Quote

Ideology Was Bush's Undoing

by Patrick J. Buchanan (more by this author)

Posted 11/27/2007 ET

Over lunch, a liberal friend expressed puzzlement. Citing the title of Tom Oliphant's new book about the Bush administration, "Utter Incompetents," he wondered aloud.

Like him or not, he said, Bush is not an unintelligent man, and he is a principled and energetic executive. As for Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and the others, almost all had long resumes of accomplishment in politics, government and business. Why, then, do they seem to have failed so dismally?

In my new book, "Day of Reckoning," published this week, I offer an answer. If there is a one root cause to the Bush failures, it has been his fatal embrace of ideology.

Ideology is substitute religion, a belief system based on ideas that are often contradicted by history and common sense. Yet men will adhere to ideologies with a zealotry that borders on fanaticism.

Marxism, fascism and socialism were are ideologies, gods that failed. So, too, is democratism, the Gospel of George W. Bush.

Democratism is a belief that all men are equally endowed with a desire for freedom and an aptitude for democracy. All can be uplifted, and all brought to see that democracy is the one true path to peace in our world. In democracy lies our salvation.

This conviction lay behind the invasion of Iraq, Bush's crusade to democratize the Middle East and his "global democratic revolution" to "end tyranny in our world." And, as Woodrow Wilson's crusade "to make the world safe for democracy" gave us Lenin, Stalin and Hitler, Bush's crusade for democracy is leaving us with ashes in our mouths.

Yet, Wilson's heart was pure, and he ever exhibited the serenity of the True Believer, the unmistakable mark of the ideologue. One imagines Bush will be preaching the dogma of free trade long after the last U.S. factory has closed and the dollar has reached parity with the Mexican peso.

Bush's "compassionate conservative" appears grounded in the ideological conviction that all children are endowed with the capacity to learn through the high school level. No Child Left Behind was going to raise the test scores of all our children above the national average, as in Lake Wobegon.

Why was it fated to fail? Because reality is otherwise. All children are not equal in their innate ability to learn English or math, as they are not equal in their ability to play sports, music or chess. A second-grader knows that, but our elites reject it as bigotry and blasphemy against the egalitarian dogmas that define who they are.

So we invest trillions, empower bureaucrats and enrich the education industry, demanding it produce what it has shown for 40 years it cannot produce. Today's SAT scores are far below where they were in 1964. Like socialists striving to make their system work in Cuba, China and Russia, we have been banging our heads against a brick wall of human nature.

Consider Katrina. Bush was indeed disengaged. But Katrina was a failure of government, not of Bush. The city of New Orleans, the state of Louisiana and FEMA all failed at the simple rescue of 30,000 people stranded by a few feet of stagnant water, while TV anchors boated back and forth bellowing for government to come save them.

Where were the men of New Orleans?

Why did the men of New Orleans, after getting their families out, not come back in boats to rescue the black women and children? Why did so many cops defect and start looting? And why did the National Guard and 82nd Airborne succeed and end the hysteria in hours?

In New Orleans, society collapsed because its basic building block, the family, has collapsed, for all the reasons we know too well.

Yet while civil government is failing, institutions like the 82nd, Microsoft and the New England Patriots succeed -- because they operate on other than ideological principles.
You don't vote for the head of Microsoft or choose the coach of the Patriots or commanding officer of the 82nd by elections.

These institutions reject egalitarianism. They put excellence before equality. They do not believe in a "level playing field" for opponents, but, with Vince Lombardi, that "winning isn't everything, winning is the only thing." They demand our best. You fall short, you are gone. They are intolerant of excuses and self-pity.

All who labor there know if they do not perform, the penalties are real: loss of jobs, income, prestige. In the 82nd, incompetence can mean dead comrades or your own death. They are one-for-all and all-for-one people. They are exclusive, not inclusive. They reject racial, ethnic and gender quotas and affirmative action. To the 82nd and the Patriots, there are places women simply do not belong.

Thomas Jefferson believed that in a republic a "natural aristocracy" of virtue and talent should rule. Those who run these institutions believe the same. That is why they succeed, and why government, when we ceased to be a republic and degenerated into an egalitarian democracy, so often fails.

Quote

Celebrities Unqualified to Give Political Endorsements

by Pat Sajak (more by this author)

Posted 11/28/2007 ET

There have been so many debates and interviews and columns and profiles and polls, it’s hard to believe the election for president is still about 11 months away. Recently, celebrity endorsements have been making news, with Oprah Winfrey saying she would campaign for Barack Obama and Barbra Streisand making the not-so-stunning announcement that she was supporting Hillary Clinton.

There are reasons, of course, why candidates welcome such help. First, there’s the bonanza of free publicity. With so many names and faces vying for attention, what could be better than the burst of news such endorsements bring? There’s also the burst of money these high-profile celebs can bring in themselves and attract from others. Then there’s the extra attention and excitement these stars engender when they appear at a candidate’s political events. It’s far easier to attract a crowd in Des Moines if a big TV, movie or recording star is standing next to the politician.

Putting those obvious benefits aside, the question remains: do these endorsements really translate into votes? Does anyone decide which candidate to choose based on the recommendation of a TV talk show host or a singer/actress? If any group of citizens is uniquely unqualified to tell someone else how to vote, it’s those of us who live in the sheltered, privileged arena of celebrityhood. It’s one thing to buy an ab machine because Chuck Norris recommends it (he’s in good shape, isn’t he?) or a grill because George Foreman’s name is on it (he’s a great guy, so it must be a great grill!), but the idea of choosing the Leader of the Free World based on the advice of someone who lives in the cloistered world of stardom seems a bit loony to me.

This is America, and we celebrities have just as much right as anyone else to speak up about any issue. The problem is that more attention is paid to what we say because we’re well known. But why should that matter? O.J. Simpson is one of the world’s best-known celebrities, but I can’t imagine anyone following his lead in a voting booth.

I suppose anything that gets people engaged in the political process is a good thing, but the idea that a gold record, a top-ten TV show or an Oscar translates into some sort of political wisdom doesn’t make much sense to me. Trust me, one’s view of the world isn’t any clearer from the back seat of a limo.

Quote

Rising Tide, Rising Burden

by Michelle Oddis (more by this author)

Posted 11/30/2007 ET

The immigrant population has hit its highest number in 80 years at 37.9 million according to an analysis of 2007 Census Bureau data on legal and illegal immigration, released Thursday by the Center for Immigration Studies.

The study’s data are compelling: in the seven years of the Bush administration, immigration -- especially illegal immigration -- has grown hugely, imposing a burden on the U.S. economy it may not long be able to sustain.

The Current Population Study (CPS) conducted by Steven Camarota, an advocate of limiting immigration and director of the Center for Immigration Studies, shows that between 2000 and 2007 the immigrant population rose by 7.3 million or 1.04 million per year, and that one in three immigrants is an illegal alien.

Particularly interesting is CPS’ analysis of legal and illegal immigrants accepting government assistance, illustrating growing economic burdens on U.S. taxpayers. The CPS found that 33% of immigrant-headed households use at least one welfare program compared to 19% for natives.

Government welfare programs cost the government about $600 billion a year, reports Camarota. Unskilled legal immigrants (defined as in not having completed high school) make the most use of the welfare system, an estimated 56% of households headed by unskilled legal immigrants use one major welfare program (cash assistance, food assistance, subsidized housing and Medicaid). Camarota told HUMAN EVENTS that the $600 billion is a rough total for federal, state and local payouts, though most of the amount is taken from federal welfare and entitlement programs.

The CPS notes that in most cases illegals can not use the welfare system themselves -- but their U.S. born children are eligible for food assistance and Medicaid. New York had the highest rate of illegal alien headed households using major welfare programs with 49%, then California at 48% and Texas at 44%. Overall 40% of illegals in the nation are on welfare.

The study showed that unskilled legal immigrants have high percentages of health insurance coverage, Camarota says this is because “a large share of unskilled legal immigrants and their children use Medicaid which is costly to taxpayers.”

Camarota says this indicates that legalization will not solve the problems of welfare use or low income associated with illegal immigration. In fact, legalization (amnesty) will increase welfare programs.

The burden also falls on state and local education systems. The CIS found that “immigration accounts for virtually all of the national increase in public school enrollment over the last two decades and in 2007 alone there were 10.8 million school-age children from immigrant families in the United States.”

Law makers and pundits remind Americans of the economic benefits of illegal immigration but what about the growing burdens this survey presents?

Immigration reform -- securing our borders and dealing with the at least 12 million illegal aliens now here -- is a key issue in the 2008 race and the Republican candidates are jockeying for positions on it. In Wednesday night’s CNN/YouTube debate former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said, “We are going to have to recognize in this country that we welcome people here legally…we should say if you’re here illegally, you should not be here, we’re not going give you benefits other than those required by the law like healthcare and education.”

