so that "years from now people will look back and say that this generation rose to the moment, prevailed in a tough fight and left behind a more hopeful region and a safer America."

In the Democratic response, Sebelius suggested that Iraq was not worth the price.

"The last five years have cost us dearly in lives lost; in thousands of wounded warriors whose futures may never be the same; in challenges not met here at home because our resources were committed elsewhere. America's foreign policy has left us with fewer allies and more enemies," she said.

As the troops begin to come home, Bush pledged to the service men and women that they will continue to have what they need to protect the United States and to return to civilian life.

Bush said funding for veterans has increased by 95 percent over the last seven years, but the

Quote

FOXSexpert: The Art of the Quickie

Monday, January 28, 2008        Yvonne K. Fulbright

What takes less time than brewing a pot of coffee, or sitting through Super Bowl commercials, or filling up your gas tank? Sex-on-the-run, that is! In today’s busy world, the quickie is catching on. People are not only turned on to the time efficiency and minimal efforts involved in such "sexcapades," but all of the great things sex on the fly can do for your relationship. Quickies can:

— Provide stress relief

— Rekindle passion and love, even going so far as to be a relationship saver

— Decrease performance anxiety

— Boost your mood, energizing your mind, body, and soul

— Help you lose weight

— Up your sexual desire

— Do the trick for those times you’re too busy for leisurely lovemaking.

Given its many benefits, it seems that more and more couples are breaking up their "normal" routine with quickie quests. In indulging their sexual urges — in responding to their sexual desires — and in a timely fashion no less, couples are making memories as they strengthen their relationship with such animalistic adventures. The ones who are successful with their instant gratification pursuits will tell you that they simply follow a few rules:

1. Quickies are all about carpe diem - seizing the day. You can’t wait for the perfect moment. You can’t wait until you’re feeling or looking a certain way when it comes to must-lust-now moments. Don’t make excuses. Just do it!

2. Realize that quickies don’t require having all out sexual intercourse. Quickies can involve no more than making out, heavy petting, or oral interludes. Strapped for time, many couples use these ravenous rendezvous as a form of foreplay, keeping each other primed for longer passion pursuits when time allows.

3. Understand that you’re not necessarily going to be making love. While a quickie should never be handled as a hit-and-run, it’s okay for such coitus cocktails to be served up a bit chilled at times. Quickies will never — or should never — replace your "regular" sex life. They’re simply ways to satiate your I-miss-you-I-can’t-resist-you sex fix.

4. You need to be okay with the fact that you may not climax. Quickies are not always going to result in orgasm for a man or woman. They’re more about connecting with each other than physical gratification.

5. Be willing to tease each other throughout the day. While this is not necessary, wooing with each other while apart — whether via titillating text messaging, erotic emails, or flirty phone calls — sets sexual arousal in motion. This is the closest you’ll come to foreplay. Such seduction strategies also allow one’s sexual response, including orgasm, to come more readily during your "drive thru" desire efforts.

6. Turn yourself on throughout the day. Get in the mood to be in the mood when the moment takes you. You can do this by fantasizing about what you’ll do later, by reading erotica on your coffee break, by remembering how you felt last time you… (I’ll let you fill in that blank).

So with the rules of the game understood, how do you actually pull off a quickie?

First, dress for success. This starts with clothes that make you feel sexy. Consider attire that allow for as much skin touch as possible. This could be fabrics that feel good, like satin, or outfits that don’t leave much to the imagination. Furthermore, while you’ll be consumed with that rip-my-clothes-off feeling, you don’t want to actually remove any clothing, since that wastes time and raises the stakes should you get busted.

Go for the unexpected. Half the thrill of a quickie is its lack of planning. Be bold and give your partner a little bit of love when it’s least expected. Don’t wait for the bedroom. Part of what makes quickies so captivating is the element of devilish dare and astonishment.

Turn the ordinary into the extraordinary. For example, you have to eat, right? Well instead of dining at your dinner table, feast on your lover, arranging your sushi, crackers and cheese, whatever, on your partner’s stomach, buttocks or back. Get into a quickie mentality, evaluating everything you do as possible moments for "misbehaving."

Choose positions from which you can easily unwind. Enough said.

Keep things wet. It’s not unheard of for those on regular quickie quests to arm themselves with travel-size lubricants. Wetter makes for better action — and easier efforts too.

Explore your territory — indoors and out — privacy within reason. You certainly don’t want to have anybody, like a police officer, catching you in the act. That’s not to say, however, that you can’t push the envelope in your erotic pursuits. Just be smart about it.

While quickies may not be considered quality couple time for a lot of people, they’re worth pursuing, if only occasionally. Weekly, monthly, or yearly, the rewards are great. This is especially true when you consider that sexual satisfaction is a stronger predictor of a higher quality of life. Furthermore, there is a strong association between sexual interest and one’s sense of well-being. Those who have more frequent and more enjoyable sex during midlife report more satisfying sex lives as they mature. Personally, I can’t think of better reasons to get a little fresh with a special honey, even if it’s no more than fleeting sexual antics.

In the Know Sex News…

— In charge and willing to wait. According to a study in the Journal of Adolescent Health, when it comes to engaging in first-time sex, Latina women are strongly influenced by a sense of personal control over sexual behaviors. Research out of the University of Chicago Medical Center, focusing on this population, indicates that a greater sense of personal control is the strongest factor in delaying sexual intimacy, outweighing the influence of partners, friends, and family. Family expectations played heavily as well, especially when a female’s family regarded her education as important.

— It only takes one person, one time. Almost one-third of college-aged women who have had only one sexual partner still acquired human papillomavirus within one year of becoming sexually intimate. A study in the Journal of Infectious Diseases asked women to track their sexual activities and to estimate how many sexual partners their partners had had. Women whose partners were thought to have had at least two previous sexual partners were likelier to have HPV. Amongst possible reasons for infection: unreported sexual partners by participants or their lovers, and decreased condom use over the course of the relationship.

