Citizen Verbally Assails Reid - Left Promptly Complains

G.M. Heller's excellent Berkshire Blog had a wonderful story today. It seems that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D - NV) was out shopping (at an upscale market, naturally) when he was recognized by a citizen who proceeded to ask his vocally and repeatedly why he was holding up the repeal vote on ObamaCare. Reid refused to answer and literally ran away from the encounter, leaving in a fleet of black SUVs. An interesting discussion has developed in the comments between those who (like myself) see this as a good thing and those who seem to thin that now the Democrats run the country, dissent should no longer be allowed. A typical comment from this side of the aisle is the 7:19 PM comment from 'Anonymous' re-posted below:

That's what you would expect from a stupid Republican. Thank God he did not have a gun and shoot Harry. Republicans love to RELOAD their guns. Normal people don't act like those Tea Bagger wackos. Where are the Death Pannels Consevative Republicans lied about for months. Oh yeah - Death Pannels are where the Iraq missles of mass destruction are. I guess with my statement I'm being an ass just like the person that annoyed Harry.What goes arround comes arround.

This is sadly typical of so many on the political left. They cannot argue; they can only post vile epithets and baseless accusations. In response to the thread, I posted the following comment:

Senators, Representatives and the President himself are all elected representatives of The People. This is a point we would do well to remember. They work for we the people. We are not their servants, their subjects or any other position less prestigious.

If said representatives actually held regular meetings with their constituents (as opposed to the reality we witnessed during the run-up to ObamaCare when most of them ducked and ran) this sort of behavior would not be necessary. Unfortunately, most if not all of these self-important hypocrites do their utmost to restrict their actual meetings with their constituents to stage-managed affairs where as many attendees as possible are hand-picked from their special-interest supporters.

In light of that reality, this citizen was not out of line, from what I can discover. I do not see any indication that profanity, violent rhetoric (unlike that seen constantly among the Democrats and their tools in leftist media) or any threatening behavior was used in this encounter. The citizen appears to have been merely verbally forceful. And the security forces present did not see any need to interfere, which would seem to indicate that they did not see any threat either.

As for the argument about 'harassment', it was only two short years ago that the media and Democrats were claiming that 'dissent is the highest form of partiotism'. And throwing shoes at a sitting President was hailed in that same media as being 'heroic'. Very well. This citizen was dissenting. Why then the disapproval from the left side of the political divide? Isn't dissent patriotic anymore? Or is it that those who made that claim only want free speech for their side, not for their opponents? if so, I find that attitude both reprehensible and entirely unwelcome in this country.

Our elected (and appointed) representatives need to be reminded frequently that they serve at the pleasure of We The People. They are our servants not our rulers - a distinction that too many of both parties tend to forget. Therefore, when they do things like ObamaCare that are against the interests of those same People, they should expect to be called to account for their behavior. Which this citizen did. And which the rest of us should do as well. We should be be polite. We should be courteous. But we should be forceful in expressing our opinions. Remember - they serve us, not the other way around.

I do not think that Senators, Representatives, Presidents or judges for that matter should enjoy any superiority over the rest of us. All of the branches of government can and often do, get things wrong. The Supreme Court authored the horrible Roe decision in a blatant example of judicial over-reach and has stretched the Commerce Clause out of all recognition. In addition, it has invented new 'rights' for prisoners-or-war as well as those explicitly denied POW rights under the Geneva Conventions as laid out in the blatantly unfounded Boumediene decision), ignored Constitutional language (the 10th Amendment, the 4th Amendment and the 2nd Amendment) that is plain and unambiguous. Not to mention the blatant re-creation involved in the Kelo decision that allowed government to redistribute private property against the plain intent of the Founders.

Congress meanwhile has acquiesced as the courts have legislated wildly from the bench and has itself tried to make a mockery of the Constitution with laws dating back to the New Deal. ObamaCare is only the latest statist power grab. And the Executive has itself a sorry record of abusing its powers as well. So why should any of these so-called 'betters' be treated with any respect?

To my mind, they have not earned it and they should be required to answer to their fellow Americans often. Forcing someone to defend their mistakes is a far better way of forcing those mistakes to be rectified than pretending that somehow a mistake is 'settled case law'. In any event, I applaud this citizen. I only wish that more of us would do the same.

Time for a Constitutional Convention?

Well, Lawrence Lessig and Mark McKinnon certainly think so. In today's Daily Beast, the two - one a conservative one a liberal - lay out their rationale for why a Constitutional convention might just be a good idea. Write the pair,

Washington is hopelessly addicted to money and thus to the status quo; drunk with power and incapable of getting sober and fixing itself. It’s time for an intervention—by the states.

As anyone with a cursory interest in the United States Constitution knows, there is a way to amend the Constitution without Congressional approval. As laid out in Article V, the Constitution states (emphasis mine),

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

This may be the only way we can rein in Congress. As Lessig and McKinnon state, Washington has long since abandoned any pretense of adhering to their constituents' wishes. Members of Congress engage in open graft, corruption and legal thievery to grease the palms of their corporate, nonprofit and governmental special interests. And thei spending is simply out of control. And if I were to propose amendments, they would be as follows:

1. Any Act passed by Congress will apply to all elected, appointed and career members of the executive, legislative and judicial branches.


2. No regulatory agency has authority to alter or amend its scope or requirements without said regulation being reviewed and approved by Congress.


3. Neither Congress, the Executive nor the Judicial Branch may nationalize or have any ownership interest in any business, industry or other commercial endeavor.


