Crossposted from Flopping Aces

The Politico spells out some problems for Murtha, and the Democrats, via his statement yesterday that the surge was working:

Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), one of the leading anti-war voices in the House Democratic Caucus, is back from a trip to Iraq and he now says the “surge is working.” This could be a huge problem for Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other Democratic leaders, who are blocking approval of the full $200 billion being sought by President Bush for combat operations in Iraq in 2008.

Murtha’s latest comments are also a stark reversal from what he said earlier in the year. The Pennsylvania Democrat, who chairs the powerful Defense Subcommittee on the House Appropriations Committee, has previously stated that the surge “is not working” and the United States faced a military disaster in Iraq. …

But Pelosi, who is scheduled to speak to a Democratic National Committee event in Virginia on Friday, will surely face tough questions from reporters regarding Murtha’s statement on the surge.

“This could be a real headache for us,” said one top House Democratic aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “Pelosi is going to be furious.”

Yup, Nancy is going is to be one pissed off lady and it appears her nails came out and dug themselves into Johnboy since he is backtracking today:

Following a headline-grabbing uproar, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, moved swiftly Friday to clarify earlier remarks that seemed to suggest the Iraq surge policy was working.

The surge, he said in a statement, “has created a window of opportunity for the Iraqi government,’’ but so far the Iraqi government has “failed to capitalize on the political and diplomatic steps that the surge was designed to provide.”

“The fact remains that the war in Iraq cannot be won militarily, and that we must begin an orderly redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq as soon as practicable,” said the chair of the House Appropriations Committee’s Defense Subcommittee.

Which just proves to me how dishonest this politician is.  He can’t even stand up for a what he knows is true.  Our troops and our leaders have done a magnificent job over there and have turned it all around. 

The man (and I use that term loosely) convicts our Marines before any evidence comes in to score political points, he derides our war effort to score political points, he makes idiotic suggestions such as moving our troops to Okinawa and monitor the situation to score political points (this from a former military man?).  Hell The Politico itself added some quotes for good measure:

Murtha told CNN on July 12, following a Bush speech, that the president’s views on the success of  surge in Iraq were “delusional.”

“Well it’s delusional to say the least,” Murtha told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. “As I said earlier, and you heard me say it, it’s a failed policy wrapped in illusion. Nothing’s gotten better. Incidents have increased. We have had more Americans killed in the last four months than any other period during the war.”

Murtha added: ”I don’t acknowledge there has been any progress made. Maybe in Baghdad. But it just breaks out someplace else. We called for extra troops two years ago. We put money in for 30,000 troops. They haven’t even been able to raise the 30,000 troops they have. So they have to break all their guidelines. But there’s no progress being made.”

Back on June 3, during an appearance on ABC’s “This Week,” Murtha bashed the White House for ”making excuses” on Iraq.

 ”They [the White House] keep saying the news media is being negative,” Murtha said. “They keep making excuses for the lack of progress. I’ve been hearing this month after month and I’m absolutely convinced right now the surge isn’t working and I’m convinced that if they don’t pay attention to what I’m saying and a lot of other members of Congress are saying they’re going to have a disaster on their hands because the American public want the troops out of Iraq.”

He’s a earmark ogre who will say anything and do anything to stay in power, plain and simple.  He obviously sees the numbers:

The latest Rasmussen Reports tracking poll finds that 47% of Americans now say the U.S. and its allies are winning the War on Terror (see crosstabs). That’s up from 43% a month ago and reflects is the highest level of confidence measured since December 2005. Over the past 35 months, confidence in the War on Terror has been higher than today only twice, in November and December 2005.

The 47% who believe the U.S. and its allies are winning is up significantly from earlier in the year. During the first nine months of 2007, the number believing that the U.S. fell as low as 33% and reached the 40% level just once. During calendar year 2006, an average of 40% believed the U.S. and its allies were winning. That average was 45% in 2005.

In what may be just as significant a finding, only 24% of voters now believe the terrorists are winning. That’s down from 30% a month ago and represents the lowest level of pessimism recorded since 2004.

And thought it was a good idea to get in on the parade section before it left him completely behind.  The rest of the world already knows the surge is working, so why shouldn’t he acknowledge it huh? 

The Democrats let him know why quite quickly.

Their latest attempt to force a cut and run from Iraq by forcing the latest supplemental bill to be rewritten can’t go over real good when the earmark ogre says things are working.  So like any good lapdog politician he backtracks.

Can this guy be anymore embarrassing?

Other’s Blogging:

• Captain’s Quarters
• Michelle Malkin
• A Blog For All
• Blue Crab Boulevard
• Macsmind
• The Strata-Sphere
• The American Pundit
• Daily Pundit
• PoliPundit

by Haider Ajina

The following is my translation for an article from Buratha News of 11-28-07

‘Iraqi Sunni & Shiite leaders meet and declare unity and brotherhood’.

Grand Ayatollah the Reference Ali Al-Sistany received in his offices in Nejaf a delegation of Sunni and Shiite religious scholars and religious leaders. Amongst the Sunni delegation were Sheik Mohamed Alfalah representing the Sunni accord, Sheik Khalid Almela president of the Scholars Guild southern chapter, Sheik Mohamed Ahmed Alkerzi former minister in the Kurdistan region.

The Ayatollah expressed his great pleasure and comfort in the talks with the visiting delegation. The meeting lasted longer than the anticipated time. Al-Sistany welcomed the delegation and said,’ Since the first days of the fall of the previous regime I have been calling for unity, all my proclamations called for unity between Shiite and Sunni and all Iraqis. I often told my followers, Do not say our brethren the Sunnis or our family the Sunnis but say us the Sunnis and us the Shiites’. He added, ‘The painful actions which happened in Iraq , were carried out buy foreign elements, who tried to infiltrate us, split us and create discourse between us’.

His eminence mentioned Sufian Althoori (a Sunni scholar) who studied amongst Shiites and benefited from the Shiite school of thought and, Imam Al-Malik the founder of the Shafii and Maliki school of thought (Sunni), who came under attack for having religious edicts similar to those of Shiites. The reference then talked about his youth when he studied in Samara at the Hauza (religious scholar’s school) under the tutorage of Alshirazi (Shiite reference and scholar). I had two Sunni teachers and I found no issue with that. Sectarian trouble did not exist in the past, not at the time of Sheik Mufeed, or Mrtadha, until Sheik Altoosi who was forced to move to Nejaf.

His eminence then called upon the delegation to follow the truth and not the sects or faction. He said, ‘Seek the truth if the truth is with Sunnis then follow them if the truth is with Shiites then follow them’. His eminence also mentioned the plight of the Iraqi people at the hands of the terrorist criminals saying that he condemned these destructive terrorist and criminals and their acts. He added, “Now I call on you for a very important duty. I call upon the Shiites to defend Sunnis and Christians before you defend your selves and I call on the Sunnis to defend the Shiites and Christians before you defend your selves.

Sheik Almela (Sunni) then said, “Your eminence is like a father to all of us” to which Al-Sistany replied, “I am here to serve all Iraqis and all of you. I love all Iraqis. I do not distinguish between Sunni, Shiite, Kurd or Christian”. The was filled with emotion and it brought tears to all present. Al-Sistany then gave his personal regards to Sheik Al-Samerai (leader of the Sunni Accord) adding that he had listened to Al-Samerai’s Friday sermon and was delighted by it, for it condemned and rejected violence. He then asked all present to conduct their sermons as one voice condemning violence.

Sheik Alfalahi (Sunni Leader) said, ‘Your words will illuminate our road, you have shown us much. Some had warned us from coming here and meting you. Now that we have come and met with you and listened to your kind words we are filled with joy”.

Later in a press conference held by Sunni Scholars after their visit with Al-Sistany. Al Qubanchi relayed that Al-Sistany said, ‘I am here to serve all Iraqis and all of you. I love all Iraqis. I do not distinguish between Sunni, Shiite, Kurd or Christian’. Al-Sistany also said, I am please that Iraq is heading back to its prosperity and unity, and I await more than just unity between all of you’.

Almela said,”We have a message to deliver to all religious scholars in the world. The words uttered by Al-Siatany came from his heart, he condemned the spilling of Blood, Iraqi blood and especially Sunni Blood, he called on all Sunni religious leaders to condemn all violence especially against Iraqis. Look closely to what is happening in Iraq . He asked for a clear and comprehensive condemnation of what Alqaida is doing in Iraq .

The head religious scholar of Kurdistan Sheik Muhamed Al-Kaalawi (Sunni) described the meeting as the implementation of unity and a bandage to heal the wounds of society. He affirmed Al-Sistany’s position that religious leaders have a fundamental role in the progress of the country.

My Comments,

There have been scatterings of this meeting in our media. The Iraq media, however, is all over this. The importance of this meeting in Nejaf is tremendous. Especially since Iraq is a traditional and religious society. This society ( Iraq ) is now free to worship as it wishes and free to condemn religious extremism and violence and intolerance and free to treat all its citizens as equals. Very few societies in the Middle East are free to do anything let alone stand up and condemn terrorism weather state sponsored or misguided ideology. Religious leaders and their follower in Iraq have been for some time condemning religious extremisms, condemning Takfiries, condemning intolerance, condemning terrorism and condemning violence. Why can Iraqi religious leaders and their followers and the society do so? Because our men and women who are serving (and have served) in Iraq have freed Iraqis from tyranny, and gave Iraqis the opportunity, training and support for self rule and the rule of law. This opportunity Iraqis have willingly grasped and are not letting go.

from The Washington Times

Any way you look at it, the Maryland Republican Party is in serious trouble. Following Gov. Robert Ehrlich’s defeat one year ago, Democrats once again hold every elected statewide office, together with commanding advantages in the General Assembly. Currently, they outnumber Republicans 33-14 in the state Senate, and 104-37 in the House of Delegates. The party faces serious financial problems, and now some Republican lawmakers have embarked on a course with the potential to eviscerate the party’s role as an advocate of limited government.

Although the lion’s share of the blame for the passage of Gov. Martin O’Malley’s massive expansion of Medicaid belongs to the Democrats, the unfortunate reality is that many of the 51 Republicans in the legislature signed off on this monstrosity — which will create pressure for large tax increases in the coming decades as the bill comes due. And as we noted on this page several weeks ago, thousands of the beneficiaries of this largesse will be poor households headed by illegal aliens whose children are American citizens — and therefore eligible for Medicaid.

As former Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, a Republican, points out in today’s op-ed, the Ehrlich administration “cut government spending by more than $700 million in our first six months. We cut the size of the executive branch work force by 7 percent and defeated $7.5 billion in proposed new taxes over the course of four years. What a difference responsible leadership can make.”

