Wednesday, February 28, 2007


Even right-wingers who know that "global warming" is a crock do not seem to grasp what the tree-huggers are demanding. Liberals want mass starvation and human devastation.

Forget the lunacy of people claiming to tell us the precise temperature of planet Earth in 1918 based on tree rings. Or the fact that in the '70s liberals were issuing similarly dire warnings about "global cooling."

Simply consider what noted climatologists Al Gore and Melissa Etheridge are demanding that we do to combat their nutty conjectures about "global warming." They want us to starve the productive sector of fossil fuel and allow the world's factories to grind to a halt. This means an end to material growth and a cataclysmic reduction in wealth.

There are more reputable scientists defending astrology than defending "global warming," but liberals simply announce that the debate has been resolved in their favor and demand that we shut down all production.

They think they can live in a world of only Malibu and East Hampton -- with no Trentons or Detroits. It does not occur to them that someone has to manufacture the tiles and steel and glass and solar panels that go into those "eco-friendly" mansions, and someone has to truck it all to their beachfront properties, and someone else has to transport all the workers there to build it. (And then someone has to drive the fleets of trucks delivering the pachysandra and bottled water every day.)

Liberals are already comfortably ensconced in their beachfront estates, which they expect to be unaffected by their negative growth prescriptions for the rest of us.

There was more energy consumed in the manufacture, construction and maintenance of Leonardo DiCaprio's Malibu home than is needed to light the entire city of Albuquerque, where there are surely several men who can actually act. But he has solar panels to warm his house six degrees on chilly Malibu nights.

Liberals haven't the foggiest idea how the industrial world works. They act as if America could reduce its vast energy consumption by using fluorescent bulbs and driving hybrid cars rather than SUVs. They have no idea how light miraculously appears when they flick a switch or what allows them to go to the bathroom indoors in winter -- luxuries Americans are not likely to abandon because Leo DiCaprio had solar panels trucked into his Malibu estate.

Our lives depend on fossil fuel. Steel plants, chemical plants, rubber plants, pharmaceutical plants, glass plants, paper plants -- those run on energy. There are no Mother Earth nursery designs in stylish organic cotton without gas-belching factories, ships and trucks, and temperature-controlled, well-lighted stores. Windmills can't even produce enough energy to manufacture a windmill.

Because of the industrialization of agriculture -- using massive amounts of fossil fuel -- only 2 percent of Americans work in farming. And yet they produce enough food to feed all 300 million Americans, with plenty left over for export. When are liberals going to break the news to their friends in Darfur that they all have to starve to death to save the planet?

"Global warming" is the left's pagan rage against mankind. If we can't produce industrial waste, then we can't produce. Some of us -- not the ones with mansions in Malibu and Nashville is my guess -- are going to have to die. To say we need to reduce our energy consumption is like saying we need to reduce our oxygen consumption.

Liberals have always had a thing about eliminating humans. Stalin wanted to eliminate the kulaks and Ukranians, vegetarian atheist Adolf Hitler wanted to eliminate the Jews, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger wanted to eliminate poor blacks, DDT opponent Rachel Carson wanted to eliminate Africans (introduction to her book "Silent Spring" written by ... Al Gore!), and population-control guru Paul Ehrlich wants to eliminate all humans.

But global warming is the most insane, psychotic idea liberals have ever concocted to kill off "useless eaters." If we have to live in a pure "natural" environment like the Indians, then our entire transcontinental nation can only support about 1 million human beings. Sorry, fellas -- 299 million of you are going to have to go.

Proving that the "global warming" campaign is nothing but hatred of humanity, these are the exact same people who destroyed the nuclear power industry in this country 30 years ago.

If we accept for purposes of argument their claim that the only way the human race can survive is with clean energy that doesn't emit carbon dioxide, environmentalists waited until they had safely destroyed the nuclear power industry to tell us that. This proves they never intended for us to survive.

"Global warming" is the liberal's stalking horse for their ultimate fantasy: The whole U.S. will look like Amagansett, with no one living in it except their even-tempered maids (for "diversity"), themselves and their coterie (all, presumably, living in solar-heated mansions, except the maids who will do without electricity altogether). The entire fuel-guzzling, tacky, beer-drinking, NASCAR-watching middle class with their over-large families will simply have to die.

It seems not to have occurred to the jet set that when California is as poor as Mexico, they might have trouble finding a maid. Without trucking, packaging, manufacturing, shipping and refrigeration in their Bel-Air fantasy world, they'll be chasing the rear-end of an animal every time their stomachs growl and killing small animals for pelts to keep their genitals warm.

Ann Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," "Slander," ""How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)," and most recently, "Godless."


Nancy Pelosi says George W. Bush's thinking on Iraq is "impaired." It is? In that case, perhaps she and her fellow Democrats would do something about that. They could impeach the president or cut off appropriations for the war. Except they'll do neither...because they don't have the you-know-whats...oh ... and they have no plan for Iraq either.

Oh and here's a question...was Hillary Clinton impaired when she voted to authorize the war in Iraq in 2002? Was her husband impaired when, for 8 years, he called for the removal of Saddam Hussein? Was John Kerry impaired when he voted to authorize the war? John Edwards? The list of Democrats goes on and on.

Oh, and Speaker Nancy still has her thong (ugh) in a knot over Dick Cheney's criticism that her plan for Iraq would validate Al-Qaeda's strategy. She claims Cheney was questioning her patriotism...which he never did. This is the Big Lie of the Left...when you run out of ideas, when you have nothing else to say....accuse your opponent of questioning your patriotism.

Sounds like somebody's pantsuit might be a little too tight. If the American people have lost so much confidence in Bush, why won't the Democrats do something about it? Why not take action? Come on, we're waiting. Time's a wasting.


Well, now I've heard it all. Al Gore, the Academy Award winner of the "Inconvenient Truth" documentary about global warming, got caught with his hand in the cookie jar the other day. Evidently his 20-room mansion with 8 bathrooms in Nashville uses 20 times the electricity of the average American household. Same with natural gas. Who cares, right? Well, not really. This is what you call hypocrisy...and of the highest order.

Al Gore goes around telling us all that we're environmental sinners because we're causing global warming and dirtying the planet. And yet there's Gore...riding in his gas-guzzling private jet and sitting in his 20-room mansion that almost takes an entire power plant to run. The message is loud and clear: do as I say, but not as I do. Typical politician. But the firestorm is growing, so Al Gore's office had to craft a response to the deafening roar of criticism over his Tennessee energy consumption.

According to a spokesperson, the Gores purchase offsets to reduce their overall carbon footprint. Since they invest in wind power and the like, as well as drive hybrid vehicles, this somehow balances out their gigantic power consumption at their mansion. Oh..and they had solar power panels installed...and they pay more for their power to support renewable energy. So we're supposed to believe that the good outweighs the bad here. Let's not forget. He probably plants trees also. They turn carbon dioxide to oxygen you know.

The bottom line here is that this is all completely absurd. Man is not causing any significant climate change. The carbon molecules are out there. Use them if you got 'em.
Gore got busted for not walking the talk .. and now he's trying to backpedal. Perhaps people will see right through the environmental hypocrisy of the global warming movement for once.

Tuesday, February 27, 2007


The Taliban tried to blow up Dick Cheney today during a visit to a U.S. Military base in Afghanistan. Depending on whom you ask, either 3 or 24 people were killed by the suicide bomber. The war on Islamic terrorism continues. Cheney is in the region to meet with he president of Pakistan...and tell him to crack down a bit harder on terrorists.

