Those three people don’t have alot in common but they were linked together during President Bush’s Thursday morning news conference. Here’s how President Bush tied Obama and Castro together:

Bush was particularly hard on Obama for saying that, as president, he would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Iran and North Korea.

“What’s lost by embracing a tyrant who puts his people in prison because of their political beliefs? What’s lost is it’ll send the wrong message,” Bush said. “I’m not suggesting there’s never a time to talk, but I’m suggesting now is not the time” to talk with new Cuban President Raul Castro.

Sen. McCain is thanking President Bush for this slapdown because it plays into McCain’s strength and Obama’s weakness. Obama saying that he’ll meet with despots without preconditions is irresponsible. We gain nothing from it while they’d gain international credibility. (continue reading post »)

Captain Ed has posted this YouTube of Sen. Bob Casey probably saying too much:

Here’s the transcript:

Mr. CASEY: “We want to do a couple of things with this legislation, which we know is the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008. Our Majority Leader, Senator Reid, and our leadership and the members of the Democratic Caucus set it out fairly specifically. A couple of basic things this legislation would have done: first of all, it would have continued what we started in the end of last year, foreclosure prevention counseling dollars, to give money to organizations around the country that are certifiably expert at this, organizations like La Raza. I know the presiding officer knows that group. We know also the Association for Community Organizations for Reform Now, known by the acronym ‘ACORN.’ They’re headquartered in Philadelphia. These are organizations which understand what a lender has to deal with but more importantly deal with borrowers when they’re borrowing money, when they’re dealing with the difficulty and complexity of borrowing money. These organizations would have helped even more so than they’re helping now with $200 million more of counseling money. That’s not going to happen right now because of what the other side did; they blocked that money by blocking this legislation.”

I wrote extensively about ACORN in 2006. What I wrote wasn’t flattering to their image. Here’s one of the things I wrote then:

ACORN Voter Registration Fraud Allegations Are Just The Tip of The Iceberg
Illegalities, Fraud and Contradictions Detailed in Report on Lead Organizer of Florida’s Amendment 5 (continue reading post »)

Ruben Navarrette has just written a column in which he accuses the Democratic Party as being the “Anti-Competition Party.” Far be it from me to argue, especially when he puts forth such a compelling arguments as this:

It’s true in education where Democrats, with their slavish devotion to teachers unions, oppose vouchers even for constituencies they pretend to champion such as minorities and the disadvantaged. Vouchers would force public schools into competition.

How’s a self-respecting conservative supposed to argue with that? I’ve argued that vouchers are exactly what’s needed to force true reform in public schools. Here’s another of Mr. Navarrette’s compelling arguments:

And it’s certainly true in the area of trade, where Democrats do the bidding of organized labor by fighting trade agreements and advocating protectionism. Trade, by its very nature, encourages competition by opening up markets across borders and seas.

Bill Clinton pushed hard for NAFTA. His party refused to join to any great extent, though some were brought along kicking and screaming. Today, there isn’t a chance that Hillary or Obama would push for NAFTA because they wouldn’t risk alienating the various unions because they rely on them for GOTV ‘volunteers’ and campaign contributions. (continue reading post »)

That’s the best way to describe this op-ed in the WSJ by Kit Bond, Peter Hoekstra and Lamar Smith. Their op-ed is in response to the Washington Post op-ed that I posted about here. Here’s what Mssrs. Leahy, Rockefeller, Conyers and Reyes said about the PAA lapsing:

First, our country did not “go dark” on Feb. 16 when the Protect America Act (PAA) expired. Despite President Bush’s overheated rhetoric on this issue, the government’s orders under that act will last until at least August. These orders could cover every known terrorist group and foreign target. No surveillance stopped. If a new member of a known group, a new phone number or a new e-mail address is identified, U.S. intelligence can add it to the existing orders, and surveillance can begin immediately.

Here’s the rebuttal from Mssrs. Bond, Hoekstra and Smith:

We are less safe today and will remain so until Congress clears up the legal uncertainty for companies that assist in collecting intelligence for the government, and until it gives explicit permission to our intelligence agencies to intercept, without a warrant, foreign communications that pass through the U.S. Here’s why:

- Intercepting terrorist communications requires the cooperation of our telecommunications companies. They’re already being sued for having cooperated with the government after 9/11. So without explicit protection for future actions (and civil liability protection for the help they provided in the past), those companies critical to collecting actionable intelligence could be sidelined in the fight. (continue reading post »)

Yesterday, I noted Matthew Continetti’s column in the Weekly Standard for the Democrats’ attempt to spin their failure to make permanent the Protect America Act. In this morning’s Washington Post, Chairmen Jay Rockefeller, Pat Leahy, Sylvestre Reyes and John Conyers have an op-ed that continues the spinning of the issue. Here’s one of the opening declarations in the op-ed:

First, our country did not “go dark” on Feb. 16 when the Protect America Act (PAA) expired. Despite President Bush’s overheated rhetoric on this issue, the government’s orders under that act will last until at least August. These orders could cover every known terrorist group and foreign target. No surveillance stopped. If a new member of a known group, a new phone number or a new e-mail address is identified, U.S. intelligence can add it to the existing orders, and surveillance can begin immediately.

