CAP SENT ME THIS PIECE TODAY, WHICH HE DISCOVERED via Tim Blair. Stephen Pollard tackles the "Make Poverty History" campaign, the latest 'let's do something to make us feel better about ourselves' effort from Hollywood. Perhaps you've seen the commercials.

While Pollard certianly applauds the effort, he worries that Kate Moss, George Clooney etc., may actually be in charge of policy, and not just providing the pretty faces.

The group’s manifesto has three aims: “trade justice”, “drop the debt” and “more and better aid”. They are, respectively, dangerously misguided, pointless and counterproductive.

According to Make Poverty History: “We need trade justice, not free trade . . . ensuring poor countries can feed their people by protecting their own farmers and staple crops.” With that, the campaign destroys any claim it might have to serving the interests of the poor.

Has anyone ever noticed that the more unjust the policy, the better the chance it will be referred to as "justice" by the left? I swear, every time you hear the word justice associated with a cause, like the aforementioned or the always popular social justice, it is a safe assumption that somebody is getting screwed. In the long run, it is often the very people being sold the "justice."

Pollard points out that the "trade justice" being sought by "Make Poverty History" is simply more of the same tariff structure that has kept poor countries...well...poor. He goes on to illustrate what free trade can accompish.

...In 1991 the Indian Government reacted to a financial near-collapse by cutting forty years of bureaucratic control in seven hours. Its economy now grows much faster than its population and India is becoming one of the leading exporters of computer software and services. There is a vast new middle class of 250 million.

The following paragraph, perhaps, illustrates the obstacles to free trade in the most poverty stricken nations.

The World Bank report, Doing Business in 2005, shows many of the regulatory and bureaucratic obstacles to prosperity. Registering property requires one step in Norway, but 16 in Algeria. To incorporate a business takes two days in Canada, but 153 in Mozambique. In Haiti, it takes 203 days to register a company, 201 days longer than in Australia. In Sierra Leone it costs 1,268 per cent of average income, compared with nothing in Denmark. To register in Ethiopia, a would-be entrepreneur must deposit the equivalent of 18 years’ average income in a bank account, which is then frozen. In Lagos, Nigeria’s commercial capital, recording a property sale involves 21 procedures and takes 274 days.

Of course, breaking down these barriers might cause Paris Hilton to break a nail. It is so much easier, as Pollard points out, to make witty commercials about the evils of free trade.

A better use of time might be to stop by Cap's blog and let him know it's time to expend a little effort.

FURTHER EVIDENCE THAT DEMOCRATS ARE UNABLE TO think down the road, there is a mad rush of representatives to disclose trips financed by special interests in the wake of this report from the AP, which I received from my favorite film-maker.

At least 43 House members and dozens of aides failed to publicly report travel financed by special interests until Majority Leader Tom DeLay's trips were scrutinized, an Associated Press review shows.

Despite a rule requiring public disclosure within 30 days after a trip's conclusion, the AP found at least 198 recently filed travel reports that were as much as eight years late.

The mad queen herself is reporting almost a dozen trips, which is more than twice that of Tom DeLay.

Staff members for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., disclosed 11 prior trips, while staff members for DeLay, R-Texas, had four. Rep. John Linder (news, bio, voting record) of Georgia, a former chairman of the House Republican campaign organization, belatedly filed nine trips, as did Rep. Maxine Waters (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif.

So, if Tom DeLay is "above the law" for his actions, according to Pelosi herself, I guess that would make her above the law times three?

I love it when witch-hunts come back and bite Democrats in the rear end.

IN THE NEVER-ENDING DEBATE OVER WHETHER DEMOCRATIC reforms around the world can be attributed to the Bush foreign policy, Tigerhawk has a blurb from Lawrence Kaplan which tries to find some middle ground between the two camps.

Each camp approaches the events of this spring from a different direction, but both end up in the same place: repeating the claim that "people power," triggered either by unique circumstances or the example of Iraq, accounts for the democratic wave sweeping over the Middle East and Central Asia, and that it alone can accomplish the ends of U.S. foreign policy in the region. What neither mentions is that, absent direct U.S. intervention, not one of these movements would have succeeded. This holds true in Egypt, Ukraine, Georgia, the Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, Kyrgyzstan, and wherever else democracy has gained a foothold since the invasion of Iraq. Has that invasion changed the world directly? Maybe. Maybe not. What we do know is that it changed the orientation of U.S. foreign policy. And that is changing the world.

Kaplan argues that recent movements to democracy would not have "succeeded" without U.S. intervention. While partisans and historians could argue that point for generations, it would be just as true to say efforts at reform would neve have been attempted without intervention.

Regardless of what one thinks of the war, it is undeniable that it has encouraged oppressed people in many countries to stand up for local democreatic reforms. Some might argue that those reforms could have been sparked by rhetoric and not war, but as Tigerhawk points out, the war and our willingness to use the most extreme form of diplomacy, add "teeth" to the issue.

One need only ponder what would have happened to reforms in such places as Lebanon or Egypt without an American demonstration of sincerity regarding our desire to see those reforms. The phrase "squashed like a bug" comes to mind.

DRUDGE HAS A SNEAK PEEK AT THE NEW BOOK BY Washington Post reporter John Harris, which chronicles the "highs and lows" of the Clinton White House.

--Hillary taunted her husband's aides as being wimps by not fighting hard enough on Whitewater - "JFK had real men in his White House!" (pg. 108)

--The first conversation between Clinton and Gore after the Lewinsky story broke. Clinton is shouting at Gore, "This is a fucking coup d'etat!" Gore just stared back blankly. pg 313.

--Former White House counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke on the record hitting Clinton for not having the guts to fire FBI director Louis Freeh, who Clarke called a major obstacle on anti-terrorism policy. "He should have just fired Freeh and taken the shit it would have caused." (pg. 408)

Plus this juicy line from Willy on why he nominated the husband of Sally Quinn for the Presidential Medal of Freedom:

"Anyone who sleeps with that bitch deserves a medal!" he explained.

A MEMORIAL DAY ROUNDUP SEEMS LIKE THE thing to do, so I have compiled just a few things that I found over the course of the last few days. No preamble, just this brief introduction.

Charles Grist has this column about the sullying of our military, with this pertinent quote:

In this life, there are those who "talk" and those who "do." The men and women who are willing to stand up and fight for their fellow citizens are the greatest of the doers. They don't achieve the fame of celebrities, but they achieve greatness, nonetheless. They give their hearts, souls, blood and, sometimes, their lives. They deserve only our respect and undying gratitude.

Power Line has a fallen soldier's tribute to his father, which includes this paragraph:

My dad hasn't taught me everything, though. A lot of it I have learned on my own. I've still got a lot to learn, but I have figured out things like how to deal with people I don't like and those who don't like me. I've also learned why, when cutting a frozen bagel, you cut away from yourself. I have the scar to prove it. My dad calls this type of learning "the school of hard knocks." Some of the knocks are harder than others.

LGF reminds that we have a brave ally, trying to carve out a democratic future:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi police fought pitched battles with insurgents Sunday as thousands of security forces backed by American troops swept through Baghdad’s streets to flush out militants responsible for killing more than 720 people since Iraq’s new government was announced in April.

Republican Jen, with a plethora of links herself, and a sentiment I'm sure we all share today:

God bless all those that have ever served in the military in peace time and in war time. It is because of the soldier that we are the freest nation in the world. I know that if it weren't for them that my line of musicianship would have died long ago. Thank you for keeping the music going!

And finally, en editorial from Investors Business Daily on exploitation:

Again, nothing about this tale diminishes Pat Tillman's heroism. When, after his death, syndicated cartoonist Ted Rall depicted Tillman as an "idiot," editors across the country canceled his strip. But this week, after the Post's nonrevelations, Editor & Publisher magazine asked those editors if they'd reconsider.

Enjoy the day.

I COMPLETED WHAT HAS BECOME A MEMORIAL DAY tradition in this house this afternoon. That is, taking the boy's hair, and my own, down to a uniform 3/8th inch...military style. This year brought a twist though, as, after I got done with the boy, he got to be the one to return the favor.

He turned out to be pretty handy with an Oster clipper.

I would love to say our summer haircuts are a subtle tribute to the military, or a sign of solidarity for my buddy Boz, who has had to shave his head as a result of chemo-therapy (he's on the sunny side of the treatment, thank goodness) but the haircuts have a far more pragmatic purpose.

Wood ticks, and the constant battle to keep them from living off of our blood.

(UPDATED)THE TALLY IS NEARLY COMPLETE IN FRANCE, AND IT LOOKS as though voters have roundly rejected the EU constitution, according to Drudge. This severe blow to Jacques Chirac's political chances appears to have been brouhgt about by a combination of socialist groups, who believe the treaty is too "capitalist," and elements who say the constitution as an end to French nationalism.