Former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani said, “If I were president of the United States, I could do something about that by deploying a fence, by deploying a virtual fence, by having a BorderStat system like my COMSTAT system that brought down crime in New York and just stopping people from coming in and then having a tamper-proof ID card.”

Thompson’s response: “A nation that cannot and will not defend its own borders will not forever remain a sovereign nation. It's our home. And we now get to decide who comes into our home. We've got to strengthen the border. We've got to enforce the border. We've got to punish employers -- employers who will not obey the law. And we've got to eliminate sanctuary cities and say to sanctuary cities, 'if you continue this, we're going to cut off federal funding for you, you're not going to do it with federal money'.”

Arizona Sen. John McCain, whose presidential campaign was nearly demolished by his unpopular amnesty bill proposal said, “I want to assure you that I'll enforce the borders first, that as president of the United States, we'll solve this immigration problem. And we won't demagogue it. And we won't have sanctuary cities.”

In 2008, Americans will demand straight answers from candidates on how they will secure the borders and deal with illegal immigration. The Bush administration’s failure to do this -- best demonstrated in CIS’s immigration figures -- has caused voters to distrust what politicians have promised before. In 2008, Americans’ will make it impossible for candidates to evade or equivocate. How will they secure the borders? And by what measures will they claim success or failure? We deserve to get straight answers from them all. Conservatives will insist on getting them.

Quote

'Redacted' is Repulsive

by Ross Kaminsky (more by this author)

Posted 11/26/2007 ET

Brian DePalma’s “Redacted” did something that is not easy to do: It left me briefly at a loss for words. But given that words are what a movie review is made of, I shall select a few: Repugnant, repulsive, anti-American propaganda.

Whereas “Lions for Lambs” could have been written by a first-year college film class, “Redacted” could have been written by the “Ministry of Information” of Iran or Hamas.

The premise of the movie is a montage of different video sources, including videos taken by US soldiers, surveillance cameras, insurgents, and American civilians using YouTube-like programs and blogs. But what this movie is really about is summarized well in the “Plot Keywords” on IMDb.com: “Gang Rape”, “Iraq War”, and “Pregnant Woman Murdered”.

The film begins with PFC Angel Salazar (Izzy Diaz) taking video while conversing with other soldiers in his platoon. One soldier, Reno Flake (Patrick Carroll) gives us the movie’s tagline: “The first casualty of this entire conflict is gonna be the truth.” But the movie ends up being something that Goebbels might be proud of, as it repeats a “big lie”, namely that all American soldiers are murderous cretins or impotent collaborators and that the Army itself is cruel, hateful, and devious, with tedious and furious frequency.

After Salazar tells us that “Basically here, s*** happens”, the film moves to a faux French documentary focusing on a checkpoint in Samarra, Iraq manned by Salazar’s platoon. Soldiers are patrolling near the checkpoint and we are shown one being rude to kids, an overweight soldier sweating, and various bored soldiers flipping a lighter open and closed, squeezing an empty water bottle, or fidgeting with a machine gun cartridge. Those unflattering views represent the best treatment that a soldier receives in “Redacted”.

Other “bests” in the film include

• The most civil behavior demonstrated by soldiers: When a car pulls into a checkpoint, the soldiers are inexplicably rude and aggressive to the car’s passengers who are following every order they’re given. When a soldier asks the translator if the Iraqis are afraid of a large bomb-sniffing dog, another soldier responds “Who gives a f**k? F**k ‘em!”

• The most flattering description of soldiers: Flake, who was shown earlier with a Hustler magazine, is asked by his sergeant what he did before joining the army. Flake’s answer: “I was hanging out, f***ing around, getting drunk, trying to stay out of jail”. The sergeant then says “This right here is the cream of the army recruits”.

• The most complimentary description of Iraqis by a soldier:  The sergeant then proceeds to insult some local kids as “smiling soccer-playing s**t-birds”.

But it gets much worse than that.

Back at the checkpoint, a car goes through, not speeding, but not stopping. The machine-gunner, Flake, who was (of course) asleep, awakes with a start and blasts the car. We then see a bloody pregnant woman being taken to the hospital where she dies and we learn that she was in labor and on her way to give birth. Of course, the Americans killed an attractive, young, pregnant woman. How else would De Palma have it? Indeed, not once is a US soldier shown combating a terrorist; only harassing or murdering civilians.

When the soldiers are back in the camp, Salazar interviews Flake and Specialist B.B. Rush (Daniel Stewart Sherman), a fat, ignorant redneck who is “dumber than s**t, but he’s loyal.” Salazar says “Yesterday, Flake blew away his first civilian” and asks Flake how he feels “about that Haji (he) smoked”.

Flake’s response made me want to leave the movie (I didn’t), and boycott De Palma and Mark Cuban forever (I shall, and I encourage Dallas residents to shun the Mavericks until Cuban apologizes or dies): “The only language these sand ni***rs understand is force….Truth be told, it wasn’t everything it’s cracked up to be. I mean, I thought my first kill shot would blow my mind, but it was nothing. I was like gutting catfish.” A couple minutes later, he adds “Waxing Hajis is like stomping cockroaches.”

A member of the platoon is killed by an IED which leads to the real “plot” of the film. The platoon raids the home of a young girl who frequently passes through the checkpoint. They rough up the family and take the father away. That evening, the soldiers are playing poker and getting drunk when Flake suggests going back to the house for the girl.

Long story short, the one soldier who wants to stop them, Lawyer McCoy (Rob Devaney) isn’t strong enough to do it (and is shown in night-vision style, making his eyes glow demonically, so even the good American is evil.), Rush begins to rape the 15-year old girl while Flake goes in the next room to check on the other three cowering family members, a young girl, her mother, and the grandfather. Suddenly there is machine gun fire and Flake comes out holding an old rifle, saying that the grandfather was going to use it, so Flake killed them all. They laugh at the 15-year old and continue raping her. We learn later that when they finished, they shot her in the face and burned her body. Normally, I wouldn’t include this sort of detail in a movie review, but it’s the only way to both express how horrible the movie is and to encourage you all not to see it, not to contribute one dollar to “Redacted”’s hateful enterprise.

The acting in the movie is mediocre at best. The cast tries so hard to make the soldiers look bad that you never really forget they’re acting even when you’re angry at what they’re portraying. And while the movie isn’t dull, “snuff films” aren’t technically dull either, but that doesn’t mean a person should ever see one (and I haven’t). It is obvious in the first five minutes that this movie is intended to demonize our military. We don’t need 90 minutes of nearly-brain-dead soldiers crowing over murdering and gang-raping Iraqi girls to clarify the point.

Later, in retribution for the rape, Salazar (who watched but didn’t participate) is captured by insurgents and beheaded, with De Palma showing us his throat being cut, blood spurting on the floor, and giving us a gruesome crunching sound as the terrorist literally rips the head off the body before leaving the body lying in a field with Salazar’s head sitting on his chest. The Bedouin who finds the body doesn’t act with revulsion, but rather by calling others to “come see this” as if he were watching his favorite team make a good play; clearly De Palma wants us to agree with him.

Most of the rest of the movie is about McCoy feeling guilty and wondering aloud what he was doing in Iraq, the Army being made to look like deceitful idiots trying to protect Rush and Flake, and angry pierced-and-tattooed American youth arguing that a quick death is too good for our “fascist” soldiers.

Every moment of this movie is an attack on the US military. Every soldier is made to look evil, stupid, or feckless, everything from being rapists and murderers right down to being mean to kids. DePalma says in an interview that he’s clear these are the bad apples, but since he never shows any other character types the obvious implication is that the whole army is a barrel of bad apples.

In their desire to criticize the war and crucify the military, De Palma, Cuban and friends have taken to heart Goebbels’ belief that "It is not propaganda’s task to be intelligent, its task is to lead to success." But Americans are not highly susceptible to such transparent hatred which may explain why this film was first released in Spain and not yet widely released in America. At the time of this writing, about 1,050 people had rated this film on IMDB. There is a clear trend that the older (and wiser) the viewer, the less they liked the film. More interestingly, the average vote from a US viewer is about 4/10 while Non-US viewers rate it above 7/10.

This movie will likely do fairly well in Europe and very well in the Middle East, much as films about Jews making bread with childrens’ blood can do well in such places. In fact, “Redacted” is all to similar to those films in intent. The style of the film as a series of apparent documentaries interspersed with fake news broadcasts will be effective with unsophisticated viewers and many will believe what they are seeing to be true or at least representative. The movie will be shown as a recruiting tool by Al Qaeda and will cause at least a few ordinary people to hate and mistrust America. It wouldn’t surprise me if a few of those took violent action (or financed it) as a result. That blood will be on the hands of Brian De Palma and Mark Cuban. Unfortunately, that’s probably just what they want.