While it’s true that surveillance didn’t come to a standstill, it’s equally true that our surveillance was hampered by not having the PAA in place. That’s because a FISA Appeals Court judge ruled that communications between Pakistan and Afghanistan that passed through American switches are domestic communications and that they require a warrant.

Here’s what Admiral Mike McConnell told Chris Wallace on the subject:

Meanwhile, the ACLU and the tort bar filed lawsuits against the telecommunication companies that had cooperated with the U.S. government in the Terrorist Surveillance Program. Naturally, the telecoms, fearing that they soon would be paying damages, grew wary of cooperation with the government. And some of the FISA judges, the same folks often accused of “rubberstamping” the executive’s wishes, raised the bar that needed to be met before counterterrorist surveillance could begin. Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell recently told Fox News Channel’s Chris Wallace that by summer 2007, “We were in extremis, because we had lost…about two-thirds of our [surveillance] capability.”

(continue reading post »)

Matthew Continetti has a great column up on the House Democrats’ failure to renew the FISA bill that lapsed. Harry Reid & Dick Durbin have tried defending the lapsing of this important reform. Here’s something that Durbin said:

Says Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, “The FISA law–even if we do not change it, gives ample authority to this president to continue to monitor the conversations of those who endanger the United States.”

That doesn’t pass the laugh test. If FISA were adequate in its 1978 version, then why was it changed in the PATRIOT Act? That’s the one thing that Sen. Durbin isn’t willing to answer. Herre’s some more Democrat spin:

Says House Intelligence Committee chairman Silvestre Reyes: “We cannot allow ourselves to be scared into suspending the Constitution.” Democratic national-security-adviser-in-waiting Richard Clarke writes that “FISA has and still works as the most valuable mechanism for monitoring our enemies.”

Rep. Reyes’ statement is pure spin. There’s nothing in that statement that’s defensible. Rep. Reyes would have us believe that to renew the Protect America Act would violate the principles of the Constitution. Simply put, I’d ask him to explain why he thinks that renewing the PAA would lead to the “suspending the Constitution”? As a follow-up, I’d ask this: if the bill requires “suspending the Constitution”, why did it pass? Why didn’t it the courts overturn the bill if it was unconstitutional? The courts didn’t overturn it because it wasn’t unconstitutional.

As for Richard Clarke’s statement, Mr. Continetti simply says this: (continue reading post »)

There has been another school shooting tragedy with five innocent victims dead.

Pundits are asking how such a thing could happen … after all, Northern Illinois University was as gun free zone. So, many are renewing the call for increased gun control, despite its dismal record of failure.

Typical of such flawed and dishonest thinking was a column by Los Angeles Times columnist Tim Rutten in the Feb. 16 issue. After rehashing a recent series of shootings ranging from Kirkwood, Mo., to Chicago, to Louisiana Technical College, Rutten has fingered the villain — the National Rifle Association. He blames what he calls “Second Amendment fundamentalists,” pressuring politicians. If not for them, he reasons, effective gun control laws could be enacted.

Guns, he maintains, “…make the malicious, the malcontent, and the mad powerful.”

What he doesn’t say is that is that it makes the crazies powerful because they know their intended victims are disarmed and helpless.

That is the legacy of “gun free zones.”

Rutten does note is that 12 states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Washington — are considering legislation allowing students, faculty and staff with concealed-weapons permits to carry weapons on campus. He calls this, “social idiocy.”

What he doesn’t note is that other school shooting incidents were halted when armed faculty members or students confronted the shooters. Pearl High School in Mississippi and Virginia’s Appalachian School of Law are two such examples.

Academic study also supports the premise that concealed-carry deters such shootings. University of Chicago Professor John Lott’s book “More Guns, Less Crime” clearly shows the correlation. As for the mass shooters, Lott notes, “Such people may be deranged, but they still appear to care whether they themselves will be shot as they attempt to kill others.”

He based this conclusion in part on finding that states that adopted nondiscretionary concealed-carry laws between the years 1977-92 virtually eliminated public mass shootings.

The evidence, both academic and empirical, is clear — more gun control laws and creating “gun-free zones” guarantee mass shootings will continue; concealed carry permits will stop them.

