NY Times gets spanked by Craig Ferguson

Craig Ferguson is outstanding... this just cements it: (hat tip HotAir)


Watch it all - Craig Ferguson at the 2008 White House Correspondents Dinner: Part I, Part II

Update: Sticking with the theme of the leftstream media getting spanked, here's George W. getting appropriately testy with white house reporters. Awesome... where's this been Georgie???

Bush finally commits to securing the southern border...

... of Mexico!!!


Unbelievable. You just can't make this stuff up.

Speaking of unbelievable... how about a Che flag hanging in Obama's new campaign office in Houston?

Update 2/12: Rush is on the story today...

SOTU: The difference between Democrats and Republicans...

Republicans stand for tax relief:


(Thanks Bryan)

Ann Coulter celebrates France's spectacular return to Western civilization... (updated)

Since the last post showed some sanity coming from Germany, I'll follow it up with Ann Coulter extolling the even more shocking indications of sanity coming from France.

Here she is from C'est Si Bon:

...In Germany, pro-American Angela Merkel crushed the mincing anti-American chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in 2005.

Last year, conservatives swept Canada, making Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper the prime minister. I haven't loved Canadians this much since the New York Rangers won the Stanley Cup.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard is both the longest-serving Australian prime minister and -- by his own account -- the most conservative. As The New York Times rooted for his defeat in 2004, claiming Australians were furious with him for his support of the Iraq war, he won a historic third term.

Along with Howard, Bush's staunchest ally in the war on terrorism has been Britain's Labor Party leader Tony Blair. He's about to leave office -- only to be replaced by a leader from the even more pro-American Conservative Party.

American celebrities who threaten to move out of the country every election rather than live under a conservative leader are running out of countries to move to.

Only Spain remains a nation of women. As long as Spain exists, it will not outlive the shame of its gutless capitulation to terrorist bombings in 2004. It is worse than Sweden's neutrality toward Hitler.

But France! Until this week, France seemed a less likely place to find someone who supports America than a meeting of Democrats.

Apparently, even the French prefer Western civilization to clitorectomy-performing, car-burning savages.

The Democratic Party is now officially the only organization on Earth that does not take the threat of Islamic fascism seriously. Between the Democrats and the media, America has gone from its usual position as the world's last hope to radical Islam's last hope.

Read it all.

Previous post.

Update: The Examiner thinks it's a New era for U.S., France, Germany:

Amazing, isn’t it, how the conventional wisdom that holds sway among many sophisticated — i.e. liberal — Washingtonians and New Yorkers is often so completely divorced from reality.

These folks have come to take it as a given that America’s involvement in Iraq has inflicted severe damage to our nation’s image abroad, especially in Europe. But the most recent national election results from France and Germany demonstrate that this “truth” about George W. Bush’s America is about as credible as the recurring rumor that Elvis is actually alive and well flipping hamburgers in happy obscurity somewhere near Seattle.

Yes, amazing.

A New Form of Evil...

If you missed it, LGF had the story.

(Image to the right from Michael Yon's online gallery)

Why America Has Not Won Iraq War, from one of my favorites - Dennis Prager:

...If America had to fight an insurgency directed solely against us and coalition forces -- even including suicide bombers -- we would surely have succeeded. No one, right, left or center, could imagine a group of people so evil, so devoid of the most elementary and universal concepts of morality, that they would target their own people, especially the most vulnerable, for murder.

---

Even without all the mistakes
made by the Bush administration...
it could not have foreseen this
new form of evil we are witnessing in Iraq.

---

That is why we have not yet prevailed in Iraq. Even without all the mistakes made by the Bush administration - and what political or military leadership has not made many errors in prosecuting a war? - it could not have foreseen this new form of evil we are witnessing in Iraq.

That is why we have not won.

There are respectable arguments to be made against America's initially going into Iraq. But intellectually honest opponents of the war have to acknowledge that no one could anticipate an "insurgency" that included people leaving children in a car and then blowing them up.

Well-said.

Newt discussed this story also in his latest column called The Reality of Evil and the Men and Women of Munich, and I couldn't agree more that it's important that we say it: our enemies are evil:

The news report came about mid-week. Maybe you saw it.

The Associated Press reported that terrorists in Iraq have passed an unthinkable threshold: They used two children to disguise a car bomb.

The car was waved through a checkpoint by American soldiers who could not imagine that children would be in a car filled with explosives. When the terrorists got to their target, they got out of the car and ran. They left the children behind in the car, and then blew it up.

There is a word for people who put children in a car to be blown up. The word is evil.

How 'bout a Thompson/Gingrich ticket in '08?

Must-watch video from Glenn Beck on the outrageous porkers in Congress...

I saw this show last week and hoped someone would post it. Glenn is on the money as usual... blood money that is:

And from the same show, Glenn appropriately skewers Bush on his ridiculous "migration" reform speech in Mexico:


George Bush... the worst president ever? Maybe not, but it's sure debatable. He's certainly stalled any momentum the conservative movement had going for it.

I'm praying for Fred Thompson in '08 at this point... maybe with Newt on the ticket with him.

Will Washington please get their heads out their collective asses and control our borders! (Updated)

Glenn Beck gets it:


(thanks to protocol66 for the video)
Preach brother Glenn, preach.

