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.