Middle East Peace a Fantasy

On February 8, amid wide smiles and handshakes, newly-elected Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon reached across the negotiating table and declared a cease-fire. While staged a bit better for the cameras, this scene was simply the latest "agreement" between the country of Israel and the terrorist Palestinian Authority, and following today's homicide bombing in a Tel Aviv nightclub, just as transitory.

According to Palestinian security officials, it took all of just over two weeks for Hezbollah to find yet another crazed Moslem willing to blow himself to pieces and take a few Jews with him. Immediately, serious-looking representatives from the Palestinian Authority condemned the attack "in the strongest possible terms". Saeb Erekat, the regimes chief negotiator, said that the unknown bombers were "attempting to sabotage all efforts being exerted to revive the peace process". And he sounded so sincere, too, but Moslems are often instructed from a very young age in the skills of lying to the infidel.

If past history is any guide, the PA knows exactly who is responsible, and today's bombing most likely comes with the express support of the Authority itself. After all, Abbas, like his pedophiliac predecessor Yassar Arafat, is a hard-core terrorist supporter. He was one of the founders of Fatah, the Palestinian Liberation Organization's largest terrorist faction. During his recent political campaign, while his opponents were being threatened and shot at, Abbas was campaigning with members of the al-Aksa Martyrs Brigade, and riding on the shoulders of Zakaria Zubeidi, a notorious terrorist and one of Israel's most wanted men. In December, he traveled to Syria to meet with members of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and later his Foreign Minister Nabil Sha'ath reported that there were "no differences in objectives" between the terrorist groups and the Palestinian Authority. He has vowed to shelter terrorists from Israeli justice, and indicated an unwillingness to clamp down on terrorism. During his campaign, Abbas said that he would continue to seek the dreams of Arafat, and force the Israelis back to 1949 borders, eliminate all Jewish settlements, tear down the highly effective security fence, and make Jerusalem the Palestinian capital. But this is not all he pursues or believes in, and his philosophical agreement with the world's largest terrorist organizations makes this clear. From a moral perspective, the "moderate" Abbas has made no secret of his belief that terrorism is justifiable, if such action is intended to support a greater cause. For Palestinians, and for Moslems in general, that cause is the progressive degeneration, leading to the ultimate destruction, of Israel as a country.

Sharon and the Israeli government know what Abbas and the Palestinians really hope to achieve with a cease-fire: time to regroup and re-arm for the next intifada. But pressure from the U.S. State Department and an Administration inexplicably blinded from seeing the true nature of the Islamic threat, and coupled with an invasion of secular Jewish peace freaks into the country in recent years, forces Israel into actions against its own interests time and time again. As Israel struggles to maintain the peace, under the critical eye of a world against them, Palestinian surrogates like Hezbollah are free to murder, maim and destroy at will, and any self-defensive actions by Israel will be universally criticized. And through it all, Abbas and his representatives will express great moral outrage and pledge to bring the terrorists to account. But no arrests will ever be made, and no terrorists will ever be brought to justice, unless an Israeli missile finds its target.

There is the stink of murder on the Palestinians, but even worse, the stink of self-destruction on Israel. Appeasement will only lead to more dead Jews, and stronger enemies. Instead of mustering its substantial military might, and destroying those who threaten her, Israel's leaders reach out in friendship to terrorists like Abbas, in a fantasy of peaceful co-existence that will never come.

As the Palestinian regime gains strength, Israeli existence is a dead man walking.

The Arizonian Candidate

John McCain just can't seem to figure out what he wants to be when he grows up: A Republican or a Democrat. After campaigning half-heartedly for George Bush, he now tells NBC's Tim Russert that Hillary Clinton would make a good president.

There must be someone in John McCain's life that cares enough to get him a CAT scan. Apparently, the Viet Cong interrogators at the Hanoi Hilton were very proficient, and McCain is suffering from a head-injury that has gone undiagnosed for many years now, or he has simply spent way too much time in the searing Arizona sun. How else can his erratic statements and behaviors be explained, unless there is a more sinister and cynical motive in his constant attempts to ingratiate himself with the Democrats.

Even worse, Republican leadership never seems to have the courage to slap McCain down when he deserves it. He wears the mantle of "war hero" so effectively that no one dares take him to task, although it is reasonable to ask how crashing two planes and getting a third shot out from under you qualifies anyone for "hero" status. By all accounts, McCain was not particularly brave or heroic or inspirational while he was in POW confinement, as many were, and there are enough rumors about collaborative conduct in the Hanoi Hilton to at least raise a few eyebrows.

But someone (read Senate Leadership) should clamp down on this loose cannon, and quickly. With no clear Republican front-runner for 2008, and with Clinton already in campaign high gear, McCain's comments are nothing short of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. And this is not the first time McCain has proven himself a dead weight around the party's neck.

McCain claims to be a "good Republican", and a party loyalist, but recent history leaves those assertions in great doubt. Following his humiliating defeat during the 2000 Republican primaries, McCain became embittered. After all, how could he, the war hero and long serving Senator, lose to a political novice like Bush? His nasty resentment and purple-faced anger began to manifest immediately, as McCain found every opportunity to criticize the president, and ally himself to the Democrats on issues such as campaign finance "reform", tax cuts, drilling for oil in ANWR, corporate mergers, and gun control. After 9/11, while Democrats temporarily tempered their incessant criticism for fear of public back-lash, McCain forged ahead for them. He criticized Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for lack of progress in the battle against terrorism, and accused the administration of incompetence by not sending enough troops into battle in Afghanistan and Iraq. More recently, he blamed the Bush administration for the Abu Ghraib fiasco, and gleefully allowed four months to pass before he declined John Kerry's desperate attempts for a "fusion" ticket against Bush. Almost as an afterthought, he half-heartedly joined the Bush campaign where he spent most of his time telling everyone what a nice guy John Kerry was, and what a great president he would make. All this from a self-professed "loyal" Republican.

