SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: calgal who wrote (55556)3/31/2007 6:24:21 PM
From: calgal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 59480
 
Millions for bandages, nothing for bullets

By Wesley Pruden









jewishworldreview.com | The Democrats have done their worst, and now George W. Bush must do his best.

The Senate's 51-47 vote to require the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq within a year, effectively telling al Qaeda and its terrorist allies that if they can tone down the noise for a year the Shi'ites and Sunnis can get on with killing each other in the name of Osama, Mohammed, Allah or any Muslim notability of their choosing. The moderate Muslims everyone here says he wants to help can drop dead (and many of them will).

"Nothing good can come from this bill," Sen. Mitch McConnell, the leader of the Republican minority, told the Senate. "It's loaded with pork and it includes a deadline for evacuation that amounts to sending a 'Save the date' card to al Qaeda."

Robert Byrd, the antique Democratic senator who is said to have led the fight to impose a similar restraint on Abraham Lincoln in the wake of Lee's rout of Hooker at Chancellorsville, seemed confused. "With passage of this bill," he said, "the Senate sends a clear message to the president that we must take the war in Iraq in a new direction. Setting a goal for getting most of our troops out is not — not, not — cutting and running."

George W. Bush, speaking to a group of Republican congressmen only a mile or so down Pennsylvania Avenue, sounded like a president trying on his fighting clothes for size. "We expect there will be no strings on our commanders, and that we expect the Congress to be wise about how they spend the people's money." In private, the president was even more forceful, vowing a veto that could set up an epic struggle with the Senate. Or at least a fight with bigger mudballs.

Both sides hint compromise, but that may be goody-goody blather. The most bizarre idea offered so far is a scheme by Mark Pryor, the freshman senator from Arkansas, to set a withdrawal date but not tell anyone what it is. Well, almost not anyone. The senators would know, and after some of them rush out to tell the Associated Press so would everyone else. Someone else suggested that if the senators set the withdrawal date only in Pig Latin, the terrorists, fearful of offending Allah, would never try to learn the date.

Pork, of course, is the only language Congress speaks. Earlier the president ridiculed the Senate bill, which in addition to prescribing cut-and-run threatens to sink under the weight of all that lard. The president reduced a convention of cattlemen to rollicking laughter with his mockery of the particulars of the Democratic legislation to "win the war."

"There's $3.5 million [in the bill] for visitors to tour the Capitol and see for themselves how Congress works." To loud laughter, he added: "I'm not kidding you. The bill includes $74 million for peanut storage, $25 million for spinach growers. There's $6.4 million for the House of Representatives' salaries and expense accounts. I don't know what that is, but it is not related to the war and protecting the United States of America."

But the president put levity aside to challenge the Democrats. "Here's the bottom line: The House and the Senate bills have too much pork, too many conditions on our commanders, and an artificial timetable for withdrawal. ... If either [the House or Senate] version comes to my desk, I'm going to veto it."

The Democrats are convinced they're dealing from the position of strength. So is the president. The Democrats reckon, probably correctly for now, that the public is fed up enough with the war that they can pursue their strategy of total war against the president and the Republicans. The '08 elections, not the fighting in Iraq, is what's at stake. Nancy Pelosi and her minions think they have finally devised a fail-safe strategy, of crippling the troops through a surrogate, and thus can't be held accountable. "We will have legislation that will give him every dollar he asks for for our troops and more, but with accountability," she says.

But that's a bunco game, and amounts to promising "millions for bandages, but not one cent for bullets." Who but a San Francisco Democrat could come up with that?

jewishworldreview.com



To: calgal who wrote (55556)3/31/2007 6:25:21 PM
From: calgal  Respond to of 59480
 
Under the gun, libs give ground on Second Amendment

By Jonah Goldberg



URL: jewishworldreview.com





jewishworldreview.com | Considering how badly things have been going for conservatives, right-wingers, Republicans and anyone else whose brain doesn't explode like one of those guys from the movie "Scanners" at the thought of another Republican president, it's worth noting that one of the greatest conservative victories of the last 40 years is quietly unfolding right in front of us. On March 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an epochal ruling. The court found that the Second Amendment actually protects the right to bear arms for individuals.

Now, that in and of itself is huge. For decades, the courts, the legal and academic establishments, the press and all right-thinking people everywhere have been arguing that not only is the Second Amendment a chestnut from a bygone age, but that enlightened judges should just go ahead and void the darn thing like a bad parking ticket.

The high-water mark of anti-gun-rights shabbiness was the 2000 release of "Arming America" by then-Emory University historian Michael Bellesiles. The book purported to prove that gun ownership was never a major part of American society and that America's gun culture was a useful myth for the gun-nutters eager to make the Second Amendment mean something it doesn't. The book received lavish praise from the liberal establishment, including a rave review by Gary Wills in The New York Times, and won Columbia University's prestigious Bancroft Prize.

The only problem was that the whole thing was an elaborate hoax, perpetrated with faked or nonexistent evidence. Intellectually honest liberals had to recant. The Bancroft Prize was revoked. Wills admitted: "I was took. The book is a fraud."

Of course, there has always been a minority of liberals who've shown a willingness to admit, often reluctantly, that the Constitution can approve of something they disapprove of. Liberal journalist Michael Kinsley famously quoted a colleague as saying, "If liberals interpreted the Second Amendment the way they interpret the rest of the Bill of Rights, there would be law professors arguing that gun ownership is mandatory." And in 1989, Sanford Levinson penned a Yale Law Review article tellingly titled "The Embarrassing Second Amendment."

