Michael Moore, The Faux Messiah by James Novak

Michael Moore has again entered the spotlight. Part of his latest documentary, Sicko was filmed in Cuba. He took a number of ill first responders to the attacks of 9/11 to that country to receive treatment, in order to make the point that Castro's health care system is superior to that of the United States.

The United States has had a trade and tourism embargo against Cuba for around half a century. If an American decides to travel to that country, without proper permission, they've broken the law. Michael Moore allegedly did that, thus he's being investigated by the Treasury Department.

Moore is claiming that the Bush Administration and the Health Care industry are involved in a joint effort to silence him. The film maker never bothered to consider that perhaps making a public display of what might be an illegal act is generally a good way to get the federal government to investigate you, regardless of the regime that is in power. This claim is also absurd because he really has no evidence to back up that there's any conspiracy to silence him. There are no smoking gun documents or recorded messages saying, "Hey, let's finally shut this Michael Moore guy up." If anything, the Bush administration, if it is as draconian as he claims it is, would have done this years ago after the release of Fahrenheit 9/11. I'd think that the Carlyle Group, Halliburton, and the oil industry would have influenced the President to silence Michael Moore ages ago.

It's doubtful that jailing Moore would stop the release of his documentary in any case, nor would it really put a large dent in the number of people who hate George Bush from being outspoken. Mocking that man is probably one of the safest things one can possibly do in America today. People like him need to consider that doing illegal things that are absolutely irrelevant in relation to their opinion might be the reason they're getting jailed, not their criticisms.

The Joys of College Debating

By Dave Oliver

On Monday night, the UAlbany College Republicans debated the College Democrats. It was supposed to be about ideology, but I'll get to that in a second. The debate was put on by the political science honors fraternity, Phi Sigma Alpha, and I have to say that the bill of goods that they sold was pretty good. First, it would be heavily promoted to ensure the biggest crowd of any debate this semester. Was it heavily promoted and did we have the biggest crowd? Um, not so much. Free food for everyone! Wonder why somebody had to stop at Price Chopper and by a small vegetable platter? There would be an independent moderator. Um, once again, not so much. They apparently "forgot" to get one. So who moderated? A member of the College Democrats! Nice. Now, my friend Matt and I could have a pulled what the dems have been pulling recently anytime Foxnews is a sponsor of a presidential candidates debate....sucked our thumbs, held our breath, stomped our feet, and pulled out. But, both of us really like competing in the arena of ideas, so we went ahead with it. Now, as I said earlier, the debate was supposed to be about ideologies...Conservativism vs. Liberalism. We knew right away that wasn't going to be the case, because when they got up to give their opening statements, they stated that they were going to talk about the Democratic platform, and that they got a lot of their information right off the DNC website (it should also be noted that they rarely said the word liberal, and were actually called out on it by an audience member.."The conservatives don't shy away from conservatism, why do you guys shy away from the word liberal?"). As Rush says, they are incapable of stating out in the open what they really are. So, first of all, because of our conservative beliefs, Matt and I were called extremists in the mold of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. And quite a few times. Matt is catholic and I'm agnostic (sorry Mom and Dad, don't give up on me yet). My family is very christian. We tried to convey that there are millions of christians who don't like, respect, or listen to Falwell or Robertson. I don't know a single member of my family or other christians that I know who like those two. But, oh well...we're extremists. Then to further back up that they got their talking points right off the DNC website, we were treated to the "culture of corruption" line many times during the night. They even threw Tom Delay into that mix. So of course we brought up William "Cold Cash" Jefferson, Democrat-Louisiana. "He hasn't been convicted of anything," they said. Really? Last time I checked either had Tom Delay. Didn't matter...culture of corruption, culture of corruption! In our opening statement, we talked about how we are traditionalists who believe in the traditional family structure. Well, we of course got bashed for that, but there was one really interesting point made to us. They were talking about how great Hillary is...Hillary this, Hillary that...at one point they said because she was first lady for 8 years, that gave her a lot of experience. Hey, Laura Bush will be first lady for 8 years, lets run her in 2008! She's got approval numbers that probably throw Hillary into a fit everytime she sees them! Anyhoo, I made the point that I didn't understand why some women thought Hillary was this great role model to be looked up to. I mean, she just sat there while her horny husband cheated on her repeatedly. Great message to send the girls and women of the country. So, you would not believe what was thrown back at us. "Well, Hillary wanted to keep her family together, so doesn't that fit into your traditional beliefs?" Ugh! I didn't realize that a husband who is a serial adulterer and a woman who does nothing but take it were apart of traditional, family beliefs. Must be my blonde hair. In our opening statement, we made no secret of how much we love and respect our military. The only time the libs even came close to talking about the troops is when they said they believe in strong national security. Really? Then how come it's the libs who don't want us listening to terrorist phone calls coming in or going out of our country? How come the libs don't want us tracking and stopping the terrorists money flow? How come the libs want to continue chipping away at the Patriot Act? Again, must be my blonde hair. So anyhoo, it was basically beat up the conservatives night. The next day I was thinking what a waste of our time. But, now that I've had a couple of days to think about it, something good did come from it. More than ever, I'm proud to be a conservative and I'm proud to stand up for our conservative beliefs. Ah, the joys of college debating! Oh, by the way. We evil College Republicans have something planned on campus tomorrow. It could definately lead to some interesting stories to tell you about. Stay tuned.

