Quite Right

The Folly of Land for Peace

2006-07-14T10:08:00.000-05:00

Israel went to war this week. The precipitating event was the killing of 8 Israeli soldiers and the capture of 2 by Hezbollah. Hezbollah captured the soldiers in a raid from Lebanon into Israel. Just before the raid, Hezbollah attacked towns in northern Israel with rockets as a ploy to direct attention away from the incursion into Israel's territory by Hezbollah forces.

Hezbollah's attack occurred as Israel was invading Gaza in response to the capture of an Israeli soldier by the Hamas military wing. Hamas used a tunnel to go from Gaza to Israel to conduct its raid.

Note that both raids came from territory that Israel voluntarily ended its military occupation. Israel removed its troops from southern Lebanon 6 years ago. Israel left Gaza 10 months ago. In both cases, the formerly occupied land became a base for Israel's enemies, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, to launch attacks on Israel. Hezbollah in Lebanon has aimed rockets at towns in northern Israel at an increasing rate in the 6 years since Israel left. Hamas in Gaza has fired over 1,000 rockets from Gaza into Israel since Israel withdrew.

Israel's war today demonstrates the folly of land for peace. Israel gave up southern Lebanon and Gaza, but the radical Islamists in Hezbollah and Hamas refused to give peace in return. Israel's concessions encouraged its enemies, not to seek peace but to increase their efforts to destroy Israel.

Land for peace is now revealed as a failed policy. Regardless of the outcome of this war, the policy of land for peace is dead for the foreseeable future.

Prosecute N.Y. Times and Leakers

2006-06-28T08:59:00.000-05:00

The New York Times recently revealed another classified program aimed at Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. This program tracked international financial transactions. The Times does not challenge either the usefulness or the legality of this program. In fact, the first article notes that the program led to the capture of a major terrorist who plotted the Bali bombings. Yet, the paper irresponsibly publishes the program's existence and workings anyway.

The Times claims its publication is justified because the matter is of public interest. The identity of the leakers is also a matter of public interest, but the Times refuses to publish that information.

The Times has gone too far. The First Amendment does not shield the press from prosecution. The Justice Department should undertake an investigation into the journalists' acts in this case for the purpose of criminal prosecution. The investigation and prosecution should extend to the leakers.

Congress not long ago called in oil industry executives for a hearing on oil prices. The damage done by the press in revealing classified intelligence programs causes far more damage to the nation and should receive greater scrutiny. Congress should hold hearings into the acts and motives of journalists who reveal classified intelligence programs. Call the reporters and their editors and publishers to testify before Congress. Let the public see what is happening and why.

Congress should also pass a resolution expressing its outrage at the New York Times. The resolution should encourage government prosecution.

Journalists are not above the law. Nothing short of criminal prosecution of the journalists and their sources will deter the continues leaking of classified information. The Bush administration, often wrongly portrayed by the press as fiercely partisan, has treated its critics far more kindly than did the Clinton administration. The Bush administration needs to take strong action now in order to protect all other intelligence programs.

No one elected or appointed the New York Times to determine what classified information should be published. The Times people are a self-anointed, arrogant caste.

The major news media used to act responsibly. That time has passed. Only strong corrective action can return responsibility to the New York Times and others who routinely break laws and cause damage to our efforts in the War on Terror.

Vacation Break

2006-06-28T07:57:00.000-05:00

Posting will be light or nonexistent for the next couple of weeks while I am traveling and vacationing.

Posting has been light for the past week for a different reason. My DSL service has been troublesome. (If you considering DSL and cable for a broadband internet connection, cable is probably more reliable.)

Voter ID in Georgia

2006-06-25T07:56:00.000-05:00

I listened to a part of Jesse Jackson's radio program this morning. His guest was the Georgia Secretary of State, who is running for Governor this year. The main topic was Georgia's new requirement that voters must present government-issued photo identification. Georgian passed the law early last year as a way to prevent voter fraud.

The Secretary of State is a Democrat, and she opposes the requirement for photo ID. She gave as one of her reasons that photo ID is too difficult to obtain. She cited as an example that several students at a Georgia college had attempted to obtain a Georgia photo ID. They presented valid evidence of Georgia residence, but all had been denied. I was surprised to learn this until the Secretary of State gave the reason. The students had refused to surrender their out-of-state driver's licenses.

I hate to be the one to break this information to the Georgia Secretary of State. It is illegal in both states for a resident of Georgia to have a driver's license from another state. A person can not have a primary residence in both states.

I have moved across state lines a couple of times. Every time I went for the first time to get an in-state driver's license, I was required to surrender the old license.

Requiring voters to present photo ID will help to prevent voter fraud. (Incidentally, Jackson and the Georgia Secretary of State never mentioned the issue of voter fraud.) Obtaining photo ID is not hard. Nearly everyone of voting age has obtained a driver's license, and states with a photo ID requirement for voting can make available a similar free photo ID for non-drivers.

Al Qaeda Tortures and Kills American Prisoners

2006-06-20T10:48:00.000-05:00

The bodies of the 2 soldiers captured by Al Qaeda have been recovered. (Hat tip to Power Line for the link.) The bodies were found near the place where they were captured Friday. It appears that the soldiers were tortured. "With great regret, they were killed in a barbaric way," said Maj. Gen. Abdul-Aziz Mohammed, the director of Iraq's defense ministry's operation room.

The International Red Cross (IRC) has not asked to inspect the places where the American soldiers were held. The IRC's response in this case contrasts starkly with its demands on the U.S. Other human rights groups have reacted similarly.

No soldier captured by the enemy in Iraq has been treated in accord with the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners. They have all been tortured and killed. Yet, the IRC makes no effort to inspect Al Qaeda's detention facilities. In part, the IRC understands that its own inspectors will be killed. Even Muslim inspectors will not be safe at Al Qaeda detention facilities, and the IRC knows this. On the other hand, IRC inspectors have no fear in American detention facilities, no matter what they report.

One argument made for treating Al Qaeda detainees as POWs under the Geneva Conventions is that this will encourage the other side also to abide by the Geneva Conventions. The U.S.'s good treatment of prisoners did not work with the Japanese in World War II. It did not work with the Chinese and North Koreans in the Korean War. It did not work with the North Vietnamese in the Vietnam War. It has no chance of working with Al Qaeda in Iraq or elsewhere.

We do and will treat Al Qaeda detainees humanely, of course. However, they are not POWs. Unlike American and Iraqi forces, Al Qaeda combat forces do not wear uniforms, they hide among civilians, they use civilians as human shields in combat, and they target civilians to terrorize them. Al Qaeda must follow the civilized world's rules of war before its soldiers can qualify as POWs.

Al Qaeda's treatment of captured soldiers is one more example of how purely evil the people in the organization are. For all the complaints about the way the U.S. treats detainees at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and other places, not a single complainer would prefer to be captured by Al Qaeda rather than by the U.S. The contrast could not be greater.

The War on Terror is a war between Good and Evil. The battle for Iraq has become part of that war, whether or not you believe it was when we invaded the country. Al Qaeda is in Iraq today and is trying to force us to leave. Anyone in the U.S. who wants our armed forces to leave Iraq before the victory is won is, knowingly or not, wanting Al Qaeda to win a battle in the War on Terror. Iraq has become an important battleground in the War on Terror. The killing of the 2 captured American soldiers reveals to the world again the true nature of the enemy and reminds us of why we must defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq and in the larger War on Terror.

NSA Surveillance and Planned Terrorist Attack

2006-06-19T13:24:00.000-05:00

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Cal.), a member of the Intelligence Committee, appeared Sunday morning on CNN's Late Edition.

... [Host Wolf] Blitzer opened by quoting a TIME mag story about the subway cyanide attack called off by Ayman al-Zawahiri. Roberts said that he couldn't say anything, he had been briefed "on these kinds of threats," and that the terrorist surveillance program worked.

Blitzer then tried to get something from Di Fi [Feinstein], saying that two former intelligence officials had confirmed the plot to CNN. Feinstein did not budget [sic], saying that the terrorist surveillance program "is an important tool."

The strong suggestion by Roberts and apparent confirmation by Feinstein is that the NSA surveillance program, which has been heavily criticized by Democrats, helped to stop Al Qaeda's planned poison-gas attack on the New York subway system.

The NSA surveillance program works to increase our security in the U.S. Why would any sane and reasonable person, regardless of political affiliation, want to stop a program that saves American lives?

Senate Rejects Troop Withdrawal

2006-06-16T21:02:00.000-05:00

In the Senate, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) had drafted a resolution calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2006. Kerry was not pushing for a vote on his resolution. Republicans wanted a vote on the measure and therefore introduced an identical resolution. The Senate rejected the resolution by 93-6. (Hat tip to Power Line.) The 6 votes in favor of the resolution, all Democrats, were Kerry, Barbara Boxer (D-Cal.), Robert Byrd (D-W. Va.), Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), and Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.)

Kerry called the Republican tactics political games. He said he wants a "serious debate" on the resolution "that bears my name". Does Kerry mean that he himself did not seriously debate this identical Republican resolution? Did Kerry treat the identical Republican resolution differently because it did not bear his name? Is Kerry a petty man who elevates form over substance?

House Declares Support for War on Terror

2006-06-16T19:22:00.000-05:00

The House of Representatives voted today 256-153 in favor of a resolution supporting our side in the War on Terror. After all the "whereas" clauses, the resolution asks for support of the following:

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) honors all those Americans who have taken an active part in the Global War on Terror, whether as first responders protecting the homeland, as servicemembers overseas, as diplomats and intelligence officers, or in other roles;
(2) honors the sacrifices of the United States Armed Forces and of partners in the Coalition, and of the Iraqis and Afghans who fight alongside them, especially those who have fallen or been wounded in the struggle, and honors as well the sacrifices of their families and of others who risk their lives to help defend freedom;
(3) declares that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq;
(4) declares that the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq;
(5) congratulates Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki and the Iraqi people on the courage they have shown by participating, in increasing millions, in the elections of 2005 and on the formation of the first government under Iraq's new constitution;
(6) calls upon the nations of the world to promote global peace and security by standing with the United States and other Coalition partners to support the efforts of the Iraqi and Afghan people to live in freedom; and
(7) declares that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the noble struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.

To put it another way, over 3/4 of Democrats voted declared with their votes that:

(1) Democrats do not honor "all those Americans who have taken an active part in the Global War on Terror".

(2) Democrats do not honor "the sacrifices of the United States Armed Forces and of partners in the Coalition, and of the Iraqis and Afghans who fight alongside them, especially those who have fallen or been wounded in the struggle".

(3) Democrats do want "to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq", a cut-and-run strategy that would put our good Iraqi friends in peril and would make America's international commitments worthless.

(4) Democrats are not "committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq". That is, Democrats do not care whether Iraq is free and secure.

(5) Democrats do not congratulate "Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki and the Iraqi people on the courage they have shown by participating, in increasing millions, in the elections of 2005 and on the formation of the first government under Iraq's new constitution".

(6) Democrats do not want "the nations of the world to promote global peace and security by standing with the United States and other Coalition partners to support the efforts of the Iraqi and Afghan people to live in freedom".

(7) Democrats refuse to declare "that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the noble struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary".

House Democrats and Republicans have gone on the record with this vote on supporting the War on Terror. (Hat tip to Power Line.) Republicans voted 214-3 for the resolution. Democrats voted 149-42 against the resolution. One independent, a socialist, voted against the resolution. The parties have made clear which one vigorously supports the War on Terror and which one opposes the War on Terror.

This is an amazing vote. The War on Terror is the nation's top priority and will continue to be for a long time, and over 3/4 of House Democrats are not willing to support the War on Terror and to do what is necessary to protect America and its citizens from a repeat of 9/11. A vote for a Democrat candidate for the House of Representatives this fall is a vote against vigorous prosecution of the War on Terror. Take note of this vote, America, and remember that your vote this fall will have consequences.

Zarqawi Information Found and Used

2006-06-15T18:09:00.000-05:00

Iraq's National Security Advisor confirmed that the military forces found important documents in the debris after the deadly air strike on Zarqawi's final safe house. The military found "a laptop, flashdrive and other documents". Among the items found was a thumb-nail drive, which was in Zarqawi's pocket. The National Security Advisor cited the thumb-nail drive as proof that the information found was authentic.

In follow-up raids, more information was discovered. The military has made nearly 500 raids since Zarqawi's death. The forces killed 104 and captured 759 in those raids.

Al Qaeda has suffered a blow. How severe a blow is not yet clear. Al Qaeda will spend some time and effort recovering from the death of Zarqawi and its losses in the follow-up raids. In the last few days, the number of attacks is way down. Do not expect that to continue. The road to complete victory may be shorter than it was a few days ago, but the road is still long and difficult. Al Qaeda and the Baathist remnants can not win unless the U.S. cuts and runs before Iraq is ready to defend itself.

Kerry Changes Mind Again

2006-06-13T16:47:00.000-05:00

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) now says that his vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. Kerry was the Democrats' candidate for President in 2004. During the campaign, he famously said, "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

In 1991, Kerry voted against sending troops to liberate Kuwait from Saddam's Iraq after Saddam attacked Kuwait without provocation. Iraq appeared poised to invade eastern Saudi Arabia. If successful, Saddam would control 25% of the world's oil. Even the U.N. authorized the use of force to liberate Kuwait. However, the liberals could only think of Vietnam. The U.S.-led effort succeeded, and the short Gulf War was remarkably one-sided. Democrats came away looking weak on national security issues.