For self-hating Americans offering aid and comfort to the enemy, “Redacted” earns the full five Jane Fondas, as well as my undying enmity for those who created, financed, and acted in it.

HUMAN EVENTS gives "Redacted" our highest rating: Five Fonda's

Quote

Italy’s Open Border Problem

by Stefania Lapenna (more by this author)

Posted 11/27/2007 ET

Sardinia, Italy -- A girl verbally insulted and then killed by a Slavic-speaking person who used the tip of an umbrella as a murder weapon . Dozens of villas assaulted by a mix of Morroccans, Romanians and Albanians in northern Italy. Shop owners murdered at random. This is but a part of the very long list of criminal events Italians learn about on an almost daily basis when they turn over the pages of newspapers or watch the morning and evening news. The common thread linking these crimes is the fact that all of the perpetrators were in Italy illegally.

In some ways, Italians were used to all this, apparently even resigned to living with illegal aliens’ crimes. Those unfamiliar with this country's complex mentality wonder why it is that no Italian government has ever taken serious steps against the illegal aliens. The main answer lies in the political parties' thirst for votes from them. A secondary answer is the permissiveness generated by the fear of being accused of intolerance or, even worse, racism. No one dares to suggest that at least 40% of prison inmates are not Italians.

Open borders for everyone has been the official policy followed by all kinds of governments, from left to center to right for more than a decade. While the previous government somehow attempted to put an end to the massive flow of undocumented people into the nation through the "Bossi-Fini law" (named after two ministers of the then Berlusconi cabinet), the Left's electoral program stated that one of its priorities (yes, priorities) was to eliminate that only partially successful legislation.

Upon taking office, Prime Minister Prodi appointed a communist to lead the newly-created Ministry of the "Immigration and Social Politics." That speaks volumes on how the new policy was going to be like. It took just two months after the new minister's announced plan for the invasion to start. About 200 illegals are flooding the south-western coasts of the island of Sardinia almost every week, coming mainly from Algeria and Morocco. All claim to be fleeing poverty and persecution, but nobody explains how come they can afford paying up to $6000 to smugglers in order to come to here. I don't know of any poor of this world who can afford to pay such sums.

Authorities are now complaining about the lack of adequate means to host these people in over-crowded temporary migrant holding centers and alerted about radical Islamic infiltration. Don't hold your breath: Prodi & Company can't care less; the incompetent premier declared he has no intention of changing the failed policy. For years, Italians have been always told the old lie according to which “our economy owes foreigners so much.” Really? Our economy is on a slow but unstoppable decline, as recent statistics show, and I don't think unskilled workers can lend a hand. Quite the opposite. Nevertheless, a wide-ranging bill aimed at allowing immigrants to settle here without first getting a job and holding a residency permit, was unveiled in March after months of preparation and was approved by the cabinet.

Ignoring public opinion at home, Prodi was the only European chief of government to allow Romanian citizens to enter Italy without visas. Not even dhimmi Spanish PM José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has ever had such an absurd idea. Following a spike in criminal offences by Romanian nationals that sparked a wave of outrage and anger all over the country, exasperated Italians are demanding firmness against immigrants in order for general security to be granted.

Over two weeks ago, on the aftermath of the horrific assassination of a navy officer's wife who was walking along a secluded avenue in Rome, an emergency decree signed by the President of the Republic Giorgio Napolitano was issued, in which the police chief was instructed to identify aliens deemed a threat to national security because of their record and past convictions. Despite official propaganda showing buses full of Romanian gypsies leaving Italy, only two hundred people were deported of the thousands previously listed for expulsion. How about every single foreigner continuously breaking the law by living here illegally?

With State authorities failing to defend scared Italian citizens, local governors started taking matters into their own hands. The center-left wing mayor of Florence risked losing communist support for imposing fines on unlicensed window cleaners, after drivers complained about harassment and veiled threats. Padua's leftist municipality built a fence to isolate groups of drug traffickers from a residential area. The most significant decision of all has been the one taken by the mayor of a north-eastern town (a militant of the Northern League, a movement not to proud of) who bravely issued a legislation that literally says: "Those who have no work and housing permit aren't welcome and are urged to leave our town." You need to have guts to say these things in Italy.

I am following the American presidential debates and thus far I have not seen any Republican candidate willing to commit himself to a radical, not soft, reform of the immigration policy. Worse, some are either in favor of amnesty for illegals, or they have been so in the recent past. It seems to me that both Democrats and Republicans, with the exception of few, have no clue of how future is going to be like as consequence of a lack of concrete action.

The US has always been example of a nation that holds law breakers accountable and this has contributed very much to keep social peace. On the other side, not only millions of Mexican aliens were allowed to settle with little or no opposition over the last few decades, but they're imposing their traditions, culture and heritage, as well. What will remain of our countries?

I think America is still in time to rescue herself, but it takes more than mere electoral promises.

Are US politicians scared at the idea of fueling social tension by imposing the respect for the law? I wish they could carefully look at the Italian situation, hoping that it could teach them a lesson: on the long term, coddling illegal aliens will pave the way for civil unrest and the loss of sovereignty to criminals, who will ultimately rule our cities. Italy's likely to become a Third World, Muslim country in the not so distant future. Even if its leaders wake up now (I doubt they will) it's probably too late. America can make it. I’m still betting that it will, but the 2008 election may be its last chance.

Quote

The Second Amendment Wedge

by Jed Babbin (more by this author)

Posted 11/26/2007 ET

Hillary calls them, “kitchen table issues,” the political questions Americans take seriously enough to talk about them privately, in their homes, among family and friends. Whether she likes it or not, one of those issues is gun control.  Last week the Supreme Court decided to take on the biggest gun control case in almost seventy years:  District of Columbia v. Heller.  The Heller case is an appeal by the DC government from the US Circuit Court’s decision holding unconstitutional D.C.’s ban on privately-owned handguns and severe limits on other weapons. 

The Heller appeal will be argued next spring and unless something very odd happens, it will be decided before the election. This is very bad news for the Democrats who -- like Hillary -- don’t believe that the Second Amendment preserves for private citizens the right to keep and bear arms. 

The DC handgun ban provides that an unlicensed private person may not carry a pistol even from room to room in his own home.  Because DC -- as a matter of policy -- doesn’t grant handgun permits, the law effectively bans lawful handgun ownership.  It also requires that all other guns -- shotguns and rifles -- be registered and kept either unloaded and disassembled or locked with a trigger lock.  In either case, the weapon is useless for self-defense because an assailant isn’t likely to stand by waiting patiently while you search for the key or put your shotgun together in order to protect yourself from him.

It’s been almost seventy years since the Supreme Court last ruled on the very basic principle embodied in the Second Amendment: the right to keep and bear arms.  The 1939 decision in Miller v. US confused the law. 

Reacting to the interstate gangs of the 1930s that preyed on the public (and their banks: think Dillinger, Bonnie and Clyde and their ilk) Congress regulated private possession of the gangs’ favorite tools of mayhem: machine guns, suppressed (silenced) weapons and sawed-off shotguns.  Miller and his co-defendant were convicted of crossing state lines with a sawed-off shotgun in violation of the new law. 

In 1939, the Supreme Court ruled that the Miller convictions were proper because the sawed-off shotgun was not a weapon that would be of use to a militiaman:  “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”  But following that logic -- and given the armament most common among the modern militia, the National Guard, is the M-16 rifle which is capable of fully-automatic fire -- the Miller case is at best a limited guide for the Supreme Court in the DC v. Heller appeal. 

Though you may as well reason that the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure applies only to homes that were built by 1781, the fact is that officers of some states’ militias were required to equip themselves with a brace of pistols.

The Heller case raises the precise issue that liberals fear most:  the private rights of individuals.  The DC Circuit’s opinion rejects the District of Columbia government’s argument that the Second Amendment grants only a collective right: that the states have the right to arm their militias, but no private citizen has a right to keep a firearm.  It will be very tough to overcome the DC Circuit’s reasoning for two big reasons.

First, as the Supreme Court held in 1840, there’s not a surplus word in the Constitution.  “Every word must have its due force and appropriate meaning…no word was unnecessarily used or needlessly added.”  The Second Amendment says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” There are no useless words here.  Every one is key to the force and effect of the Second Amendment. That Amendment, when it speaks of “the people” must be read in concert with the rest of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and their history.

No one contends that the other Amendments that preserve rights of “the people” -- the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth -- do not preserve individuals’ rights.  The same must be true of the Second.