Iraq Debate

The Iraq debate went well tonight. The Greens had a thoughtful discussion with us and I want to personally thank them for participating in this event with us.

I would also like to thank Dr. Walker for moderating. He did an excellent job.

Sincerely,
James Novak

Lynching Free Speech by James Novak

Lynching Free Speech
by James Novak

Shock Jock Don Imus recently referred to the Rutger's Women's Basketball team as, "nappy-headed hos." The racial slur led to a two week suspension from his job broadcasting from CBS. MSNBC followed suit by dropping the simulcast of his morning show. This raises a few important questions: Are we becoming too politically correct as a society? Are people over reacting to Imus' comments?

Junior guard Matee Avjon said, "It kind of scars us. We grew up in a world where racism exists, and there's nothing we can do to change that, I think that this has scarred me for life." She should spare us all the dramatics. I can't fathom the mindset of a 20 year old who actually cared what an increasingly obscure (before all of the press) shock jock said. Other members of the team expressed similar reactions to Imus' joke. I bet you that most members of this team had no idea who he was before this great act of evil took place. They all need to stop being so thin skinned. Do they have a right to be pissed off at him? Sure. Should they act as if it is having a great impact on their lives? Not at all. If some decaying loser in a cowboy hat called me a fag on the radio, I think I'd either ignore it or laugh it off saying, "Who the hell cares about him? The guy is a freaking joke." The outrage is also an overreaction because Don Imus has been making jokes like this for years. MSNBC, CBS, his listeners, and his sponsors were all aware that he says stupid stuff like the "nappy-headed hos," all of the time. On that note, it is also possible that it is selective outrage in light of that fact.

American society is becoming too politically correct. It's suddenly becoming a crime to have an opinion or to tell a moronic joke that insults people. ABC dropped Bill Maher's show, Politically Incorrect because a ton of thin skinned people got offended because he expressed (ironically) a politically incorrect opinion, saying that he thought the 9/11 hijackers had guts. He later clarified his position on the O'Reilly Factor by saying he thought they were moral cowards for attacking civilians, but not physical cowards for carrying out the acts. That didn't matter though, he had said something that had offended people, and they wanted him gone. The same type of thing has happened with Ann Coulter for describing Presidential candidate John Edwards as a, "Faggot." Campaigns to boycott the political commentator soon sprung up left and right.

Al Sharpton, the so called civil rights leader who has a long history of instigating violence against Jews has decided to throw in his two cents. On Amy Goodman's Democracy Now radio show he said, "I'm calling for Imus to be fired. I think that what he said was racist and sexist, and there must be accountability. If there is anything at all to FCC regulating and protecting the public, and if there's any kind of ethics at all among advertisers, they would immediately move to have him removed. This is no borderline amusing comment. This is as racist and sexist as you can get." I believe that Sharpton has every right to try and discourage advertisers from supporting don imus. However, I do not think it is the role of the government to make sure he gets his way. Adults shouldn't be told what they can and cannot say by the FCC. It absolutely goes against the very idea of free speech. Human beings do not have a moral right to not be offended. The very reason we have freedom of speech in this country is to allow people to say things that are controversial, and even wrong. The people who enjoy listening to Imus' crumby show shouldn't have the government telling them they aren't allowed to enjoy a certain type of humor or listen to a certain type of point of view. Sharpton's reasoning that the government should decided what is good or bad for us to hear is the type of mind set I'm sure is shared by great libertarian thinkers such as Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and Mao Zedong.