By 2002, the political landscape had shifted. In the wake of 9/11, the successful invasion of Afghanistan, and Iraq's continued refusal to allow WMD inspections by the U.N., Pres. Bush asked the Senate to authorize the use of force to invade Iraq if Iraq did not cooperate fully with the U.N.'s WMD inspectors. Kerry, wanting to run for President in 2004 and not wanting to look weak on the use of force backed by a majority of Americans, voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq.

After the Iraq invasion, Pres. Bush asked Congress to fund the troops and equipment in Iraq. The Democratic presidential primaries were close, and most Democrat voters opposed the war in Iraq. Kerry voted against the funding, which totaled $87 billion.

During the campaign, Kerry famously explained, "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it." His remark cemented his reputation as a flip-flopper.

Now, Kerry changes his mind again. Kerry opposed the use of force in 1991, favored the use of force in 2002, opposed funding our military in Iraq, tried to claim he favored the funding, and now says his 2002 vote was a mistake. Consistency will never be Kerry's strong suit. He well deserves his reputation as a flip-flopper.

Texas Democrats Oppose Voter Choice

2006-06-12T16:02:00.000-05:00

After winning a March primary, Tom Delay has resigned from Congress and has notified the Texas Republican Party that he will be a resident of Virginia and therefore ineligible to run for reelection to the U.S. House of Representatives from Texas. Last week, the Texas Democratic Party filed suit in Travis County, Texas to prevent the Texas Republican Party from naming a replacement candidate. If successful, the effect will be to deny the voters of Delay's district a choice in the November general election. Apparently, the Democrats do not believe in giving voters a choice.

You may remember that New Jersey Democrats replaced Sen. Toricelli as their U.S. Senate candidate about a month before the general election. Toricelli resigned his candidacy when polls showed he would lose because of the allegations of criminal conduct hanging over his head. However, the date set by New Jersey law to replace him on the general election ballot had passed. This did not prevent the Democrat-controlled New Jersey courts from allowing the Democrats to replace their tainted candidate and to force the state of New Jersey to pay the expenses of changing the ballots. The law in New Jersey was very clear, but the courts ignored the requirements of the state statute anyway. At least the voters of New Jersey had a choice on election day.

Texas Democrats oppose giving voters a choice. Rather than allowing the voters to choose between a Democrat and a Republican, Texas Democrats resort to the courts to deny the voters a choice. Remember that.

Zarqawi's Last Deeds

2006-06-09T09:27:00.000-05:00

Zarqawi, the recently deceased leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, was busy in his final days. Less than 10 miles from where Zarqawi met his end, Iraqi police found 9 cut-off human heads, some still blindfolded. Another 8 were found a few days earlier in another town in the area. The U.S. military had noticed a jump in the number of beheadings in the past few weeks. Beheadings, of course, were a Zarqawi specialty.

Beheadings are Zarqawi's legacy. Despite his barbaric cruelty, Hamas, the governing party in Palestine, declared Zarqawi a martyr of the Arab nation. The Iraqi daily newspaper Al-Rafidain responded by telling Hamas and Zarqawi to go to hell. The Iraqis, having seen Zarqawi's deeds up close, know where he belongs. If Dante could add another chapter today to his Divine Comedy, Zarqawi would be occupying a special place in Hell where 72 beheaded demons take turns repeatedly sawing off Zarqawi's head for the rest of eternity.

Zarqawi Is Killed

2006-06-08T09:06:00.000-05:00

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, was killed in Iraq by American forces. Zarqawi was in a house 30 mile north of Baghdad when air forces bombed the house and killed him. Zarqawi's spiritual adviser was also killed in the bombing.

Congratulations to our military in Iraq for a job well done.

To see the reaction and commentary from around the blogosphere, check out Pajamas Media.

6/6/6 Omen

2006-06-07T20:51:00.000-05:00

Mothers-to-be across the country avoided giving birth on 6/6/6 (June 6, 2006), a date associated with the Antichrist. Caesarians were rescheduled for 6/7, 6/5, or even the prior week. Some women, planning to give birth naturally but not wanting to take any chances, scheduled the birth for a date before 6/6.

I wonder if any baby born on 6/6 was named Damien. If so, is that an omen?

No Common Denominator?

2006-06-06T07:44:00.001-05:00

From Little Green Footballs, we learn that the Toronto Star and the Canadian police can not find anything that the 17 terrorist suspects have in common. The paper quotes the police as saying, "They represent the broad strata of our community." The paper summarizes, "Aside from the fact that virtually all are young men, it's hard to find a common denominator."

News flash to the Toronto Star and the Canadian police: All 17 suspects are Muslims. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Political correctness can be carried too far.

No Common Denominator

2006-06-06T07:44:00.000-05:00

Internet Monitoring Saved Lives

2006-06-05T19:54:00.000-05:00

The terrorist plot in Canada was uncovered through the monitoring of Internet chat rooms. In this country, less intrusive surveillance and data-collection programs have come under intense criticism. However, the critics of the U.S. programs are not voicing criticism of the Canadian program that foiled a terrorist plot to kill many.

Criticism of a program that prevents widespread death would put the surveillance issue in proper perspective. The next time this issue arises, remember that lives may be in the balance.

The Real Situation in Iraq

2006-06-03T12:53:00.000-05:00

The mainstream news media can not be trusted to present a true picture of how things are going in Iraq. To see what Iraq is really like today, read this email from a First Lieutenant in Samarra, Iraq. The email is long, but reading it is worthwhile if you want a true picture of the situation in Iraq. Bottom line: We are making gradual progress, and we can not afford to leave.

Police Foil Terrorist Attacks in Canada

2006-06-03T10:57:00.000-05:00

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) have foiled terrorist attacks planned for southern Ontario. The RCMP arrested 12 adults and 5 youths on charges relating to terrorism, including "training and recruitment, firearms and explosives offences and providing property for terrorist purposes". The raids also uncovered 3 tons of the fertilizer used in the Oklahoma City bombing. (One ton was used in Oklahoma City.)

Power Line adds that, according to preliminary reports, the suspects are Muslims and may have links to Al Qaeda.

New Military Ethics Program

2006-06-02T11:56:00.000-05:00

The government announced that members of the military will take a new ethics training program. The timing of the announcement appears aimed at blunting the media coverage of the allegations of the murder of civilians in Haditha, Iraq. The timing of the development of the program, which occurred in the last couple of months, appears to be a response to the Haditha allegations before they became widely publicized.

Ethics training of adults rarely, if ever, improves the ethics of the trainees. Individuals learn their ethical principles earlier in life.

A few years ago amid concerns of low ethics among attorneys, Texas tripled the required annual ethics education for attorneys. There is no evidence that the increased ethics education has reduced the instances of unethical conduct by Texas attorneys. Even with the increased ethical education, a few lawyers steal from their clients and fail to do what they agreed to do. However, we all learned in our youth that stealing is wrong and breaking your promise is wrong. People prone to steal will do so with or without ethics training in adulthood.

Texas was not alone. Many other states also increased ethics education requirements for attorneys. Just as in Texas, there is no evidence that the increased ethics education has reduced the instances of unethical conduct by attorneys. The ethics education requirement gives the impression that something is being done, and it feels good and looks good to the public, no matter how ineffective it may be.

Whether we are discussing a profession or the military, ethics training will not change the ethics of the trainees. Members of the military know that murder is wrong. No amount of ethics training will suddenly make the few prone to do so less likely to murder innocents.

Screening the initial applicants will be more effective. Let me give you an example from my own experience. When I was preparing to take the bar exam many years ago (passing the bar exam is required before a person can practice law), I took a review course and sat near a small group of people from another law school for one session. I overheard their conversation. One of them had been caught cheating on a law school exam. Because of that, he had to request special permission from the Texas State Bar to take the bar exam. If the State Bar permits known cheaters to practice law, why should we be surprised when lawyers cheat in the practice of law.

Similarly, screening out applicants with known ethical problems will be more effective than an ethics training program. Also, since the allegations regarding Haditha concern what happened after the group leaders were put out of action by death and injury, an even greater emphasis on discipline in basic training might have a positive effect.

A military ethics training program is not the answer.

Haditha: Rush to Judgment

2006-06-01T11:12:00.000-05:00

Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) has publicly accused Marines of the murder of unarmed civilians in Haditha, Iraq and of covering up the incident. (The city of Haditha is on the Euphrates River northwest of Baghdad.) The military is investigating what happened at Haditha. Whatever happened occurred after an explosive device killed one of the Marines.

Murtha's rush to judgment is unseemly. The military investigation is underway. As the military showed in the Abu Ghraib case, the military can and will conduct a full and fair investigation of allegations of misconduct. This is more than can be said about Murtha and others like him who are more interested in partisanship than in truth.

We do not know now what happened at Haditha. When the military completes its investigation, all the facts, whether good, bad, or ugly, will be made public. If the Marines did in fact kill innocent Iraqi civilians, they should be and will be severely punished. If the Marines in fact did not commit the alleged acts of murder, they should be and will be absolved of blame. Until the facts are fully investigated, all of us should withhold judgment.

Any Members of Congress who rush to judgment before the military completes its investigation are acting irresponsibly. Murtha expects the military in combat in Iraq to determine all the facts and to hold its fire when not under attack. In far less trying circumstances in the U.S., Murtha failed to determine all the facts and to hold his fire.

U.S. Economy Needs Guest Workers

2006-05-31T15:56:00.000-05:00

Irish Pennants reminds us that one reason so many illegal immigrants have come to the U.S. is because our economy produces enough jobs to employ millions of illegal immigrants while our country has only 1.4 million long-term unemployed citizens. That gap has to be filled one way or the other. A guest worker program makes sense in the context of our economic situation.

The problem is how to control the foreigners who come to the U.S. to work. Currently, the control is virtually absent. Border control is not adequate to keep illegal immigrants out. Enforcement within the country is not adequate to prevent illegal immigrants from finding employment. Employers that try to verify the worker's status may even subject themselves to discrimination lawsuits, thus reducing whatever desire they may have to weed out illegals.

Our economy needs guest workers. However, effective enforcement is a necessary component of any guest worker program.

Senate Confirms Hayden to Head CIA

2006-05-30T10:49:00.000-05:00

After all the ranting and raving about the NSA programs to intercept Al Qaeda communications and to collect phone call data, the Senate decided the complaints were not well founded. In voting 78-15 to confirm General Hayden, the Senate clearly decided not to hold his role in these programs against him. That would not have happened if the Senate truly felt that the programs were illegal or improper.

Here are the 15 senators who voted against confirming Hayden:

Bayh (D-IN)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Obama (D-IL)
Specter (R-PA)
Wyden (D-OR)

The list includes 14 Democrats and only one Republican (Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania). The senators voting for confirmation included several critics of the NSA programs, such as Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), and Minority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

What happened to the argument that the NSA programs violated the law and did not contribute to national security? Oh well, never mind. When it came down to a serious vote on someone involved in the NSA programs, most complaining senators ignored their own critical statements.

Will Immigration Be a Partisan Campaign Issue?

2006-05-27T09:43:00.000-05:00

Votes on the immigration bills in Congress reveal a partisan divide on what to do. The House bill, essentially an enforcement-only bill, is a Republican measure and passed with only 17 Republicans voting against it.

The Senate bill is mainly a Democrat proposal, despite the support of the President. It is a comprehensive bill, providing amnesty-like treatment for illegal immigrants already here, a path to citizenship for those illegal immigrants, and other provisions granting favorable benefits to illegal immigrants. Democrats voted for it 38-4 (39-4 if you count the nominal independent who votes with Democrats for organization purposes), and Republicans voted against it 32-22.

The two bills now go to a conference committee, which will determine the final compromise version to be voted on. The House conferees should insist on strict border control and tough enforcement for future violations. If that requires a compromise on other provisions, a compromise is in order, but the Senate bill goes mush too far in giving benefits to illegal immigrants.

Voters back home are paying attention to this immigration issue. Immigration is one of the issues that separate the parties. Voters need to pay attention to which party is taking care of the security of U.S. citizens and which party is taking care of special interests.

Politician as Dope

2006-05-25T15:28:00.000-05:00

The quote of the day comes from a commenter named Vintner at Volokh's Conspiracy:

Seen on a bumper sticker in the San Francisco Mission district yesterday:

"Grow your own dope! Plant a politician."

Is a Congressman's Office Shielded from a Search?

2006-05-24T16:37:00.000-05:00

The FBI is investigating Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) for bribery. In a search of his New Orleans house, the FBI found $90,000 in cash in his freezer.

Several months ago, the FBI requested that Jefferson provide documents from his office. Jefferson ignored the request.

Therefore, the FBI sought and obtained a warrant to search Jefferson's congressional office. To oversee the search, the FBI assigned a special agent to assure that the agents conducting the search did not take any documents related to the work of Congress. With the warrant in hand and the special agent on hand to oversee the search, the FBI searched Jefferson's House office.

Leaders of the House of Representatives, including Republicans, complained that the search violated the constitutional separation of powers. The Constitution does not expressly provide that congressional offices are above the law. The relevant parts appear to be the Fourth Amendment, which limits searches, and the Speech and Debate Clause in Article I, which protects Congressmen from arrest and prosecution.

Similar to the protection of Congress under the Speech and Debate Clause, the First Amendment protects the press. The courts have ruled that the First Amendment does not shield newspaper offices from reasonable searches pursuant to a warrant. It seems that similar reasoning should apply to congressional offices and the Speech and Debate Clause. Thus, the Speech and Debate Clause does not prohibit an otherwise reasonable search with a warrant of a congressional office.

The Speech and Debate Clause reads:

The Senators and Representatives . . . shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

Courts have held that the Speech and Debate Clause applies only to core legislative functions. It therefore seems that the FBI should be able to seize documents not related directly to legislative acts. I understand that the Justice Department may use initial document reviewers separate from the prosecution team. This would prevent the prosecutors from learning anything from documents that they should not see.