4. Neither Congress nor any State may mandate the individual purchase of any goods or services.


5. Prisoners of War and non-legitimate combatants as defined by the Geneva Convention are not entitled to any access to any US court.


6. No executive order may remain in effect for more than 365 days without Congressional review and approval.


7. No Act of Congress may remain in effect for more than five years without Congressional review and approval.


8. The President shall have a line-item veto as defined in California's Constitution Article IV, Section 10e


9. The Second Amendment shall be interpreted as follows: The right of individuals to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This would be a good place to start. We need to get the career corruptocrats out of Washington and remind Congress that this is a Federal system of checks and balances - not a parliamentary format where the national government has all the power!

Government 'Efficiency' At Work

The government likes to tell us how much better they are than those eeevil corporations that only care about profit. Government will make our lives better!

However, in the latest failure of this meme, it turns out that the Energy Star rating, which is supposed to be given only to products that are genuinely energy-efficient, actually gave its stamp of approval to at least fifteen fake products. As (surprisingly) reported by the Associated Press,

Fifteen phony products — including a gasoline-powered alarm clock — won a label from the government certifying them as energy efficient in a test of the federal "Energy Star" program.
Investigators concluded the program is "vulnerable to fraud and abuse."
A report released Friday said government investigators tried to pass off 20 fake products as energy efficient, and only two were rejected. Three others didn't get a response.

Why this should surprise anyone is beyond me. Government programs by definition are usually inefficient and frequently corrupt (TARP, the Stimulus, etc). The Department of Motor Vehicles is famously incompetent and the US Postal Service's lack of service is so well known that going to the Post Office has become as enjoyable as having a tooth pulled out with pliers. And we haven't even gotten mentioned the power-hungry would-be overlords at the EPA or Congressional staffers.

But when Big Government takes over your health care, of course, it will all be different.

Thoughts on the FDA

I had an interesting discussion with a colleague the other day about the efficacy (or lack thereof) of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). he claimed that they do not perform the necessary checking of new products, thus producing products whose negative side effects far outweigh the benefits they supposedly produce. My counter-argument, also against the FDA, was based on the idea that a panel of government bureaucrats could do a better job determining what is or is not good for society than consumers as a group, seeing as how no regulation can guarantee to eliminate all bad results (name one that has. Can you? I cannot.)

However, I read a fascinating post today on the FDA over at Fight Aging. The main thrust was to point out that the the FDA, like most regulatory bodies, is not in the business of enabling progress. Quite the opposite, in fact. Author "Reason" writes,

There is no open marketplace for medical technology in the developed world, however. Instead, we see a very different set of incentives dominating the state of research and development. Regulatory bodies like the FDA have every incentive to stop the release of new medicine: the government employees involved suffer far more from bad press for an approved medical technology than they do from the largely unexamined consequences of heavy regulation. These consequences go far beyond the obvious and announced disapproval of specific medical technologies: the far greater cost lies in all the research, innovation and development that was never undertaken because regulatory burdens ensure there would be no profit for the developer. Personal gain for the regulator is thus to destroy the gains of people they will never meet, the exact opposite of what occurs in an open marketplace.

I myself abhor the effects of the HMOs and the vast regulatory and legal stranglehold that government has put on health care. if government and lawyers would simply allow the medical market to work. I believe that we would be surprised at how fast our medical technology and mastery advanced. But of course, that would eliminate the massive paydays for imagined malpractice suits, and the chances for government functionaries to flex their power without worrying about consequences.

As we approach a Presidential election in which at least two of the possible candidates (Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton) want to hand over control of our health to the same functionaries who have managed to blunt medical progress for the past twenty years, it is something to consider. As for me, I want less government interference, not more. And the sooner we can get the lawyers out of medicine, the better off we all will be. Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds

Never Forget

Today is the sixth anniversary of the deadly terror attacks on the United States by Osama bin Laden's al-Quaeda organization, part aof a worldwide Muslim imperialist movement to destroy Christian and Jewish civilizations. al-Quaeda, like many other Islamist groups around the world, espouses a traditional, fundamentalist approach to the Kporan, taking its words literally. Thererfore, when the Koran tells its followers to destroy the infidel, al-Quaeda and its allies take that as divine orders, and thus the current war against Islamic fundamentalists should be considered a part of Islam's long-running war against the West.

We should never forget the heroism displayed by so many that day in 2001, and also we should never forget the despicable attacks by these cowardly men- afraid of granting women rights, afraid of showing their faces in publicl, and afraid to fight an open war against the United States military. But we shouldd also never forget that Islam has been attacking and destroying non-Islamic civilizations since the mid-sixth century AD. The invasion of Spain, India and the destruction of the ancient civilizations of North Africa was unprovoked by any attack on Islam. The attacks and eventual conquering of one of Christiandom's most ancient cities- Constantinople (known today as Istanbul), were unprovoked- the Eastern Roman emperors had little interest in conquering Islamic territory, and I am unaware of any such attempts from the West. In addition, the Muslims weere invading Europe as far west as Vienna in 1699, where they were repulsed. Since that time, no Muslim armed force has attempted to defeat the West by force of arms- they have preferred the Soviet method of destruction from within, using the many useful idiots and ignorant do-gooders who reside in the ranks of the Press and the educational establishments.

On this day, let us remember the bravery of men like Staff Sergeant Dave Karnes and Sergeant Jason Thomas. Let us remember the courage of Todd Beamer and his 'Let's Roll' that led to the frustration of the Flight 93 hijackers' plans. Let us celebrate their heroism, along with the bravery of all the current and former members of the United States Armed Forces who are currently defending us by taking the fight to Islam in the deserts of Iraq and all around the world.