The censorship mentality has been seen before. Michael Richards got in trouble for his racially charged verbal attack at the Laugh Factory last year. He apologized to Jesse Jackson and the black community at large. Was the end result Michael Richards earning the forgiveness of those he offended? No. What ended up happening was Jackson called for a boycott of the Seinfeld DVD. Even if a person admits guilt, and asks for the absolution, certain elements of society will still seek to shut them up.

People in the 9/11 Truth Movement often tell society to, "Wake up!" I have a similar battle cry for the American people, "Grow up!" Controversial opinions that upset people are a fact of life. If some one doesn't like an opinion, they don't have to read it or listen to it. Society is better served by having morons like Don Imus out there, than having the thought police regulating what can be said.

Another Reason Why John McCain Should Not be the Next President

Recent news stories have been circulating regarding the alleged proposal from 2004 of John McCain running as the vice president candidate on the Kerry ticket. Needless to say, both sides are denying that they approached the other individual in regard to this idea. But what is clear, for the time being, is that John McCain actively interacted with the Democrat nominee and enemy of victory in the war on terror in an attempt to advance his own career.

Participating (even tacitly) in the campaign of a Democrat nominee and the mere consideration of running against the President during a critical period in our country's history should be reason enough not to vote for the Senator from Arizona.

Story here

Supreme Court Buys Into Global Warming Fiction

A five Justice majority has mandated that the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") regulate greenhouse gasses as pollutants in order to curb the effects of global warming. Justice Scalia (who was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Thomas and Alito) wrote the following in dissent:

In order to be an "air pollutant” under the Act’s definition, the substance or matter [being] emitted into . . .the ambient air must also meet the first half of the definition namely, it must be an “air pollution agent or combination of such agents.” The Court simply pretends this half of the definition does not exist.

In other words, regulating the buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the upper reaches of the atmosphere, which is alleged to be causing global climate change, is not
akin to regulating the concentration of some substance that is polluting the air.

No matter how important the underlying policy issues at stake, this Court has no business substituting its own desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency.

The majority, led by Justice Stevens, ignored some of the critical standing issues (e.g. how does the Court resolve the global warming problem in favor of the Petitioners, or, how have the Petitioners been individually harmed by the EPA's refusal to regulate?)

Chalk this decision up to judicial activism again. Rather than arriving at a reasonable interpretation of the statute, the majority has simply used Al Gore science to order an Executive Agency to regulate a farce.

Update: 2:20 PM - Justice Stevens, writing for the Court, argues that "The harms associated with climate change are seriousand well recognized." He continues: "A well-documented rise in global temperatures hascoincided with a significant increase in the concentrationof carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Respected scientistsbelieve the two trends are related. For when carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, it acts like the ceiling of a greenhouse, trapping solar energy and retarding theescape of reflected heat."

Doesn't this fall under the "political question" doctrine that allows the Court to refuse to adjudicate issues of a political nature. cf. Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849).

The case is Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. [Click title to link to decision]

It's the Democrats Who are Turning Iraq into the Modern Vietnam

After narrowly passing a defeatist cut and run, anti military bill, Democrats almost universally proclaimed victory in the their quest to stifle the efforts of the President to effectively fight the war on terror. By mandating a timetable for withdrawl from Iraq, not only are the liberals ensuring victory for the Islamofascists on a date certain, but they are also sending a strong message to the military that expresses no support for their mission.

All reports indicate that the Presidents "surge" plan is working. Violence is decreasing, and Iraqis are expressing to reporters and pollsters that their lives are indeed improving. Democrats don't want to see progress, and instead are hoping to ensure their own electoral victory by playing off a perceived opposition to the Battle of Iraq.

Shame on the Democrats for playing the Vietnam card in Iraq. If there is one sure way to defeat, it's putting Democrats in charge of national defense.

Lunatics Ravage the UAlbany Campus - Part II

The video is self explanatory.

Lunatics Ravage the UAlbany Campus

This poster from the UAlbany wing of the "September 11 truth movement" is an attempt on the part of liberals to paint George W. Bush as a modern day Hitler. Aside from the ridiculous nature of that comparison, what is even more disturbing is that so many people are buying their conspiracy theory hook, line, and sinker.