I do not see a constitutional issue in the present case. To me, the Members of Congress seem overly sensitive and too eager to extend their limited privilege from arrest and prosecution. For some other views on the constitutional issues, see Orin Kerr, Volokh's Conspiracy, and Cato@Liberty.

If Democrats Want Higher Taxes, Let Democrats Pay Higher Taxes

2006-05-23T15:07:00.000-05:00

Democrats want higher taxes, and Republicans want lower taxes We can satisfy both of them. I propose a voluntary tax. The tax might fund debt reduction, or it could fund unnecessary expenditures and programs that seem to have a perpetual existence (for example, all congressional earmarks, the Netional Endowment for the Arts, and the National Endowment for the Humanities). Either way, the tax form would have a line for the voluntary tax. The line description could read, "If you favor higher taxes, enter $3,000 or 15% of your income tax before credits, whichever is higher, to add to your income tax". Better yet: "If you voted for a Democrat in the last election for President, enter $3,000 or 15% of your income tax before credits, whichever is higher, to add to your income tax".

The response to this voluntary tax will be lower than the checkoff for contributions to the presidential election campaigns.

More Examples of Intolerance by the Left

2006-05-22T16:54:00.000-05:00

In the last few days, liberal students at college commencements booed and heckled Secretary of State Condileeza Rice and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who were receiving honorary degrees, and disrupted their speeches.

Many liberals preach diversity but shout down opposing viewpoints.

Many liberals preach tolerance but practice intolerance.

Intolerance has become a hallmark of the Left, especially on college campuses.

Amnesty for Employers of Illegal Immigrants

2006-05-22T16:46:00.000-05:00

The Senate immigration bill contains a provision to protect employers. The bill says:

Employers of aliens applying for adjustment of status under this section shall not be subject to civil and criminal tax liability relating directly to the employment of such alien.

That sounds like amnesty to me.

Two Real-Life Illustrations Regarding Immigration

2006-05-22T09:40:00.000-05:00

Let me give you two illustrations of immigration.

The first illustration: My wife went to a garden store this past weekend. She asked about "grass", a common lawn-and-garden request. The clerk did not understand her. Several employees were working, but only one spoke English, and he spoke with a thick accent. My wife told him what she wanted, and he translated her requests for the other workers. The store is at a freeway location surrounded by typical neighborhoods. My wife concluded, correctly I think, that all the workers were illegal immigrants.

The second illustration: My wife and I were walking through a local park this past weekend. As we walked along a path, a Hispanic family approached from the opposite direction. As we passed, the parents were speaking to each other in Spanish, but the children were speaking to each other in unaccented English.

The first illustration shows the bad side of immigration, the illegal side with fraudulently obtained employment and with no apparent assimilation. The second illustration shows the good side of immigration, an intact and happy family unit with the children assimilating into the broader American society.

The picture of immigration is not a consistent one. Draw your own conclusions.

Senate Vote Forgives Identity Theft

2006-05-19T14:17:00.000-05:00

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) submitted an amendment to the immigration bill. His amendment would prohibit illegal immigrants from getting credit for Social Security purposes while they were working illegally. Many illegal immigrants steal other people's social security numbers. This identity theft creates problems and confusion for legal Social Security participants.

The amendment seems sensible, doesn't it? Nonetheless, the Senate rejected the Ensign amendment 50-49.

Among the opponents of the amendment was John McCain (R-Ariz.), who plans to run for president in 2008.

Senate Votes on English Language

2006-05-19T12:10:00.000-05:00

The U.S. Senate voted 63-34 to make English the official national language. Currently, the U.S. does not have an official language.

The vote was on an amendment to the immigration bill. Sen, Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Senate minority leader, called the amendment "racist" because "it is directed at people who speak Spanish".

To confuse the issue some, the Senate voted 58-39 to approve an amendment calling English the "unifying language", whatever that means.

After the Senate passes a final immigration bill, the Senate and House will send representatives to a conference committee to agree on the provisions that will be in the immigration bill. Then, both the Senate and the House must pass the conference bill to send it to the President for his signature, which would make the bill law.

Endangered Europeans Seek Safety in U.S.

2006-05-18T10:02:00.000-05:00

Hirsi Ali has resigned from parliament in The Netherlands and is moving to the U.S. Ali has been a critic of radical Islam. Because of that, she has received multiple threats of death. Therefore, she was under constant guard and lived in an apartment with bullet-proof windows. The other residents of the apartment house sued out of fear of terrorist attacks on Ali, and a Dutch court ordered her out of the building.

Ali is not the only one.

Across Europe, dozens of people are now in hiding or under police protection because of threats from Muslim extremists. Dutch police say politicians reported 121 death threats last year. The number this year will likely be much higher. ...

In Germany, several researchers, journalists and members of Parliament receive police protection because of threats by radical Muslims. Hans-Peter Raddatz, an Islamic-studies expert under police protection, recently moved to the U.S.

Flemming Rose, the culture editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, is also mulling a move to America, at the urging of friends and security contacts. ...

As Tiger Hawk observes:

The organized threat of Islamic radicalism is such that once powerful European countries -- erstwhile seats of empire -- are no longer able to preserve the security of their leading citizens, including legislators and newspaper editors. What are these people doing? On the advice of fellow Europeans and security experts, these persecuted people are moving to the United States, the only Western country whose government at least arguably acts as though it is at war with militant Islam.

When your life is in danger, you move to safety. Ali did not move to another country in Europe or to Canada. She moved to the U.S.

The Europeans made a fundamental error decades ago by letting in Muslim immigrants who did not share basic Western values of freedom and tolerance. Now they are reaping the consequences. Even worse, the Europeans do not seem to realize they are in a conflict, whether or not they choose to engage in the battle.

Senate Votes for Fence on Border

2006-05-17T14:33:00.000-05:00

Today, the Senate voted 83-16 to put 370 miles of triple-layered fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers on our border with Mexico. All 16 "no" votes were cast by Democrats, proving once again that Democrats are less serious about border issues.

"Comprehensive" Immigration Reform

2006-05-16T19:15:00.000-05:00

I cringe when politicians speak about a "comprehensive" solution for illegal immigration. The word "comprehensive" too often sounds like a code for amnesty while doing little on border control.

The only essential part of the solution is border control. Without border control, the problem of illegal immigration remains and grows.

The other elements of a proposed comprehensive solution are not required to be in the final legislation on immigration. However, they may be necessary in a political sense in order to put together the votes to pass an immigration reform bill. That is acceptable so long as the final bill contains true border control.

Round-up of Reactions to Bush's Speech

2006-05-16T14:46:00.000-05:00

The Amboy Times has a good round-up of bloggers' reactions to Pres. Bush's immigration speech last night. Check it out, and follow the links to posts that interest you.

Liberals Define Cultural Racism

2006-05-16T09:37:00.000-05:00

The Seattle Public Schools are very concerned about "Equity and Race Relations". Part of the concern is "cultural racism". Examples of "cultural racism" include "having a future time orientation, emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology, defining one form of English as standard". (Hat tip to The Corner.)

So, you are a cultural racist if you go to college in order a better future. You are a cultural racist if you favor capitalism over the more collective ideology of socialism. You are a cultural racist if you favor a standard form of English so that we can all communicate effectively with each other.

In other words, liberals define "cultural racism" to exclude proven American values. Liberals, at least the ones who run the Seattle Public Schools, have gone over the edge.

Some Thoughts on President's Immigration Speech

2006-05-15T19:52:00.000-05:00

The overall tone of Pres. Bush's immigration speech struck me as an effort to get in the middle of the road on the immigration issue.

Sending National Guard troops to the border will help. Since the Guard will not engage in enforcement, the help will be limited.

I like hearing about building a fence. The absence of specifics means we must wait to see what kind of fence will be built. Still, a barrier of some kind is essential, at least near the populated areas. A fence that is not effective, however, will be a waste of money.

The proposed guest worker program may be acceptable, but only as a supplement to effective border control. A guest worker program without effective border control will be worthless. Immigrants may enter the U.S. legally as guest workers, but they may want to stay illegally when the guest worker visa expires. What will prevent them from becoming illegal immigrants at the end of their time as a legal guest worker?

A path to citizenship is amnesty, no matter what distinction the President wants to draw. This may be acceptable as part of a political compromise, but only if effective border control is put in place to stop the flow of new illegal immigrants into the country.

A tamper-proof identity card for foreign workers seems a good idea on the surface. If the card is only required for foreign workers, an employer must first be able to distinguish between American and foreign workers. How does an employer tell with certainty that a worker is American or foreign? Will a card only for foreign workers eliminate the forgery of other identification documents?

The President's speech was balanced and moderate, but it hinges on effective border control. The President did not give specifics on the fence to be built. Therefore, we must adopt a wait-and-see posture until more specifics are known and we can tell how serious the government, including Congress, will be about border control and enforcement of immigration laws.

Immigration Speech Must Introduce Effective Border Control

2006-05-15T18:41:00.000-05:00

Pres. Bush speaks shortly on immigration. No matter what else the speech addressed, the President must introduce effective border control measures. A good start would be a real fence in populated areas.

Further, the U.S. is an economic magnet to people living in Latin America. The difference in living standards between the U.S. and Mexico is the greatest in the world for neighboring countries. With that in mind, a comprehensive and constantly maintained database or some hard-to-forge employment identity card is necessary. Employers need an effective and efficient way to verify the identification produced by new employees. Once that is in place, employers can be held fully accountable for hiring illegal immigrants.

Without effective border control, illegal immigration will continue and will increase. The problem will not go away by itself.

State of Washington Removes Dead and Duplicate Voters from Rolls

2006-05-15T11:38:00.000-05:00

The close 2004 election for governor of Washington revealed problems with registration and voting. From the Seattle Times (via Betsy's Page):

The Secretary of State's Office has deleted about 55,000 registrations from Washington's voter rolls after finding duplicate records and dead voters with the aid of a new statewide database.

The database, put in place earlier this year, allowed the state to find 19,579 dead people still on the rolls and 35,445 duplicate voter records.

Sound Politics points out in 2 posts that problems remain. King County, where Seattle is located, still can not reconcile its mail-in ballots for the 2004 election.

Probably every state has dead people and duplicate voters on its rolls. I encourage every state to create a database of appropriate records (deaths, all voter registrations, etc.) and to use the database to eliminate dead people and duplicate voters on the voter rolls. It would be better to do this before a close election calls into question the integrity of the voter rolls rather than after as Washington has done.

Troops on the Border?

2006-05-12T18:08:00.000-05:00

Karl Rove met with some Texas Congressmen early this morning. One of them said in a radio interview that Rove said that Pres. Bush was exploring putting National Guard or military troops on the border.

Border control is the first priority in resolving the illegal immigration problem. Without control of the border, illegal immigration will become an ever greater problem.

Today, the White House announced that Pres. Bush will speak to the nation Monday evening about immigration. If he says that troops will be stationed on the border, that will be encouraging. We will wait and see.

Qwest and Privacy

2006-05-12T14:14:00.000-05:00

Qwest was the only major phone company that did not share its phone call records with the government, but Qwest's own privacy policy allows it to share customer account information with affiliates and with companies having a business relationship with Qwest. In other words, Qwest shares account information when it stands to make a buck selling or marketing to you but not when it might save your life.

Not "Sincerely Yours" or "Best Wishes"

2006-05-12T13:58:00.000-05:00

Earlier this week, Pres. Ahmadinejad of Iran sent a long letter to Pres. Bush. Instead of our familiar "Sincerely yours", Ahmadinejad's closing salutation is "Vasalam Ala Man Ataba'al hoda", which means "Peace only unto those who follow the true path". A New York Sun editorial tells us more about the salutation:

It is a phrase with historical significance in Islam, for, according to Islamic tradition, in year six of the Hejira - the late 620s - the prophet Mohammad sent letters to the Byzantine emperor and the Sassanid emperor telling them to convert to the true faith of Islam or be conquered. The letters included the same phrase that President Ahmadinejad used to conclude his letter to Mr. Bush. For Mohammad, the letters were a prelude to a Muslim offensive, a war launched for the purpose of imposing Islamic rule over infidels.

Whether the closing salutation indicates a declaration of war, as the Sun and some others believe, I am not sure. I am sure that the salutation is not the same as "Best wishes".

Too Much Outrage over Phone Data Collection

2006-05-11T16:46:00.000-05:00

The news story of the day is the NSA's collection of domestic telephone records. The story was leaked by anonymous sources, and the leak appears timed to hurt the nomination of Gen. Michael Hayden for CIA director.

The NSA has been building a database of external data on phone calls (for example, number calling, number called, time of call). The government does not listen to any calls or collect any information on the substance of the call.

Liberals have been outraged. (Where was their outrage when the Clinton White House was illegally reading FBI files?) Their outrage is over the top.

Imagine for a minute that a prominent Democrat suddenly was anointed President. Do you think that the Democratic President would terminate this NSA program? Before you answer, consider that, when the widely expected terrorist strike does occur on U.S. soil, the president who terminates the program that would have contributed in hindsight to preventing that attack will become the most reviled president in U.S. history. On the other hand, can a Democrat who criticizes the NSA intelligence programs justify a change of mind once in the White House? Will a Democrat in the White House be willing to risk American lives for a temporary partisan political gain? The current outrage voiced by Democrats shows you that too many Democrats are more motivated by temporary partisan political gain than they are by genuine concern for the lives of Americans.