Indeed, O’MalleyCare is irresponsible policy that will get very expensive. The nonpartisan Maryland Department of Legislative Services projected it will cost $185 million in fiscal 2009, ballooning to more than $800 million by 2013 (and we consider that a conservative projection).

One surprising Republican supporter of just-approved O’MalleyCare legislation is Delegate Pat McDonough, a much-admired conservative leader on issues like combating illegal immigration and crime. Mr. McDonough says he backed the bill because Maryland’s benefits are modest compared to those offered by other states and he likes the fact that business’ health insurance premiums will be subsidized by the state. He added that his concerns about the spiraling cost were allayed because most of the bill will be picked up by federal taxpayers. Mr. McDonough also said he wants to file suit in federal court making the case that Maryland’s sanctuary state policies violate federal law. Point taken about lawbreaking, but it makes no sense to pass legislation adding more illegal aliens to the Medicaid/welfare state rolls while relying on the federal courts to bail us out.

If the Maryland Republican Party joins Mr. O’Malley and other Democrats to push ahead with Medicaid expansion, it will guarantee itself permanent political-underclass status.

ACLU Leads the Fight for Execution

by James H. Lilley

Christmas is supposed to be a time of fun and laughter. A time when family and friends get together to share the joy and warmth of friendship, and remember the birth of the Christ Child in Bethlehem on a night so long ago. But, over the past several years the Grinches have been working overtime trying to destroy everything that is a part of the Christmas Holiday, and it seems they are striving to be rid of it altogether.

I can’t imagine a world without Christmas. My recollection of Christmases of bygone years has always held many very fond memories. The first that comes to mind is the yearly visit from Santa every child in our family looked forward to in the days before Christmas. Without fail, the jolly old elf would appear at the door after dark, laughing a merry “Ho Ho Ho” and lugging a huge red bag filled with gifts. He knew the name of each child in the household, and after a round of hugs, would call them one by one to step up and receive a gift from his bag. As years passed, I found that the Saint Nick, who arrived like clockwork each year, was my uncle, George Healy. I don’t know how many years Uncle George made the rounds to family households, but he certainly put a lot of joy in the hearts of the children he brought gifts to. But, I think he probably found as much, or even more delight in the yearly visits than the children. It seemed that his role as the giver of gifts brought him a sense of satisfaction, because he loved being the bearer of gifts and glad tidings. And, I’m sure all those smiles he put on so many faces was really the only present he ever wanted for Christmas.

In those days gone by, Thanksgiving was always the day that marked what I thought was the beginning of the Christmas season. There was something magical in the air on Thanksgiving morning, and by the end of the day there was a sense of anticipation.

Even back in the classroom there was a feeling that something was different. The nuns were a little more cheerful with each passing day, and the tales of the first Christmas were a part of the daily class routine. Then too, there was the preparation for the “big event” in our young lives—Midnight Mass. And, indeed it was something very special to be an Altar Boy, or member of the Choir for that first Mass. There would be days of practice to make certain everything would be perfect, from Altar Boys holding their candles correctly, to the girls in the choir singing in the proper key. The nuns scolded and demanded another dress rehearsal because things just weren’t measuring up, and in those hectic sessions the excitement grew. And, by sunrise on Christmas Eve, it was nearly impossible to measure the levels of excitement and anticipation.

The dawn of Christmas Eve meant that only a matter of hours stood between me and stepping out on to the altar for Midnight Mass. The thought of presents under the tree the following day was suddenly a distant second to taking part in that most joyous observance. Of course, I was expected to take a nap after dinner so I’d be rested and wide-awake for Mass, but I don’t recall ever sleeping when I crawled into bed. Just the thought of being on the altar, the sound of the carols, and the hundreds of people filling the church was more than enough to keep me wide-eyed, and anxious for the celebration of the mass. And, certainly being included as an altar boy in such a grand observance

was an honor and privilege. After all, not everybody would be as close to God during the ceremony as those surrounding the altar.

When the altar boys and the choir members began arriving at St. Paul’s Church, the nuns were usually in the final stages of hysteria, certain that something would go terribly wrong during Mass. In spite of their panic, everything went smoothly and no candles were dropped, no altar boys were incinerated, the church wasn’t burned down, and the choir sang just beautifully.

As years passed and I grew older, I never tired of the Christmas Season. I still look forward to watching the same Christmas movies over and over, and spending time with my family. But now time with my family is more treasured than ever, because of those who are no longer here to share it with us. We can only remember the good times, the laughter, and sitting down with them around the table for a holiday meal. Although I have found something, which brings a new ray of sunshine to the Christmas season. For the past several years I’ve been taking my grandchildren, Sarah and Ryan, along to help select and cut down the Christmas tree. After the tree is brought home, they’re anxious for it to be put up, because they’ll be doing a great deal of its decorating. After the decorating is complete and the evening meal is over, it’s time to sit down together for our movie—A Muppet Christmas Carol. I can’t help but smile each time I recall the first year that Sarah and Ryan helped begin our now yearly tradition. When it came time for the movie, Sarah curled up with Jody on the sofa, and Ryan climbed on my lap in the recliner. Ryan, only three at the time, nestled his head against my shoulder and was fast asleep about a minute into the movie. And that is truly a memory to label “priceless.” Yet, there are those who enthusiastically lead the charge to destroy the very thing that gave me such a wonderful memory.

Christmas has been celebrated around the world, through medieval times and the Middle Ages, to our present day. The difference, of course, is that there are no records from medieval times, and the Middle Ages indicating that someone was offended by the words “Merry Christmas” or demanded the removal of a Christian symbol from a public place. There were celebrations honoring the birth of Christ, and the holiday had become so prestigious that England’s King Richard II hosted a feast in the year 1377. At that Christmas feast 28 oxen and 300 sheep were eaten. And, there were no protests by animal rights groups chanting, “save the sheep” or “spare the oxen.” Furthermore, I haven’t found any indication that King Richard was dragged before the court by an offended person, because he hosted a Christmas feast instead of a diversified, multi-cultural holiday event.

I don’t know what’s happened to America, but I don’t like it. Over the past two or three decades the United States has become a nation consumed by political correctness and a willingness to compromise the very principles on which this country was founded. One of those ideals was freedom of religion, but lately the voices of a few, represented fervently by the ACLU, are fighting to take away the rights of the many to celebrate long-standing holiday traditions. At times it seems as though God Himself is on trail. His son was brought before an unwilling judge in Pontius Pilate and crucified long ago, but it looks as if the ACLU and our courts are eager to crucify Him again. Lawsuits are filed, the ACLU pounds the drums, and judges around the country agree that God, His name, Commandments, and the holidays honoring Him are offensive, or in some way violating a law. Even a number of our government agencies, The National Park Service and The National Cemetery Association just to name two, are jumping aboard the train of damnation.

About 96% of Americans celebrate Christmas, and 87% of Americans believe Christmas displays should be allowed on public property. Yet, symbols representing Christmas, Hanukkah and Kwanza have been ordered removed from public places, because of the actions of a single person or group, who believed these figures were offensive and/or conflicted with their personal beliefs. And, surely their forced removal has aggravated thousands who enjoyed looking at them, and remembering what they represented, but it seems that it’s not the rights of the many that matters.

CEOs of big business, fearing that the word Christmas might insult an individual, or some particular group, have ordered it removed from advertisements and displays. Christmas trees are holiday trees; Christmas wreaths and other evergreen trimmings are suddenly seasonal greens. School principals, shake and quiver wanting desperately to appease and not offend. So, they order Christmas dances and bazaars to be called multi-cultural holiday events.

It’s not only Christmas, Hanukkah and Kwanza under attack. The list goes on and on. Prayer in school, at public meetings, and athletic events is deemed inappropriate and ordered stopped. A cross atop a hill in California, honoring our war dead is suddenly offensive to someone, and attorneys hurry to take up his “plight.” The name of God has been quietly removed from our monuments, and stricken from past presidential speeches. Demands have been made that the words, “In God We Trust” be removed from our currency. But, those crying for the removal of those words don’t seem to have a problem spending that money. Cries for ridding the Pledge of Allegiance of the words “Under God” continue, while others want “Laus Deo” or “Praise be to God” removed from the Washington Monument. Yet, I can’t help wondering how many of these same attorneys, while representing a suspect on trial for murder or rape, will stand before a court and tell a judge and jury that their client should be shown mercy because he’s found God?

Our judges, the ACLU, our government agencies and those who have taken the anti-Christian stand are hypocrites. Why? Aren’t these judges, attorneys and heads of government agencies enjoying the days off being celebrated in honor of God? Don’t they close their offices on Thanksgiving, Christmas, Good Friday, Passover and Hanukkah? I don’t understand how they can ban the name of God, rule against religious symbols, prayer in school, and the Ten Commandments, and then treat themselves to days off for Christian and Jewish Holy Days. Since they profess these very things to be offensive, and near criminal in nature, they should be hard at work on Christmas, Good Friday, Hanukkah, and Passover. They should be working on Sundays as well. After all, it was God who set aside the seventh day for rest, thus making it religious, and therefore by their own views and rulings, offensive.

Our U. S. House of Representatives recently passed a resolution recognizing Ramadan, and the Muslim faith as one of the great religions of the world. Our own politicians can recognize Ramadan, a Muslim time of fasting, and the Muslim religion, but ignore the Christians and Jews of the world. Strange, isn’t it? Our judges, attorneys, and politicians stand united against a Christian God, Christian and Jewish Holy Days, yet fall to their knees in recognition of a Muslim God and day of observance.

This is just one more wake up call sounding for America, but how many of us are listening to, or watching what is happening around us? With the rulings already handed down, how long will it be before the cross atop church steeples is ruled offensive and ordered taken down? How long before the name of God is ordered removed from public announcement boards outside our churches? Will the ringing of church bells be halted because someone is insulted by their ringing? It seems that with each passing day another case against God, Christmas, and Christian and Judeo symbols is brought before a court. Is it only a matter of time before the ACLU and their clients begin to demand changes to our religious services in our churches, or seek to ban them altogether? Will they try to put a stop to prayer in our homes? Will the efforts of the ACLU, and judges who side with them, eventually bring a death sentence for Christmas?