Anyone who doesn't believe that the Islamic jihadists were the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks needs to consider whether or not they are rooted in reality. We have known for the last three decades that the jihadists have wanted to destroy this country and replace it with their Islamic empire. These "truth movement" members are either blind to this fact, or simply wish to ignore the realities of the world.

If George Bush really wanted to go to war so badly, he would have just done it without creating an elaborate plot to knock down the two towers, destroy a portion of the Pentagon, and fly another plane into the ground. Weapons of mass destruction was a good enough reason for Bill Clinton to go to war, and would have been just as good without the events of September 11.

The fact finding ability of these "truth" seekers is uncanny, and I assume that these "truth movement" members also know who assassinated Kennedy, and what happened to the USS Maine prior to the Spanish-American War. Either that, or they are just looking for their 15 minutes of fame.

More Liberalism from Boston

This story has been going around the wires for most of the day today, but it seems worthwhile enough to comment on.

A Boston woman who gave birth after a failed abortion has filed a lawsuit against two doctors and Planned Parenthood seeking the costs of raising her child.

This so called "wrongful birth" lawsuit is both confusing as it is demonstrative of the typical liberal mindset. First, we must assume that if this woman was at the "Planned" Parenthood facility for an abortion, she had no intent or desire to raise this child. If that is the case (as it most certainly is) why is this woman keeping the child rather than putting it up for adoption? It seems entirely contradictory to be subjecting the child to an abortion one day, but then embracing it the next day and holding it up as the poster child for abortionist negligence.

Naturally, this woman views the raising of a child as an onerous burden for which she must be made whole though a lawsuit. Instead of embracing the child as the valuable and precious gift it is, this woman is using the child as a means of winning a court award.

Not only is she despicable for seeking the abortion, but she is even more despicable for using the child as a politcal tool to engrandize herself.

Scooter Libby Verdict

After the verdict in the political show trial of former Vice President Chief of Staff Scooter Libby was announced, conservatives realized that liberals will go to any extent to bring down this Administration.

I'd recommend reading Mark Levin's commentary on the verdict here for more insight.

Libby was essentially convicted because of his association with the Bush Administration. Indeed, one juror is quoted as being "sad" that Libby was the sacrificial lamb for the Administration. These jurors did not understand the concept of reasonable doubt, and almost certainly did not understand the requirements to convict on the other two counts.

A pardon is in order.

Senator, You're No Reagan

One of our members had this to offer about the presidential ambitions of Sen. John McCain (RINO-AZ)

"As we all know, Senator John McCain is running for president. He sort of, officially announced it on the Letterman show last night. At times, he tries to appeal to the conservative base, at other times he ignores them. An example of the latter, is the Senator's no-show at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), currently being held in Washington, DC. The Senator is trying to link himself, or portray himself as being a Reagan conservative. His website for 2008 proves this. However, would President Reagan give U.S. Constitutional rights on enemy combatants captured on the battlefield? Not so much. Would President Reagan blow off CPAC? Not so much. As the worlds best blogger, Michelle Malkin points out, President Reagan visited CPAC 12 times! Michelle also has portions of one of his speeches that is just great. Now, I want to point out one thing. Senator McCain is a patriot. He served his country proudly. He endured being a POW for over five years, all the while people like Kerry and Fonda were betraying them. He has consistently stood up for our soldiers. And for that I thank him. But, President Reagan's qoute on the Cold War shows where the difference is. "Here's my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose." President Reagan would never give U.S. rights to people who tried to kill our soldiers on the battlefield. And he also would not alienate true conservatives. Senator, you are no Ronald Reagan."

Read the rest of these blog entries at http://reaganliveson.townhall.com/

A Thought About Al Gore by James Novak

It really makes me wonder if Al Gore really believes that we're heading toward a global catastrophe. Time Magazine reports that he pays an electric bill of over 1,200 dollars a month. The former Vice President has made the claim that he offsets those uses of electricity by investing in projects that reduce energy consumption. If he really cared so much, why doesn't he live in a smaller house that uses up less power and still invest in those projects? Wouldn't that be the noble thing to do? Wouldn't that also be the environmentally friendly thing to do as well? Are we perhaps asking too much of Al Gore? He sure seems to be asking a lot of us.

Reduce Your Carbon Footprint and Save the World!