The ones voicing outrage over this NSA program should consider that many private enterprises have similar information about individual Americans. The telephone companies already have the data they passed to the government. Grocery stores have and sell the information about your purchases if you have their discount card. The IRS has your basic financial information and has the power to obtain all of it in an audit. Are any of these entities any more trustworthy than the NSA?

Since 9/11, the U.S. has not experienced another terrorist attack. This has not happened by chance. This NSA data collection program and other intelligence programs help to prevent terrorist attacks.

In the final analysis, this program of collecting phone call data, which was initiated in the wake of 9/11, serves a valid national security purpose. The infringement on privacy is virtually infinitesimal. On balance, the program is worthwhile. The outrage is not deserved.

Media Ignores Important and Positive Iraq Story

2006-05-11T15:01:00.000-05:00

Irish Pennants relays the results of some research by Tapscott's Copy Desk. The subject was an Al Qaeda document captured last month in Iraq. (See "Al Qaeda Weakening in Iraq" posted on Tuesday.) Among other things, the document says, "every year is worse than the previous year as far as the Mujahidin's control and influence over Baghdad".

Tapscott's Copy Desk could not find any story on the captured document in the mainstream media (MSM). Irish Pennants also could not find any MSM story on the captured document.

Irish Pennants concludes by asking, "why have we read this story only in the blogosphere?" The answer is too obvious. The bias of the MSM is real, and the bias runs deep.

Explanation of High Gas Prices

2006-05-10T11:37:00.000-05:00

Betsy's Page finds one of the best explanations of high gas prices. Surprisingly, the explanation is in an NPR article, not exactly a conservative outlet.

The writer breaks down the price of gasoline. Out of the average $2.90 per gallon, $1.60 is for crude oil, 64 cents is for refining, 55 cents is for taxes, and 11 cents is for distribution and marketing.

Though the public seems to blame oil companies for high prices, the NPR article explains that prices of crude oil are set by the global market rather than by oil companies. According to the article:

So you have a situation where demand has been growing steadily and inexorably, and the system of supply is quite vulnerable. That's the basic recipe for high prices.

Despite high gas prices, use of gasoline in the U.S. has increased from a year ago, as the article points. How do we reduce the price of gasoline? The answer, according to the author of the article, is to increase supply and to decrease demand.

Even NPR understands what causes high gas prices and what can fix the problem. When will the mainstream news media inform the public? Until the public realizes the truth about gas prices, politicians will pander to the public and not address the real underlying causes.

Military Officer Can Be CIA Director

2006-05-09T15:07:00.000-05:00

Pres. Bush has nominated Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden to replace Porter Goss as CIA director. Hayden has a lot of experience in the intelligence field. Opponents of the nomination base part of their opposition on Gen. Hayden's military status. They think that a military officer should not head a civilian intelligence agency.

If confirmed, Hayden will not be the first military officer to serve as CIA director. Pres. Truman nominated 2 military officers for CIA director. Most recently, Pres. Carter made Admiral Stansfeld Turner his CIA director.

Opponents of the nomination worry that a military officer will answer to the Pentagon and the Secretary of Defense. Admiral Turner recently addressed the concerns over a military officer as CIA director. Turner said that, while he served as CIA director, he did not report to anyone in the Defense Department or the military and that no one ever suggested that he should.

The concerns over having an Air Force general as CIA director are misplaced. The concerns reflect more an anti-military bias. Many of the opponents of the nomination would oppose any nominee put forward by Pres. Bush. Gen Hayden should be evaluated as any civilian would be. If he is qualified, he should be confirmed. His military status should not be a factor in the confirmation process.

Al Qaeda Weakening in Iraq

2006-05-09T13:14:00.000-05:00

The mainstream news media in the U.S. paint a gloomy picture of what is happening in Iraq. However, Al Qaeda sees the situation more clearly and recognizes their weak and deteriorating position. In a document captured April 16, an unidentified Al Qaeda operative acknowledges that "every year is worse than the previous year". Why does he say that?

The strength of the brothers in Baghdad is built mainly on booby trapped cars, and most of the mujahidin groups in Baghdad are generally groups of assassin without any organized military capabilities.

There is a clear absence of organization among the groups of the brothers in Baghdad, whether at the leadership level in Baghdad, the brigade leaders, or their groups therein. ...

The policy followed by the brothers in Baghdad is a media oriented policy without a clear comprehensive plan to capture an area or an enemy center. Other word, the significance of the strategy of their work is to show in the media that the American and the government do not control the situation and there is resistance against them. ...

At the same time, the Americans and the Government were able to absorb our painful blows, sustain them, compensate their losses with new replacements, and follow strategic plans which allowed them in the past few years to take control of Baghdad as well as other areas one after the other. That is why every year is worse than the previous year as far as the Mujahidin's control and influence over Baghdad.

The resistance in Iraq is losing, and they know it. Our efforts in Iraq are producing progress, but slowly. The pace of progress does not suit the American preference for quick results, but it is the best way to wage the war in Iraq. How long will it be before the American mainstream media recognize the reality on the ground in Iraq?

American Theocracy?

2006-05-08T16:28:00.000-05:00

American Theocracy by Kevin Phillips is on the New York Times best-seller list. The book's theme is that America under Pres. George W. Bush is a Religious Right theocracy. I guess that explains the absence of prayer in public schools, the widespread and constitutionally protected availability of abortion on demand, and the continuing removal of the Ten Commandments, crosses, and manger scenes from the public square.

Oh, wait! These examples prove the opposite of the book's theme. In reality, the Christian Right has some influence but not nearly enough to dominate American society. Whatever research Phillips did, it was woefully inadequate.

Despite the invalidity of the book's premise, liberals, many of whom are highly prejudiced against religion in general and the Christian Right especially, will continue to keep the book flying off the shelves.

Real Torture

2006-05-08T14:59:00.000-05:00

Critics of U.S. actions in the War on Terror frequently make claims of torture, as for example the allegations of torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. The critics and others need to understand what real torture is and how brutal our enemies are. Thought the identity of the victim has been questioned, this is real torture.

Our enemies are brutal, depraved, and thoroughly evil. The gap between their practices and ours is huge.

CIA Director Resigns

2006-05-05T18:05:00.000-05:00

CIA director Porter Goss, a former Republican Congressman and a former CIA employee, resigned today after less than 2 years in the position. The brevity of his time in the office suggests a problem with his performance (not likely) or a conflict within the administration.

Regardless of the reason for Goss's resignation, Goss had been going after the leakers within the CIA. Too many CIA agents consider themselves to be serving some self-determined higher purpose and to be above the law, and the CIA leaks have become a partisan weapon. As a former CIA guy, Goss knew how the agency really worked and how to go after the leakers. Goss's replacement may not pursue the leakers as vigorously or as effectively.

Rep. Kennedy Crashed Car

2006-05-05T12:42:00.000-05:00

Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), son of Sen Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), crashed his car into a barrier around 2:30 a.m. Thursday. The police who arrived on the scene say they smelled alcohol on Kennedy's breath, but Kennedy denies drinking. When questioned, Kennedy said he was on his way to a vote. (The last House vote was about 6 hours earlier.) A police supervisor overruled the police on the scene and ordered them to take Kennedy home without giving him a breathalyzer test.

Kennedy's truthfulness is in dispute. Two witnesses, a hostess and a bartender, are reported to have seen Kennedy drinking. Kennedy's statement at the scene that he was heading to a House vote is false. Kennedy explains that he was disoriented, but the statement may have been calculated to prevent being arrested because the Constitution prohibits the arrest of a member of Congress going to attend a session of Congress.

The bigger issue to me is the favoritism that the police extended to Kennedy. As Sen. Ted Kennedy ironically asked in 1973, "Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law? Or is there one system for the average citizen and another for the high and mighty?" (Hat tip to commenter kitty at Radio Equalizer.)

The police did not treat Kennedy the same as they would have treated an ordinary citizen. That should not be acceptable in our society. Accordingly, the police superintendent who overruled the police on the scene should be fired.

History Lesson - Windfall Profits Tax

2006-05-04T17:01:00.000-05:00

Angry at high gas prices, Americans are currently considering a windfall profits tax on "greedy" oil companies. In a Los Angeles Times column, Jonathan Williams reminds us of what happened the last time this situation arose.

But lawmakers could benefit from a history lesson. The last time this country experimented with such a tax was the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980. According to a 1990 Congressional Research Service study, the tax depressed the domestic oil industry, increased foreign imports and raised only a tiny fraction of the revenue forecasted. It stunted domestic production of oil by 3% to 6% and created a surge in foreign imports, from 8% to 16%.

A windfall profits tax will make the problem of high gas prices worse. The tax will increase costs and will therefore reduce supply. Less gas at higher prices is not what American consumers want.

Another Democrat Bribery Scandal

2006-05-04T15:45:00.000-05:00

A second man has pleaded guilty to bribing Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.), who represents New Orleans. The Democrats may try to make an election issue of a Republican culture of corruption, but the Democrats have their own corruption scandals.

As Betsy's Page asks, whose culture of corruption is it?

Iraq - Status Report

2006-05-04T12:49:00.000-05:00

For a realistic and unbiased assessment of the situation in Iraq, read about the McCaffrey trip report. Gen. Barry McCaffrey, now retired, was skeptical of the Iraq war in 2003 and has frequently criticized Defense Sec. Rumsfeld. Yet, his report of his mid-April trip to Iraq is mostly favorable, with some cautions. McCaffrey's report this year can be compared to his report made after his trip in June 2005. We are making progress, but we still have much to do.

McCaffrey's 2006 report praises the "awe-inspiring" morale and fighting effectiveness of U.S. combat forces. He calls the Iraqi Army "real, growing and willing to fight" and "a brilliant success story". His evaluation of the Iraqi police is less glowing. The police "show marked improvement in capability since MG Joe Peterson took over the program" but still have a long way to go. Making the police reliable and competent "will be a ten year project requiring patience, significant resources, and an international public face". McCaffrey believes "the Iraqis are likely to successfully create a governing entity", overcoming many problems in the political culture.

What about Al Qaeda in Iraq?

The foreign jihadist fighters have been defeated as a strategic and operational threat to the creation of an Iraqi government. Aggressive small unit combat action by Coalition Forces combined with good intelligence - backed up by new Iraqi Security Forces is making an impact. The foreign fighters remain a serious tactical menace. However, they are a minor threat to the heavily armed and wary U.S. forces. They cannot successfully stop the Iraqi police and army recruitment.

McCaffrey directs strong criticism at the State Department. He also finds that our detainee policy may have over-corrected.

The AIF [terrorists/insurgents] are exploiting our overly restrictive procedures and are routinely defying the U.S. interrogators. It is widely believed that the US has a Â14 day catch and release policyÂ and the AIF ÂsuspectÂ will soon be back in action.

This is an overstatement of reality, however, we do have a problem. Many of the AIF detainees routinely accuse U.S. soldiers of abuse under the silliest factual situations knowing it will trigger an automatic investigation.

McCaffrey warns that we are running out of money and political support. He does not trust the allies to fulfill their pledges.

What is his overall conclusion?

There is no reason why the U.S. cannot achieve our objectives in Iraq. Our aim must be to create a viable federal state under the rule of law which does not: enslave its own people, threaten its neighbors, or produce weapons of mass destruction. This is a ten year task. We should be able to draw down most of our combat forces in 3-5 years. We have few alternatives to the current US strategy which is painfully but gradually succeeding. This is now a race against time. Do we have the political will, do we have the military power, will we spend the resources required to achieve our aims?

It was very encouraging for me to see the progress achieved in the past year. Thanks to the leadership and personal sacrifice of the hundreds of thousands of men and women of the CENTCOM team and the CIA Â the American people are far safer today than we were in the 18 months following the initial intervention.

Remember that McCaffrey was an early skeptic of the war in Iraq and is not a friend of Defense Rumsfeldsfeld. Nonetheless, McCaffrey gives us an accurate analysis of the situation in Iraq. Read the whole post at The Belmont Club (link at the top of this post).

Moussaoui Gets Life

2006-05-03T17:01:00.000-05:00

The jury gave Moussaoui a sentence of life without parole. The alternative was the death penalty.

As Moussaoui left, he said, "America, you lost. Novak, you lost. I won." At least Moussaoui knew that the trial was a contest between his side and ours, even if the jurors did not.

According to reporters, some jurors looked downcast and shook their heads as if they did not agree with the sentence. This seems a credible interpretation and may explain why the jury took so long to agree on a sentence. It will be very interesting to hear the stories of the jurors.

I will take a guess that Al Qaeda's leaders are having a chuckle at the expense of the naive jurors. Moussaoui's life sentence confirms Al Qaeda'a belief that America is soft.

Social Security Finances Declining

2006-05-03T13:05:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, the Associated Press reported (hat tip to Ace of Trump):

Social Security and Medicare trustees say the financial condition of the government's two biggest benefit programs deteriorated slightly over the past year.

...

The annual trustees' report moved up the date that the Social Security trust fund will be depleted by one year to 2040 and moved up the date that the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund will be depleted by two years to 2018.

...

[Sen. Jack] Reed [(D-R.I.)]was ... critical of a finding by the trustees that the amount of general revenue needed to finance Medicare will hit 45 percent in 2012, up from 35 percent currently.

Democrats charged that the administration was using the trustees' reports to try to create an air of crisis to make radical changes in the two benefit programs.

The Concord Coalition, a budget watchdog group, however said the trustees were highlighting serious problems that needed to be addressed.

Social Security is currently running a surplus, with more money coming in from taxes than is being paid out in benefits, but this will change once the post-World War II baby boom generation begins retiring in coming years.

Since the government spends the surplus on other federal programs, the Social Security and Medicare trust funds essentially are government IOUs. To redeem those IOUs to pay benefits, the government must do some combination of increasing borrowing, cutting spending in other areas or raising taxes.