But let us remember also that our enemy is patient, without mercy and utterly conscienceless. To Islamists, no Christian is an innocent. There are no such things as 'civilians' and fighting using methods that most of us find abhorrent is their modus operandi, as they are well aware that they cannot defeat us on the battlefield in a straight fight. Our enemy also has learned well the Soviet art of disinformation and undermining- helped, I regret to say, by the cowardly partisan hacks who are so prevalent in our media and in Congress.

Today is the sixth anniversary of a deadly attack. But if our eyes were opened, and if we can but sustain the resolve, we will triumph in the end. Islam cannot offer anything compared to what our society's freedom can, and ultimately, I believe we will win, if only our politicians and media will allow us.

Electoral Change in California

Ed Morrissey has been following the Democrats' attempt to sabotage the Electoral College over on Heading Right. As he has noted, Democrats were unhappy that George W. Bush won the 2000 election depite not winning the overall national popular vote. They have proposed several semi-legal solutions to this, including having states agree to assign their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote instead of assigning the electoral votes to the winner of the state's popular vote as has been traditional.

However, Democrats nationwide are not too pleased about California's plan to address the situation. As reported by Captain Ed, California voters support a plan to split the electoral vote between the winners of the various counties. Two electoral votes would be given to the winner fo the state's popular vote, but the remaining 53 would go to the winners of the state's fifty-three counties. And a plurality of Californians are in support of this idea, including half of all Democrats.

This seems to me a good idea both for fairness and for the effect it would have on the two political parties. Since California is dominated by the far-left enclaves of San Francisco Bay and the Los Angeles area, the more-conservative Central Valley is often forgotten, and Repoublicans rarely spend much time or effort in the state, knowing that the liberal blocs in the cities guarantee Democratic wins in the state. If this change were to take effeect, then Republicans would need to spend time in california, benefitting both Californians and ultimately, maybe the Republican Party as well. Even Democrats might be benefitted by some competition, as they currently own California in a one-party system.

Captain Ed also pointed out that California has often been a "harbinger of political movements" and I agree with him that this change has nothing but positives for both parties. Instead of a winner-take-all result, now both parties, and even some third parties have reason to compete. The downside is that it does encourage small parties like the Greens to muddy the waters, and the last thing we need is an arrangement like much of Europe, where no single party can gain enough seats to govern., Fortunately, the fact that our Head of State is NOT the Head of the Winning Party in Congress helps us to be somewhat immune to that sort of madness.

Of course, this also means that if the ballot proposal passes, a Democratic nominee for President would face a much more difficult time of winning the national election if California's fifty-five electoral votees were not gauranteed to go to the Democrat. Hillary has problems now, and without all of California's electoral votes, I don't think she stands any chance of winning at all. But the best effect would be to allow the voters to choose- not some party operatives working in the back-room darkness.

Model Health Care?

I am not a supporter of government-run health care. Nor am I a proponent of universal health care, a la the Hillary Clinton model or any other socialist scheme. That being said, however, there is no question that the United States health care model could use some improvement. I would fight against adopting the Canadian (or God forbid, the Cuban) model that Hillary and other rich hypocrites like Michael Moore want to foist upon us. But there may be a viable alternative or two out there.

With that in mind, former Senator Jim Talent of Missouri, who is currently Chairman of the Romney for President Domestic Policy Task Force, has written an article praising Romney's reform of the Massachusetts health-care industry. While the source must be considered, if Talent's article is correct, then this may be one possibility for reforming the national health=-care system as well. But I still have a few concerns:

First, we need to ensure that illegal aliens cannot access any new national health-care system. If they need medical care, they need to pay up-front for it; they should not be allowed any of its benefits otherwise.

Second, we need to ensure that government gets its nose out of healthcare. The last thing we need is more bureaucracy involved in our health-care system. Deregulation is essential if any real reform is to succeed. The key, as Talent says in describing Romney's reforms,

Finally, Governor Romney recognized that competition is the key to the success of any market – so doing what no one had ever done before, he created a new market where consumers can go to pick the health care plan that suits them best.

Competition, not over-regulation, is the key to success. If everyone is concentrating on producing the best product for the least amount of money, and the consumer is able to choose, then many of the current issues will go away in my opinion.

Finally we need to get lawyers out of the equation. too many doctors and medical institutions are so fearful of these ambulance-chasers that they will do unnecessary tests, driving up sots, so as to avoid deadly lawsuits. We need to cap malpractice awards and also to eliminate the ability of people who have actually never suffered to gain from class-action lawsuits. Get lawyers out of healthcare and I think we will find that healthcare becomes affordable again. Maybe if doctors refused care to lawyers that might be a start?

Talent's article does not provide enough information to make a truly informed opinion on the success or failure of Romney's reforms in Massachusetts. But is does provide a possible path for national reform, if taken judiciously. Read the whole thing.

About that Democratic Congress...

You probably won't see many reports of this in the mainstream media, but it appears that despite the media shilling for Democrats, the Democratic-controlled Congress is not particularly popular with the American public. According to a new Gallup poll, Congress' approval rating has matched a historic low- only 18 percent of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing.

In contrast, President Bush's approval ratings are holding steady in the low 30 percent range. The same Gallup poll reports that Bush has an approval rating of 32 percent. While Bush's low approval rating can be traced to the unceasingly negative coverage of the Iraq campaign as well as his stumbles on immigration and other policies that upset his core constituency, Congress does not have that excuse.

