Ivyman68's Blog

Joe Biden is definitely a character—but does he have character?

I wonder whether Barack Obma’s vetters, Caroline Kennedy and Eric Holder, knew what they were doing when they settled on Joe Biden. Journalists and McCain opposition researchers must be logging on to Nexis and searching 1987–1988 using the key words “Biden and plagiarism. “ There is a feast of material—I have culled examples from various print and electronic sources—that would make even the most partisan Obama backer question the wisdom of this choice.

Biden, then 44, was forced out of the 1988 presidential race-—he officially dropped out on September 23, 1987—just when his candidacy seemed to be taking off in Iowa, the all important first caucus, and just as he seemed to be gaining on Michael Dukakis, the eventual nominee.

(Biden was first elected to the Senate in 1972 from Delaware. He was only 29, and was one of the two youngest men ever elected to the Senate.)

A Dukakis staffer noticed and fed to Maureen Dowd, then a New York Times reporter, not yet the paper’s celebrated columnist, that Biden had lifted almost verbatim his closing remarks at a debate at the Iowa state fairgrounds in August, 1987. The lines were lifted from a passionate speech delivered by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock (who would go on to lose to Margaret Thatcher).

Here’s Kinnock: ’‘Why am I the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to be able to get to university? . . . Was it because all our predecessors were thick? Was it because they were weak? Those people who could work eight hours underground and then come up and play football? Weak? . . . It was because there was no platform upon which they could stand.’’
Not only did Biden not credit Kinnock, he told his audience in the classic liar’s technique of burnishing a lie with detail: “I started thinking as I was coming over here, “Why is it that Joe Biden’s the first in his family ever to go to a university? Is it because our fathers and mothers were not bright? . . . Is it because they didn’t work hard, my ancestors who worked in the coal mines of Northeast Pennsylvania and would come up after 12 hours and play football for four hours?,,,, It’s because they didn’t have a platform upon which to stand.’’

Biden was not the first member of his family to go to college, and the closest his ancestors came to a coal min was a grandfather who was a mining engineer. (Biden’s father was wealthy as a young man, lost his money and had to work hard to support his family. He had a variety of jobs, including one managing a Chevrolet dealership in Wilmington, Delaware. The Bidens were far from rich but they were middle class.)

Once Maureen Dowd broke that story on the front page of the Times on September 12, 1987, it spread quickly through newspapers, magazines, radio and television. The dam holding back Biden’s exaggerations and penchant for lifting words from others broke, and he nearly drowned in his own deceit.

Biden also lifted words from Bobby Kennedy’s speeches—paragraphs that political junkies prized so much they knew them by heart.
Here’s RFK: ’‘Few will have the greatness to bend history itself. But each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation.’’

Here’s Joe Biden: ’‘Well, few of us have the greatness to bend history itself. But each of us can act to affect a small portion of events, and in the totality of these acts will be written the history of this generation.’’
Bobby Kennedy: ’‘The gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry, or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our devotion to our country. It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile, and it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.’’

Here’s Joe Biden, who overcame a stutter as a boy and grew into an excellent speaker: “‘We cannot measure the health of our children, the quality of their education, the joy of their play….It doesn’t measure the beauty of our poetry, the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate, the integrity of our public officials. It counts neither our wit nor our wisdom, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country….That bottom line can tell us everything about our lives except that which makes life worthwhile, and it can tell us everything about America except that which makes us proud to be Americans.’’

Biden said at the time that RFK was “the man who I guess I admire more than anyone else in American politics.” No doubt about that.
Chicago’s own Bill Daley was among those who urged Biden, then chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to get out of the race and concentrate on defeating Ronald Reagan’s nomination of Appeals Court Judge Robert Bork for a seat on the Supreme Court. Biden, who was about to open the Bork hearings, had asked Daley to take a leadership spot in his campaign.

Anyone following the campaign could see there was something eating at Joe Biden. He needed desperately for people to see him as the smartest guy in the room, and that, coupled with his hot temper and surging insecurities, resulted in the following which was captured on C-SPAN in 1987. Although more than 20 years old, the exchange will no doubt find its way into political advertising.

On April 3, 1987, at a campaign stop in Claremont, New Hampshire, a voter named Frank innocently asked Biden what law school he attended and how he performed there. “I think I have a much higher IQ than you do,” Biden, who went to Syracuse University College of Law, answered. “I went to law school on a full academic scholarship.” He told the astonished man that while he admittedly did not do well his first year because he didn’t want to be in law school, he did much better his second and third years and “ended up in the top half” of his class. I won the international moot-court competition.”

Without being asked, Biden then boasted about his performance in college (at the University of Delaware), telling Frank that he had been named the “outstanding student in the political-science department. . . I graduated with three degrees from college . . . And I’d be delighted to sit back and compare my IQ to yours if you’d like, Frank.”

There were a number of lies in this outburst and it was not long before they too were enumerated:
—Biden got in trouble in 1965, during his first year in law school. He wrote a paper in which he lifted five pages verbatim from the Fordham Law Review. He was given an “F” in the course. He managed to avoid being bounced from law school, retook the course and earned a “B.” (He had to repeat two other law school courses, although not for plagiarizing.)
—He claimed that he was “the only one in my class to have a full academic scholarship.” He didn’t. He did have a half scholarship that was need based.
—He did not graduate from law school in the top half of his class. He graduated 76th out of 85—and he was near the bottom of his class all three years.
—If he won the moot court competition—and he claimed at the time that he actually did—he did not put it on his resume, surprising for a man prone to so egregiously exaggerating his accomplishments.
—He did not win the award for being the outstanding student in the political science department at Delaware, and he graduated with one degree, not three. He had a “C” average and graduated 506th in a class of 688.

At the time, he told a reporter, “I exaggerate when I’m angry.”