That means that the pinch will occur long before the trust funds are depleted when the cost of the programs exceeds the amount they collect in taxes and premiums each year.

For the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund, that crossover point was projected to occur permanently in 2006. For Social Security, the date that taxes will not cover all benefits will occur in 2017, the trustees said, the same date as last year.

The poor financial condition of Social Security and Medicare is not a surprise. Congress debated the issue last year but was not able to reach a consensus to solve the problem. As each year passes, the problem will worsen, and the solution will require increasingly greater amounts of taxes and spending cuts. Do not expect either the Republicans or the Democrats in Congress to act responsibly.

The Rise of the U.S. Anti-war Movement

2006-05-02T20:50:00.000-05:00

In my previous post, I asked why Hollywood has not made a patriotic war movie since 9/11, and I compared the War on Terror with World War II (WW2), when Hollywood made patriotic war movies. This comparison raises the question of what changed.

In WW2, the country was almost entirely patriotic, and Hollywood reflected that patriotism. The U.S. did not have a significant anti-war movement in WW2. The Korean War began to change that. The stalemate that developed in Korea tested the patience and steadfastness of the American people, and support for the war declined, causing Pres. Truman's popularity to plummet. As the war dragged on, Americans questioned the value of resisting communist North Korea's naked and unprovoked invasion of the South. Why was the U.S. sacrificing blood and money in a faraway land when North Korea was not likely to attack the U.S.?

Like Korea, the Vietnam War initially was widely popular. Again, the war dragged on, and support waned. As before, Americans asked themselves what was gained by resisting an aggressor that had no apparent aim to attack the U.S. itself. Unlike Korea, the opposition became very open, virulent, anti-military, and anti-American. The anti-war movement became a liberal cause. Some in the ant-war movement openly wished for an American defeat.

When the Vietnam War ended, those in the anti-war movement increasingly opposed American efforts in the Cold War. In the 1980s, Pres. Reagan decided to put missiles in Europe to deter Soviet aggression in Europe. The decision and its implementation was vigorously protested by the anti-war movement, which held one of the largest marches in U.S. history in New York City. Pres. Reagan also pressed successfully for research on a missile defense shield, the so-called Star Wars program, which the anti-war movement reflexively opposed as well. As we now know, Pres. Reagan's defense build-up contributed greatly to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Soviet communist empire.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the U.S. led the effort to remove Iraq from Kuwait. In the U.S. Senate, few Democrats were willing to support the resolution to authorize the war. The U.S.'s easy victory in the Gulf War gave Democrats and the anti-war folks a black eye but did not change the attitude of the anti-war movement.

After 9/11, some in the anti-war movement opposed the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. The relatively quick victory in Afghanistan prevented widespread opposition to the war there.

Of course, Pres. Bush's decision to invade Iraq united the anti-war movement. With the 2002 elections approaching and the recent-enough memory of the negative fallout from their miscalculation about the Gulf War, however, only 10 or so Democrat senators were willing to vote against the Authorization to Use Military Force. As the terrorist insurgency in Iraq took root and gained strength, the U.S. anti-war movement regained its Vietnam-era confidence, and the American public again showed its lack of patience and resolve. Some in the anti-war movement have voiced a desire for an American defeat in Iraq.

In summary, since WW2, the American public has not had the will, the patience, and the resolve to support a long-term effort in any conflict. The anti-war movement has played to this weakness. The motives of the anti-war movement have been the traditional pacifist opposition to all war, an unpatriotic desire to humble, or at least to weaken, the U.S. and its military, and a further desire to reduce U.S. influence in the world.

United 93

2006-05-02T19:55:00.000-05:00

I just returned from seeing the movie "United 93". Good movie. See it.

Some have criticized "United 93" for being too soon after 9/11. Funny thing. No one criticized Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911" on that ground when that anti-Bush movie came out in 2004.

I also must point out that the lapse of time from 9/11/2001 to today (4 years, 7 months) is greater than the lapse of time from the bombing of Pearl Harbor on 12/7/1941 to the end of World War II on 9/3/1945 (3 years, 10 months). During World War II, Hollywood put out patriotic war movies. Why didn't Hollywood put out a single patriotic war movie during the War on Terror in the same amount of time after 9/11? The answer has much to do with the anti-war bias of Hollywood, which did not exist in the patriotic environment of World War II.

"United 93" does not take a political stance. It simply portrays realistically the events of 9/11. The Left of today does not want to be reminded of the reality of 9/11.

AP Slants Death Toll in Iraq

2006-05-01T10:17:00.000-05:00

From Gateway Pundit, we learn about an Associated Press (AP) story on Iraq. In the second paragraph, the AP writes:

The death toll in two days of fighting around Baqouba climbed to 58 (emphasis mine), including seven Iraqi soldiers, Maj. Gen. Ahmed al-Awad said."

It sounds as though 58 good guys and innocents were killed, doesn't it? However, we learn differently in the 15th paragraph:

"Clashes and raids continued through the night, Iraqi officials said. In addition to the seven Iraqi soldiers, Ahmed said 49 insurgents were killed and 74 others were arrested (emphasis mine). U.S. officials said two civilians were killed and the wounded included 10 Iraqi soldiers, four policemen and four civilians."

In other words, the total death toll of 58 was composed of 7 Iraqi soldiers, 2 civilians, and 49 enemy soldiers. That is a good result, but the AP emphasizes the total, without giving equal prominence to the breakdown, to make the result look bad.

And the mainstream media wonder why the public does not trust them.

Buying Votes

2006-04-29T08:34:00.000-05:00

From Assymetrical Information:

Someone in the Senate wants to give every American a $100 rebate to offset the pain of high oil prices. As the inimitable Professor Bainbridge asks, why not just call it The Official Republican Vote-Buying Act of 2006 and be done with it?

Every politician wants to be seen as doing something about high gas prices. Doing something is not the same as doing something constructive. It is not constructive to use tax revenues to buy votes.

National Anthem in Spanish

2006-04-28T17:43:00.000-05:00

A British record producer has put out a Spanish version of the "Star Spangled Banner". The Spanish version changes some of the words, I suppose to make it flow better in Spanish. I have heard the Spanish version on the radio. Some of it sounds good to me, but hearing the national anthem of our English speaking nation being sung in Spanish is jarring. Still, I have heard worse versions of the national anthem sung in English at sporting events.

The official version is in English because the U.S. is and has always been an English speaking country. Good taste at official functions should continue to require the singing of the English version.

Immigrants, both legal an illegal, who want to be accepted in the U.S. are well advised to sing the official English version of the national anthem. Singing the Spanish version of the national anthem will set Hispanics apart and will mark them as people who do not want to assimilate into America.

This is a free country. People can sing what they want any way they want. We have many far more important matters with which to concern ourselves.

U.N. Honors Spokesperson for Iranian Hostage Takers

2006-04-27T13:11:00.001-05:00

The United Nations sinks to a new low. From Little Green Footballs:

The United Nations Environment Programme gave out its 2006 “Champion of the Earth” awards on April 21. The awards are intended to honor individuals or groups “for their creativity, vision and leadership, and the potential of their work and ideas for replication across the globe.” One of those justified in receiving this award — in the U.N.’s estimation — was Iranian Massoumeh Ebtekar. She was vice president of the Islamic Republic of Iran and head of the department of environment there from 1997-2005. But Ebtekar has another name — “Screaming Mary.” It was given to her by the American press during the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis. Mary was her nom de guerre and Ebtekar was the hostage-takers’ spokesperson.

A December 2004 article in The Atlantic Monthly provides more details about the U.N.’s latest “Champion”:

she was especially disliked by many of the hostages ... in part because of her endless propagandizing. She would saunter through the captured embassy with a camera crew in tow, urging the hostages to describe their ordeal in upbeat terms. “You have been treated well, haven’t you?” was her constant refrain. During one such filming session, in the final days of captivity, Army Sergeant Regis Regan got so fed up with Ebtekar that he let loose with a stream of invective and was dragged into a hallway for a beating.

Read it all at Little Green Footballs.

U.N. Honors Spokesperson for Iranian Hostage Takers

2006-04-27T13:11:00.000-05:00

The United Nations sinks to a new low. From Little Green Footballs:

The United Nations Environment Programme gave out its 2006 “Champion of the Earth” awards on April 21. The awards are intended to honor individuals or groups “for their creativity, vision and leadership, and the potential of their work and ideas for replication across the globe.” One of those justified in receiving this award — in the U.N.’s estimation — was Iranian Massoumeh Ebtekar. She was vice president of the Islamic Republic of Iran and head of the department of environment there from 1997-2005. But Ebtekar has another name — “Screaming Mary.” It was given to her by the American press during the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis. Mary was her nom de guerre and Ebtekar was the hostage-takers’ spokesperson.

A December 2004 article in The Atlantic Monthly provides more details about the U.N.’s latest “Champion”:

she was especially disliked by many of the hostages ... in part because of her endless propagandizing. She would saunter through the captured embassy with a camera crew in tow, urging the hostages to describe their ordeal in upbeat terms. “You have been treated well, haven’t you?” was her constant refrain. During one such filming session, in the final days of captivity, Army Sergeant Regis Regan got so fed up with Ebtekar that he let loose with a stream of invective and was dragged into a hallway for a beating.

Read it all at Little Green Footaballs.

Schumer Shows Ignorance

2006-04-26T17:10:00.000-05:00

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) showed his ignorance of the oil industry today. He called for the breakup of the big oil companies.

The largest oil company, ExxonMobil, controls less than 2% of the world oil market. At that level of market penetration, ExxonMobil can not have any effect on oil prices.

OPEC has far greater influence on the price of oil. Iran and Venezuela, with large oil reserves and political leaders who make unsettling statements, also put more upward pressure on oil prices than ExxonMobil.

Schumer's go-for-the-throat politics and his willful ignorance of economics and commerce damages the political atmosphere in America. A little knowledge and reason would be helpful in the debate.

How to Lower Gas Prices

2006-04-25T14:03:00.000-05:00

Gas prices are high, and many Americans want the government to do something about it. Democrats, of course, are pandering to this generally uninformed group.

Oil prices have risen rapidly recently because of the fear of disruption in international supplies (think Iran), the seasonal changeover to producing gasoline, and the switch to ethanol in gasoline. Long-term factors include the industrialization and increasing wealth of China, India, and other developing countries.

In the short run, the government can do little to influence the price of gas, except to introduce price controls, which cause more economic damage, or to cut the gas tax, which is politically difficult. Consumers in the aggregate have more control over gas prices in the short run by reducing consumption of energy, but much demand for energy can not be discontinued immediately.

In the long run, high prices encourage oil companies to find more oil and to produce more from known deposits and encourage consumers to conserve. Recall what happened when oil prices tripled in the late 1970s. Oil companies produced more oil, and energy consumers made buildings more energy efficient, bought smaller cars, and arranged their lives in numerous ways to reduce energy consumption (for example, moving closer to work). After a few years, the increased production and decreased consumption caused oil prices to plummet. The oil industry went into a depression that lasted nearly a decade.

Government has taken some actions that decrease the supply of oil and increase its price. Several states (for example, California and Florida) do not allow offshore drilling. Pres. Clinton restricted drilling on federal lands and vetoed a bill to drill in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). If you support these measures, you have no right to complain when the measures decrease the supply and contribute to higher gas prices.

Democrats still strongly oppose drilling in ANWR. In fact, Senate Democrats in December filibustered a bill that would have allowed drilling in ANWR. Drilling in ANWR would probably produce more oil in a few years than any other single action.

Environmentalists and ordinary Americans oppose building facilities to generate energy or to make energy products such as gasoline or fuel oil. No one has built an oil refinery in the U.S. since the late 1970s or early 1980s. One business group has been trying without success for 10 years to get a permit to build a refinery in Yuma, Arizona. No one has started building a nuclear power plant in the U.S. since the 1970s. Sen. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and other environmentalists opposed the building of wind turbines offshore near his place on Nantucket Island.

Several politicians are suggesting a tax on oil companies' excess profits. If such a tax is passed, the perverse result will be higher gas prices. The tax will increase the cost of gasoline, which will reduce the supply, which will increase the price. This is basic economics, but politicians are not known for their economic knowledge and wisdom.

To achieve lower gas prices over time, allow drilling in ANWR. This will be a political struggle in Congress, but no other measure will impact the supply and price of gas as much. Streamline the permitting process for nuclear and other power generating plants and for oil refineries. The environmental hurdles in particular need to be more reasonable.

Also reduce the number of gasoline blends that must be produced across the U.S. The regional environmental goals can still be met.

Eliminate the requirement to use ethanol. Since the requirement was put in place, the price of ethanol has risen significantly. The former requirement to use MTBE turned out to be unwise because of health concerns; the current requirement to use ethanol appears unwise on price concerns. Set the output maximums for gasoline exhaust, and let the oil companies determine how to meet the standard.

Open federal lands, except for the really precious national park locations, to drilling.

Allow offshore drilling in every state. If a state refuses, withhold federal funds for highways in the state, or increase the federal gas tax in the state.

These proposals will increase the supply of oil and will therefore reduce the price of gas. Measures to penalize the oil companies will only decrease the supply of oil and cause the gas price to go up.

CIA Leaker Is a Democrat

2006-04-24T14:22:00.000-05:00

When I first heard that the CIA fired the leaker of the secret prisons story, I strongly suspected the leaker would turn out to be a Democrat supporter. I was right. The leaker, Mary McCarthy, contributed the maximum $2,000 to the Kerry campaign in 2004 and gave $5,000 to the Ohio Democratics.

