Stark Raving Mad

I joyfully give it. Nancy Pelosi did a right thing in denouncing California Congressman Pete Stark. Here is what Stark said

You don’t have money to fund the war or children. But you’re going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president’s amusement.

Pelosi retorts

While members of Congress are passionate about their views, what Congressman Stark said during the debate was inappropriate and distracted from the seriousness of the subject at hand—providing health care for America’s children,

No word on whether the Speaker’s Stark policy had been cleared with the Capitol architect. And I give her a pass this time on that hackneyed attempt to play the emotional violin.

But this is not the first time Stark has shown his persnickety side, nor will it likely be the last. He certainly is not a newby to the realm of the inane. Not too long ago, he had this to say when the Iraq liberation began

I think unleashing 3,000 smart bombs against the city of Baghdad in the first several days of the war… to me, if those were unleashed against the San Francisco Bay Area, I would call that an act of extreme terrorism.

I guess Mr. Stark would rather us carpet bomb the populace. Or have left Saddam Hussein in power. Or maybe Stalingrad is more his speed. He wasn’t all that clear on the alternative he supported in March, 2003, other than to do nothing.

Now, though, we know he supports the troops. Well, sort of. He has his limits. On his campaign site, we learn he only recognizes 2,300 fatalities in Iraq

With more than 2,300 Americans already killed and more than 40,000 Iraqi lives lost, the United States military presence no longer provides security. At this point, the Iraqis need to be primarily responsible for forming an Iraqi government, ending the civil unrest and building a country that is politically stable and economically viable. Instead of our continued military presence, we should help Iraq by working with members of the international community to provide Iraqis with resources to help them build their economic infrastructure.

You would think Stark would do better than forget approximately 1,000 American soldiers who he claims had “their heads blown off for the president’s amusement.” Not only is he foolishly partisan, he’s a phony. Maybe if we’re lucky we can get Harry Reid to comment on his patriotism.  

UPDATE Minor consolation.

Just two weeks after standing on the United Senate floor and slandering Rush Limbaugh as “un-patriotic” (I’m detecting a double standard here), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid today reverses course, and praises Limbaugh - and in a weird, creepy way, seems to take more than his share of credit for the $2.1 million raised for the Marine Corp - Law Enforcement Foundation. Reid pretending he even remotely thought any charity would come out of that letter is like Christopher Columbus claiming he meant to discover America. Even worse, unlike Limbaugh, he’s not matching the money the auction raised.

Adding further to the mysterious about-face, Harry Reid bemoans that not every Democrat senator had time to sign the letter (thinking, I suppose, that a complete set may have added another thousand or two to the final bid). Reid doesn’t seem to understand that the reason the letter raised $2.1 million is because of his own partisanship, stemming from a weak effort at a clear smear. There’s no spinster on the planet who can nobilize the actions of the forty-one Senate Democrats who signed that letter. Trying to take any credit for the good Limbaugh turned out of it (and the money he is matching that Harry Reid is not) speaks volumes about how small a man Harry Reid actually is.

Truly, this is where communism belongs.

More failure from Speaker Pelosi. Only congressional Democrats would attempt to place 80 year old symbolism over the necessities of present-day Middle East diplomacy.

I suppose if someone added “God” to the resolution, the Speaker would undoubtedly pull it from the floor.

One would have the thought the heyday of the leftist infatuation for dictatorships was yesterday. Count me surprised.

A commonly used rhetorical device on the Left is to impugn those who comment on the Iraq war if they have not served in the armed forces. For example

Let’s be clear, folks.

There is no “shelf life” for those who have served in Iraq. Hobbs attempt to discredit these captains simply because they havent served in iraq n 2007 is laughable at best, and coming from someone like Hobbs, who has NEVER served in iraq, ridiculous.

Do things change on the ground in Iraq? Yes. But the experience and first hand knowledge these captains bring from their tours in Iraq,, even if they were pre 2007, is far beyond anything that the armchair, chickenhawk, not-serving-now-and -never- did -serve rowd can hope to offer.

I was attacked in the same vein by the same individual last week. It’s certainly effective in reducing the number of the opposition. This means, of course, that because only 26 million Americans alive today currently serve or have served, that 274 million Americans (minors included) cannot have an opinion on matters of war. Add to that past Democrat attempts to invalidate the votes of those currently serving, and you have a nice, rhetorically unopposed sample. It’s not quite as bad as parading toddlers around to promote the S-CHIP expansion, then acting indignant about it, but it’s close.