Cheney is on the warpath lately...and it's quite refreshing. He's been taking on the media and the Democrats and not holding back. He rightly called out Nancy Pelosi for her policies, which support Al-Qaeda's agenda. When a controversy ensued...he didn't hold back. He's been taking on the media, appearing on TV shows...complete unapologetic for the war in Iraq. The question remains: where has the administration been for the last two years?

Instead of letting the Left and the mainstream media define Iraq as a failure, which its not, they should have been out there swinging the bat...calling out Democrats for their pro-appeasement policies. But, as the saying goes, better late than never. Besides, it's not like Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid are ever going to come up with a better plan for Iraq anyway.


So the media got to work. Opinion polls were conducted, focus groups convened and religious experts consulted -- all in an effort to answer that seemingly elusive question. Documentary filmmaker Alexandra Pelosi, however, took a rather novel approach. Pelosi, daughter of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, decided to venture into the "red states" in order to, as she put it in a recent interview, "figure out who they [evangelicals] are and what it means to America's future."

So, like a National Geographic reporter traveling to some third-world hinterland to observe a newly discovered species in its native habitat, Pelosi criss-crossed the heartland to some of evangelical America's largest mega churches to learn what it is that animates evangelicals.

The product of her labor is the breezy new documentary "Friends of God: A Road Trip with Alexandra Pelosi," which airs through early March on HBO. For an HBO documentary about conservative Christians by a self-described liberal Democrat, "Friends" is surprisingly even-handed. Engaging and good-natured, Pelosi keeps her politics mostly to herself and is respectful toward the film's subjects, which include Christian pastors, comedians, wrestlers, musicians, skateboarders and more.

Where the film falls short, however, is in accomplishing its stated objective of figuring out who evangelicals really are. Instead, "Friends" provides viewers with an assortment of random snapshots, many of which reinforce some of the less flattering stereotypes of evangelicals. We witness a drive thru church service, a pick-up truck evangelist who informs Pelosi that, "If you don't believe in Jesus, you're a big time loser," the Christian Wrestling Federation wrestlers body slamming for Jesus, and a steady stream of roadside billboards announcing, for instance, that "Evolution is from the Devil."

While "Friends of God" fails to offer more than a cursory examination of the lives of evangelicals, a recent interview with Pelosi helps illuminate perhaps the most formidable hurdle facing the Left in its quest to understand evangelicals. In an interview with ABC News, Pelosi was asked whether, after spending more than a year traveling to evangelical churches across America, she thinks liberals can make up ground with evangelical voters. Pelosi response was revealing. She said, "If we [evangelicals and liberals] are able to look past the two most polarized and political issues -- abortion and gay rights -- then, of course, yeah."

Pelosi's answer exemplifies a belief gaining popularity in the mainstream media: that if evangelicals would only look beyond "wedge issues" like abortion and same-sex marriage, some common ground might be found.

This view suggests that these are merely a few among a laundry list of important public policy questions. But, for the vast majority of evangelicals, the right to life and the definition of marriage are fundamentally and inescapably moral theological issues. Take the right to life, whose importance is rooted in the Christian belief that all human beings are made in the image and likeness of God. The centrality of the human person to the Christian worldview helps evangelicals think about and prioritize every political issue that arises, with those policies and laws that pose the gravest threat to human life placed at the top of the agenda. It also helps explain why evangelicals will never be able to "move past" abortion, as Pelosi and many others on the Left hope. The same can be said for issues relating to marriage, family and, of course, the role of religion in public life.

In the end, Ms. Pelosi's film represents a missed opportunity to delve more deeply into what this burgeoning force in American life really believes and what it means for the country's future. Instead, the film offers two distinct messages to two very different audiences. For coastal liberals, the film is a reaffirmation of their most deeply entrenched biases against conservative people of faith as bizarre and out of touch with mainstream America. For evangelicals, it serves as yet another reminder that the liberal media establishment still doesn't understand them.

Mr. Bauer, a 2000 candidate for president, is chairman of Campaign for Working Families and president of American Values.


It has been discovered that Al Gore's Nashville-area mansion has 20 rooms, eight bathrooms and uses more electricity in one month than the average house uses in a year. A group called the Tennessee Center For Policy Research has gotten its hands on some of Al's gas and electric bills for 2006, and it's not pretty. I guess that's what you call "an inconvenient truth." I suppose this falls underneath the category of do as I say, but not as I do. Is there an Oscar for that? Maybe Al Gore will win that one next year.

This has always been the problem when it comes to the holier-than-thou leftist environmentalists. Al Gore will stand up there and tell you America is destroying the planet, thanks to greenhouse gases. We're supposed to feel guilty for driving our cars, using too much electricity and the like. And after he's done lecturing us all, Al gets onto his private jet, burns up the jet fuel back to Nashville where he goes back to his mansion. But back to Al's energy bill.

It's also come out that on average in 2006, Al Gore paid $1,359 a month in electricity...twice in one month what that average household uses in a year. And natural gas? Gore used plenty of that, too...$1,080 a month, on average. Remember ... for most of those months Al wasn't even there! So what's the problem with all this? Well, nothing really.

Al Gore is rich...he's entitled to buy his house and use as much electricity and natural gas as he can afford. But so is everybody else. So maybe the next time Gore gets up onto his soapbox and starts lecturing the public, somebody will call him out. Maybe.


A1 of the Washington Post today reveals the Clintons' oopsie-doopsie on Hillary's Senate disclosure forms:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and former president Bill Clinton have operated a family charity since 2001, but she failed to list it on annual Senate financial disclosure reports on five occasions.

The Ethics in Government Act requires members of Congress to disclose positions they hold with any outside entity, including nonprofit foundations. Hillary Clinton has served her family foundation as treasurer and secretary since it was established in December 2001, but none of her ethics reports since then have disclosed that fact.

The foundation has enabled the Clintons to write off more than $5 million from their taxable personal income since 2001, while dispensing $1.25 million in charitable contributions over that period.

Clinton's spokesman said her failure to report the existence of the family foundation and the senator's position as an officer was an oversight. Her office immediately amended her Senate ethics reports to add that information late yesterday after receiving inquiries from The Washington Post...

...The charity is separate from the New York-based William J. Clinton Foundation, which has directed $10 billion in corporate money and resources toward slowing the global spread of AIDS, addressing climate change, and reducing hunger and poverty in developing countries.

The smaller family foundation lists as its address a post office box in Chappaqua, N.Y., where the Clintons live. Hillary Clinton is listed as secretary and treasurer, Bill Clinton as president and the couple's daughter, Chelsea, as a director. None takes any compensation.

The charity has been funded with money from lucrative book deals for both Clintons and from speechmaking by Bill Clinton since they left the White House in 2001. The foundation's tax filings are available on an Internet repository for IRS documents. The only time the Clintons mentioned the foundation on her ethics report was in 2002, in a footnote about their $800,000 donation that year, but it did not disclose as required her position or other information about the foundation. In subsequent years, they made no mention of it.

Between 2001 and 2005, the Clintons seeded the charity with $5.16 million of their money. The foundation's 2006 tax form is not due until later this year.

Tax records show the Clinton Family Foundation was created during Hillary Clinton's first year in the Senate, when the couple gave $800,000 to launch the organization in early December 2001. The charity distributed no funds that year. The next year, the Clintons made $170,000 in donations while adding $100,000 of their own funds.

The Clintons donated much larger amounts in recent years as legal bills from Bill Clinton's impeachment were paid off and their personal fortunes soared. At the end of 2005, the Clinton family foundation had nearly $4 million in cash assets.