There are other weird outbursts by Biden in more recent years, grandstanding questions to Supreme Court nominees in which it’s impossible to find the question, but not hard to find all kinds of personal information about the Senator from Delaware. One example comes from Samuel Alito’s confirmation hearing in 2006. When it was Biden’s turn to question Alito, he mentioned that his daughter had applied or been accepted—not clear which in Biden’s ramblings—to graduate school at Princeton, but decided instead to go to the University of Pennsylvania. Biden showed up at the hearing wearing a Princeton hat. Keith Olbermann asked, “Will the hat hurt his hairplugs?”

And that leads to the easy warning that I’ve been telling friends for years, “Never trust a man who gets hairplugs.” The insecurity is right there in the peculiar set of his hair—for all to see. Apparently Caroline Kennedy and Eric Holder missed it.

American Politics

VOIGHT: My concerns for America

We, as parents, are well aware of the importance of our teachers who teach and program our children. We also know how important it is for our children to play with good-thinking children growing up.

Sen. Barack Obama has grown up with the teaching of very angry, militant white and black people: the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers and Rev. Michael Pfleger. We cannot say we are not affected by teachers who are militant and angry. We know too well that we become like them, and Mr. Obama will run this country in their mindset.

The Democratic Party, in its quest for power, has managed a propaganda campaign with subliminal messages, creating a God-like figure in a man who falls short in every way. It seems to me that if Mr. Obama wins the presidential election, then Messrs. Farrakhan, Wright, Ayers and Pfleger will gain power for their need to demoralize this country and help create a socialist America.

The Democrats have targeted young people, knowing how easy it is to bring forth whatever is needed to program their minds. I know this process well. I was caught up in the hysteria during the Vietnam era, which was brought about through Marxist propaganda underlying the so-called peace movement. The radicals of that era were successful in giving the communists power to bring forth the killing fields and slaughter 2.5 million people in Cambodia and South Vietnam. Did they stop the war, or did they bring the war to those innocent people? In the end, they turned their backs on all the horror and suffering they helped create and walked away.

Those same leaders who were in the streets in the '60s are very powerful today in their work to bring down the Iraq war and to attack our president, and they have found their way into our schools. William Ayers is a good example of that.

Thank God, today, we have a strong generation of young soldiers who know exactly who they are and what they must do to protect our freedom and our democracy. And we have the leadership of Gen. David Petraeus, who has brought hope and stability to Iraq and prevented the terrorists from establishing a base in that country. Our soldiers are lifting us to an example of patriotism at a time when we've almost forgotten who we are and what is at stake.

If Mr. Obama had his way, he would have pulled our troops from Iraq years ago and initiated an unprecedented bloodbath, turning over that country to the barbarianism of our enemies. With what he has openly stated about his plans for our military, and his lack of understanding about the true nature of our enemies, there's not a cell in my body that can accept the idea that Mr. Obama can keep us safe from the terrorists around the world, and from Iran, which is making great strides toward getting the atomic bomb. And while a misleading portrait of Mr. Obama is being perpetrated by a media controlled by the Democrats, the Obama camp has sent out people to attack the greatness of Sen. John McCain, whose suffering and courage in a Hanoi prison camp is an American legend.

Gen. Wesley Clark, who himself has shame upon him, having been relieved of his command, has done their bidding and become a lying fool in his need to demean a fellow soldier and a true hero.

This is a perilous time, and more than ever, the world needs a united and strong America. If, God forbid, we live to see Mr. Obama president, we will live through a socialist era that America has not seen before, and our country will be weakened in every way.

Are facts obsolete?

By Thomas Sowell

Jewish World Review July 15, 2008

In an election campaign in which not only young liberals, but also some people who are neither young nor liberals, seem absolutely mesmerized by the skilled rhetoric of Barack Obama, facts have receded even further into the background than usual.

As the hypnotic mantra of "change" is repeated endlessly, few people even raise the question of whether what few specifics we hear represent any real change, much less a change for the better.

Raising taxes, increasing government spending and demonizing business? That is straight out of the New Deal of the 1930s.

The New Deal was new then but it is not new now. Moreover, increasing numbers of economists and historians have concluded that New Deal policies are what prolonged the Great Depression.

Putting new restrictions of international trade, in order to save American jobs? That was done by Herbert Hoover, when he signed the Hawley-Smoot tariff when the unemployment rate was 9 percent. The next year the unemployment rate was 16 percent and, before the Great Depression was over, unemployment hit 25 percent.

One of the most naive notions is that politicians are trying to solve the country's problems, just because they say so— or say so loudly or inspiringly.

Politicians' top priority is to solve their own problem, which is how to get elected and then re-elected. Barack Obama is a politician through and through, even though pretending that he is not is his special strategy to get elected.

Some of his more trusting followers are belatedly discovering that, as he "refines" his position on various issues, now that he has gotten their votes in the Democratic primaries and needs the votes of others in the coming general election.

Perhaps a defining moment in showing Senator Obama's priorities was his declaring, in answer to a question from Charles Gibson, that he was for raising the capital gains tax rate. When Gibson reminded him of the well-documented fact that lower tax rates on capital gains had produced more actual revenue collected from that tax than the higher tax rates had, Obama was unmoved.

The question of how to raise more revenue may be the economic issue but the political issue is whether socking it to "the rich" in the name of "fairness" gains more votes.

Since about half the people in the United States own stocks— either directly or because their pension funds buy stocks— socking it to people who earn capital gains is by no means socking it just to "the rich." But, again, that is one of the many facts that don't matter politically.

What matters politically is the image of coming out on the side of "the people" against "the privileged."

If you are a nurse or mechanic who will be depending on your pension to take care of you when you retire— as Social Security is unlikely to do— you may not think of yourself as one of the privileged. But unless you connect the dots between capital gains tax rates and your retirement income, you may fall under the spell of the well-honed Obama rhetoric. Obama is for higher minimum wage rates. Does anyone care what actually happens in countries with higher minimum wage rates? Of course not.

Economists may point to studies done in countries around the world, showing that higher minimum wage rates usually mean higher unemployment rates among lower skilled and less experienced workers.