Moreover, the Federalist Papers -- as the DC Circuit analyzes -- reveal that the Founders believed in the right of the individual to keep his own firearms.  Neither the Federalists nor the Anti-Federalists believed the federal government had the power to disarm the people.

The second reason the Heller case will be tough to overturn is in the Fourteenth Amendment which precludes states from passing laws that abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens granted under the Constitution.  The courts haven’t yet decided that the Fourteenth Amendment precludes gun control laws such as the District of Columbia’s, but the Heller case may make that result unavoidable, thus overturning those laws around the nation.

If the Republicans seize this opportunity, they can make a “kitchen table” issue into a “wedge issue” in 2008: one that will decide the minds of voters.  One Republican -- Mitt Romney -- has spoken on this precise point.  In his interview with HUMAN EVENTS, Romney said his personal view was that the Second Amendment preserves individuals' right to keep and bear arms.  No Democrat will say that. 

In Hillary Clinton’s book, “Living History,” she writes about her outrage at Congress’ failure to, “…close the so-called gun-show loophole and to require child safety locks on guns.”  She goes on talking about how Congress lacked the will to, “…buck the all-powerful gun lobby and pass sensible gun safety measures [which] made me think about what I might be able to do, as a senator, to pass common sense legislation. In an interview in May, I told CBS anchor Dan Rather that, if I ran for the Senate, it would be because of what I learned in places like Littleton -- and in spite of what I had lived through in Washington.”

Clinton never did anything about gun control as a senator.  What would she do as president?  Does she believe that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to keep and bear arms, or does she favor confiscative laws such as the District of Columbia law the Supreme Court will rule on in the Heller case? 

We know the answer. But it’s up to the Republican candidates to flush her out of the tall weeds. This is an important issue to a great majority of Americans across the map, in Blue States, not just Red ones.  It could be the wedge issue that decides the 2008 election.

Quote

NYT: An Undocumented Newspaper

by Ann Coulter (more by this author)

Posted 11/28/2007 ET
 

Last week, in an article titled "Walking a Tightrope on Immigration," The New York Times made the fact-defying claim that the illegal immigration issue poses a risk for Republicans who appeal to voters "angry" about illegal immigration. (This is as opposed to voters "angry" that they spent good money buying a copy of The New York Times.)

In support of this assertion, the Times was required not only to ignore the stunning defeat of this year's amnesty bill, but also to proffer provably absurd evidence. I dearly hope Democratic politicians continue to look to the Times as an accurate barometer of voter sentiment.

In addition to secret polls showing that "the majority of Americans" support "a path to citizenship for immigrants here illegally," the Times cited election results from 1994 and 2006 that directly contradict this thesis.

First, the Times raised former California Gov. Pete Wilson's "precipitous slide" in the polls after he supported Proposition 187 in 1994, which denied most taxpayer-supported services to illegal immigrants.

The problem with this example is that Proposition 187 was wildly popular with California voters.

Times reporter Michael Luo seems to be referring to the Times' own prediction of catastrophe for Proposition 187 -- not actual election results.

One week before Californians voted on Proposition 187 in 1994, B. Drummond Ayres Jr. reported in the Times that there had been "a sharp falloff in support for the proposition."
 
He said Hispanic-Americans, Asian-Americans and African-American ministers were coming out strongly against Proposition 187 and that "this outcry, along with the increasing opposition being voiced by liberals, civil libertarians and assorted national political figures" was having an effect.

And then Californians voted.

Proposition 187 passed in a landslide with a nearly 20-point margin -- a larger margin than Wilson got, incidentally. It was supported by two-thirds of white voters, half of black and Asian voters, and even one-third of Hispanic voters. It passed in every area of California, except San Francisco, a city where intoxicated gay men dressed as nuns performing sex acts on city streets is not considered unusual. In heavily Latino Los Angeles County, Proposition 187 passed with a 12-point margin.

I'm no campaign consultant, but I think Wilson's support for an off-the-charts popular initiative probably didn't hurt him.

In fact, here on planet Earth, about the safest thing a California politician could do would be to wildly, vocally support Proposition 187. But in New York Times-speak, politicians are walking a dangerous "tightrope" if they dare to defy a slight majority of San Francisco voters!

The initiative went to Carter-appointed U.S. District Court Judge Mariana Pfaelzer, who issued a permanent injunction and then, in a series of decisions, found the initiative unconstitutional. Her rulings were still on appeal when Democrat Gray Davis became governor and dropped the appeals. Everyone remembers how popular Gray Davis was! (First governor in California history to be recalled.)

The crown jewel of the Times' pathetic attempt to marshal evidence for its thesis that Americans want more, not fewer, illegal aliens choking our roads, schools and hospitals also included this gem: "J.D. Hayworth, a hard-line incumbent Republican representative in Arizona, lost his race in 2006, as did Randy Graf, a member of the border-enforcing Minuteman group, who also ran in Arizona."

How many times do we have to disprove this canard?

As with Hillary's position on driver's licenses for illegals -- and B. Hussein Obama's entire campaign -- the Hayworth-Graf example works better when no follow-up questions are allowed. For example:

Q: Did Hayworth's and Graf's opponents campaign against them on illegal immigration?

A: No.

Q: Were there any other issues on the ballot that year that might tell us if it was Hayworth's and Graf's positions on illegals that led to their defeats?

A: Si! Oops, I mean, yes -- why, yes there were! The very election that the Times cites as proof that anti-illegal sentiment is a loser at the ballot box also included four measures that passed overwhelmingly: (1) a measure to deny bail to illegal aliens, (2) a measure that would bar illegals from being awarded punitive damages, (3) a measure that would prohibit illegals from receiving state subsidies for education or child care, and (4) a measure to declare English the state's official language.

Whatever Arizona voters didn't like about Hayworth and Graf, it wasn't that they were too tough on illegals.

My theory is that Hayworth and Graf lost because the multitudes of Times reporters losing their jobs due to the Newspaper of Record's plummeting circulation have recently moved to Hayworth's and Graf's districts. (This is what's known as a "brain drain" in those districts.)

My theory -- like the Times' theory -- is supported by no evidence. But unlike the Times' theory, mine is not specifically disproved by other evidence such as common sense, an everyday observation of my fellow man, and also those four anti-illegal immigrant measures passing in landslides in the very same election.

Quote

NYT: Suicide Manual for Dems

by Ann Coulter (more by this author)

Posted 11/21/2007 ET

Here's a story that may not have been deemed "Fit to Print": In the six months that ended Sept. 25, The New York Times' daily circulation was down another 4.51 percent to about a million readers a day. The paper's Sunday circulation was down 7.59 percent to about 1.5 million readers. In short, the Times is dropping faster than Hillary in New Hampshire. (Meanwhile, the Drudge Report has more than 16 million readers every day.)

One can only hope that none of the Democratic presidential candidates are among the disaffected hordes lining up to cancel their Times subscriptions.

The Times is so accustomed to lying about the news to prove that "most Americans" agree with the Times, that it seems poised to lead the Democrats -- and any Republicans stupid enough to believe the Times -- down a primrose path to their own destruction.

So if you know a Democratic presidential candidate who doesn't currently read the Times, by all means order him a subscription.

On Sunday, Times readers learned that despite this year's historic revolt of normal Americans against amnesty for illegal aliens: "Some polls show that the majority of Americans agree with proposals backed by most Democrats in the Senate, as well as some Republicans, to establish a path to citizenship for immigrants here illegally."

Was the reporter who wrote that sentence the Darfur bureau chief for the past year? By "some polls," I gather he means "a show of hands during a meeting of the Times editorial board" or "a quick backstage survey in the MSNBC greenroom."

As I believe Americans made resoundingly clear this year, the only "path to citizenship" they favor involves making an application from Norway, waiting a few years and then coming over when it's legal.

Americans were so emphatic on this point that they forced a sitting president to withdraw his signature legislative accomplishment for his second term -- amnesty for illegal aliens, aka a "path to citizenship" for illegals.

This was the goal supported by the president's acolytes at the Fox News Channel as well as a nearly monolithic Democratic Party and its acolytes at ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, MTV, Oxygen TV, the Food Network, the Golf Channel, the Home Shopping Network, The in-house "Learn to Gamble" channel at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas and Comedy Central (unless that was just a sketch on the "Mind of (Carlos) Mencia").

But ordinary Americans had a different idea. Their idea was: Let's not reward law-breakers with the ultimate prize: U.S. citizenship. And the ordinary Americans won.
 The Times disregards all of that history to announce that it has secret polls showing that Americans support a "path to citizenship" for illegals after all! These polls are living in the shadows!