No one would respect loyalty at the expense of personal integrity, but McCain is simply nasty and conniving in his dissent. Instead of respectful disagreement, McCain appears to be venting, and aligning himself against Bush and the Republicans out of spite or personal advancement. Everytime he distances himself from his own party, he becomes the media darling once again, and face-time on network news shows seems to be more important to him than conservative principles or his own constituents. These are not the motives of a stable individual, or a true leader.

The Senate Leadership should make it clear to McCain that he needs to make up his mind. There is a difference between the ideals and goals of the Republican Party and those of the Democrats. The chasm of idealogy is wider than his home state's Grand Canyon, and even a flake like McCain should be able to see that. If he chooses not to support the party to which he belongs, and he continues to cozy up with those who would destroy it, his chairmanships should be stripped and his office should be moved to a broom closet twenty blocks from the Senate Office Building, at the very least.

It is well past time to stop treating this man with a deference he has never earned and continues to sully.

Either McCain quits undermining his own party, or McCain has got to go.

When Jews and Nazis Agree

When the Pope compared abortion to Hitler's Holocaust in his new book "Memory and Identity: Conversations Between Millenniums", he stated that both occurred because "people decided to abrogate the law of God". The Holy Father drew immediate criticism, most notably (and ironically) from Germany's Central Council of Jews. Paul Spiegel, head of the Council, told the Netzeitung daily newspaper that such statements indicate that the Pope "has not understood or does not want to understand that there is a tremendous difference between factory-like genocide and what women do with their bodies".

Fundamentally, this disagreement is a clash of religious belief. The basis for Spiegel's discernment between the Holocaust and abortion lies in the Jewish religion itself, which does not give full human status to the unborn. Judaism rejects the idea of ensoulment at conception, as Christian believe, and Jewish law states that the fetus is merely "fluid" until 40 days after conception. The Torah is ambiguous on the question of abortion, and there is not a prohibition among the 613 written laws it contains. However, Judaism generally does not view abortion as murder, even when done for convenience, and asserts a preeminent importance to the life of the mother in every case.

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, is clear about unborn children: they are individual human beings, apart from their mother , and posses rights to life just as any other person. The church believes that at the moment of conception, the child is endowed with a soul, and that an abortion commits murder against this child. There is no dispensation in cases of the life of the mother, and every abortion is considered by the Church to be a grave sin, endangering the immortal soul.

While every Jew does not approach abortion so cavalierly, Spiegal does reflect the community's majority opinion. Years of polling have demonstrated that more Jews support abortion rights and the Roe vs. Wade decision than any other religious or ethnic group in the United States. During the last election, Jews voted overwhelmingly for pro-abortion candidate John Kerry, and supported his abortion position by a staggering 85-15 percent margin. Even Jewish religious leaders seem to have embraced abortion with ecclesiastical ferocity, placing themselves far outside the mainstream on this issue in the process. The Religious Action Center, based in Washington and representing nearly 2 million reformed Jews and 1,800 rabbis in more than 875 congregations throughout North America, has even lobbied against any ban on late-term abortions, up through just prior to delivery. This group has also strongly opposed parental notification and consent laws for minor abortions.

However, given history, you would think that Jews, and German-Jews in particular, would at least feel uncomfortable with abortion. After all, hundreds of thousands of Jewish babies were aborted as part of Hitler's plan to first reduce, and then eliminate, Jews. While women of more "heriditarily desirable" blood lines were prohibited by law from procuring abortions, Jewish women were encouraged to abort their children, taking advantage of Germany's abortion-on-demand laws passed on November 10, 1938 with the intention of preventing as many Jewish births as possible. Also, "heriditarily desirable" women were given financial enticements such as government housing loans and cash grants to have more children, while Jewish women were encouraged to abort their "unfit" children up through viability. These laws were a radical departure from those passed under previous German regimes, which since 1871 had protected all children by outlawing abortion for any reason.

Under Hitler, abortion was not an option unless your baby fell into the category of Underminch, or sub-human, and being Jewish was considered a birth defect and a genetic abnormality, along with mental retardation and physical deformity. Simply put, Jews were considered an inconvenient disease, and abortion was just another way to get rid of them.

Of course, all of this was simply the maturation of Hitler's eugenics philosophy, and fit in rather nicely with early 20th century leftist birth control and sex-reform movements of the Western democracies, namely America and Britain. Margaret Sanger, the movement's most famous adherent and believer of using abortion and sterilization, with or without consent, to "purify" the human race, wrote in her April, 1933 publication "Birth Control Review" that "blacks and Jews are a menace to the race". Hitler was an enthusiastic supporter of Sanger, the founder of the American Birth Control League (later Planned Parenthood), and coalesced his own Aryan "master race" beliefs with her beliefs that Jews and blacks are genetically inferior. Lothrop Stoddard, a member of the board of directors of Sanger's ABCL and a close confidant, went to Nazi Germany in 1940 to meet with Joseph Goebbels, and upon returning to America reported that the "Jew problem is already settled in principle and soon to be settled in fact by the physical elimination of the Jews themselves from the Third Reich." Sanger even invited Dr. Ernst Rudin, head of Nazi human experiments, to contribute to her magazine.