Update: Watch Roy Beck's Immigration by the Numbers if you haven't before:

HotAir reports from Baghdad...

Click the image to the right for a must-watch video report from Michelle.

Click here for a must-read (photos too) post titled "Assessing Iraq" from Bryan... it's fantastic:

This post is mostly about mistakes. The troops didn’t sit down with us and tick off all the mistakes that they think we have made in Iraq to date, so what follows isn’t their gripe list being published under my name. They did answer our questions forthrightly and we learned much from interviewing them and just talking with them over chow and listening to their crosstalk in the Humvees. So this post is made up of my observations after seeing the war up close and following it from afar, including mistakes, fumbles and ways forward to win–and what victory actually looks like.

Take a few minutes to read it all. I hope our politicians in Washington do... especially President Bush and Senator Webb before the upcoming State of the Union address/response.

Also, Michelle writes in her latest column about what she saw in Iraq:

I came to Iraq a darkening pessimist about the war, due in large part to my doubts about the compatibility of Islam and Western-style democracy, but also as a result of the steady, sensational diet of "grim milestone" and "daily IED count" media coverage that aids the insurgency.

I left Iraq with unexpected hope and resolve.

The everyday bravery and consummate professionalism of the troops I embedded with have strengthened my faith in the U.S. military. These soldiers are well aware of the history, culture and sectarian strife that have wracked the Muslim world for more than a millennium. "They love death," one gunner muttered as we heard explosions in the distance while parked in al Adil. Nevertheless, these troops are willing to put their lives on the line to bring security to Iraq, one neighborhood at a time. ...

... The troops I met scoff at peace activists' efforts to "bring them home now." But they are just as critical of the Bush administration and Pentagon's missteps -- from holding Iraqi elections too early, to senselessly breaking up their brigade combat team, to drawing down forces and withdrawing last year in Baghdad and Fallujah, to failing to hold cities after clearing them of insurgents. They speak candidly and critically of Shiite militia infiltration of some Iraqi police and Iraqi Army units and corruption in government ministries, but they want you to know about the unheralded good news, too. ...

... Winning the counterinsurgency battle is not just about keeping Iraqis safe. It's about keeping Americans safe -- by sending a message that the mightiest military in the world cannot and will not be outwitted and outlasted by the fleas. On the emblem of the Dagger Brigade are two imperatives: "Continue mission!" and "Duty first." These troops are committed to their mission. They deserve our commitment to them.

Rush on Bush, emotion, and apologies...

Again from Rush yesterday:

Now, I mentioned earlier that the president in his speech last night admitted that he made mistakes. Boy are they so ginned up about that, they're so excited about this in the Drive-By Media. [Are they] saying, “Do the libs ever apologize for the mayhem and inhumanity that they cause?” Does anybody ever demand that they apologize? Why do we allow ourselves to constantly be on defense about this? Who says that our very existence requires an apology? Hey, libs, how's that war on poverty going, huh? How many casualties in the war poverty? How many casualties from being weak on crime? How many casualties to our culture and society from liberal judges who slap criminals on the wrist? How many inner city families, libs, have you busted up? You feel bad about that? Oh, I'm sorry, we're not supposed to look at liberals' results, ladies and gentlemen. No. We're supposed to examine their good intentions.

---

[W]e're not supposed to look at liberals' results...
We're supposed to examine their good intentions.

---

But when it comes to George W. Bush and the war on terror to defend and protect the country, and the US military charged with the actual responsibility for doing this, we're never allowed to examine the good intentions. We're never allowed to look at Bush's heart and understand maybe he just wants the best that he sees. No. No. We don't look at results, either. We make up results. We lie about what a failure Bush is. We lie, the liberal Democrats lie about his policy and how it's a failure. We never, ever hear them apologize for diddly-squat. How about the cost to taxpayers for all these failures in the Great Society, libs? How about apologizing for the judicial appointments that Carter and Clinton have made that have so gummed up the works of having to fight the war on terror?

---

We're never allowed to look
at Bush's heart and understand maybe
he just wants the best that he sees.

---

How about apologizing for the abominations that have put on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California? If there's ever an embarrassment in liberal land, that's it, how about some apologizes for what you've done? Why should they apologize. Their arrogance and condescension is such that they are never wrong. Where's the hand-wringing? Where are the graphics? Which takes me to a couple of audio sound bites last night when the president addressed the nation. Here's a portion of what he said. This is the line the Drive-By Media begged for and they're having orgasms over it.

---

Their arrogance and condescension
is such that they are never wrong.

---

THE PRESIDENT: The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people, and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.

...

RUSH: And here we have it, ladies and gentlemen, the Oprahized society that loves apologizes and loves emotion. They wanted him to cry, they wanted to see a tear, or they wanted to see a bitten lower lip, à la Clinton. Look, people, he is president of the United States. It was a speech delivering facts, it was a speech informing the country and the world of what had gone wrong and what was now being planned to fix it. This was not about making you feel good, first, foremost, and only. “I wish he'd have had more emotion.” Probably would have been a better acceptance rate if he had, but he is who he is. I don't think his view of the presidency is that people want to see the commander-in-chief in any kind of an emotional display. Trust me. That's not a measure of strength, folks.