A variety of sellers on eBay are selling carbon offsets so that you don't have to feel guilty about living and breathing. Below is the text one seller provided for his offset:

Don't miss this opportunity! Stop feeling guilty about your part (or your nation's part) in GLOBAL WARMING. Instead of worrying about drowning polar bears, wayward whales, and the sad state of New Orleans recovery efforts, DO SOMETHING!!!You are bidding to purchase carbon offset credits. I will use the proceeds from this auction to purchase stock in companies that specialize in reducing carbon emissions lowering carbon footprints, and or reducing Global Warming.For your effort, the winner will receive a certificate (suitable for framing) stating the number of credits purchased to impress your friends and assuage your conscience.Sleep well without having to adjust your lifestyle.Satisfaction guaranteed or an abject apology will be issued.

So get your Paypal accounts ready and bid away!

"Fever in the Alps"

Jay Nordlinger has an interesting piece in the March 5 edition of National Review which discusses the recent Davos World Economic Forum and global warming. He lucidly and succintly describes the global warming fervor that has swept through Europe and is now seeping into mainstream American politics. In addition to discussing how global warming is, in many ways, considered to be an axiom by many, he writes of some politicians' (like John McCain) desire to become more accepting of global warming in order to score political points.

None of this should come as a surprise to those among us who understand that global warming is an effort on the part of the left to obfuscate and cloud political discourse. And naturally, John McCain is right on the "cutting edge" and betraying conservatives while doing it.

The full article will be posted as soon as possible.

Lets Hope This is the Case

This LA Times article discusses the potential impact Justice Antonin Scalia could have on some major issues the Supreme Court is due to decide this term. Guided by his originalist theory of Constitutional interpretation, Justice Scalia could help influence great change in this country in some of the "hot issues" of the day.

Now Here's a Good Idea

link

Reagan Would Have Ordered Terrorist Surveillance

Ronald Reagan's well known Attorney General, Edwin Meese III, has written an article describing how he believes Reagan would have handled one aspect of the legal war against terrorists. He writes, in part:

President Reagan believed that fidelity to the Constitution was the primary responsibility of every public official and that the solemn oath he took to preserve and protect our Founding Charter was a solemn trust. But he knew the document thoroughly and understood the powers it conferred on a President as well as the limitations it prescribed.

The President's unitary executive power should be used to implement programs such as the terrorist surveillance program the New York Times disclosed last year. These programs are an important tool in the legal arena and have undoubtedly led to the capture of terrorists and/or the disruption of a terror plot. It would be irresponsible for an executive to not exercise this Constitutionally granted power.

You can read the full article here

Polish Town Remembers Reagan

This comes courtesy of the Drudge Report. Apparently, at least one Polish town is committing to winning one more for the Gipper.

link

O'Connor Speaks

Sandra Day O'Connor, in a news article detailing the circumstances surrounding her retirement had this to say about the Iraq Study Group:

"I wasn't sure I should do it," she said. "It was so out of my field of judging. I don't know anything about the military."

So there you have it. The "bipartisan" committee was made up of at least one incompetant panelist in terms of developing a military and political strategy for confronting the challenges in Iraq.

There is something else that could be said, also. It is entirely possible that the committee was not concerned at all with having experts on the military sit on the panel since the document was not a military document in the least.

Either way, this revelation is just more evidence of the uselessness of the Iraq Study Group.

The Most Ethical Congress in the History of the Republic

Harry Reid - Senate Majority Leader and recipient of favorable land deals [link]

Sunday Happenings

As Jane Hanoi Fonda pretends it is the 60s again, as Hillary Clinton botches the National Anthem (and healthcare, for that matter), and as John McCain is described as "dour", a Democrat "fact finding" delegation tours Iraq and will report their findings shortly. Commentators have speculated that those Democrats - including Pelosi, Murtha, and Lantos - have no intention of understanding the real facts. Rather, this trip serves as a photo opportunity for the Democrat leadership and a chance to commiserate with the troops who so desperately want to leave while on victory's doorstep. Have no doubt that these liberals will report that the circumstances in Baghdad and surrounding areas are, well, dour. Democrats need to get out of the business of war and peace. They have no intention of winning and it is arguably in their interest to see the United States defeated. In addition to not understanding the Constitutional commander-in-chief powers of the President, liberals just can't seem to muster the will to fight and win.