Well, that’s just silly.

The de facto result of such tactics would be complete military control over military affairs. If civilians are deemed incompetent to exercise judgment regarding military matters, the military is left to its own devices. This is a dangerous, anti-Constitutional position to take. Amusingly enough, it’s apparently patriotic to critique the administration in order to oppose it, but to support the military for its stated mission is somehow out-of-bounds. Unless you’ve served. Circular, isn’t it?

To their moral credit, I doubt those who have adopted the presupposition have thought it through this much. It’s more irritating and disingenuous than anything, and not so much else.

There was some ill-advised speculation that 30 affiliate Air America (whose former New York flagship station here - they now share air time with Armstrong Williams) talk show host Randi Rhodes, known primarily for having mankind’s third raspiest voice (behind only Neil Diamond and Bonnie Tyler), was attacked by a pack of rabid, vicious conservatives while on a canine-accompanied jog.

My apologies for all the parentheses. I can’t help the commentary - the whole Air America story reads like a Dr. Seuss novelette. Green eggs over medium, please.

In that spirit, excuse my chuckles, and the perceived importance of Randi Rhodes. Some things are more ridiculous, sure - like juggling grizzly bears on unicycles - but seldom do we get to witness such straight-out-of-the-box craziness in written form. Somehow, somewhere, there were some truly unfortunate, tightly wound people actually believing that a Rush Limbaugh listener would have been responsible for the now-defunct attack.

Count me as no fun, but I like my conspiracies to have more in common with Aristotle than Coast to Coast AM. Based on the recent ratings of Air America, logic would have demanded we first accuse a likely candidate for the attack, someone obligated to listen to her, maybe tied to a chair, like a family member. Or it could be a militant cat person. Then we can move on to the real loons who don’t think she is liberal enough. Then, perhaps, we could find a conservative to accuse.

Right now, there is an ongoing debate as to whether the Left or the Right is more hateful. We can argue about that. But there is no debate as to who is most paranoid.

I spent a few minutes listening to Steve Gill this morning. I get a little restless with The Wakeup Zone once my fellow Terp Frank Wycheck leaves at 9:00am, so I start pushing buttons and searching for other talk options.

Today, Mr. Gill was discussing the embrace of the need for AIDS awareness by Hollywood. He believes that people on the Left Coast bring attention to AIDS as a way of promoting a gay and lesbian lifestyle that involves “perverse” sexual activity. That’s right! Betcha didn’t know those little red ribbons shoot invisible beams that turn people into flaming homosexuals. Do you know the real reason that Senator Obama stopped wearing the American flag pin? He was tired of supporters breaking into “God Bless America” every time he turned in their direction. Yep … patriotic beams!

Mr. Gill used a tone of disdain for gays and seemed to imply the ridiculous notion that AIDS is a punishment for being gay. Yes, this disease started in the gay community more than 25 years ago, but its effects have been felt by people from all backgrounds (just ask Ryan White or the college student who had sex in 1985 with her unknowingly infected boyfriend). Where is the compassion and respect for a human being regardless of your thoughts on his lifestyle?

I believe that, in 2007 America, most new cases of HIV infection are the result of poor decisions. There is enough education now concerning safe sex and clean needles that people should be able to protect themselves. Blood tranfusions are now expected to be safe. I was part of one of the first high school classes that had Health as a graduation requirement, and the decision to add this course was a direct result of AIDS. And, to be honest, I would vote to more money into research for cancer or Alzeheimers than AIDS any day. All this being said, I would never say that a person deserved to get AIDS or that a push for a cure was meant to excuse dangerous behavior.

Side (Related) Note: I’m a huge fan of The Soup and I try to catch it every Friday night ( at least when I’m not out getting wasted and dancing on tables). Joel McHale made a brilliant point which, to paraphrase, was something like, “Gay couples can’t get married but Pamela Anderson and Rick Solomon … each of whom has public sex tapes and previous divorces … can get married between performances of Ms. Anderson’s new Vegas show. That makes sense”. As Fred Thompson believes, let the states decide!