Only those "angriest on immigration," the Times said, are still using the various words related to immigration that liberals are trying to turn into new "N-words," such as, for example, "immigration." With an exhausting use of air quotes, the Times reports that: "The Republicans have railed against 'amnesty' and 'sanctuary cities.' They have promised to build a fence on the Mexican border to keep 'illegals' out."

In liberal-speak, that sentence would read: "The Republicans have railed against 'puppies' and 'kittens.' They have promised to build a fence on the Mexican border to keep 'baby seals' out." (In my version, the sentence would read: "Believing New York Times 'polls,' Democrats irritate 'voters.'")

Half the English language is becoming the "N-word" as far as liberals are concerned. Words are always bad for liberals. Words allow people to understand what liberals are saying.

According to the Times, all decent, cultured Americans cringe when politicians use foul words like "illegals" to describe illegals. Apparently, what most Americans are clamoring for is yet more automatic messages that begin, "Press '1' for English." That, at least, is the message the Times got from the stunning victory of grassroots over the elites on the immigration bill this year.

It is against my best interests to mention how utterly out of touch Times editors and reporters are with any Americans east of Central Park West and west of Riverside Drive. I enjoy watching the Democratic presidential candidates take clear, unequivocal positions in favor of driver's licenses for illegals and then denouncing those very positions a week later (after the real polls come in).

Some people love watching the trees change color every fall. I enjoy watching the candidates' positions on immigration change.

But it is too much for any human to endure to read the Times' version of history in which "most Americans" agree with the Times on illegal immigration in the very year Americans punched back against illegal immigration so hard that the entire Washington establishment is still reeling. It's not like we have to go back to the Coolidge administration to get some sense of what Americans think about amnesty for illegals. (I mean "amnesty" for "illegals.")

Using the Times' calculus, "most Americans" have also enthusiastically embraced soccer and the metric system.

Read The New York Times, Democrats. Make my day.

Quote

Woman Aborts Child To Help 'Save' the Planet

Sunday , November 25, 2007

A British woman who had an abortion 10 years ago and was later sterilized did so because she believes pregnancy is bad for the environment, the London Daily Mail reported Sunday.

Toni Vernelli, 35, hopes her actions would ensure her carbon footprint would be kept to a minimum, the Mail reported. The environmental advocate also sees having children as an egotistical act.

"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," Vernelli told the Mail, adding she believes bringing new life into the world only adds to the problem.

Click here to read the full article in the Daily Mail.

Another woman, 31-year-old Sara Irving, also underwent sterilization because she felt "a baby would pollute the planet."

Irving became an environmentalist as a teenager when she realized saving the environment was her top and foremost priority in life, the Mail reported. After going through several boyfriends she finally found her now husband Mark Hudson who shares in her ‘no kid’s policy.’

Quote

Making Thanksgiving Meaningful Again

by Newt Gingrich (more by this author)

Posted 11/20/2007 ET

This Thanksgiving, it's time to ensure that every young American and every immigrant who would become a new citizen learn about the historic origins and meaning of Thanksgiving.

 

In the popular media today, Thanksgiving is a time of turkey, too much food and the beginning of the Christmas shopping rush.

 

Yet, historically, Thanksgiving is about much more than food.

 

Historically, Thanksgiving is about renewing the bond between Americans and their Creator. It's a time when we are reminded that our rights come from God and that we have responsibilities to God as free citizens.

 

So here's what we should do: Every state should adopt laws requiring the teaching of the real history and meaning of Thanksgiving in the schools. It would be an important step toward truly understanding our nation's heritage and history.

 

Thanksgiving: The First Uniquely American Holiday

The history of Thanksgiving goes all the way back to the second decade of English-speaking people in North America.

 

Thanksgiving was the first uniquely American holiday.

 

Yesterday, President Bush visited the site in Virginia -- Berkeley Plantation -- where the first Thanksgiving was celebrated in 1619 -- 12 years after the founding of the Virginia colony at Jamestown.

 

The first Thanksgiving was a religious celebration -- an occasion to thank God -- that featured only a modest meal. It wasn't until two years later, in 1621, that

Thanksgiving was expanded to include a banquet by the pilgrims in Massachusetts.

 

President Washington Makes Thanksgiving a Day for a Free People to Acknowledge Their Debt to God

During his first year in office, President George Washington issued a proclamation calling for a day of "public thanksgiving and prayer."

 

Washington had been a general who had spent eight years on the field of battle winning our freedom from Great Britain. Then he spent another six years creating the Constitution and the government that we still have 218 years later (the longest continuing constitutional government in the world). So Washington understood well the nature of a free society and its obligation to both thank God and seek His guidance.

 

In his Thanksgiving proclamation, Washington wrote: "It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits and humbly to implore His protection and favor."

 

Lincoln Builds on Washington's Tradition

During the very heart of the Civil War, in October 1863, President Abraham Lincoln built on President Washington's initiative and created an annual day of thanksgiving.

 

Like Washington, Lincoln was determined to draw a direct tie between America and the Creator from whom Americans draw their rights.

 

Lincoln acknowledged that the nation was "in the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity." But he focused instead on the nation's blessings, urging his fellow Americans to remember that "no human counsel hath devised, nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the most high God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy."

 

Americans Understand the Wisdom of the Founders on Religion and Morality

Both young Americans and new Americans should learn about the unique values of America's founding leaders.

 

In our American Solutions survey, the American people overwhelmingly assert that the lessons of Washington and Lincoln are relevant today: 79% surveyed believe that the Founding Fathers understood that religion and morality were important to creating and building this country and that this is central to America's success today.

 

In that same survey, Americans strongly support seeking answers to today's challenges by listening to the wisdom of our past great leaders: 86% believe that statements regarding religion and morality made by the Founding Fathers are just as important today as they were 200 years ago.

 

Contact Your Representatives and Ask Them to Restore Teaching the Real History of Thanksgiving

So what can we do to make sure all Americans understand the wisdom of the Founders when it comes to Thanksgiving?

 

A first step would be for you to contact your state legislators and ask them to make sure that your state requires teaching the history of Thanksgiving as part of its curriculum, including in public undergraduate college education.

 

Then contact your members of Congress and ask them to support legislation making the history of Thanksgiving a part of citizenship education for new Americans.

 

Why Do the House Democratic Leaders Undermine English as Our National Language?

We have a great deal to be thankful for this Thanksgiving. But there's clearly a lot of work we need to do as well.

 

Last April, I wrote to you about how a misguided federal agency was using your tax dollars to sue a charity for requiring its workers to speak English on the job.

 

I reported that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a taxpayer-funded government commission, was suing the Salvation Army for letting go two employees who had failed to learn -- after a total of six years of opportunity -- enough English to perform their jobs.

 

Now, John Fund reports in the Wall Street Journal that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has surrendered to extremists in the House who want to make sure that charities such as the Salvation Army remain vulnerable to federal lawsuits for asking their employees to speak English on the job. But it doesn't stop there, every business is at risk too.

 

Will Employers Need a 'Special Reason' to Require English on the Job?

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R.-Tenn.) is the sponsor of a bill that would shield the Salvation Army from federal lawsuits for requiring its employees to speak our common language. Wide margins in both the Senate and the House have approved it. But Speaker Pelosi has allowed a group of extremists to prevent a final vote on the Alexander bill.

 

Sen. Alexander, who notes that the number of EEOC actions against policies such as that of the Salvation Army grew to 200 last year from 32 a decade ago, described the consequences of the House Democratic leadership's cave-in: "Thousands of small businesses across America will have to show there is some special reason to justify requiring their employees to speak our country's common language on the job."

 

A Good Idea From Sen. Obama That Should be Implemented Now

When he visited the headquarters of Internet search engine giant Google, Inc. last week, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) had a good idea that Congress and the President should support.

 

Sen. Obama said that as President he would encourage more public interaction with government by putting government documents and legislation online for all Americans to see. He also said he would appoint the nation's first technology chief and encourage public participation through Internet forums.

 

These are good ideas that the President should make his own. He could accomplish some of them by changing government regulations. The rest he should challenge Congress to pass in his State of the Union address next year.

 

Here's wishing you and your family a safe and happy Thanksgiving.

Newt Gingrich

 

P.S. -- The Christmas season is almost upon us. If you're looking for gifts for that hard-to-please someone on your list, consider the following:

• Our DVD Rediscovering God in America hosted by me and Callista is now available on amazon.com, as is the original book and audio version.
• There are also the print and audio versions of A Contract with the Earth.
• And my novel, Pearl Harbor, also makes a great Christmas gift. Check it out here.

 

Quote

Coming Around the Far Turn

by Jennifer Rubin (more by this author)

Posted 11/16/2007 ET

With less than fifty days to go before the GOP Iowa presidential caucuses, the Republican presidential nomination is still up for grabs.  But who’s ahead, who’s behind, and what should we look for in the next seven weeks?