That's their problem. A politician's problem is how to look like he is for "the poor" and against those who are "exploiting" them. The facts are irrelevant to maintaining that political image.

Nowhere do facts matter less than in foreign policy issues. Nothing is more popular than the notion that you can deal with dangers from other nations by talking with their leaders.

British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain became enormously popular in the 1930s by sitting down and talking with Hitler, and announcing that their agreement had produced "peace in our time"— just one year before the most catastrophic war in history began.

Senator Obama may gain similar popularity by advocating similar policies today— and his political popularity is what it's all about. The consequences for the country come later.

A solution to our high gas prices.

Here is one political news story Fox News won't tell you.  Obama (our future president) has cured a man of a serious illness.  Or at least something he has said in one of his political speeches has some effect on the man.  Nester Todd, a 72 year old man, from Cincinnati, Ohio, has a rare condition known as Elbillug Degenerative Disorder, or EDD.  Todd has been suffering from the affliction which slowly erodes the brain's neuron processing abilities, basically it eats away at your brain while your still alive.  Doctors gave him six months to live last November, but at a Obama Campaign Rally Todd was attending, he said that during the speech he felt as though his mind was being cleansed.  The following day Todd decided to go back to his Doctor, who gave him a cat scan.  It was a miracle, not only had the disease appeared to go into remission it apparently eradicated it from his entire system.  Todd said that when the Senator was talking about hope and change it brought tears to his eyes; and he along with several others believes that the inspiring words of the Senator Obama triggered a healing effect brought on by high levels of hope.

Dr. Casey, the examining physician and long time democrat, said he has never seen anything like this before.  He theorizes that a spark in Serotonin levels may be responsible for the man's remarkable healing, but he doesn't rule out something more divine in the process.  Casey, a noted physician, is no atheist.  He doesn't rule out the factor that Obama may have a spiritual healing ability about him, people all over the country have been filled with hope and joy just from hearing him speak.  The more he talks to people all over about healing our government we are hearing about people with chronic illness getting better just as a result of hearing Barack speak.  In Nester Todds own words, "Its amazing and a phenomenon that's sweeping the country, just because he happens to be a politician doesn't mean there can be something more to the man.  He may just be divine after all."

ObamaCures.com
"Getting the word out, that the mass media political machine wont! "

Linda Burnett , 23, a resident of San Diego , was visiting her in-laws and while there went to a nearby supermarket to pick up some groceries. Several people noticed her sitting in her car with the windows rolled up, her eyes closed, and holding both of her hands behind the back of her head.

One customer,  who had been at the store for a while, became concerned and walked over to the car. He noticed that Linda's eyes were now open, and she looked very strange. He asked her if she was okay, and Linda replied that she had been shot in the back of the head, and had been holding her brains in for over an hour. The man called the paramedics, who broke into the car because the doors were locked and Linda refused to remove her hands from the back of her head. When they finally got in, they found that Linda had a wad of bread dough on the back of her head.

A Pillsbury biscuit canister had exploded from the heat, making a loud noise that sounded like a gunshot, and the wad of dough hit her in the back of her head..

When she reached back to find out what it was, she felt the dough and thought it was her brains. She initially passed out, but quickly recovered.

Linda is a blond, a Democrat, and an Obama supporter, but that could be irrelevant.

A gas used in the making of flat screen televisions, nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), is being blamed for damaging the atmosphere and accelerating global warming.

Almost half of the televisions sold around the globe so far this year have been plasma or LCD TVs.

But this boom could be coming at a huge environmental cost.

The gas, widely used in the manufacture of flat screen TVs, is estimated to be 17,000 times as powerful as carbon dioxide.

Ironically, NF3 is not covered by the Kyoto protocol as it was only produced in tiny amounts when the treaty was signed in 1997.

Levels of this gas in the atmosphere have not been measured, but scientists say it is a concern and are calling for it to be included in any future emissions cutting agreement.

Professor Michael Prather from the University of California has highlighted the issue in an article for the magazine New Scientist.

He has told ABC's The World Today program that output of the gas needs to be measured.

"One of my titles for this paper was Going Below Kyoto's Radar. It's the kind of gas that's made in huge amounts," he said.

"Not only is it not in the Kyoto Treaty but you don't even have to report it. That's the part that worries me."

He estimates 4,000 tons of NF3 will be produced in 2008 and that number is likely to double next year.

"We don't know what's emitted, but what they're producing every year dwarfs these giant coal-fired power plants that are like the biggest in the world," he said.

"And it dwarfs two of the Kyoto gases. So the real question we don't know is how much is escaping and getting out."

Dr Paul Fraser is the chief research scientist at the CSIRO's marine and atmospheric research centre, and an IPCC author.

He says without measuring the quantity of NF3 in the atmosphere it is unclear what impact it will have on the climate.

"We haven't observed it in the atmosphere. It's probably there in very low concentrations," he said.

"The key to whether it's a problem or not is how much is released to the atmosphere."

Fred Thompson's Remarks At The National Right To Life Conference

By Fred Thompson

Thursday, July 03, 2008

First, I would like to thank you for your support in my recent political endeavor. In that business, many are called, but few are chosen. We took a strong stand for the principles we believe in, and together I believe we made a difference in the debate that will ultimately benefit our country.

The fact is – I have not changed my mind about any of what we discussed.  The issues. Our nation’s values. And most important, our principles. And as I watch the presidential campaign I am convinced more than ever of the importance of these principles and I bet you feel the same way.

There has been a lot of talk about the need for change in this country. That is Senator Obama’s mantra, of course. And all of the commentators say, “It is a change election.” Well, I can understand why the call for change is so powerful considering the pitiful condition that our country is in.

We simply have the most prosperous, freest and strongest country in the history of the world. So we can understand why liberal politicians and their supporters see the need for great change.

