All McCain Will Need Is A Broom

McCain's Promise On Judges And The Dems Make Us Much Less Safe

Here is something John McCain said during his speach at CPAC:

I intend to nominate judges who have proven themselves worthy of our trust that they take as their sole responsibility the enforcement of laws made by the people’s elected representatives, judges of the character and quality of Justices Roberts and Alito, judges who can be relied upon to respect the values of the people whose rights, laws and property they are sworn to defend.

Now, if you've been keeping score of the final three candidates, you have the two Dems promising to nominate justices who will legislate from the bench and one who nominate justices like John Roberts and Sam Alito. Yet there is still that rage and anger against John McCain for some reason. And what is worse is that if you try to confront these angry people by asking, "Can you explain how justices appointed by Hillary or Obama would be better?" they usually fly off onto some irrelevent tangent about McCain's all but guaranteed nomination instead of actually answering the question.

Writing for the PajamasMedia, Professor Stephen Bainbridge has the following to say about this:

To be sure, Presidents all too often break campaign promises. Remember George Bush 41’s “read my lips” pledge on taxes? In the new media environment, however, it’s getting easier to hold a President’s feet to the fire. Remember George Bush 43’s aborted nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court? Those of us who waged war against Miers succeeded in part because in the 2000 campaign Bush had explicitly promised to nominate justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. We demanded that Bush keep that promise and, as it became clear that Miers was made from a different mold, we kept up a steady drum beat of criticism. In the end, we won. Miers was forced to withdraw and Samuel Alito became the newest member of the Supreme Court.

Yes, I remember that. I don't doubt that we, the people, especially those of us who are politically active either in the real world or in cyberspace, will have a big say in such appointments, bigger than we would have if Hillary or Obama were sitting in the Oval Office.

Professor Bainbridge goes on:

All of which suggests that threats by conservative pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter to take their ball and go home if McCain is the nominee make no sense (and I say this as someone who has made similar rumblings in the past). The next President likely will nominate 3-4 Supreme Court justices and 200 to 400 lower court judges. Given the astonishing longevity of Supreme Court justices, moreover, the next President’s Supreme Court picks easily could serve for two or more decades. To consider the full implications of this prospect, consider just one of the names that appears on most short lists of prospective Democratic Supreme Court nominees: Harold Koh, dean of the Yale Law School. (YLS professor Kenji Yoshino reportedly quipped that he was hedged for 2008, because “either the Democrats will lose and Yale will keep Harold, or the Democrats will win and Yale will loan him to the country.”) What would a Justice Koh’s jurisprudence look like? Jeffrey Rosen notes that Koh “has supported the idea that U.S. courts should expansively apply international legal precedents without the authorization of the president and Congress.” John McGinnis likewise observes that: “Harold Koh in fact would like to cabin American exceptionalism through the use of transnational materials to assure that American principles would cohere more with the rest of the world.” The increasing use of such precedents by the left wing of the Supreme Court, of course, has been a major irritant to conservatives. Andrew McCarthy and Doug Kmiec have both raised concerns that a Justice Koh would handcuff the police and intelligence community by judicial fiat. A Law Blog reader quipped that, “other than that he’d be a sure vote for declaring Gitmo detainees have a constitutional right to Social Security benefits, I do not see the appeal.”

So, there you have your choice. Justices like Harold Koh from the Democrats, or a promise of more like Sam Alito and John Roberts from the GOP nominee.

I choose the hopefulness of John McCain's promise.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

McCain Makes A Promise About Judges
Professor Stephen Bainbridge
PajamasMedia.com
February 10, 2008

---

And have you heard that the FISA Law has been allowed to die? That means that we have lost one of our mosr effective tools against the terrorists.

Who allowed it to die? The Dems.

House Minority Leader John Boehner had this to say about it:

On Thursday, House Democratic leaders left Washington for a 12-day break after failing to pass critical legislation designed to ensure that our intelligence officials are able to monitor foreign communications of suspected terrorists overseas, such as Osama Bin Laden and other key al-Qaeda leaders, while also adding critical liability protections for third parties who helped us defend our country. This measure had received strong bipartisan support in the Senate, and was on the verge of passing by a wide bipartisan margin in the House until Democratic leaders blocked it from coming to the floor for a vote. Because of the Democrats’ inaction, the Protect America Act expired last night at midnight, forcing our intelligence officials to revert to the same terror surveillance laws that failed to protect America from the al-Qaeda terrorist attack on 9/11. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are still plotting against the United States and our allies, but now our intelligence officials don’t have all the tools they need to protect us. These laws didn’t safeguard America in 2001, so why would House Democrat leaders place our nation at risk by putting them back into effect now? Some members of the House Majority believe there is no sense of urgency to address this crisis. But the New York Post recently reported a heartbreaking story about U.S. forces in Iraq having to wait 10 hours last May before they could begin searching for three American soldiers taken hostage by al Qaeda because lawyers here in the United States were hammering out the proper documents to get emergency permission for wiretaps. One of our soldiers was found dead, two others remain missing.