Other than those who follow Orthodox traditions, most Jews are uncomfortably close to Hitler's and Sanger's abortion views, as are all supporters of abortion. While Hitler believed Jews were "Underminch", and Sanger condoned abortion of "undesirable" children for the benefit of society, so most Jews view unborn children today, with as little regard for their humanity. Whether they know it or not, many Jews have become ardent supporters of the very philosophy that killed them by the millions during Hitler's rule.

The Pope is exactly right. There is little functional difference between the killing of Jews for political philosophy or killing of babies for personal expediancy. Human arrogance, which assigns relative value to human beings based on usefulness and conveniance, has proven horribly dangerous. It makes little difference whether that arrogance is found in a Nazi laboratory or a Jewish synogogue.

Rangel's Racism

If the liberals in the mainstream media did not have double-standards, they would have no standards at all.

Last week, in a fit of pique over what he perceived as Hillary Clinton's slight of his legislation, Democratic Congressman Charlie Rangel called Bill Clinton a "redneck" from Arkansas. Then, just for good measure, he went on to use the term again to refer to former President Lyndon Johnson, who he described as a "redneck" out of Texas.

Of course, Rangel's comments were immediately criticized, but not by any of the big newspapers or networks. While conservative talk-radio and the "blogosphere" justifiably pilloried Rangel, and did the job that used to be done by a responsible media, his racially charged insults made few headlines elsewhere. Because Rangel is black, but more importantly a liberal Democrat, the media mindset does not accept that he could be racially "insensitive", or harbor any racist proclivities.

This attitude does not extend to white Republican politicians, who are assumed to be racists right out of the box. There is no greater example of this double-standard than when comparing how liberals treated former Senator Strom Thurmond, and how Senator Robert Byrd has risen to a top leadership position in the Democratic Party. Byrd (a Democrat) and Thurmond ( a Republican) were both segregationists in younger days, and Byrd was actually a Grand Kleagle in the Ku Klux Klan. Both men were leaders in the segregationist State's Rights "Dixiecrat" Party, led legendary filibusters against black-friendly legislation in the late 50's and early 60's, and voted against the 1964 civil rights acts. And later, both men expressed regret for these activities, and made apparently sincere efforts to make amends.

For example, Thurmond was a leading proponent of the Martin Luther King holiday, and was said by friends to be extremely embarrassed about his past actions, which he nevertheless framed as more a question of state's rights and less a question of racial animosity. A statue erected to honor him in his home state specifically does not mention his run for president as a Dixiecrat in 1948, reportedly at his request. He was also the first Southern Senator to hire a black staff member, and said that integration proved to be "for the best of all involved". Either through true repentance or political acumen, Thurmond moved away from his past, and his actions and statements regarding race remained above reproach, at least publicly, until he died in 2003. Regardless, black civil rights organizations and the Democrats made Thurmond's past an issue at every opportunity to discredit him.

Byrd, however, made overtures to all the right interest groups, but continued to make racial blunders in public, including using the word "nigger" on national television when it suited his political purposes, and reportedly when it slipped out in private conversations. In the 1970's, Byrd led the push to name the Senate's main office building after former Senator Richard Russell, a leading segregationist and opponent of anti-lynching legislation, and Byrd called Russell his "mentor" while speaking on the Senate floor. Today, the mainstream media treats Byrd like a conquering hero, and he appears incessantly on network interview programs as the voice of the Senate Democrats. Senator Christopher Dodd has said he "would have been a great senator at any moment. He would have been right at the founding of this country. He would have been in the leadership crafting this Constitution. He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this Nation. ."

When Trent Lott said nearly the same thing about Strom Thurmond at his Senate retirement party, merely showing polite deference to a man nearly twice his age, Lott was relentlessly attacked and viciously criticized by the same Senators who lavished praise on former Grand Kleagle Byrd. The media, so predictable, copiously covered Lott in the worst possible light, and used the opportunity to dredge up Thurmond's past yet again.

With the recent increased pressure of alternate information sources like the internet, Rangel has not escaped scrutiny, or accountability, for his repellent statements. Appearing on the Shaun Hannity radio program a few days after his remarks, Rangel did offer a generic apology to "anyone offended", but justified the use of "redneck" as a regional, and not racial, descriptor. But since the term, by his own admission, refers specifically to white, Southern men, it is clearly intended to be racial in nature. Someone should ask Rangel if using "regional" terms such as "spear-chucker" and "jungle-bunny" to describe black Africans would be offensive. One can imagine the hell that would break loose among the media elites if Speaker Dennis Hastert, irritated over some legislative issue, called Maxine Waters a "nigger", and then later said the epithet was simply a dialectical modification of "Niger", and not racial at all.

The double-standard among liberals on this issue is astounding. Condoleezza Rice has been the object of overt racial ridicule, most notably in editorial cartoons and comics. Because her detractors accuse her of being a lackey for the Bush Administration, she has been portrayed repeatedly with exaggerated and stereotypical black features, speaking in a black pidgeon dialect and dressed in slave crop-picker attire. Not only did many supposedly "racially sensitive" publications run with these disgustingly racist portrayals, but editorialized that the artists were simply exercising free speech. Does anyone really believe that a similar cartoon, depicting Jesse Jackson as a big-lipped, flat-nosed, frizzy haired, jive-talking step'n'fetchit for the Democratic Party would be afforded such a defense? It seems unlikely.