'Sending more U.S. combat troops is simply sending more targets'... (updated)

When Ollie North talks about what to do in Iraq, I listen:

For months, advisers to President George W. Bush have been trying to convince the commander in chief that more U.S. troops in Iraq will improve prospects for victory. Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), both recently returned from Iraq (and a courageous surprise stopover in Ramadi, capital of bloody Al Anbar Province) also support adding more American troops. Unfortunately, they are wrong.

Here's why.

Update: Ollie - "So he didn't take my advice."

The conservative case for George W. Bush...

Donald Lambro says that the President still waves the conservative flag:

... The biggest fiscal achievement of his presidency is the $1.7 trillion in tax cuts that helped the U.S. economy overcome the blows inflicted by the 9/11 attacks, the corporate accounting scandals and Hurricane Katrina.

Those tax cuts are conservative free-market economics at its best, and they are the reason why our economy remains -- through wars and numerous domestic disasters -- the strongest and most affluent in the world.

No conservative reform is bigger than the idea of privatizing Social Security, a revolutionary notion that most Republican leaders were afraid to embrace. Bush not only proposed it but he ran for president on its merits and traveled around the country arguing for its implementation.

---

That he did not succeed
is beside the point.
He was willing to spend a lot
of his political capital for
a gigantic conservative idea

---

That he did not succeed is beside the point. He was willing to spend a lot of his political capital for a gigantic conservative idea: freeing workers to invest some of their payroll taxes in stocks and bonds to create wealth. It's unlikely Bush can resurrect his proposal in the next two years, but he has boldly opened a path for a future president to follow and deserves great credit for the boldness of his attempt to bring down the last pillar of the New Deal welfare state.

Even his prescription-drug program, which expanded entitlements at a time when they are going through the roof, has turned out to be far less expensive than its critics forecast. Democrats and Republicans wanted something bigger and costlier and would have gotten it, too, but Bush won a more limited and price-competitive alternative.

Presidents never do everything we want them to, and Bush is no exception. But on some of the biggest ideas of conservative orthodoxy he has been willing to enter the arena, take some big risks and fight some big battles, winning some and losing others.

Win or lose, these initiatives need to be added to the scorecard when we measure his presidency against all of the others.

The passing of Gerald Ford gave us a great example of how a few decades can make all the difference for a President's legacy. I do give him a lot of credit for Roberts and Alito, although Scalia would have been my first choice for Chief Justice and Miers was a disaster.

From the same column, here are Lambro's thoughts on Bush's Iraq policy:

As bleak as things look right now, Bush's advisers believe that planting the seeds of democracy in the midst of these terrorist breeding grounds is the only way to combat a fanatical Islamic movement that still threatens the safety and security of the West.

As chaotic as things seem, these governments, still in their infancy, are going to survive. They have made mistakes and no doubt will make others, as our young government did before them. But Bush believes, as I believe, that these free and independent governments will exist long after he has left office and that they will ultimately triumph over the terrorists.

Time will tell George, and I hope you're right.

'These two families [Clinton & Bush] are beginning to look like the political equivalent of herpes'...

Mac Johnson continues:

... smile-killing outbreaks occur every four years punctuated only by long periods of latency during which the infection spreads to unwary contacts and runs up health care costs. And all the while America is in denial claiming, “It’s just a cold sore and our republic is perfectly healthy.”

Well, NO, it is not just a historical cold sore. It is more than a little strange. Does anyone believe that in a true political meritocracy of 300 million people (at least 100 million of which are not illegal aliens and over 35, thus being eligible to be president), that we could have a period of decades in which our choices for President consisted mostly of members of just two families? Clearly the influence of the political machine and the inside connection has gotten a wee bit out of hand.

Mac then proposes a 28th constitutional amendment: "No one shall hold the office of President who has previously been held by the President in his office", and concludes:

... While you weren’t paying attention, the 2008 New Hampshire primary began last month. Get off your butt and get involved or you’ll end up with whatever insiders most successfully gain control of each party’s mindless apparatus in the next year. If you wait until the general election to evaluate your choices, donate and volunteer, you’ll end up having to choose between the connected and the connected.

Wouldn’t you rather see something interesting—like a Tancredo vs. Kucinich debate? Theoretically, it’s still your country.

Jeb Bush does look like an attractive candidate, but his older brother has likely wrecked any hope he might have had for the Presidency. George Bush has proven to be - by enlarge - a complete disaster. Sorry Jeb.

Kerry is soooo very...

...unlikable:

... Among those placing ahead of Kerry were about a dozen potential 2008 White House rivals, including Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

"This is bad, bad news for Kerry," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute in Hamden, Connecticut, which conducted the survey.

"Americans know who he is, and have pretty much decided they don't like him," said Brown. He noted the poll found that 95 percent of respondents said they had heard enough about Kerry, who lost the 2004 White House race to U.S. President George W. Bush, to rate the Massachusetts Democrat. ...

Poor John.

Related from NewsMax:
Poll: Giuliani, McCain, Obama Are Hot for White House
Conservatives Launch Anti-Hillary Web Site
Al Gore: McCain 'Capable Guy' for 2008

A pittance of time...