On a more serious note, we have long recognized the role change plays in lives. Edmund Burke wrote extensively about it in the 18th century.  He said that change was inevitable and when properly guided, change was a process of renewal. But it was his opinion that the man who loves change is disqualified from being a reformer because of his lust … to be the agent of change.

Remind you of anybody you know?

 So it is not change that concerns us — it’s change in the wrong direction. And what we may be changing from.

This country was founded on certain eternal truths – the lessons of the Scriptures and the wisdom of the ages … the recognition that there is such a thing as human nature that must be taken into account when governing … a respect for tradition and – most fundamentally – the proposition that people are meant to be free.

From these principles a government was formed – a government with its powers separated, checked and balanced, because the Founders knew that power tended to corrupt human beings. In keeping with that, they incorporated into our Constitution a system of Federalism to ensure that there was not too much power concentrated in the central government –a central government that was given certain delineated powers and no others.

From the application of these principles we developed a market economy, the rule of law, a system of trade with other nations, and a strong national defense. From the prosperity, freedom, and strength that came from this system we became a friend and example to all those around the world who aspired to those same things. We won wars, including the Cold War.  We helped rebuild our enemies’ countries, which enhanced world stability, and which strengthened our own security along the way. 

So with that in mind, I’d like to suggest a change for us: Instead of a constant search for the new, exciting and different, let’s re-assert the “First Principles” that made this country great. 

Has freedom, liberty and the strength which guarantees them become outdated? And just what part of our Constitutional framework requires sprucing up or should be abandoned altogether? 

Those changes that are momentarily popular in elite circles, which would expand our government, weaken our ability to defend ourselves, redefine marriage and life itself, sap our sense of personal responsibility and treat our people as if they were merely a collection of appetites to be fed in an election year … they must be rejected.

These are not changes we can believe in.  These are changes we should run away from.  Because the ideas behind these endeavors, which have long inspired left-wing politicians around the world, have led to consistently disastrous results.

Unfortunately the greatest agent of change this country has ever seen may be the Supreme Court of the United States –a fact that would astound the Founding Fathers who created it. Last month the Court for the first time in our nation’s history took from the elected branches of government the management of enemy combatants held abroad during times of war and gave these combatants the same habeas corpus rights we possess as American citizens. 

Then the Court, in another 5-4 decision, overturned a death penalty conviction of a child rapist as a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment. Part of the opinion of the majority was based upon what they perceived as, “the evolving standards of decency” in America.  The Court basically concluded we have reached the lofty moral level where a state will not be allowed to execute a child rapist no matter how young the child, no matter the brutality of the assault, or the frequency of the offender’s actions.

Logically, this can only mean that, when the Court decides that our moral standards have evolved even further, they will feel free to abolish the death penalty for all crimes. Then, presumably, we will have evolved to the level of decency of Europeans.

I am not sure what is more outrageous – holding that a state cannot impose the death penalty for such a heinous crime, the Court’s continued reshaping of the Constitution, or that we are governed by a Court’s perception of how far our standards of decency have evolved.  This is a Court which is apparently unaware that most Americans’ consideration would include the child … not just the rapist. 

Clearly, this is a Court that is often engaged in what can only be called a “liberal legislative function.” And these are legislative activities and outcomes that would never pass in the normal legislative process where you and I have a say in the matter.

I don’t know how to put it any plainer: If Senator Obama is elected, he will, through Supreme Court and federal court nominations cause this trend to accelerate. And that will bring about harmful changes in this country that no one in this room will want to see and no one in this room will live long enough to see rectified.

During his brief time in the U.S. Senate, the Senator strongly opposed the nomination of Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.  And without a doubt – despite what he may say – he would continue to follow the agenda of those who have enabled his meteoric rise: MoveOn.org, the NEA, NARAL, and the remnants of the 1960s radical left that failed then, but sees the opportunity for one last gasp. 

I highlight our courts because, second only to national security, the shaping of the federal judiciary is the most significant legacy that the next president is likely to leave—especially these days with such an evenly divided court.

The Court is important.  But I want to get back to where we started … our principles.  And there is no more important principle than the defense of liberty… and of life.  And here, too, Senator Obama has been an agent of change in the wrong direction.

For example, in 2002 a federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was signed by President Bush. This act protected babies that survived late-term abortions. Only 15 members of the US House opposed it, and it passed the US Senate unanimously. Even NARAL did not oppose it.

That same year as an Illinois legislator, Senator Obama voted against similar legislation that would have given these babies life-saving medical attention.

I trust that he is explaining how it is that he is to the left of NARAL on this issue during the “religious outreach” meetings he’s been holding of late.

The fact is that at a time when the Supreme Court is in the balance, and America is facing unprecedented national security threats … at a time when rogue nations have or are developing nuclear capabilities … at a time when Russia is increasingly belligerent and China is engaged in a rapid military build-up, the Democratic Party has nominated for president one of the most inexperienced and the most liberal members of the United States Senate. Think George McGovern … without the experience.

On the other hand, we have John McCain.  He is strongly supportive of sound constitutionalists on the bench. And he has been consistently pro-life throughout his career.  His life experience has prepared him to lead this country in the troubled times we live in today.  His life has been one of sacrifice, and he has exhibited the courage to place the interest of his country and his fellow citizens above his own during both times of war and peace.

Recently, Democratic minions, including former General Wesley Clark, have been sent out to denigrate the importance of Senator McCain’s honor and courage during times of war. Apparently Team Obama believes that just like timeless principles, character you can depend on is not a particularly important qualification to be President of the United States. They are dead wrong.

 In light of our country’s history and what likely lies ahead, personal honor, courage and integrity are the most important qualifications for a President.  I am disappointed that Wes Clark chose to allow himself to be used this way. He really shouldn’t have. It too easily invokes the image of a bantam rooster trying to belittle an American eagle.

Even more important to our future than how we view the candidates is how we view ourselves. Do we see our nation as one in decline, populated by helpless victims for whom every misfortune and every economic downturn is a conspiracy against them?

Or do we still see that we are a people of free will, willing to accept our responsibilities? 