WaPo gives the last word to a former FEC official:

Kent Cooper, who retired after two decades overseeing the FEC's public disclosure office, said congressional ethics committees have not enforced the ethics disclosure requirements forcefully. As a result, he said, candidates "know there is no great consequences, and so the habit has developed that people dismiss an omission as a clerical error, when in fact it is a crucial piece of the puzzle about a member's finances that is being hidden."

Judicial Watch reminds us:

The last time Hillary Clinton campaigned for the Senate in New York, she violated campaign finance laws by failing to report almost $2 million in contributions from former JW client Peter Paul leading to the federal indictment of her National Finance Chairman, David Rosen. To this day, she refuses to correct the record. Judicial Watch not only continues to seek justice in this matter, through its official complaint against Hillary Clinton with the Senate Ethics Committee and its public pressure campaign on the Department of Justice and the Federal Election Commission, but JW also recently launched a brand new campaign called, “Hillary Watch 2006.”

The purpose of the program is to closely monitor all of the Clinton Senate campaign’s disclosure forms and financial reports looking for irregularities and violations. Judicial Watch will take immediate action should any problems be discovered.

Peter Paul is keeping tabs here.

Like Bill Clinton himself is fond of saying: "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me."

Monday, February 26, 2007


A news report today says Al Sharpton is related to a slave once owned by Strom Thurmond's ancestors. Obviously, Al will now have to sue for reparations. In other race hustler news, Louis Farrakhan is calling for the impeachment of President Bush. Evidently this was Farrakhan's last speech, due to failing health. Get well, Calypso Louie.....where would we be without your racism? Anyway, back to Sharpton.

The link between Sharpton and Thurmond was discovered by a genealogist website. The media is acting as if Thurmond himself held slaves...but the once champion of segregation wasn't that old. His great, great grandfather's daughter held Sharpton's ancestor as a slave. So what will Al Sharpton do? Well, obviously since he's back in the headlines because of this news, he'll have to do something about it. Time to make some hay.

You know, Virginia has recently apologized for slavery. This could be Al's time...time to bring the issue of reparations for slavery back up. Obviously Al is owed money...there was a slave in his family! Time to cash in. If she's smart, Sharpton will champion the cause...and push for the reparations E.B.T.

The fact that Strom Thurmond's name has come up...priceless.


(Actual letter from an Iowa resident and sent to his senator)

The Honorable Tom Harkin
731 Hart Senate Office Building
Phone (202) 224 3254
Washington DC , 20510

Dear Senator Harkin,

As a native Iowan and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you.
My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stems from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted. If my understanding of this bill's provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, all I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years. I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out.

Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year so I'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005.
Additionally, as an illegal alien I could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures I could save almost $10,000 a year.

Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications, as well as "in-state" tuition rates for many colleges throughout the United States for my son.

Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the burden of renewing my driver's license and making those burdensome car insurance premiums. This is very important to me given that I still have college age children driving my car.

If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms, I would be most appreciative.

Thank you for your assistance.

Your Loyal Constituent,
Donald Ruppert

Burlington , IA

Get your Forms (NOW)!! Call your Internal Revenue Service 1-800-289-1040.

Please pass this onto your friends so they can save on this great offer!!!!


Iran has been naughty lately...defying the United Nations and refusing to stop enriching uranium. According to media reports, Israel has requested permission from the United States to fly over Iraq on a bombing run to Tehran. We should let them.....time to bomb the reactors and put Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his place. But the mere mention of bombing Iran sends the left into an absolute panic.

Now we hear news that there are generals at the Pentagon that will resign if we attack Iran. Why? Will those same generals resign if Iran sells a nuclear weapon to Al-Qaeda? What about if Iran bombs Tel Aviv? You don't hear too much about that. The way the media positions the terrorist state, you would think we would be bombing Canada.

And what is Iran going to do? Terrorist groups backed by Iran say that the country is expecting to be attacked...and is going to order terrorist attacks against Israeli and American interests. And by the way, Iran is a terrorist state that backs terrorist case you didn't know.

Don't these people at the Pentagon watch '24?' Evidently not.


Mexico's Congress (there's a Mexican Congress? Evidently yes.) Anyway, they're upset because they say our border fence has gone 10 yards into Mexico. Fine...perhaps we should file a complaint because 12 million of their citizens have gone several miles into our country? I guess that doesn't count. So what are we going to do about this border dispute? Perhaps we should've filed a request for an easement with the Mexican consulate ahead of time.

The alleged violation has taken place at the border with Arizona, where the Mexicans are complaining workers and equipment have strayed into their space. The U.S. Ambassador has released a statement saying "The US is sensitive to Mexican concerns.....and has the deepest respect for the integrity of the sovereignty of Mexican soil." We do? Well, we shouldn't....they have no respect for our border, so why should we respect theirs? But fear not...there will be high level talks soon. Condoleezza Rice will be in Canada to meet with her Mexican counterpart to talk about border security.

It's funny how in all of Mexico's complaining about the United States, nobody ever asks them why millions of their people flee their country every year. I mean,'d think they'd be a bit embarrassed. Evidently not. At any rate, we should tell them to take their complaint and shove it. Besides, what are they going to do? Nothing, of course.

Sunday, February 25, 2007


By Salena Zito

Electing the president of the United States was a lot simpler in the days of our forefathers.

Back in the day, members of Congress nominated a single candidate from their party to put before the Electoral College. The process evolved in the mid-19th century as political party machinery matured and nominations were decided at national conventions.

It was not until reformers in the early 20th century, during the "Progressive Era," pushed through a mechanism to measure the popular opinions of candidates that we saw the first presidential primary.

The 21st century has brought us the era of primaries on steroids. The Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary once owned the early-decision retail space. But now, not so much. Look for more than 30 states to try to fill that space and jam their presidential primaries into January or February in 2008.

"This early primary process is just courting disaster by creating oversized, sped-up contests," says Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia.

Thus, the calendar may say 2007 but those who want to be president are running like it's November 2008.

"We are so early right now that only an idiot or a fool could predict who will come out on top," says Sabato.

For the Republican contenders, this race is any man's game. Right now you have former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani running out front. Sen. John McCain is not far behind. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich follows. Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, brings up the rear.

Those who distribute conventional wisdom for a living argue that as soon as the social conservatives "find out" about Giuliani's social positions, they will run for the hills. Yet, for now, that wisdom hasn't put a dent in the Rudy Express. Like Bill Clinton, Giuliani sucks up the oxygen when he walks into a room. And while he may disagree with people on issues, he does not stick his finger in their eyes when they disagree.

McCain has growing pains: He is suffering the effects of moving from rebel to Establishment candidate. Being "Straight-talk McCain" was much easier for his personality and style; now he must deal with the infrastructure of his party and other political organizations, elected officials (current and past) and all of their loyalties and fundraisers.

It was much easier for McCain in 2000 when he could just climb on his bus and say, "Whoever is with me is fine and whoever isn't, that is fine too -- I am going to go to the voters."

Why Gingrich? Well, he is the smartest kid in the classroom. His intellect and understanding of issues and how to deal with them are what drive his support at this point. That's particularly among conservative voters who aren't happy with McCain, have trouble with Giuliani or distrust Romney. Plus, Americans have always been fascinated by a reluctant candidate, which is why Gingrich and Gore stay high in the public opinion polls.

Traction for Romney has been slow, but that may change. An open election without the incumbency factor has forced all of the candidates to begin organizing their campaigns and raising money much earlier. Romney was early to do that; his immediate challenge is not raising cash but defining himself.