Such honesty has proved contagious. As Brookings Institution scholar Benjamin Wittes chronicles in the current edition of The New Republic, various liberal legal scholars have come to grudgingly accept that the Second Amendment's meaning and intent include the individual right to own a gun. "(T)he amendment achieves its central purpose by assuring that the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification," writes no less than the dean of liberal legal scholars, Laurence Tribe. Tribe had to update his textbook on the Constitution to account for the growing consensus that — horror! — Americans do have a constitutional right to own a gun. It's not an absolute right, of course. But no right is.

Now, you might think this is what I have in mind when I say that the Court of Appeals ruling was an epochal victory for conservatives. But it's not.

No, the real victory is that liberals are starting to accept the fact that the constitution has a meaning separate and distinct from what the most pliant liberal judge wants it to mean. Therefore, writes Wittes, "perhaps it's time for gun-control supporters to come to grips with the fact that the (Second Amendment) actually means something ... For which reason, I hereby advance a modest proposal: Let's repeal the damn thing." Wittes isn't alone. A number of left-wing commentators have picked up the idea as well.

Personally, I would oppose repeal, and I have problems with many liberal arguments against the Second Amendment. But that liberals are willing to play by the rules is an enormous, monumental victory that transcends the particulars of the gun-control debate.

According to the so-called "living Constitution" championed by liberals from Woodrow Wilson to Al Gore and Bill Clinton, amendments are a waste of time since enlightened jurists can simply "breathe new life" into the meaning of the Constitution. No more, if Wittes and Co. have their way. Now, we'll have to have an argument.

"It's true that repealing the Second Amendment is politically impossible right now," Wittes concedes. "That doesn't bother me. It should be hard to take away a fundamental right."

Yes, it should. It should also be hard to mint a new one. And, as conservatives have argued for decades, in both cases the ideal method is democratic debate and legislative deliberation, not judicial whim.

So buck up, my conservative brethren. It's not all bad news these days.



To: calgal who wrote (55556)3/31/2007 6:25:33 PM
From: calgal  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 59480
 
Lincoln, FDR Lead Presidents’ Best of Best
By Curt Smith (bio)


Vive la differencecry Parisians, who ironically often shrink from judging good v. bad. (One reason they are French.) By contrast, Americans, as writer Mark Reiter says, like making “clearer and cleaner decisions about what is good, better, best in the world.”

Reiter is co-editor of a new book, Enlightened Bracketologist: The Final Four of Everything, using a top-32 bracket system popularized by basketball to judge 101 categories like inventions, CEOs, animation characters, and Kings and Queens of England.

Best dog for the ages? The book names Snoopy. (I’d choose Fala or Rin-Tin-Tin).

Best candy bar? Nielson Crispy Crunch. (Like Florida, Snickers wants a recount.)

Best black-and-white TV series? Bracketologist picks The Andy Griffith Show, easily and naturally. (Mayberry, as state of place and mind.)

Reiter and his co-editor, The New York Times sports TV columnist Richard Sandomir, asked me to choose the best all-time Presidential speeches. I began fearlessly, if haltingly. How do you evaluate the very core by which Presidents are judged?

Theodore Roosevelt invented the term Bully Pulpit: the Presidency’s nonpareil power to persuade. Ultimately, great speakers wed social impact, political consequence, and/or rhetorical artistry, forging oral history passed from one generation to another.

No one equals Franklin Roosevelt’s five of my 32 top speeches. They are: 1936 “Rendezvous With Destiny”; 1940 “Arsenal of Democracy”; 1941 “Four Freedoms” address; and 1941 “Date which will live in infamy” declaration of war upon Pearl Harbor. In second place overall: FDR’s “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself” 1933 First Inaugural.

To me, Roosevelt, not the magic Ronald Reagan, was The Great Communicator – or was that Honest Abe? Like George Washington, Lincoln was “first in the hearts of his countrymen” – and his 1865 Second Inaugural first among equals: “with malice toward none, with charity for all … let us strive to … bind up the nation’s wounds.” Lincoln died 41 days later. His lyric address lives.

The Great Emancipator’s other among-top 32 speeches are his 1861 Inaugural and 1863 Gettysburg Address. In third place is John Kennedy’s 1961 Inaugural: “Ask not what your country can do for you.” Fourth: In 1986, Reagan mourned the Challenger explosion using a sonnet by World War II aviator John Gillespie Magee: “They slipped the surly bonds of earth” to “touch the face of God.”

Other JFK masterworks are 1962’s Cuban Missile Crisis address and 1963’s “Ich bin ein Berliner.” Beside Challenger, Reagan bares 1984’s D-Day 40th anniversary and 1987 Berlin petition: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” Richard Nixon is the only other President with three speeches: 1969 “Silent Majority” address; 1972 speech to the Soviet people, the first to use TV to address another Nation; and poignant 1974 farewell, saying, “My mother was a saint.”

In Bracketologist, Washington and Lyndon Johnson vaunt two addresses each: former, 1789 First Inaugural and 1796 Farewell; latter, 1963 post-JFK assassination and 1965 Voting Rights Act. All show, as LBJ aide Douglass Cater said, “how Presidents, like great French [!] restaurants, have an ambiance all their own.”

Presidents with one speech apiece are: Thomas Jefferson (1801 First Inaugural), Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Gerald Ford (“Our long national nightmare is over”), Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush (nine days after 9/11. Few recall, given sonny’s collapse.)

At best, each President has tried to reach, teach, and change us, moving history his way. I hope The Enlightened Bracketologist’s 32 top speeches reflect Jefferson’s “this government, the world’s best hope.” Plainly we remain what Walter Lippmann termed “a most Presidential country”: still a great land in which to judge.

politicalmavens.com