What if he fell asleep during a national crisis?

Roe v. Wade Revisited

Tomorrow marks the 34th anniversary of the legalization of the American holocaust. Since the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, at least 40 million children have been killed because of the efforts of the pro-abortion crowd. Liberals complain and express concern about the genocide in Darfur, but conveniently ignore the killing of innocent children in this country everyday. Under the guise of "privacy" and "choice", abortion on demand has been tearing apart the moral fabric of this country since those unelected lawyers ruled that the Constitution protects the so called "right to privacy." Legal issues aside (and there are plenty), the vast majority of abortions result from self centered reasoning such as "Having a baby would dramatically change my life" (74% of cases) or "Have completed my childbearing" (38% of cases). Even more instructive in this debate: only 1% of cases are estimated to be a result of "rape or incest". [source]

If we, as a country, purport to respect life and human rights abroad, how can we possibly ignore the human rights of those unborn children right here in this country? Undoubtedly, it will take a judicial miracle for Roe to be overturned (and even then, a great deal of work would need to be done within the states). Everyone born after 1973 is a survivor of Roe v. Wade - we should make it our goal to see that judicial abomination reversed.

The Vulcans Wouldn't Approve of the Bush Surge

Reality Check

A lot of discussion has been swirling about George W. Bush being the "worst" president in the nation's history. It is worth reading this piece, about a president who truly did irreparable damage to this country, and arguably has a disdain and hatred for the United States that rivals Hugo Chavez's. Some highights from this extended and thoughtful article by Joshua Muravchik:

As Carter’s chief speech writer, Patrick Anderson, explained, human rights “was seen politically as a no-lose issue. Liberals liked human rights because it involved political freedom and getting liberals out of jail in dictatorships, and conservatives liked it because it involved criticisms of Russia.

Carter’s weakness for dictators and his courtship of America’s enemies not only clouded his human-rights policy, it also contributed to a flaccid approach to security issues, thus adding momentum to America’s strategic decline following defeat in Vietnam.

Ever since his presidency, there has been a wide gap between Carter’s estimation of himself and the esteem in which other Americans hold him. This has manifestly embittered him. For all his talk of “love,” the driving motives behind his post-presidential ventures seem, in fact, to be bitterness together with narcissism (as it happens, two prime ingredients of a martyr complex).

Spring Semester 2007

As a new semester of liberal indoctrination approaches, as Democrats push to enact the Fairness Doctrine to squelch any opposition, and as Hillary Clinton continues her "fact finding" mission in the Middle East, the UAlbany College Republicans would like to encourage you, the readers, of this website to engage in debate via the "Comments" link at the bottom of each post. Consider this your risk free forum to opine without retribution from professors or classmates.

Moderate McCain Losing Support of Conservatives

WorldNetDaily.com is reporting that James Dobson, leader of the conservative group Focus on Family, has said that he will not support John McCain for president "under any circumstances." [link] This development is significant, in that many of the social conservatives McCain will need to convince look to the commentary of prominent conservatives like Dobson. McCain has long been regarded as a maverick moderate who is more than willing to compromise with the liberals in the Senate. The widespread loss of support among conservatives like Dobson may very well be representative of social conservatives overall disdain for moderation, compromise candidates, reformers, and all others who have a propensity to work with the opposition to the detriment of the party and the betrayal of conservative values.

Indeed, after the fall midterm elections, many called for a return to Reagan conservativism. That tactic is a surefire path to victory in 2008, barring any unforeseen circumstances. McCain, along with a whole number of other Republicans in the Senate, is not the politician who can embrace those values and win the upcoming election. His betrayal of the Republican party on McCain-Feingold, the terrorist bill of rights he sponsored (with Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and other Democrats), his plan for $2,000 citizenship for illegal immigrants (sponsored with Ted Kennedy), and his refusal to accept as legitimate the use of the constitutional option in dealing with Democrat filibusters on judicial nominees will leave him alone in the corner come primary time.

Democrats' Disrespect for Life Passes in the House

Liberals led by Nancy Pelosi forced H.R. 3 through the House this evening. The bill orders the Secretary of Health and Human Services to "conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells in accordance with this section (regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo)."

This is the time for the President to show that his veto pen is full of ink.

Here is a clip of liberals celebrating this abominable use of the federal legislative power.