Are we a people who – as generations of American before us did – believe that our best days are ahead of us?

Will we realize and appreciate what we have and what we have achieved?

Will we remember who we are, what we stand for, and what we represent to the world?  That we are free people …  who respect life … who love liberty.  

I believe we will.  And for those who have lost sight, there are the the principles we believe in to guide them.

We’ve had them for a long time. And these principles do not change.  And will not change. 

High-Stakes Courts

By Thomas Sowell

Jewish World Review July 1, 2008

Recent landmark court decisions are reminders that elections are not just about putting candidates in office for a few years.

The judges that elected officials put on the bench can remake the legal landscape, change fundamental social policies and even affect the way wars are fought, long after those who appointed them have served their terms and passed from the scene.

The Supreme Court recently created a new "right" out of thin air for captured enemy soldiers and terrorists— the right to seek release in the federal courts, something that neither the Constitution nor the Geneva Convention provided.

The High Court has also struck down gun control laws as violations of the Second Amendment. Whatever the legal merits or the policy merits of that decision, it is a major change, created by judges.

The point here is that federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, wield enormous— and growing— power. What that means is that when we vote for the candidates who will nominate and confirm judges, we are making decisions not only for ourselves but for generations yet unborn.

Recent momentous decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court have been decided by 5 to 4 votes, including the votes of justices appointed by presidents who are no longer living— Justice John Paul Stevens, appointed by President Ford, and Justice Anthony Kennedy, appointed by President Reagan.

Whoever is elected to the White House this November is expected to appoint two or three new members of the Supreme Court— justices who will be making major decisions affecting the future of American society, long after that president is gone.

Your children will be living during the lifetime tenure of those justices, and your grandchildren will be living in a world shaped by the precedents that those justices set.

In a year when dissatisfaction has been expressed by both Democrats and Republicans with the presidential candidates chosen by their own parties, it is worth keeping in mind the high stakes involved in judicial appointments— and therefore in presidential elections.

This is especially important to be kept in mind by voters who are thinking of venting their frustrations by voting for some third-party candidate that they know has no chance of being elected.

There will be a president chosen this November, and he will appoint Supreme Court justices during his term, regardless of whether you stay home or go to the polls.

His choices for the High Court will have a major impact on history, whether you vote after a sober consideration of many facts or vote on the basis of the candidate's rhetoric, style or demographics.

Even more important than the particular issues that courts will decide is the more fundamental issue of what a judge's role is in our system of Constitutional government.

In the gun control decision, for example, there were justices who read the history and meaning of the Second Amendment differently. What was most dangerous, however, was Justice Stephen Breyer's opinion that it was up to judges to weigh and "balance" the pros and cons of gun control laws.

If we have Constitutional rights only when judges like the end results, we may as well not have a Constitution.

Is the right to free speech to be put aside, and a journalist put behind bars, whenever a judge thinks that journalist went "too far" in expressing an opinion about some politician or bureaucrat?

Is someone to be tried over again for the same crime, even after having been acquitted, if judges regard the Constitutional ban on double jeopardy as just a suggestion to be weighed and "balanced?"

We have already seen what happens when a 5 to 4 majority decides that politicians can seize your home and give it to somebody else, if judges don't think your property rights "balance" whatever politicians choose to call "the public interest."

When deciding which candidate you want in the White House for the next 4 years, it is worth considering what kind of judges you want on the federal courts for the next generation.

Does patriotism matter?

By Thomas Sowell

Jewish World Review July 2, 2008

The Fourth of July is a patriotic holiday but patriotism has long been viewed with suspicion or disdain by many of the intelligentsia. As far back as 1793, prominent British writer William Godwin called patriotism "high-sounding nonsense."

Internationalism has long been a competitor with patriotism, especially among the intelligentsia. H.G. Wells advocated replacing the idea of duty to one's country with "the idea of cosmopolitan duty."

Perhaps nowhere was patriotism so downplayed or deplored than among intellectuals in the Western democracies in the two decades after the horrors of the First World War, fought under various nations' banners of patriotism.

In France, after the First World War, the teachers' unions launched a systematic purge of textbooks, in order to promote internationalism and pacifism.

Books that depicted the courage and self-sacrifice of soldiers who had defended France against the German invaders were called "bellicose" books to be banished from the schools.

Textbook publishers caved in to the power of the teachers' unions, rather than lose a large market for their books. History books were sharply revised to conform to internationalism and pacifism.

The once epic story of the French soldiers' heroic defense against the German invaders at Verdun, despite the massive casualties suffered by the French, was now transformed into a story of horrible suffering by all soldiers at Verdun— French and German alike.

In short, soldiers once depicted as national heroes were now depicted as victims— and just like victims in other nations' armies.

Children were bombarded with stories on the horrors of war. In some schools, children whose fathers had been killed during the war were asked to speak to the class and many of these children— as well as some of their classmates and teachers— broke down in tears.

In Britain, Winston Churchill warned that a country "cannot avoid war by dilating upon its horrors." In France, Marshal Philippe Petain, the victor at Verdun, warned in 1934 that teachers were trying to "raise our sons in ignorance of or in contempt of the fatherland."

But they were voices drowned out by the pacifist and internationalist rhetoric of the 1920s and 1930s.

Did it matter? Does patriotism matter?

France, where pacifism and internationalism were strongest, became a classic example of how much it can matter.

During the First World War, France fought on against the German invaders for four long years, despite having more of its soldiers killed than all the American soldiers killed in all the wars in the history of the United States, put together.

But during the Second World War, France collapsed after just six weeks of fighting and surrendered to Nazi Germany. At the bitter moment of defeat the head of the French teachers' union was told, "You are partially responsible for the defeat."

Charles de Gaulle, Francois Mauriac, and other Frenchmen blamed a lack of national will or general moral decay, for the sudden and humiliating collapse of France in 1940.