Amazingly, all of this was played out yet again just a few days ago. Newly-anointed Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, spending a day speaking sequentially to every racial special interest group imaginable in a hotel conference room in Maryland, told the Congressional Black Caucus that the only way the Republican Party could fill up such a room with people of color would be to invite the hotel staff. Remember, this is the same Howard Dean who told an audience in the south that he wanted to be the candidate of "white Southerners who drive around in pick-ups with Confederate flag decals". And the same guy who didn't hire one senior black staffer during his years as Vermont governor, because there were "not enough blacks" in the state.

But never mind. Like Byrd and Rangel, he is a liberal, and when the rubber meets the road, that is all that matters to the media, and to the Democratic Party.

With those credentials, even Nathan Bedford Forest himself would be welcome.

Free Speech Has Consequences

Freedom of speech is often tinged with pain, especially when the ideas expressed are repulsive and abhorrent and plainly outside of community standards, and often, simple decency. In a quiet, affluent neighborhood in Sacramento, CA, this freedom is being pushed to the very limits of tolerance, and a local couple are finding that regardless of the Constitution, actions bear consequences.

Last week, Steve and Virginia Pearcy, both lawyers and anti-war activists from Berkeley, decided it would be clever to hang a stuffed soldier from the eaves of their half-million dollar weekend getaway. For the face of the effigy, the two used a crumpled American flag, and hung a sign around the figure reading "Your Tax Dollars At Work". Since the intent was simple incitement, it is understandable that neighbors were not thrilled with this political display, including many who know or have relatives or friends serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. While the Pearcys escaped to their main home in Berkeley, distraught neighbors who were forced to live with this spectacle called the police, who arrived and promptly announced that since no law was being broken, there was nothing that they could do. However, within a day, the figure was cut down from the house, and layed on the couple's lawn.

Later, under police protection, the Pearcys hung another dead "soldier" by the neck from the eaves of their home, this time with a sign reading "Bush Lied, I Died". Within days, this was torn down as well. Many in the community have threatened to continue to take down any similar displays, but police were quick to counsel against such actions, as those responsible could be charged with numerous criminal acts, including vandalism, theft, and trespassing. In liberal Sacramento, you can count on it. The Pearcys have promised to vigorously pursue prosecution against anyone who brings down the displays. Since the first pillar of American liberalism is vengeful hatred, you can count on that, as well.

Such displays are not new to the two Berkeley lawyers. Previously, a Palestinian flag was hung in a large picture window, as well as the old Iraqi flag intended to show solidarity with the Iraqi people, presumably against American "aggression". In another neighborly gesture, the Palestinian flag was reportedly hung facing the home of a Jewish family. The Pearcys claim the flags and the hanging effigies are "political protest art", and note that the First Amendment is intended to protect unpopular speech, because such speech is the only kind in need of protection. "We are decent people," says Virginia Pearcy. "We have reasonable views".

While this statement certainly indicates a staggering level of self-delusion, it also highlights a serious flaw in left-wing political thought: blatant hypocrisy.

Would this call for tolerance be extended to a neighbor who, for the purposes of "political protest art", hung an effigy of a black Moslem bearing a sign that read "I murdered Sudanese Christians"? Or an overtly gay figure with the words "I died of AIDS, and now I am burning in Hell"? Or a figure dressed like a doctor with a placard that read "I killed babies"? After all, these would be no more distasteful than the political statement of a dead American soldier hanging by his neck from the roof, and just as heart-felt by many Americans who also believe they hold "reasonable views".

It is truly hard to imagine the level of hysterical protest that would fall on such displays, and on those responsible for them, led by the same people and groups that have voiced support for the Pearcys. And, it is hard to believe that these two particular activists would be out on the streets, with their neighbors, in support of "freedom of speech" under any of those conditions.

As these two Berkeley activists piously remind us about the right of free speech, they also conveniently forget about the flags they have chosen to wrap themselves in. There is no freedom of speech in the Palestinian-controlled areas of Israel, nor freedom to openly practice religions other than Islam, nor freedom of assembly, or any other First Amendment guarantee. Dissent is met with imprisonment or death. In Saddam Hussein's tyrannical mad-house, represented by the old Iraqi flag hanging in their window, people like the Pearcys would not have had the opportunity to exercise free speech for very long. The secret police would have quickly intervened, tortured and murdered them , their children, parents, friends and business associates. Embracing the national flags of these two regimes is tacit approval of both.

By choosing these reprehensible symbols of absolute despotism, they have illuminated their own hypocrisy, and discredited themselves from being taken seriously in the process. They are, in the end, simply irrational, angry radicals throwing a temper tantrum for attention, blinded from all reason by the commodity that leftist tend to have in abundance: rage.

What they do not apparently understand is that while they have the right to express themselves, they have no guarantee of an audience, and no dispensation from the consequences of their actions. Aversive "political protest art", intended solely to incite anger and garner attention, cannot be guarded twenty-four hours a day, everyday. There are those who see the removal of such symbolism, even at the risk of jail-time, as a calling to the higher good, and not as a free speech issue. If large placards covered with vile, disgusting and offensive sexual acts began appearing in public in the Land Park neighborhood, many would see it as a duty to the community to tear them down, and not rely on Supreme Court decisions to tell them when something is just not right. So it is with vile, disgusting and offensive political statements. The Pearcys would do well to remember this.