Earlier, the Interior Ministry said that with about 83 percent of the votes counted, the referendum was rejected by 57.26 percent of voters. It was supported by 42.74 percent.

All 25 EU members must ratify the text for it to take effect as planned by Nov. 1, 2006 _ and nine already have done so. The Dutch vote Wednesday, with polls showing opposition to the constitution there running at about 60 percent.

France's rejection could set the continent's plans back by years. The nation was a primary architect of European unity.

It's hard to imagine what problem the socialists could have had with the treaty, as it was loaded with the kind of "positive rights" and nanny state promises that they love so much. It even forbade future scrutiny and challenge to the wisdom of it's socialist authors. The nationalism argument is easier to understand, as the constitution would appear to have subjugated France to the whims of all of Europe.

Perhaps the treaties supporters should have pushed the "counter-balance" to America a little bit harder. Nothing could get Europe to unite better than a plea to stick it in America's ear.

UPDATE: Wapo is reporting defeat for the constitution by a sizable margin.

With 92 percent of votes counted, the treaty was rejected by 56.14 percent of voters, the Interior Ministry said. It was supported by 43.86 percent.

WITH ANY LUCK, THE WAR EFFORT WILL GAIN A POWERFUL new ally in PETA after they read the latest news out of Iraq, via JihadWatch. With recruiting predictably down, the local terrorists are now availing themselves of local canines, according to the UK Telegraph.

Insurgents in Iraq attached explosives to a dog and tried to blow up a military convoy near the northern oil centre of Kirkuk.

The canine bomb went off but the only casualty was the unfortunate animal, said police. The militants wrapped an explosive belt around the dog and detonated it as the convoy passed through Dakuk, 25 miles south of Kirkuk, said the town's police chief, Col Mohammed Barzaji.

"The dog was torn apart by the explosion which caused neither injury among the soldiers nor any damage."
Col Barzaji said the bomb had been detonated outside a Shia mosque. "Eight suspects have been detained."

I guess Zarqawi and his fellow killers have a dog in this fight after all.

BROKEN PREY IS THE NAME OF THE LATEST John Sanford novel, which I am just pages away from finishing. It is, I believe, the 16th novel in the "Prey" series, which focus on the career of Minneapolis Detective Lucas Davenport and assorted cunning sickos.

I love them not only because most take place right here in my state, but because Sanford is a master at writing thrillers. Alternately, his books can keep me up all night, as with this one, or give me nightmares for days on end.

In addition to great storytelling and edge-of-your-seat suspense each novel contains one joke, usually bad and told by a beat cop or one of Lucas' fellow investigators. In this latest novel the joke comes from Lucas' wife Weather, who is on the phone from England. For context, Lucas is nursing a freshly broken nose in the conversation.

You may have heard some variation of this joke before, but it's still funny.

"Things are a little tense here," Weather said. "We've just heard that France has raised it's terror level. They think something's going on."

"Really," Something else to worry about.

"Yes. They've gone from run to hide..."

The joke was so unexpected that Lucas snorted, and hurt his nose again. He said, "Oh Jesus, don't make me laugh..."

"The only two higher levels are Surrender and Collaborate," Weather said.

"You're killing my nose, goddamnnit," Lucas said. "Davenport's a French name by the way..."

THE SUNDAY FUNNY COMES ONCE again from Liberal Larry, who must be stopped!!

According the the FDA, Viagra can cause blindness, and it hasn't escaped Larry's attention that it is a vicious Bush polt, foisted on the American people through Bob Dole, consummate puppet of the administration.

Obviously, the GOP is creating an army of perpetually horny jazz pianists, for what evil purposes I have yet to uncover.

One thing is for certain, blind people cannot vote - nor can they bear witness to the horrible crimes of the Bush Junta. Nor can they read this entry informing them of Bush's sinister plot. Unless, of course, their monitors display in braille - but I doubt they do, thanks to Bush's slashing of funds to help the visually impaired. Meanwhile, the wealthiest 1% of Bush's Big Viagra buddies fill their pockets with the eyeballs of working families.

Bush's "Big Viagra buddies" will be easily identifiable by the bulges in their pants.

Alright now, get your mind out of the gutter, the bulges are from the eyeballs, not the Viagra.

THE WORLD IS A MORE PEACEFUL place than ever, according to John Tierney. Despite the nightly news, and the hysteria of the political left, Tierney notes that organized violence around the world has actually been cut in half over the last fifteen years. It is an interesting read in that it provides some perspective on current events.

Along the way, Tierney has on interesting take on the infantile "war for oil" mantra that we have heard so often, most notably from the far left.

The Iraq war is sometimes described, by both foes and supporters, as a pragmatic venture to keep oil flowing, but not even the most ruthless accountant can justify the expense. Even before the war, America's military costs in the Persian Gulf were much greater than the value of all the oil it was getting from the region, and now it's spending at least four times what the oil's worth.

Kind of shoots down the "greedy America" line of bull from the pre-schoolers doesn't it?

I nice companion piece to Tierney's column is the last contribution from Victor Davis Hanson, who takes a few well-deserved shots at our "spoiled and unhappy" global leftists.

The anti-Americanism that we frequently see and hear, then, is often a plaything of the international elite — a corporate grandee, a leisured athlete, or a refined novelist who flies in and out of the West, counts on its globalizing appendages for wealth, and then mocks those who make it all possible — but never to the point that their own actions would logically follow their rhetoric and thus cost them so dearly...

...Rhetoric is always at odds with lifestyle: A novelist who tours and writes in English is the epitome of the Western liberal tradition that allows freedom of expression, promotes book sales through open markets, and enjoys unfettered peer review. Ms. Roy will always operate deeply embedded in the system she ridicules, and Western grandees will always pay her well for making them feel badly for a few hours. Islamists, Communists, and theocrats — in a Saudi Arabia, Iran, Cuba, or China — would not only not pay her, but might well issue a fatwa, jail time, or a death sentence for what they didn’t like to read or hear.

This also explains why American liberals are so enamored with trashing the "religious right." The practice, whether it be global or local, seems to be to pick an easy target that you know will not cost you anything economically or in any sense of freedom.

Still, wouldn't it be nice, just once, to see a typical liberal head into the heart of the West Bank, or along the border of Syria, and preach to the Islamists that they are having a "dangerous" effect on freedom, or that they need to stop efforts to create a "theocracy," or tell them that they are all a bunch of hicks, worshiping a God that doesn't exist?

Of course, that would not only cost them their economic and political freedom, but probably their head as well. Just something to keep in mind you hear another pampered coward picking on the "religious right."

MOONBAT CENTRAL HAS MORE ON Amnesty International, who apparently did not get Kevin's letter. Executive Director William Schulz is now calling for the arrest of Bush and other U.S. officials for "directing" the "torture" of detainess at Gitmo.

''If the U.S. government continues to shirk its responsibility, Amnesty International calls on foreign governments to uphold their obligations under international law by investigating all senior U.S. officials involved in the torture scandal. If those investigations support prosecution, the governments should arrest any official who enters their territory and begin legal proceedings against them. The apparent high-level architects of torture should think twice before planning their next vacation to places like Acapulco or the French Riviera because they may find themselves under arrest as Augusto Pinochet famously did in London in 1998.''

Schulz is an ordained minister in the Unitarian Universalist Church. We really have to do something about the extreme religious left, which has become a haven for communists and apologists for horrid dictators the world over.

THIS STARTLING WEEKEND READ COMES FROM David Usher, on the subject of gay marriage and why it is unconstitutional. While proponents claim it is a matter of equality, Usher argues that gay marriage would create a vast inequality between men and women.

I have taken the liberty of providing extensive excerpts to tease your interest. And, I daresay that once gay marriage is viewed in this light, it is hard to ignore that it as perhaps the boldest subterfuge by feminists to relegate men, gay and straight, to simply a servant class.

Usher begins by establishing that it is marriage that actually creates a place for men in a reproductive society.

Marriage is the constitutional construct creating a place for men in family and society. Margaret Mead expressed this decisively when she said; “Motherhood is a biological fact, fatherhood a social creation”. The reason why marriage between men and women is an unfettered constitutional right is because its equalizing power is uniquely fundamental to the success of the human race and society itself; where this absolute right does not affect anyone adversely because it is totally inclusive of both sexes.

He then proceeds to point out that the Massachusetts decision, Goodridge, which paved the way for gay marriage, is "over-inclusive" in that it calls for the state to "marry any two people regardless of sexual orientation."

Perhaps most striking about the article, is the use of Roe vs. Wade as a basis for gay marriages unconstitutionality. Roe vs. Wade establishes that women have "chattel control" over human reproduction and therefore "extends the biological fact that men cannot have children into discriminatory public policy."