At the outset of the invasion, both German and French generals assessed French military forces as more likely to gain victory, and virtually no one expected France to collapse like a house of cards — except Adolf Hitler, who had studied French society instead of French military forces.

Did patriotism matter? It mattered more than superior French tanks and planes.

Most Americans today are unaware of how much our schools have followed in the footsteps of the French schools of the 1920s and 1930s, or how much our intellectuals have become citizens of the world instead of American patriots.

Our media are busy verbally transforming American combat troops from heroes into victims, just as the French intelligentsia did— with the added twist of calling this "supporting the troops."

Will that matter? Time will tell.

McCain Press Release: Barack Obama — A “Poison Pill” To Immigration Reform

June 28, 2008 | Permalink

ARLINGTON, VA — Today, McCain spokesman Brian Rogers issued the following statement on Barack Obama’s remarks at the NALEO conference where he conveniently glossed over his record of putting politics ahead of reforming our immigration system:

“It’s quite audacious for Barack Obama to question John McCain’s commitment to immigration reform when it was Obama himself who worked to kill the Senate’s bipartisan immigration reform compromise last year. Barack Obama voted for five ‘poison pill’ amendments designed by special interests to kill the immigration reform deal. These efforts were strongly opposed by Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), the Democrat who led the fight for immigration reform, because he understood they would have the effect of ending the bipartisan work toward immigration reform.

“The reality is that Barack Obama has never reached across the aisle to lead in a bipartisan fashion on an issue of major importance to the American people when his own political interests were at risk. The American people are tired of typical politicians like Barack Obama. While John McCain was reaching across the aisle to solve the tough problem of immigration reform, Barack Obama was working for politics as usual in Washington.”

FACT CHECK: Obama Put Politics First And Supported “Poison Pill” Efforts To Kill The Immigration Reform Compromise Last Year

The Weekly Standard’s Fred Barnes: “Obama Professes In Speeches And His Bestselling Book, The Audacity Of Hope, To Rise Above Crass Party Interests. Not This Time.” “Where was Barack Obama? The moment was perfect last week for the Illinois senator and champion of bipartisanship to step forward and help save the compromise immigration bill from a premature death. All he needed to do was switch his vote to oppose an amendment whose passage was going to shatter the Senate coalition that negotiated the bill. By switching, Obama would have substantiated his claim to be a politician eager to reach across the partisan aisle and end the bitter polarization in Washington. But Obama was not heard from. A day later, with the deliberations on the bill in turmoil, Senate majority leader Harry Reid yanked it off the Senate floor. Obama voted with Reid on cloture, which failed, prompting the shutdown. It may be unfair to single ou t Obama for backing a so-called poison pill that would have weakened the proposed temporary worker program (by terminating it after five years). Obama wasn’t alone. Two Democratic presidential candidates–Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden–voted with him, as did Reid, Chuck Schumer, and Dick Durbin, Reid’s colleagues in the Senate Democratic leadership. What made Obama’s vote different was his hypocrisy. The others are hard-core partisans. Obama professes in speeches and his bestselling book, The Audacity of Hope, to rise above crass party interests. Not this time.” (Fred Barnes, “The ‘Grand Bargain’ Comes Undone,” The Weekly Standard, 6/18/07)

Obama Voted For Five “Poison Pill” Amendments Designed To Kill Immigration Reform Compromise:

• S.A. 1169 (Bingaman) — Obama Voted In Favor Of Lowering The Annual Visa Quota For Guest Workers From 400,000 To 200,000. “Bingaman, D-N.M., amendment no. 1169 to the Kennedy, D-Mass., substitute amendment no. 1150. The Bingaman amendment would lower the annual visa quota for guest workers from 400,000 to 200,000 per year.” (S. 1348, CQ Vote #175: Adopted 74-24: R 27-21; D 46-2; I 1-1, 5/23/07, Obama Voted Yea, Kennedy Voted Nay, McCain Did Not Vote)
• S.A. 1181 (Dorgan) — Obama Voted In Favor Of Sunsetting The Guest Worker Visa Program After Five Years. “Dorgan, D-N.D., amendment no. 1181 to the Kennedy, D-Mass., substitute amendment no. 1150. The Dorgan amendment would sunset the temporary guest worker visa program in the bill after five years.” (S. 1348, CQ Vote #178: Rejected 48-49: R 9-38; D 38-10; I 1-1, 5/24/07, Obama Voted Yea, Kennedy Voted Nay, McCain Voted Nay)
• S.A. 1202 (Obama) — Obama Sponsored And Voted In Favor Of An Amendment That Would Sunset The Merit-Based Evaluation System For Immigrants. “Obama, D-Ill., amendment no. 1202 to the Kennedy, D-Mass., substitute amendment no. 1150. The Obama amendment would sunset the merit-based evaluation system for immigrants after five years.” (S. 1348, CQ Vote #200: Rejected 42-55: R 1-47; D 39-8; I 2-0, 6/6/07, Obama Voted Yea, Kennedy Voted Nay, McCain Voted Nay)
• S.A. 1267 (Bingaman) — Obama Proposed And Voted In Favor Of His Amendment That Would Remove The Requirement That “Y” Visa Holders Leave The U.S. For One Year Before Being Able To Renew The Visa. “Bingaman, D-N.M., amendment no. 1267 to the Kennedy, D-Mass., substitute amendment no. 1150. The Bingaman amendment would remove the requirement that ‘Y’ non-immigrant visa holders leave the United States before they are able to renew their visa.” (S. 1348, CQ Vote #189: Rejected 41-57: R 4-44; D 35-13; I 2-0, 6/6/07, Obama Voted Yea, Kennedy Voted Nay, McCain Voted Nay)
• S.A. 1316 (Dorgan) — Obama Voted To Sunset The Y-1 Non-Immigrant Temporary Worker Visa Program After Five Years. “Dorgan, D-N.D., amendment to the Kennedy, D-Mass., substitute amendment. The Dorgan amendment would sunset the Y-1 non-immigrant temporary worker visa program after five years.” (S. 1348, CQ Vote #201: Adopted 49-48: R 11-37; D 37-10; I 1-1, 6/6/07, Obama Voted Yea, Kennedy Voted Nay, McCain Voted Nay)