A group called Move America Forward has planned a candle-light vigil tonight outside of the Pearcys home in the Land Park area of the city. This event will serve only to bring even more attention upon these disaffected malcontents, and that is exactly what they want. A more effective tool against such individuals is to isolate them, completely and with overwhelming numbers. If the Pearcys put a single effigy on their house, the neighbors should exercise their own free speech rights and plaster every lawn and house with pro-soldier and pro-American symbols. Drown out the fringe view with the majority, over-power the negative with the positive, and render such political expressions irrelevant.

The Constitution guarantees the right to speech, but it does not guarantee the right to be heard, or accepted.

When Obstruction Replaces Vision

If you can believe an article by Ronald Brownstein in today's Los Angeles Times, the Democratic Party is the party of Rip Van Winkle, which has just now awoke from a coma to find themselves on the outside looking in. Apparently losing the House and Senate for 10 years, and the last two presidential elections, was not enough to shake them into reality. But now, with George Bush not following historical precedent and instead launching the most ambitious second-term in memory, they are wide awake and desperate, and desperate people do desperate things.

This catharsis must be very difficult for the Democrats, who imagine themselves as the rightful heir to political power and dominance, as they had been for many years during and after FDR. Simon Rosenthal, president of the New Democratic Network, and a challenger to Howard Dean for leadership of the Democratic National Committee, says "What's going on is Democrats are coming to recognize and accept that we are not the majority party anymore". How perceptive. You can almost see the tears streaming down his face as he weeps into a blue handkerchief. Even more amusing is the Times description of his organization as "centrist", which really means they only support taking most of your money and killing most of the babies. But you have to give him credit for this revelation. Acknowledging reality is the first step to recovery.

Since Democrats believe that the space-time continuum is threatened without them in power, and are willing to jettison any cooperation with the administration in order to regain it, their plan is very simple: obstruction and rampant partisanship. But exit polls during the last election reveal self-identified conservatives outnumbered liberals 3 to 2, so this strategy may be yet another major mistake made by the party, such as the last fatal boner of nominating a radical war protestor to run against a strong war president. Not to be dissuaded, Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org, hopes to motivate the militant base of the party, and "give it a backbone". Those are thinly camouflaged code-words for "Stop Bush at any cost". Such positioning will undoubtedly serve to energize the party's core, namely Bush-haters and election conspiracy buffs, and will certainly compel frenzied supporters of MoveOn.org to actively contribute funds to push this combative agenda. That is one reason you see timid Harry Reid out front with this grid-lock policy, standing shoulder to shoulder with Barbara Boxer and Edward Kennedy. He is well aware of who is currently funding his party, and it is not the moderates.

However, most of America, including the few remaining rational Democrats, are squeamish when it comes to obstruction, and tend to reject those who are perceived to practice it, regardless of party affiliation. But this party is banking that America will look the other way, this time. With the coming coronation of Howard Dean to represent the face of the Democratic Party as head of the DNC, the Democrats have firmly planted themselves far lefter than at any time in history, and apparently have no agenda except to stop Bush. Politically, this move is confounding, to say the least. It would be like the Republicans making Bob Dornan the head of the RNC, and no more palatable to the mainstream.

Through the fog, a few-clear thinkers recognize the futility of this path. Former Democratic Representative Timothy Roemer of Indiana, who was slapped down in his bid for DNC chair by party extremists intolerant of his "radical" pro-life position, says that "we will always be a minority party if we cannot say where we want to take America in the future and have a positive and optimistic vision". Try telling that to Howard Dean.

In spite of all this, George Bush and the Republicans continue to push successfully forward with a strong agenda, which also must drive the Democrats crazy. They have dug their heels in the sand, and the President just steps around them at every turn. While Democratic leadership hovers around a statue of long-dead FDR on the Washington Mall, Bush takes his Social Security reform show on the road, putting pressure on Democratic senators from red states. On the floor of the Senate, after much haranguing and political showmanship, both Condoleezza Rice and Alberto Gonzales were confirmed by comfortable margins. Just this week, Congress was in the process of giving the president another legislative victory on tort reform, over Democratic objection. And, more ominously for the obstructionist, Senate leadership is moving towards changing the rules controlling filibusters, ultimately requiring a simple majority to end debate on judicial nominations. Things don't look so optimistic for the minority party.

With Republicans optimistically looking to 2006 to shore up an even bigger majority in Congress, including a good shot at taking the seat now held by Minnesota Senator Mark Dayton, don't look for Democratic fortunes to improve much prior to the next presidential election. Without a vision of their own, they will have nothing to sell the American people except resentment and animosity, for which there are very few takers.

Franken's Delusions

Al Franken's big mouth has gotten him into trouble once again, and placed him in the delicious position of looking like an even bigger blow-hard than usual. Last year, Franken announced that he would run against Minnesota Republican Senator Norm Coleman in 2008. Then, recently, he claimed he would seek to replace Senator Mark Dayton in 2006. When Dayton announced that he would not be seeking another term in two years, the grassy-knoll left was vibrating with expectation, speculating that Franken would actually do what he claimed he would do. How disappointed they must have been today, because apparently Franken is as much a prevaricator and a coward when it comes to his personal ambitions as he is on his rather pathetic radio program.