Far Left Journalist Defends Leak of Classified Information

2006-04-23T10:44:00.000-05:00

On this morning's broadcast of Fox News Sunday, the panel of journalists discussed the firing of CIA employee Mary McCarthy for leaking classified information. One of the journalists was Juan Cole of National Public Radio. Cole, a member of the Fringe Left, made the remarkable and indefensible statement that it was OK for McCarthy to leak classified information to the media.

Never mind that the disclosure of classified information is a crime. Never mind that McCarthy had signed an agreement not to disclose the information she learned in her job. All that mattered to Cole was what McCarthy's own conscience said to do.

McCarthy herself knew that leaking classified information was wrong. She leaked the classified information surreptitiously, not openly. She tried to avoid detection.

MCarthy was not a whistleblower. If she thought the policy was wrong, she could have made her argument inside the CIA and the administration. If she thought the U.S. was acting unlawfully or wrongly, she could have complained in accordance with the federal Whistleblower Act. Instead, she leaked the classified information to a reporter.

Cole also equated McCarthy's leak with Pres. Bush's authorization to declassify and to release parts of the National Intelligence Estimate involving Iraq' pre-war efforts to obtain uranium. Cole confuses lawful and unlawful, elected officials and regular employees, official decisions and personal decisions, and legally authorized official acts and unlawful unauthorized private acts.

Cole's conclusion leads eventually to lawlessness and anarchy. The U.S. is supposed to be a nation of laws, not of men, but Cole believes that a person's conscience permits lawbreaking.

Cole's defense of McCarthy's illegal leaking of classified information shows the far Left's willingness to justify anything that they think harms the Bush administration.

Whose Culture of Corruption?

2006-04-22T10:24:00.000-05:00

In this election year, the Democrats are trying to establish a campaign issue of a Republican culture of corruption. Unfortunately, Democrats seem equally corrupt. The latest example is Rep. Alan Mollohan(D-W. Va.), the top Democrat on the House ethics committee. You would think the Democrats on the ethics committee, of all places, would be above reproach. You would be wrong.

Rep. Mollohan directed millions in federal government spending to nonprofit groups in his district. The top people at many of the groups contributed to Mollohan's campaigns. Mollohan's net worth appears to have increased significantly during this period. As a result of the allegations of financial misconduct, Mollohan is stepping down temporarily from the House ethics panel.

Mollohan was the top ethics man for House Democrats. His financial misconduct will receive little or no attention in the mainstream media. Whenever the Democrats accuse the Republicans of a culture of corruption, remember the financial misconduct of Mollohan, the top Democrat on the House ethics committee.

Illegal Immigration - Second Priority

2006-04-19T17:06:00.000-05:00

In a post yesterday, I pointed out that the first priority regarding illegal immigration is border security. If border security is effective, the flood of illegal immigrants will slow to a trickle. That leaves us with the problem of what to do with the 11 million illegal immigrants already here. Handling them becomes the second priority.

Betsy's Page points us to a great article by Robert Samuelson. Samuelson argues persuasively that assimilation is essential to resolve our current illegal immigration mess.

Increasing the penalties against illegal immigration will not cause the large number of illegal immigrants to return home. A guest worker program will not prevent the immigrants from staying beyond their permitted time. Thus, to resolve the problem of vast numbers of illegal immigrants, they must assimilate into our society as most past immigrants did. Assimilation will take time, but we have little choice. As Samuelson writes:

We are basically a decent, open and tolerant nation. Americans respect hard work and achievement. That's why assimilation has ultimately triumphed. But I am not a foolish optimist. Assimilation requires time and the right conditions. It cannot succeed if we constantly flood the country with new, poor immigrants or embark on a vendetta against those already here.

Border security will halt future illegal immigration, and assimilation will eventually take care of the illegal immigrants already here.

Illegal Immigration - First Priority

2006-04-18T17:36:00.000-05:00

Twenty years ago in 1986, the U.S. granted amnesty to illegal immigrants then in the country. Illegal immigrants in 1986 numbered an estimated 2.5 million. Today, the number of illegal immigrants is estimated at 11 million, with some observers putting the number as high as 16 million.

Granting amnesty in 1986 did not solve or ease the problem of illegal immigration. Instead, the amnesty encouraged more illegal immigration.

To make real progress, the first priority must be border security and enforcement. Without true border security, all attempts to legislate the problem away will fail.

Does Congress have the political will to take necessary measures to secure the border? It will mean appropriations to increase the number of border patrol officers and to build a fence along at least parts of the southern border. But that is what is required to stem the tide of illegal immigrants. Bills in Congress to have guest workers or to require more paper will not reduce the problem of illegal immigration. However, they may contribute to a solution if used in tandem with true border security and enforcement.

Recommendation of Conservative Book Leads to Charge of Sexual Harassment

2006-04-18T13:34:00.000-05:00

A librarian at Ohio State University at Mansfield has been accused of sexual harassment for suggesting that conservative books be considered for freshman reading. He recommended the conservative books after seeing liberal authors being suggested by professors. The librarian's book suggestion at the heart of the controversy is The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom by David Kupelian. Two professors charged the librarian with harassment based on sexual orientation, claiming that gay professors felt unsafe because of the librarianÂssuggestingg the book for the freshman reading assignment.

The liberal professors at the Mansfield campus have shown, once again, how intolerant the Left has become. Universities no longer are forums for open inquiry into controversial topics but have become closed-minded institutions that demand intellectual conformity. I hope, without much basis, that liberal professors, who dominate the universities, will see this as a problem and will work to change it.

I'm Back

2006-04-17T11:18:00.000-05:00

I have been away to take care of family and business matters. i am back now and ready to resume posting.

Afterthoughts on Ports issue

2006-03-14T19:04:00.000-06:00

After it became clear that Congress would block the transfer of U.S. ports management to Dubai Ports World (DPW), which is owned by the government of Dubai, U.A.E., the company announced that it would transfer the U.S. ports management to a U.S. entity. This pretty well put an end to the political uproar over the deal. However, it did not answer the substantive question of whether DPW would pose a security risk as the manager of terminals at 6 U.S. ports.

Now that the deal is dead and the political furor has died down, it has come to light that DPW already manages a terminal at the port of Miami. To date, security has not been a problem at the Miami port.

The U.S. Navy contracts with DPW to fuel our warships in the Persian Gulf. The potential for trouble in fueling a Navy ship seems greater than the security risk in U.S. port management.

The U.A.E. airline has a flight or 2 a day into New York. In New York, the plane is refueled and takes off with full tanks and Arab pilots. Do we legitimately fear a repeat of 9/11? If so, why is the U.A.E. airline still flying into the U.S.? And what about other Arab airlines?

In the rush to demagogue an issue and to avoid any election-year issue, the politicians in Washington showed a lack of courage and judgment. Democrats seem pleased to have beaten Pres. Bush, without regard to the effect of their political victory on the success of the war on terror. Dubai has been a strong ally of the U.S. in our war effort since 9/11. Now, the strong political opposition to the deal may make moderate Arabs less likely to want to be allies with the U.S. The U.A.E. has already postponed trade talks with the U.S.

Next time, more information and less demagoguery is advised.

Ports and National Security

2006-02-28T15:59:00.000-06:00

A Dubai (U.A.E.) company is bidding to succeed a British company as the manager of several U.S. ports. The initial public reaction has been negative. Democrats especially have criticized the Bush administration for approving such an arrangement for an Arab company. The company itself has requested a longer investigation period in order to answer all security concerns.

Remember that the port manager does not patrol the surrounding waters; the Coast Guard does. Also, the port manager does not clear goods and people into the U.S.; Customs does. Those are the major security concerns, I think. That does not mean the port manager can not do any mischief or engage in deception of the U.S. Coast Guard and Customs. It does mean the U.S. government retains those security responsibilities.

The fact that the company is from Dubai may cause us a slightly greater concern, but not appreciably. Since 9/11, the U.A.E. has been a U.S. ally. It is to our advantage to treat the moderate Arabs as allies and not as enemies. We will need their support in the long war against terror that is underway. If the moderate Arabs and Muslims take the side of the radical Islamists in Al Qaeda, the war on terror will become more difficult. As Sen. Hillary Clinton said but now seems to have forgotten, this is a war for hearts and minds. We will not win hearts and minds by prohibiting an Arab company from doing what we allow even a Chinese company to do. (Frankly, I have greater security concerns regarding the Chinese company.)

At this point, we do not have enough information about the Dubai company to make a final determination. Further investigation is warranted. However, the final determination should be based on serious security grounds, and not on anti-Arab fears. (It is rather ironic that Democrats, the foes of all racial profiling, are the ones who most want to deny the Dubai company any role in port management due to the company's Arab-ness.)

Civil War Averted in Iraq.

2006-02-27T18:31:00.000-06:00

Normalcy, such as it is, seems to have returned to Iraq after last week's bombing of a principal Shiite mosque. No one has claimed responsibility for the deed, but the most likely suspect is Al Qaeda, which has been trying to start a civil war in Iraq.

The initial violent reaction to the bombing raised fears that a civil war was starting, but calm heads seem to have prevailed. The Shiites have been the subject of several provocations designed to lure them into a civil war, but they have resisted the basic human impulse for revenge. Sistani, the revered Shiite cleric, once again appealed for peace, and the Shiites listened, after a brief view over the precipice. Even Sadr, the young and ambitious Shiite cleric with a following among the poor, urged peace after seeing his own minions initially engage in retaliation but then eyeing the unfavorable reaction of most Iraqis to the prospect of civil war.

The news media in this country immediately assumed that the worst was coming, but they were wrong once again.

I only hope that this glimpse of civil strife will cause the political factions to unite sufficiently to form a government and will give the government the impetus to disarm the existing militias.

Posting Pause

2006-02-20T10:14:00.000-06:00

Due to a death in the family, I will not be posting to Quite Right until late this week or early next week.

Early Thinking About 2008

2006-02-17T15:59:00.000-06:00

It is too early to predict the outcome of the 2008 race for president, but the exercise is still interesting. American Research Group (hat tip to Polipundit) conducted an early poll of voter preferences for president and found some interesting but not too surprising results. The poll covered 7 states, South Carolina and the 6 New England states.

On the Democrat side, Hillary Clinton was the clear favorite. In her worst state, South Carolina, she received 30%, and her closest contender, John Edwards, received 15%. Edwards did well in South Carolina in part because he is from neighboring North Carolina. Kerry received 10% in his home state of Massachusetts, a disappointment for a man who was the 2004 nominee of the party. In no other state did anyone other than Clinton receive at least 10%. Clinton's preference exceeded the combined preference for all the other contenders except in 2 states, South Carolina (30% to 34%) and New Hampshire (32% to 37%). Note that those are the 2 most conservative states of the 7.

On the Republican side, John McCain was the clear favorite. McCain received at least 39% in each state. McCain's preference exceeded the combined preference for all other contenders in all 7 states.

In a face-off between McCain and Clinton, McCain prevailed in 6 of the 7 states, although 2 of McCain's states, Maine and Rhode Island, were within the margin of error. Clinton won only in Connecticut, which is next door to Clinton's state of New York.

These poll results are interesting, but it is premature to take them too seriously. They do indicate that each party has a strong frontrunner. Other candidates will be running uphill to catch them. However, early frontrunners do sometimes falter in the heat of a campaign.

The results also indicate that Clinton will have difficulty holding onto states that voted for Kerry in 2004. Keep in mind that the surveyed states include only one that voted for Bush in 2004 (South Carolina) and one other that was reasonably close (New Hampshire). McCain has a clear lead in 3 states that Kerry won, Massachusetts (48% to 39%), New Hampshire (52% to 32%), and Vermont (47% to 38%). Massachusetts and Vermont are essential states for any Democrat in a presidential election. If Clinton can not improve her image between now and 2008, she will probably lose, and perhaps lose big.

I caution you again that we have far to go until 2008. The political climate will change. Rest assured that McCain's generally favorable media coverage will disappear if he wins the Republican nomination.

One final observation: Conservatives do not generally like McCain now because of his strong support for campaign finance reform and his opposition to the Bush administration on several issues. However, his independence will be an asset if he can win the 2008 Republican nomination. Conservatives will serve themselves and their cause well if they consider the electoral merits of McCain, who is a conservative overall with an ACU rating over 80%.

Senate Ends Filibuster of Patriot Act

2006-02-17T12:00:00.000-06:00

Yesterday, the Senate voted 96-3 to end debate on the Patriot Act. This puts an end to the Democrats' filibuster against renewal of the act. The 3 votes opposing cloture were Robert Byrd (D-W. Va.), Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), and Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.). Feingold is the leading Senate opponent of the war in Iraq. Jeffords is the former Republican who changed parties to put the Democrats temporarily in control of the Senate. Byrd is seeking re-election this year in a state that voted for Bush in the last 2 presidential elections. Expect this vote to be an issue in the general election campaign.

Power Line observes:

Once the handful of Republicans who had given the Democrats cover reached a deal with the administration, the fiilibuster collapsed. Even Harry Reid--"We killed the Patriot Act!"--voted for cloture, in what must have been a humiliating reversal.

Is this reversal Reid's "I was for it before I was against it" moment?

Islamic Version of Moral Equivalence

2006-02-17T11:46:00.000-06:00

The Corner relays this from Reuters:

"If the West can place a bounty on Osama bin Laden and Zawahri we can also announce reward for killing the man who has caused this sacrilege of the holy Prophet," Qureshi told Reuters, referring to the al Qaeda leader and his deputy Ayman al Zawahri.

There you have it. At least one Muslim believes the killers of 3,000 people on 9/11 are morally equivalent to a cartoon artist who draws the prophet Mohammed.