Where two married women would have sole control over reproduction and chattel control of children, they are not in the same class as gay men. Therefore, Goodridge cannot stand, for it is founded on two dissimilar classifications of litigants, one whose civil rights would be immediately subordinated to the other.

The point then, is that aside from the discrimination against traditional marriage, gay marriage would create a serious civil rights gap for gay men.

In it's current form, Usher argues that marriage is a "natural equal rights institution" with parallels in past racial equality decisions.

Same-sex marriage would create two separate and unequal classes of parents based on sex. If two women married each other, they would have complete control of reproduction and chattel control of children born into the relationship. ..

...It is clear that proponents of same-sex marriage are selling gender segregation, in a manner not unlike Stephen A. Douglas’s losing argument before the civil war suggesting that popular sovereignty made slavery merely a matter of choice.

What struck me about the above-excerpted section is how gay marriage then becomes just an extension of radical feminism's attempts to relegate men to a lesser status.

There are many, many, insightful arguments against the claim that gay marriage is a civil right, in that it creates equality gaps through the creation of "super families."

America has unsuccessfully wrestled with welfare problems for years, and so has the National Organization for Women. Their plan is to reform welfare by creating the married two-mother “super-family”, making the economics of the traditional “two-parent” family work for any two-mother married household regardless of sexual preference.

I call this arrangement a “super-family” because it would have six sources of income: the incomes of two married mothers, two sets of child-support orders, and two sets of welfare entitlements. Heterosexual marriages have only two incomes, and would clearly be an economically inferior choice.

Not surprisingly, Usher notes that NOW has thrown quite a bit of resources into gay marriage, likely because of the creation of the "super family," which would be of great benefit to lesbian couples, would put traditional marriage at a huge economic disadvantage, and for gay male couples...forget about it. They would be reduced to a support mechanism for lesbian parents.

There is so much more to this piece, is insightful and dare I say, startling. Supporters and opponents of the institution should read the whole piece. Personally, I had to read it twice just to get it all, as it is substantive and loaded with legal jargon. Bookmark it, take your time, and come back to it now and again. Once it is fully digested, I am sure you will find it as bracing as I did.

Also, read Usher's arguments why civil unions are also unconstitutional. Finally, read his latest article on how NPR unwittingly proved his overall point for him recently.

THE "VIVA LA FALLUJAH!" SECT OF THE American left is full of congratulatory self-righteousness today, after "peaceful" protestors were able to cajole, or possibly frighten, an elderly Minuteman Project supporter into running over some of their mindless followers.

Indeed it is always a banner day when months of harassment, insults, and violence from the far left, directed at a group trying to exercise it's right to free speech, gets some poor elderly sap to respond in kind. Naturally, the incident has just added fuel to the pre-schoolers fire, and given them yet another perfect chance to call everyone racists and Nazi's.

We outnumbered the racist vigilante wannabes three to one.

Not the ten to one we had in Baldwin Park to shut down the Save Our State fascists ten days ago, but not bad.

Protestors chanted "Arrest the racists, not the people!

One thing's for sure - you won't see any headlines about Minutemen "terrorists."

A handful of the racist stormtrooper wannabes stood behind the police lines taunting and mocking the protestors

In another brutal strike riot pigs swept in from behind the crowd, swinging batons beating him and threatening the crowd with pepper spray

By the time the Nazi-fest was over, protestors blocked both exits, ready for what might come. Only when protestors were forced back by a line of helmeted cops on horseback were the MinuteNazis able to exit

Hmmm...Let's see. One group wants the government to secure the border, and the other group actively roots for the terrorists to win in Iraq. I wonder which one has more credibility.

Naturally, now that the word has gone out from their Indymedia overlords, the brainwashed minions have embraced the talking points.

The racist jerk who used his van as a battering ram, hitting five people, was released within about three hours...

...I'm outraged. And you can bet I'll be at the next protest of these racist vigalantes...

...A message to the Minute Men: you've bitten off way more than you can chew. Everywhere you go, we will be there and we will outnumber you just as we did in Baldwin Park and Garden Grove. And we will let the world know that you are nothing but a bunch of racist miscreants.

Is anybody else detecting a theme here? For a bunch of "free thinkers" these folks sure sound a lot alike. Perhaps they could spare some of the money they now spend on posterboard and "How To Draw A Swastika" classes and purchase a thesaurus.

Just a thought.

Not surprisingly, the "testimony" of Indymedia is refuted by a police officer at the scene, and an innocent bystander named Eric Garcia, whose very name clearly demostrates a racist bent against our neighbors to the south. They are both quoted by the LA Times as noting all kinds of violent provocation by the pre-schoolers.

Provided that the driver of the van indeed ran down protestors on purpose, that is unforgivable. It should be stressed however, that Netkin is very-much elderly, and may not have interpreted the bricks being thrown and the people beating on his van while screaming epithets at him as the peaceful protest it clearly was.

Isn't it ironic that the infants who cry the loudest that their freedom of speech rights are being trampled, are the first ones to shout down and sabotage others attempts to exercise that right?

Luckily no one appears to have been seriously hurt, but at least one Churchill-phile learned a very important lesson in physics.

what shocked her was the absolute force of the vehicle as it blew her to the ground.

In other words, "Van big. Me small. Cars no stop by people."

GEORGE GALLOWAY, WHO INSISTS THAT he has never seen a barrel of oil, has announced "George Galloway: The American Tour," coming up later this summer, according to Chrenkoff. One can hardly fault a guy for striking while the iron is hot.

By way of a primer, I thought it would a valuable public service to highlight some of the things he might say, as catalogued by The London Street.

In his memoirs, Galloway says that the day the Soviet Union collapsed was "the saddest day" of his life.

Galloway says the only terrorism in the world today comes from the United States, not from organizations such as al Qaeda or the remnants of the Iraqi Baath party.

London Street also has some info on Galloway's "coalition."

Under its umbrella march such traditional former archenemies as Stalinists and Trotskyites. But the coalition's biggest success is the alliance that it has forged between the extreme Left and militant Islamist groups.

A coalition, by the way, that includes such esteemable members as Carlos "The Jackal."

Carlos says Islam is the only force capable of persuading large numbers of people to become "volunteers" for suicide attacks against the U.S. "Only a coalition of Marxists and Islamists can destroy the US," he says.

A coalition of Marxists and Islamists he says. While the Middle East certainly has the Islamists covered, it looks more and more like the U.S. itself is providing the Marxists.

ALL PRETENSE OF DEMOCRACY IN FRANCE is about to be thrown out the window, according to the Times Online.

PRESIDENT CHIRAC of France is preparing to throw Europe into confusion and put Britain on the spot by backing moves to keep the European constitution alive if it is rejected in Sunday’s referendum.

Of course, his statement is covered with all kinds of diluted nonsense about "other countries" and their future, but the bottom line is that he appears to be willing to go along with the constitution regardless of what French voters have to say about it...and he is not alone.

...one option being discussed in senior diplomatic circles is for candidates in the French presidential election in 2007 to promise to ratify the treaty in parliament rather than by referendum.

So much for "the people have spoken" in France. It makes one wonder why they decided to hold this sham referendum in the first place. What is the old legal adage? Never ask a question if you aren't sure of the answer?

Also, one wonders at the political astuteness of French politicians who will run on a promise to discard the voice of the people. Indeed, the very idea of allowing the people to decide the fate of France in regards to the EU constitution appears now to be viewed as a bad idea.

Even as M Chirac prepared to deliver his appeal last night the recriminations within his centre-right UMP party had begun, and he was said by colleagues to have accepted that he had bungled by calling a referendum.

Yes. Better to simply make decisions on your own, regardless of the sentiment of the people. Aaahhh, democracy inaction.

THE GANDER GETS HIS TODAY FROM LARRY Elder, who notes that Al Sharpton is a fine one to demand apologies for racial slurs. For those not following this story, Sharpton has demanded an apology from Vincente Fox for noting that Mexicans take the jobs that "even blacks" won't take.

But Sharpton condemning Fox for racial slurs is a little of the pot calling the kettle black.

He falsely accused then-district attorney Steven Pagones of raping Tawana Brawley. Brawley claimed a white man abducted and raped her, scrawling racial epithets on her body with feces! A grand jury later determined that Brawley made everything up to avoid punishment for staying out too late. Pagones received death threats and threats against his child. A unanimous jury found Sharpton liable for defamation, but it took Pagones over two years to collect Sharpton's judgment. Apparently, Sharpton transferred his assets to his wife's name, paying Pagones only when Sharpton's friends ponied up the money. To this day, Sharpton refuses to apologize.

A voice for justice?