Former VP Al Gore has been enjoyed increased press recently due to his recent victory in the race for the Nobel Peace Prize.  He played all four quarters, had a couple of questionable calls go his way and stayed tough mentally.  (Sorry … watched quite a bit of football this weekend.)

One comment that I have heard/read multiple times from newspapers, blogs, TV reporters, etc. is that Al Gore put country before self by unifiying the country after the 2000 election.  He decided to end the courtroom drama for the good of the country.  (Please refer to my immediate past post to see the connection between the 2000 election and Gore’s status as Nobel Laureate.)  “Oh, how we could have used such leadership in the nearly seven years that have followed,” the commentators are saying.  To that I respond, “Say what?” and “Whatcha talkin’ ’bout, pundits?” and perhaps a little “Surely you jest.”

How did Al Gore unify this country?  He gave a concession speech after he realized that any future legal fight was bleak at best.  I appreciate his eventual willingness to concede and perhaps he actually hoped that his words would unify the people of our land.  Being a political martyr can be kind of cool, I guess.  But our country was FAR from unified for most of 2001.

I was at Bush’s first inauguration, and there were thousands of protesters along the parade route and scattered throughout visible points in the city.  More power to them, but I wasn’t feeling a warm, fuzzy sense of unity.  How many people clamored to purchase a “Bush — Selected, Not Elected” bumper sticker or some other decorative car adhesive with a similar sentiment?

People are wearing some powerful rose-colored glasses or looking at history through one of those funky wavy mirrors you find at carnivals if they believe that Al Gore was the bigger man who held the nation’s collective hand into a period of understanding and togetherness.

When I open The New York Times each morning, I always start with the Letters to the Editor. A good chuckle is a pleasant way to start one’s day! The opinions are generally quite one-sided for one of three possible reasons:

1. Most of the people who read the NYT are left-leaning, and therefore are bound to constitute more of the letters

2. The NYT chooses to publish mostly letters with a left-leaning slant

3. Conservative readers, for whatever reason, just aren’t as inclined to submit a letter to the editor (and, no, it’s not because they don’t know how to write a complete sentence, you liberal elites … you know you were thinking it)

Today’s letters focused on Al Gore as a newly minted Nobel Peace Laureate. The general theme … this award is meant to make up for the fact that Gore had the election stolen from him in 2000. Two telling excerpts are as follows:

What a different world we would have except for butterly ballots and a conniving Supreme Court.

and

Maybe next time, the Supreme Court justices will follow the Constitution and allow the states to resolve their own election disputes. In 2000, they made the wrong decision not only for America, but also for our planet.

It warms my heart when liberals embrace federalism. I feel like there is hope for politics in this country, after all. I certainly don’t want a detailed rehashing of the 2000 election seven years later, and my grasp of the details aren’t as fresh as they once were. However, do people forget that Florida’s state legislature was controlled by Republicans? It’s almost certain the state’s votes would have been certified for Bush anyway. Would that have been OK since the state retained power to make that call? Doubtful.

Another letter writer brings up the obvious question that I have often asked. What does a movie and activism concerning global warming have to do with world peace? If anything, isn’t there a more fitting science category? The man who penned the letter explains the connection as such,

Those who claim, oddly, that the environment has nothing to do with “peace” should look at the award another way. Al Gore defeated George W. Bush in 2000 and he knew it … Rather than allow the nation to be plunged into a growing constitutional crisis … Al Gore accepted the peculiar ruling of the Supreme Court. Al Gore placed the safety and security of the nation above his own political ambition.

That makes absolutely no sense. This person contends that Gore’s desire to bring peace after the election, if you wish to make the argument that Gore really had such noble goals, is worthy of the award. Fine. Believe that. However, Gore’s actions in 2000 are completely separate from The Incovenient Truth work for which he actually won the prize. So, we return to the belief that Gore is owed this award to make up for the Supreme Court decision seven years ago. By this logic, Al Gore could have done cartwheels for eighteen hours straight and the committee would have seen fit to make him a Nobel Prize Laureate.

I must head off to bed now so that I am rested and fresh to read tomorrow’s letters. I’m hoping for a handful about how Rush Limbaugh should be censored (because free speech concerns don’t apply to conservatives) and perhaps a few about how we need to intervene in Darfur now (because sometimes unprovoked military action simply to protect human life and promote freedom is OK).