Air America, the "network" that carries Franken's talk show, continues to hover at the bottom of program ratings, and this may shed some light on his back-track. It is easy to make dramatic announcements meant to stimulate the radical left, but quite another thing to face the reality of your own obscurity. While Franken rants and raves, red-faced and shaking, listeners are shedding him at an astounding rate, according to a January report in Mediaweek. In New York City, the heart of Bush-hating liberalism, Franken's network outlet WLIB has dropped from a 1.4 overall share to 1.2 in the fall Arbitron ratings book. More telling, however, is that surrounded by the wackiest, angriest, and most liberal audience in the country, WLIB can barely make the top 25 stations in New York City. In Minneapolis, second only to NYC as a leftist bastion, Air America station KSNB is not even in the top 25, and is regularly beaten by Spanish music station WDGY-AM!

The problem for Franken is that he is just not very good. Or very bright. Or very interesting. His show is unprofessional and disjointed, and comparisons to Rush Limbaugh and Shaun Hannity for production alone highlights Franken's juvenile effort even more. Not to mention that Limbaugh and Hannity cream Franken in the ratings in every city where both are heard. Because of this, Air America continues to operate in the red, just as it has since the network's highly publicized launch in March 2004. Demonstrating that optimism is never a sure sign of intelligence or reason, Air America President John Sinton recently told the Wall Street Journal that he expects to turn a profit any day now, but in the meantime is scrambling to secure investment.

Don't look for an IPO anytime soon.

Poor Al also has another little problem. He is unhinged, and no one feels comfortable around a crazy man. One needs only to listen to his show for a short period of time to believe that his anger and resentment at being on the losing end of every issue has warped him beyond his control. Maybe in calm moments of fleeting rationality, he sees himself for what he really is, not what his synchophants tell him. It was probably during these moments of lucidity that he smartly decided against presenting himself in a more public forum, like, say, a Senatorial campaign. You can only physically attack so many hecklers before they throw you in the booby-hatch.

Franken's "official" reason for not running for the Senate is that he will honor his two-year commitment to Air America. How noble. A more likely reason is that he knows he could never win, never even come close, even in Minnesota. You can't run a campaign from the insular cocoon of a radio broadcast booth, surrounded by lackeys who provide an echo chamber for every nutty belief and statement, broadcasting to a handful of disaffected malcontents. You can't secure votes by hob-nobbing at a Hollywood cocktail party. He would actually have to get out and face opposition, something he does not handle well. Having watched Franken on television, a medium that amplifies his worst tendencies and traits, one can just imagine a Captain Queeg moment nearly every day.

Franken should stop deluding himself about his personal popularity and depth of public support, and stick with what he does best.

Losing audience.

Will Hillary Make It To 2008?

While most political pundits are wrapped around the axle trying to predict whether Hillary Rodham-Clinton will run for President in 2008, there is the very real and growing possibility that she will have an uphill battle to even retain her Senate seat in 2006, and may even have to fight harder than that to stay out of prison.

Politically, Rodham-Clinton is facing the uncomfortable prospect of running against Rudy Giuliani, arguably the most popular politician in America today. New York Governor George Pataki is reportedly pressuring Giuliani to run against Rodham-Clinton when she comes up for re-election, and is apparently behind a new group called StopHerNow.com, which intends to use the internet to rally opposition to Hillary's political aspirations, and collect donations from across the country to defeat her. The Republican Party knows that if Rodham-Clinton is defeated in 2006, her chances of successfully coming back two years later and seeking the presidency are greatly diminished, maybe obliterated. While she does have star-power among her supporters, and could therefore collect huge amounts of campaign cash in any event, she would most likely be facing other high-profile Democrats for the nomination, without the springboard of current office. A few years out of power can be a lifetime in politics. Just look at her husband.

On the other hand, Giuliani continues to appear gold-plated, even after the Bernard Kerik fiasco. While Hillary is divisive and unpopular outside of the East and West Coasts, Giuliani is a folk hero. Because of the events of 9/11, he carries a persona that Hillary cannot hope to emulate. Even conservative Republicans, like George Bush, who are uncomfortable with his support of abortion rights and gun control, find Giuliani an attractive candidate. With enough national financial support to offset Rodham-Clinton's Hollywood money and shamelessly fawning mainstream media, many Republicans believe Giuliani could handily beat her in that state.

More ominous, however, is the latest brewing Clinton scandal, which has the very real potential to send Queen Hillary to the clink. The particulars this time involve a 2000 Gala fundraiser for Rodham-Clinton's Senate campaign. According to a four count indictment issued on January 10 by a Federal Grand Jury in Los Angeles, campaign manager David Rosen is accused of failing to report most of the $1.2 million spent on the event in an effort to hide campaign cash from the Federal Elections Committee. Peter Paul, the man who funded the event, has testified that his "in-kind" contribution was part of a $17 million bid to entice Bill Clinton to work for Paul's companies after he left office, and as part of a scheme to secure a presidential pardon through DNC Chairman Ed Rendell in exchange for the money.

Rosen's indictment is the culmination of a Judicial Watch civil lawsuit against the Clinton's on behalf of Paul, who has produced documents indicating that both Rosen and Rodham-Clinton were involved in the fraud, and that Hillary was well aware of the under-reporting of campaign expenditures to the FEC. According to Judicial Watch, Rodham-Clinton was personally involved in financial negotiations for Paul in an attempt to lower the costs of the event. Another Clinton operative, Aaron Tonken, who was also involved with the fundraiser in question, has apparently testified in support of Paul's assertions. Tonken is the author of a recently released book entitled "King of Cons", in which he claims that he handed out illegal campaign contributions to various politicians on behalf of the Clinton's during the final months of Bill Clinton's last term.