This lapse in judgement the Dems have experienced is deep and its effects will be far reaching. More:

The liability protections included in the bipartisan Senate bill are intended to ensure that patriotic third parties are not subject to frivolous lawsuits when they cooperate with our intelligence officials to help track terrorists. But already some trial lawyers are seeking millions of dollars, and now some third parties who have cooperated to help defend our country have indicated they can no longer do so voluntarily. This is wrong and we must fix it. Much has been said about the U.S. Senate being the world’s most deliberative body, but in this case our colleagues proved that they can work quickly to pass good legislation that will keep America safe. The consequences of inaction in the House and the failure to send a bill to the President are real. U.S. intelligence officials will not be able to begin new terrorist surveillance without needless and dangerous delays. If a previously unknown group were to attack or kidnap American soldiers tomorrow, U.S. forces would have to wait – again – for the lawyers to get permission before a search could begin. The families of the three soldiers abducted in May by al Qaeda can attest to how devastating waiting can be. ... Refusing to give our intelligence officials all the tools they need to keep America safe is unacceptable. Refusing to extend protection from frivolous lawsuits to third parties that cooperate with the government to protect American lives and then leaving town for 12 days is also unacceptable. The question now for House Democratic leaders is, how much longer are they prepared to protect their trial lawyer allies at the expense of our national security?

Which is one of the many reasons why I voted Republican in my local Congressional races.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Democrats’ Inaction On FISA Harms America’s National Security
Rep. John Boehner
TownHall.com
February 17, 2008

What Now For Conservatives?

That's a good question. I was watching Glenn Beck last night and he has come to the same conclusion that Michael Savage came to: Republicans have become Democrats and Democrats have become Socialists. I believe that too. John F. Kennedy was further to the right than John McCain is today. The leftward slide of the political scale is undeniable. But, short of just letting the country wallow in an economic hell such as we saw in the late 1970's, what can we do about it?

Well, two columnists, Dan Calabrese and Michelle Malkin, have something to say on this issue.

First From Dan, writing for the North Star Writers Group:

Conservatism is out of favor at the moment not because it is the wrong philosophy of governance. It isn’t. It’s absolutely the right philosophy. It’s out of favor because its leaders have failed to apply it to address the priorities of the nation. I hate to tell you this, but the typical American voter, unlike the typical conservative activist, is not sitting around cursing illegal immigrants, gay marriage, abortionists, left-wing media bias and gun control. Nor is the typical American sitting around wallowing in Ronald Reagan nostalgia. Most Americans’ priorities are decidedly non-ideological. Will I have my job? Can I pay my mortgage and my grocery bill? Are my kids safe? Is the country safe? Will I be able to get health care if I need it?

Dan's point is that we have lost sight of what we should be doing. It is not that we need a Conservative in power. It is that we need to address the current crop of problems with Conservative ideas.

Dan goes on:

These were the needs of the nation in 1980. Reagan didn’t go around saying, “Elect me because I’m conservative.” He convinced voters he understood the priorities of that particular time, and he convinced them he would do what he said he would do. And with the exception of cutting spending, he did. That’s why he won, and that’s why he’s now an icon. He applied conservative thinking to the problems of the day, developed solutions and convinced people he was the man to achieve the solutions.

And we Conservatives forgot about that. Instead of looking towards real Conservative thinkers like Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson, we got bogged down in arguments like who was most electable and who was most likely to defeat Hillary. Because we took our eyes off of the true goal, we got lost and encountered obstacles. We will now have another four years to contemplate this before we can try again.

Dan's conclusion:

A conservative who connects with people on the things they care about, and explains why each can and should be addressed by a conservative answer, can win. But it’s the substance of the answer that matters, not the conservative label. ... The right solutions are conservative ones. There’s no question about that. But with most of the stuff conservatives have been talking about lately, would it really be a surprise if the electorate doesn’t know that?

