Sunday, September 30, 2007


By Michelle Malkin

rush.jpg So, word is that the Democrats will introduce a House resolution Monday condemning Rush Limbaugh for his remarks about phony soldiers. Brian Maloney points out that ABC News aired a report on phony soldiers and Operation Stolen Valor two days before Rush made his remarks. Asks Maloney: “Given the overwhelming evidence to support Limbaugh’s contention that he really was talking about phony soldiers who have faked their service, how does the left justify continuing this fabrication?”

Here is what this phony fiasco is really all about: It’s about the Democrats trying to save face in the aftermath of the disastrous “General Betray Us” smear. They want their own moment of righteous (or rather, lefteous) indignation, their own empty proof that they really, really, really do support the troops. They want to shift attention away from, its bully tactics, and its thug brethren at Media Matters. They are making a pathetic attempt to equate the “Betray Us” attack–which was deliberately timed for publication and maximum p.r. damage to our military command when the world was watching our top general in Iraq testifying in Congress–with a radio talk show host’s ruminations about anti-war soldiers who have faked their military records/history.

Bottom-of-the-barrel desperation.

I have written and reported extensively on the Winter Soldier Syndrome phenomenon. It goes far beyond Jesse MacBeth, the faker busted by the blogosphere. As I wrote in August in my column on the Scott Thomas Beauchamp fiasco:

Ever since John Kerry sat in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and accused American soldiers of wantonly razing villages “in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan,” the Left has embraced a small cadre of self-loathing soldiers and soldier wannabes willing to sell their deadened souls for the anti-war cause.

Think Jimmy Massey, the unhinged Marine who falsely accused his unit of engaging in mass genocide against Iraqis.

Think Jesse MacBeth and Micah Wright, anti-war Army Rangers who weren’t Army Rangers.

Think Josh Lansdale, the anti-war Army medic who attacked former GOP Sen. Jim Talent by spinning a bogus health care tale swallowed whole by Dem Sen. Claire McCaskill, Gen. Wesley Clark and the far Left crew.

Think Amorita Randall, the NYTimes-championed former naval construction worker who told the Times magazine that she served in Iraq, was in a Humvee that blew up, and was raped twice while serving in the Navy–but, in fact, had never served in Iraq.


Winter Soldier Syndrome will only be cured when the costs of slandering the troops outweigh the benefits. Exposing Scott Thomas Beauchamp and his brethren matters because the truth matters. The honor of the military matters. The credibility of the media matters.

Think it doesn’t make a difference? Imagine where Sen. John Kerry would be now if the Internet had been around in 1971.

Instead of confronting the problem, Democrats are preparing to shoot the messenger.

The reported sponsor of the resolution is Democrat Rep. Mark Udall. He’s running for Senate in Colorado. Yes, he’s trying to win a Senate seat by running against Rush Limbaugh. The Colorado Index has the text of his proposed resolution:

Honoring all Americans serving in the Armed Forces of the United States and condemning the attack by broadcaster Rush Limbaugh on the integrity and professionalism of some of those Americans.


Mr. UDALL of Colorado submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on


Honoring all Americans serving in the Armed Forces of the United States and condemning the attack by broadcaster Rush Limbaugh on the integrity and professionalism of some of those Americans.

Whereas on September 26, 2007, the broadcaster Rush Limbaugh told a nationwide radio audience that members of the Armed Forces who have expressed disagreement with current policies of the United States regarding military activities in Iraq are ”phony soldiers”; and

Whereas such a description constitutes an unwarranted slur on the integrity and professionalism of members of the Armed Forces who exercise their constitutional right to express their opinions regarding public policy in a manner consistent with good order and
discipline: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Americans serving in the United States Armed Forces have volunteered for such service and have not been drafted for that purpose.

(2) Those who serve in the Armed Forces deserve the respect of all Americans for their willingness to undertake that service.

(3) Those who serve in the Armed Forces do not relinquish their constitutional right to express their opinions regarding public policy in a manner consistent with good order and discipline.

(4) The dedication and honor of Americans serving in the Armed Forces should not be impugned because of their exercise of such right.

SEC. 2. Congress –

(1) recognizes the service of all members of the Armed Forces serving in good standing and with honor to defend the United States, and the personal sacrifices made by them and their families;

(2) commits to judge the merits of the opinions of members of the Armed Forces regarding the policies of the United States, including those related to military actions in Iraq, without prejudice or personal bias, including refraining from unwarranted personal attacks;

(3) condemns in the strongest possible terms the personal attacks made by the broadcaster Rush Limbaugh impugning the integrity and professionalism of Americans serving in the Armed Forces who have expressed opinions regarding military actions in Iraq;

(4) honors all members of the Armed Forces and civilian personnel serving in harm’s way, as well as their families; and

(5) pledges to debate any supplemental funding request or any policy decisions regarding the war in Iraq with the solemn respect and the commitment to integrity that the sacrifices of these members of the Armed Forces and civilian personnel deserve

Like the “Betray Us” ad, this, too, will ultimately backfire.

As my post yesterday about’s attempt to squelch criticism by t-shirt and bumper sticker sellers at Cafe Press underscored, the unhinged Left is beginning to alienate its own base with its any-means-necessary tactics.

You can only shoot yourself in the foot so many times…


Glenn Reynolds spells it out: “…the intent is to limit the ability of people like Limbaugh or O’Reilly to drive stories in the mainstream news as we get closer to the election. Expect more of this, with more targets.”