Of course, the synchophantic media has rushed to the support of Hillary. Today, the New York Times devoted many columns of space in an effort to disparage Peter Paul, describing him as a "smooth operator with myriad connections", a "troubled character" and a "well connected figure with a checkered past". While these descriptions could very well apply to Rodham-Clinton herself, the Times has begun the standard procedure when confronting Clinton accusers: dismiss, denigrate, and destroy.

Hillary's supporters believe she will win her 2006 Senate re-election, and have two years to aggressively campaign for president. However, if Rosen, like Paul, implicates Rodham-Clinton in the fraud, as he very well might in the weeks ahead, as part of a plea-agreement to lessen the severity of his own punishment, she might be spending those two years (or more) in a federal penitentiary.

Republicans will continue to hope for a Giuliani run against Clinton in 2006. Democrats should hope that Hillary is not behind bars before then.

Time to Bring Back Proposition 187

When America's borders cease to exist as divisions of sovereignty, and become undefended and unprotected gateways allowing millions of poor, unskilled laborers to cross illegally and without apparent consequence, the rule of law and our country's stability are threatened. Beyond that, however, are the very real costs of such an invasion.

As Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature continue to meet in special session over the state's nearly $9 billion budget deficit, a report released yesterday by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) details one problem that should be immediately addressed to recoup desperately needed funds: illegal immigration.

According to FAIR, and a similar report released in August by the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, illegal aliens (the vast majority from Mexico) cost Californians $10.5 billion a year for education, health care, and incarceration in state prisons. Even when illegal aliens pay state and local taxes, that figure is only reduced by $1.6 billion a year, leaving a staggering burden on taxpayers greater than the entire current state budget deficit.

The state's prisons are overcrowded with illegal alien criminals, with some estimates as high as 40% of the convict population. These individuals cost the taxpayers $1.4 billion annually, with little reimbursement from the federal government. Health care provided to illegal aliens, who never have insurance, accounts for another $1.4 billion as well.

California schools are especially trampled by these law-breakers. As liberals turn purple over any suggested decreases in increases to education to balance the budget, illegal aliens siphon off $7.7 billion a year from the public school system. In fact, over 15% of all enrolled students in this state are here illegally. The administrators and teachers know who these students are, but are actually prohibited by state law from reporting them to federal immigration authorities, and because most educrats are liberals, would not be inclined to do so in any event. The state even requires special instruction to accommodate foreign language speakers, and of course in this state that means Spanish speakers, and requires all teachers to attend 45 hours of specialized training to meet the needs of these "immigrants". In some urban districts, the only American in the classroom is the teacher. Maybe.

All of this while California politicians strive to grant reduced college tuition and give the privilege of a driver's license to illegals. How ironic that citizen John Smith from Nevada must pay exorbitant out of state rates to attend a California college, while illegal Mexican Jose Gonzalez gets resident rates, and subsidized tuition.

The illegal alien enablers claim that we just could not get along without these people. California's 3 million illegal aliens supposedly fill employment niches that Anglo Americans won't perform, such as agricultural labor and low-skilled food service jobs. But this has not always been the case. At one time, these jobs were filled by poor, uneducated American workers, those entering the job market for the first time, and college students looking for part-time employment. Food service jobs, such as prep chefs, used to be a fairly middle class employment opportunity. One of my first jobs in college was working at a Wendy's fast food restaurant in Sacramento, CA in the mid 1980's. My fellow employees came from a broad range of backgrounds, including a formerly homeless man, low-income mothers making ends meet with a second job, and college kids who worked around their class schedule. One of our managers was from India, who had legally immigrated to the United States and was working his way up through the company. There was not one Hispanic employee, and certainly no illegal aliens. Today, less than twenty years later, that restaurant is choked with workers that can barely speak English, all apparently from Mexico or South America. I could only guess how many are illegal, but I would feel comfortable in saying most probably are.

Both the left and the right in this country are equally to blame for this crisis. Liberals see illegals as potential union members and dependent constituencies, and conservatives believe that lower production costs can only be maintained by paying these people low wages. Because of selfish needs, neither political party seems to feel the pulse of the electorate on this issue, chief among them President Bush who shows an inexplicable deference to Mexico, a filthy third world cess-pool ruled by corrupt, socialistic robber barons. There is a convergence of necessity regarding illegals among these disparate camps, a rare occurrence in today's divided political culture. It is, however, removed from the reality of American opinion.

Americans are tolerant and understanding, but not stupid and suicidal. Every poll shows an overwhelming majority of Americans against illegal aliens, and supportive of immediate steps to remove these criminals from our country. Simply being here, unchecked, is a slap in the face of every immigrant who has done the right thing and followed the law. Californians attempted such a rational course of action when they approved Proposition 187 in 1994, which simply denied access to education, non-emergency health care, and all social services to persons here illegally. Cowering to the Mexican lobby, a dominant force in this state, since-recalled Governor Davis refused to pursue the will of the people through the courts, and allowed an unacceptable arbitration that gutted the law. Since then, even the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has approved as constitutional a similar law passed recently in Arizona.

Braced by this success, a grass-roots movement in the state, led by the Save Our License Committee, is now actively collecting voter signatures to put a new initiative on the ballot in November. This initiative would derail radical Hispanic legislators from their obsession with giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens, and would also deny some social services. The authors of this initiative have brilliantly written the law to require that the governor and the Attorney General vigorously defend it in court, preventing a repeat of Davis' shenanigans.