In 1991, Gavin Cato, a 7-year-old black child, was killed in a Crown Heights (Brooklyn) traffic accident, when a car driven by a Hasidic Jew went out of control. Sharpton turned it into a racial incident, leading 400 protesters -- one holding a sign reading, "The White Man Is the Devil" -- through Crown Heights' Jewish section. Sharpton called Jews "diamond merchants," and later said, "If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house." During four nights of rock- and bottle-throwing, a young Talmudic scholar was surrounded by a mob shouting, "Kill the Jew!" and stabbed to death. A hundred others were injured.

There are a few more examples and a delicious segment on Sharpton's coke deal gone bad.

It continues to boggle the mind that such a racist can be a leader in the Democratic Party.

RUMORS OF ZARQAWI'S STOMACH WOUND continue to surface and today begin to take on a modicum of credibility. Winds of Change is reporting that al Qaeda linked websites are calling for prayers for the perhaps dying leader.

A statement on the website of the Al-Qa'eda Organistion for Holy War called on followers to pray for Zarqawi's recovery. The statement, posted by the group's media coordinator, Abu Maysarah al-Iraqi, said: "Let the near and far know that the injury of our leader is an honor, and a cause to close in on the enemies of God, and a reason to increase the attacks against them."

Terrorism Unveiled is of the mind that the reports are true, and perhaps the diagnosis is dire.

In my opinion, Zarqawi could actually be dying. After the intitial report that Zarqawi had been wounded, a website released a letter praising Zarqawi, ending with, "By Allah, I love al-Zarqawi.”

It seems like it could be the case that Zarqawi was badly wounded in the al-Qaim assault near the Syrian border, was shuffled to Ramadi, (which is on the road to Baghdad, and part of the Sunni triangle) quickly left, and is now in serious condition with his wounds. (reports are that it was a stomach wound, which is eaily infected)

I concur with Iraqi Expat, who makes this statement on the subject.

"Now pray with me for the Devil, a.k.a. al Zarqawi, to reach his eternal destination (hell) ASAP."

I agree with Athena on this one. It would be better if we could have a few weeks to interogate him first.

COULD THE EU CONSTITUTION BE TOO SOCIALIST even for the French? Drudge is reporting that "all is lost" in regards to the upcoming French vote on acceptance of the document.

THE leader of France’s ruling party has privately admitted that Sunday’s referendum on the European constitution will result in a “no” vote, throwing Europe into turmoil.

“The thing is lost,” Nicolas Sarkozy told French ministers during an ill-tempered meeting. “It will be a little ‘no’ or a big ‘no’,” he was quoted as telling Jean-Pierre Raffarin, the Prime Minister, whom he accused of leading a feeble campaign.

The article further makes the case that if France does indeed vote against the contitution, the EU itself is in imminent danger of collapse. It seems, however, that it is not the socialist nature of the document that is driving the "vote no" campaign, but plain old French envy.

Because French voters consider that the treaty has already given too many concessions to Britain, ministers see no likelihood of the Government being able to put a renegotiated treaty to the country.

Wow. That whole EU thing turned out to be a flash in the pan.

We have posted on the nature of the document before, including this look at the "positive rights" aspect of it. About the only right that the EU constitution does not grant, is the right to challenge it's interpretation.

"Nothing in this Charter shall be interpreted as implying any right to engage in any activity … aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized in this Charter or at their limitation."

Perhaps more noteworthy is left-leaning judicial activists in the U.S. who would like to see our own constitution reflect the EU's version.

"The touchstone is Franklin Roosevelt's "Second Bill of Rights," which would recognize a right to "a useful and remunerative job"; sufficient earnings to provide "adequate" food, clothing, and recreation; a "decent" home; a "good education"; and "adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.

"The essence of the progressive constitutional project is to recognize "positive" rights, not just "negative" rights, so that citizens are not only guaranteed freedom from specified forms of government interference, but also are guaranteed the receipt of specified economic benefits.

Hinderaker broke it down with analysis in the Weekly Standard at the time, including this:

The whole problem, from the liberal perspective, is that they can't get democratically elected bodies to enact their agenda. As one of the Yale conference participants said: "We don't have much choice other than to believe deeply in the courts--where else do we turn?" The new, improved Constitution will come about through judicial re-interpretation.

Whether we like the ridiculous compromise on the filubuster or not, the successful nomination of conservative justices to the federal bench throws a wrench into the left's plans for a socialist eutopia brought about through judicial activism over the next 15 years.

Still, I find it a bit frustrating that even though we enjoy a majority, we are essentially forced into the role of forestalling socialism, rather than recovering from the already spreading cancer.

IYAD ALLAWI IS MAKING SOME INTERESTING allegations against Iraq's former leader. Those allegations were published recently by al-Hayat and brought to my attention at Power Line. They point to a possible relationship between Hussein and al Qaeda.

The number two of the al-Qaeda network, Ayman al-Zawahiri, visited Iraq under a false name in September 1999 to take part in the ninth Popular Islamic Congress, former Iraqi premier Iyad Allawi has revealed to pan-Arab daily al-Hayat. In an interview, Allawi made public information discovered by the Iraqi secret service in the archives of the Saddam Hussein regime, which sheds light on the relationship between Saddam Hussein and the Islamic terrorist network. He also said that both al-Zawahiri and Jordanian militant al-Zarqawi probably entered Iraq in the same period...

"...The Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi entered Iraq secretly in the same period," Allawi affirmed, "and began to form a terrorist cell, even though the Iraqi services do not have precise information on his entry into the country," he said.

Allawi's remarks come after statements to al-Hayat by King Abdallah II of Jordan over Saddam's refusal to hand over al-Zarqawi to the authorities in Amman. On this question Allawi said: ''The words of the Jordanian King are correct and important. We have proof of al-Zawahiri's visit to Iraq, but we do not have the precise date or information on al-Zarqawi's entry, though it is likely that he arrived around the same time."

There is more and it is not a long read. Allawi is even naming names. The charges rise only to the level of allegations right now, but it will be intersting to see if he can offer any proof in the coming months. I don't see that he has much to gain by lying. Certainly it is too late to convince America to free his country from Hussein's murderous regime.

Of course, even if Allawi proved everything, fat chance anybody in the American media would print it anyway.

THE KIDS AT KOS MAY HAVE MISSED TODAY'S nomination of Priscilla Owen to the federal bench, but that is understandable. They are too busy with outrage over Terry Moran's comment at Hugh Hewitt the other day regarding the "anti-military" sentiment in the White House press corps.

Terry Moran: ...There is, Hugh, I agree with you, a deep anti-military bias in the media. One that begins from the premise that the military must be lying, and that American projection of power around the world must be wrong. I think that that is a hangover from Vietnam, and I think it's very dangerous. That's different from the media doing it's job of challenging the exercise of power without fear or favor.

As usual, it is necessary to employ vulgarity to make their point. In regards to a column on the subject by John Leo, in which he bolsters the argument made by Moran, Kos has this to say...

"What a crock of shit..."

Kos also makes reference to a column by Steve Gilliard, who is credited with giving Moran and Leo a "smackdown."

The last time I remember Moran talking, he was shitting his pants about the Washington sniper a couple of years ago. I think it's a gross insult to say reporters have a bias against the US military.

Now, by repeating this lie, elicited by the cockgobbler Hewitt, Moran shgould rightfully be shunned by he collegues. (emphasis added-ed.)

Kos also quotes John Cole:

I still contend that if Hugh manages to convince enough people that the NY Times piece on torture should be ignored because it is just another salvo in an anti-military barrage, he is actually hurting the people he intends to defend.

Note the reference to a single piece in the NY Times. The NYT has done well over 60 articles on the subject of "torture" to date, including over 50 pieces on Abu Ghraib, most of which were on the front page and offered little to nothing in the way of new information.

Kos wraps it up by accusing Hewitt of willingly trading soldiers lives for "protecting" the president.

Hewitt isn't interested in protecting the troops. He's interested in protecting his party's and his president's investment in the war.

Given that Kos and Co. have done everything they possibly can to undermine the war and paint U.S. policy as corrupt in order to protect the power of the Democratic Party, one can only presume that he speaks from personal experience.

THE TERROR APOLOGISTS AT AMNESTY International are at it again, decrying Gitmo and condemning the U.S. for it's treatment of prisoners there. Here are some of the highlights from a piece by the AP.

LONDON -- Amnesty International branded the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay a human rights failure Wednesday, calling it "the gulag of our time" as it released a report that offers stinging criticism of the United States and its detention centers around the world...

"...Guantanamo has become the gulag of our time," Amnesty Secretary General Irene Khan said...

The use of the word Gulag is so completely beyond the scope of reality it is hard to know where to begin. Gulag is the term used for an entire system of forced labor camps, refilled at the whim of Soviet leadership for a period of decades. Millions upon millions of people died either in, or on their way to, these camps. People were rounded up at random to fill the ranks, and their sole purpose was to drive the Soviet economy through slave labor.