From a commenter on a recent Hugh Hewitt post:

Young Men and Women Going Off to War
My son graduated from high school this year. He, like many of his classmates, is now off to college; he's studying business. He's an entrepreneurial young man so this is just right for him. My son considered the military, and we'd gotten the occasional recruiter calls at the house for the last year because of my son's interest. In the end, he's off to college, but the military was a real option. One that my husband and I did not discourage.

My daughter, three years behind my son, wants to go to Annapolis. JAG then Harvard. She's got the grades to do it. We're doing everything we can to see that her dream happens.

One of my son's best buddies has joined the Coast Guard. Another buddy has joined the Army. These young men have been to my house numerous times over the last few years and they are both bright. One is a high-achiever - he is focused and knows just what he wants. The military is going to be better because of him. The other young man wasn't sure about which technical school he wanted to go to after high school, and decided that the military would give him options, benefits and purpose. In this case, the military is going to be good for a capable young man.

Throughout the past summer, every week or so my son reported on another classmate who signed up. Some were suprises, some were not. Now, these young men and women are from a wealthy area. We're five miles from the beaches of Southern California! Dude, these dudes and chicks could've gone surfin', for Pete's sake.

They did not have to join the military. But they did.

As a mom, whose son didn't make that choice, I am so deeply touched and impressed by these young men and women, who have options - choices - to do anything they want, and yet still decide to serve this nation. They, and everyone else that signed up for military service, are what make this country great.

(Yes, I expect my son to make this country great, too, through business and commerce, and he'd better darn well have created jobs for his classmates and others who end their service and get into the job market.)

And I know that what happened in my town this past summer also happened in many, many towns across America.

There's a reason why members of the audience gasped at John Kerry's offensive remark. It's because we know the people that he insulted, for the sake of a joke, and they're not worthy of such shabby treatment.

Anybody can make a joke, even John Kerry. But when you pony up to the microphone, make a public speech, trade on your celebrity status and do everything possible to draw attention to yourself, then you'd be wise to take your pot shots at others like yourself - public figures and toadies. Not our service men and women, not when we're fighting a treacherous war that requires every person to keep his or her wits about them.

The US military is all volunteer. No one is being conscripted to fight. Even those who signed up because it was their best economic choice - or because it's a chance to put their troubles behind and start over - deserve our respect for making this decision. The military has a way of educating a young person and making a better person out of him or her. As an organization, this is to be respected as well.

No matter how hard Kerry and the nostalgic media wants this to be Vietnam, it just isn't. And they cannot treat our young people as if they've been forced to do this or made a bad or wrong decision.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T find out what it means um-hum.

Some of the very best blog reading comes from comments like this one... and a great video from Terry Kelly.

John Kerry may have meant to slam George Bush, but at the very least it was a Freudian slip indicating how he and the Democrats really do feel about our military... that they're either uneducated victims or ruthless murderers.

Rush: John Kerry Said the Same Things About the American Military in 1972

Kerry in 2008!

From the Scrappleface Enterprise Institute:


A joke?

Kerry is the joke, and as their 2004 Presidential Candidate, he represents the Democratic party as well as - or better than - anyone else. No apologies... anywhere.

Way to go George! You too John! You too Katie! McCain too!

Newsbusters has coverage of the coverage.

Here's a hilarious photo courtesy of Michelle Malkin:


More from Michelle here.

Update: Courtesy of Glenn Beck:

The children... listen to the children...

AllahPundit has the comment on the absolute moral authority of the chiiildren:

Slowly but surely, they’re working their way towards finding The Perfect Victim. They’re probably doing casting calls right now for black female children with Parkinson’s.

From the Courage Campaign:

The children of California demand that George Bush and his agenda get out of California. Vote No on Propositions 85 & 90!

Don't you feel awful... you conservative hate-mongers!!!

Great summary from WuzzaDem:

Whether it's politics, religion, or beauty pageants, is there anything sleazier than coercing young children into delivering messages they don't yet understand, nor should be expected to understand? Messages about war, stem cell research, and parental notification?

The Indoctrination of American Youth, Mind and Body...

Making this ad even more distasteful: Proposition 85, one of the propositions this ad opposes, seeks to overturn current California law that allows girls as young as 12 to have an abortion without notifying their parents.

(Proposition 90, contrary to what the boy above implies, limits the state's "land-grabbing" authority, i.e., government seizure of private property for private use).

Is there anything more cowardly than letting kids do your dirty work?

See!!!!

'There is a difference: the Republicans are disappointing and the Democrats are dangerous'... (updated)

(pinned 'til election time unpinned due to election fatigue)

Update #19: Ok... this is getting unwieldy. Last update: Short... Sweet... HamNation and CoulterMania.

The Republicans have been punished. Conservatives have been - and are being - heard. We don't want higher taxes... we don't want liberal judges... we don't want to fold up and go home in the Middle East... we don't want impeachment hearings... federally-funded research on - or cloning of - human embryos... we don't want Socialism. Punish Republicans further in the next primaries... elect them now against the dangerous Democrats.

Update #18: Trying to keep the updates down to a minimum, but if you're following the Michael J. Fox stem cell ad (here's a response worth watching too) debate you must check out this from Scrappleface.