While doing research for this article I came across a commentary by Bill O’Reilly from December 3, 2002, regarding the ACLUs assault upon Christmas. The following is what Mr. O’Reilly had to say:

Using tactics the Taliban would admire, the ACLU has imposed the following on the American people. In Covington, Georgia, the word “Christmas” has been removed from the public school calendar because the ACLU threatened to sue. In Pittsburgh, the

ACLU objected to special parking put aside by the city for citizens to observe a nativity scene loaned to Pittsburgh by the Vatican. In Brow Bridge, Louisiana, the ACLU wants St. Martin Parish to take down all nativity scenes assembled in any church. In Billings, Montana, the ACLU has petitioned officials in Custer County to ban the nativity scene altogether.

So you get the picture. It may be Christmas time, but don’t display images of Christ or His parents in public, or the ACLU may sue. This, of course, is fascism, not freedom.

In 1870, President Grant made Christmas a public secular holiday, and the federal government gave workers the day off. The reason was a holiday to honor a man, Jesus, whose philosophy that all men are created equal and that one should love your neighbor, helped the founding fathers of the United States craft the Constitution. By almost all accounts, our system of laws and justice is based on Judeo-Christian philosophy, which puts human rights ahead of government wants. Our system here was not developed according to Islamic law or Buddhist thought. It was modeled after the tenets of Judaism and Christianity, and that’s the truth.

However, philosophy is different from religion, and our founders made sure that no religion could be imposed by the government, and all religions were to be tolerated unless they violated civil law. Thus the secular holiday of Christmas, honoring the birth of that great philosopher, Jesus, in Bethlehem. But, according to the ACLU and some other misguided Americans, because some people believe the philosopher Jesus to be God, then all the people should be denied seeing His image displayed in a public setting.

Does that make any sense at all?

If the government really wanted to force religion on Americans, it would make Easter a holiday, but it is not. Easter is a purely religious observance, as is Hanukkah and Ramadan. Thus they are not federal holidays and never will be.

For more than 200 years, the United States celebrated Christmas without the intrusion of the ACLU and the courts. Was the country damaged during that time by the celebration? Did anything bad happen? Were anybody’s rights violated? Of course not. The no spin truth is that certain pressure groups, like the ACLU, are now using the Constitution to push an agenda that is harmful to many Americans. Christmas is a celebration of peace and brotherhood and generosity. The symbols of Christmas should be admired and displayed with pride.

To Mr. O’Reilly I say, may God Bless you for your candid thoughts and sharing them with us.

I’m not a religious zealot, and you won’t find me standing in front of audiences, thumping my breastbone and telling people that I’m a religious or holy man. I’m far from it. In fact, I’m suspicious of those who take every opportunity to tell the world just how religious they are. My language, on occasion, will make an Old School Marine Corps Drill Instructor proud, and some of my views probably conflict with those of the church. I’m just one voice within the majority (over 85%) of the population, who happens to believe in God, and sees nothing wrong with offering a measure of respect and thanks to Him, regardless of where it might be. And that includes the display of the nativity scene in public.

So, there are just a few more things I’d like to say to the ACLU, and those who support them. Your attack on my religion, the religious beliefs of my friends, and the symbols of our religions is something I’d expect in a communist country. Well, this is the United States of America, a land where I’ve been guaranteed, by the Constitution, freedom of religion. That means I’m free to worship as I see fit, and that same freedom applies to you, your clients and the judges you argue before.

It seems that your goal is to destroy everything that’s good and decent in this country, beginning with God. I’d like to remind you that God was a part of this great big world long before people such as you came into existence. God isn’t a four-letter word. The name of God isn’t an obscenity, scrawled like gang graffiti across the faces of buildings and over sidewalks. But you act as though He is no more than a piece of trash. A piece of trash you want eliminated from the heart and soul of every citizen across America. Not only do you want to rid our nation of God, but also everything associated with Him, including Christmas. You are willing to destroy the season of love and happiness enjoyed by the majority of our population simply to satisfy what I believe to be your communist points of view.

It’s time for everyone across America to stand united and defy the ACLU, the judges and all of those who have taken up the fight against God, Christmas, it’s symbols and everything it represents. And, it is possible to strike back and let them, and the rest of the world, know exactly how you feel. During the coming weeks people all over America at public meetings, school events, and especially at all sporting events should stand up, and in one voice say, “Merry Christmas. God bless us everyone.”

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

FactCheck.org did their homework on the debate last night and the top tier candidates answers.  They found a few nuggets:

• Romney claimed New York called itself a “sanctuary city” for illegal aliens. It didn’t.
• Giuliani denied New York actually was a “sanctuary city.” But the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has classified it as such, based on immigrant-friendly policies Giuliani still defends.
• Huckabee claimed he would “abolish the IRS.” He failed to mention that he’d replace it with another big tax bureaucracy.
• Huckabee said he had proposed to make children of illegal aliens eligible for Arkansas scholarships if they “had been in our schools their entire school life.” Actually, the proposal required only three years in Arkansas schools.
• Giuliani was correct on two points: While he was mayor, New York snowfall went down and the Yankees won four World Series titles. He was joking, but his gag should remind citizens that it’s a mistake in logic to give mayors, or governors or presidents, all credit or blame for what happens just because they’re in office at the time.
• Romney, claiming to be a “true suffering” fan of the Red Sox, said the team waited 87 years to win a World Series. They actually waited 86.

Notice a name missing from that list?

Not only did Fred come off as the most Presidential and the truest conservative, he also got his facts right.

Here is the longer version of the new Fred video that was played at the debate….good stuff:

The Democrat Shills at The GOP Debate

I would of gotten to this story sooner if had not been for that damn day job. 

I’m certain everyone has already heard about this story, but as usual I just have to throw my two cents into the mix.  Last night we found out that one of the YouTube questioners, Brigadier General Keith Kerr, was a Hillary Clinton supporter and served on her steering committee along with John Kerry’s steering committee.  Here is his question:

It was a big gotcha moment, and it came from a Democrat operative.

Andersons excuse for the plant?  They didn’t know….

COOPER: “Bill Bennett earlier mentioned he was getting some reports from friends of his on the Internet that Brigadier General Keith Kerr, who asked a question about gays in the military during this debate, was on a steering committee for Senator Hillary Clinton. That was something certainly unknown to us, and had we known that, would have been disclosed by us. It turns out we have just looked at it. Apparently, there was a press release from some six months ago. Hillary Clinton’s office saying that he had been named to some steering committee. We don’t know if he’s still on it. We’re trying to find out that information. But certainly, had we had that information, we would have acknowledged that in using his question, if we had used it at all.

An excuse that is almost insulting seeing that they could find the time to dig up that quote from 13 years ago but couldn’t find out about Kerr’s affiliations with the Democrats.  I don’t buy it and no one else does.   Wizbang:

Anderson Cooper would have you believe that a network that could select this question, find that 13-year-old Romney quote, create the trap for Romney (which he fell face first into), and (presumably) fly Kerr to the debate, could not type “Keith Kerr, retired Colonel” into Google and find the link to the Hillary Clinton press release, which prior to the debate appeared in the first 10 results for that search?

The blogosphere went into overdrive and discovered that Kerr was not the only plant.  In fact it’s looking like you would be hard pressed to find one of the questioners who WASN’T a Democrat plant:

This girl asked the abortion question and can be seen in this video of hers wearing a Edwards shirt and declaring on her blog that she is a Edwards supporter. (h/t Michelle Malkin)

This guy asked the log cabin Republican question and is a Obama supporter as evidenced by his profile page. Powerline has a few more:
Adam Florzak asked a question on Social Security. It turns out that Florzak quit his job with Caterpillar to work with “>Dick Durbin on Social Security reform. Then there was Mark Strauss, who pleaded with Ron Paul to run as an Independent. It turns out he’s a Richardson supporter Now many would say that just because most of the questioners were Democrats AND supporters of the Democrat competition, that this fact does not invalidate their questions, to which I would agree.

But the lack of any disclosure on the part of the CNN, when you know damn well they could have found all this stuff out quite quickly, speaks volumes to me.  The network pretended to be neutral but came up with “gotcha” quotes that are 13 years old in an attempt to sandbang the candidates AND on top of that they put on a bunch of Democrats to ask the questions from over 5,000 submitted.

It doesn’t invalidate the questions but it invalidates the debate in my mind.

And one more reason why, as I stated in my first post on the debates, this format sucks ass!

Its not Presidential, its amateurish, and makes the candidates on both sides look foolish having to answer some cartoon character.

Oh, one other thing.  I thought the left’s battle cry has been that Fox is a shill for the GOP.  In fact the Democrats run and hide from debating on that network.  Meanwhile the Republicans say “bring it on!” to a network that will pull this kind of stunt.

What does that say about the Democrats?

Crossposted from Conservative Thoughts

Daily Mail – English children’s literacy levels are among the worst in the Western world, a devastating international survey has revealed. England has plummeted down a global league table of reading standards among primary school children, sliding from third place five years ago to 19th. We now trail Scotland, the United States, most of Europe including France, Germany, Italy, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and the Baltic states. The findings explode ministers’ claims that standards have continually risen under Labour, which has doubled education spending on schools and nurseries to £50billion-a-year. At least £600million has been invested in primary school literacy initiatives alone since 1998. Yet our showing in independent international tests suggests that, far from improving, the performance of England’s primary pupils has actually declined.

How many years has it been since Tony Blair and New Labor, out here in Australia we have a leftist promising an ‘Education Revolution’. Look to the above if you want to know what lies ahead of us. Is there anything the left touch, that doesn’t turn to crap. I read earlier in the week how Maori and Pacific Islander children in New Zealand are worse off than children of other ethnic groups, who’s been running New Zealand for the last couple of years, who claims to “CARE” the most for them. Look on the bright side, they might not know how to read and write, but I’m sure they know how evil America is and how mean and horrible Christians are and how evil the British Empire was and how wretched the white man is and how wonderful all other cultures are, and off course Islam=Peace, all the important things in the new leftist utopia. Oh, and rest assured the leftist’s answer will be to steal more money from the tax payer and put even more billions into education.

Crossposted from Red Maryland

That is the question I would ask if I were attending the Maryland GOP convention this weekend.

In the 2006 election, there were no Republican candidates for most county and state legislative offices.

In the very few cases where a Republican ran for one of those offices, and in the 4th District Congressional race, there was virtually no Republican Party support of the the Republican candidates.

With the 2008 primary election less than three months away, there appear to be three Republicans running in District 4 and two in District 5.

But you wouldn’t know that, or be able to find out who they are, if you relied on the web sites of the Maryland Republican Party or the Prince George’s County Republican Central Committee.

The Maryland Republican Party site currently shows only the last name of one of the three candidates running in District 4 and nothing about either of the two candidates running in District 5.