National vs. Primary Polling

“Who is ahead?” is not an easy question to answer. Rudy Giuliani’s lead in national polling has climbed steadily since September. On the RealClearPolitics.com (RCP) average his lead over his closest competitor has ticked over 14 pts. While Fred Thompson remains in second in the RCP average, his poll results have skidded downward since he official entry into the race and he now runs behind John McCain in a number of nationally-recognized polls. Mitt Romney remains in fourth with Mike Huckabee in fifth.

The Romney campaign rightly reminds us that we have no national primary and in Iowa and New Hampshire, Romney is the frontrunner.  In Iowa, however, the newest “it” candidate, Huckabee, got good news with three polls -- placing him between 2 and 11 points behind Romney. GOP activists in Iowa and independent observers give Huckabee credit for capturing momentum and appealing to social conservative voters. In New Hampshire Romney’s lead seems to have solidified with polls showing him in double digits.

But there is better news for Giuliani elsewhere. He enjoys a comfortable lead in Florida and a number of February 5 delegate-rich states such as California, New York, New Jersey and Illinois. In South Carolina the RCP average shows an absolute dead heat between Romney and Giuliani with Thompson just a few points back.

For Thompson there is little good news. His national polling has slid and he runs fourth or fifth in Iowa and New Hampshire and is in a dogfight in South Carolina which should be his strongest early state.

As for McCain his national polls, along with the national media buzz, have boosted his spirits but he remains nearly broke, in fifth in Iowa and third in most polls in his must win state of New Hampshire.

In a nutshell, the Romney camp argues the early state polling shows the true state of the race with Romney poised for wins in Iowa, New Hampshire and potentially South Carolina which will diminish Giuliani’s lead in other states and dramatically increase Romney’s standing in national polls. Giuliani’s team says not so fast: Romney’s lead in Iowa is shrinking, the battle is just joined in New Hampshire (as Giuliani goes on the air with paid TV ads) and Giuliani’s lead is “momentum proof” in places like Florida and California, New Jersey, New York and Illinois.

What to watch for? A win or near win by Huckabee in Iowa may wound Romney and permanently derail his early state strategy.

The Battle For Social Conservatives

Social conservative leaders despondent over the lack of an ideal candidate should take solace from one indisputable fact: everyone wants their support. So far, everyone has gotten a nod from a noteworthy group or individual. Pat Robertson lined up with Giuliani, Paul Weyrich with Romney, National Right to Life with Thompson, Sam Brownback with McCain and Donald Wildmon with Huckabee.

Some commentators reached the conclusion that the division would benefit Giulaini, by fracturing the social conservative vote. Others saw the National Right to Life nod to Thompson as a coup, depriving Romney of a much sought after endorsement and perhaps reviving Thompson’s flagging fortunes. (Romney supporter Weyrich’s accusations that a financial arrangement prompted the endorsement sparked outrage by Thompson and shock among many conservative commentators and activists.) Meanwhile, Huckabee (who won a recent straw poll by voters who attended the Family Research Council Voters Value Summit and whose popularity with social conservatives in Iowa grows weekly) maintains that despite what leaders may say, real social conservative voters prefer him, a Baptist minister.

What to watch for? Key social conservative endorsements for Huckabee in Iowa and whether James Dobson gives the nod to one of the candidates.

Immigration

Immigration remains a key issue -- the most important issue for many -- in the GOP presidential race. Romney accused Giuliani of maintaining New York as a sanctuary city while Giuliani says he was merely encouraging aliens to report violent crime and points to the list of sanctuary cities in Massachusetts under Romney’s term. Romney runs an ad in New Hampshire which other candidates, aided by an independent group at factcheck.org, say is misleading. Huckabee reminds voters that Romney had illegal aliens working for his gardening service. Thompson says both Romney and Giuliani leave a lot to be desired. In reality, all the GOP contenders -- even a now chastened McCain -- now support tough border security and employer verification measures and oppose measures such as driver’s licenses for illegal aliens.

What to watch for? Who goes up with the first negative ad, attacking his opponent’s immigration record and perhaps risking a retaliatory blast back.

Money

It is not everything -- millions collected by Ron Paul are unlikely to help him win a single state, for example -- but it will determine whether a candidate who loses an early state or two can nevertheless mount efforts in later states and keep himself in the race. Romney and Giuliani have millions tucked away to weather a loss here or there and keep ads running around the country. McCain’s bankers are trying to negotiate a $3M loan but his prospects look dim if he stumbles in New Hampshire. Huckabee’s money haul has improved but many doubt whether he can sustain a national campaign.

What to watch for? If money pours into Huckabee after a strong Iowa showing he will be firmly in the first tier.

Bottom Line

The scenarios and permutations are endless. A winner in one state may force other candidates out of the race; a too close for comfort win in one state may work to an opponent’s advantage. Absent a Huckabee win in Iowa it may come down to a battle royal between Giuliani and Romney; with a Huckabee win (or a very close second) all the prognostications go by the wayside.

Lurking in the background, like a bad dream, is the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency. That sobering possibility may motivate GOP primary voters to inspect candidates’ conservative bona fides but also look for someone with real moxie. “Who’s going to beat her in November?” will be one question all GOP primary voters will be pondering.

Quote

Musharraf: The Tolstoy of the Zulus

by Ann Coulter (more by this author)

Posted 11/14/2007 ET

If Republicans end up with a divided convention between Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, I say we pick Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

Musharraf has declared emergency rule in Pakistan, shut down the media and sent Supreme Court justices home. What's not to like about a guy who orders policemen to beat up lawyers? I bet he has a good plan on illegal immigration, too.

The entire history of Pakistan is this: There are lots of crazy people living there, they have nuclear weapons, and any Pakistani leader who prevents the crazies from getting the nukes is George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison all rolled into one.

We didn't hear much about Musharraf -- save for B. Hussein Obama's threat to bomb Pakistan without informing Musharraf -- until the last few weeks.

Musharraf has been a crucial ally of ours since Sept. 12, 2001. His loyal friendship to the United States while governing a country that is loyal to al-Qaida might prove dispiriting to the terrorists. So, until recently, the media mostly confined stories about Musharraf to page A-18.

Now, with the surge in Iraq working, Democrats are completely demoralized. Al-Qaida was counting on them. (We know the surge in Iraq is working because it is no longer front page news.)

In a tape released in early September, Osama bin Laden bitterly complained, "You elected the Democratic Party for this purpose" -- of ending the war in Iraq -- "but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning."

It isn't enough for the media to drop all mentions of the surge or to subsidize ads denouncing Gen. David Petraeus as "General Betray Us." (He IS betraying liberals by winning the war for America, the enemy of liberals.) They need to stir up trouble for the U.S. someplace else in the world.

On Sept. 20, Osama bin Laden cued liberals by issuing another tape demanding Musharraf's ouster. The Democrats and the media quickly followed suit.

Weeks later, The New York Times editorial page called on "masses of Pakistanis" to participate in "peaceful demonstrations" against Musharraf, which would be like calling on masses of Pakistanis to engage in daily bathing (The New York Times editorial page being the most effective way to communicate with the Pakistani masses). Most of the editorial was a mash note to that troublesome woman Benazir Bhutto for demanding democracy in the land of the deranged.

Media darling Bhutto returned to Pakistan after fleeing the country following her conviction for corruption as prime minister. Her conviction was later overturned by the corrupt Pakistani Supreme Court, leaving me to ponder, which is worse: being convicted of corruption in a Pakistani court or being exonerated of corruption in a Pakistani court? She was again convicted in a Swiss court of money laundering.

The media adore Bhutto because she went to Harvard and Oxford, which I consider two more strikes against her. A degree from Harvard is prima facie evidence that she's on the side of the terrorists. I note that Bhutto demonstrates her own deep commitment to democracy by giving herself the title "chairperson for life" of the Pakistan Peoples Party.

Liberals hysterically opposed our imposing a democracy on Iraq and despise Nouri al-Maliki, the democratically elected leader of Iraq. Say, has Maliki ever been convicted in a Swiss court of money laundering?

Compared to Pakistan, imposing democracy in Iraq is like imposing democracy in Darien, Conn. But in Iraq, liberals prefer an anti-American dictator, like Saddam Hussein. Only in Pakistan do liberals yearn for pure democracy.

You wouldn't know it to read the headlines, but Musharraf has not staged a military coup. In fact, he was re-elected easily just weeks ago under Pakistan's own parliamentary system.

But the Pakistani Supreme Court, like our own Supreme Court, believes it is above the president and refused to acknowledge Musharraf's election on the grounds that he is disqualified because he is still wearing a military uniform. That's when Musharraf sent them home.