As a result, between 1929, when they first became a mass phenomenon, and 1953, the year of Stalin's death, some 18 million people passed through them. In addition, a further 6 or 7 million people were deported, not to camps but to exile villages. In total, that means the number of people with some experience of imprisonment in Stalin's Soviet Union could have run as high as 25 million, about 15 percent of the population.

Ironically, if one google's the words "gulag" and "torture," it is much more likely they will find vast references to liberal blogs using the term to describe Gitmo or Abu Ghraib. Are these idiots merely uneducated as to the true nature of the Gulag? Or, are they purposely minimizing what happened in the Soviet Union as a hysteria tactic designed to undermine the war effort?

Of course, since we all know that liberals are smarter than conservatives, the comparison is obviously intended to draw a comparison between American treatment of prisoners and Soviet treatment of political prisoners.

Imagine Stalin's Lubyanka prison, where men and women are being strapped to tables. Their teeth are kicked out; they are forced to stand in vats of urine, or stare at two-thousand-watt lightbulbs, or sit on hot pipes until their buttocks are burned through. Their genitals are lashed with wet towels, needles are stabbed through the back of the neck until the spinal cord is injured and convulsions begin. Pregnant women are kicked to death in front of their husbands, children are slowly murdered in front of their mothers..."

'...Others had their testicles kicked to a pulp, were seated on red-hot stoves, had needles rammed under their fingernails, were scalped, had their jaws ripped down to their necks, and had their eyes gouged out and their tongues torn out. Executions took place in specially equipped death cells. Elsewhere ...victims were bound to trees with iron hoops before being burned alive. Others had been buried alive, some after having had their scalps and hands skinned.'

Comparing this kind of brutal and widespread torture and mass killing with a couple of instances at Gitmo where a handful of prisoners were subjected to women's sexuality, some sleep and sensory deprivation, and uncomfortable positions, is ludicruous and dangerous.

For this kind of propoganda, Amnesty International should be condemned in the strongest terms. Not just for attempting to frame our treatment of prisoners as something it is not, but also for the despicable insult to the victims and survivors of the Gulag.

What is wrong with these people anyway?

DRUDGE IS REPORTING THAT INDIGENOUS leaders in the Arctic region are demanding that the EU do more to battle "global warming."

In their first visit to EU headquarters, three leaders representing the eight-nation Arctic Council met with officials at the European Commission and several EU lawmakers to push their campaign, warning their way of life was at risk.

Chief Gary Harrison, who represents the Athabaskan peoples in Alaska and Canada said urgent action was needed from the 25-nation EU, the United States and Russia.

"Urgent action" is needed they say. Urgent as in a total and immediate ceasing of the use of fossil fuels? The urgently needed destruction of all cows in an effort to reducee methane output? Perhaps the placement of massive corks into all active volcanoes?

Larisa Abrutina, vice president of the Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North, which represents 40 different indigenous peoples, said her people should be able to share from the wealth in oil drilling and similar projects in the north.

"We don't get a share in the wealth in the exploitation of resources," she said.

This is a special occasion indeed. It marks the 25,000th time that global warming has been used to extort money out of wealthy nations.

Reports from the meeting noted that immediately upon the request, balloons were dropped from the ceiling, a red light began flashing accompanied by a wailing siren, and Ed McMahon appeared out of nowhere in a tuxedo to mark the occasion with a champagne toast.

I HATE TO STEAL POWER LINE'S TOP POST from them, but it had a bracing headline and makes a vewry good point.

The guys received an e-mail today from Arthur Chrenkoff, who many of you already know for his absolutely tireless effort to bring the good news of the war on terror home. He has acted as a wonderful counterbalance to the one-way news we hear every day, and were it not for him, many of us would not even know all of the wonderful things that are happening in Iraq and Afghanistan.

His note to Power Line is entitled "The Only Good American Soldier is a Dead American Soldier."

Ted Koppel will be again reading out the names of American soldiers fallen in Iraq and Afghanistan sice last year. I've got a modest proposal to Ted Koppel and "Nightline": why don't you read one day the names and show the pictures of the 170,000 or so American servicemen and women stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan who every day are working their hardest to ensure that democracy takes root, terrorists are defeated, and these two countries have a chance to build a better future for their people. That might convince a cynic such as myself that you really care for the troops generally, and not just only when they can be cynically used to embarrass the Bush Administration.

Hinderaker notes that soldiers have been dying in the line of duty for a very long time, whether it be in war or in peace-time. Their profession indeed demands perfection and is highly dangerous, with things like live-fire exercises and carrier landings a common practice, regardless of whether hostilities exist somewhere on the globe.

As he put it, why does the left suddenly care now?

WHAT IS NEEDED ON THIS DARK DAY IS examples of blogosphere humor to lighten the mood. I have two for you.

First of all, for the first time in months I have dared subject myself to the leftistsphere. I can tell you, after a perusal of Dailykos and Democratic Underground, that the rank and file aren't even bright enough to realize that they just won the filibuster debate.

I'm quite certain they aren't even aware of the filibuster debate at Indymedia, where they are too busy defending terrorists and saving the world from the oppression of the Patriot Act to care.

If that doesn't do it for you, Liberal Larry is taking his pants off at Chuck E. Cheese to protest photos of Saddam Hussein in his underwear.

"For your information," I curtly told the manager, "I am engaging in performance art to illustrate how the right-wing chickensheep of the red states enjoy their expensive meals in their fancy schmancy restaurants, while they send young boys thousands of miles away to force harmless, innocent old geezers to model underwear in our name."

"Oh, is that what you were doing?" the fascist snipped. "I thought you were standing in the middle of a Chuck E. Cheese with your pants around your ankles, scaring the crap out of the kids!"

He pointed to a corner, where a group of small children in party hats huddled together, their pale faces reflecting shock and horror. "The poor things will be scarred for life!"

I raised an eyebrow. "Oh really?" Or are they so brainwashed by Rush Limbaugh that their tiny repug brains won't accept an opposing viewpoint?"

STILL IN SEARCH OF A BRIGHT SIDE TO THIS back room deal entered into by John McCain and Robert Byrd last night. I may have to settle for laughing at Ted Kennedy, who stood on the floor earlier this morning and preached that the deal sends a clear message to the president that "extreme" nominations will not be tolerated.

Does he mean "extreme" nominations like Owen, Brown, and Pryor?

Kennedy himself has spent the better part of the last week arguing that these three individuals are too extreme for consideration, and now allowing them to be nominated sends a clear message against extremism?

As Katheryn Jean Lopez noted this morning, he is trying to spin the "unspinnable." Kennedy's lame attempt to turn this deal into a victory for judicial principal is pretty funny, and brightens this otherwise gloomy day. Either Kennedy is not a man of principle, or he was lying about his feelings regarding the three justices. Either way, that makes him pretty slimy.

Unfortunately, that is about as good as it gets. While Kennedy might be celebrating a victory he did not win, I am fearful that the Dem's have won another victory...one that protects a minority party's ability to abuse the filubuster. Here's Matthew Franck's take:

McCain's Sanctimonious Seven...have been snookered by that old vulture Robert Byrd into a new understanding of the filibuster — that it may be legitimately used, and legitimately defended, as a form of absolute obstructionism by a party that has the votes to prevent cloture. Not the principle of measured deliberation, but the principle of minority rule — an essentially anti-republican principle — has been enshrined in this agreement. Once again in his long career, it is Byrd who has changed the rules, and without seeming to have done so.

IF THERE IS TO BE ANY BRIGHT SIDE TO this shameful deal protecting the filibuster for the screamers on the left, it may be in this point made by Sean Rushton at Bench Memos:

The fact that Senate Democrats are willing to allow cloture on Owen, Brown, and Pryor indicates that conservative judicial philosophy cannot be considered the basis for a filibuster, or an “extraordinary circumstance.”

If that is indeed the criteria, than any attempt to use the filibuster to stall a nominee based on philosophy would be considered bad faith and, therefore, violate the agreement.

On the other hand, is there any reason to believe that judicial nominees will not now be subjected to vicious character assaults in order to sheild true intentions? It could be that this deal seals all future nomination processes as gutter politics. As good as the Dem's are with that tactic now, is there any reason to believe that simply entering your name into the mix won't guarantee that you will have it dragged through the mud?

It could very well be that the most qualified candidates will have no desire to have their good names shredded by a minority party bent on disguising true intentions by using character assassination.

Did I say there was a bright side? My mistake.

I ALMOST CAN'T BELIEVE IT, BUT IT LOOKS as though the nuclear option has been averted...for now.

Under the terms, Democrats agreed to allow final confirmation votes for Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor, appeals court nominees they have long blocked. There is "no commitment to vote for or against" the filibuster against two other conservatives named to the appeals court, Henry Saad and William Myers.