The Prince George’s County Republican Central Committee site doesn’t list any candidates at all. That site has recently eliminated the names and contact information of district central committee members (maybe there aren’t any committee members), so I can no longer even try to contact the committee member from my district. (more…)

By Michael Steele

America has always been the land of opportunity. It is a land where the American Dream is more than just a dream; it is a tangible motivator that fosters a pioneer and entrepreneurial spirit. Along the way, the nation has faced challenges, overcome obstacles and fought to keep the American Dream alive. Indeed, that dream has endured and, in fact, grown by adapting to a changing world.

So, when the legislature returned to Annapolis in January 2007, I noted the rhetoric and advocacy of our leaders and how they proposed to respond to the challenges of balancing Maryland’s budget needs with the fiscal needs of Maryland families and businesses. I wondered whether legislators would secure the legacy wealth of hard-working Marylanders or dilute it. Spending and taxation had their advocates. Who would be the advocate for the people?

Certainly not Gov. Martin O’Malley, who sought and obtained passage of a “prevailing wage” on all state projects, thereby artificially inflating wages and increasing the cost to the taxpayers. He also capped tuition at the University of Maryland, leaving the state with the increased bill to cover the difference. Remember BG&E anyone? Mr. O’Malley’s appointed members of the Public Service Commission raised electric rates for Maryland’s families already struggling to keep up with rising energy prices. The 2007 legislative session culminated in the passage of Mr. O’Malley’s budget, which increased government spending by 18 percent.

When Robert Ehrlich and I took office in 2003, as governor and lieutenant governor, respectively, Maryland faced a record budget deficit of $2 billion, an unfriendly business climate, a deteriorating Chesapeake Bay and an inadequate transportation system. Through fiscal prudence and discipline, four years later, we left state government with a $1 billion budget surplus without enacting a sales or income tax increase. Our administration cut government spending by more than $700 million in our first six months. We cut the size of the executive branch work force by 7 percent and defeated $7.5 billion in proposed new taxes over the course of four years. What a difference responsible leadership can make.

At the recent conclusion of the “special session” of the Maryland General Assembly, it became clear once again that there were no advocates for the needs of Maryland’s citizens and that any economic growth would become harder for Maryland’s families, businesses and entrepreneurs to achieve.

Against a backdrop of record home foreclosures (with Maryland ranking 14th in the nation), gas prices above $3.40 a gallon and the general pace of economic growth slowing, instead of seeking ways to keep more money in our pockets, Mr. O’Malley pulled out the standard liberal “tax and spend” playbook and pushed through a massive $1.4 billion annual tax increase on Maryland families.

Every Marylander will now have to pay more as the state sales tax was increased by 20 percent, the state income tax increased to 5.5 percent, the tobacco tax increased by $1 and the corporate income tax increased 20 percent. Seemingly, no segment of the population was spared. But that’s how it goes when you redistribute wealth: You rob Peter to pay Paul. And then you rob Paul.

In today’s world, our elected representatives must strive to create opportunity, not dependence. We need government to operate within its means and to be a responsible steward of the hard-earned money entrusted to it by taxpayers. If we are to continue to be a land where everyone can still live the American Dream and secure a legacy of ownership for themselves and for their children, we must demand greater fiscal responsibility from government.

So, when I see the front-page pictures of the governor, the Senate president and the speaker of the House “celebrating” the passage of a $1.4 billion a year tax increase as “the boldest move, the boldest action, on the part of any governor,” I wonder how many Marylanders will celebrate this “bold move” when they get their paycheck, fill their gas tank, buy a winter jacket, buy a new car or try to save for the future? We can’t wait to celebrate having to pay more with less.

We live in a time when many of our families are struggling just to live paycheck to paycheck and cannot afford another financial burden, especially one they didn’t create. Yet, in pushing through the largest tax increases in the state’s history, Mr. O’Malley has made a claim to an “expansive, generous vision of government’s role” in our lives. That’s the last thing Marylanders need and the one thing we cannot afford.

No people can prosper when its leaders believe the way to empowerment lies not in the advancement of the individual, but in the promotion of an opportunistic government. House Speaker Michael Busch in praising the efforts of the governor and the General Assembly noted, “This is a day to move Maryland forward. It puts all the demons behind us.” Exactly, Mr. Speaker, right where our wallets are.

Michael Steele, former lieutenant governor of Maryland, is chairman of GOPAC.

by Frederick Meekins

On an episode of South Park taking aim at the airline industry, Mr. Garrison (still a man at that point) invented a mode of transportation where riders had to have a metal prod inserted into their backsides in order to avoid falling off the vehicle. The response of those enduring such discomfort and humiliation was that it was still less than what passengers had to endure at the airport. While the bit might have been a bit over the top in terms of propriety, it was pretty much on target in terms of how most Americans feel regarding the bureaucratic procedures implemented in the name of “transportation security” since September 11th.

As fairly good natured people content with the social order even if they don’t like the way the process is handled, most Americans deciding to utilize this form of transportation simply keep their comments to themselves and bear with the frustration. However, according to a McClatchy newspapers article titled “New Airport Check For Danger In Fliers’ Facial Expressions“, it may no longer be enough to stoically endure these indignations but one must also have a smile on one’s face about it.

A new specialty within the Transportation Security Administration known as Behavior Detection Officers (one could not devise a more Orwellian sounding division of the government if one tried) has been given the mandate to scrutinize those exhibiting unapproved facial expressions

If proponents of the theory get their way, certain facial expressions revealing whether an individual is feeling anger or disgust and, when taken together with heart rate, body temperature, and verbal responses, will be enough to get passengers shunted aside for further forms of interrogation such as having their baggage rifled through or being asked where they are going.

While one may make a case as to why some voyeur with a badge may need to run his hand through your underwear bag, beyond the destination on the ticket it is no security officer’s business where anyone is going. Frankly, such intrusions into private affairs are enough to get anyone’s heart rate rising and a look of disgust scowling across their brow.

Though this technology is promoted as a way to make terrorism prevention more foolproof, from comments made as to its accuracy, it sounds as if it will be yet another tool to curtail the liberties of everyday Americans while doing little to catch real terrorists. The article notes, “Different cultures express themselves differently.”

In other words, 86 year old grandmothers holding their heads a certain way as they are ordered to hold their arthritic arms over their heads will get pulled aside for additional harassment even if they don’t make a single peep. However, if certain minorities more prone to violent geopolitical outbursts comport themselves in the same manner it can be dismissed with a “that’s just the way those people are anyway”.

If the government is intent on stopping terrorism, there are signs to look for other than whether or not people have a giddy brainwashed look on their face. However, since political correctness has been deemed more important than survival, it is doubtful this great nation will survive much longer anyway.

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

Or, is manmade Global Warming key to quieter hurricane season?

On Friday the Atlantic hurricane season ends. And it’s another year of good news for those of us who live at the water’s edge in the Hurricane Belt.

As was pointed out in the Veteran’s Day Quick Takes, this hurricane season was second only to last year’s 10 year record low for Hurricanes. Only one named storm touched the coast of the United States and it promptly downgraded to a tropical storm which provided much needed drought relief to millions in the Southeast.

It’s entirely fair to draw two conclusions from this:

1. Back in August, one Bush-deranged lefty with more bile than brains predicted that Category 5 Hurricane Dean would strike Texas as “God’s Wrath” for the people of the U.S. electing and re-electing President Bush:

“The Bible is filled with accounts of divine retribution and if there is one thing God ought to be pissed about ,(or at least embarrased about) it’s Baby Bush.”

Since the opposite happened, using the theological calculus this lefty laid out we can only conclude that either God loves President Bush or he hates Mexicans more.

2. 2005 was a particularly bad year for Hurricanes affecting the United States. Both Hurricanes Rita and Katrina were used by environmental scaremongers who insisted that in future a greater number of powerful storms would assault the U.S. all because of manmade Global Warming (which they claim President Bush has ignored). So, if a prediction based on one year’s storm records is valid, a conclusion based on historically low storm activity over the past two years must be twice as valid! Manmade Global Warming has decreased the number of hurricanes, particularly the number of strong storms affecting the United States.

also:

Fred’s Tax Reform Proposal

Good editorial from the Wall Street Journal on Fred Thompson’s tax reform ideas:

…late last week he unveiled a tax reform that is more ambitious than anything we’ve seen so far from the rest of the GOP field.

Mr. Thompson wants to abolish the death tax and the Alternative Minimum Tax and cut the corporate income tax rate to 27% from 35%. But his really big idea is a voluntary flat tax that would give every American the option of ditching the current code in favor of filing a simple tax retur6n with two tax rates of 10% and 25%.

Mr. Thompson is getting aboard what has become a global bandwagon, with more than 20 nations having adopted some form of flat tax. Most–especially in Eastern Europe–have seen their economies grow and revenues increase as they’ve adopted low tax rates of between 13% and 25% with few exemptions.

The main political obstacle to such a reform in the U.S. has come from liberals, who favor punitive taxes for “class” reasons, and K Street corporate lobbyists who want to retain their tax-loophole empires. The housing and insurance industries, states and localities, charities, bond traders and tax preparers are all foes of low tax rates.

That’s why the idea of a voluntary flat tax–introduced on these pages a dozen years ago–makes political sense. The Thompson plan would allow taxpayers to keep their mortgage and charitable deductions if they prefer, by adhering to the current tax code and rates. But it would also allow the option to abandon those credits and deductions except for a single allowance based on family size ($39,000 for a family of four). Most taxpayers would pay a 10% rate on income above that allowance, with a 25% rate kicking in at $100,000 for a couple. There would only be five lines on the tax form and most taxpayers could fill it out in minutes.

Liberals are already objecting that the plan is not “paid for,” by which they mean it doesn’t raise taxes the way they hope the next President will. But Mr. Thompson is right in refusing to play by the “static revenue” scoring game that demands that one dollar in estimated tax cuts be offset by one dollar in estimated tax increases somewhere else. “The experts always overrate the revenue losses from tax cuts,” Mr. Thompson says, and history supports him going back to the Mellon reductions of the 1920s, the Kennedy tax cuts of the 1960s, the Gipper’s in the 1980s, and this decade’s success with President Bush’s reductions.

Excellent proposal by Fred to fix a tax system that is screwed up beyond belief.

The editorial also points out that Rudy and Mitt have both failed to endorse some kind of flat tax, seeing it as too politically risky. 

Just one more reason why I’m behind Fred.  A politician needs to take risks.  They need to put their ideas out there instead of hemming and hawing like a Clinton waiting for the polls to come out.