For Republicans, this early politicking and a front-loaded primary process could be their worst enemy. Party leaders like situations they can control; highly contested, high-profile primaries always run the risk of divisions.

And thanks to this early-out intensity, getting them all lined up behind a nominee by Election Day could be like herding cats.

Salena Zito can be reached at


by Michael Barone

Pollster Scott Rasmussen reports that in a recent presidential pairing, Hillary Rodham Clinton would beat Newt Gingrich by a 50-to-43 percent margin. That sounds fairly plausible, although it's a little better showing for Gingrich than I would have expected. But take a look at the favorable/unfavorable ratings. Rasmussen's numbers have Clinton's fav/unfav at 50 and 48 percent and Gingrich's fav/unfav at 43 and 48 percent. You're tempted to think that Clinton and Gingrich both got the votes of every respondent who had favorable feelings toward her or him–and not a single vote more.

Of course, that's not quite the case, but it's pretty close. Note that these two politicians–both figures of huge national prominence in the Bill Clinton years–inspire unfavorable feelings in almost half the electorate. I wonder how many are unfavorable to them both. Clinton and Gingrich in different ways have considerable political strengths. But the nomination of either one may be seen as taking us back to the partisanship of the 1990s. Not where all that many of us want to go, I think.

Yes, I know that Clinton's fav/unfavs are better in some other polls and Gingrich's worse. But I think the point still stands.

Hillary Vs. Rudy

They're leading in polls for their parties' nominations, and so I think we have to regard this as the likeliest pairing in the 2008 presidential race, at least for now. Last July, pollster Jay Leve of SurveyUSA did surveys in 50 states and the District of Columbia of several pairings of candidates. You can see the electoral vote results with a few clicks. They show Giuliani ahead of Clinton 354 to 184. I would guess it would be somewhat closer now, and both candidates carried several states by statistically insignificant margins. Premium subscribers can get access to the percentage results in each state and to the demographic breakdown in each state; there are enough respondents to make the latter statistically significant, with the usual caution that the margin of error is significantly greater for subgroups than for the whole state.

I have examined these numbers before in this blog but decided to give them another look. A couple of things struck me. (I'm going to refer to the candidates by their first names, not out of disrespect, but to give this a colloquial tone.)

First, there's a huge difference between men and women in almost every state. Hillary carried men only in California (48 to 45 percent), which has 55 electoral votes. Rudy carries women in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming: 194 electoral votes. That's a huge advantage for Giuliani, though if we assume his lead over Clinton is not as great today as it was last July, not as huge as the contrast between 194 and 55 suggests.

Second, I took a look at Hispanics in states where SurveyUSA's sample was more than 5 percent Hispanic. I suspect that it ended up oversampling Hispanics in some states (Idaho, for example), which is common, especially when you're dealing with small groups. Remember that the 1996 and 2000 VNS exit polls showed that the share of Florida voters who were black increased from 10 to 16 percent. But people who examined the appropriate precinct returns are confident that that didn't happen. There's an error margin on these percentages. With that in mind, look at the percentages for Rudy and Hillary in the following states. The Hispanic percentage of the sample is shown, along with additional comments where I have any.

Arizona 38-58 18
California 28-62 26 Rudy about the same as Bush.
Connecticut 68-28 8 Amazingly good for Rudy, but small sample.
District of Columbia 29-67 6 Rudy runs better among Hispanics than among whites!
Florida 47-43 16 About the same as Bush.
Idaho 68-32 6
Illinois 43-56 9
Nevada 42-50 15
New Jersey 50-50 11 Very good for Rudy.
New Mexico 36-62 38
New York 39-56 14
Oregon 35-49 6
Texas 47-51 28 Rudy about the same as Bush's good showing in his home state.
Utah 44-56 7

Finally, to translate poll numbers, which always have a certain number of undecideds, to election numbers, which usually have much smaller percentages voting for minor party or independent candidates, I did the following calculations. I compared Hillary's percentage versus Kerry '04 and Rudy's percentage versus Bush '04. Then I took the average Republicanward or Democraticward movement. What you'll find is that all 11 eastern states and D.C. move toward Rudy; eight of the 12 midwestern states move toward Hillary; 10 of the 13 western states move toward Rudy; and 12 of the 14 southern states move toward Hillary. More states move toward Hillary than toward Rudy. But the movement overall benefits Rudy. Most southern and many western states remain heavily Republican, while other states that were safe for Kerry are thrust into play. Here's a rundown of the states by region, with Republican movement marked as plus and Democratic movement as minus, plus comments.


Rhode Island +12.5 The biggest move toward Rudy in the most heavily Italian-American states. Puts it in play.
Connecticut +10 Big movement toward Rudy in NYC suburbs. Puts it in play.
New Jersey +10 Big movement toward Rudy in NYC suburbs. Puts it in play.
Vermont +9 Puts the No. 2 Kerry state in play.
New York +7.5 Big movement toward Rudy in suburbs, Hillary still carries NYC 2 to 1. Puts it in play.
Massachusetts +7 John Kerry's home state, which probably gave him a bit of a premium in '04.
New Hampshire +6.5 The one state Bush won in '00 and lost in '04. Puts it in play.
Pennsylvania +5.5 Repubs still far down in metro Philly, but state very much in play.
Maine +5.5 Puts this state, which dropped off the Bush target list in '04, back into play.
District of Columbia +5 Still far, far out of reach of Republicans. Rudy runs better with Hispanics than with whites.
Maryland +4.5 Rudy now competitive in one of six states Jimmy Carter carried in '80.
Delaware +3.5 Smaller movement but puts it in play.

Upshot: Exactly four electoral votes were in play in the East in '04. In this race, 102 of 115 electoral votes are in play. Of course, keep in mind that if Hillary runs better against Rudy today than she would have in July, that number is somewhat lower.


Iowa +3.5 Biggest Republican movement in region in state that Bush lost in '00 and won narrowly in '04.
Michigan +2 Target state in '00 and '04 a little more favorable for Rudy than W.
Minnesota +1 Target state in '00 and '04 a little more favorable for Rudy than W.
Ohio +1 No. 1 target state in '04, scene of Republican disaster in '06, a little more favorable to Rudy.
Illinois +0.5 Hillary's native state (and Obama's current state), the most Democratic state in region by far.
Indiana -0.5 Negligible movement in heavily Republican state.
Wisconsin -1 A little more favorable to Hillary than Kerry in state narrowly Democratic '00 and '04.
Missouri -1.5 Rudy a little harder to sell in southern-accented territory than Bush.
South Dakota -3.5 Still heavily Republican.
Kansas -4 Rudy is a hard sell in the Great Plains, but the area is still heavily Republican.
Nebraska -4.5 Still very heavily Republican.
North Dakota -6 Still very heavily Republican.

Upshot: The same target states as in '00 and '04. Rudy a little stronger than Bush in Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, and Ohio (54 electoral votes) and a little weaker in Wisconsin and Missouri (21 electoral votes).


Oregon +7 A state that fell off the Republican target list in '04 is back on again.
Colorado +6 A state that fell into the Democratic target list in '04 is turning away from the party.
Arizona +4.5 A state briefly on the Democratic target list in '04 is turning away from the party.
Nevada +3 A state very much on the target list in '00 and '04 moving somewhat toward Rudy.
Washington +2 Small movement in state that fell off the Republican target list in '04.
California +1.5 Small movement doesn't put it in play yet. Rudy weak in Central Valley.
Hawaii +0.5 No significant change in state where Bush's status as commander in chief boosted his vote.
Montana +0.5 No significant change in heavily Republican state.
Alaska 0 No change in heavily Republican state.
Utah 0 No change in the most heavily Republican state.
New Mexico -2 Rudy doesn't score well with Hispanics here and is a hard sell to southern-accented Little Texas.
Wyoming -6 Wyoming native Cheney probably boosted the Bush-Cheney percentage here.