What has transpired here is that Democrats, who would not allow 51 senators to choose federal justices on the senate floor, are now perfectly happy allowing 14 senators to make the decision in a back room. The hypocricy is almost too much to bear. As if that weren't bad enough, read this next passage:

The agreement said future judicial nominees should "only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances," with each senator - presumably the Democrats - holding the discretion to decide when those conditions had been met. Officials said the pact was intended to cover the Supreme Court as well as other levels of the judicary.

I was of the distinct impression that those "extraordinary conditions" had been met in the eyes of Democrats. Is there one single reason to believe that they won't use this very same tactic when nominations for the Supreme Court come up for a vote? The only difference between that future time and now, then, is that the Republican Party may have just given away the ability of the majority party to stop it.

Alas, there is already dissent among the ranks as to the meaning of the agreement, with the Democrats saying it offers "iron clad" protection of the filibuster, and the Republicans saying that the protections are only safe as long as the Democrats don't abuse the "extraordinary circumstances" clause of the agreement.

There is no clear answer tonight who is blessed with deciding that criteria. Presumably, it will be the minority party, who has now become for all intents and purposes...the majority party.

I don't believe that democracy has been served at all tonight. The only lesson that has been learned is that if you shout loud enough, and make enough ridiculous charges against qualified nominees, and throw tantrums on the senate floor, you can force the Republican Party to hand away it's majority status, in exchange for the confirmation of a few judges that, apparently, weren't that disagreeable after all.

Hinderaker points out: Now the Republicans are treating the execrable Robert Byrd like a hero! Unbelievable. What a low moment. "We have kept the Republic," Byrd says. I think I'm going to be sick.

Me too. I can't even express how disappointing this is. Does anyone actually believe the Democratic Party will now become reasonable on this issue? Why should they not feel emboldened to get even more hysterical? I can only hope that the two parties continue to squabble over the details of this treacherous document until it falls apart entirely.

Bench Memos has all the reaction to the deal.

IF ANYBODY WAS STILL WONDERING IF THE "nuclear option" would indeed come to fruition, the Supreme Court's decision to hear a controversial abortion case next session almost insures that the nuclear option will become necessary.

The New Hampshire law required that a parent or guardian be notified if an abortion was to be done on a woman under 18. The notification had to be made in person or by certified mail 48 hours before the pregnancy was terminated.

The reason it is coming before the Supremes is that New Hampshire officials don't see the necessity of a health exception.

New Hampshire officials argued that the abortion law need not have an "explicit health exception" because other state provisions call for exceptions when the mother's health is at risk.

Why would this be a big deal in regards to the filubuster? Bulldogpundit explains:

Because the issue of abortion, which drives many on the left and right of the judges issue, will harden positions given that the ultimate fight here is over the Democrats desire to filibuster a Supreme Court nomination. You can bet that Democrats will not accept any deal that bars them from filibustering a Supreme Court nominee under any circumstances given the pressure that will likely come from the special interest groups and leadership now that they know an abortion case is on next year's docket, and with Rehnquist likely retiring.

This may also raise new questions among the RINO's trying to work out this "compromise" (we call it "capitulation") as to what the Democrats will consider "extraordinary" or "extreme" circumstances, which are the conditions under which the Dems want to filibuster.

The Democrats have really painted themselves into a corner on this one. Were they to have filibustered one or two of the nominees we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Instead they have cried wolf on several and now must see this thing through. With this case coming up, thus creating urgency for both sides, the Dem's have left themselves no option, having overplayed the "extreme" hand, but to have this showdown now.

It also means that the Republicans are more than likely to push the nuclear option and "on the fence" Republicans are more likely to support it. After all, do we really want to be right back here in the very near future, defending against the filibuster when it comes time to replace Justice Rehnquist?

THIS GREAT COLUMN BY KEITH THOMPSON, which I originally found at Poor Robert, is today's highlighted piece at FrontPage. Here's a small taste:

Susan Sontag cleared her throat for the "courage" of the al Qaeda pilots. Norman Mailer pronounced the dead of Sept. 11 comparable to "automobile statistics." The events of that day were likely premeditated by the White House, Gore Vidal insinuated. Noam Chomsky insisted that al Qaeda at its most atrocious generated no terror greater than American foreign policy on a mediocre day.

All of this came back to me as I watched the left's anemic, smirking response to Iraq's election in January. Didn't many of these same people stand up in the sixties for self-rule for oppressed people and against fascism in any guise? Yes, and to their lasting credit. But many had since made clear that they had also changed their minds about the virtues of King's call for equal of opportunity.

Leftists just go back about your business. Nothing to see here. Just another in a long stream of departures from the Democratic Party. Nothing to be concerned about.

STEPHEN HAYES HAS AN EXCELLENT PRIMER on the Oil-For-Food Scandal at The Weekly Standard. Among other things, he notes the strangeness of it's very premise.

AMONG THE MANY BIZARRE ASPECTS of the U.N. Oil-for-Food program is its premise: If we, the international community, allow Saddam Hussein to take in more money by selling oil, we can end the suffering of the Iraqi people even while maintaining U.N. sanctions.

Gosh, when he puts it that way, it does sound pretty ridiculous. Is it possible that the whole program was designed to take advantage of, or is it more likely that the brain surgeons at the UN simply actually thought this was logical? Personally, I'm conflicted as to the answer.

Hayes goes on to note some of the things we know to date, but shhh...don't tell the liberals. Why ruin a perfectly good fantasy world.

Vladimir Putin's chief of staff, Alexander Voloshin, appears to have accepted millions of dollars in oil-soaked bribes from Saddam Hussein. The same appears to be true of the former interior minister of France, Charles Pasqua, a close friend of President Jacques Chirac. And the same appears to be true of three high-ranking U.N. executives including Benon Sevan, handpicked by Kofi Annan to administer the Oil-for-Food program. Oil-for-Food money even went to terrorist organizations supported by the Iraqi regime and, according to U.S. investigators, might be funding the insurgency today.

Then there is more on the wonderful Saddam Hussein, who would still be in power today if the Democratic Party had it's way.

Iraqis were dying because Saddam Hussein was killing them. He was actively killing them, Deutch said, by executing his political opponents and by draining the marshes of central Iraq that provided sustenance to hundreds of thousands of Shiites. And he was passively killing them by refusing to cooperate with U.N. inspectors and stealing food and medicine intended to ease their suffering.

Hayes puts together a pretty substantive history of the failed program (if you can call it that. Those on the take might prefer to refer to it as a huge success.) A worthy read for those of us on the right, and a startling revelation for those on the left.

DEMOCRATIC TREPIDATION ABOUT HOWARD Dean's appearance on NBC's "Meet The Press" Sunday, which I blogged earlier this week, turned out to be more than a case of butterflies. After reading the transcript, it is clear that Dean is in way over his head.

The early section on the filibuster is a must read, in that Dean really has nothing substantive to say and continues to change the subject to ad hominem attacks against the Republican Party.

On the table for discussion is Dean's remarks about Tom DeLay, his obvious hypocricy on many issues ranging from abortion to WMD, Terry "We'll use her later" Schiavo, and how he seems to have become a pariah in his own party. Remarkably, most of these issues, one way or another, come back to Tom DeLay. And who said Dean couldn't stay on message.

I tried so hard to find one section to highlight for faithful readers, but every time I though I found one, another appeared that was just as hilarious and lengthy. I did enjoy this question very much though:

MR. RUSSERT: Newt Gingrich, when you were elected chairman of the party, said the Democrats must have a death wish. The hotline did a survey, The Political Hotline published by National Journal, and of the 17 states that you went to, a Democratic governor or Democratic senator has not appeared with you in those states. Are people running from you?

DR. DEAN: I doubt it. When I went to Mississippi, all four former governors showed up. You know, I stayed over at the governor's house in Kansas. I mean, I think when you go into a state, and you're there for four or five hours, it's pretty hard for governors to change their schedule and suddenly decide they're going to have to be by your side. I've raised over $1 million for state parties, including places like Arizona and Oklahoma.

And this exchange:

MR. RUSSERT: In your home state of Vermont, there's a vacancy for the United States Senate about to occur. Bernie Sanders, the congressman from Vermont, wants to run for that seat. He is a self- described avowed socialist.

DR. DEAN: Well, that's what he says. He's really a populist.

MR. RUSSERT: But is there room in the Democratic Party for a socialist?

DR. DEAN: Well, first of all, he's not a socialist, really.

MR. RUSSERT: He...

DR. DEAN: He hasn't said that for a while.

MR. RUSSERT: Oh, he has a--he wrote in his book: "Outside or in the House, I am a Democratic socialist."