Rush is all over this too, and he's absolutely right and on the money. Listen here noon to 3:00pm EST. Read on Rush today: The Unconscionable Claims of Michael J. Fox. Fox News coverage here.

Rush's e-mail to Katie Couric.

Glenn Beck discusses here.

Update #17: Greg Tinti - VIDEO: Pelosi Pledges No Impeachment If Dems Take Control.

Pelosi is a bullshit salesperson handing out free samples... don't buy it. Turn it off.

Despite what the MSM says, your vote (still) counts.

Update #16: Negative Attacks Divide Conservatives...

For the cause of conservatism to prevail, in the near-term and the long-term, we must renew our commitment to the whole of the conservative agenda. And we must renew our commitment to the civility and mutual respect that the American people have come to expect from our leaders.

Mike Pence in '08.

Update #15: John O'Neill...

Dispirited conservatives and Republicans rightfully appalled at the Cunningham, Abramoff, and Foley scandals should remember history as they contemplate not voting in the 2006 elections because of disillusionment.

Don't Repeat Mistake of 1974

Update #14: Barrons isn't buying the MSM negativity...(h/t staclu)

JUBILANT DEMOCRATS SHOULD RECONSIDER their order for confetti and noisemakers. The Democrats, as widely reported, are expecting GOP-weary voters to flock to the polls in two weeks and hand them control of the House for the first time in 12 years — and perhaps the Senate, as well. Even some Republicans privately confess that they are anticipating the election-day equivalent of Little Big Horn. Pardon our hubris, but we just don’t see it.

Our analysis — based on a race-by-race examination of campaign-finance data — suggests that the GOP will hang on to both chambers, at least nominally. We expect the Republican majority in the House to fall by eight seats, to 224 of the chamber’s 435. At the very worst, our analysis suggests, the party’s loss could be as large as 14 seats, leaving a one-seat majority. But that is still a far cry from the 20-seat loss some are predicting. In the Senate, with 100 seats, we see the GOP winding up with 52, down three.

The Republican Party isn't perfect by a loooooong shot, but putting the Dems in power will be devastating... higher taxes and impeachment hearings guaranteed. Punish Republicans? - punish yourself and your kids. We need another conservative on the Supreme Court too!!

Repugnicrats and Dumbicans...there is a difference.

Update #13: How's this for a thought... you go to war with the army party you have, not the army party you wish you had. Where did you come down when Rummy got skewered for those words? If he was right, then my changing the one word applies nicely, no?

Update #12: Victor Davis Hanson on Liberals Gone Wild!:

... The Democrats have not elected congressional majorities in 12 years, and they've occupied the White House in only eight of the last 26 years. The left's current unruliness seems a way of scapegoating others for a more elemental frustration - that they can't gain a national majority based on their core beliefs. More entitlements, higher taxes to pay for them, gay marriage, de facto quotas in affirmative action, open borders, abortion on demand, and radical secularism - these liberal issues don't tend to resonate with most Americans. ...

Update #11: Courtesy of Rush... are you a cut and run conservative?

Update #10: In MD... you're either voting for Cardin against Bush (no, George isn't running), or you're going for Steele because Cardin's a liar and Steele is not an establishment guy. Steele is the man.

Update #9: Vote Republican... they suck less, and have at least a chance of not sucking in the foreseeable future.

Update #8: Glenn Beck - What media bias?

Update #7: Why vote Republican? Apparently Larry Elder helped put this together: (hat tip HotAir)



... as a follow-up to this classic:



Update #6: Charlie Rangel - “Future Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.” Please... just say no!

Update #5: Justice Scalia was awesome over the weekend at the ACLU. It was on C-span again last night. I've been looking for video, but C-span links don't seem to work. I found this snippet though:



Frustrated conservatives who are considering a protest non-vote or even a Dem vote should remember the the battle for the Supreme Court is still very much underway, and we won't get more like Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts with the Dems in power. Vote against an "evolving constitution", and maintain/strengthen Republican control. These are consequential times.

A related find from FrontPage:

Former Supreme Court Justice Curtis warned in 1857 that the Constitution would be controlling only if judges interpret it as Scalia advocates. Curtis wrote:

“[W]hen a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean.”

Update #4: Doug Patton says...

... if you are a disgruntled conservative Republican who knows the issues and understands what is at stake in this election, I have one message for you in this crucial mid-term election: don’t you dare fail to vote next month!

We can still turn this around!!!

Update #3: Matt Lewis...

there is an effort to drive a wedge between conservatives and the GOP. Don't fall for it.

Update #2: I'm with Elizabeth Kantor: Staying the Course

(WARNING: This post will be an impatient rant against conservative impatience.)

Okay, guys. We need to stay the course - and I'm not talking about Iraq.

The conventional wisdom is that Republicans are going to lose the 2008 midterm election because of the Foley scandal. Social conservatives in particular, it's being said, will stay home on election day rather than go to the polls to support the Republicans who have allowed the House of Representatives to be tainted by a sordid sexual scandal - or even vote Democrat.

For any social conservative who's feeling this way, I have one question: Have you completely lost your marbles?

