|
|
Broadsides archives current 06/01/2002 - 06/30/2002 07/01/2002 - 07/31/2002 08/01/2002 - 08/31/2002 09/01/2002 - 09/30/2002 10/01/2002 - 10/31/2002 11/01/2002 - 11/30/2002 12/01/2002 - 12/31/2002 01/01/2003 - 01/31/2003 02/01/2003 - 02/28/2003 03/01/2003 - 03/31/2003 04/01/2003 - 04/30/2003 05/01/2003 - 05/31/2003 06/01/2003 - 06/30/2003 07/01/2003 - 07/31/2003 08/01/2003 - 08/31/2003 09/01/2003 - 09/30/2003 10/01/2003 - 10/31/2003 11/01/2003 - 11/30/2003 12/01/2003 - 12/31/2003 links o' plenty Operation Military Pride Operation USO Care Package Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund Fisher House Faces of the Fallen IraqiSchools.com
James Lileks
Leaning Towards The Dark Side
New York Post
Drudge Report
Milton Friedman
Reagan Presidential Library
Congress
Institute of Official Cheer |
Sunday, December 21, 2003
"The Face of America" TIME named its Person of the Year this morning: They swept across Iraq and conquered it in 21 days. They stand guard on streets pot-holed with skepticism and rancor. They caught Saddam Hussein. They are the face of America, its might and good will, in a region unused to democracy. The U.S. G.I. is TIME's Person of the Year ... To have pulled Saddam Hussein from his hole in the ground brings the possibility of pulling an entire country out of the dark. In an exhausting year when we've been witness to battles well beyond the battlefield--in the streets, in our homes, with our allies--to share good news felt like breaking a long fast, all the better since it came by surprise. And who delivered this gift, against all odds and risks? The same citizens who share the duty of living with, and dying for, a country's most fateful decisions ... Perfect choice. Thursday, December 18, 2003 Quote Of The Day "Why don't they let Sirhan Sirhan out to go Christmas shopping?" -- Howard Stern, reacting to a federal judge's decision allowing would-be presidential assassin John Hinckley, Jr. to travel unsupervised. Madumb Secretary Once again, Madeleine "Not At" Albright lives up to her nickname. Reacting to Saddam's capture, she wondered aloud to Roll Call editor Morton Kondracke if the Bush Administration already has Osama bin Laden in custody and will reveal it to the world just before next year's election. Albright now claims she was just pulling Mort's leg. I saw Kondracke on Fox News when he revealed Albright's comments. He said she gave no indication that she was joking. Who do you believe? A respected veteran journalist or a simpleton former secretary of State who once suggested that it wasn't a good thing for the United States to be the world's sole superpower? An "American Chronicle By The Tigris" Thanks to the late Robert Bartley's longtime stewardship, great columns like this make the Wall Street Journal's editorial page must-reading. Unbelievable How can it be that the man who shot the president of the United States, the White House press secretary, a Secret Service agent and a Washington, D.C. policeman is allowed to walk among us unsupervised? The federal judge responsible for this outrage -- Clinton appointee Paul L. Friedman -- is as fucked in the head as the monster he set free. Maybe Friedman did it to impress Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Wednesday, December 17, 2003 "The Bike-Path Left" That's Mark Steyn's new label for Howard Dean and the other twice-baked hippies who dominate the Democratic Party. Read Steyn's explanation. Tuesday, December 16, 2003 He's Back! Shhhh. Listen closely. Hear that? No, that's not a cuckoo clock you hear. But you're close! It's Saddam's closet American ally, Democrat Rep. Jim McDermott! You may remember McDermott. He's the ethically-impaired Washington congressman who, in September of 2002, went to Iraq to help Saddam stay in power. Judging from this AP report, Jimbo's still doing what he can to thwart American's liberation of Iraq: Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., told a Seattle radio station Monday the U.S. military could have found Saddam "a long time ago if they wanted." Asked if he thought the weekend capture was timed to help Bush, McDermott chuckled and said: "Yeah. Oh, yeah." The Democratic congressman went on to say, "There's too much by happenstance for it to be just a coincidental thing." When interviewer Dave Ross asked again if he meant to imply the Bush administration timed the capture for political reasons, McDermott said: "I don't know that it was definitely planned on this weekend, but I know they've been in contact with people all along who knew basically where he was. It was just a matter of time till they'd find him. This was too much even for a fellow Democrat congressman: "With all due respect to my colleague, that is a fantasy," Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., said of McDermott's comments. "That just is not right. ... It's one thing to criticize this administration for having done this war. I mean, that's a fair question. But to criticize them on the capture of Saddam, when it's such a big thing to our troops, is just ridiculous." Besides being a traitor, McDermott is well known as Grade A prime loon. He's also a psychiatrist. Physician, heal thyself. A Patriotic Dem Rips His Party The day after Al Gore endorsed the Spaz and labeled America's war on terrorism "a catastrophic failure", I wrote that "Most Democrat leaders will do anything to win the presidency--even if it means siding with terrorists, flirting with treason, destroying our troops' morale and endangering American lives." Surprisingly, there's a Democrat who agrees. In a column published on the Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal.com, a Democrat, writer Orson Scott Card, has choice words for some of his fellow Dems: ...the most vile part of this campaign against Mr. Bush is that the terrorist war is being used as a tool to try to defeat him--which means that if Mr. Bush does not win, we will certainly lose the war. Indeed, the anti-Bush campaign threatens to undermine our war effort, give encouragement to our enemies, and cost American lives during the long year of campaigning that lies ahead of us. And that's just for starters. Read Card's scathing indictment here. Monday, December 15, 2003 "Critical Mass" In Iraq Victor Davis Hanson's December 12th column in National Review Online is typically brilliant. It's also prophetic. Be sure to check it out. Quote Of The Day President Bush sends his regards. -- Major Brian Reed, US Army 4th ID, answering Saddam's offer to negotiate moments after the former dictator was captured. Disappointed Dems If anyone needs