Able Danger Hearings

2006-02-17T08:35:00.000-06:00

Irish Pennants covered the public portion of the Able Danger hearings on Wednesday. His thoughts parallel mine.

The Irish Pennants post makes the point that "there seems to be a bipartisan interest in keeping the truth about ABLE DANGER from the American people.". The Democrats' interest in covering up the Able Danger story is obvious. If the Able Danger program did in fact discover Mohammed Atta and his connection to a Brooklyn cell of Al Qaeda in 2000, the Clinton administration would have some explaining to do.

However, as Irish Pennants writes, "It isn't clear why the Bush administration is covering up the suppression of ABLE DANGER data, because it occurred on President Clinton's watch." My own speculations are (1) someone (for example, Rumsfeld) will be embarrassed by the revelations, (2) there is no truth to the allegations being made, and (3) the Bush administration is trying to keep secret an ongoing national security program (similar to the NSA wiretapping program). Only the last speculation would justify the cover-up and intimidation of witnesses. However, the last speculation does not seem to be supported by the facts that have been made public so far.

"Most newspapers, including the one I work for, didn't run anything on the hearing." The near silence of the mainstream media confirms their bias in protecting the Clinton administration.

Stay tuned to this story. It is not yet clear whether there is substance to the allegations or why there is a cover-up. I would like to know, and so should you.

"Objective" Liberal Journalists Believe Conservative Journalists Can Not Be Objective

2006-02-17T08:04:00.000-06:00

V.P. Dick Cheney chose Brit Hume of Fox News for an exclusive interview about the hunting accident last weekend. The interview was conducted Wednesday.

The liberal journalists in the Washington press corps decried Cheney's selection of Fox. They believed that Fox is a conservative news outlet that could not ask Cheney the tough questions. As Betsy's Page says, "All those news people who insist that they don't twist the news to fit their own self-acknowledged liberal ideology think that a conservative like Brit is incapable of doing the same thing." In other words, liberal journalists believe that they can be and are balanced and objective but that conservative journalists can not be and are not balanced and objective.

Remember this the next time you hear a liberal journalist saying that the liberal-dominated media are balanced and objective in their reporting.

George Will Is Wrong on Warrantless Surveillance

2006-02-16T13:53:00.000-06:00

George Will normally thinks clearly and gets the facts right. In his editorial this morning, Will writes disparagingly on the president's claim of inherent authority as commander in chief to conduct warrantless surveillance.

This monarchical doctrine emerges from the administration's stance that warrantless surveillance by the National Security Agency targeting American citizens on American soil is a legal exercise of the president's inherent powers as commander in chief, even though it violates the clear language of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act [FISA], which was written to regulate wartime surveillance.

Will is wrong on two counts. First, FISA was not "written to regulate wartime surveillance". FISA was passed in 1978, a time of peace. FISA was primarily aimed at abuses by Pres. Nixon, abuses that were not connected to the conduct of war.

Second, and more important, the NSA's program of warrantless surveillance does not violate FISA. Neither FISA nor any other statute may reduce the authority granted to the president by the Constitution. To the extent that any statute purports to take away the president's constitutional authority, that statute is itself unconstitutional and thus invalid. By the way, Pres. Roosevelt began intercepting communications to and from the U.S. on the day after Pearl Harbor was attacked. Few felt that he did not have the authority to do so. Has the president's constitutional authority to wage war declined since World War II?

Also, FISA itself provides that it does not prohibit warrantless surveillance authorized by other statutes. The Authorization to Use Military Force {AUMF) gives the president the authority to wage war against Al Qaeda, among others. The incidental authority provided by the AUMF certainly includes the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance of Al Qaeda's communications. What kind of statute would authorize killing the enemy but prohibit spying on the same enemy?

Will argues:

None of the 518 legislators who voted for the AUMF has said that he or she then thought it contained the permissiveness the administration discerns in it.

On the other hand, when Congress passed the AUMF, none of the legislators said then, when it counted and before the partisan bickering over the matter started, that the AUMF prohibited the NSA's warrantless surveillance of Al Qaeda. Will's argument could be applied equally to the detention of enemy combatants. As the Supreme Court ruled in the Hamdi case, detention of the enemy is authorized by the AUMF as an incident to waging war. The same holds true for warrantless surveillance of Al Qaeda's communications.

Will has taken too one-sided an approach to this issue. The NSA program of warrantless surveillance is authorized by the Constitution and by the AUMF, and Congress has no constitutional power to restrict the president's constitutional powers. Pres. Bush is doing all he can to prevent another 9/11, and he should not be attacked politically for performing his obligation as commander in chief to protect the country.

Another Hillary Criticism

2006-02-15T19:33:00.000-06:00

Hillary Clinton last week criticized the Bush administration's conduct of the war on terror.

Referring to fugitive al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, Clinton said, "You cannot explain to me why we have not captured or killed the tallest man in Afghanistan."

Of course, you can not explain to me why Hillary could not find her Rose Law Firm billing records, which an aide of hers found in the White House living quarters.

Hillary Forgets Clinton Administration Stonewalling

2006-02-15T17:57:00.000-06:00

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) criticized the Bush administration for not being forthcoming. From the AP (via Fake Turkey):

"A tendency of this administration -- from the top all the way to the bottom -- is to withhold information ... to refuse to be forthcoming about information that is of significance and relevance to the jobs that all of you do, and the interests of the American people," Clinton said.

"Putting it all together, going back years now, there's a pattern and it's a pattern that should be troubling," she said at a press conference calling for a more robust federal response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster.

The former first lady continued: "The refusal of this administration to level with the American people on matters large and small is very disturbing, because it goes counter to the way our constitutional democracy ... is supposed to work."

Hillary has apparently forgotten about the last administration, which was not forthcoming about the following:

- Bill Clinton's draft dodging,
- Hillary's huge profits trading cattle futures,
- Hillary's "lost" Rose Law Firm billing records, which turned up in the White House living quarters,
- the FBI files in the White House,
- Vince Foster's suicide (preventing the police from questioning family members and from examining Foster's papers; some of the papers were never revealed),
- privatization of the White House travel office by giving it to a large contributor, and the subsequent criminal prosecution of the former office manager, who was acquitted,
- the 1996 Democratic campaign finance scandal,
- the use of the Lincoln bedroom by large contributors,
- the solicitation of money by Hillary's brother Hugh Rodham for his influence in obtaining pardons from Bill Clinton,
- the obstruction of special prosecutor Barrett in his investigation of cabinet member Henry Cisneros,
- the obstruction of the special prosecutor in his investigation of cabinet member Mike Espy,
- the taking of the White House furniture.

This list is not exhaustive. When Hillary talks about the "troubling" failure of an administration to be forthcoming, she needs to be reminded of the administration of which she was a part.

No News of Iraqi Mayor's Letter of Thanks

2006-02-15T14:15:00.000-06:00

The mayor of Tall 'Afar in Iraq wrote a letter of thanks to the 3rd Army Cavalry Regiment. Part of the letter:

... Our city was the main base of operations for Abu Mousab Al Zarqawi. The city was completely held hostage in the hands of his henchmen. Our schools, governmental services, businesses and offices were closed. Our streets were silent, and no one dared to walk them. Our people were barricaded in their homes out of fear; death awaited them around every corner. Terrorists occupied and controlled the only hospital in the city. Their savagery reached such a level that they stuffed the corpses of children with explosives and tossed them into the streets in order to kill grieving parents attempting to retrieve the bodies of their young. This was the situation of our city until God prepared and delivered unto them the courageous soldiers of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment, who liberated this city, ridding it of ZarqawiÂs followers after harsh fighting, killing many terrorists, and forcing the remaining butchers to flee the city like rats to the surrounding areas, where the bravery of other 3d ACR soldiers in Sinjar, Rabiah, Zumar and Avgani finally destroyed them.

... This military operation was clean, with little collateral damage, despite the ferocity of the enemy. With the skill and precision of surgeons they dealt with the terrorist cancers in the city without causing unnecessary damage.

Scott of Power Line searched for newspaper reports of the mayor's letter of thanks. He found only one, in the St. George (Utah) Spectrum.

We learn from Power Line that the mayor had written an earlier letter of thanks to Gen. Casey. In that letter, the mayor expressed his desire that the Army unit remain in Tall'Afar and concluded, "Thank you from the bottom of our hearts, our hero, General Casey."

The mainstreamm media in this country choose not to give a complete picture of what is happening in Iraq. You rarely hear ofIraqiss' appreciation of the U.S. military there.

Cheney Interview at 2:00 EST

2006-02-15T12:57:00.000-06:00

V.P. Dick Cheney will be interviewed by Brit Hume of Fox News at 2:00. In this exclusive interview, Cheney will tell all about the hunting accident in which he shot a friend. Do not expect the interview to have much effect on the fury of the Washington press corps.

Overreaction by Democrats and Press

2006-02-13T09:20:00.000-06:00

V.P. Dick Cheney accidentally shot a hunting companion over the weekend. The man who was shot is doing well, considering he was hit with birdshot.

Since the Washington press corps did not find out first, all they seem to care about is why they did not find out sooner. One reporter asked whether Cheney should resign. (I wonder why no Washington reporter asks Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) why he did not resign after an accident that resulted in the death of a young woman.) Some partisan Democrats are over the top, comparing Cheney to Aaron Burr, who killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel.

Accidents are unfortunate. The partisan spin and press overreaction is also unfortunate.

Intimidation Works

2006-02-10T18:21:00.000-06:00

The cartoon intifada continues and spreads across the whole Muslim world. The campaign against the Danish cartoons that depicted the Muslim prophet Mohammed and the accompanying threats against the cartoon publishers has had an intended effect of intimidating many in the West into submission.

Very few newspapers or magazines in the U.S. have published the cartoons, preferring simply to describe them with words. In the U.K., a magazine, The Liberal, removed the cartoons from its website for safety reasons. (This magazine was the second one in the U.K. to publish the cartoons on its website and then quickly remove them.)

Senior police officers at Scotland Yard warned the magazine its staff could not be guaranteed protection from possible protests, after which the cartoon was pulled from the Liberal’s website and replaced by a large white square with the word “censored” placed over it.

Following the withdrawal of the cartoon, Ben Ramm, the magazine’s editor, announced on the website: “Despite our wishes and convictions, for reasons of safety the magazine will no longer carry the cartoon itself.”

In an earlier online editorial accompanying the publication of the cartoon, Mr Ramm had taken a strong line in support of free speech. “[The Liberal] will not be coerced into self-censorship by the threat of violence from those who use a platform of free speech to call for the destruction of the very system that enfranchises them,” he wrote.

One Western government, Sweden, shut down the website of a magazine over publication of cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed.

The violence, threats, and boycotts by Muslims are having their intended effect. Many in the West are being successfully intimidated. They refuse to publish or withdraw publication of the cartoons out of fear.

It is difficult to blame them for being afraid. Brave words are easy to print or speak. Actions that put yourself and your colleagues at risk of death is not easy. The police in many European cities can not protect the media and their staffs from the many potential sources of harm. For those with staff in Muslim countries (such as CNN and BBC), the risk is more obvious and much higher, and the available protection is even less reliable.

The intimidation felt by many today is clear to us. Now imagine the intimidating effect of an Iran with nuclear weapons.

2006-02-08T15:08:00.000-06:00

Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) opposes the program of warrantless surveillance of Al Qaeda suspects. Leahy has taken similar positions before. Betsy's Page passes this on from Investors Business Daily:

In 2000, the National Commission on Terrorism urged Congress to pass reforms to help law enforcement fight terrorists in the wake of the al-Qaida bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa.

One of the proposals made it easier for FBI agents to get authority from the Justice Department to conduct electronic surveillance on terrorist suspects in the Muslim community. Senate Republicans adopted that and other key provisions as part of a counter-terrorism bill.

But the bill was blocked mainly by Democrats who did not want the FBI "spying" on the Muslim community. Leading the charge against the bill was Leahy, who parroted the objections of then-Attorney General Janet Reno. They viewed the bill as too intrusive and discriminatory toward Middle Easterners.

As the article notes:

The anti-terror surveillance tool ... might have prevented the [9/11] attacks.

The biased mainstream media do not remind us of this and similar instances of bad judgment by Democrats on national security. Warrantless surveillance of terrorists may prevent another 9/11. Sen. Leahy and other Democrats in Congress are willing to risk doing without this tool to fight terrorism. Are you?

Funeral of Coretta Scott King

2006-02-07T17:29:00.000-06:00

A funeral is a solemn occasion to honor the deceased, or so I was taught. Some of the attendees at the funeral of Coretta Scott King apparently believe that a funeral is an occasion to throw barbs at your political opponents.

Several dignitaries spoke at Ms. King's funeral. Pres. Bush and his father, former Pres. Bush, honored the memory of Ms. King. Joseph Lowery of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference threw verbal jabs at Pres. Bush. Former Pres. Clinton treated the funeral as a political rally for his wife's 2008 run for president. Former Pres. Carter also took verbal swipes at Pres. Bush.

Carter, forgetting that many whites suffered from Hurricane Katrina, referenced the hurricane as an example of racism. Carter, neglecting to mention that the Pres. Kennedy and Attorney General Robert Kennedy ordered the surveillance, brought up the wiretapping of Martin Luther King as a way of injecting into the service today's political controversy over wiretapping terrorist communications.

Lowery deliberately attempted to embarrass Pres. Bush in front of a national TV audience. Lowery noted the absence of "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq and turned a phrase by alleging that there are "weapons of misdirection" in the U.S.