— Tech-style sex communication gets a big push at SexTech Conference. With 90 percent of 12 to 17-year-olds using the internet, and 35 percent of 8 to 12-year-olds equipped with their own cell phone, health professionals and educators are utilizing video podcasts, computer games, and text messages to educate teens about sexual health and sexuality. The Internet Sexuality Information Services (ISIS), in conjunction with Columbia University and the University of Colorado, plans to launch an HIV/AIDS awareness project on MySpace for 14- to 18-year olds, given its users are in the millions.

Quote

The Real Fairy-Tale

by Monica Crowley (more by this author)

Posted 01/23/2008 ET

Once upon a time, there was a Mythical First Black President who held court with his white Wife. They lorded over the land, until he was impeached and she bolted for the world's greatest deliberative body.
    
Today, the Mythical First Black President is trying to help the Wife beat the Candidate who could be the Actual First Black President.
    
The Wife launched the first racial salvo, when she suggested that all Martin Luther King, Jr. did for civil rights was to "make speeches."  To reinforce the point, she said, "It took a president (Lyndon Johnson) to get it done."  Meaning: it was swell that King made some speeches and stuff, but it took the white guy in power to make it happen.
    
The Mythical First Black President then disrupted his welcome in Black Presidentville with a cranky tantrum:  the campaign of the Candidate was "the biggest fairy tale" he'd ever seen.
    
Blacks around the country took offense that their Mythical Leader would dismiss the actual black candidate as a fantasy, so the Mythical First Black President took to the airwaves to try to clarify: he meant that the Candidate's position on Iraq was a "fairy tale," not his candidacy.  Most black audiences weren't buying what the MFBP was selling this time.
   
Meanwhile, the Wife claimed that while the Candidate was an "inspirational speaker" (shorthand for a great preacher), he hadn't "put in the spade work to be president."
    
The Rev. Al Sharpton must be too busy admiring his "Destroying Don Imus Award" to notice.
    
Two Sundays ago on "Meet the Press," the Wife claimed that this campaign shouldn't be "about race."  Which is why she didn't mention race, right?
    
New polls show that black voters support the Candidate by a 50 point margin over the Wife of the Mythical First Black President.  Among white voters, the Wife has a much more vulnerable 14 point lead. 
 
Meanwhile, the Candidate seems to have finally figured out that he isn’t just running against the Wife, but against the Mythical First Black President as well.

In comments to a newspaper last week, the Candidate seemed to casually mention that Ronald Reagan had changed the country "in ways that Richard Nixon did not" and "in ways Bill Clinton did not."  He did three crucial things here: 1. he acknowledged that 2008 is a change election year on the scale of 1980; 2. he acknowledged that Reagan was a vitally important change agent (hello, conservatives!); and 3.  he hit back at the Mythical First Black President, perhaps falling into a trap set for him by the MFBP’s Team in order to reinforce how “naïve” and “inexperienced” he is.
    
But this may be the only way the Candidate can deal with the reality that the Mythical First Black President isn't just a surrogate for the Wife, but is himself running for a third term.
    
On Monday’s Good Morning America, the Candidate said, "Bill has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a level that I think is pretty troubling.  He continues to make statements that are not supported by the facts....This has become a habit, and one of the things that we're going to have to do is to directly confront Bill Clinton when he's making statements that are not factually accurate."
    
What?!  The Mythical First Black President, an habitual liar?! 
    
The Candidate also took a page out of the MFBP’s 1992 playbook: that year, the upstart Arkansas governor referred to the incumbent president against whom he was running as "Mr. Bush."  The Candidate referring to the MFBP as "Bill" is a delectable example of "what goes around, comes around."
    
All three Democratic candidates for president -- the MFBP, the Wife, and the Candidate -- spent the Martin Luther King, Jr. national holiday dueling for black votes.  The Mythical First Black President thinks he can charm those voters on behalf of the Wife.  But the actual black man in the race has a thing or two he wants to say about that, and for the first time, the MFBP may be out of his depth.
    
Black voters in South Carolina and beyond might say to the New Hampshire women who carried her over the finish line, "We're glad you're proud to have a woman in the race.  But we've got a black man in the race, and we're proud of him, too."  The pendulum, in other words, may swing again.
    
Here's another rich but sad irony: the Mythical First Black President and the Wife claim to embrace minorities, to work for their advancement, to help them achieve equality, and to work toward racial unity.  And yet they stoke the flames of racism, dismissing a black man of undeniable ability as a "fairy tale," and dividing by race.
    
For two people who claim to admire Dr. King, the Mythical First Black President and his Wife have turned his most powerful adage upside down:  they are asking us to judge the black candidate by the color of his skin, NOT by the content of his character.
    
Then again, would you expect anything different from two people whose own characters are empty and malignant?

Quote

Bush Administration Wrong on Guns

by Sean P. Trende (more by this author)

Posted 01/22/2008 ET

Every Supreme Court term has at least one “blockbuster” case that send shockwaves not only through the legal community, but also through the general public.  Cases like the Kelo decision, allowing governments to convert your house into a shopping mall (provided it isn’t too nice of a house), the first and second Carhart decisions, denying and then allowing restriction of partial birth abortion, or the recent Parents Involved case restricting the ability of school districts to use race in their admission processes, shape the public consciousness about the Court and its actions.

Although there are several important cases this term, none will have the effect on the public’s mind that the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller will have.  In that case, the Supreme Court will finally take up one of the great, undecided matters of constitutional law:  Whether the Second Amendment guarantees a personal right to bear arms.  Whatever the Court decides, it will have implications on electoral politics for the next generation.  Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has ignored an opportunity to push the Court toward the right on the issue, and transform the politics of the 2008 elections in the process.