Democrats took Congress, as Gallup mentions, on voter disgust with Republican profligacy and scandals. But Pelosi and Company have proven even more corrupt and than the Republicans they replaced. Perhaps if Congress would concentrate more on the job they are supposed to be doing- such as cleaning up the pork-laden members of the new Democratic majority- and less on trying to manufacture scandals that do not exist, they might be able to hang on to their majority in the next elections. At this rate however, Nancy Pelosi's reign as Madame Speaker may be short.

TSA Whiffs Again

As a frequent business traveler, I am not an admirer of the TSA (Transportation Security Administration). I regard it as inconsistent, largely incompetent and staffed with people who should definitely not be allowed any authority, let alone responsible for their fellow countrymen's security and safety. This is not to say that airport security is a bad idea. However, the implementation into one more needless government bueaucracy is a disaster. If terrorists have been unable to strike the United States since September 11, 2001, most of the credit should go to our intrepid military, not to the bunglers of the TSA.

Now we find even more evidence that the TSA is a disgrace and should be disbanded immediately. According to the San Diego Union-tribune, TSA officers not only lost track of a bad containing suspicious substances, but couldn't even identify the bag's owner.
According to the report,

Security officers tried to find the passenger and the bag but they did not have a good description of the person and didn't know the destination of the bag.

Officials decided to evacuate several hundred travelers in the terminal and have them go through security once again, Melendez said.

The security breach caused delays for flights on U.S. Airways, America West, Continental, and Delta.

And then of course, TSA tried to blame their own incompetence on the traveler! According to spokeperson Nico Melandez anyway, who said, "“If this passenger didn't have those liquids, none of this would have happened."

Um, no, Mr. Melandez. If your agency weren't so ridiculously inept none of this would have happened. It is not the traveler's fault for losing the bag, nor is it the traveler's fault that your agents were unable to identify the passenger in question, thus forcing many innocent people to be seriously inconvenienced. If the TSA could perform its duties in a consistent and professional manner, maybe even using some common sense, then I would have much higher respect. However, as it is, the TSA's record is worse than the DMV's. At least the DMV eventually gets things done. TSA can't even do that.

Democratic Defeat

The Democrats and their allies in the so-called mainstream media have long been working to ensure that the United States does not prevail in the Iraqi Campaign, while they simultaneously tell us that they "support the troops". This work was revealed for all to see today by House Majority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina, who admitted that a strongly positive report by General David Petraeus would "impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war".

Clyburn was at least honest in admitting that the Democratic party has become without apology the party of defeat. They cannot bring themselves to put the national interest over their narrow partisan goals, and they above all cannot and will not root for American success. if the United States goes to battle, you can count on most of the Democratic Party (including their mouthpieces in the national Press) to do all in their power to make sure America loses.

The Washington Post newspaper reported of Clyburn's comments:

Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.

"I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn said. "We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report."

Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."

I have a couple of problems with this. First, why does General petraeus carry weight only among the Blue Dog Democrats and not among the rest of the party? Is this because most Democrats do not respect military leaders, or because they simply will not listen to anything that might support the continuance of the campaign?

Secondly, where is the disapproval from Americans that a national political party has dedicated itself to the defeat of its own people? For that is what the Democrats and their Press allies seek. For some reason they seem to feel that defeating George Bush is more important than defeating Islamic imperialists. Let me remind Democrats that Islam despises most of the causes Leftists and Democrats hold dear, including abortion on demand, gay and lesbian relationships, a free Press (though how much Democrats actually support a truly free Press is in doubt), and an open political speech (here again, how much Democrats really support free speech is in question).

I thank Representative Clyburn for his openness and honesty. However, I am truly amazed that this clear declaration of the Democratic Party's determination to work for the defeat of their own country does not prompt outcry and maybe even criminal charges. Clyburn's comments are an admission that much of the Democratic Party is working to assist our country's enemies. Didn't that used to be called treason?

Racing Toward Defeat

Democrats have long been trying to force the United States to lose the Iraq Campaign in the global war against Muslim aggression and terrorism without being forced to bear the consequences for said loss. While they do not have the intestinal fortitude to end the war the one way they indisputably have the Constitutional power to use- end funding for the troops- they have tried a variety of methods to allow the Islamist forces to win.

Now, The Politico is reporting that Democrats have issued orders to "blitz their states with anti-Bush messages" as they prepare for an overnight session in the Congress that just happens to coincide with nationwide rallies pro-Muslim groups such as MoveOn.org.

The Politico reports,

Leaders are instructing Democratic lawmakers to blitz their states with anti-Bush messages as the Senate gears up for an all-night debate on Iraq withdrawal, according to an internal memo provided to The Politico by a Democratic official.

“We need every Senator’s help throughout the next two days to amplify our message and highlight Republican obstructionism,” says the memo from the Senate Democratic Communications Center, part of the office of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.). “This is a caucus-wide effort and your help is needed.”

Obstructionism? Coming from the Democratic Party, this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Let us not forget that it was Democrats who used the obstructionism tactic to block many initiatives by the Republican majority in the previous two Congresses. As a single example, Democrats filibustered to block Republican-nominated judges from receiving an up-or-down vote in the Senate.

Republicans, on the other hand, have yet to filibuster anything in this Congress. However, they are perfectly justified in blocking legislation with which they disagree. That is the method by which the Founders set up the system- checks and balances. If the Democrats wish to pass legislation, they will have to work with Republicans- just as Republicans had to work with Democrats when they held the majority.