John McCain: The Panderer

Mark Levin offers some thoughts on the Republican "front runner" John McCain in his National Review blog. Highlights are below:

McCain's position on domestic security has been disgraceful. He joined with the radicals in the Democrat party to confer constitutional and international rights on unlawful enemy combatants (a.k.a. al Qaeda terrorists) for the first time in American history.

McCain says nothing about Iran and Syria, which means he doesn't have the political courage to recognize the existence of a regional war in the Middle East.

John McCain is a conservative lightweight who is only interested in his media image. His propensity for compromising with Democrats has been destructive on many fronts. As Mark Levin points out, his "terrorist bill of rights" has made it extremely difficult for American soldiers to actually fight (and win). McCain-Feingold, a legislative abomination has resulted in more "soft money" being thrown into elections and the rise of whackos like George Soros.

Mr. McCain may be the popular choice among Republicans, but it does not mean he is the right choice for the future of this country.

Mark Levin's full post can be found here

Democrats Advance Cut and Run Agenda

By Matthew M. Rozea

The newly elected Democratic Congress is steadily advancing the cut and run agenda liberals were proposing prior to the fall midterm elections. Various news sources are currently reporting that Congressional Democrats are preparing a legislative and political response to the President's calls for an additional 20,000 troops in Iraq [link].

This effort is being spearheaded by well known and prominent liberals like Ted "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton and others who have been opposed to the liberation of Iraq from the beginning. By denying funding for this troop increase, Democrats are essentially preventing the military from doing what they do best. Many generals have promoted this idea, believing that an increased military presence will counter the insurgent and terrorist threat. Democrats, however, in a typical Vietnam mindset, are determined to both ignore the advice of the generals and more broadly, lose the war.

Rich Lowry, editor of the National Review, argues that

The only obstacle to the full flowering of this debate [on Iraq] is the reluctance of the Democrats to say out loud what many of them obviously believe: “The war is lost.”

Lowry makes another observant argument when he quotes Senators Kerry and Biden and their respective criticism of the President for not sending enough soldiers to Iraq in the first place. Biden: "There’s not enough force on the ground now to mount a real counterinsurgency."Kerry: "We don’t have enough troops (there)." This is a typical example of liberal hypocrisy and malfeasance. Democrats are unable to come clean with the American people, and certainly will not given their status as the majority party.


Naturally, Democrats believe that the American military can only do harm (see the lessons of Haditha, for example), that the battle of Iraq is not a crucial front in the global war on terror, and that we were all lied to so that Bush and his "neocon cronies" could engage in a maniacal crusade for oil. Led by liberals like Reid and Pelosi, Democrats are attempting to position themselves as moderates and centrists who "care about the troops" and only want to bring them home to their families. We should be wary of the Democrats' commitment to winning the war on terror especially when they call for the total withdrawal and redeployment of troops from Iraq while also claiming that we can never let Iran become a nuclear power.

Blemish Upon Bush Judicial Record Resigns

By Matthew M. Rozea

White House Counsel Harriet Miers announced her resignation today. According to news reports, the President "reluctantly" accepted the resignation. While the position of White House Counsel is certainly an important and influential post, what is more significant is the fact that due to a conservative uprising in 2005, Miers does not hold life tenure on the United States Supreme Court. Miers is, upon all information available, a competent advisor to the President; this does not qualify one, however, for a seat on the Supreme Court.

Robert Bork noted at the time that the Miers nomination was a

kind of a slap in the face to the conservatives who’ve been building up a conservative legal movement for the last 20 years.

The judiciary has become one of the most hostile environments in recent years towards conservative values and principles. It was an unwise choice to nominate someone who had not written extensively on constitutional interpretation in the way that Justice Scalia or Robert Bork had, or someone who did not have a "paper trail" of decisions that would have revealed one's method of interpretation. George H.W. Bush nominated David Souter to the Court and presented him to the nation as a nominee with the moderate, or even right leaning, views that would sufficiently mollify wary conservatives. His nomination has been one of the disasters of recent Court history and there is nothing that would indicate Miers would have been any different.

Indeed, with the confirmation of John Roberts, Jr. and Samuel Alito to the Court, the President has left an indelible mark on the Court. These fine nominees (both of whom were well respected jurists at the time of their nomination) have so far proven themselves as justices who, at the very least, do not read their own perspectives or views into the text. Out of the disaster that was the Miers nomination came a gift in the form of a well regarded, card carrying member of the Federalist Society who has not been afraid to proclaim himself as a conservative.