I just love Fred’s style of conservatism.  A conservatism that is older then Mitt’s, much more conservative then Rudy’s, and is fiscal as well as social.  He doesn’t have the baggage of most of the Republican candidates and is committed to federalism.

On top of all that he has begun to address the major issues in a series of position papers, something the other candidates have not done. 

While I could support Mitt, Rudy & most (you know which one I could not) of the rest of the candidates if they were to get the nomination I feel Fred is really the best of the field right now. 

Crossposted from Conservative Thoughts

Massachusetts attempts to institute more nanny state politics. Lawmakers to debate a bill that will prohibit parents from spanking their children.

(CBS/AP) A bill that would prohibit parents from spanking their children is being criticized as unnecessary and unenforceable by many Massachusetts lawmakers.

The measure – being heard Wednesday by a legislative committee – defines corporal punishment as “the willful infliction of physical pain or injurious or humiliating treatment.” State legislator Jay Kaufman said he submitted the bill at the request of nurse Kathleen Wolf.

Most parents use this form of discipline sparingly and judiciously. The problem lies with parents who cross the line cause serious harm to their children. That is where the focus should be. Children need discipline; A pat on their bottom when they run out into the street for the third time is not child abuse it is common sense.

“We need to have a serious public conversation, not about spanking – that’s not what this is about – but where people cross the line and abuse their children,” Kaufman told the station.

Several lawmakers counter that parents are best able to decide on discipline, and point out that state law already bans the physical abuse or neglect of children.

Previous legislation in another nanny state, California, failed. This bill is likely headed down that same road.

Crossposted from Red Maryland

“One of the biggest unfunded mandates that’s ever existed.”

Is this a Republican criticism of the Thornton education plan?

No those are the words of House Judiciary Committee Chair, Joe Vallario, explaining his opposition to the Real ID Act.

Forget for a moment that the cost of Thornton by far exceeds implementing the Real ID Act. Thornton costs taxpayers $1.3 billion, Real ID would cost $150 million, and that is a high-end estimate. Joe Vallario voted for Thornton so I don’t know who he was trying to fool.

The Real ID Act is a set of federal guidelines states must follow to ensure the integrity of its driver’s licenses and identification cards. States following these guidelines would prevent illegal immigrants from obtaining state issued licenses or ID cards. Those with driver’s licenses or ID cards from non complying states would not be able to use them to enter federal buildings or board commercial air flights.

During the 2007 regular session Senator Jennie Forehand (D-Montgomery County) and Delegate Henry Heller (D-Montgomery County) introduced bills, similar one passed by the Maine legislature opposing Real ID. Forehand argued that implementing Real ID would “invite theft of identity and invasion of privacy” and the act “will impose inconveniences and higher taxes on Marylanders with no attendant benefit such as protection from terrorism.” Senator Forehand is under the illusion that the current system is immune from identity theft or that it prevents corruption of our voting process

Forehand has no legitimacy when it comes to concern for higher taxes on Marylanders. She voted for the good of her party and Martin O’Malley’s political career (and consequently her own) over the good of her constituents. Forehand folded under pressure from the governor and her party. She voted yes across the board on all tax increases. Forehand, like Vallario voted for Thornton as well.

Second, I’m not sure what she means by “no attendant benefit such as protection from terrorism.” Had federal guidelines like those contained in the Real ID Act been in place, they could have disrupted or thwarted the 9/11 attacks.

Hani Hanjour the terrorist who rammed flight 77 into the Pentagon, entered the United States on a student visa, then promptly violated the terms of the visa by not enrolling in school, hence he was an illegal immigrant. Hanjour obtained a Maryland ID card, a Virginia ID card, and an Arizona driver’s license. Maryland issued his ID card less than a week before the attacks. Hanjour and the other 9/11 hijackers obtained driver’s licenses and ID cards to avoid using their passports, some of which had terrorists indicators on them like Nawaf Al Hamzi. For example, an MSP Trooper stopped Ziad Jarrah for speeding in Cecil County just two days before the attacks. Jarrah, who might have crashed flight 93 into the capitol building if not for the heroic efforts of the passengers, could have been detained if he did not have Virginia driver’s license and was forced to show his passport.

According to a 9/11 Commission staff report the 19 hijackers obtained 16 state driver’s licenses (from Arizona, California, Florida and Virginia) and 14 state ID cards (from Florida, Maryland and Virginia) using 374 aliases among them.

Driver’s licenses and ID cards are the main form of identification used to register voters. As we all know, Maryland issues driver’s licenses and ID cards to illegal immigrants, and apparently Al Qaeda terrorists as well. With the current system in place, how can we be sure about the integrity of our electoral process? How do we know that illegal immigrants have not and are not voting in our elections? We don’t! Why? Because we have unscrupulous politicians who favor their own unfunded education mandate—that has only enriched the educrats and MSTA and done nothing to help students—over a sound law, that had it been in effect six years ago might have prevented the largest terrorist attack on American soil.

The original deadline for states to comply with Real ID was May 11, 2008. However, DHS has moved the deadline back to December 2009. The General Assembly has at least two regular sessions to comply with Real ID. The governor’s own transportation secretary John Porcari testified that the state must comply with Real ID. In the same testimony Porcari said that a two-tiered system might be an option. I don’t doubt it. Delegate Ann Sol Gutierrez an anti-slots Democrat sold her vote on the slots bill in return for an administration promise to get a two-tiered system passed in the legislature.

I am wary of a two-tiered system. Even though it would, in theory, prevent illegal immigrants from voting; why would illegals seek to obtain identification that for all intents and purposes marks them as illegal immigrants? While it would require Real ID licenses and ID cards to register to vote (one would hope), what about the drivers licenses already issued to illegals? Will they be accepted for voter registration? What about any illegal aliens who are already on the voter rolls? How will they be handled?

Straight implementation of Real ID would be the ideal policy. Admittedly implementation would be a significant cost, but as a conservative the outcomes of Real ID, (enhancing national security and ensuring the integrity of our electoral process) are two core functions of government. Furthermore, DHS has ruled states can use up to 20% of Homeland Security Grant Program funds to implement Real ID, so it is not an unfunded mandate.

Democrats can play the angle that a two-tiered system is less expensive and implementing Real ID will cost taxpayers more. That may be true, but this Democrat majority, who addressed a deficit by increasing spending, and voted for an unfunded mandate of their own, doesn’t have much credibility when it comes to looking out for the security of the taxpayers of Maryland.

by Regina Sztajer

Today in Annapolis Maryland, at the Naval Academy, President George W. Bush is meeting with representatives of the Palestinian people and Israel to try to broker a peace treaty acceptable to both sides. It has been 60 years since the United Nations gave the Jewish people land that became the state of Israel. According to the Bible this same land was given to the Jewish people centuries ago by God as their homeland. In 1917, the British Balfour Declaration promised the Jewish people a homeland in Palestine and The League of Nations mandated the British should secure Palestine until it would become a Jewish homeland. If the British had not issued a White Paper which limited Jewish immigration prior to World War 11, possibly millions of Jewish lives would not have been lost to the Holocaust. The State of Israel has been under siege for these many years because the Arab nations who have not made peace with it’s people are determined to destroy it.

What is the Jewish question in regard to the Israel-Palestine conflict? The two possibilities to the conflict are: The size of Israel or about its existence! The size is simply that Israel would have to live within its borders. Therefore it is a border problem and is easier to solve than the other issue of the existence of Israel. With this issue there is no compromise between existing and not existing! No government of the State of Israel will ever negotiate with those who wish to destroy their homeland and its people.

In the past the PLO and other Palestinian spokesman have indicated they may recognize Israel as a Jewish state but they never delivered that message to their people in Arabic. It has never been mentioned in political speeches, religious sermons or primary school textbooks in Arabic nations. Rather the terms used in Arabic in relation to Israel is not to end hostilities but rather a truce until which time that the war against Israel can be resumed with prospects of success. Twenty members of the Arab League must agree on Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish State as their people live on land designated as Arab States or the members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which is much larger, exist as Islamic states.

Peace cannot be negotiated until this problem is solved. Why does this problem weigh so heavily on the negotiations? In 1947-48 about three-fourths of a million Arabs fled or were driven out during the War of Independence finding refuge in neighboring Arab countries. At about the same time Jews fled or were driven out of from Arab countries were they and their ancestors had lived for thousands of centuries. Also, not a single Jew was permitted to remain in the Arab- controlled part of mandatory Palestine. Most of these people fled to Israel where they were resettled in their new homes and accorded rights of citizenship without the need of international aid. For the Arabs a major refugee problem resulted with only Jordan accepting refugees granting Palestinian Arabs citizenship but kept them in refugee camps. In the other Arab countries the refugees remained stateless as aliens without rights or opportunities and maintained by United nations funding.

Paradoxically, if a Palestinian had fled to the United States or Britain they would have been eligible for naturalization after five years and their locally- born children were citizens by birth. But if they went to Syria, Iraq or Lebanon they and their descendants would have remained stateless for a fourth or fifth generation. Why? Because they were needed to be preserved as a Palestinian peoples as a separate entity until the time when they could return and reclaim the whole of Palestine, which is the West bank, Gaza strip and Israel which is in essence the destruction of Israel as a Jewish homeland.

There is some hope in Arab circles that Israel will be accepted and it will make a positive contribution to the public life of the region. But those who dared to express these ideas have been jailed or worse and these opinions have had little impact on their leadership. Therefore, to sum up the prospects in Annapolis the issue is not the size but the very existence of Israel and until the Arab leadership renounces its purpose to destroy Israel the negotiations are doomed. Solving both issues for now seem unlikely.

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

A few new excellent Fred Thompson video’s out today.

The second is about Marie Ragghianti, if you don’t remember her you should.

he really is the most stalwart conservative among the big four, a point he should be hammering at every turn.

and

He should stick to the “true conservative” stuff and start hitting the fact that while Rudy and Mitt are throwing punches and Huckabee’s chattering about faith, he’s rolling out one policy proposal after another.

What kind of policy proposals?