The partisan crowd cheered the Democrats' jabs at Pres. Bush, who attended and spoke to honor the life of Ms. King. The funeral was turned into a political travesty. The event reminds us of the funeral of Paul Wellstone, the Minnesota senator who died in a plane crash while campaigning for re-election. That funeral-turned-political-rally backfired and contributed greatly to a Republican victory in the Minnesota race for the U.S. Senate. Perhaps the tawdry conduct of the Democrats at this funeral will have a similar effect.

The grace and class of Pres. Bush shines brightest when his opponents display no grace and show no class.

Confirm Judicial Nominees

2006-02-07T09:23:00.000-06:00

Confirm Them points us to a chart of federal judicial vacancies. Notice that the following district court nominees have been pending since early last year:

Sheridan, Peter G. - nominated to the New Jersey District on 2/14/05,
Ludington, Thomas L. - nominated to the Eastern District of Michigan on 2/14/05, and
Cox, Sean F. - nominated to the Eastern District of Michigan on 2/14/05.

The following appellate court nominees have also been pending since early last year:

Boyle, Terrence W. - nominated to the Fourth Circuit on 2/14/05,
Saad, Henry W. - nominated to the Sixth Circuit on 2/14/05, and
Myers III, William Gerry nominated to the Ninth Circuit on 2/14/05.

Boyle would be a good candidate for a confirmation vote. As Bench Memos (hat tip to Confirm Them) reminds us, Boyle was first nominated for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on May 9, 1991 by the Pres. George H.W. Bush. Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), then chairman of the Judiciary Committee, blocked a hearing on Boyle's nomination.

Pres. George W. Bush nominated Boyle again on May 9, 2001. Sen. John Edwards blocked any consideration of Boyle's nomination. Boyle did not receive a hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee until March 3, 2005, after Edwards had left the Senate. On June 16, 2005, the committee voted 10-8 along party lines to send Boyle's nomination to the full Senate with a favorable recommendation. The ABA gave Boyle its highest rating of "well qualified".

Enough time has passed. Every member of the Senate knows how he or she will vote on Boyle. The Senate has no reason to delay the vote on Boyle's nomination any longer.

Former Clinton DOJ Lawyer Contradicts Self

2006-02-06T13:21:00.000-06:00

The Senate Judiciary Committee began hearings today on the program of warrantless surveillance of terrorist communications by the National Security Agency (NSA). Last week, a few self-described "scholars of constitutional law and former government officials" wrote a letter to Congress claiming that the Bush administration has not offered "a plausible defense of the NSA domestic spying program".

One of the signers was Walter Dellinger. While he was the Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice under Pres. Clinton, he had a different opinion. (See pp. 14-16 of the letter by H. Bryan Cunningham.) Cunningham's letter quotes liberally from an opinion by Dellinger. The bottom line: Dellinger believed that the president had the authority and the responsibility not to execute unconstitutional laws, especially "provisions limiting the President's authority as Commander in Chief".

See The Corner for a fuller discussion.

Most Telling Moments in State of the Union Speech

2006-02-02T10:44:00.000-06:00

The Democrats revealed their true colors in their reactions to Pres. Bush's State of the Union address to Congress. Two instances were most telling.

In the speech, Pres. Bush defended the controversial program of warrantless surveillance of international terrorist communications to or from the U.S. He closed, "If there are people inside our country who are talking with al-Qaida, we want to know about it - because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again." While Republicans loudly, Democrats responded with silence.

From his prepared remarks that were distributed before the speech, Bush noted that Congress failed last year to pass any legislation to reform Social Security. The Democrats rose as one to cheer and applaud thunderously, their loudest of the night. They had fallen into a trap. Bush continued with remarks that probably did not appear in the distributed text. He pointed that the problem did not go away. The Democrats stopped cheering.

To congressional Democrats, everything is partisan, even the great universal issues of Social Security and national security. For potential partisan gain, Democrats will let the Social Security problem fester, and they will oppose measures that protect the country's citizens from another terrorist attack.

Sheehan Attempts Protest at State of the Union Speech

2006-02-01T14:11:00.000-06:00

Cindy Sheehan, the antiwar activist whose son died in Iraq and who famously protested last summer near Pres. Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, received tickets to last night's State of the Union speech. She was given the tickets by Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Cal.). At that time, Sheehan was wearing her T-shirt bearing the message, "2245 Dead. How many more?".

When she went through security and entered the gallery, Sheehan wore a jacket over her T-shirt. After she sat down, she removed her jacket revealing her T-shirt and its antiwar message, which she intended to be prominently displayed when the cameras inevitably pictured her during the speech. (It was also reported, but not yet reliably confirmed, that she had a banner hidden inside her jacket.) It is against the law to protest in any way in the Capitol (specifically, "display in the Grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement"). Therefore, an officer immediately escorted her out and arrested her.

By the way, Sheehan was not the only one who wore a T-shirt with a political message:

Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young (news, bio, voting record) of Florida Â chairman of the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee Â was removed from the gallery because she was wearing a T-shirt that read, "Support the Troops Â Defending Our Freedom."

This incident shows that, contrary to what Sheehansupportersers may believe, she was not singled out.

Rep. Woolsey should be ashamed. It is irresponsible to give tickets to a professional anti-war protester who has publicly stated that Bush is a 10 times worse terrorist than Osama Bin Laden. It appears that Woolsey intended to have Sheehan disrupt the President's speech. Woolsey also is thought perhaps to be one of the congressmen who last year gave tickets to demonstrators at Pres. Bush's inaugural speech.

The House of Representatives should revoke the ticket privileges of a member who abuses the privilege by giving event tickets to people who intend to protest and disrupt the event. That seems to fit Rep. Woolsey in this case. At the least, Woolsey should show more respect to the institutions of Congress and the office of President and should be more careful in distributing tickets.

Sheehan has become a disgrace. She does not have to agree with Pres. Bush. She does have an obligation to the rest of us, however, to allow us to hear the State of the Union speech without disruption.

Would Democrats Have Voted for Miers?

2006-01-31T15:28:00.000-06:00

You may remember that Harriet Miers was originally nominated to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. She was an unexpected nominee. Conservatives complained mightily that she was not qualified and was not a conservative choice. When some of her past speeches, embarrassing to a Bush judicial nominee, were made public, Miers requested the withdrawal of her nomination. Pres. Bush then nominated Judge Sam Alito.

Several Democrats said that the withdrawal of the Miers nomination in response to conservative criticism and the substitution of Alito showed that Bush was acting to please extreme right wingers. When the nomination of Alito came up for a vote by the full Senate this morning, Democrats voted 40-4 against confirming Justice Sam Alito.

The result of the Senate vote and the preceding sequence of events raises the interesting question of whether Senate Democrats would have voted for Miers. One Democrat who had recommended the nomination of Miers was Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the Senate Minority Leader. Normally, when a senator recommends someone, the senator is a certain vote for the recommended nominee. However, when asked the question, Reid surprisingly refused to commit that he would have voted for Miers.

Last week, I saw an interview of Ralph Neas, the head of People for the American Way (PFAW), the leading liberal interest group on judicial nominees. Thus, Neas is the most influential liberal on judicial nominees. The interviewer, a liberal but a fair-minded one, asked Neas whether he and PFAW would have supported Miers. Neas also refused to make a firm commitment.

Senate Democrats used the withdrawal of the Miers nomination as a reason to oppose Alito, who could only be a Kool-Aid-drinking conservative to be nominated in those circumstances. Just a few months ago, 22 of the 44 Senate Democrats voted against now Chief Justice John Roberts, probably the best qualified Supreme Court in my lifetime. The motivating factor for many Democrats in the Roberts and Alito votes is their need for the money and volunteers that will come from the most liberal interest groups. (PFAW, for example, has 750,000 members, who are more active and liberal than most voters.) Roberts was so obviously and highly qualified that half the Senate Democrats voted to confirm him. The Democrats who voted for Roberts were threatened with a withdrawal of financial support and votes.

The most activist Democrat voters are very liberal and are spoiling for a fight against anything Bush does. If a Senate Democrat wants their support, the senator will oppose Bush's judicial nominees in the strongest way. Note that all the Senate Democrats who are aiming to run for president in 2008 (Clinton, Kerry, Biden, Feingold) voted to filibuster the nomination of Alito.

Considering the political motivations for Senate Democrats and the public statement of leading individuals, it is unlikely that a majority of Senate Democrats would have voted for Miers. No matter what the Senate Democrats say about how Pres. Bush should not have withdrawn the Miers nomination, very few of them were going to vote for Miers.

Senate Confirms Alito

2006-01-31T14:26:00.000-06:00

This morning, the Senate confirmed Judge Sam Alito as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. The vote was 58-42. Republicans voted 54-1 for, Democrats voted 40-4 against, and the one independent (who votes with the Democrats to orgainize the Senate) voted against. As Power Line writes:

The vote changes the "rules" for confirming Supreme Court Justices. Under the Alito rule, Senators will vote against highly qualified nominee for no reason other than that they expect the nominee to rule contrary to their preference on major issues. Under the Alito rule, the president's party, in effect, must control the Senate in order for the president to have top-notch nominees of his choice confirmed. When the the president's party doesn't control the Senate, only compromise nominees acceptable to both parties can expect to be confirmed.

Justice Alito will be a good justice. The Alito vote shows how important the most liberal interest groups are to the Democratic party today. It is unfortunate that Democrats have, for partisan purposes, abandoned the Senate's traditional role of confirming nominees who are well qualified to serve on the high court.

Is Reid in Trouble?

2006-01-30T10:44:00.000-06:00

I watched the interview of Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, on Fox's Sunday morning news show this past weekend. Dean tried to say that Democrats received no money from Abramoff. This would not work after Chris Wallace, the Fox interviewer, noted that there was evidence that Abramoff directed his Indian tribe clients to contribute money to Democrats. Dean retreated to say that no Democrat did anything in return. When pressed, Dean said that any Democrat who did any Democrat who did anything in return for a contribution from one of Abramoff's Indian tribe clients would be "in trouble".

After the interview, Wallace pointed out the already public information that, after receiving political contributions from one of Abramoff's Indian tribe clients, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) wrote a letter urging approval of the tribe's casino application. These facts do not mean that Reid agreed to write the letter in exchange for the campaign contribution, which would be a criminal act, but it does appear that Reid only wrote the letter because he had received the Indian tribe's money.

Given Reid's action and Dean's declaration that a Democrat would be in trouble for doing anything in return for campaign cash from a client of Abramoff's, Reid will no doubt be in trouble, and the mainstream media (MSM) will follow up on this story and will hound Reid and the Democrats until the Dems penalize Reid. Oh, forgive me; I must be imagining that we live in a fair world in which Democrats and Republicans are treated alike. Of course, in or real world, Reid will not be in any kind of trouble, the MSM will not ask Dean whether Reid should suffer consequences, the MSM will not ask Reid to step down from his post as leader of the Senate Democrats, and the MSM will not demand that the Senate Democrats remove Reid from his position.

The double standard persists. Bias in the MSM is real.

End Financial Support to Palestine

2006-01-28T09:05:00.000-06:00

Since Palestine became a semi-state after the Oslo accords of 1993, it has been on financial life support supplied by Europe and the U.S. In addition, the U.N. has provided assistance to Palestinian refugees since the late 1940s, and many nongovernmental organizations provide humanitarian services. Israel also provides financial support simply by maintaining financial ties, as Israel is the major trading partner of Palestine and many Palestinians work in Israel. Without all this foreign financial support, Palestine can not continue to provide its meager level of governmental services.

Palestine's election of a Hamas majority in its parliament effectively ends the peace process with Israel. Hamas was first and is still foremost a terrorist organization. It became a political party to carry out its terrorist agenda and is unlikely to change its goals and methods as a result of its new governing responsibilities. Instead, Hamas is more likely to use its newfound power and authority to enhance its terrorist activities, with the popular support of the Palestinians.

To continue financial support of Palestine in this environment is to fund murder and destruction. The concern that cutting off funds will lead to a collapse of the government and ensuing chaos is overblown. Hams has friends in the Muslim world, especially in Iran. Iran is flush with cash from oil sales at today's high price and is unlikely to allow Hamas to fail. Syria may also be willing to aid Hamas, and the richer Arab countries (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, U.A.E.) may also give financial support to the Palestinians to avoid chaos and its spillover effects on them. It is better for the U.S. and the West if the Muslim world, rather than Europe and the U.S., must use up its resources to support the radicals who intend to destroy Israel.

Funding a government of Palestine controlled Hamas is giving terrorists money to conduct terrorism, including the murder of Israeli civilians. I do not want the blood of innocent Jews on my hands. Do you?

UPDATE: For another view, read the post at The Belmont Club.

Hamas Wins Palestine Vote

2006-01-26T13:54:00.000-06:00

Hamas, both a terrorist organization and a political party in Palestine, has apparently won a majority of the seats in Palestine's parliament. Hamas has an avowed goal to eliminate the state of Israel and to make its territory part of a greater Palestine. The group claims credit for most of the suicide bombings in Israel.

With this election, the Palestinians make clear that hatred of Israel is their primary political driving force. I do not find the result surprising. The Palestinians, after all, danced in the streets on 9/11, and opinion polls have found consistent support for terrorism against Israel.

Israel's pullout from Gaza may have contributed to Hamas's victory. Hamas claimed that it forced Israel out. Whether Israel's pullout contributes to peace is yet to be determined.

One positive outcome of the Palestinian election may be that Europe will finally see that Israel needs to build its fence for its defense and perhaps even its survival. A potential positive is that the Palestinians will get a taste of what it is like to live in an Islamist state. Other places that have tried it (Afghanistan and Iran, for example) have not found it desirable. If the Palestinians come to share that view, they may reject Hamas and its terrorism in time.

In the meantime, the Middle East is a more dangerous place.