However, the tactic I find most repugnant is the Democrats' willingness to use rhetoric that has no place in these United States. When did it become acceptable to equate a sitting, twice-elected President who has clearly broken no laws with an appointed dictator who used street gangs to consolidate his power, as Representative Keith Ellison recently did? Since when is it acceptable to paint one's opponent as a criminal, as the Democrats seem to have no problem doing to George W. Bush?

I would hope that we can disagree without descending into the fever-swamps of hate. During the Clinton years, while there was plenty of anger among some talk-show hosts, no Republican called Clinton a criminal, nor did anyone make any comparisons to illegitimate regimes, though some of Clinton's actions- notably the seizure of Elian Gonzalez against a court order- certainly were borderline illegal. But Democrats seem to think that this kind of rhetoric is acceptable when used against Republicans, though when conservatives point out Democrats' own questionable alliances- such as Ellison's long-standing relationship with the terrorist-aiding Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Democrats scream bloody murder.

It's time that we the people put our foot down. There is no place for this kind of speech in American politics, and any politician who engages in it ought to be shown the door immediately. Whether it is Republican or Democrat, one should be able to disagree and argue the issues on their merits without engaging in the kind of character assassination that the Democrats have made part of their arsenal since the 2000 election.

And a word for the media as well- the arena of ideas is one in which issues should be presented for the people to determine. It is not the media's job to try to tell us what to think. Lay out your opinions, by all means, but straight news is straight news. I fear too many of our so-called journalists have forgotten that simple fact.

Sense On Environment

At last. After much hyperbole from most members of the media regarding global warming- a topic that no reporter has any real knowledege of and which is certainly still controversial at best- a reporter injects a little common sense into the debate. Doron Levin, a Michigan-based reporter for the Bloomberg News wrote a colomn on July 10 noting that while the command-economists are rightly ridiculed, the global-warming crowd seeks exactly the same thing.

Levin wrote,

The folks against sports cars in Europe and big sport utility vehicles in the U.S. often are same ones who hate McMansion-sized homes, corporate jets, jumbo freezers, yachts, 60-inch flat-screens TVs, overnight-delivery services and other trappings of Western-style wealth and energy use.

Do people demonize these goods because they can't afford them? Or because they think others shouldn't have them? Proposals to limit carbon dioxide often sound like basic opposition to prosperity and rising living standards.

Planet in Peril?

Outside of a handful of command economies, few today would agree that a central authority ought to regulate who owns what. But attacking those who ``waste'' energy achieves the same goal.

Many ardent environmentalists are convinced that the planet is in peril. Why can't they be just a bit cautious, humble or skeptical in their advocacy of reduced energy consumption, which in turn must mean reduced global economic growth?

The main reason I'm wary of Al Gore's call for radical, immediate reduction of worldwide energy consumption is that he's way too sure that the human race is on the cusp of catastrophe. With no credentials of his own, Gore relies on scientists who insist we must hurry because we're approaching a point of no return.

This is completely true. Most environmentalists are the same as the groups who want to ban all luxurues and who wish to cripple Wesstern ecomonmies though somehow they have no provblem leaving much greater-polluting Third-World economies alone. COuld it be that this is because said Third-World countries actually can enforce restrictions on what these do-gooders want? Or is because the population of he third world contains violent fasnatics who are willing to kill to reach their desires- such as is common aomng Muslim countries? in any event, it is telling that the green crowd only tries to enforce their restrictions on wealthy countries where they have access to a Press who supports their goals.

One can only hope that the American people will read Mr. Levin's comments, as opposed to those of hypocritical bloviators such as Al Gore.

Congressional Concerns

We discussed in a post earlier in the week the fact that the new Democratic Congress is now enduring popularity ratings far lower even than those of President Bush. In fact, as at least one Gallup Poll reported, Congress' approval may be as low as 14 percent.

As a result, as Reuters reports, the Democrats in charge of Congress are beginning to feel the pressure of actually governing. While they were in a minority, they were free to snipe at will, secure in the knowledge that there would be no consequences, as their minority status, coupled with their free propagandists in the mainsstream media would ensure that their message was spread to the American people without the necesssity of producing specifc plans for change. Unfortunately, elections do have consequences, and the Democratic victory in the 2006 mid-term elections has now forced the Democrats to try to come up with a trategy that will make their nutroots happy, whiloe sparing them the responsibility for a massive defeat in the war against Islamic Agression.

All of the pressure has Democrats worried. According to Reuters,

Experts attribute the woeful rankings to an inability to force a change in direction in Iraq, the priority Democrats campaigned on to gain power in both the House of Representatives and the Senate in last November's elections.

But that is not all. There has been little to show on other priorities, including a change in Social Security and other entitlement programs that will run out of money in the years ahead, in addition to overhauling a health care system that has left millions uninsured and a broken immigration policy.

"I think Americans were expecting a great deal from the new Congress, and Congress has always been held in low esteem, but Congress really hasn't delivered on what it promised, especially on Iraq," said Paul Light, a congressional expert who is a professor at New York University.

I think that ultimately, Democrats need to focus on delivering something to the American people, and forcing a defeat in Iraq may backfire on them, as polls consistently show that while Americans are tired of the war, they also still support achieving victory by a wide margin, and do not want a retreat or defeat. This places the Democrats in a tough position, and unless they can somehow deliver either a Republican scandal or a legislative victory, they may find that the same voters who turned against Republicans in the last election may turn on them in turn in the next one.

Sheehan for Congress!