A key step in the development of Second Amendment jurisprudence was the Bush Administration’s decision to adopt the “individual rights” theory of the Second Amendment.  This theory holds that the Supreme Court’s Miller decision was, in essence, incorrect, and that the right to keep in bear arms means what it says -- that an individual has a right to own guns.  The Department of Justice in 2001 reversed the Clinton Administration’s previous position on the right to bear arms, setting off a firestorm of criticism.  Yet for the past seven years, the Administration has stood its ground and consistently instructed its United States Attorneys to argue for the individual right to bear arms, if they could given the law of their Circuit.

 So it came as an absolute shock to many supporters of an individual right to keep and bear arms when the Solicitor General filed a brief in the Heller matter opposing the plaintiffs’ claims.  This remarkable brief brings back memories of the Administration’s position in the Grutter and Gratz cases, where the Administration argued that, while the schools’ affirmative action policies were unconstitutional, the rationale behind them was not.

The Solicitor General’s brief in Heller similarly tries to split the baby.  It argues, strenuously, that the Constitution does protect and individual’s right to bear arms.  It also argues that, like other rights in the Bill of Rights, the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited.  It then suggests a more restrictive test for the right than that used by the Court of Appeals:  that a court should consider the practical impact of the regulation on the right to bear arms and the government’s interest in the enforcement of the regulation, rather than the Court of Appeals’ more categorical approach to regulations of “Arms.”  In other words, it argues for a kind of intermediate scrutiny.  The Solicitor General suggests that the Court adopt a different test than that used by the Court of Appeals, and then remand the case for further review.

Which raises the question:  What the heck was the Bush Administration thinking?  For decades, a critical component of the Republican coalition has been working class gun owners who are bothered by the Democrats’ embrace of gun control.  Republicans actually seem to have won that battle, with Democrats backing off of gun control legislation in the recent Congress.  Why after enduring so much hostile press would the Bush Administration sell out the NRA at this critical juncture?  And why make the reversal in a difficult election year, when the support of gun control opponents will be so critical to Republican fortunes?

There are two potential answers.  The generous answer lies in the composition of the Court.  It is thought that the four “conservative” Justices -- Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito -- are sympathetic to the individual right to bear arms.  The four “liberal” Justices -- Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer and Souter -- may be more hostile.  This leaves Justice Kennedy as the swing vote.  Kennedy is notoriously difficult to predict, especially on high-profile “social issues.”  It is also true that within the next few years, Justices Stevens and Ginsburg will be replaced, possibly with a Republican President.  So the Solicitor General may be gambling that Justice Kennedy will be easier to persuade with a lower standard, or that if the plaintiffs get a remand, the Court may be more conservative when the case comes back up, and more likely to win in the long run.

The less generous answer lies in the reality of the Bush Administration.  Contrary to the caricatures painted by liberals, there are precious few issues that the Administration has not sold the Right out on.  No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug benefit, monstrous budget deficits, McCain-Feingold, Patient’s Bill of Rights . . . all of these issues cross the gamut of modern politics, and all of them are issues where the Bush Administration’s Rovian plotting has placed it at loggerheads with standard conservatism.  Even on judges, where the Administration usually wins plaudits, conservatives forget Harriet Miers, and forget that two of Bush’s first ten Court of Appeals appointments were Clinton appointees.  Is it really that hard to believe that the Administration would lurch to the left on the issue of guns?

Regardless, this issue is in the Supreme Court of the United States.  Its decisions are not easily overruled once they are handed down.  Even if one gives the Administration the benefit of the doubt, it has made an awful error here by siding against the District’s citizens.  The job of a conservative administration is to attempt to persuade the Court to adopt conservative views, not to attempt to play politics or split the baby.  It has foregone an opportunity to write a brief that could persuade the Justices to adopt a view of the Second Amendment that assigned scrutiny commensurate with those of other guarantees of the Bill of Rights.  Moreover, in a high stakes election, which is likely to be a tough one for the Republican, the Administration has risked alienating a substantial portion of the Republican base, who are understandably incensed with the Administration, and will be apoplectic if the Court does not affirm the Court of Appeals.

The Administration seems to be playing a game of high stakes poker with an incendiary issue in an election year.  One can only hope it does not get us all burned.

Quote

Danger at the Borders

Posted By Bobby Eberle On January 24, 2008 at 7:33 am

We've heard about it time and again: areas along the border with high concentration of illegal alien activity become hotspots for drug-dealing, violence, and other crimes. Now, we increasingly hear stories of the Mexican military crossing the border into sovereign U.S. territory.

The first question we should ask is, "Why are they doing this?" Some believe they are trying to crack down on drug-smuggling and other crimes, while others believe that these incursions into the United States have more to do with seeing that the crimes are NOT stopped by U.S. officials -- that the military actually provides cover for the activities. The second question we should ask is, "Why is the U.S. allowing this?" This is our country, and no other military is allowed to simply drive across with hostile intent. Just read what's been happening lately...

According to the Department of Homeland Security's Customs and Border Protection Office of Border Patrol, there has been a staggering 278 incursions into the United States by Mexican government personnel since 1996. In 2007, the Office of Border Patrol Field Intelligence Center noted 25 incursions, 4 by Mexican military personnel and 21 by Mexican police officials.

The DHS report on incursions was obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by Judicial Watch. The organization combed through the report and found a number of < a>such as:

MEXICAN MILITARY INCURSION (ARMED/INTENTIONAL) TUCSON/TUCSON -- On April 23, 2007, Border Patrol Agents...reported a Mexican military incursion on the Tres Bellotas Ranch near Arivaca, Arizona. The agents were using night vision equipment and observed...seven to ten Mexican military personnel in Humvees carrying long arms...The agents continued to back away from the [soldiers] when they heard [one] soldier chamber a round into his rifle. The agents observed...that the military personnel had fanned out in a tactical formation on both sides of the US/Mexico International Boundary.

MEXICAN MILITARY INCURSION (ARMED/INTENTIONAL) TUCSON SECTOR/SONOITA SECTOR -- On July 5, 2007 a Border Patrol Agent...encountered six subjects dressed in tan colored BDU style clothing...A military style Humvee and a black Suburban were parked on the Mexican side of the border...Two of the subjects appeared to be carrying bundles of narcotics on their backs.