Obama-Backed Amendments Dealt “Potentially Fatal Blows To The Fragile Coalition Backing The Bill”:

Obama “Backed 11th- Hour Amendments” To The Bipartisan Immigration Bill That Imperiled The Immigration Reform Compromise. “Obama was part of the bipartisan group of senators who began meeting in 2005 on comprehensive immigration reform. But last summer, with the presidential nominating race well under way, Obama backed 11th-hour amendments - supported by labor, immigrant rights, and clergy groups - that Republicans saw as imperiling the fragile compromise. None of those measures passed. But Obama was part of a 49-to-48 majority that voted to end after five years a temporary worker program that had been a cornerstone of the immigration deal. The vote, backed by labor, was seen as a major setback to bipartisan negotiations.” (Ariel Sabar, “For Obama, Bipartisan Aims, Party-Line Votes,” Christian Science Monitor, 4/17/08)

• Obama “Voted For One Amendment … Designed To Insert A Deadly ‘Poison Pill’ Into The Bipartisan ‘Grand Bargain’ On Immigration Reform.” “But then, on the floor of the Senate last week, Obama voted for one amendment - backed by the AFL-CIO and sponsored by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) - designed to insert a deadly ‘poison pill’ into the bipartisan ‘grand bargain’ on immigration reform.” (Mort Kondracke, Op-Ed, “Pandering to Base, 2008 Candidates Risk More Division,” Roll Call, 6/14/07)
• Obama Proposed An Amendment That Was Seen As Part Of An Effort To Offer “Potentially Fatal Blows To The Fragile Coalition Backing The Bill.” “They first had turned back a Republican bid to reduce the number of illegal immigrants who could gain lawful status. They later rejected two high-profile Democratic amendments. One would have postponed the bill’s shift to an emphasis on education and skills among visa applicants as opposed to family connections. The other, offered by Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., would have ended a new point system for those seeking permanent resident ‘green cards’ after five years rather than 14 years. All three amendments were seen as potentially fatal blows to the fragile coalition backing the bill, which remains under attack from the right and left.” (Charles Babington, “Immigration Deal Survives Senate Challenges, Backers Cautiously Optimistic,” The Associated Press, 6/7/07)

Obama Not Heavily Involved In Bipartisan Immigration Reform Compromise:

Senate Staff Members And Sen. Arlen Specter Recalled That Obama Had Not Been At The Early Legislation-Crafting Meetings He Claimed To Attend. “To Senate staff members, who had been arriving for 7 a.m. negotiating sessions for weeks, it was a galling moment. Those morning sessions had attracted just three to four senators a side, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) recalled, each deeply involved in the issue. Obama was not one of them.” (Shailagh Murray and Jonathan Weisman, “Both Obama And Clinton Embellish Their Roles,” The Washington Post, 3/24/08)

Obama Was Not Heavily Involved In Efforts To Secure Bipartisan Immigration Reform. “He did support the bipartisan effort to get an immigration bill last year, winning a plaudit from McCain. But he didn’t work closely with the White House, as did Sen. Edward Kennedy.” (David Ignatius, Op-Ed, “Obama: A Thin Record For A Bridge Builder,” The Washington Post, 3/2/08)

Cheer up. We're winning this War on Terror Al-Qaeda and the Taleban are in retreat, the surge has worked in Iraq and Islamism is discredited. Not a bad haul

Gerard Baker (From The Times, June 27, 2008)

"My centre is giving way. My right is in retreat. Situation excellent. I shall attack!”

If only our political leaders and opinion-formers displayed even a hint of the defiant resilience that carried Marshal Foch to victory at the Battle of the Marne. But these days timorous defeatism is on the march. In Britain setbacks in the Afghan war are greeted as harbingers of inevitable defeat. In America, large swaths of the political class continues to insist Iraq is a lost cause. The consensus in much of the West is that the War on Terror is unwinnable.

And yet the evidence is now overwhelming that on all fronts, despite inevitable losses from time to time, it is we who are advancing and the enemy who is in retreat. The current mood on both sides of the Atlantic, in fact, represents a kind of curious inversion of the great French soldier's dictum: “Success against the Taleban. Enemy giving way in Iraq. Al-Qaeda on the run. Situation dire. Let's retreat!”

Since it is remarkable how pervasive this pessimism is, it's worth recapping what has been achieved in the past few years.

Afghanistan has been a signal success. There has been much focus on the latest counter-offensive by the Taleban in the southeast of the country and it would be churlish to minimise the ferocity with which the terrorists are fighting, but it would be much more foolish to understate the scale of the continuing Nato achievement. Establishing a stable government for the whole nation is painstaking work, years in the making. It might never be completed. But that was not the principal objective of the war there.

Until the US-led invasion in 2001, Afghanistan was the cockpit of ascendant Islamist terrorism. Consider the bigger picture. Between 1998 and 2005 there were five big terrorist attacks against Western targets - the bombings of the US embassies in Africa in 1998, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, 9/11, and the Madrid and London bombings in 2004 and 2005. All owed their success either exclusively or largely to Afghanistan's status as a training and planning base for al-Qaeda.

In the past three years there has been no attack on anything like that scale. Al-Qaeda has been driven into a state of permanent flight. Its ability to train jihadists has been severely compromised; its financial networks have been ripped apart. Thousands of its activists and enablers have been killed. It's true that Osama bin Laden's forces have been regrouping in the border areas of Pakistan but their ability to orchestrate mass terrorism there is severely attenuated. And there are encouraging signs that Pakistanis are starting to take to the offensive against them.

Next time you hear someone say that the war in Afghanistan is an exercise in futility ask them this: do they seriously think that if the US and its allies had not ousted the Taleban and sustained an offensive against them for six years that there would have been no more terrorist attacks in the West? What characterised Islamist terrorism before the Afghan war was increasing sophistication, boldness and terrifying efficiency. What has characterised the terrorist attacks in the past few years has been their crudeness, insignificance and a faintly comical ineptitude (remember Glasgow airport?)