Upshot: Democratic strategists have seen the West as a region of opportunity, and reasonably so. They had the Coast states locked up, and their chances were improving in several inland states. But the biggest Republicanward movement comes in Oregon, which is put into play, and Colorado, Arizona, and Nevada (24 electoral votes), the three Mountain states where Democrats have had not unreasonable hopes of making gains. The only good news for Democrats is that New Mexico, one of two states to switch from Gore '00 to Bush '04, is moving their way a little in this matchup.


North Carolina +4 This suggests that John Edwards had some home-state strength in '04 that Hillary can't match.
Florida +1 The one southern state in play in '04 moves slightly toward Rudy.
Kentucky -0.5 Negligible movement in state Bill Clinton carried in '92 but that has been easily Republican since.
Virginia -0.5 Negligible movement in state that has become more competitive; could be in play.
Tennessee -1.5 Small movement in still heavily Republican state.
Georgia -2.5 Movement, but still heavily Republican. Hillary competitive in metro Atlanta but not elsewhere.
South Carolina -4.5 Still heavily Republican.
Texas -4.5 Still heavily Republican. Rudy matches Bush '04 strong showing among Hispanics.
Louisiana -6 Moves toward being in play. But will black Democrats return to New Orleans?
West Virginia -6 State Bush easily carried in '04 is very much in play in this matchup.
Arkansas -6.5 The state where Hillary was first lady for 12 years still likes her; in play now.
Alabama -7 Still heavily Republican.
Mississippi -7 Still heavily Republican.
Oklahoma -9.5 The biggest Democraticward movement in all 50 states but still heavily Republican.

Upshot: Democrats have some small cause for satisfaction here. Rudy is clearly not as heavily backed as Bush, and voters show more sign of appreciating Hillary's long southern sojourn than many of us thought. But at best for the Democrats, this puts Arkansas, Louisiana, and West Virginia into play (20 electoral votes) and possibly Virginia (13 electoral votes), while leaving North Carolina and Georgia (30 electoral votes) still out of reach. And Rudy is at least as strong in Florida (27 electoral votes) as Bush was in '04.

National upshot: Rudy's electoral vote position against Hillary is much stronger than Bush's against Kerry. Rudy puts almost the whole East into play and is significantly stronger in several target states in the Midwest and West. Hillary puts some states into play in the South but with many fewer electoral votes than Rudy does elsewhere. Even if you assume that Hillary is stronger against Rudy today than she was in July, the pairing does place the Republicans in a stronger position than Bush was in '04.


A 'slow bleed' strategy to stop the surge probably would backfire on the Democrats

By Jack Kelly, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Many Democrats in Congress believe the war in Iraq is irretrievably lost, or that it would redound to their political advantage if it were lost. But they don't want to be blamed for the consequences of defeat.

This has placed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in something of a quandary. The Constitution provides Congress with a means to end the war: Congress can cut off funding. But if Congress were to cut off money for the war in Iraq, and if all the bad things the intelligence community predicts would happen if we withdraw precipitously did happen, it would be pretty clear who was responsible for those bad things. And because it would be pretty clear who was responsible, many queasy Democrats in the House and Senate might not vote to cut off funds, giving the leadership an embarrassing defeat if it moved to do so.

So the Democrats may adopt what's been called the "slow bleed" strategy. Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Johnstown, outlined it last week in an interview with the left wing Web site The strategy would be to impose, through amendments to the defense appropriations bill, so many restrictions on U.S. troops that the president's plan for a surge would be hamstrung.

There are, from the Democrats' perspective, two clever things about the "slow bleed" strategy. The first is that sabotaging the war effort in this way would not be nearly as clear cut as it would be by a vote to cut off funds, thus making it easier to evade blame for the consequences of defeat. The second is that if Congress passes a defense appropriations bill with these restrictions, President Bush would be left with three unpalatable choices: He could sign the bill and accept the restrictions, thus accepting slow defeat in Iraq. He could sign the bill and ignore the restrictions on the grounds that they are an unconstitutional trespass on his powers as commander in chief (which they would be), thus provoking a constitutional crisis. Or he could veto the bill, and thus risk defunding the war himself, should Congress not promptly pass a defense appropriations bill shorn of the restrictions.

Let us set aside for the moment what the "slow bleed" strategy would say about the honesty and character of the Democratic leadership in Congress if it chooses to pursue it and focus on the wisdom, or lack of it, of making the sabotaging of the war effort foremost on the Democratic agenda.

A large majority of Americans are unhappy with the conduct of the war in Iraq, and a majority thinks it was a mistake to go to war with Saddam Hussein in the first place. But recent opinion polls make clear that most Americans still want us to win, and think we can.

Public Opinion Strategies of Alexandria, Va. surveyed 800 registered voters Feb. 5-7. By identical margins of 57-41 percent, those polled said Iraq was a key part of the war on terror and that U.S. troops should remain until "the job is done." By 56-43 percent, respondents said Americans should stand behind the president in Iraq because we are at war, and by 53-46 percent they said Democrats were going too far, too fast in pressing the president to withdraw troops.

The newspaper Investors' Business Daily took a poll of 925 adults Feb. 5-11. In that poll, 42 percent of respondents said victory in Iraq was "very important," and 24 percent more said it was "somewhat important." Thirty five percent said they were "very hopeful" the United States would succeed, and 23 percent were "somewhat hopeful."

Although barely begun, the troop surge already is producing positive results. Al-Qaida operatives are reported to be evacuating Baghdad, and Moqtada al Sadr and senior commanders of his Iranian-backed militia, the Mahdi army, are lying low and may have taken refuge in Iran. As a consequence, the number of attacks in Baghdad has declined by 80 percent, the Iraqi defense ministry said last week.

"Although attacks happen here and there, the general feeling is still closer to hope and appreciation of the plan than pessimism," said the Web logger Mohammed Fadhil, writing from Baghdad. "More families are returning to homes they were once forced to leave, and we're talking about some of the most dangerous districts, such as Ghazaliya and Haifa street."

Lying low is by no means the same as being defeated, and it is far too early to tell if the surge will work. But on the evidence to date, there is certainly no reason to strangle the infant in his crib.

When after 40 years the Republicans captured the House of Representatives in 1994, hubris overcame them and they launched a showdown with President Clinton over the budget which marked the start of Mr. Clinton's political comeback. Democratic efforts to cripple the war effort in Iraq could produce a similar backlash in 2008.


An update on the Ehren Watada case from the Seattle Times:

Undaunted by an initial mistrial, the Army on Friday refiled charges against 1st. Lt. Ehren Watada, a Fort Lewis officer who faces up to six years in prison for failing to deploy to Iraq and alleged misconduct.

"These are serious charges, and the next step will be to set a trial date," said Joe Piek, a spokesman at Fort Lewis, where Watada continues to serve as an active-duty officer.

Watada is the first Army officer to face court-martial for refusing to serve in Iraq, and his case has drawn international attention as the Hawaiian-born officer has allied himself with peace groups and repeatedly attacked the Bush administration's conduct of the war.

Watada's defense counsels are hoping to derail or at least delay a new trial, which they claim constitutes double jeopardy that violates Watada's constitutional rights to only be tried once for a set of crimes.

The defense counsels appeared caught by surprise by Friday's re-filing of charges.

Good for the Army for not lettting this slide.