MEXICAN POLICE INCURSION (ARMED/INTENTIONAL) EL CENTRO SECTOR/CALEXICO STATION -- On August 26, 2007, Remote Video Surveillance System operators...observed a red Ford F150 south of the All American Canal between the United States and Mexico...Agents...encountered the vehicle and performed a vehicle stop...The agents found credentials on the driver indicating that [name redacted] is an Agent of the Mexican Agencia Federal de Investigation. The agents searched the vehicle and discovered several items to include: guns, ammunition, narcotics, night vision equipment, cell phones, a walkie talkie and a ski mask.

The full list of FY 2007 incursions is included in the report in the form of a table:

Our borders must be protected. There should be absolutely no debate on this issue. Congress has passed legislation to build a fence, then other legislators come around and defund it. In addition to physical barriers and surveillance, another element is needed.... something simple, but as of yet, missing from the process: political pressure. The government of Mexico will not change its ways unless pressure comes from the U.S. government. We cannot allow these incursions into sovereign U.S. land. We cannot allow Mexico to encourage the exodus of its people through illegal means as a way of bringing more money back to Mexico. Protection of our borders starts with the White House and ends at the border line.

>>Take Action Now! - Contact the President and Congress Here!

Quote

Newt: A GOP Dark Horse?
By Michael Reagan
January 25, 2008

Fred Thompson's gone. Duncan Hunter's gone. All these people are gone. Huckabee could become Huckabeen -- gone by next Tuesday. So could Rudy after next's Tuesday's Florida primary.

All of a sudden you've got this Republican primary coming down to McCain, Romney and Ron Paul. With all this uncertainty, just where can a conservative go? All of a sudden radio talk show hosts, who reflect the opinions of grass-roots conservative voters, are all over the lot hammering on Rudy, hammering on Romney, hammering on McCain and hammering on Paul.

Listening to them you get an idea who they want or don't want. They don't like McCain. Most probably they support either Huckabee or Romney. Although they think Rudy is gone, he could come back if he wins in Florida next Tuesday.

If Huckabee is finished, I think they go to Romney, who is somewhat more conservative than the rest. At any rate, conservatives could be faced with backing either McCain, or Romney, or Huckabee or even Rudy.

Or they could end up backing none of them.

Who, then, could conservatives end up backing? Well, who recently has come out with a new book? Who's doing all the shows talking about his new book? Who is advocating common-sense solutions to the most pressing problems America faces?

Newt Gingrich, that's who. He was out of the race for a long time, he toyed with the idea of running until Fred Thompson entered the race, and then he more or less pulled back.

Why Newt? Ask yourself why Ronald Reagan won. He won because he was able to excite a group of people in America that the liberal wing of the Republican party has never excited -- the grass roots.

Newt Gingrich is the last Republican to have done that -- to reach out to the grass roots, to all those conservative Republicans and Reagan Democrats. Remember, it was Newt who engineered the miraculous Republican take-over of Congress in 1994 -- something that was deemed impossible two years after Bill Clinton won the White House.

I wouldn't be surprised if he was out there quietly working the phones and hoping for a wide-open convention where the delegates -- not the primaries that selected many of them -- decide for themselves who they want to carry the GOP banner in the presidential election in November.

If Newt throws his hat in the ring he knows that in the blink of an eye he will have the grass roots behind him.

Look at what happened Saturday in South Carolina. McCain won with 33 percent of the vote, which means 67 percent of the voters said we don't want McCain; only 30 percent said yes to Huckabee, which means that 70 percent said no to him. About 15 percent went for Thompson, a mere 14 percent went for Romney and 2 percent went for Giuliani.

So basically the voters said a resounding "No" to all of the above.

So who can electrify the base and get them to come out from their bunkers and ignite a groundswell? On the record, the only person capable of doing that is Newt Gingrich.

Covering all the issues that concern the grass roots: Romney represents the Reagan economic approach; McCain, the national security issues; Giuliani represents the hard-line-on-crime position; and Huckabee covers the religious position. Everybody has a piece.

Newt Gingrich covers all of those issues, and in the eyes of the grass roots, he covers them brilliantly. Just as his Contract with America dealt with many of the issues that concerned the grass roots and won Congress for the GOP, his agenda goes right to the heart of our current problems. He's offering concrete solutions to all the concrete problems and that's what the grass roots crave.

As a result, if the nomination gets thrown open in a brokered convention, the person who comes out of the struggle the winner will most likely be Newt Gingrich.

If I'm right I'll back him to the hilt. If I'm wrong I'll follow my dad's lead and support the nominee no matter who he is.

Quote

Examining Republican Self-Destruction And The Term 'RINO'
By Frank Salvato
January 25, 2008

I have been avoiding the discussion of who I am supporting for the Republican presidential nomination in deference to urging others to thoroughly examine the platforms, agendas and records of all those in contention. Only by taking the time to circumvent the agenda-driven propaganda of the mainstream media (and in some cases its non-coverage of certain candidates) can we truly understand who each candidate is and what he -- or she -- stands for. With both my first and second choices now out of the race I believe it is time to examine the Conservative communities troubling propensity to self-destruct and the accurate definition of the term "RINO."

For the record, the two candidates that represented my vision of what leaders should be were -- and still are to a certain extent -- Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter. Both of these men are strong on defense and understand that no other issue really amounts to much if we lose the wars against Islamofascist aggression and the American Fifth Column. Given that, they too realize that our tax system, in dire need of restructuring, caters to congressional opportunism and financial malfeasance and that the government ought to start diminishing its role in Social Security so that we can lessen our government's "tax footprint" and continue the creation of an ownership society. They both have considerably more experience in government and non-caustic inside-the-beltway politics than any of the Democrats running for the White House yet they still hold true to the belief that elected officials serve their constituents.