The second great advance in the War on Terror has been in Iraq. There's no need to recapitulate the disasters of the US-led war from the fall of Saddam Hussein in April 2003 to his execution at the end of 2006. We may never fully make up for three and a half lost years of hubris and incompetence but in the last 18 months the change has been startling.

The “surge”, despite all the doubts and derision at the time, has been a triumph of US military planning and execution. Political progress was slower in coming but is now evident too. The Iraqi leadership has shown great courage and dispatch in extirpating extremists and a growing willingness even to turn on Shia militias. Basra is more peaceful and safer than it has been since before the British moved in. Despite setbacks such as yesterday's bombings, the streets of Iraq's cities are calmer and safer than they have been in years. Seventy companies have bid for oil contracts from the Iraqi Government. There are signs of a real political reconciliation that may reach fruition in the election later this year.

The third and perhaps most significant advance of all in the War on Terror is the discrediting of the Islamist creed and its appeal.

This was first of all evident in Iraq, where the head-hacking frenzy of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his associates so alienated the majority of Muslims that it gave rise to the so-called Sunni Awakening that enabled the surge to be so effective.

But it has spread way beyond Iraq. As Lawrence Wright described in an important piece in The New Yorker last month, there is growing disgust not just among moderate Muslims but even among other jihadists at the extremism of the terrorists.

Deeply encouraging has been the widespread revulsion in Muslim communities in Europe - especially in Britain after the 7/7 attacks of three years ago. Some of the biggest intelligence breakthroughs in the past few years have been achieved from former al-Qaeda supporters who have turned against the movement.

There ought to be no surprise here. It's only their apologists in the Western media who really failed to see the intrinsic evil of Islamists. Those who have had to live with it have never been in much doubt about what it represents. Ask the people of Iran. Or those who fled the horrors of Afghanistan under the Taleban.

This is why we fight. Primarily, of course, to protect ourselves from the immediate threat of terrorist carnage, but also because we know that extending the embrace of a civilisation that liberates everyone makes us all safer.

Every death is an unspeakable tragedy. It's right that each time a soldier is killed in action we ask why. Was it really worth it?

The right response to the loss of brave souls such as Corporal Sarah Bryant, the first British woman to die in Afghanistan, is not an immediate call for retreat. It is, first of all, pride; a great, deep conviction that it is on such sacrifice that our own freedoms have always rested. Then, defiance. How foolish is the enemy that it might think our grief is really some prelude to their victory? Finally, confidence. We are prevailing in this struggle. We know it. And everywhere: in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and among Muslims around the world, the enemy knows it too.

An Old Newness

By Thomas Sowell

Jewish World Review April 29, 2008

Many years ago, a great hitter named Paul Waner was nearing the end of his long career. He entered a ballgame with 2,999 hits — one hit away from the landmark total of 3,000, which so many hitters want to reach, but which relatively few actually do reach.

Waner hit a ball that the fielder did not handle cleanly but the official scorer called it a hit, making it Waner's 3,000th. Paul Waner then sent word to the official scorer that he did not want that questionable hit to be the one that put him over the top.

The official scorer reversed himself and called it an error. Later Paul Waner got a clean hit for number 3,000.

What reminded me of this is the great fervor that many seem to feel over the prospect of the first black President of the United States.

No doubt it is only a matter of time before there is a black president, just as it was only a matter of time before Paul Waner got his 3,000th hit. The issue is whether we want to reach that landmark so badly that we are willing to overlook how questionably that landmark is reached.

Paul Waner had too much pride to accept a scratch hit. Choosing a President of the United States is a lot more momentous than a baseball record. We the voters need to have far more concern about who we put in that office that holds the destiny of a nation and of generations yet unborn.

There is no reason why someone as arrogant, foolishly clever and ultimately dangerous as Barack Obama should become president — especially not at a time when the threat of international terrorists with nuclear weapons looms over 300 million Americans.

Many people seem to regard elections as occasions for venting emotions, like cheering for your favorite team or choosing a Homecoming Queen.

The three leading candidates for their party's nomination are being discussed in terms of their demographics — race, sex and age — as if that is what the job is about.

One of the painful aspects of studying great catastrophes of the past is discovering how many times people were preoccupied with trivialities when they were teetering on the edge of doom. The demographics of the presidency are far less important than the momentous weight of responsibility that office carries.

Just the power to nominate federal judges to trial courts and appellate courts across the country, including the Supreme Court, can have an enormous impact for decades to come. There is no point feeling outraged by things done by federal judges, if you vote on the basis of emotion for those who appoint them.

Barack Obama has already indicated that he wants judges who make social policy instead of just applying the law. He has already tried to stop young violent criminals from being tried as adults.

Although Senator Obama has presented himself as the candidate of new things — using the mantra of "change" endlessly — the cold fact is that virtually everything he says about domestic policy is straight out of the 1960s and virtually everything he says about foreign policy is straight out of the 1930s.

Protecting criminals, attacking business, increasing government spending, promoting a sense of envy and grievance, raising taxes on people who are productive and subsidizing those who are not — all this is a re-run of the 1960s.

We paid a terrible price for such 1960s notions in the years that followed, in the form of soaring crime rates, double-digit inflation and double-digit unemployment. During the 1960s, ghettoes across the countries were ravaged by riots from which many have not fully recovered to this day.

The violence and destruction were concentrated not where there was the greatest poverty or injustice but where there were the most liberal politicians, promoting grievances and hamstringing the police.

Internationally, the approach that Senator Obama proposes — including the media magic of meetings between heads of state — was tried during the 1930s. That approach, in the name of peace, is what led to the most catastrophic war in human history.

Everything seems new to those too young to remember the old and too ignorant of history to have heard about it.

New Campaign Slogan!