evidence that the Democratic Party is sick to its core, they should read the the DNC's message board for reaction to Saddam's capture. Taranto highlights a few: Here's a sampling of comments from "Kicking Ass," the official blog of the Democratic National Committee (also quoted verbatim): * Pam Bergren: "I personally don't care too much that Hussein was caught--he never did anything to me." * "marsh": "This is supposed to be a war on terror, not a war on tyranny." * Erik Latranyi: "Well, tha capture of Sadaam takes the 'failure to capture' issue off the table. Now that the economy is picking up (mall was packed yesterday), Iraq is getting better, prescription drugs on the way, education spending at an all-time high, no further terrorist attacks--what is left? Oh, yes, the capture of Bin Laden. If that happens, we are completely sunk." Now we know what Ronald Reagan, a former Democrat, meant when he declared that he never left the Democratic Party; rather, he said, the Democratic Party left him. Good Idea James Taranto has a suggestion: "The men who spotted Saddam's hole deserve a fitting reward. If we may be so bold, Mr. President, how about Christmas dinner at the White House for them and their families?" And throw in the $25 million reward moolah, too. Sunday, December 14, 2003 Reuters Encourages Terrorists "Saddam's capture may not end unrest" -- a headline from a Reuters call-to-arms disguised as a news report An Ace In The Hole 4th Infantry troops and Special Forces trumped the Ace of Spades in his hometown of Tikrit yesterday. They found him hiding in a hole. How fitting. Kudos to our troops. Thursday, December 11, 2003 Scalia's Dissent A few excerpts from Justice Scalia's dissent in the McCain-Feingold case: Because these cases are of such extraordinary importance, I cannot avoid adding to the many writings a few words of my own. This is a sad day for the freedom of speech. Who could have imagined that the same Court which, within the past four years, has sternly disapproved of restrictions upon such inconsequential forms of expression as virtual child pornography, tobacco advertising, dissemination of illegally intercepted communications, and sexually explicit cable programming would smile with favor upon a law that cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government. For that is what the most offensive provisions of this legislation are all about... The premise of the First Amendment is that the American people are neither sheep nor fools, and hence fully capable of considering both the substance of the speech presented to them and its proximate and ultimate source. If that premise is wrong, our democracy has a much greater problem to overcome than merely the influence of amassed wealth. Given the premises of democracy, there is no such thing as too much speech... The first instinct of power is the retention of power, and, under a Constitution that requires periodic elections, that is best achieved by the suppression of election-time speech. We have witnessed merely the second scene of Act I of what promises to be a lengthy tragedy. Striking Down The First Amendment When a Supreme Court majority opinion opens in this fashion, you know the Constitution is about to be tossed aside: More than a century ago the "sober-minded Elihu Root" advocated legislation that would prohibit political contributions by corporations in order to prevent "the great aggregations of wealth, from using their corporate funds, directly or indirectly," to elect legislators who would "vote for their protection and the advancement of their interests as against those of the public." In Root's opinion, such legislation would "strik[e] at a constantly growing evil which has done more to shake the confidence of the plain people of small means of this country in our political institutions than any other practice which has ever obtained since the foundation of our Government." The Congress of the United States has repeatedly enacted legislation endorsing Root's judgment. BCRA [Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act] is the most recent federal enactment designed "to purge national politics of what was conceived to be the pernicious influence of 'big money' campaign contributions." What the legal definition of "big money" is, Justice Stevens--writing for the majority--doesn't say. But it sure sounds evil, doesn't it? What about the pernicious influence of little money? There are few things more annoying than having to endure someone jingling their pocket change. But I digress. Disguised as campaign finance reform, the BCRA (a.k.a. McCain-Feingold) is a modern-day version of the Sedition Act of 1798. Its goal is to minimize criticism of federal officeholders by regulating the content, timing and funding of political advertising on radio and television. For example, McCain-Feingold prohibits any person or group not covered by federal election laws from mentioning a federal candidate's name in radio and tv ads within 60 days of a general election. In upholding this and other glaringly unconstitutional provisions of McCain-Feingold, Justices Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer base their ruling on the opinions on Elihu Root, former justices, former presidents, and zillions of other statues and precedents. They also resort to using vague phrases such as "soft money", "electioneering speech", "sham issue advocacy" and "electioneering communication". But--and this is key--the five justices never refute the claim of McCain-Feingold critics that the act restricts free speech. Instead, the majority poo-poos free speech concerns by saying the plaintiffs "conceive of political corruption too narrowly" and that McCain-Feingold is a "modest" statute that has "only a marginal impact on political speech." In other words, the Supreme Court has ruled that if Congress is corrupt enough, then Congress is allowed to violate the freedom of speech--but only a little bit!! The First Amendment of the Constitution is precise: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech .... Period. There's no way around this prohibition on Congress--except to ignore it. That's why Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer ramble for about 165-pages in a futile attempt to argue that adherence to the Constitution is predicated upon the prevalence of political corruption. But let's not reserve all the criticism in this matter for the Supreme Court. The blame for this century's Sedition Act falls squarely onto every member of Congress who voted for it and the president who signed it into law. Shame on them. |