Both of these good and decent men are now out of the race and are so for many reasons, chief among them: a lack of adequate media coverage and a lack of support from those who should have known better. Now we are left with yet again another election where we -- we who place the well-being of our nation before special interest litmus tests and victory at the cost of compromise -- are left with the task of electing the "lesser of two evils."

There has been much talk this election cycle about the principles championed by Ronald Reagan and whether or not the Reagan Coalition is dead. While I was a staunch supporter of Ronald Reagan, throughout his presidency and before, I was -- and still am -- more a supporter of the principles that he, I and many others felt were important for the well-being of our nation. To be certain, there were some issues that I felt less passionate about than he did but in my support of him and the conservative movement those differences fell to the priority of the issues upon which there was agreement; issues important to the immediate well-being of our country.

That being said, we must all realize that Ronald Reagan's "big tent party" was not a galvanized contingent of people who agreed on every issue. Reaganites of the era did not all belong to the same special interest groups or successfully pass every litmus test imposed. Ronald Reagan's "big tent party" was an association of individuals and groups who -- at their cores -- understood Reagan to be a torch bearer for the basic principles of conservatism, even if he didn't pass every litmus test imposed.

Ronald Reagan didn't strive to placate the most intricate tenets of every conservative special interest group; he strived to lead the country in a direction where each advocate or special interest group would be able to quest for their ideals independently of government. He championed a path to responsible, limited government and a civically responsible ownership society so that those with ideals different from his own could take their causes directly to the people instead of trying to socially engineer through congressional action or judicial activism.

In essence, Ronald Reagan said, "...this is what I stand for and I am willing to lead," not, "I am willing to follow the path where you would have me lead you."

Ronald Reagan has since passed on and our country is lesser for it, although richer for having had him at all. And with him goes the so-called Reagan Coalition and we should allow this to be so. History has always witnessed the degradation of ideological movements when they have outlived their revolutionary leaders. A perfect example of this is seen in the degradation of the Civil Rights movement after the fall of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Today's so-called "civil rights leaders" -- Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to name but two -- have devolved to an opportunistic race-baiting group of special interest charlatans more interested in power and control than in enabling the least fortunate among us to chart their own courses for success.

But this doesn't mean that we cannot build upon the Reagan legacy. In fact, we must build on the Reagan legacy. To do this we must first understand that we cannot achieve the dream of a responsible, limited government and a self-reliant, civically responsible ownership society without standing united in the basic principles of conservatism. We cannot place our special interest litmus tests before the well-being of the nation. We cannot demand that the Republican nominee be all things to all people. That impossible dream belongs to the false-promises of opportunistic politicians, not true leaders in government.

Further, we must realize that the path that leads back to an American society that values the well-being of our nation over the divisive power-mongering of partisan politics must be selfless. Individuals, special interest groups, advocates, unions and corporations must appreciate the fable about the goose that laid the golden eggs. Each and every one of us must make a concerted effort to dial back on the "me-first" attitude so prevalent in today's "I've got mine, to hell with you" society and start giving of ourselves -- voluntarily -- so that we steward the health of our nation; so that above all else, we maintain that "shining city on the hill" for future generations.

In the end, a good Republican recognizes there will more than likely be disagreements between candidates and voters on one or more individual issues. More importantly, a good Republican understands that those differences are trumped when the candidate is dedicated to moving down a principled ideological path toward the establishment of limited but effective government and societal self-reliance and that there always be an opportunity to advance dialogue on ideological differences among the populace.

In the end, a true RINO (Republican in name only) is one who places less value in the basic principles championed by Ronald Reagan and more value in using his name to further their ideological special interests, even if it means sitting an election out because they couldn't get their way. Thus is the true nature of the RINO, self-serving, self-destructive, arrogant, litmus test politics.

Quote

Of Rush And Reagan
By Lisa Fabrizio
January 24, 2008

This past weekend saw the vocalization of a much hoped-for wish of liberals everywhere: that, as one left-wing blogger put it, "Republicans are a collection of 'Lost Boys' right now, desperately looking for a national leader in the wake of the Bush disaster," while Juan Williams on Fox News Sunday happily posited that, "there's not a re-assembling of the Reagan Coalition."

From the right, movie critic and radio talk-show host Mike Medved has concluded that, "The big loser in South Carolina was, in fact, talk radio: a medium that has unmistakably collapsed in terms of impact, influence and credibility because of its hysterical and one-dimensional involvement in the GOP nomination fight."

He went on to explain that, "[John] McCain and [Mike] Huckabee are both decent and principled conservatives." I don't know about you, but a Republican who recently called the U.S. Constitution "a living breathing document" and another who is the icon of those who seek to curtail political free speech, don't represent my idea of conservatism. But are there any conservative candidates in the race who can win the nomination?

Old reliable Frank Rich, writing aboard the sinking ship that is the New York Times, has a predictably leftist answer. In a charming piece titled, Ronald Reagan Is Still Dead, he opines: "The G.O.P. presidential field's lack of demographic diversity by age, gender, ethnicity or even wardrobe, let alone race, is simply the leading indicator of how out of touch its brand has become." This kind of logic recalls the fashion stylings of Democrats past; like Al Gore's alpha-male, beige trousseau or John Kerry's blue bunny suit.

So far we've heard that the Reagan Coalition is dead, conservatism is in tatters and the influence of talk radio giants like Rush Limbaugh has gone belly up. As to the first charge, it's true that none of the current roster of candidates is Ronald Reagan; but that's akin to saying that the GOP is no longer the party of Lincoln because there's no Honest Abe in the race. What has changed is that, just as we have let the opposition obscure the fact that it was Republicans, and not Democrats, who supported and passed the Civil Rights Act, we have also allowed them to define conservatism and its true adherents for us.