Previous Watada blogging.

Saturday, February 24, 2007


Smarting from the bankruptcy of Air America, Democrats are planning a fresh assault on the First Amendment in order to squash conservative talk radio. With Al Franken and his buddies having flopped in the free market competition for radio listeners, liberals in Congress are planning to dredge up the old Fairness Doctrine, an abandoned FCC regulation that would require broadcasters to give equal airtime on controversial issues to opposing viewpoints. This is nothing more than a liberal power play to “Hush Rush.”

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D.-Ohio), chairman of the House Domestic Policy Subcommittee, recently announced plans to hold hearings on the resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine to an ultra-liberal audience at the National Conference on Media Reform. Funded by George Soros and attended by such leading liberal intellects as Jane Fonda, Geena Davis and Jesse Jackson, the conference also hosted Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D.-N.Y.) who announced his intent to reintroduce his failed 2005 bill to revive the Fairness Doctrine. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I.-Vt.), a self-described socialist, also revealed plans to introduce a companion bill in the Senate.

With their majority muscle, all the Democrats need now is a snappy name for the new Fairness Doctrine. How about the “First Amendment Tariff Act”? Right-wing radio hosts must be stopped to save liberal jobs! Better get the ok from big labor first -- they have a lock on all that “fair trade” mumbo-jumbo. Maybe the name “Free Speech Affirmative Action” would work. Nothing like a good quota -- the Democrats can just mumble “equal opportunity” and “diversity” when they force those stations to accept liberal radio hosts (and then be prepared to shout “racist!” if anyone really objects). Better check with Jesse and Reverend Al on that one though -- they have a good thing going and may not want to share it.

Not bad choices for a snazzy new name, but “Title IX for Free Speech” should get the nod. This name has it all -- it is soothing, unthreatening and it’s “for” free speech. Better yet, no one can accuse the liberals of being misleading. After all, the new Fairness Doctrine would work just like Title IX for women’s sports -- just another mandate for programs with limited demand to replace viable programs that earned their right to exist. Men’s gymnastics, wrestling, and now free speech. We won’t miss it, will we?

In their push to silence conservative broadcasters, Democrats are turning their backs on the damage done to free speech under the old Fairness Doctrine.

The FCC promulgated the Fairness Doctrine in 1949 based on the premise that radio waves were public property and due to the limited radio spectrum available, broadcasters had a duty to provide an equal and balanced forum for all political views. In theory each controversial opinion was to be balanced with an opposing viewpoint. In practice, broadcasters aired their opinions and then were harassed with legal complaints that opposing viewpoints were ignored or inadequately presented. Journalists also complained that both the Kennedy and Nixon administrations used selective enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine by the FCC as a tool to punish radio and television stations that criticized their administrations. To avoid the hassles, many stations took the easier route of no longer airing any controversial opinions and the result was banal programming.

Democrats are counting on the same result today. Catching radio stations between the ambiguous requirement of airing “both sides” (whatever that means), and broadcasting liberal pap to an empty audience, the Left has it covered. Whether Air America silences Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingram by taking their airtime with a congressional mandate, or the stations throw in the towel and abandon political talk radio, the score is the same: the Left 1, free speech 0.

Broadcasters challenged the old Fairness Doctrine on First Amendment grounds as an unreasonable restriction on free speech, but in 1969 the Warren Court ruled in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC that the Fairness Doctrine was legal based on the limited amount of public airwaves. Apparently the court’s copy of the First Amendment was smudged. You know, the part that says: “Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech, or of the press….” Given the vast amounts of additional broadcast spectrum today (think cable, internet and satellite) and the propensity of the current Supreme Court to actually read the Constitution, it is very unlikely that a similar result would be reached today.

The FCC abandoned the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 as part of the Reagan revolution’s efforts to reduce the regulatory reach of the federal government. The FCC agreed with the broadcasters that the doctrine was having a “chilling effect” on free speech and served to quell political debate rather than encourage it. Contrary to the dire predictions of many that free speech would be impaired, talk radio then rose like a phoenix from the ashes of the Fairness Doctrine and the airwaves were filled with core political speech to a degree never before seen. Starved for conservative opinion after years of liberal commentary passed off as “news” by the mainstream media, listeners strongly favored right wing radio programs.

Alarmed by the existence of any outlets for conservative opinion, liberals have tried for years without success to revive the Fairness Doctrine, but with the new Democrat majority in Congress, the prospects for tanking the First Amendment have never looked so good. Track overseas calls to Al Qaeda operatives? No way! Censor conservatives by mandating equal radio time for liberals? No problem!

Putting aside the flagrant violations of the First Amendment, compliance with a new Fairness Doctrine would be a nightmare. What constitutes an opposing viewpoint? Who gets to present that viewpoint? In our contentious and diverse world of politics, there are few issues which only have two sides. Is Cindy Sheehan’s view on the Iraq War the same as Hillary Clinton’s? Does Hillary get to come back and revise her opinion (again) after the latest poll? Is the naked “cut and run” policy of John Murtha the same as the nuanced “redeployment” of Monsieur Kerry? I suppose it depends upon what the meaning of the word “is” is….

One meaning is clear however: when liberals say “equal access,” they really mean they’re gunning for a quota and consequences be damned. The better qualified students brushed aside by affirmative action? Mere collateral damage. The men’s sports permanently benched by Title IX? Unfortunate casualties. Free speech stiff-armed off the field by the new Fairness Doctrine? Well, it’s not like you couldn’t see it coming.

Ms. Harrison is a student athlete majoring in government at Claremont McKenna College.


One American campus has already witnessed Christian students run down by an angry Islamic student while at other American campuses "Death to the Jews" is chanted by Arabs as the Israeli flag is burned. And, of course, there was the shooting of an innocent woman by a Moslem in Seattle because she was working at a Hebrew institution.

Westerners are not accustomed to seeing such barbarism on their streets and in venerated places. After all, we are civilized. We vent our grievances in ways far less fatal. Because many in the West know they can not reason with those behind these outbursts, they are blaming not the Islamic perpetrators but those of us in the West for somehow provoking these outbursts. It is easier and safer to lean on us in the West than it is to change the aggressor who will not listen. Blame the victim.

If we simply demur and mollify, appease and “understand,” this whole nightmare will simply go away, they contend, and we can go back to our business of having fun.

But such is not reality, rather a collective denial born of fright. We have chosen denial because, for too many, there seems to be no stomach to do, already, what is necessary to stop this barbarism. We can, if we want. But, instead, our timid elites find excuses and justifications for the militant activity. They opine: It is not Islam but we who are at fault.

Excuses: If only the Pope would stop talking theology. If only film makers would stop making films about humanitarian concerns. If only political cartoonists would stop drawing satirical cartoons. If only newspapers would stop printing editorials. If only speakers would stop speaking. In other words, if only the West would forfeit all of its centuries’ earned rights and bow to Islam’s judgment as to what is allowable speech and activity in our own countries. If only we would, out of “sensitivity,” first consult with the local imam or his Wahhabi superior back home in Arabia. In other words, if only we would take orders!

The very liberals who justify every form of art, expression and discussion -- even when it undermines the very foundations of our beliefs and society -- suddenly intone the need for self-censorship if it offends the Arab street or Moslem mob. And does it not seem that any truthful, non-flattering observation of current Islam is somehow parlayed by the mob as a direct assault on the Islamic god himself, thereby justifying immediate rampaging, torching and killing?

This inverted double standard against itself by Western liberals is not only a sociological historic first but bespeaks the utter fear now gripping those in denial. It is they, liberals, who are denying the true nature of current Islamism.