Musharraf's election was certainly more legitimate than that of Syrian president Bashar Assad (with whom every leading Democrat has had a photo-op) or Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (adjunct professor at Columbia University) or Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez (loon).

Where were the headlines like this week's Economist's ("Time's up, Mr. Musharraf") about those lovable rogues? They hate America, so they can stay.

The last time liberals were this enthusiastic about popular rule in some Third World country was in 1979, when they were gushing about Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in Iran. Professor Richard Falk of Princeton University assured liberals in a 1979 New York Times op-ed that the "depiction of Khomeini as fanatical, reactionary, and the bearer of crude prejudices seems certainly and happily false."

I'm no clock-watcher, but it's been 28 years; I don't think Falk is going to be issuing an apology.

Falk cheerfully concluded that the fanatical Muslim leaders in Iran "may yet provide us with a desperately needed model of humane government for a Third World country."

And just look at all the wonderful things Khomeini did for Iran!

How might popular rule turn out in Pakistan? As Saul Bellow rhetorically said of multiculturalism, "Who is the Tolstoy of the Zulus?"

Pakistan is a country where local Islamic courts order women to be raped as punishment for the crimes of their male relatives. Among the Islamists' bill of particulars against Musharraf is the fact that he has promoted the Women's Protection Bill, which would punish rape, rather than using it as a device for social control.

Pakistan doesn't need Adlai Stevenson right now. It needs Mustafa Kemal Ataturk to impose military rule and drag a country of Islamic savages into the 19th century, as Ataturk did in Turkey. Pakistan's Ataturk is Gen. Musharraf.

To try to force democracy on the differing "I hate America" factions in Pakistan at this stage would be worse than Jimmy Carter's abandonment of the Shah in 1979. It would result in what former assistant secretary of state Edward Djerejian called: "one man, one vote, one time."

Quote

L.A. Police Shelves Controversial Plan to Map Muslim Neighborhoods

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

LOS ANGELES  — A police plan to map out Muslim communities, a proposal that civil rights groups sharply criticized as racial and religious profiling, has been shelved, a police spokeswoman said Wednesday.

The LAPD planned to have its counterterrorism bureau identify Muslim enclaves to determine which might be likely to become isolated and susceptible to "violent, ideologically based extremism."

Several Muslim groups and the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California criticized the plan and sent a letter to Deputy Chief Michael P. Downing expressing their concerns.

"There was a clear message from the Muslim community that they were not comfortable with it. So we listened," said Mary Grady, spokeswoman for the Los Angeles Police Department. She couldn't immediately say when the plan might resume.

Grady said the remaining part of the initiative, which includes outreach efforts to strengthen ties with Muslim communities, would continue, and police planned to meet with Muslim leaders Thursday.

In a statement, Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, praised the decision.

"I am glad to hear (Downing) is putting the plan aside," Al-Marayati said. "All Muslim organizations are united in purpose to defend the rights of Muslim Americans while developing a positive and constructive relationship with the LAPD."

Downing and other city officials had defended the plan, saying the idea was to deepen ties with Muslim communities. The plan would have had data assembled by the University of Southern California's Center for Risk and Economic Analysis.

There are an estimated 500,000 Muslims in Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside counties.

Quote

Report: Push to Give Driver's Licenses to Illegals in U.S., But in Mexico It's a Different Story

Thursday , November 15, 2007

Hillary Clinton might be on one side of the border, then the other when it comes to issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, but Mexican officials know exactly where they stand: no licenses for illegals.

All of Mexico's 31 states require foreign residents to hold a valid visa if they want a Mexican license, according to a survey published Thursday in The Arizona Republic.

Click here to read the complete story in The Arizona Republic.

"When it comes to foreigners, we're a little more strict here," Alejandro Ruíz, director of education at the Mexican Automobile Association, told the newspaper.

Immigrant drivers became an overnight national campaign issue when Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton responded to a debate question by declared her support for a move by New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer to issue licenses to illegal immigrants.

"It makes a lot of sense," Clinton said during the Oct. 30 debate.

She backed away from that support Wednesday when Spitzer announced he was backing off the plan.

Eight U.S. states allow drivers to get licenses without proving they are legal residents, the newspaper reported.

Mexicans account for more than half of the 12 million undocumented residents, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.

Because of the number of illegal Mexicans residing in the U.S., America's southern neighbor has battled to open the licensing process in all 50 states.

But licensing offices in all of Mexico's 31 states -- and Mexico City -- told The Arizona Republic that proof of citizenship is required.

Temporary tourists can drive using their foreign licenses, the newspaper reported, the same temporary exemption granted visitors to the U.S.

Quote

19-Year Old Saudi Rape Victim Ordered to Undergo 200 Lashes

Thursday , November 15, 2007

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — A 19-year-old female victim of gang rape who initially was ordered to undergo 90 lashes for "being in the car of an unrelated male at the time of the rape," has been sentenced to 200 lashes and six months in jail for telling her story to the news media.

The new verdict was handed down by Saudi Arabia's Higher Judicial Council following a retrial, the Arab News reported.

The court last year sentenced the six heavily-armed men who carried out the attack against the Shiite woman to between one and five years for committing the crime.

But the judges had decided to punish the woman further for "her attempt to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media," a court source told the Arab News.

The new verdict issued on Wednesday also toughened the sentences against the six men to between two and nine years in prison.

Saudi Arabia enforces a strict Islamic doctrine that forbids unrelated men and women from associating with each other, bans women from driving and forces them to cover head-to-toe in public.

The case has angered members of Saudi Arabia's Shiite community. The convicted men are Sunni Muslims, the dominant community in the oil-rich Gulf state.

Quote

 

This CONSERVATIVE ALERT is a special message from RightMarch.com:

Las Vegas Police Dept. Labels Minutemen “Subversive” – Call Now To Ask They Remove This Designation:      1-702-828-3394 ALERT: Take a look at this line from the Las Vegas Police Department’s 16-page job application and background check form: 57. Have you, your spouse, any members of your family, or any members of your spouse’s family ever been associated with gangs or subversive groups (Minutemen, Aryan Brotherhood, etc.) YES / NO -- IF YES, EXPLAIN IN SEPARATE STATEMENT. Did you get that? The Las Vegas PD has labeled the Minutemen -- the pro-law enforcement American patriots who are willing to do the job on our borders that the Federal government has refused to do -- as a hate group on their employment application! If this is allowed to go unchallenged, it sets a dangerous precedent across America. Other law enforcement agencies in the country will do the same thing if we don’t FIGHT to get this removed. Don’t let the pro-illegal alien groups win, even at a local level! TAKE ACTION: It’s well known that the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center sends to all law enforcement agencies their list of hate groups. Most likely, the LVPD received this list, and incorporated into their employment application, without checking it out themselves. This is the kind of unwarranted designationthat WE have to challenge and STOP. Call the Las Vegas Public Information Office NOW, and ask them how they reached this designation, AND ask them to REMOVE the designation immediately: 1-702-828-3394 Sincerely, William Greene, President RightMarch.com P.S.: If you prefer to email them at pio@lvmpd.com, please feel free to do so right away. Be sure to send this Alert to EVERYONE you know who wants to ask the Las Vegas Police Department to remove their erroneous designation of the Minutemen as a “gang” or “subversive group.” Thank you! The work of RightMarch.com is funded entirely by voluntary contributions. Help us spread the word with a donation to RightMarch.com! https://secure.responseenterprises.com/rightmarch/?a=7 If you prefer not to donate online, you can call us with your credit card ready at 1-800-379-6630. If you prefer to donate by check, please send to: RightMarch.com Dept Code 7 PO Box 20275 Washington, DC 20041-2275 FREE Issues/Action Alert RSS feed: http://capwiz.com/sicminc/RSS/ Put a "Write-to-Congress" web sticker on YOUR website: http://capwiz.com/sicminc/dbq/stickers/?command=fedstickers Put an "Action Alerts" web sticker on YOUR website: http://capwiz.com/sicminc/remotecontent/remotesticker/ Join the discussion at the Active Faith blog: http://www.ActiveFaith.us/ http://www.ConservativeAlerts.com/ 4850 Golden Pkwy., Ste. B #325, Buford GA 30518-1712 Paid for by RightMarch.com

Would you like to send this email to a friend?

 

Quote

$20.00
 

Sometimes we just need to be  reminded! 

A well-known speaker
started off his seminar by:

holding up a $20.00 bill In the room of 200, he asked, 'Who would like this $20 bill?'

Hands started going up.

He said, 'I am going to give this
$20 to one of you 
but first, let me do this.  

 
He proceeded to crumple up the $20 dollar bill.