Look, it would be hard to get more socially conservative than I am. I'd be perfectly happy with laws against emailing sexual content to anyone you're not actually married to, let alone to teenaged boys who assist you in your job as a U.S. legislator. I'm in a practically perpetual snit about the mainstreaming of porn and the declining standards of morality in America.

But the voting booth is not the place to indulge your temper, or to idly and carelessly "send a message" that you're frustrated about everything in general, or one irrelevant thing in particular. Your vote is your chance to change the government, not to express yourself.

I myself am a resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia. For Senator, I get to vote for George Allen, a man who irritates me in many ways. In particular, and in this very Senate race, he's annoyed me no end by attempting to scare voters off his Democratic opponent, Jim Webb, by painting Webb as insufficiently enthusiastic about women in the military.

Now, you can't be sufficiently insufficiently enthusiastic about female soldiers for me. If I were in charge, I'd immediately purge all the military services of women--except maybe for a Florence Nightingale Navy Nurse's Corps, or some such. I think it's a warning sign of the death of Western civilization that we're sending the mothers of toddlers to fight in our wars.

But am I going to hesitate for one second to vote for George Allen? No, I am not.

Why? Because I know that while the Republican Party is infected with the rot that's destroying our society, the Democratic Party is the Societal Rot Fan Club.

Do we - to take just one very important example - really want a Supreme Court that will overturn Roe vs. Wade? After more than three decades of disappointments, we've finally got a President who will appoint that kind of Court, and a Senate that will confirm the justices he appoints. Let's not quit when we're in sight of the finish line.

Are we serious? Are we going to change the government, and the culture, and the country? Are we - this is the real question - going to act like citizens capable of self-government, or like disappointed children?

Update: Thinking protest vote or want to sit it out? Get ready to pay:

The GOP is swimming in a sewer: Foley, a floundering war, a spate of hit-books published to effect the election, a base that no longer trusts it on border security, spending and a few other things make this a nasty-looking mid-term election. But the Democrats have ridden to the rescue, putting tax increases back on the agenda.

Vote against Democrats... vote Republican, then let's work on the leadership.

I'm a frustrated conservative. Bush has been disappointing on the border, on amnesty, on spending, on tax reform, on government size, and overall for a complete and utter lack of productive communication. I'm frustrated, and as much as I want to teach a lesson to the existing Republican leadership, I'm even more afraid of the damage that a Democrat leadership will do to this country.

I listen and watch Glenn Beck. I listen to Rush, Savage and Sean. I read Thomas Sowell, Mac Johnson, Michelle Malkin, Brent Bozell, John Hawkins, Dennis Prager and Kevin McCollough religiously. I watch Brit Hume and Chris Wallace. I get news from blogs and online magazines. I manage this blog, and contribute to three others. I pay attention and am on top of what's going on in the world... pretty much anyway.

No one that I have seen, heard or read recently has had a better summary of why Conservatives should NOT stay home when it comes time to vote than Thomas Sowell in his recent four-parter "Frivolous Politics"

Part I:

... Even when serious issues are addressed, they can be addressed either seriously or frivolously. If you are content to see life and death issues of war and peace addressed with catch phrases like "chicken hawk" or to see a coalition of nations around the world fighting terrorism referred to as "unilateral" U.S. action because France does not go along, then you are content with frivolity.

You may deserve whatever you get if you vote frivolously in this year's election. But surely the next generation, which has no vote, deserves better.

Part II:

... On foreign policy, Democrats continue to argue as if talking with our enemies is the magic formula. We should keep talking with Iran while they keep building a nuclear bomb, just as the western democracies kept negotiating with Hitler while he kept building up his war machine in preparation for starting World War II.

Today, people ignorant of history - which includes graduates of our most prestigious universities - have no idea how close the western democracies came to losing that war and what an unending nightmare it would have been for the world if Hitler and his Japanese allies had won.

Nor do most of the liberal Democrats, which is to say, almost all Congressional Democrats, seem to have any sense of what an unending nightmare it will be for western nations if Iran and the international terrorists it sponsors have nuclear weapons.

Against that background, those disappointed Republican voters who plan to stay home on election day to protest their elected officials' failings are seeing politics as a way to vent their personal emotions. That is a frivolous self-indulgence in a deadly serious time for this nation.

Part III:

... When the American Civil Liberties Union and liberal judges are able to get criminals freed on flimsy grounds, or prevent hoodlums from being expelled from the public schools, the community most likely to be harmed is the black community.

How then can the Democrats consistently get the lion's share of black votes? And why can't the Republicans make any serious inroads?

Part IV:

... There was a time when we all understood that, whatever we might think of a President, we still had only one President at a time and that wholesale obstruction and undermining of him was obstruction and undermining of the United States in the face of its enemies.

Shrill obstructionist House minority leader Nancy Pelosi obviously does not share that view - and if Congressional Democrats win this election, she will become Speaker of the House.

If Democrats win the Senate as well, then they will have the power to not only impeach the President and Vice President, but also the power to remove them from office. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would then become President Nancy Pelosi.

Please read all four parts of this article if you are considering a protest vote or not voting at all. We can't keep kicking the can down the road with the evil that's developing around us and within us. A Democratic leadership is too dangerous to risk in today's world... for any amount of time.

'The ACLU is destroying America’s culture and Constitution'... should they be tax-exempt?