So how should we interpret the early primary results? Well, in the first two contests, Iowa and New Hampshire, the majority of registered voters are Independents, and this showed when they cast their ballots for 'surprise' winner Mike Huckabee and John McCain, respectively. McCain and Huckabee also finished one/two in South Carolina, a state which has the most sizable military presence of any in the Union, as well as a huge Southern Baptist population; tailor-made demographics for these two.

In the meantime, almost imperceptibly--media-wise anyway--Mitt Romney posted wins in Wyoming, Michigan and Nevada, racking up more delegates in those states than any of his rivals has scored in total so far. Indeed, in taking Nevada, Romney garnered only one less delegate than did McCain in capturing South Carolina, and with considerably less fanfare. Romney's current delegate total (72), in fact nearly doubles that of his closest rival, the senator from Arizona (38). Out of a possible 2,380 national delegates, so far only156, or just 6%, have been chosen; hardly a reason for panic.

So why are McCain and Huckabee, and once again, Rudy Giuliani, garnering all the ink and airwaves while Romney and Fred Thompson do not? The answer is simple: conservatism is not dead. If it was truly dying, its opponents would do more to attack its principles and tenets instead of propping up its false practitioners on the basis of their personal magnetism or populist allure.

If the Reagan Revolution is stalled in this election cycle, it is because those at the head of the movement have stopped emphasizing its personal appeal to the average American. This is not the fault of Limbaugh--who is rightly perturbed that he must constantly spell out a candidate's conservative bona fides or lack thereof--but of those who forget that conservative ideals can resonate with voters in a way that liberalism cannot.

While folks who listen to Limbaugh can proclaim their core beliefs from the rooftops, liberal 'values' must be slowly indoctrinated into the mainstream. This is why liberal talk radio is such a failure. Except for their radical base, not many people can take the left-wing mantra straight up. To succeed, they must cloak their message in pleasant euphemisms like 'choice' and 'equal rights'.

Whatever polls may say, the majority of the American people do not embrace higher taxes, the culture of perpetual victimhood, government intervention in their lives, the taking of innocent life and the defeat of our military at the hands of those who would see us all dead. The first candidate who climbs up on the rooftop with Rush and the rest of us and shouts these things out loud, will be the one who walks away with the prize this summer.

Quote

Capitalism Doesn't Work, Mr. Gates?
By Lawrence Kudlow
January 25, 2008

Bill Gates, bloviating at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, is issuing a clarion call for a "kinder capitalism" to aid the world's poor. Gates says he has grown impatient with the shortcomings of capitalism. He thinks it's failing much of the world. This, of course, from a guy who's worth around $35 billion (give or take a billion).

Don't you just love it?

A guy without a college degree who invented a new technology process in his garage that literally changed the entire world, a guy who took advantage of all the great opportunities that a free and capitalist society has to offer and got filthy rich in the process, is now trashing capitalism and telling us it doesn't work. What chutzpah.

For all his do-good preaching, Gates is ignoring the global spread of free-market capitalism that has successfully lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and into the middle class over the last decade. Think China. Think India. Think Eastern Europe. (Maybe even think France under Nicolas Sarkozy.) Gates wants business leaders to dedicate more time to fighting poverty. But the reality is that economic freedom is the best path to prosperity. Period.

The latest stats out of China are revealing. Here's a country that was a basket case not so long ago and today is the world's fourth largest economy -- hot on the heels of Germany, the third largest economy. China just reported 11.2 percent fourth-quarter GDP, its fastest growth rate in 13 years. Total output for China is now 24.7 trillion yuan, or $3.42 trillion at current exchange rates.

At $14 trillion, the U.S. economy is still four times the size of China's. But we've had free-market capitalism for more than 300 years. China's only had it for about 15. China is still an undemocratic, authoritarian and repressive society that lacks the benefits of political freedom. But it was the late Milton Friedman who argued that the onset of free-market capitalism was the precursor to full-fledged democratic capitalism. China's on the right track.

Gates says he has witnessed steep income and cultural inequities in his travels around the world, in particular to Africa. But for this he should blame the absence of capitalist principles, not capitalism itself. Even the most compassionate corporate executives are not going to bring prosperity to impoverished countries with statist economies. Until Africa's nations undertake the market-oriented reforms that have boosted China and the other Asian Tigers -- like South Korea and Taiwan -- they will continue to rank at the bottom of the world prosperity scale.

The Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal 2008 Index of Economic Freedom reveals how free-market economics is spreading like wildfire, while state-run socialism is on the decline. And it's no wonder why. The free-market countries are prospering mightily, while the least-free economies are mired in poverty. We're talking North Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe and Iran. Also noteworthy is Venezuela. As the neo-socialist Hugo Chavez attempts to adopt Fidel Castro's failed economic model, he's sinking his nation toward Cuba-type poverty.

Economist Mark Perry, on his Carpe Diem blog site, reports that both the U.S. share of world GDP and its global stock market capitalization are shrinking. But this isn't a bad thing at all. It doesn't mean that America is heading downward. On the contrary, it means that newly freed economies are heading up.

The reality here is that the rising tide of global capitalism is lifting all boats that employ it. Capitalism works. It's a good thing. It's the key to unlocking a nation's prosperity. In fact, free-market capitalism is the greatest anti-poverty program ever devised by man.

Another billionaire, George Soros, the Davos partygoer who finances near every left-wing political-action group on both sides of the Atlantic pond, recently wrote in the Financial Times that the era of capitalism is coming to an end. Soros, of course, has been predicting this for at least 20 years -- through the greatest world boom in history. And how was it that Soros made his money? Trading currencies in the technologically advanced world financial markets, the very same markets that were spawned by 20th century free-market capitalism.

So I just have to smile when billionaires like Bill Gates and George Soros turn cold shoulders to the blessings capitalism bestows. Or when their buddy, Warren Buffett, broadcasts the importance of hiking tax rates on successful earners and investors.

Look fellas, the command-and-control, state-run economics experiment was tried. It was called the Soviet Union. If you hadn't noticed, it was a miserable failure.