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Ask Rush Limbaugh If Conservatism Cares About America
Dan Calabrese
North Star Writers Group
February 7, 2008

And Michelle Malkin makes a similar statement with her most recent column. Instead of sitting around bewildered by the fact that John McCain is the GOP frontrunner, we can get motivated and still have a major impact no matter who is in the White House.

From Michelle's column:

Dissatisfied with the flawed crop of GOP candidates who lacked the energy, organizational skills, and ideological strength to carry the conservative banner and ignite your passions? Then pay attention to the next generation of Republican state legislators who do vote consistently to lower your taxes, uphold the sanctity of life, defend marriage, and cut government spending. Support their re-election bids. Reward them for standing with you instead of their Democrat opponents and the liberal media. ... If you can't stomach John McCain, channel your support and energies to Republicans who do represent your values and who have treated the conservative base as allies instead of enemies. There are a new generation of combat veterans running for office who haven't made a career of trashing the base. Check out staunch economic, social, and national security conservative congressional candidates like Iraq/Afghanistan veteran Eric Egland in California's fourth district. Check out the Vets for Freedom (Vets For Freedom) group for their endorsements. Opposed to the amnesty bill? Republican Sens. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, James Inhofe of Oklahoma, and John Cornyn of Texas all fought the McCain-Kennedy-Graham-Martinez-Bush open-borders disaster. All of those Senators are up for re-election this year. Send them some money. Then send a few more bucks to the enforcement proponents on the House side as well. Don't sit and wait for the fence to get built. It won't be finished under the Bush administration or a McCain administration or an Obama or Hillary Clinton administration. What you can do is pressure mayors and police chiefs and city councils to rescind dangerous sanctuary policies. What you can do is alert county sheriffs that you want them to work with the feds to end illegal alien catch-and-release policies in your neighborhood.. What you can do is stop patronizing businesses that you know are knowingly employing illegal immigrants using fake Ids and stolen Social Security numbers.

Yes, we can still be active and we can still make a difference. I will continue posting on this blog in the hopes that other like-minded Conservatives will read it and then discuss these ideas with other people.

I won't give up.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Quo Vadis, Conservatives?
Michelle Malkin
TownHall.com
February 7, 2008

Hillary Caught In Huge Lie!

If there was any lingering doubt that Hillary Clinton was a pathological liar, such doubt has been completely erased. After denying that she ever knew Tony Rezko and then tried to link him with B. Hussein Obama, a picture surfaced. From the Drudge Report:

Clinton injected the indicted developer's name this week in heated debate with Obama: "I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago" ... Clinton tells NBC 'TODAY' show on Friday: "I probably have taken hundreds of thousands of pictures. I don't know the man. I wouldn't know him if he walked in the door..."

But to say that she never met him? That's hard to believe:



Drudge Report
January 25, 2008

A Hat Tip To The Virginia Federalist

Great blog entry about Hillary vs. the facts:

Hillary Vs. U.S. Constitution Vs Fact
The Viginia Federalist
January 21, 2008

Clinton, Buffet Renew Support For The Tax That Is Killing Family Owned Businesses

Here's more of that leftist socialist spew from Hillary Clinton. Note the idiotic things she says about the Death Tax:

At a joint appearance with billionaire investor Warren Buffett, Clinton said the inheritance tax, due to be temporarily repealed in 2010, was a symbol of "what kind of society we are." "The estate tax has been historically part of our very fundamental belief that we should have a meritocracy, that we do not want a system -- where we expect people to make it on their own -- to be, over time, dominated by inherited wealth," she said. "That we do believe that people should have to get out there and make their way, to a great extent."

I don't think any politician has ever been so detached from reality.

The Inheritance Tax does not make us a "meritocracy." In fact, it destroys the concept of advancement by merit and replaces it with the concept of advancement by being super-rich already.

Everyone thinks that Wal-Mart and other super-corporations are crowding out the Mom & Pop stores and family farms. Wrong. The Death Tax is killing them. Here's how:

Suppose a man started his own small business back in the 50's or 60's. He bought property and built up his trade over the years. He bought a house and some land and paid it off over time. When he originally purchased his property, it was a total value of, say $50,000.

Then he dies in 2007 leaving his business and property to his family survivors. Today the business and property is worth over $5,000,000. If the Death Tax was 45%, then his survivors would owe $2,250,000 in taxes as a result. If he left only $20,000 in his bank account, his survisors would have to come up with $2,230,000 to pay off the tax or the government would come in and take everything leaving them with nothing.

What is the family going to do to raise $2,230,000? They sell the business and the property thereby leaving a hole in the local market for Wal-Mart or some other corporation to come in and fill.