He has released seven white papers already including this one on his tax proposal:

1. Permanently Extend the 2001 and 2003 Tax Cuts. Tax relief enacted in 2001 and 2003 has proved critical to generating a strong economy that has experienced growth despite the war on terror, the collapse in the housing market, and other economic challenges over the last six years. Unless action is taken, every American taxpayer will see a massive tax increase after December 31, 2010. Allowing this tax hike will impose an enormous financial burden on American families, slow economic growth, cost America jobs, and make it more difficult to address the country’s long-term budget, economic, and security challenges. The Thompson plan ensures the following:
• Reduced individual income tax rates, saving every tax-paying family a minimum of $600
• Preserving the $1000 child tax credit, which was doubled from $500 per child.
• Protecting Marriage penalty relief.
• Retaining Education tax incentives, including Coverdell Education Savings Accounts, 529 college savingsplans, and deductions for higher education expenses.
• Reduced tax rates on capital gains and qualified dividends.
• Increased expensing of investment for small businesses.
2. Permanently Repeal the Death Tax. Current law provides death tax relief, but only through 2010. The death tax is inherently unfair. Under the Thompson Plan, the death tax would be permanently repealed, thus protecting millions of American families, including small business owners and family farmers, from double taxation at rates ranging as high as 55 percent.
3. Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax. The AMT is a separate tax system that was intended to ensure that a few high income Americans could not use deductions and credits to eliminate their tax liability. However, because the AMT is not indexed to inflation, it is penalizing Americans it was never intended to affect. While in the U.S. Senate, Fred Thompson authored legislation that would have repealed the AMT. Consistent with that earlier proposal, the Thompson plan will eliminate the AMT as part of broader tax and spending reform. Until comprehensive reform is feasible, the Thompson plan would index the exemption amounts annually so that millions of middle class families will not become subject to this tax.
4. Reduce the Corporate Tax Rate. The United States has one of the highest rates of tax on businesses of the industrialized nations, second only to Japan. Even Japan is currently considering reducing its corporate tax rate. Economic studies suggest that the U.S. Treasury is actually losing tax revenue by keeping the corporate tax rate so high. In order to increase the competitiveness of U.S. companies in the global marketplace, the Thompson plan would reduce the U.S. top corporate tax rate (including the corporate capital gains tax rate) from 35 percent to no more than 27 percent, which is the approximate average of the world’s leading economies the nations of the Organization on Economic Cooperation and Development. This tax reduction will promote U.S. competitiveness, encourage companies to keep their operations (and jobs) in the U.S., and spur continued economic expansion and growth.
5. Permanently Extend Small Business Expensing. Small businesses create two-thirds of all new jobs in America, and employ nearly 59 million Americans — more than half of the nation’s private-sector workforce. Women own a quarter of all small businesses, minorities are nearing the 20% mark, and Hispanic Americans are opening their own businesses at a rate three times the national average. Current law allows small businesses to write-off purchases of equipment of up to $125,000 per year, rather than depreciating those assets over time. Making expensing of equipment and other small business items permanent will encourage greater investment and growth.
6. Update and Simplify Depreciation Schedules. The current depreciation schedules are outdated and in many cases do not reflect the realistic useful life of an asset. This is particularly true for investments in high technology. For example, computers must be depreciated over three years, even though they become obsolete in half that time. The Thompson plan would simplify and update these schedules to allow American businesses to make the investments they need to compete and create more high-quality jobs.
7. Expand Taxpayer Choice. The Thompson plan would give Americans greater choice about how to pay their federal taxes. This plan is based on a proposal developed by the House of Representatives Republican Study Committee that would provide taxpayers the option of remaining under the current, complex tax code or opting for a simplified, flat tax code. The simplified tax code would contain two tax rates: 10% for joint filers on income of up to $100,000 ($50,000 for singles) and 25% on income above these amounts. The standard deduction would be more than doubled to $25,000 for joint filers and $12,500 for singles. The personal exemption amount would be increased to $3,500. Therefore, a family of 4 would be exempt from income tax on the first $39,000 of income. The simplified tax code would contain no other tax credits or deductions. It would also retain the 15% tax rate on capital gains and dividends. This approach would dramatically simplify taxes for tens of millions of Americans. In addition, the larger standard deduction and personal exemption amounts will still provide significant tax relief to families with children. This proposal would serve as a stepping-stone to fundamental tax reform.

He has papers on his Border Security and Immigration plan, Revitalizing our Armed Forces, Saving Social Security and many more at his site.  I’m especially pleased at his position on the Second Amendment:

The Second Amendment does more than guarantee to all Americans an unalienable right to defend one’s self. William Blackstone, the 18th century English legal commentator whose works were well-read and relied on by the Framers of our Constitution, observed that the right to keep and bear firearms arises from “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation.” This view, reflected in the Second Amendment, promotes both self-defense and liberty. It is not surprising then that the generation that had thrown off the yoke of British tyranny less than a decade earlier included the Second Amendment in the Constitution and meant for it to enable the people to protect themselves and their liberties.

As Allah noted, the man is putting out alot of ideas.  Meanwhile the MSM and the political pundits in Washington have chosen to dismiss the man as lazy.  I don’t see it. 

I have delayed putting my support behind one candidate up to now because I wanted to get a feel for each candidate, listen and read their proposals, watch them on the stump and so on.  I’ve done a lot of that and thanks to Mike have even gotten firsthand accounts of their visits to his state (being in California doesn’t provide for a whole lot of handshaking time with the candidates).

But a week ago I made my decision and decided to wait until the right time.  I figure that time is now so, for those who care,

I support Fred Thompson for President of the United States.

No big deal really, I’m just one cog in the machine on a small blog but every person counts. 

Addendum – Mike, Word, Chris, Scott and Rob may support another candidate so don’t go thinking this is the blogs position, it’s just mine.  But from here on out until the primaries are over I will be doing what I can to support Fred.  But make no mistake about it, if he doesn’t become the nominee (and from the polls its looking like a long shot) I will support who ever is running against the Democrat opponent. 

But until then, I’m officially a FredHead.

His policies, his positions, and his principals lead me to this decision:

Individual Liberty . As Jefferson spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, our basic rights come from God, not from government, and that among these inalienable rights is the right to liberty. We must allow individuals to lead their lives with minimal government interference.

Personal Responsibility . The corollary to liberty is responsibility. No society can succeed and thrive for any duration unless free people act in a responsible way. All of us must take responsibility for our actions and strive to improve our own lives and to contribute to building a better society.

Free Markets . Free people are best equipped to order their own affairs, and the common interest benefits from and is improved by the aggregate success of all. We must reform our tax system, encourage investment, support entrepreneurial spirit, open markets abroad to American goods, and minimize burdensome government regulations to continue to expand the economy and bring increased wealth to all Americans.

Limited Government . Government must be strong enough to protect us, competent enough to provide basic government services, but limited by the delineated powers in the Constitution.

Federalism . Our Constitution innovatively guarantees our liberties by spreading power among the three branches of the federal government, and between the federal government and the states. In considering any action by the government, we must always ask two questions: is the government better equipped than the private sector to perform the task and, if so, what level of government (federal or state) ought to do it. Washington is not the seat of all wisdom. (More on Federalism)

Protecting our Country . The first responsibility of the federal government is to protect the nation and the American people. There is no more important task. We must have a strong and effective military, capable intelligence services, and a vigorous law enforcement and homeland security capacity.

Traditional American Values . A healthy society is predicated on belief in God; respect for all life; strong families centered on the institution of marriage—the union of a man and a woman; and self-respect and tolerance of others. While we are all free to live our lives in the pursuit of our own happiness, the government has a responsibility to respect the right of parents to raise their children and to promote the values that produce the strongest society.

The Rule of Law . We protect our liberty, secure our rights, and promote a just and stable society through the rule of law. We owe to ourselves and our fellow citizens our own adherence to the rules, but tough law enforcement and punishment for those who do not. A free and independent judiciary that interprets the law by adhering strictly to legal text and respects its limited role in our system of government is essential to our security and freedom, and we need judges who understand that role if we are to preserve our republic and freedom.

Conserving Our Nation’s Resources . Each of us is put on Earth for a limited period of time. We must always strive to ensure that the resources we use to lead our lives are here for future generations to enjoy and use as well.

So off to fight the characterization that the man doesn’t smile enough, or is too old, or is too tall, or whatever other complaint the pundits can find.  The man has a great record, solid conservative positions, and would make a great President.

UPDATE

California State Senator Tom McClintock has thrown his support behind Fred and is throwing him a dinner 25 miles from where I live this Saturday, and I will be attending. 

Come meet Presidential Candidate Fred Thompson

Come join California State Senator Tom McClintock and Orange County Assemblyman Chuck DeVore as they extend a warm Southern California welcome to former US Senator and Presidential Candidate

FRED THOMPSON

this Saturday in Laguna Woods at 9:00 AM.

Don’t miss this rare chance to meet Senator Thompson in a candid and fun rally.

FREE and open to all supporters.

Clubhouse 3 at Laguna Woods Village
24351 El Toro Rd Laguna Woods, CA 92637
(949) 597-4200

Clubhouse 3 entrance is off of Moulton Parkway

Hopefully have some pictures and the sort for you guys Saturday night.

Crossposted from Conservative Thoughts

For those who continue to suggest that recent success in Iraq is some sort of mirage, you may want to consider a report from the AP describing recent developments among the Shiite and Sunni clerics. As is always the case with such news one should remain cautiously optimistic. But to dismiss positive results especially if your prevailing position is that of a far left antiwar surrendering and appeasing liberal makes the case for those who oppose your defeatist and submissive behavior.

The now famous troop surge that was dismissed by liberal critics who are totally invested in defeat for at least political reasons has established a beneficial trend in Iraq. Reports have indicated the improvements were enough to convince displaced Iraqis to return home. And while visitors to my blog have been known to call the reduction in violence an Al-Qaeda ploy to wait out a US departure, the combination of the surge, peaceful pursuits of clerics, returning Iraqis and the continued joint efforts of US forces and tribal leaders against insurgents discredits that conclusion. It appears to be more of a desperate reaction to prop up the failing surrender position of the left. How misguided it is that some people will favor defeat over the very democracy that gives them the freedom to act so stupid.

There is no time like the present to take the opportunity to again express my appreciation for all the men and women in the armed services past and present for their dedication, commitment, courage and sacrifice. Their contribution to the cause of peace and freedom makes it possible for all of us to lead the lives we do and gives hope to those who have yet to reach this universal goal. To take a moment to express thanks is the very least one can do for all that has been bestowed by the selfless acts of others. To oppose or counter or otherwise dishonor their service is a sin for which there is currently no adequate definition.

In the political climate present in these United States it is incumbent upon all of us to take every opportunity to support the troops as there are far too many instances of people and organizations promoting the weakness that only serves the enemy and is detrimental to the future of this nation. Too many have sacrificed too much to allow that to happen. Remember this as the Presidential campaign continues and we are all called to decide who will lead this country. Those who have repeatedly called for surrender in the face of the growing threat of terrorism must not be allowed to be involved in governing this country. Certainly not in the highest office in the land. The Office of President of the United States requires unquestionable strength and complete commitment to resist those who would do harm to this country.