Quote

In response to Pat Buchanan's blog @ http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24531&page=8&cp=1#hec104970, I wrote via comments back to him:

 

The problem, Pat, is that I think you are correct in that our candidates have it all wrong, but I think the fact is that conservatives don't have any true candidates in the Republican field. Polls are not reliable or else there would be no first Bush term, let alone a 2nd one, so don't believe that garbage that our conservative base likes Ron Paul (he's a RINO at best). Reaganism isn't dead, it's just that conservatives don't have somebody that embodies what it means to be a conservative running for Republican office. We want somebody that believes in the US interests first, above EPA, global markets, 'respect' around the world, and fair-play if it isn't a level playing field. We want someone tough on terrorism, crime, and bureaucracy. We want concealed-carry laws enacted, anti-gun laws revoked, frivolous lawsuits to be abolished, anti-abortion minded judges, and borders put up. We want tax-cuts, death tax repeals, and a level and easier tax code implemented. We want small government, our rights upheld, freedoms allowed, and to know that our Constitution is not a living, breathing document.

Ryan Manring

Quote

'Straight Talk' Express Takes Scenic Route to Truth

by Ann Coulter (more by this author)

Posted 01/23/2008 ET
 

John McCain is Bob Dole minus the charm, conservatism and youth. Like McCain, pollsters assured us that Dole was the most "electable" Republican. Unlike McCain, Dole didn't lie all the time while claiming to engage in Straight Talk.

Of course, I might lie constantly too, if I were seeking the Republican presidential nomination after enthusiastically promoting amnesty for illegal aliens, Social Security credit for illegal aliens, criminal trials for terrorists, stem-cell research on human embryos, crackpot global warming legislation and free speech-crushing campaign-finance laws.

I might lie too, if I had opposed the Bush tax cuts, a marriage amendment to the Constitution, waterboarding terrorists and drilling in Alaska.

And I might lie if I had called the ads of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth "dishonest and dishonorable."

McCain angrily denounces the suggestion that his "comprehensive immigration reform" constituted "amnesty" -- on the ludicrous grounds that it included a small fine. Even the guy who graduated fifth from the bottom of his class at the U.S. Naval Academy didn't fall for this a few years ago.

In 2003, McCain told The Tucson Citizen that "amnesty has to be an important part" of any immigration reform. He also rolled out the old chestnut about America's need for illegals, who do "jobs that American workers simply won't do."

McCain's amnesty bill would have immediately granted millions of newly legalized immigrants Social Security benefits. He even supported allowing work performed as an illegal to count toward Social Security benefits as recently as a vote in 2006 -- now adamantly denied by Mr. Straight Talk.

McCain keeps boasting that he was "the only one" of the Republican presidential candidates who supported the surge in Iraq.

What is he talking about? All Republicans supported the surge -- including Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. The only ones who didn't support it were McCain pals like Sen. Chuck Hagel. Indeed, the surge is the first part of the war on terrorism that caused McCain to break from Hagel in order to support the president.

True, McCain voted for the war. So did Hillary Clinton. Like her, he then immediately started attacking every other aspect of the war on terrorism. (The only difference was, he threw in frequent references to his experience as a POW, which currently outnumber John Kerry's references to being a Vietnam vet.)

Thus, McCain joined with the Democrats in demanding O.J. trials for terrorists at Guantanamo, including his demand that the terrorists have full access to the intelligence files being used to prosecute them.

These days, McCain gives swashbuckling speeches about the terrorists who "will follow us home." But he still opposes dripping water down their noses. He was a POW, you know. Also a member of the Keating 5 scandal, which you probably don't know, and won't -- until he becomes the Republican nominee.

Though McCain was far from the only Republican to support the surge, he does have the distinction of being the only Republican who voted against the Bush tax cuts. (Also the little lamented Sen. Lincoln Chafee, who later left the Republican Party.) Now McCain claims he opposed the tax cuts because they didn't include enough spending cuts. But that wasn't what he said at the time.

To the contrary, in 2001, McCain said he was voting against Bush's tax cuts based on the idiotic talking point of the Democrats. "I cannot in good conscience," McCain said, "support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief."

McCain started and fanned the vicious anti-Bush myth that, before the 2000 South Carolina primary, the Bush campaign made phone calls to voters calling McCain a "liar, cheat and a fraud" and accusing him of having an illegitimate black child.

On the thin reed of a hearsay account, McCain immediately blamed the calls on Bush. "I'm calling on my good friend George Bush," McCain said, "to stop this now. He comes from a better family. He knows better than this."

Bush denied that his campaign had anything to do with the alleged calls and, in a stunningly magnanimous act, ordered his campaign to release the script of the calls being made in South Carolina.

Bush asked McCain to do the same for his calls implying that Bush was an anti-Catholic bigot, but McCain refused. Instead, McCain responded with a campaign commercial calling Bush a liar on the order of Bill Clinton:

MCCAIN: His ad twists the truth like Clinton. We're all pretty tired of that.

ANNOUNCER: Do we really want another politician in the White House America can't trust?

After massive investigations by the Los Angeles Times and investigative reporter Byron York, among others, it turned out that neither of the alleged calls had ever been made by the Bush campaign -- nor, it appeared, by anyone else. There was no evidence that any such calls had ever been made, which is unheard of when hundreds of thousands of "robo-calls" are being left on answering machines across the state.

And yet, to this day, the media weep with McCain over Bush's underhanded tactics in the 2000 South Carolina primary.

In fact, the most vicious attack in the 2000 South Carolina primary came from McCain -- and not against his opponent.

Seeking even more favorable press from The New York Times, McCain launched an unprovoked attack against the Rev. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, calling them "agents of intolerance." Unlike the phantom "black love child" calls, there's documentary evidence of this smear campaign.

To ensure he would get full media coverage for that little gem, McCain alerted the networks in advance that he planned to attack their favorite whipping boys. Newspaper editors across the country stood in awe of McCain's raw bravery. The New York Times praised him in an editorial that said the Republican Party "has for too long been tied to the cramped ideology of the Falwells and the Robertsons."