If only America would change its policy and if only George Bush would morph into John Kerry or Jimmy Carter – peace and tranquility would be at hand. Are the Muslims in Kashmir and India fighting the Hindus because of George Bush? Are the Moslems in vast parts of Asia and the Philippines rampaging because of American foreign policy? If only the Palestinian Arabs had their own state. Are Muslims killing, raping and enslaving all over the African continent, and in Darfur, because there are Jewish families living in Hebron and Jerusalem?

The over 100 wars across the globe involving Islam are, according to the professional bureaucrats, always the fault of those defending themselves against Moslem aggression, never the fault of those engineering the world-wide push for dar Islam and revived Islamic messianism. “If only” … is the mouthing of those in denial about what is steadily chipping away at Western sovereignty: Islam on the move. To acknowledge the reality means that something must be done now to stop it. But because they are too emotionally weak or self-hating of their own civilization, they choose to deny while submitting, eunuch-like, to this self-abasing sensitivity nonsense.

But not all Muslims are radicals, insist the “if onlys.” Absolutely true. But neither were all Germans Nazis. What counts are not those who are passive and uninvolved but those in the driver’s seat, those who can intimidate entire populations. The silence of virtually all of Islam’s world wide population, including America’s, regarding these barbaric outbursts and beheadings, demonstrates how the Islamic masses are acquiescing to the jihadists -- or worse.

Is the barbarism and terrorism we are witnessing today the fault of the West? Absolutely not. Here is proof. In reality, the Moslem Palestinians have been in charge and control of their own Palestinian state for almost two years. During this time different Islamic factions have been warring against each other, Fatah against Hamas. Carolyn Glick, a correspondent in the region, describes what is routinely happening there.

She writes how in the Moslem State of Palestine, two year-olds are killed by rival Islamic groups. Children are woken up in the middle of night and murdered in front of their parents. Worshippers in mosques are gunned down by terrorists who attend competing mosques.

In the State of Palestine, women are stripped naked and forced to march in the streets to humiliate their husbands. By whom? Rival Moslem groups. Ambulances are stopped on the way to hospitals and the wounded are shot in cold blood. Islamic terrorists enter operating rooms and unplug patients of rival groups from life-support machines. People are kidnapped in broad day light and paraded in front of television cameras to instill fear among the population.

Moslems eviscerating other Moslems in a Moslem state. Is this, too, the fault of the West? Is this due to some one not having provided proper respect and sensitivity to Islamic religious ideas or because the prophet was miscast in a political cartoon? Is it the Pope’s fault? Or, more accurately, is this simply the modus operandi of current Islamic hot heads, barbarism for whatever reason they choose.

In the Moslem State of Palestine, Christians are persecuted, robbed, humiliated and beaten in what can only be viewed as a systematic campaign to end the millennia-old Christian presence in Bethlehem. “If only” those insensitive Christians had not built that Church there! Surely, they “provoked” the Islamic terror squads. Verily, the problem lies not in us but in Islam.

Rabbi Spero is a radio talk show host, a pulpit rabbi, and president of Caucus for America. He can be reached at

Friday, February 23, 2007


Looks like the Feds are finally doing something about illegal immigration...sort of. They've indicted three cleaning company executives for tax evasion. That is, collecting income tax from illegals, but not sending it to the IRS. How about indicting them for hiring the illegals in the first place? Oh wait...we don't arrest people in this country for being illegal aliens. Darn.

But really, this is the way illegal immigration is going to be stopped, if we ever do anything about it. As long as there are companies willing to employ illegals, the Mexican invasion will continue. It's a simple issue of supply and demand. If the government and law enforcement would make hiring illegals expensive and painful, the practice would stop.

In the case of these three executives, if they had paid the taxes on the illegals, nothing would've happened to them. So the message is clear: hire as many illegals as you want..just pay off the government in the process and you'll be fine.


Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman says if Democrats move to cut off funding for U.S. troops, he'll switch to the GOP. That would end the Democrats' majority in the Senate and put Harry Reid back in the minority leader's office. Some may think there's no way he'll do that. But those are probably the same people that didn't think he'd run for re-election as an Independent after losing the Democratic primary.

That would be something, wouldn't it? Here you have the 2000 Democratic nominee for vice president talking about moving to the other side. He's already not really a Democrat...having continued to run for Senate after losing the Democratic primary in 2006. So why not make the switch? He is currently aligning himself with a political party that opposes the War On Terror and promotes a policy of Islamic terrorist appeasement.

If he doesn't change his mind, he'll be switching. Democrats aren't going to quit trying to stop the war in Iraq...and cutting off funding is the next logical step.
How about switching to the Libertarian Party?


The Democrats are running full steam ahead with trying to cut off our troops in Iraq and ensure failure and surrender in Iraq. Their latest plan is to push through a piece of legislation revoking Bush's authority to wage war in Iraq. You mean the same authority those same Democrats voted to give George W. Bush in 2002? Yeah..that's the one. So what does this latest legislation do? Read on to find out.

This isn't like the other non-binding resolutions that just disapprove of the war in Iraq or the way it is being handled. No, this one would have teeth. So far, one draft would restrict the troops in Iraq to fighting Al-Qaeda only. Are they kidding? Guess not. So now we have 100 commanders in chief in the United States Senate that are going to decide who the troops can fight and who they can't. Unbelievable...this is what the left calls "limiting the mission."

Instead of trying to tie the hands of our troops in Iraq, the Democrats need to either cut off funding for the war or sit down and shut up. It really makes you wonder just whose payroll these politicians are on these days.
The Islamic fascists who want us dead must be partying BIG TIME!


In church. For Lent. LA Times:

Roman Catholic leaders in Orange and Los Angeles counties marked Ash Wednesday — the start of a season of repentance and reflection — with a plea to Catholics and others to commit themselves to immigration reform.

In Orange County, the church asked people to fast — consuming liquids only — for one day between March 26 and 30 as an appeal for citizenship opportunities for undocumented immigrants and reductions in visa application backlogs for the families of immigrants.

The church also called for a temporary worker program.

The Mexican government's full-throttled lobbying campaign is on. The amnesty steamroller moves forward. There are more illegal alien marches in store. And the line-jumpers keep on coming.

Looks like border security ain't got a prayer.


There were more sham raids today to soften up opposition to the coming amnesty.

Thursday, February 22, 2007


By Suzanne Fields

There's nothing like a celebrity sing-a-long to get the global warming juices boiling. Al Gore, the vice president who became a midway barker, has the greatest show on earth, maybe even the universe. He's offering a day of "Live Earth" concerts during the summer that will include musical artists and "thought leaders" such as Cameron Diaz, Snoop Dog and Enrique Iglesias. Hea-veee, as the kids used to say.

The carnival show will reach more than a million spectators with an additional 2 billion watching on television screens. Kevin Wall, who produced world tours for Madonna, is in charge and says he aims for coverage throughout the world, maybe even the solar system. "Two billion sets of eyeballs," he tells The Washington Post, "and we'll hand the mike to Al Gore."

The ex-veep is poised to take home one or maybe two Academy Awards for his documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," and has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. This could put him in the league with Obama and Hillary. He says he's not running for president in '08, but that may be because he wants to be president of the Earth, or at least the Whole Earth Catalog. Who wants to spend a winter in New Hampshire talking about the heat somewhere else.