It is hard to believe that the nutroots lurking in the fever swamps of the hard left can possibly belive that somehow Nancy Pelosi is not a sincere enough believer in the bnutroots preferrred strategy of retreat, surrender and defeat in the face of Muslim aggression. However, it seems that at least one nut does indeed believe exactly that. Acccording to Breitbart News, Cindy Sheehan will challenge Nancy Pelosi in the 2008 Congressional elections.

Sheehan's reasons for challenging Pelosi are that she claims Pelosi isn't working hard enough to hand the Muslim terrorists victory in the Iraq campaign. Breitbart reports that,

Sheehan, a Californian, officially announced that she intends to run as an independent against Pelosi in 2008 if the San Francisco congresswoman doesn't move to impeach Bush by July 23, the day she expects to reach Washington.

However, those are not the only reasons Sheehan has decided to run for office. She also says that,

Bush should be impeached because she believes he misled the public about the reasons for going to war, violated the Geneva Convention with the torture of detainees and crossed the line by commuting the prison sentence of former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

These statements show such an incredible lack of understanding that is it hard to know where to begin. Her claim that Bush "misled the public" has been debiunked often enough thatr we should not need to do it again here. However, for anyone who somehow has managed to completely close their ears, let's recap. Bush used Hussein's proven possession of weapons of mass destruction as the main rationnale for his removal of Hussein, based on analysis from every single intellignce agency at the time. In addition, every major Democratic leader had made similar statements prior to Bush's election, and the U.S. Congress, on the basis of information that was less alarming than that showed to the President voted to give Bush the authority to proceed against Hussein. No one was misled, though the aftermath clearly showed that our Intelligence either was seriously in error or Hussein managed to successfully hide his wepons program before his removal. In either case, acting on the best information available at the time, no matter whether it was correct or not, does not constitute "misleading".

As for the Geneva Convention argument, let us remind Ms. Sheehan of the following:

• The United States signed andd ratified the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, which specifically restrict their scope to organized armed forces and specifically exclude groups such as Hezbollah and al-Quaeda from its protections.


• The additional Geneva Protocols of 1977, which did extend the protections of the Geneva Conventions to terrorists like Hamas, Hezbollah and al-Quaeda, were signed in 1977 but never ratified by the United States, thus per the United States Constitution those Protocols do not bind us, despite what some judges may think.

That anyone would even make this argument shows that they are entirely ignorant both of the terms of the U.S. Constitution, and also the terms of the actual Geneva Conventions signed and ratified by the United States. So let me remind Ms. Sheehan of the actual text of the Constitution on the topic:
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."
The preceding refers to the fact that the President may sign a treaty, as President Carter did in 1977, but that without the concurrence of two-thirds of the Sernate, it is not legally binding. Although President Carter signed the Protocols, the Senate refused to ratify, thus the protocols do not bind the United States. If Ms. Sheehan wishes to become a member of Congress, it might behoove her to actually know the text of the document she swears to uphold.

As for Sheehan's accusations of torture, she has a curiously narrow definition. Apprently it is only torture when it is done by Americans to Muslims? However, I find her thoughts on the subject difficult to take seriously until and unless she condemns the actions taken by our enemies with as much fervor as she uses to condemn her own countrymen. We have not beheaded anyone, nor have we forced them to plead, or forcibly converted them to any other religion. All of this has been done by the Mulsims we are fighting, yet i do not recall Sheehan or anyone else on the Left issuing condemnations. Have they forgotten the rapes of the captured Supply Corps soldiers? Or is it that the dignity and rights of the Muslim terrorists are more dear to them than the dignity and rights of their own countrymen and women?

Finally to address her last accusation, that of the President "crossing the line by commuting Lewis Libby's sentence". Ms. Sheehan, the constitution specifically give the President the power to do precisely that. While I do not necessarily agree that he ought to have intervened in this case, he absolutely has the power to commute and even pardon anyone other than those impeached and removed from office. Thus to claim that he somehow "over-stepped" shows again a lack of familiarity with the powers specifically granted to the president under the Constitution.

If Sheehan wishes to run against Pelosi, she is welcome. One far-left hypocrite replacing another will not affect the balance of power in the House. But her lack of familiarity with her own Constitution and her self-serving moral equivalency make her more a buffoon than a serious contender.

Congressional Priorities

The Democratic majorities in the 110th Congress clearly took their victory in the last election as a mandate to try to find evidence of misdoings by the current Administration. And, according to Ed Morrissey over at Heading Right, they have indeed so far spent most of their time looking for said evidence.

Unfortunately for them, these efforts have both distracted them from their Constitutional duty of passing legislation and have turned up no evidence of any wrongdoing. And it appears that the Administration is finally getting tired of the entire circus. As the White House spokesman, Scott Stanzel reminded the media yesterday, Congress has launched over three hundred investigations since taking power in January. And he also reminded reporters that the White House has so far turned over 200000 pages of documentation regarding these many investigations. But while Congress has been steadfast in their investigating, how many pieces of legislation have they passed? Six. Yes, you heard that right. Six- and that includes the troops' funding that took them almost two months to put together.

According to a July 5th article in The Hill newspaper,

Bush spokesman Scott Stanzel told reporters during the daily briefing that the White House has been subject to an average of about six oversight hearings a day since Democrats took control of Congress. In that time, he added, the administration has turned over 200,000 pages of documents.
Said Stanzel: “I would raise those issues because it raises the question, what does Congress want to do? Do they want to pass legislation for the American people or would they rather investigate and have politics be the course of the day?