DR. DEAN: Well, a Democratic socialist--all right, we're talking about words here. And Bernie can call himself anything he wants. He is basically a liberal Democrat, and he is a Democrat that--he runs as an Independent because he doesn't like the structure and the money that gets involved. And he actually has, I think, some good points about campaign finance reform. The bottom line is that Bernie Sanders votes with the Democrats 98 percent of the time.

I'm not sure, but I think Dean just said that a socialist and a liberal Democrat are the same thing. That is sure to get more liberals elected.

I strongly encourage readers to peruse the interview. Dean sounds like a teenager with a topic disability. Ask about John Bolton and get an answer about Social Security. Ask about Terry schiavo and get an answer about Tom DeLay.

At one point in the interview, Dean admits that Democrats need to get out of the business of defending abortion...right before defending abortion. He tags Bush for accusing Saddam Hussein of being behind the 9/11 attacks...right before noting that the President never said any such thing.

If this is what Democratic Party leadership has been reduced to, it is time to be seriously concerned about the future of a strong two-party system in this country.

Newsmax has substantive commentary on the interview, which is also a must read. It includes this spot-on response from the RNC:

"Howard Dean's unfocused performance today is emblematic of the larger problems facing the party he leads," RNC press secretary Tracey Schmitt said Sunday. "Sadly, Chairman Dean and the Democrats on Capitol Hill have become singularly focused on obstructionism and negativity, which is why they have become the country's minority party."

Obstructionism and negativity? What obstructionism and negativity?

FINALLY SOME COMMON SENSE FROM OUR government when it comes to the UN. Granted, it would be preferable to simply bail out of the useless organization, but if we can't have that we might as well tie our dues to the reforms that are desperately needed.

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - A U.S. congressional committee has drafted a bill that threatens to withhold tens of millions of dollars in dues from the United Nations unless the world body conducts wide-ranging reforms, possibly setting the stage for a funding battle like the one that plunged the U.N. into financial crisis a decade ago.

The "United Nations Reform Act of 2005" targets a panoply of issues that have troubled critics of the United Nations, particularly Republicans, for years. Among other things, it would seek to cut funding for programs seen as useless and bar human rights violators from serving on U.N. human rights bodies.

The 80-page bill, from Illinois Republican Henry Hyde's House International Relations Committee, is still in an early form and has only recently been distributed to Democrats, who are likely to oppose several elements.

My only question is: Why would Democrats oppose reform at the UN? Are they in favor of illegal oil profits, rape, and molestation? I guess time will tell.

YOU HAVE TO LOVE HOLLYWOOD DON'T YOU? Warren Beatty weighs in on the Governator, notes that he would do a much better job, and maps out a plan for the future.

"And although I don't want to run for governor, I would do one hell of a lot better job than he's done," the 68-year-old actor said. "I could name you a lot of Democrats who would be so much better than I would, and maybe even a few Republicans."

Noticeably absent from this extensive list is Gray Davis, the last Democrat who led the state, and who almost flushed it right down the toilet.

This next passage, I am certain, is going to be the new line from Democrats who have noticed the significant drop-off in campaign contributions.

In a fiery and overtly political speech, Beatty called for higher taxes on the rich, if only temporarily, to close the state's budget gap, as well as for public financing of elections.

Indeed, if your party can't raise money on it's own, taxpayers should be forced to fund it. A greater assault on free speech I cannot name at the moment. Like judicial filibusters and a new appreciation for the "fairness doctrine," it shows that Democrats would prefer to change the rules than moderate it's party to reflect mainstream America.

Beatty also made a remark that I think is a lame attempt at reverse psychology.

He said Schwarzenegger, a former bodybuilder and star of "The Terminator" movies," was playing politics in a bid to prepare himself for a run for president.

Do not be fooled by this statement. It is another example of Democrats desire to change the rules. I personally believe that they would like nothing better than to see the constitutional requirement of "American by birth" be taken off the books. What better way to clear the field and allow someone like George Soros, or Koffi Annan to run for president?

Beatty gives a nice peek into the future platform of the Democratic Party, and nowhere to be found is any desire to fashion a party that appeals to voters. No wonder he won't run for governor.

NORMBLOG HAS AN INTERESTING IF DISTURBING story, via Roger Simon, about the kind of tough ethical choices faced by Israeli doctors every day. How does one deal with having to treat people who either want to kill your people...or already have.

The patient is in a bad way. He is in septic shock and decompensating in front of me. 'Prepare theatre, we need to go now' I say to the resident. 'They are already waiting for us' he replies and with a wry smile he adds, 'do you know who this is Prof?' The patient's face is not familiar and I shrug. 'This is Hassan, from the Church of the Nativity'. Hassan was a member of Hamas and was wanted by Israel for masterminding a double suicide bus bombing in Jerusalem earlier in the year.

Later in this wonderful piece, which isn't that long and deserves a full read, doctor Avraham Rivkind asks these questions...

Were we right to put so much effort and resource into one life when that person had murdered so many of our civilians? Would the Palestinians or even the Arab world do the same for a wounded Israeli?

...and provides answers worthy of his profession.

How easy would it be for a guy like this to have simply let another terrorist die? Perhaps the answer lies in this speech excerpt, highlighted by RepJ:

"We have ruled the world before, and by Allah, the day will come when we will rule the entire world again. The day will come when we will rule America. The day will come when we will rule Britain and the entire world – except for the Jews. The Jews will not enjoy a life of tranquility under our rule, because they are treacherous by nature, as they have been throughout history. The day will come when everything will be relieved of the Jews - even the stones and trees which were harmed by them. Listen to the Prophet Muhammad, who tells you about the evil end that awaits Jews. The stones and trees will want the Muslims to finish off every Jew."

I guess there is one lucky terrorist that should be grateful the Jews don't feel the same way about him as he does the Jews.

THE PREAKNESS TURNED OUT TO BE A pretty exciting race. Afleet Alex won going away, but not before a near disaster coming out of the final turn.

Afleet Alex was just behind and to the right of Scrappy T coming out of final turn, when Scrappy T got a little squirrely. The jockey, in an effort to get his horse back on track, switched hands and hit Scrappy T on the left side. The hit took the horse by surprise and caused him to send his rear end out to the right, directly in the path of Afleet Alex, who was making an outside move.
It looked as though tragedy was imminent as Afleet Alex's front end started to drop out and his jockey began to pitch forward.

Somehow, Afleet Alex managed to stay off his knees, how I will never know, and the jockey aboard. A brilliant recovery to say the least, made even more incredible by the fact that both jockey and horse were able to focus and win the race going away.

There will be no Triple Crown winner this year as Giacomo finished in third place, but Afleet Alex made the Preakness a race to remember.

AS A REPORTER, I MUST ADMIT THAT I sometimes feel a bit sorry for Newsweek. I understand what it is like to have made an unforgivable error, one that impacts other peoples lives in profound ways. What I don't understand is Newsweek's reticence to make things right beyond a retraction. Being in the business, it is hard for me to fathom that the journalists and editors at the vaunted magazine aren't more proactive in correcting their error.

About two years ago I had a major scoop, and I made the mistake of relying on back issues of my own newspaper for background. I did so because I didn't want to make a series of phone calls that would undoubtedly lead my competition to get wind of the story. You see, when you write for a weekly, scoops are almost impossible to come by, and rarely go unnoticed by readers who generally read both publications. A scoop was good for me, and I salivated at the thought of the competition's upcoming editorial meeting, in which heads would roll.

A city on my beat had settled a police brutality suit in a state court far away from the local area. I happened upon the conclusion only out of natural curiosity which prompted an impromptu phone call. In my zeal for secrecy, I relied solely on past reporting on the story, reporting that proved to have been factually incorrect. The high I felt at breaking a major story was soon turned to despair upon receiving word that I had made an unforgivable error.

In a nutshell, I reported that a perfectly law-abiding citizen had been wanted on felony charges. Not surprisingly, this caused a great deal of anger for the person's family, who demanded a front page retraction and an apology from the newspaper. My publisher, who ultimately did agree to the front page retraction, would not get on board with the apology, much to my chagrin.

The guilt I felt was overwhelming and I realized after about a week and a half that there was no way I was going to feel good about myself and my job unless I offered some kind of apology to the family. Since my employer refused to do it publicly, I decided that I would do it personally. So, I got in my truck and drove to the address. I don't mind telling you that it was a trip marked by dread.

Upon my arrival I instantly regretted the decision. The driveway looked like a Sturgis event and I thought I was about to be subjected to a thorough beating. It was too late to turn back however and I sheepishly inquired whether the person I sought was at home. Naturally I was asked to identify myself, which only made the beat-down look like more of a reality.

Long story short, I bit the bullet and had a talk with the person at which time I apologized profusely for my error and offered to make things right in any way that he could think of. I was assured that my apology was appreciated, was treated to a hand-shake, and the episode was finally and mercifully over. It was then, and only then, that I felt things had been made right and allowed myself to enjoy my job again.