Yes. In other words: A backdoor restoration of the Fairness Doctrine.


You asked for it: Rep. Mark Udall’s contact info…

Rep. Mark Udall
100 Cannon House
Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-2161
Fax: (202) 226-7840

Tuesday, September 18, 2007


Hillary Rodham, almost certain to be the nominee of the Democrat MoveOn Party, finally unveiled her government-run healthcare planyesterday. For comic relief Ms. Rodham told the assembled crowd that this health care plan would not be "government run." It's pretty much what everyone anticipated.

In essence ... everyone will be required to purchase a health insurance policy, either on their own or through their employer. And just who is going to require the purchase of these policies? Your local sheriff? Well, not exactly. The Imperial Federal Government will do the requiring here, and, one must assume, the enforcing.

Now here's a question that you won't probably hear many people asking, and that's sad. Just where in our Constitution does the federal government acquire the right – the power – to force free citizens to purchase anything, let alone a health insurance policy.

The Constitution is clear on this point, the federal government can only take actions that are specifically authorized by the Constitution. All other powers are reserved for the states or the people. Nowhere in that document do you see anything that can in be interpreted to allow the feds to tell you what you must purchase.

In her little talk yesterday Hillary drew a comparison to auto insurance. She said that states require people to purchase auto insurance before they can drive. This should come as no surprise, but she's wrong. The only time you can be required to purchase automobile insurance by a state government is IF you wish to drive an automobile on a state or government owned highway. You can own a car and drive it around your private property to your heart's content without buying insurance, or without wearing a seatbelt of having operating headlights, for that matter. Hillary's comparison is absurd, but I suppose it's the best she can do.

How will Hillary's government enforce this requirement? Is everyone required to file a report with the government detailing their health insurance company and policy number? Just how high will the costs of compliance here be? And what happens if you fail to buy a policy. Are you jailed? Does the government withhold your tax refund to purchase a policy for you? What if you don't have a tax refund coming? If you just absolutely refuse to buy a health insurance policy, will the government get some sort of a judgment against you and seize enough of your property to pay for the policy?

More questions: What will the policies entail? If you're not a drug addict are you still going to have to pay for drug rehab coverage? What if you have no plans to get pregnant? Are you still going to have to pay for maternity benefits? Let me tell you how this is going to work. Once the government mandates that every person must, under penalty of God knows what, buy a health insurance policy, you're going to have every medical special interest group out there demanding that the government require that those policies provide payments for their pet medical procedures. Ophthalmologists will demand coverage for eye correction surgery. Psychiatrists will demand coverage for psychological issues. Oncologists will demand coverage for experimental cancer procedures that have not as yet been proven effective. These people will be lining up .. and they'll be throwing the campaign donations around like confetti ... and the politicians will give them exactly what they want.

Oh .. and the MoveOn Democrats just love to yammer endlessly about the uninsured. The truth about the uninsured? Most are only uninsured for a period of less than a year. Many simply have made a choice not to buy health insurance. Some have so much wealth that they essentially self-insure. The truth is far from the scenario they paint.

Oh .. and wouldn't you know it? Hillary's plan includes increasing taxes. She doesn't call it a tax increase .. .she used the MoveOn approved code phrase of "repealing the Bush tax cuts."

Remember. This is not about making you more healthy. This is not about improving the delivery of health care services in this country. This is ONLY about increasing the power of government and politicians.

Wednesday, September 05, 2007


Criminal: adj. One that has committed or been legally convicted of a crime. American Heritage Dictionary.

OK ... do you now have the definition of a criminal in mind? If you've committed a crime, you are a criminal. If you've been convicted of a crime, you are a criminal. I realize that this is a tough concept for some liberals to grasp ... but even with my government school education, I think I get it.

Now, may I draw your attention to this editorial that appeared on July 24th in the Indianapolis Star? The title of the editorial is "Illegal doesn't make them criminals." Well now! If ever there was a headline or a title to a column or editorial that better exemplifies the mindset of the leftist media in this country, this would be it.

This editorial is full of so much unadulterated bullcrap, I hardly know where to start.

First, of course, the editors of the Indianapolis Star just can't bring themselves to say the words "illegal aliens," even though that is the official government label applied to people who enter this country illegally. For the most part the Star just refers to them as "immigrants". Instead of attaching the "illegal" word to these criminals, the Star editors refer to them as "young male immigrants ... who arrived in this country without proper documentation."

Gawd .. this political correctness is just infuriating!

These are not "young male immigrants who arrived in this country without proper documentation," they are criminals who crossed our borders illegally, who obtained jobs here illegally (often with forged documents), and who remain here illegally. The Star editors try to portray them as poor, hapless, unfortunate Mexicans who crossed the border into this country in the dark of night and then were m to suddenly discover that, ay caramba, they didn't have the proper documentacion!

In one part of this editorial the reader is told that there is no reason to believe that these "young male immigrants" are any more likely than anyone else to commit a crime. Then, a few paragraphs later, we're told that the crime rate in Indianapolis has risen as the immigrant population has grown. OK guys .. which is it?

The paper then goes on to blame the problem of illegal immigration not on those who actually commit the crimes, but instead on our own government? And just why would that be? Why, because we're not letting them in legally! That means they just have to break the law to get here!

Oh .. now I understand.