Personally, I agree with the Heading Right commenter "Skip" who wrote, "Let’s rephrase that. Would the American people rather have them passing laws, or investigating? For me personally, having them spinning their wheels in meaningless investigations is just about optimal, rather than passing bad laws. I take it as a given that passing good laws is out of the question."

Unfortunately, with the recently postponed immigration boondoggle, together with the threats about the Fairness Doctrine (which we all know would never be enforced against the hopelessly liberal media like PBS), and the not-so-veiled threats to try to force the U.S. military to surrender to the Islamists, I must agree with Skip. I also would rather Congress spend their energies investigating crimes that exist only in the nut-roots' collective imagination than actually passing bad legislation. However, the investigation strategy does hold some element of risk for the Democrats. I agree with Captain Ed, who writes,

By the time of the next election, Democrats had better show some heads on the wall with these multitude of investigations, or some significant legislative victories, or both. If they have neither, they can kiss their majority good-bye.

.

In my opinion, the sooner the better, so long as a Democratic loss of Congress doesn't translate into President Hillary. That really would be a disaster.

Hat tip to Captain's Quarters.

...and STAY Dead!

Teddy Kennedy's hopes for an influx of new Democratic voters and President Bush's hopes of gaining a major domestic legislative legacy came crashing down in the United States Senate today. As the Associated Press sadly reports,

President Bush's immigration plan to legalize as many as 12 million unlawful immigrants while fortifying the border collapsed in the Senate on Thursday, crushing both parties' hopes of addressing the volatile issue before the 2008 elections.
The Senate vote that drove a stake through the delicate compromise was a stinging setback for Bush, who had made reshaping immigration laws a central element of his domestic agenda. It could carry heavy political consequences for Republicans and Democrats, many of whom were eager to show they could act on a complex issue of great interest to the public.

After the defeat of the bill, President Bush was reported as saying,

"Legal immigration is one of the top concerns of the American people and Congress' failure to act on it is a disappointment," a grim-faced president said after an appearance in Newport, R.I. "A lot of us worked hard to see if we couldn't find common ground. It didn't work."

Actually, Mr. President, if this were about legal immigration, the voters probably wouldn't be nearly so upset. It is the fact that this was a blatant attempt to give the benfits of American citizenship to folks without their earning it that enraged so many Americans. Why is it so hard for Washington to realise the difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL immigration?

While this is a much-needed show of empathy with the concerns of their LEGAL constituents by Senators, I disagree with the A.P.'s analysis that it could have "heavy political consequences for Democrats and Republicans", however. It has been plain throughout that a very large majority of voters in both Democratic and Republican parties was furiously opposed to this shamefully conceived attempt to ramrod millions of new illegals down the throats of American voters who have already been forecd to pay for the many peccadillos of earlier attempts at amnesty.

I think that the Republicans (and Democrats) who so strongly opposed the bill will reap rewards, while the forces of amnesty (excluding the buffoonish Kennedy, who is essentially unbeatable in Massachusetts) may well suffer for their attempt to push this shamnesty past American voters. If I were a supporter of amnesty, I would be hoping that voters forget before I face them again. The House, who would have been most concerned, must have breathed a sigh of relief, as the failure of the Senate to force cloture means the House does not even need to address the issue.

Hopefully this will serve as a lesson that however much illegals lobby Congress, American citizens and legal residents do not like to see criminals granted privileges that they cannot access. And that is what this bill amounted to- an attempt to give Mexican criminals more rights in the United States than Americans. Remember, Congresspeople- it is legal voters who hold your fate in their hands- not illegals from across the border. Next time, maybe you can figure out that simply enforcing existing laws and securing the border must come befroe you attempt to further dilute this great county with an influx of those who neither deserve nor waznt to become American.

Partners for Power

Anyone who reads any sort of reliable news provider (that eliminates the New York Times) is aware that the United States, along with most other Western democratic republics, is dependent on foreign oil. The problem with this is that most oil outside of the United States proper is in countries whose governments are at best unfriendly to the ideals of Western freedom (Russia, other Communist countries) and at worst who are actively trying to destroy Western culture (Middle Eastern Muslim countries).

However, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. David Sokol, chairman of the MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company, today has an interesting opinion-editorial in the Washington Post online edition on how the United States can achieve energy self-sufficiency and at the same time reduce damaging emissions.

Sokol proposes that,

What's needed is a joint effort from the power sector, customers and the environmental community to push Congress and the Bush administration to live up to their rhetoric on clean coal, renewables, new nuclear power and efficiency programs.

Federal research and development funding for energy has declined 85 percent since the early 1980s, and efforts to fund the initiatives authorized in the 2005 Energy Policy Act have been sporadic at best. The $7 billion to $9 billion that President Kennedy sought for the space program in 1961 would be the equivalent of $46 billion to $60 billion today. By contrast, the Energy Department's annual civilian R&D budget is barely $2 billion.

...

This effort could be financed through a small fee (one-twentieth of a cent) applied to every kilowatt of energy sold in the United States. Combined with matching federal funds, this could provide about $4 billion annually -- enough, experts believe, to develop the technology to reduce emissions 25 percent below 2000 levels by the year 2030, with dramatic reductions thereafter.

Sokol has the right idea, though I agree with Captain Ed Morrissey over at Captain's Quarters, who describes Sokol as "being right for the wrong reasons." Morrissey correctly notes that where Sokol targets climate change as a reason for this program, climate change is "hardly the greatest challenge to our generation", despite what global government- enthusiasts like Al Gore and dipsy anti-American socialists like Barbara Boxer think. However, getting America weaned from foreign oil, especially foreign oil controlled by the very people who want to destroy our culture is an excellent idea.