Granted, Newsweek cannot go to the families of riot victims and shake hands. And, perhaps the example I use is a bit pedestrian. But it is hard for me to imagine that Newsweek would rather retreat into protectionism than attempt to do something, anything, to correct the record and repair their sullied reputation.

One does not trade their conscience for a by-line, or so I thought. It is to Newsweek's eternal shame that they have done so in regard to a story that has caused real damage to America's reputation, and far more importantly, to families that will never again know the companionship of members lost.

IT WAS JUST LAST WINTER THAT Power Line and many other blogs helped James Watt defend himself against an unsolicited attack by Bill Moyers, who fabricated a Watt quote in order to paint him as uncaring of the environment, given the imminent return of Jesus Christ.

Watt has responded to Moyers today with a column in the WaPo, entitled "The Religious Left's Lies," which is worth a read. Along the way, Watt notes that the left took advantage of the fact that Evangelical Christians accounted for a third of the ballots cast for Bush in the last election.

The religious left took note. Political opportunists in its ranks sought a wedge issue to weaken the GOP's coalition of Jews, Catholics and evangelicals and shatter its electoral majority. They passed over obvious headliners and landed on a curious but cunning choice: the environment.

Watt goes on to explain how environmentalists have cruelly and unjustly paint the "religious right" as in favor of environmental destruction as they believe it will lead to the rapture. The fact that it is a ridiculous charge, utterly devoid of common sense, hasn't stopped the religious left from using to drive people of religion away from the Republican Party.

I highlight the column here though, not to draw attention to the lies of the left, but to rather make a point regarding the other two-thirds of Republican voters. For the most part, religious and non-religious Republican voters (I fit into the latter category) share many of the same concerns and champion the same issues.

One need not be a religious person to note how the ACLU has systematically eliminated religion from the public forum. In fact, I daresay that the devout among us were perhaps the last to notice. For years many of us wondered when Christians would wake up and realize that they were under assualt. Although I'm still not convinced entirely, the signs indicate that they no longer sleep.

One need not be religious to see the erosion that abortion, especially late-term abortion, causes to our moral fabric. One need not be religious to be skeptical of gay marriage and aware of the dangers of creating special classes in our society. One need not be religious to see that freedom of association is under attack, most notable in the Boy Scouts, which are gleefully punished time and time again by the left for not allowing gay men to be scout leaders.

One need not be religious to be concerned over America's high courts, which have become increasingly in the business of writing law, not interpreting law. Furthermore, the high courts have done so increasingly based on European law rather than American law; an affront to American jurisprudence. The ninth circuit has been overturned so many time that it is clearly in violation of the "good behavior" test of the constitution.

The miscalculation that the left makes is that the concerns of the right are based in religion. They are not. They are rather based on the protection of our sovereignty and the preservation of our institutions in the face of a vast effort to create a new America; one that is merely a vassal to the United Nations and subject to the laws and whims of other nations.

Rather than take note, the left has chosen to demonize religion, all the while not capable of realizing that the tactic is what got them in so much trouble in the first place. Saying that the left needs to "moderate" or "come back to the middle" is not empty rhetoric or politics. It is the expression of people who understand the constitution and see that modern liberalism has become an affront to it.

The longer the Democratic Party fails to recognize that it is they, not the right, that has been hijacked by extremists, the longer it will be before they are once again considered a viable American political party.

QUIN HILLYER HAS AN EXCELLENT COLUMN on the left's paranoia regarding the "religious right," and how it needs to stop. Frankly I think she is being too reasonable. As I have often said, if you replace the phrase "religious right" with the word "Jew," you realize the scary times we live in. Still, the column manages to put the practice of berating the "religious right" into perspective.

The current media freak-out, however, began after President George W. Bush won re-election. Maureen Dowd of The New York Times wrote immediately that Mr. Bush was running "a jihad in America," that he "got re-elected by dividing the country along fault lines of fear, intolerance, ignorance and religious rule."

Yeah, right. As if the only reasons for 60 million Americans to support Mr. Bush or oppose John Kerry were variants of bigotry or stupidity.

Personally speaking, it was variants of bigotry and stupidity. Or so I've been told about a thousand times in endless comment sections. I wish I would have had the following line to leave in my wake.

These writers should take a chill pill. They're not just crying wolf; they're crying werewolf at the mere sight of a poodle puppy.

The myth is that the only reason a person could be apposed to certain things, like gay marriage, is religion, which demonstrates the myopic view of the world that the left holds.

...tens of millions of Americans make decisions based on a host of factors -- some rooted in their faiths, many more rooted in their own personal sense of justice, value or even self-interest.

One doesn't have to be a member of the "religious right" to want to ban partial-birth abortions. One doesn't have to be a secular or religious leftist to believe that society must care for the elderly and disabled.

In conclusion, Hillyer points out that the greatest danger we face is not that religion will distort politics, but that politics will distort religion. A good weekend read.

LINDA FOLEY IS THE POWERFUL HEAD of the newspaper guild, which gives her license to make comments like this about the American military:

“They target and kill journalists … uh, from other countries, particularly Arab countries like Al -, like Arab news services like al-Jazeera, for example. They actually target them and blow up their studios with impunity. …”

Like Eason Jordan, she has absolutely no evidence of this, nor does she seem inclined to attempt providing any. La Shawn Barber has more, including a pile of links, and this lame attempt at a retraction:

When asked if she believed U.S. troops had targeted journalists in Iraq, she said, “I was careful of not saying troops, I said U.S. military. Could I have said it differently? There are 100 different ways of saying this, but I’m not sure they would have appeased the right.”

As far as I am concerned, the MSM has become completely obsolete. Sadly, this is so not because of technology or disinterest in news, but through their own incompetence and anti-American agenda.

IT'S A SMALL POINT I KNOW, but Ted Kennedy yesterday accused a "radical right-wing," who has won the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, of wanting to do...something, I don't remember. Frankly, after awhile it all bleeds together.

If a party secures both branches of congress and the executive branch through a majority of the poeple in free elections they are, by definition, not radical. That is what we would call "mainstream," or "majority."

Radical is reserved for fringe elements who do not enjoy popular support...like his party.

SOMETIMES IT IS THE SATIRISTS WHO do the best job of putting things in perspective. Liberal Larry has pinned down the press reaction to Newsweek's lousy fact checking in this piece, entitled "Bush Ruins Newsweek's Credibility With Muslim Fanatics."

But the real victim here is Newsweek. By forcing the magazine's editors to crawl on their knees and apologize for telling the truth or a close fascimile thereof, the Bushies have intentionally and maliciously cast aspersions on Newsweek's credibility. Once the news source of record for both progressive-minded Americans and Muslim fanatics, Newsweek is now drawing skepticism from Muslim fanatics. Many fanatical muslims fear that with the downfall of 60 Minutes last year, the last media outlet they could rely on to give them the straight poop on the Great Satan has sold out to the Bush devil.

Sadly, this sounds more like the editorial position of the NYT, the LA Times, and the Minneapolis Star Tribune than satire.

THE MOST HILARIOUS QUOTE OF THE day comes from the congressional black caucus, who fired off a statement to Bill Frist today on the subject of the filubuster. Thanks to Power Line for catching it.

Restricting the ability of Democrats to block final votes on several of Bush's most controversial nominees "would be particularly offensive to people of color," members of the Congressional Black Caucus wrote Majority Leader Bill Frist during the day. "All of the major legislation that today bars racial discrimination in voting, employment and housing was passed after filibusters" were broken, it said.

Or, in other words, the filibuster was used to obstruct legislation that bars racial discrimination. This is their defense of the filibuster? That getting rid of what was the major impediment to equal rights would be offensive to people of color?

Somebody, apparantly a speechwriter, has lost their mind. Either that or it is someone's backhanded way of telling Frist to go nuclear.

ABC went out of their way to rewrite history recently, crediting Republicans with filibustering civil rights legislation.

The filibuster has been used historically by the minority party, which can't win with a vote count. Democrats have opposed the filibuster before — in the 1960s, they accused Republicans of using it to block civil rights legislation.

According to the Senate Historical Office, the record for the longest individual speech is held by the late Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

In their zeal to blame everything on Republicans, they overlooked the fact that it was southern Democrats who filibustered civil rights legislation. In fact, Thurmond was a Democrat at the time mentioned in the piece. The last filibuster on the subject of civil rights came from Robert Byrd himself.

More on this and a more complete history of Democrats filibustering of civil rights legislation at Transterrestrial Musings. Meanwhile, if you go to ABC's piece now, the part I have placed in bold text has been removed.

Deacon wraps all of this nonsense perfectly:

Leftists can remember that they're right about things; some of them just have a hard time remembering why.