Trendy notions are recycled overnight now, so Diesel, the Italian fashionista, is advertising the newest line as "Global Warming Ready." The designers are playing it for laughs all the way to the bank, but they're deadly serious about the Higher Cause. Models in global-warming-ready togs are photographed against a backdrop of Mount Rushmore with the sea flooding the nostrils of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. The most colorful characters on Diesel's website, however, are penguins in their natural formalwear and a parrot in his coat of many colors. Diesel understands that among environmentalists, the lower animals trump the human animal every time.

All this could be great fun if it weren't so dangerous. Winston Churchill, after all, once observed that he liked pigs because "a dog looks up to you, a cat looks down on you, but a pig accepts you as an equal." But when politics, fashion and entertainment fuse with scientific "factoids," truth drowns in a flood of misinformation. In his new book, "Eco-Freaks," John Berlau, a policy director at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a think tank devoted to environmental policies, catalogs the tragic mistakes imposed on the rest of us by the environmentally correct. After Rachel Carson published "Silent Spring," DDT was banned nearly everywhere. Most of her "evidence" later turned out to be all wrong, but 2 million poor Africans die every year of malaria that DDT was on the way to eradicating. Al Gore, of course, blames global warming.

Asbestos, like DDT, gets a bad rap in the popular media, but nothing else comes close as a shield against heat. The original plans for the World Trade Center called for the interior steel in both towers to be covered with asbestos-based fireproofing material. Asbestos was eliminated when environmentalists objected. Engineers think the twin towers might be standing today but for the politically correct construction. Asbestos would have at least slowed the spread of the fire and the melting of the metal, giving hundreds of those who perished a chance to escape.

Hurricane Katrina need not have been the tragedy it was. In 1977, the Army Corps of Engineers wanted to build large steel and concrete "sea gates" below sea level to prevent hurricane force winds driving storm surges into Lake Pontchartrain, overflowing into low-lying New Orleans. Such gates have been enormously successful in the Netherlands. But the Environmental Defense Fund, which had been a party to the lawsuit leading to the banning of DDT, persuaded a judge that the sea gates would discourage the mating of a certain fish species. Fishy romance trumped the lives of 3,100 Orleanians. "If we had built the barriers, New Orleans would not be flooded," says Joe Towers, who was counsel for the New Orleans District of the Corps.

John Berlau spreads blame at all levels of state and national government where intimidated politicians glibly hide behind "greening of America" soft-headedness. Not all ecophiles are goofballs, but many show considerably less concern for humans than for the kangaroo rat, the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly, and that little darling the snail darter. Radical environmentalism is often hazardous to your health. That's the inconvenient truth Al Gore ignores.



Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama are sparring over comments from a big Democratic donor in Hollywood. This exposes a weakness of The Hildabeast many aren't aware of ... and that would be an exceptionally thin skin.

This is great!

The campaign is just getting started! So what's all the hubbub about?

Well, the offending statements were made by David of the founders of the Dreamworks film studios and the namesake of Geffen Records. Despite supporting Bill Clinton in the past, he's supporting Barack Obama this time around, and isn't shy about saying why. He evidently has a problem with the Clintons' honesty...because here is what he said: "Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it's troubling." Ouch.

He went on to say Hillary will be easy to defeat, that Republicans are digging up dirt on her as we speak and that she's overproduced and over scripted. He also complained that she is refusing to admit she made a mistake in authorizing the war in Iraq.

Oh man..this is just too good.

So what does Obama have to say about all this? He could have taken Hillary's suggestion and returned David Geffen's money and denounced his comments....but that would be too easy. Instead, he stood his ground...and opened up both barrels on The Hildabeast: "We aren't going to get in the middle of a disagreement between the Clintons and someone who was once one of their biggest supporters. It is ironic that the Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when he was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln bedroom." Outstanding!

If Obama and Hillary go at it like this for the next 20 months or so, we're in for a real treat. Does it get any better than watching Democrats eat each other alive?


You gotta love Dick Cheney. He already knows the mainstream media and the Democrats hate him, so he just goes right out there and says exactly what he thinks...and often times, it's priceless. It all started recently in Japan, of all places. Cheney was giving an interview to ABC News about John Murtha and Nancy Pelosi's attempts to short-circuit the troop surge in Iraq. Here is exactly what he said:

"I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we will do is validate the Al Qaeda strategy. The Al Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people, try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit."

And that's when it hit the fan. A furious Nancy Pelosi tried to reach President Bush to complain, but only got through to the Chief of Staff. Madame Speaker whined that Cheney's comments were "beneath the dignity of the debate we're engaged in and a disservice to our men and women in uniform, whom we all support." Uh-huh. Then Pelosi trotted out her well-worn straw man and accused the Bush Administration of questioning her patriotism, something he didn't do.

So what's the problem here? The truth hurts, doesn't it? Cheney just spoke his mind...and he's right. The Democratic strategy in Iraq is the Al-Qaeda strategy: surrender. It's too bad Nancy Pelosi can't accept that.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007


By Thomas Sowell

Senator Barack Obama recently said, "let's allow our unions and their organizers to lift up this country's middle class again."

Ironically, he said it at a time when Detroit automakers have been laying off unionized workers by the tens of thousands, while Toyota has been hiring tens of thousands of non-union American automobile workers.

Labor unions, like the government, can change prices -- in this case, the price of labor -- but without changing the underlying reality that prices convey.

Neither unions nor minimum wage laws change the productivity of workers. All they can do is forbid the employer from paying less than what the government or the unions want the employer to pay.

When that is more than the labor in question produces, some workers who are perfectly capable become "unemployable" only because of wages set above the level of their productivity.

In the short run -- which is what matters to politicians and to union leaders, who both get elected in the short run -- workers who are already on the payroll may get a windfall gain before the market adjusts.

But, sooner or later, the chickens come home to roost. They have been coming home to roost big time in the automobile industry, where hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost over the years.

It is not that people don't want automobiles. Toyota is selling plenty of cars made in its American factories with non-union labor.

Some claim that it is automation, rather than union wages and benefits, that is responsible for declining employment among the Detroit auto workers.

But why are automobile companies buying expensive automated machinery, except that labor has been made expensive enough to make that their next best option?

Senator Obama is being hailed as the newest and freshest face on the American political scene. But he is advocating some of the oldest fallacies, just as if it was the 1960s again, or as if he has learned nothing and forgotten nothing since then.

He thinks higher teacher pay is the answer to the abysmal failures of our education system, which is already far more expensive than the education provided in countries whose students have for decades consistently outperformed ours on international tests.

Senator Obama is for making college "affordable," as if he has never considered that government subsidies push up tuition, just as government subsidies push up agricultural prices, the price of medical care and other prices.

He is also for "alternative fuels," without the slightest thought about the prices of those fuels or the implications of those prices. All this is the old liberal agenda from years past, old wine in new bottles, a new face with old ideas that have been tried and failed repeatedly over the past generation.

Senator Obama is not unique among politicians who want to control prices, as if that is controlling the underlying reality behind the prices.

There is much current political interest in so-called "predatory lending" -- the charging of high interest rates for loans to poor people or to people with low credit ratings.

Nothing will be easier politically than passing laws to limit interest rates or make it harder for lenders to recover their money -- and nothing will cause credit to dry up faster to low-income people, forcing some of them to have to turn to illegal loan sharks, who have their own methods of collecting.

The underlying reality that politicians do not want to face is that here, too, prices convey a reality that is not subject to political control. That reality is that it is far riskier to lend to some people than to others.

That is why the price of a loan -- the interest rate -- is far higher to some people than to others. Far from making extra profits on riskier loans, many lenders have lost millions of dollars on such loans and some have gone bankrupt.

But politics is not about facts. It is about what politicians can get people to believe.