Personally, I would like to see nuclear power come back in vogue. The environmentalism movement, with their usual short-sighted selfishness, did a very good job of killing the industry back in the 1970s, but nuclear power represents the only true long-term alternative to oil. And nuclear power is far cleaner than coal, or oil, or any other high-return energy source. Wind power and solar power, while undoubtedly eco-friendly, are far too region-specific and too undependable to ever replace oil, coal and other sources that really power the country.

In the main, Sokol presents an excellent argument for government and industry to work together as they did in the space program to bring America to independence in energy. However, i wish he had focused on the real threat foreign oil holds- that of dependence on one's enemies, as opposed to the less credulous threat of unspecified "climate change".

Hat tip to Captain's Quarters.

Congressional Approval

The Press has been telling us for some time about how unpopular President Bush is, with somewhere around 30 percent approval ratings. But what about that wonderful Democratic Congress that they helpd foist upon us back in November? How are the Democrats doing in succeeding the pork-happy Republican Congress that frustrated voters threw out in 2006?

It turns out there is good reason why reporters have been silent of late on Congress. According to a new Gallup poll out today, Congress' approval has hit a record low- only 14 percent of Americans approve of the job they are doing. As a matter of honesty, I must note that this definitely surpasses the numbers of the Republican Congress the Democrats succeeded. In fact, according to Gallup,

This 14% Congressional confidence rating is the all-time low for this measure, which Gallup initiated in 1973. The previous low point for Congress was 18% at several points in the period of time 1991 to 1994.

So, members of the Press. You have been vigilant in keeping the President's depressing approval numbers in the news, though they have barely wavered over the last couple of years. However, when the new Congress came in, their numbers were trumpeted all over the front pages as a mark of their ability to fix things in Washington. Why the sudden silence?

Interestingly, the group of organization that received the highest marks of confidence from the American public in the latest poll? The United States military, which came in at a whopping 69 percent approval. One would think that military-bashers like Harry Reid (D- Nevada) and Nancy Pelosi (D- California) might want to take that into consideration the next time they open their defeatist mouths. After all, the US military in the last four years has overthrown two dictatorships and freed millions of people while being led in a resolute manner by their Commander in Chief. What have Pelosi and Reid accomplished, other than giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States?

Two for One in 2008

If Hillary Clinton wins the 2008 Presidential election, then according to the London Telegraph, the United States will get two Presidents for the price of one. The Telegraph reports,

Carl Bernstein, one of the reporters who broke the Watergate scandal which brought down Richard Nixon, told The Daily Telegraph that the couple would operate a joint presidency in which Bill would advise on policy and tactics as well as act as trouble shooter.

"There is no question in my mind it would be a co-presidency because he has better judgment than she does on most political matters. He would be a constant presence," said Mr Bernstein.

Captain Ed asks the question, If Bill has better political judgment than Hillary, then why isn't the Democratic Party looking for a President who can stand on his/her own two feet instead?. This is so true. It is becoming more and more apparent that the Democrats are trying to bring back a second Bill Clinton Presidency under the auspices of his wife.

Didn't we already try this two-for-one idea in 1992? And my memory says that it was not much of a success. However the more important point is that if this report is true, it also brings up a Constitutional question. The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution clearly limits Presidents to serving only two terms. Yet it seems that the Clintons are trying to make an end-run around this by having Hillary President in name while Bill actually runs the country. One would question how a judge would interpret this, but I think the only legal answer would be for the Judiciary to make sure Bill has no policy role whatsoever in her new government.


This seems to me to be precisely the kind of situation that the 22nd Amendment was designed to prevent. But it perfectly sums up the Clintons' approach to life- if the letter of the law prevents it, find a way to sneak around so that they can continue to do what they wish. Look at Hillary's commodities trading. There seems to be little doubt that she broke the spirit of the law if not the letter, yet it benefitted her, so the law was seen as no barrier. This idea of being above the law was also on view in Bill's troubles with his various floozies. The Clinton Presidency has often been called "imperial" in nature, and Hillary's influence in it was immense. Do we really want to go through all this again? And this time, we would have President Hillary- a confirmed ideologue as opposed to the essentially lazy Bill. We can only hope that the American pepole will reject this attempt at the ballot box.

Hat tip to Ed Morrissey.

Talking about 2008

...the only thing we are sure of is that no one with the surname of Bush is running. However, everything else is pretty much up in the air. Michael Barone has written a thoughtful essay discussing what may happen in the upcoming 2008 campaign.

Although he dissects the political atmosphere at some length, Barone's main suggestion is that,

Now we seem to be entering a new period, a period of open-field politics. It seems to be a time when there are no permanent alliances, when new leaders arise with new strategies and tactics, when the voters, instead of forming themselves into two coherent and cohesive armies, wander about the field, attaching themselves to one band and then another, with no clear lines of battle and no landmarks to rally beside.

He goes on to compare the coming election with three somewhat similar situations and comes up with the 1992 Labour win in the United Kingdom, the 1952 Eisenhower win in the United States and 1992 run of Ross Perot. His own opinion seems to be that the 1952 scenario is the most likely, though he stops short of predicting that Republicans will retake the Congress. I am not sure I agree with all of Barone's opinions on the election, but as always, he offers eminently intelligent and well-reasoned thoughts. Read the whole thing.

Hat tip to Power Line.