(Crossposted from Stop The ACLU)

Imagine if a Church used the power of its tax exemption as a lever towards political campaigns. Can you imagine the outrage from groups like the ACLU if a Church used its tax exempt donations to create political ads opposing candidates that did not adhere to certain "American values" as interpreted by that Church? What if a Christian Religious organization were to use its official title to oppose certain political issues such as abortion?

We don't have to imagine, the ACLU's history shows us. They would challenge that Church's tax exempt status.

"In 1970, the year after the ACLU issued its first policy opposing the tax exempt status for churches; it accepted the advice of church and state extremist Leo Pfeffer and drafted a brief opposing tax exemptions in Waltz v. Tax Commission. In 1987, the ACLU Foundation and the New York Civil Liberties Union filed an amicus brief in support of Abortion Rights Mobilization to secure standing in a suit challenging the tax exempt status of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church was charged with violating its tax-exempt status by taking a stand against abortion."Source

However the ACLU's official policy goes even further. In the ACLU's eyes a Church doesn't even have to be politically involved to deserve having its tax exempt status stripped.

During the 1988 presidential campaign the ACLU was brought under the spotlight. Michael Dukakis, the democrat nominee, proudly stated, "I'm a card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union." These words would soon come back to haunt him. I will not focus too much on this campaign other than using it as evidence of the ACLU's position on the tax exemption of churches. However, Dukakis's association with this group proved to be a major factor in his defeat.

During the first debate, Peter Jennings of ABC asked George Bush why he continued to make an issue out of Dukakis's membership in the ACLU. Bush replied that he didn't like most of the ACLU's positions and offered four of them. We will just focus on the one we are talking about right now. Bush said, "I don't think they're right to try to take away the tax exemption of the Catholic Church."

The ACLU doesn't deny their position! Norman Dorsen, president of the American Civil Liberties Union from 1976 to 1991, refuted Bush's statements, and said that the ACLU opposes tax exemption for all churches, not just the Catholic Church.Source

Here is a little more history on the issue from Twilight of Liberty.

"ACLU founder Roger Baldwin once told me that the ACLU's desire to strip the churches of their tax exempt status was "very foolish." But in 1969, some nineteen years after Baldwin stepped down as executive director, the Union adopted its first policy opposing "tax exemption for church property which is used exclusively for religious purposes.' In the latest policy on this subject, it makes no difference to the Union whether church property is not used exclusively for religious purposes, all are denied: "The ACLU opposes tax benefits for religious bodies", seven examples are listed for clarification, including the benefit of tax exemption."Source

The ACLU proudly claims that they are “wholly non-partisan.” It portrays itself as an objective organization that is “neither liberal nor conservative, Republican nor Democrat.” They say instead that they are “a public interest organization devoted exclusively to protecting the basic civil liberties of all Americans.” However, while the ACLU was taking aim at the Catholic Church's tax exempt status, the Union affiliate in Providence, Rhode Island, came out in favor of a tax exemption for Wiccans. They went and got a tax administrator to rule that a coven of witches were entitled the same tax-exemption as churches had.

Does this sound like the position of a "nonpartisan" group? Does it sound like the position of a group that should be tax exempt? What happened to opposing tax exemptions on all religious bodies? Pick your policy. Either oppose it for all, or fight to expand it to all. You can't claim non-partisanship while opposing it for one religious body and fighting to expand it to others.

Now imagine if an organization claiming to be non-partisan used the power of its tax exemption as a lever towards political campaigns. What if this organization used its funds to create political ads opposing candidates that did not adhere to certain "American values" as interpreted by that organization?

We don't have to imagine, the ACLU's hypocrisy shows us. It also has once again brought it into internal division as one local branch thinks it crossed the line. The Political Pit Bull has video of this being talked about on O'Reilly.

Leaders of the ACLU’s Connecticut affiliate have objected to an advertisement placed by the national ACLU that ran in the Hartford Courant late last month. The advertisement focused on Senator Lieberman, a Democrat who is running as an independent after losing a primary bid to an anti-war candidate, Ned Lamont.

“Will Senator Joe Lieberman pass this test on American values?” the ad asks. It features Mr. Lieberman’s photograph and office telephone number, along with warnings about pending legislation about detainees, torture, and wiretapping. “Tell Joe Lieberman his votes on this assault on American values will help determine your vote in November,” the ad says.

The chairman of the board of the Connecticut ACLU, Don Noel Jr., said he and several other board members felt it breached the organization’s pledge to stay out of electoral politics.

“It seemed to us to cross the line on partisanship, or to cross the line on not being nonpartisan,” Mr. Noel told The New York Sun yesterday. “I have complained and the national office has agreed with me. They have said they are sorry this might have been seen as partisan.” NY Sun

The ACLU has consistently abused its tax exempt status by claiming to be non-partisan. However, a simple glimpse at the ACLU's record shows many examples of how this is untrue. While the ACLU has proudly made abortion its number one priority it has not only ignored the free speech of abortion protesters but actively fought to silence them.