For the last several years, the courts have asserted a more activist role (though the term "activist" is not a particularly helpful label) which has produced decisions like Kelo, Hamdan, Casey, et cetera. These decisions run contrary to the very traditions upon which this country was founded and can only be prevented by nominating candidates who will reasonably interpret the text of the Constitution while considering the meaning of the text when it was written.

Harriet Miers' departure from the White House should be a reminder that bad nominations can have a serious impact upon the work good conservatives are accomplishing. Her service to the President is admirable, but she should never have been nominated to the seat vacated by Sandra Day O'Connor.

The Death of A Great President

By James Novak

He was a great President and a decent man. He was able to provide education, electricity, food, and running water to the masses. Not only that, but he was a healer and a uniter. He was able to mend the wounds of a country that would otherwise be at war with itself. The nation of Iraq should be mourning the passing of Saddam Hussein.

Iraq at this time is a country that is at war with itself, and there is no end in sight to the sectarian violence that plagues it at this time. When Saddam Hussein was president between 1979 and 2003 he was able to successfully keep the Sunnis and the Shiites in line. He was also able to keep the Kurdish minority in North Eastern Iraq in line. He was so dedicated to keeping them in line that he was even willing to whipe their population off the map in order to achieve those ends.

Some have criticized his great leadership. They would level accusations about the brutal policies of the Republican Guard against Iraqi civilians. They might even discuss how his version of the Eagle Scouts, Fedayeen Saddam tied up people and threw them off roofs. However, these misguided souls fail to notice how great of a humanitarian Saddam erraticated illiteracy, provided free health care to his people (and the Jordanian Muslim missionary Abu Musaab Al Zarqawi), and engaged in social programs that gave the Iraqi people jobs. Saddam knew how to run a country, and whatever misdeeds he may have committed should obviously be ignored in light of this evidence. He should be praised just like the great German Chancellor Adolph Hitler, who killed 6 million Jews, but made the trains run on time.

He fathered two wonderful sons, Uday and Qusay. They too died too young, and only God knows what that country would have been like had they been in power. There are those who might say that they might not be as good for the Iraqi people as Saddam was, but let's be honest, it is near impossible to fill the shoes of that great humanitarian.

Things in Iraq have no chance of ever getting better than they were under his rule, ever. The Arabs are culturally and genetically incapable of governing themselves democratically. Had the American Imperialists never killed the great President Saddam Hussein or his sons, that country would have been a wonderful place to live in for years to come. Allowing the people of Iraq to have a voice of their own was an inhumane and bad idea. I will personally mourn the death of a man who loved the people of Iraq.

David Zucker Spoofs James Baker's Findings

I've always been a big fan of The Naked Gun movies and David Zucker has been doing a great job of satirizing politics.

-James Novak

TSA Coddles the Terrorists

According to an article on National Review today, the Transportation Security Administration ("TSA") is boasting that it provides "sensitivity training" for security workers during the Hajj timeframe. Recall that on September 11, 2001, Muslim terrorists hijacked four aircraft and murdered thousands of innocent Americans. Now, six years after that day, the agency tasked with securing the skies is instructing its employees on how not to insult or upset those who have historically been the perpetrators of mass terror.

CAIR (Council on Islamic American Relations), which has ties to Islamic terror in the Middle East has, of course, welcomed this news in a press release in which they argue that

This proactive effort on the part of the Transportation Security Administration demonstrates that there is no contradiction between the need to maintain airline safety and security and the duty to protect the religious and civil rights of airline passengers.

Maintaining airline security means being on the lookout for those who are most likely to commit a crime. The TSA has to this date refused to profile airline passengers. It is simply inconceivable that the agency whose sole purpose is transportation safety would ignore or even accomodate those who are most likely to attempt another Sept. 11 style attack. Clichéd - yes - but when is the last time a 70 year old grandma was at the center of a terror plot?

There has not been another terrorist attack in this country since Sept. 11. Ronald Reagan argued once that

We are at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it has been said if we lose that war, and in doing so lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening

Of course, Reagan was speaking of communist aggresion in the 1960s, but the statement is still fitting. Policies such as those enacted by the TSA compromise the years of effective anti-terror work this administration has done and presents a perfect opportunity for future attacks.