Though McCain generally votes pro-life -- as his Arizona constituency requires -- he embraces the loony lingo of the pro-abortion set, repeatedly assuring his pals in the media that he opposes the repeal of Roe v. Wade because it would force women to undergo "illegal and dangerous operations."

Come to think of it, Dole is a million times better than McCain. Why not run him again?

Quote

Woman Faces 10 Years in Jail for Cutting Down Protected Trees to Improve View

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

RENO, Nev. —  A woman has been indicted on charges alleging she had three large trees up to a century old cut down on sensitive federal land near Lake Tahoe to improve her view, prosecutors said Wednesday.

Officials said they weren't aware of any similar federal prosecutions.

Patricia M. Vincent, 58, was indicted last week on charges of theft of government property and willingly damaging government property. If convicted, she faces up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for each count.

The three ponderosa pines stood on a plot the U.S. Forest Service had designated as environmentally sensitive as part of a water quality plan to help protect the clarity of Lake Tahoe. The trees were estimated at 80 to 100 years old; trees that age would be at least 2 feet in diameter at the base of the trunk.

"It is important that public lands, which are held in trust for the benefit of all citizens, are appropriately protected by our land management agencies," U.S. Attorney Gregory Brower said in a news release. "Individuals who unlawfully encroach on these lands and cause damage will be prosecuted."

Forest Service spokesman Rex Norman said there have been other cases of trees being cut down illegally on national forest land in the Tahoe Basin but he was not aware of any similar federal prosecution. Natalie Collins, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department in Las Vegas, said she also did not recall any similar prosecution.

The indictment accuses Vincent of hiring a commercial tree removal business in April to cut down the trees to enhance her view in Incline Village, one of the wealthiest towns on the shore of the mountain resort lake.

The damage exceeded $10,000, the indictment said.

Vincent could not be reached for comment and there was no indication if she had a lawyer. There is no telephone listing for a Patricia Vincent in Incline Village and there was no immediate response to calls and a fax message sent to a number listed for Robert Vincent at her address.

Quote

Massive California Snowstorm Strands Hundreds on Major Highway

Thursday, January 24, 2008

LOS ANGELES —  Authorities were helping hundreds of motorists stranded in the snow in Tejon Pass after a powerful storm forced the closure of California's major north-south interstate in the mountains north of Los Angeles.

Traffic was halted Wednesday in both directions on Interstate 5 in Tejon Pass, which rises to an elevation of 4,144 feet between the Los Angeles Basin and the San Joaquin Valley.

Early Thursday, a commercial inspector for the California Highway Patrol said CHP officers and Caltrans workers still were escorting down from the Pass area "hundreds" of motorists stranded by the snow and roadway closure.

Ruben Valverde of the CHP said authorities would try to reopen the road "probably some time in the morning."

"There are abandoned cars everywhere," said Wendy Gardner, a manager at Madd Bailey's Pub in Pine Mountain Club, where up to 10 inches of snow fell. "We got hit around 2:30 in the morning and it hasn't stopped."

A cold, upper-level low-pressure system off the Central Coast was responsible for the rain and snowfall, meteorologists said. Early Thursday, the storm had begun moving out of the region, the National Weather Service said.

Nearly a foot of snow was reported at the ranch community of Lockwood Valley in Los Padres National Forest, northwest of Los Angeles, the NWS said.

In Long Beach, heavy rain seeped through a plastic cover on the roof of an apartment building that was undergoing repair, damaging four apartments underneath, said Fire Department spokesman Will Nash.

"The plastic material couldn't hold up the heavy rain," Nash said.

A record 4.14 inches of rain were recorded at the Santa Barbara airport, topping the date's old mark of 2.45 inches set in 1943. More than 2 1/4 inches fell at the San Luis Obispo airport.

In Santa Barbara County, about 420 gallons of a liquid solvent called sulfolane spilled from the Popco Oil and Gas facility down a creek and into the ocean early Wednesday, said fire Capt. Eli Iskow. Crews working to contain the leak were overwhelmed by rainwater that swelled the creek, he said.

The leak apparently was caused by a mechanical failure in a gasket, Iskow said.

Quote

Three Pigs story ruled ‘offensive to Muslims’

Thursday, January 24, 2008

A children’s story based on the tale of the Three Little Pigs was rejected for an award after judges became concerned that it would offend Muslims, the Times of London reported.

Click here to read the full story from the Times of London.

The animated virtual book for primary school children, The Three Little Cowboy Builders, was also criticized for its potential to offend builders.

The row centered on the Bett awards, which were supported by Becta, the Government’s technology agency for schools. The judges’ remarks, reported on the education technology Web site Merlin John Online, included: “Is it true that all builders are cowboys, builders get their work blown down, and builders are like pigs?

“The idea of taking a traditional tale and retelling a story is fine, but it should not alienate parts of the workforce. Judges would not recommend this product to the Muslim community in particular.”

Ann Curtis, whose company, Shoo Fly Publishing, produced the CD-Rom, said the criticisms were unjustified and could even “propagate a racist stance”. She said: “I felt disbelief, to be honest. As a small company, we have a strong ethical and moral grounding. We support the rights of all children in the world to have access to education.

“To be told that we cynically set out to alienate minority groups is a very narrow-minded view.” She said the group had had messages of support from the local community, including Muslims. The book had already won an award in a separate competition.

But the Bett award’s backers — Becta, the Besa trade association and Emap Education — said that the book was rejected for a range of reasons. In a joint statement, they said: “The reason The Three Little Cowboy Builders was not shortlisted was that it failed to reach the required standard across a number of criteria. The . . . issues highlighted were a small selection from a much broader range of comments.

“In particular, the product was not sufficiently convincing on curriculum and innovation grounds to be shortlisted.”

The statement said the competition aimed to “reward inclusive and accessible designs” and was judged by a panel of 70 people, including many teachers.