The positive advances in Iraq mentioned earlier need to be fostered by us all. Rather than leave in defeat as suggested by the left we need to depart after victory and assisting a deserving people to live in the peace, freedom and prosperity afforded by the process of democracy.

Crossposted from Red Maryland

As the Special Session rolls into the rear view mirror, last week’s promises to take action against those who made this recent tax increase possible begin the test of time.

In the interest promoting the “never forget” mantra, here is how the Gazette saw things:

“Losers

Moderate Democrats — Some voted against the tax increases, but by and large, GOP challengers will flail all the Dems over what is likely the largest tax increase in Maryland history. Nay vote or not, anyone with a D after their name in a right-leaning district could face rough going in 2010.

House GOP — Five Republicans defected on the slots referendum measure, which made all the difference. Had the caucus stuck together, Democrats would have needed four more votes, a gap that may have been too great to overcome.”

Refresh your memory and let us gird ourselves to give all of these legislators a “rough going in 2010.”

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

Setting the table for the week’s discussion:

Democrats About to Claim Credit for Iraq Progress?

The New York Times has this interesting article which describes how Hillary Clinton was FOR sending more troops to Iraq before she was AGAINST the idea and is now coming full circle again and supporting the idea that we are winning. Hillary’s not alone. All of the top Dem candidates are caught in a bind of their own making:

As Democrats See Security Gains in Iraq, Tone Shifts
By PATRICK HEALY
New York Times
November 25, 2007

As violence declines in Baghdad, the leading Democratic presidential candidates are undertaking a new and challenging balancing act on Iraq: acknowledging that success, trying to shift the focus to the lack of political progress there, and highlighting more domestic concerns like health care and the economy.
…
But the changing situation suggests for the first time that the politics of the war could shift in the general election next year, particularly if the gains continue. While the Democratic candidates are continuing to assail the war — a popular position with many of the party’s primary voters — they run the risk that Republicans will use those critiques to attack the party’s nominee in the election as defeatist and lacking faith in the American military.

Meanwhile, Democrats continue to harp on the phony Iraq progress benchmarks that Democrats in Congress dreamed up to hamstring the President and snatch defeat from the jaws of Victory.

Charles Krauthammer takes that bit of idiocy on directly:

On Iraq, a State of Denial
By Charles Krauthammer
Real Clear Politics
November 23, 2007

It does not have the drama of the Inchon landing or the sweep of the Union comeback in the summer of 1864. But the turnabout of American fortunes in Iraq over the past several months is of equal moment — a war seemingly lost, now winnable. The violence in Iraq has been dramatically reduced. Political allegiances have been radically reversed. The revival of ordinary life in many cities is palpable. Something important is happening.

And what is the reaction of the war critics? Nancy Pelosi stoutly maintains her state of denial, saying this about the war just two weeks ago: “This is not working. . . . We must reverse it.” A euphemism for “abandon the field,” which is what every Democratic presidential candidate is promising, with variations only in how precipitous to make the retreat.

How do they avoid acknowledging the realities on the ground? By asserting that we have not achieved political benchmarks — mostly legislative actions by the Baghdad government — that were set months ago. And that these benchmarks are paramount. And that all the current progress is ultimately vitiated by the absence of centrally legislated national reconciliation.
…
But does the absence of this deus ex machina invalidate our hard-won gains? Why does this mean that we cannot achieve success by other means?

Sure, there is no oil law. But the central government is nonetheless distributing oil revenue to the provinces, where the funds are being used for reconstruction.

Sure, the de-Baathification law has not been modified. But the whole purpose of modification was to entice Sunni insurgents to give up the insurgency and join the new order. This is already happening on a widening scale all over the country in the absence of a relaxed de-Baathification law.

As for federalism, the Kurds are running their own region, the Sunni sheiks in Anbar and elsewhere are exercising not just autonomy but control of their own security, and the southern Shiites are essentially governing themselves, the British having withdrawn in all but name.

Yes, a provincial powers law would be nice because it would allow for provincial elections. We should push hard for it. But we already have effective provincial and tribal autonomy in pivotal regions of the country.
…
Al-Qaeda in Iraq is in disarray, the Sunni insurgency in decline, the Shiite militias quiescent, the capital city reviving. Are we now to reverse course and abandon all this because parliament cannot ratify the reconciliation already occurring on the ground?

Do the critics forget their own arguments about the irrelevance of formal political benchmarks? The transfer of power in 2004. The two elections in 2005. The ratification of the constitution.
…
So, just as we have learned this hard lesson of the disconnect between political benchmarks and real stability, the critics now claim the reverse — that benchmarks are what really count.

Campaign Trail Quickies

–Fred Thompson Not Finished

Yes, some GOP voters have been disappointed that the early hype about Fred Thompson’s presidential campaign turned out to be that: just hype.

But the opposite hype that Thompson’s campaign is a total flop is also wrong. And Thompson took the matter on directly in this interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday:

“If you look at the national polls, you’ll see that I’m running second and have been running second for a long time.I’m running ahead of a guy who spent probably $50 million more than I have and been running for a year longer. If you look in South Carolina, I’ve either been leading or tied for the lead for a long, long time. I moved from fourth to third in Iowa, ahead of Rudy Giuliani.”

Thompson’s national ranking has been declining, but he does retain second place in the Real Clear Politics polling averages chart
and while his polling average in South Carolina has him third, the latest Rasmussen poll has him tied with Romney (who continues to come on strong in SC)

From the Mike’s America archives: Fred Thompson Visits Mike’s America

– Novak: “Huckabee, the False Conservative”

Bob Novak reports that “real conservatives shudder” at the thought of Mike Huckabee as President:

Huckabee, the False Conservative
Real Clear Politics
By Robert Novak
November 26, 2007

…Huckabee is campaigning as a conservative, but serious Republicans know that he is a high-tax, protectionist, big-government advocate of a strong hand in the Oval Office directing the lives of Americans. Until now, they did not bother to expose the former governor of Arkansas as a false conservative because he seemed an underfunded, unknown nuisance candidate. Now that he has pulled even with Mitt Romney for the Iowa caucuses with the possibility of more progress, the beleaguered Republican Party has a frightening problem on its hands.

–Rudy: It’s time to unmask Romney

Rudy: It’s time to unmask Romney
By: Jonathan Martin
The Politico
Nov 26, 2007

WINDHAM, N.H. — In a big strategic shift, Rudy Giuliani hammered Mitt Romney’s record Sunday on three fronts, saying it was time to “take the mask off and take a look at what kind of governor was he.”

Using some of the toughest language of his campaign, Giuliani, in an interview with Politico, slammed Romney on health care, crime and taxes. At the same time he portrayed the one-time moderate as a hypocrite on a host of social issues who lives “in a glass house.” It was easily the most sweeping attack Giuliani has delivered against Romney in this campaign.

“He throws stones at people,” Giuliani said in an interview on his campaign bus. “And then on that issue he usually has a worse record than whoever he’s throwing stones at.”

The Romney camp responded by calling Giuliani’s attack “nasty” and offering a point-by-point rebuttal.

When Mitt Romney visited Mike’s America I noted that it didn’t take any prompting for Mitt to go on the attack against Rudy. Seems to me that turnabout is fair play. Rudy has consistently avoided attacking his opponents, preferring to run against Hillary Clinton. But it’s crunch time and Mitt is coming on strong in places like South Carolina where he now is tied with Fred in the latest Rasmussen Poll but leads in the overall RC Politics average.

Last, Not Least

– Stem Cell Debate Over?

The End of the Stem-Cell Wars
A victory for science, for the pro-life movement, and for President Bush.
by Ryan T. Anderson
The Weekly Standard
12/03/2007

The stem cell wars are over. Leading scientists are telling us that they can pursue the most promising stem cell research without using–much less killing–human embryos. This breakthrough enables researchers to create human embryonic stem cells directly from adult cells. In fact, the new method may actually prove superior to embryo-destructive alternatives. This is the biggest stem cell advance since James Thomson became the first scientist to isolate embryonic stem cells, less than a decade ago.
…
It also is illustrative of the politics of science. Had a President Gore or a President Kerry allowed the science to go forward without regard for moral principle, it would have set a terrible precedent. A Gore or Kerry presidency would have bestowed federal blessing and taxpayer funds on laboratory work predicated on the assumption that embryonic human beings can be treated as spare parts and that cloning to kill is acceptable.

But because President Bush stood his ground, we have avoided that moral catastrophe. Had Bush lost either election, or had he caved to pressure from those who slandered him as “antiscience,” it is very possible that the new method of stem cell production–the new gold standard, in all likelihood–would never have been found. Most likely, science and the public would have accommodated themselves to the mass production and mass killing of human embryos.

–Biofuels Not The Panacea for Energy Independence?

Who’s Fueling Whom?
Why the biofuels movement could run out of gas
By Richard Conniff
Smithsonian magazine
November 2007

…Over the past few years, biofuels have acquired an almost magical appeal for environmentalists and investors alike. This new energy source (actually as old as the first wood-fueled campfire) promises to relieve global warming and win back America’s energy independence: instead of burning fossil fuels such as coal or oil, which fill the atmosphere with the carbon packed away during thousands of years of plant and animal growth, the idea is to extract energy only from recent harvests. Where we now pay larcenous prices to OPEC, we’d pay our own farmers and foresters instead.
…
So what’s the hitch? Partly it’s that bit about doing a little planning. The move to biofuels thus far looks more like a stampede than a considered program to wean ourselves from fossil fuels. Critics in the financial community have used words like “gold rush” and even the dreaded “bubble,” fretting that “biofool” investors are putting too much money into new refineries, which could go bust as markets and subsidies shift or as technologies and feedstocks become obsolete.

–Man Now Threatening the Life of the Universe?

Question: How can liberals politicize this and how can the United Nations tax it?

Mankind ‘shortening the universe’s life’
By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
The Telegraph (U.K.)
Nov. 21, 2007

Forget about the threat that mankind poses to the Earth: our very ability to study the heavens may have shortened the inferred lifetime of the cosmos.

Parallel universe proof boosts time travel hopes
Quantum theory and relativity explained
Surfer Dude’s Theory of Everything – The Movie

That does not mean the field of astronomy does direct harm. A universe with a truncated lifespan may come hand in hand with the ability of astronomers to make cosmological measurements, according to two American scientists who have studied the strange, subtle and cosmic implications of quantum mechanics, the most successful theory we have.