William Donohue accurately argues:

"Social reform, in a liberal direction, is the sine qua non of the ACLU. Its record, far from showing a momentary wavering from impartiality, is replete with attempts to reform American society according to the wisdom of liberalism. The truth of the matter is that the ACLU has always been a highly politicized organization."Source

Throughout its history the ACLU has revealed its partisanship. It opposed the Viet Nam War. It demanded unilateral nuclear disarmament. It called for disinvestment in South Africa. It violated its own policy in order to stymie the nomination of William Rehnquist to the Supreme Court. During the eight years of the Reagan Administration, it blasted the President with one invective after another much as it does today with President Bush. It led the fight to defeat the confirmation of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court and more recently the confirmation of Samuel Alito. It frequently writes speeches for candidates that it likes. It lobbies its cause to Congress. Did you know that it has divided itself into two groups? The ACLU and the ACLU Foundation. This allows them to work the courts with one hand while being paid by taxpayer funding when the win, and lobby to Congress with the other. It even issues scorecards on Senators and Representatives evaluating their performance according to the ACLU's own ideological measuring stick. Source

The American Civil Liberties Union is destroying America’s culture and Constitution, while the federal government allows it to operate as a nonprofit, tax-exempt charitable organization. Non-profit organizations are not supposed to spend their tax-exempt assets on political campaigning, because that is not the purpose for which they were given the exemption. Furthermore, if an organization is to benefit by claiming non-partisanship it should practice that concept consistently and be held to those standards, unlike the ACLU's double standard practices.

As a result of the above examples and much more, I believe that the ACLU has forfeited its right to operate as a tax-exempt organization. It is a political organization and should not be subsidized by my tax dollars. The IRS should do away with tax exemptions of political organizations hiding behind the mask of being non-profit and non-partisan. If only we could find some politicians willing to push for it.

Video from Greg Tinti:
ACLU Takes Out Ads Against Lieberman...


This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.

How many words is this picture worth? (updated)

...at least two: He. Crazy.


(Photoshop from Bryan at Sanctuary)

Cox & Forkum are on it too...

How's this make you feel?

Tons of updates at HotAir, enough to require a fresh thread.

Thank God for the U.N.!

thanks for nothing:


Update: The Clinton Legacy: North Korea's Bomb:

North Korea's first detonation of a nuclear weapon may have taken place during the watch of George W. Bush — but it was under the Clinton administration's watch that the communist regime began gathering necessary materials and constructing the bomb.

Legacy.

Update #2: Zucker-mania:



Kim Jong Illin' here too... the other side of Hollywood.

The Politics of Hypocrisy...

Here's part of a nice article from Jim Clonts:

... The modern liberal loves hypocrisy. It's just too easy and so politically correct. When faced with a diverse point of view, just raise the notion that your opponent is not worthy of taking a position. Some favorite fodder for liberals in our national history include slavery, our treatment of the American Indian, ignoring the Holocaust, US support for the Shah of Iran, the Iran-Contra fiasco, Viet Nam, and, of course, faulty intelligence about Iraqi WMDs. No matter the topic of discussion, you can bet the liberals will bring up one of these as proof we are we are not allowed to assume the moral high ground.

---

When faced with a diverse point of view,
just raise the notion that your opponent
is not worthy of taking a position.

---

Every now and then I watch Prime Minister's Questions on C-Span. This is where the Prime Minister of Great Britain stands before the House of Commons and answers their questions. The first time I saw this I was astounded. Here was Tony Blair of the Labor Party receiving questions from his Conservative rivals and actually responding on-topic to the question at hand. They actually addressed each other, made extremely persuasive arguments, and debated national topics. Unlike our Congress, where most speeches are political sound bites made to empty chambers, or our presidential debates, where the candidates are not allowed to address each other directly, these men and women actually called each other on the carpet. At the end of the evening, the average British citizen not only knows why Blair supports an issue, they know both sides of the issue and can form their own decision.

Although all politicians are capable of political-speak, I've never heard a liberal actually answer a question with a salient, on-topic answer. They constantly criticize the war in Iraq and our efforts to fight terror, but when asked what they would do differently, they spout something like, "George Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction and took us into this war under false pretenses. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with September 11th. We must change course. New leadership is required, a new vision, a new strategy." Did I miss something here? The President's stated strategy is to train the Iraqi security forces until they can handle the job themselves, then bring our forces home. This may or may not be a good strategy, but it is a strategy. If the Democrats have a better one, what is it? I'm not opposed to a better strategy. How about giving us one, please!

Maybe they have one and just won't admit it. The only pretense of a Democrat strategy I've heard so far is from Howard Dean, John Kerry and John Murtha. They say to pull our troops out immediately. This is not a popular strategy with the American people, so most Democrats won't adopt it. Staying the course, however, is not exactly popular either. At least the President has the guts to stand by his convictions. If leaving Iraq to the insurgents is really the right thing to do, then the Dems need to stand behind their convictions, popular or not, and let the American people decide their fate in November.

---

Modern liberals have either forgotten
how to debate or have decided
it does not serve them well to try.

---

Modern liberals have either forgotten how to debate or have decided it does not serve them well to try. They just attack, typically with very effective one-liners completely out of the context of the debate. One-liners are great sound bite fodder for the media. Comprehensive and complex arguments are too long for a news update between My Name is Earl and The Office, or for the moving ticker-tape at the bottom of the screen on cable news networks. ...

Very nice Jim!