He then asked, 'Who still wants it?'

Still the hands were up in the air.

Well, he replied, 'What if I do this?'

And he dropped it on the ground and started to grind it into the floor with his shoe.

He picked it up, now crumpled and dirty.


'Now, who still wants it?'


Still the hands went into the air.


My friends, we have all learned a very valuable lesson.

No matter what I did to the money, you still wanted it

because it did not decrease in value.



     It was still worth $20.

Many times in our lives,

we are dropped, crumpled, and ground into the dirt

by the decisions we make and

the circumstances that come our way.

We feel as though we are worthless.

But no matter what has
happened or what will happen, you will never lose your value.

Dirty or clean, crumpled or finely creased,
you are still
priceless to those who DO LOVE you.

The worth of our lives comes not in what we do or who we know,

but by WHO WE ARE and
WHOSE WE ARE.

You are special
-
Don't EVER forget it.'

If you do not pass
this on, you may never know the

lives it touches, the
hurting hearts it speaks to,
or the hope that it can bring.

Count your blessings,
not your problems.

'And remember:
amateurs built the ark ....

professionals built the Titanic.

 

Quote

CHEAP TOMATOES?   This one tells it like it really is..............Hope you read it all........... 

 

THIS HAS GOT TO BE PASSED ALONG TO AS MANY AS POSSIBLE OR WE WILL ALL GO DOWN THE DRAIN BECAUSE A FEW DON'T CARE. 

 

This English teacher has phrased it the best I've seen yet. 

 

This should make everyone think, be you Democrat, Republican or Independent
 

From a California school teacher - - -

Tomatoes and Cheap Labor

"As you listen to the news about the student protests over illegal immigration, there are some things that you should be aware of: 

 

I am in charge of the English-as-a-second-language department at a large southern California high school which is designated a Title 1 school, meaning that its students average lower socioeconomic and income levels. 

 

Most of the schools you are hearing about, South Gate High, Bell Gardens, Huntington Park, etc., where these students are protesting, are also Title 1 schools. 

 

Title 1 schools are on the free breakfast and free lunch program. When I say free breakfast, I'm not talking a glass of milk and roll -- but a full breakfast and cereal bar with fruits and juices that would make a Marriott proud. The waste of this food is monumental, with trays and trays of it being dumped in the trash uneaten. (OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK) 

 

I estimate that well over 50% of these students are obese or at least moderately overweight. About 75% or more DO have cell phones. The school also provides day care centers for the unwed teenage pregnant girls (some as young as 13) so they can attend class without the inconvenience of having to arrange for babysitters or having family watch their kids. (OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK) 

 

I was ordered to spend $700,000 on my department or risk losing funding for the upcoming year even though there was little need for anything; my budget was already substantial. I ended up buying new computers for the computer learning center, half of which, one month later, have been carved with graffiti by the appreciative students who obviously feel humbled and grateful to have a free education in America . (OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK) 

 

I have had to intervene several times for young and substitute teachers whose classes consist of many illegal immigrant students here in the country less then 3 months who raised so much hell with the female teachers, calling them "Putas" whores and throwing things that the teachers were in tears. 

 

Free medical, free education, free food, day care etc., etc, etc. Is it any wonder they feel entitled to not only be in this country but to demand rights, privileges and entitlements? 

 

To those who want to point out how much these illegal immigrants contribute to our society because they LIKE their gardener and housekeeper and they like to pay less for tomatoes: spend some time in the real world of illegal immigration and see the TRUE costs. 

 

Higher insurance, medical facilities closing, higher medical costs, more crime, lower standards of education in our schools, overcrowding, new diseases etc., etc, etc. For me, I'll pay more for tomatoes. 

 

We need to wake up. The guest worker program will be a disaster because we won't have the guts to enforce it. Does anyone in their right mind really think they will voluntarily leave and return? 

 

There are many hardworking Hispanic/American citizens that contribute to our country and many that I consider my true friends. We should encourage and accept those Hispanics who have done it the right and legal way. 

 

It does, however, have everything to do with culture: A third-world culture that does not value education, that accepts children getting pregnant and dropping out of school by 15 and that refuses to assimilate, and an American culture that has become so weak and worried about "politically correctness" that we don't have the will to do anything about it. 

 

If this makes your blood boil, as it did mine, forward this to everyone you know. 

 

CHEAP LABOR? Isn't that what the whole immigration issue is about? 

 

Business doesn't want to pay a decent wage. 

 

Consumers don't want expensive produce. 

Quote

Malware found on new hard drives

Posted by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes @ 2:10 pm

Here’s an interesting story that I found in my inbox.  The Taipei Times is reporting that around 1,800 new 300GB and 500GB external hard drives manufactured by Maxtor shipped with malware on them.  What makes this story even more interesting is that Taiwanese authorities suspected that Chinese authorities were involved.

The bureau said that hard discs with such a large capacity are usually used by government agencies to store databases and other information.

Sensitive information may have already been intercepted by Beijing through the two Web sites, the bureau said.

The bureau said that the method of attack was unusual, adding that it suspected Chinese authorities were involved.

In recent years, the Chinese government has run an aggressive spying program relying on information technology and the Internet, the bureau said.

The bureau said this was the first time it had found that Trojan horse viruses had been placed on hard discs before they even reach the market.

But there’s more to this story:

Following findings by the Investigation Bureau that portable hard discs produced by US disk-drive manufacturer Seagate Technology that were sold in Taiwan contained Trojan horse viruses, further investigations suggested that “contamination” took place when the products were in the hands of Chinese subcontractors during the manufacturing process.

Seagate did not disclose the stage in the manufacturing process where the Chinese subcontractor installed the Trojan horse.

Seagate recommended that all customers who had purchased the product install protective anti-virus software.

To this end, Seagate said that Kaspersky Labs would offer all Seagate customers a 60-day fully functional version of the Kaspersky Lab Anti-Virus 7.0 software for download and installation.

Now, malware can get into the manufacturing chain without the need for a subversive government plot and without more information it’s hard to point fingers, but nonetheless, it’s bad for Seagate/Maxtor.  No hard drive manufacturer wants to be found out to be shipping malware on drives.

However, there’s a moral to this story.  Practice “safe sectors” and scan, or preferably wipe, all drives before bringing them into the ecosystem.  Don’t assume that a drive is going to be blank and malware free.  Trust no one.  Same goes for USB flash drives - you never know what’s been installed on them.

Quote

Spanish-Language Radio Station Slams Police for Describing Suspect as 'Hispanic'

Wednesday, November 14, 2007        By Melissa Underwood

An Arizona Spanish-language radio station is blasting a local police department for what it says is racial profiling: describing the suspect in a series of child rapes as "Hispanic."

Police are offering $25,000 for any information leading to an arrest in the case of the "Chandler Rapist," who began assaulting victims in Chandler, Ariz., in June 2006.

The suspect is described as Hispanic, 28 to 40 years old, short with a muscular build, dark hair and hazel or brown eyes.

Phoenix news talk radio station, KNUV 1190 AM, has complained to the police department about the description, claiming that "Hispanic" refers to an ethnicity, not a race.

"Hispanic could be white, it could be black, it could be dark-skinned complexion," said Mayra Nieves, vice president of programming. "We Hispanics see it that way."

Police won't budge. They say they are following normal procedures for releasing information based on victims' descriptions. Five victims between the ages of 12 and 14 have described their assailant as Hispanic.

The rapist usually strikes in the morning, when his victims' parents, usually a single mother or father, leave for work. The rapist attacks when he knows the parent won't be home, threatening his victims with a weapon before he sexually assaults them, said police spokesman Sgt. Rick Griner.

"We are not racially profiling anybody or anything," said Griner. "For us to change or alter or omit, that is irresponsible on our part. The common goal is to catch this predator and get him off the street."

Click here for more about the Chandler Rapist. (pdf)

Nieves said the current police description limits the station's ability to give its listeners specifics about the suspect.

"We need specific descriptions because we are radio," she said.

Nieves said using the term Hispanic is not only racial profiling, but also stereotyping.

Click here to visit the radio station's Web site.

The complaint from the radio station is the only the department received, Griner said.

"They are wanting a skin color. How do you classify a skin color?" Griner said. "What might be dark to me might not be dark to you. We're going off what [the victims] are telling us."

The American Civil Liberties Union said the the suspect's description is not racial profiling. It said if police used race as the sole factor in describing the suspect, that could be racial profiling.

"They are using concrete information to follow up leads," said Alessandra Soler Meetze, a spokeswoman for the ACLU Phoenix chapter.

An attack last Thursday, believed to be that of the same rapist, occurred when an intruder broke into a home and attacked a 15-year-old girl after her father went to work.