I can easily believe that Hillary Clinton is incapable of grasping this concept, but Warren Buffet? I guess he likes the idea of mega-corporations taking over the small businesses of America.

The Death Tax must be done away with entirely and any politician who calls for its revival should be tarred and feathered.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Clinton, Buffett Denounce Income Gap
Scott Lindlaw
Associated Press via GOPUSA
December 12, 2007

CNN's Dishonesty During GOP YouTube Debate

Okay. I saw about fifteen minutes of the GOP YouTube debate last night on Headline News. Fortunately, the programming switched over to Nancy Grace shortly thereafter but it would not have mattered. I was getting ready to turn it off anyway. Not because of what the candidates were saying, but because of how CNN was treating the candidates in general and how biased CNN was in it's coverage.

I happened to catch the part about gays in the military and was stunned by what I saw. The one guy that was responding admitted that he was a U.S. Army retiree and was gay. I thought, "How convenient is that?" Pretty convenient as it turns out.

CNN also had a live panel of "Registered Republicans" that were participating in a tracking poll during the debate. The CNN newsreader covering the panel just happened to pick one woman "at random" and asked who she would vote for. The woman responded, "John Edwards." At that point, the gay guy became too convenient and it was clear that this woman on the panel was also planted there by CNN.

There is no way a true Republican would choose a liberal like John Edwards over the entire field of GOP candidates. Further, if John Edwards were to their taste, the field of Dem candidates would certainly be more palatable than any in the GOP field. The woman was definitely a plant.

But about that gay guy.

Check this out from NewsBusters:

Like Rudy and Romney going after each other over immigration last night at the GOP debate, MSNBC was taking some jabs at rival CNN this morning on the issue of the gay questioner who turned out to be a member of Hillary Clinton's campaign. "Morning Joe" host Joe Scarborough scoffed at the notion that no one at CNN was aware of retired Brigadier General Keith Kerr's involvement with the Clinton campaign. JOE SCARBOROUGH: This is twice now in a couple of weeks that CNN has been ensnarled in a Clinton controversy. Before with James Carville sitting there giving his opinions despite the fact that he's contributed to Hillary Clinton, obviously worked for Bill Clinton, he sent out letters saying we really need to fight hard for Hillary Clinton. They didn't even mention it. And again, the damndest thing. And last night, not only do they have this guy delivering a YouTube video, they also had him there sitting in the audience, they had a shot with him [more than a shot. Anderson Cooper asked whether he was satisifed with the answers he had received and grilled Romney over his answer. Kerr himself made an extended comment from the floor]. It's Bill Bennett [who was a CNN post-debate panelist], it is up to Bill Bennett to explain to CNN, and don't tell me that CNN didn't know, that some people at CNN did not know, that he was part of the Clinton campaign. Don't lie to me. Maybe Anderson Cooper didn't know, but somebody at CNN that put this guy in the video knew that.

Somehow, I knew my suspiscions from last night were correct. It was too convenient.

CNN needs to acquire some integrity and admit that they are in reality pro-Dem and anti-Republican. At least then, they won't look like such complete idiots when they pull a ridiculous, irresponsible stunt like this.

You can access the NewsBusters article on-line here:

Scarborough: 'Total Crap' CNN Didn't Know Gay Questioner Is Hillary Campaigner
Mark Finkelstein
NewsBusters.org
November 29, 2007

The Washington Times has this:

Clinton Plant Infiltrates CNN Debate
The Washington Times
November 28, 2007

It is yet another reason why fewer rationally thinking people trust Old Media anymore.

---

And Michelle Malkin has more about the plants at the debate:

Concerned Undecided Gay Military Retiree Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr = Hillary/Kerry supporter and anti-”Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” activist Keith H. Kerr Concerned Undecided Mom LeeAnn Anderson = Activist for the John Edwards-endorsing United Steelworkers union LeeAnn Anderson Concerned Undecided Log Cabin Republican supporter David Cercone = Obama supporter David Cercone Concerned Young Undecided Person “Journey” = John Edwards supporter “Journey”

How many others could there be? Maybe CNN would like to come forward and admit to engineering this whole farce, that is if they learned anything at all from Dan Ra^ther's fakery.

You can access Michelle's complete article (with photographic evidence) on-line here:

Digging Out More CNN/YouTube Plants
Michelle Malkin
MichelleMalkin.com
November 29, 2007

Be sure to check back at Michelle's site for updates. I'm sure more plants will come to light.