But recognizing this involves a degree of intellectual honesty that Rutten and his ilk lack. To use Rutten’s own phrase, they persist in the “social idiocy” of denying simple truth.

That’s the title of Richard Collins’ post at Redstate. Trust me, it’s must reading. The subtitle goes a long ways toward explaining why Hillary’s in such a difficult position:

Her unique blend of arrogance and stubbornness has been her undoing

I couldn’t agree more, though I can add alot more to that. I’ve long maintained that Hillary’s personality would sink her ship. Identity politics plays a big role in Democratic campaigns. Apart from being Bill’s wife, Hillary simply doesn’t have an identity.

It’s a scary thought to think that the Democrats’ most qualified candidate this year was Joe Biden. Even he had more personality than Hillary. For me, though, I still return to two things that fit into this meme.

When Hillary made the talk show rounds, when she’d be asked about something she didn’t particularly like, she let out ‘The Cackle’. Not just once, either. Then it got played on O’Reilly and other talk shows. ‘The Cackle’ had all the appeal of fingers grating against a chalkboard.

As I said here, though, her drivers license debacle will be seen as the cause of her fall. The drivers license debacle fits perfectly into Mr. Collins’ meme. Hillary obviously thought that she shouldn’t get pinned down on anything, a typical Clinton habit. That’s the epitome of arrogance. The downside of leaving yourself wiggle room is that you sometimes get caught saying opposite things in a short period of time.

Here’s the most significant point Mr. Collins makes:

Hillary has a long history of refusing to acknowledge obvious truths and stubbornly clinging to her own version of events. This pattern can be found in the scandals and failures of her husband’s administration and in her faltering presidential campaign. It is a constant in any even perfunctory review of her public life.

Bill and Hillary’s time in Arkansas, and in the White House, were - at the very least - filled with numerous instances of questionable judgment and a regular refusal to acknowledge potential conflicts of interest or the appearance of impropriety. But any and all criticisms were immediately branded as personal attacks and as somehow illegitimate.

When questions arose Hillary’s first response was always to stonewall and deny. She would then move on to deceptively incomplete responses, if not outright lies. Any release of information, when it did come, came grudgingly and always as a last resort.

For eight years, the Clintons thought that they could do whatever they wanted. They got away with alot of things that likely reinforced their thinking. What they didn’t realize is that time had moved on and that they weren’t the ‘Golden Couple’ anymore. Now they’re finding out that Obama is the new Golden Child who can do no wrong.

That has to just frustrate the Clintons, especially Hillary since she’d planned on a coronation. This is a perfect example of why it’s never smart to underestimate your opponent.

Technorati Tags: Hillary, Bill Clinton, Obama, Election 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Ever since catching the national spotlight, I’ve thought that Karl Rove was a political genius. After reading his latest WSJ column, I’m more convinced that he’s a genius. Here’s Mr. Rove’s take on Obama’s performance last night:

Mr. McCain, too, raised questions about Mr. Obama’s fitness to be commander in chief. Mr. McCain pointed to Mr. Obama’s unnecessary sabre-rattling at an ally (Pakistan) while appeasing our adversaries (Iran and Syria). Mr. McCain also made it clear that reining in spending, which is a McCain strength and an Obama weakness, would be a key issue.

Mr. Obama had not been so effectively criticized before. In the Democratic contest, John Edwards and Mrs. Clinton were unwilling to confront him directly or in a manner that hurt him. Mr. McCain was rightly preoccupied by his own primary. On Tuesday night, things changed.

Perhaps in response to criticisms that have been building in recent days, Mr. Obama pivoted Tuesday from his usual incantations. He dropped the pretense of being a candidate of inspiring but undescribed “post-partisan” change. Until now, Mr. Obama has been making appeals to the center, saying, for example, that we are not red or blue states, but the United States. But in his Houston speech, he used the opportunity of 45 (long) minutes on national TV to advocate a distinctly non-centrist, even proudly left-wing, agenda. By doing so, he opened himself to new and damaging contrasts and lines of criticism.

(continue reading post »)

By now, everyone across the nation has either heard or seen Kirk Watson’s national television debut. Something tells me Team Obama won’t ask him to appear on national TV again anytime soon. Here’s the video of Chris Matthews grilling Watson:

Here’s the transcript:

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews: “You are a big Barack supporter, right, Senator?”

State Sen. Watson: “I am. Yes, I am.”

Matthews: “Well, name some of his legislative accomplishments. No, Senator, I want you to name some of Barack Obama’s legislative accomplishments tonight if you can.”

State Sen. Watson: “Well, you know, what I will talk about is more about what he is
offering the American people right now.” (continue reading post »)