Over the past few years, cosmologists have taken this powerful theory of what happens at the level of subatomic particles and tried to extend it to understand the universe, since it began in the subatomic realm during the Big Bang.

But there is an odd feature of the theory that philosophers and scientists still argue about. In a nutshell, the theory suggests that quantum systems can exist in many different physical configurations at the same time. By observing the system, however, we may pick out one single ‘quantum state’, and therefore force the system to change its configuration.

Crossposted from Red Maryland

Whatever right the Second Amendment guarantees, it does not require the District to stand by while its citizens die.

–Washington, DC Attorney General Linda Singer

That line is the sine qua non of the District’s case against the repeal of its unconstitutional gun ban. This is wholly ironic since DC has consistently fought to uphold its right to do just that: stand by while its citizens are raped, robbed, and, and kidnapped.

Track the case at DCguncase.com. H/T David Freddoso.

From Gura & Possessky’s response to DC’s petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court:

V. Citizens Under Criminal Attack Are Not Required to Stand By and Die Awaiting Police Protection.
Petitioners correctly note that the Second Amendment “does not require the District to stand by while its citizens die.” Pet. at 30 (emphasis added). Yet the city consistently fights to secure its right to stand by while its citizens are victimized by crime. For example, the city has successfully defended its right to “stand by while its citizens” are raped, kidnapped from their homes, and further abused. Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981) (enbanc).

The city has likewise successfully defended its right to “stand by” in the face of the worst urban rioting in our nation’s history. Westminster Investing Co. v. G.C. Murphy Co., 434 F.2d 521 (D.C. Cir. 1970). The city has even defended its right to “stand by while its citizens die” when the perpetrator is a police officer. Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. 1983) (en banc).

Indeed, the city has asserted its right to “stand by while its citizens die” in the course of volunteering their assistance to the police. Butera v. District of Columbia, 235 F.3d 637 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

Petitioners cannot be begrudged their arguments that they are under no general obligation to protect citizens from violent crime. As a matter of tort law, Petitioners’ position is consistent with accepted notions of sovereign immunity and the public duty doctrine. And as a matter of constitutional law, citizens do not enjoy any positive right to police protection. DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (1989); Castle Rock, 545 U.S. 748.

Petitioners’ sincere desire to reduce violent crime is unquestioned. And Petitioners’ consistent assertion of immunity for failing to police the city is valid policy, borne of the regrettable truth that even the best police force cannot perfectly protect the general population against violence. Accordingly, the people’s need for Second Amendment rights is inevitably, regardless of Petitioners’ best intentions, a matter of life and death.

Because of Petitioners’ demonstrated – even if understandable – inability to police the entire city, local government cannot substitute for the right of individuals to keep functional firearms in their homes…

If the city does not wish to “stand by while its citizens die,” it has many opportunities to act without infringing upon the Bill of Rights…

In the meantime, people need not stand by and die while waiting for Petitioners to provide a safe city in which to live. The Second Amendment guarantees to citizens something that Petitioners have expressly and consistently disclaimed any legal obligation to provide: an effective means of preserving their lives.

Crossposted from Conservative Thoughts

From The Midnight Sun – Just north of the U.S., in Canada, a waitress is in danger of being imprisoned for posting non-PC Bible verses on the net. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has actually threatened to imprison 21-year-old waitress Jessica Beaumont for posting Bible quotations online. Although Ms. Beaumont’s home has been raided by the police, she has not yet been criminally charged for her politically incorrect views, because she has broken no laws. That’s why the Tribunal was utilized to keep her mouth closed — by throwing her in prison for “human rights” violations if necessary. Beaumont’s impermissible opinions were accompanied by two Bible verses frowned upon by liberals:

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. —LEVITICUS 18:22
If a man lies with man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. —LEVITICUS 20:13

The CHRT has barred her from posting similar remarks, even on websites hosted in other countries. By simply posting biblical scripture, she could be jailed for up to five years. How’s that for a precedent? We might want to stop worrying about human rights in Pakistan, and pay some attention to what’s going on just over our northern border — especially since we’ve been traveling down the same road.

Also:

Fathers, less rights than rapists and murderers

Daily Mail – A woman who became pregnant after a one-night stand yesterday won the right to keep the existence of her baby a secret from its father. In a landmark decision, three Appeal Court judges agreed that the 20-year-old single mother has “the ultimate veto” over whom should be told about the child, who is being put up for adoption. Describing the case as “on any view extraordinary”, Lord Justice Thorpe ruled there was no justification for “breaking open the mother’s secret”. And Lady Justice Arden said this was not a violation of the father’s rights to family life under the Human Rights Act because he had no rights to be violated.

Funny how the father of a child has no rights to family life under the Human Rights Act but rapists and violent murderers have a special place in that Act, trust leftist scum to care for and protect their most treasured pets.

Daily Mail – ….was punched in the face and indecently assaulted by Mohammed Kendeh, a 16-year-old from Sierra Leone. Astonishingly, at the time of the attack, Kendeh was under a supervision order for six other sex offences in the same park. Though the Home Office tried to deport Kendeh once he had served his sentence, an immigration judge overruled them. He ruled that Kendeh couldn’t be sent back to Sierra Leone because the Human Rights Act enshrines his ‘right to a family life’.

Daily Mail – The killer [Learco Chindamo] of headteacher Philip Lawrence poses a “genuine and present risk” to the public according to official papers handed to the courts by the Home Office, it was revealed tonight. Telegraph.co.uk – Why can’t Learco Chindamo be deported to Italy? Article 8 of the Human Rights Act says that Chindamo has the right to a family life.

So there you go folks, rapists and murderers have more rights than a father in the glorious Human Rights Act. Maybe the father might love his child and want to be a positive influence on the child, can’t have any of that can we, that would mean acknowledging that fathers play a role, can’t say anything positive about bastard males can we. Will the child’s wishes ever be considered, fat chance, it’s leftists we’re talking here folks, if they can’t kill you before you’re born, they’ll punish you until you’re dead.

By Blair Lee
The Gazette

Martin O’Malley is a risk taker. His first run for office was a can’t-win long shot against a popular incumbent state senator, Johnny Pica, who O’Malley came within a hairsbreadth of defeating. Then, in 1999, O’Malley became the white mayor of predominantly black Baltimore — another impossibility.

This year, as rookie governor, he defied every conventional wisdom.

First, he punted the budget crisis and burned up a billion-dollar surplus; next he secretly crafted a tax⁄slots plan with no legislative or public input; then he sprang it on the voters with a 10-day road show, claiming his tax hike was really a tax cut.

Next, ignoring the counsel of the two veteran presiding officers, Mike Miller and Mike Busch, he convened the state legislature into emergency session despite lacking the needed votes. Wow, talk about brash!

Martin O’Malley was rolling the dice, betting that the Democratic-controlled legislature, despite its protests, would find a way to pass the state’s biggest tax hike in history and resolve its longstanding slots impasse. He triangulated his fellow Dems by daring them to fail both him and the party. He knew that after four years of making a Republican governor look bad, Democratic lawmakers had no choice but to make the new Democratic governor look good.

Thanks to O’Malley’s game of political ‘‘chicken,” the legislature spent the next 20 days tied in knots and making a spectacle of itself. One delegate, a Dem, said, ‘‘This special session will be a textbook example in future political science classes of government at its worst.” He’s right. There was no semblance of process, fairness, openness or accountability.

The special session was run by the Democratic Party caucus, not by the legislature. Sometimes, when committee meetings were announced, only Democratic members were invited. Often lawmakers were asked to vote without reading the bills or knowing the fiscal impact. Other times votes were delayed days and weeks while wavering lawmakers were bribed or browbeaten. Like recalcitrant sheep the lawmakers were herded toward the predetermined outcome.

When House leaders couldn’t find enough votes for the slots referendum they threatened to put a slots site in Frederick and Harford counties, despite local opposition. Delegates from those counties opposed to slots gladly switched when the leaders withdrew the threat. The entire maneuver was simply a ploy to squeeze a few more slots votes.

Watching ‘‘government at its worst” was sometimes tragically comical. Explaining why the sales tax was suddenly imposed on computer services, one committee chairman explained, ‘‘We couldn’t come up with something else that brings in the money.” And after years of criticizing Gov. Bob Ehrlich for raiding transportation and park funds, the Democrats turned around and did the same thing. The biggest disconnect of all? An emergency session called to solve a budget shortfall caused by overspending ended up approving $500 million of new spending!

O’Malley helped himself by staying totally flexible. He really didn’t care how the legislature found the money so long as it did. When the Senate Budget and Tax Committee stripped almost all the progressivity from his income tax bill he applauded instead of objecting. Likewise, when the legislature killed his property tax cut, his gas tax and his tax breaks for seniors he didn’t make a peep.

Joining with Speaker Busch, O’Malley outfoxed the wily Senate President Mike Miller who let himself get tricked into starting all the bills in the Senate. When the Senate’s tax and slots bills reached the House, Busch and O’Malley had Miller over the barrel — the House, if need be, could kill slots (Miller’s sine que non) and simply pass the Senate’s tax bill leaving Miller high and dry. A fuming Miller had to accept a slots referendum, subjecting slots to public vote in 2008, instead of slots now as he wanted.

Except for the change in governors, nothing about the slots debate differed from the past. Even the so-called referendum solution, passing the buck to the public, was an old idea floated years earlier by Busch and entertained by Governor Ehrlich until Busch backed out.

The slots issue, like the entire special session, was completely based on party politics. For instance, 29 delegates (almost all Dems) who voted against slots under Ehrlich voted for slots under O’Malley. Likewise, 23 delegates (mostly Republicans) who voted for slots under Ehrlich voted against slots under O’Malley.

The slots referendum just barely passed because enough anti-slots Dems abandoned their position and because five Republicans defected. Struggling to maintain their virginity, the anti-slots Dems condemned the slots genie to the heavens while letting it out of the bottle.

For instance, one Montgomery County delegate, after casting the winning slots referendum vote, wrote his constituents, ‘‘I strongly urge you to join me in opposing the legalization of slots by voting ‘No’ on the referendum [next November, 2008].”

In Annapolis, power is measured by the ability to make politicians do something they don’t want to do. O’Malley forced his fellow Dems to swallow regressive taxes and slots by making their votes a party call, a test of Democratic loyalty and solidarity. In so doing he consolidated his position and left no question about who’s running the show in Annapolis from now on.

Blair Lee is CEO of the Lee Development Group in Silver Spring and a regular commentator for WBAL radio. His column appears Fridays in The Gazette. His e-mail address is blair@leedg.com.