However, simply depriving social services to these parasites does not go far enough. One other solution that might prove astoundingly effective would be to treat business owners who hire illegal aliens as we do drug dealers, and forfeit the business to the government, for sale to defray the cost of illegal aliens. Imagine the impact nationwide if the state seized a major construction company in Los Angeles, or a Wal-Mart in Sacramento, or a vineyard in Napa County. Employers would actively seek out legal employees rather than take the chance, and Americans would get hired. The employment opportunities for the illegals would quickly dry up, and they would go home. Where they belong.

Since Democrats in California demand increased taxes to mend years of liberal over-spending and ignore the burden of millions of illegals on the taxpayers, and Republicans in Washington attempt to compare these criminal leeches to generations of legal immigrants, there will be very little help from politicians. The problem is not going to get any better, and will most likely get worse. California has a proposition alternative, allowing direct voter approval of state constitutional amendments. It is time to bring back another, stronger Proposition 187 in order to save the state.

Once again, it falls to the people to save themselves.

Ninth Circuit Wrong. . .Again

While most liberal scholars and pontificators place great emphasis on the First Amendment to the Constitution, inventing increasingly absurd "rights" protecting all manners of decadence and obscenity never intended or foreseen by our Founders, it could be comfortably argued that the next amendment among those ratified is actually our most important protection against governmental abuse. A recent U.S. Department of Justice report, written in August of 2004, but just released, tends to bolster this argument with the weight of the Federal government itself. In addition to bluntly stating that the Second Amendment to the Constitution recognizes a clear and undeniable right of each man to bear arms, it also goes a long way in slapping down the most dangerous and activist court in the land: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

One would think the judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the most liberal (and overturned) appeals court in the United States, would soon tire of being wrong so often. While accounting for 17% of all appellate cases heard throughout the United States, its decisions accounted for nearly half (43%) of all appellate cases reviewed by the Supreme Court, and of those cases reviewed in 2002, 75% were vacated in whole or in part. This shabby record of judicial incompetence was never more evident than in a December, 2002 decision regarding the California District Court case Silveira vs. Lockyer.

While the specifics of this case involved the ability of the State of California to control and ban so-called "assault weapons", the conclusions drawn by the Ninth Circuit were staggering in their scope. Not content to simply address equal protection claims, or the validity of state law with respect to firearms control, the activists of this rogue court took the opportunity to dismiss 200 years of Constitutional intent, and a thousand years of common law, and rule that the Second Amendment does not recognize an individual's right to bear arms.

Since the phrase "the people", such as in the First Amendment (and everywhere else in the Constitution) has always been interpreted as describing individuals and not governmental entities, this decision was unique. Suddenly, "the people" meant an exclusionary collective, more specifically a government controlled collective such as a state's National Guard. While this interpretation would appear fallacious and wrong-headed even to those not familiar with past court decisions, it is not completely unexpected. Leftist have always viewed the Second Amendment as a noxious irritant, and have done everything possible to undermine its recognition of the God-given right of self-protection and right to over-throw a dictatorial government. After years of practicing the former, and attempting the latter, one can easily see why the Framers and the States would be hesitant to place too much faith in any group of leaders, no matter how benign at the moment.

As contemporary writings clearly indicate, the Second Amendment was an answer to what many citizens saw as the new government's power and control over a "militia", a situation that made many very uncomfortable. Since the militia had always been the body of armed men, not attached to any governmental entity, a clarification was necessary to set the citizens at ease. While there could be a small cadre of trained military men under the control of the State, the Second Amendment was to clarify the difference between this "organized" militia, and the much larger and uncontrolled "unorganized militia". At the time, and still today in Federal Regulations, every man between the ages of 17 and 45 is automatically a member of militia, whether he wishes to be or not. This is the difference between common law, the peoples right to a militia, and the statutory law, the State's establishment of military cadres. This is a difference the Ninth Circuit refused to recognize, but that the Executive branch has made clear with this report.

While the report, written by assistant attorneys general from the Department of Justice, does describe the unsettled legal landscape, such as another recent Fifth Circuit decision that held the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right, its emphasis is on examining the Constitution itself, and the historical and contemporary influences on those who wrote it. This level-headed approach, repugnant to those who believe they know better than the men who framed it, details that when the Constitution says "the People", that is exactly what it means: the right of individuals. The report is very effective in making this common-sense argument, and is dismissive of the collective or quasi-collective rights interpretation, as it should be, since these arguments are irrational in the context of history and the intended outcome of individual liberty.

This report is also a refreshing disengagement from the previous administration, when Clinton's Justice Department attempted to destroy the rights of American gun owners in every conceivable way. Clinton and his party paid the price for this huge miscalculation, and Clinton himself has said that this position contributed directly to the Democrat's loss of the House and Senate. Mainstream America has rejected the gun-grabbers, and this was never clearer than during the recent election, when in order to have a fighting chance in fly-over country, Kerry swallowed his disdain and shaped himself into a faux pro-gun enthusiast, much to the discomfort of his supporters, who are as equally hostile to guns and those who own them as Kerry.

Americans can expect that this report, and Justice Department support, will assist in the long process ahead of dismantling unconstitutional gun bans around the country. As with the First Amendment, a right is only subject to reasonable and minimal restrictions. We would never allow certain words, ideas or thoughts to be banned because some people are offended. Since our Second Amendment so clearly recognizes our individual right to protection against tyranny, it is equally abhorrent to ban certain types of firearms, simply because they make some people uncomfortable.