Barack Obama gives a rather obtuse rationale for not wearing an American flag pin - akin to it being faux patriotic or something. And now, Nancy Pelosi has decided that any mention of Providence is per se inappropriate for flags flown over the Capitol. Or maybe she is just proto-typically punting on first down.

Either way, her explanation leaves a lot to be desired

Asked about the issue today at a press luncheon, Pelosi said the architect’s policy was adopted because “people were asking for statements that not only were religious, beyond using the word God, but political as well.” She said the official policy is to send a certificate that lists nothing beyond the date the flag flew over the Capitol and the name of its recipient. She said that members of Congress who request flags on behalf of constituents can “add whatever they wish” to the certificates, “whether it is a political statement or a religious statement.”

“It’s not about being anti-religion,” Pelosi said, noting that each day in the Capitol starts with a prayer. “It is just about what the architect thought was appropriate for him to proclaim in a certificate.”

Rewrite the civics books! Here’s the new order of presidential succession.

1. Vice President

2. Capitol Architect

3. Speaker of the House

4. President pro Temp

It is fair to say she’s not making much sense. There is a broad gap between religious and political statements. It may be appropriate to disallow the most partisan, blatantly political statements, but to contravene the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious expression is indefensible. Remember, the Constitution’s guarantee is not a freedom from religion, but rather the affirmative free exercise of it. Tradition to this effect is rampant. Our country’s founders beseeched the guidance of a higher power, and the Congress and every court in this nation opens with a prayer. Pelosi’s notes even this, and still defers to the architect.

The Speaker of the House is showing a profound weakness, inexplicably deferring to the judgment of the Capitol architect as to what is, and is not, appropriate. This begs the question - who in fact is in charge of the Capitol building? One may think the Speaker’s office would recognize a pecking order that did not elevate the building’s architect over the Constitution. But then again, this is a Speaker who holds meetings to plan meetings. Logic is apparently not her strong suit. Politics aside, she is well on her way to being the most incompetent speaker in modern memory.

Well, most of us already knew that. The TCPR issues this release moments ago

For Immediate Release: October 10, 2007

 

For More Information, Contact:

Nicole Williams

615.383.6431

editor@tennesseepolicy.org

 

Al Gore Not Deserving of Nobel Peace Prize, Says Tennessee Center for Policy Research

Other candidates more worthy than hypocritical climate change alarmist

 

NASHVILLE – The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is calling on the Nobel Committee to not give Al Gore the Nobel Peace Prize this week. The prestigious award should go to someone who has championed world peace – not a hypocritical climate change alarmist.

 

The Nobel Prize announcement is scheduled for October 12 in Oslo, Norway. Gore has been nominated for his work on global warming, and speculation is rampant that he will win.

 

“Handing a Nobel Prize to Al Gore, a proven hypocrite on the issue of climate change, would be an injustice to the many people bravely fighting for peace and freedom throughout the world,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson. “We discovered that while Gore told us to curtail our energy use, he guzzled more electricity at his posh Nashville mansion in a month than the average American family used in a year.”

 

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006 Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh – more than 20 times the national average, according to the Nashville Electric Service. The Tennessee Center for Policy Research uncovered this fact through a public records search in the wake of Gore’s Oscar-winning movie, An Inconvenient Truth. Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

 

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research hopes the Nobel Peace Prize goes to a deserving candidate, such as Lida Yusupova, who has devoted her life to human rights, even as she faces death threats. Her work in Chechnya has shed light on human rights abuses committed by both Russian armed forces and Chechen rebels.

 

Another deserving candidate is Buddhist monk Thich Quang Do, who has spent a lifetime fighting for peace and freedom in Vietnam. He is currently under house arrest for decrying human rights abuses and has been jailed previously for helping his country’s poor.

 

If the Nobel Committee wants to award an individual working on the issue of climate change, it can select Canadian Inuit activist Sheila Watt-Cloutier, who – unlike Al Gore – practices what she preaches. Watt-Cloutier has dedicated herself to working with the indigenous peoples of the Arctic regions, speaking out against polluters and sounding the alarm about climate change.

 

“We hope the Nobel Peace Prize goes to someone who truly deserves it,” Johnson said. “Making Al Gore a Nobel Laureate would forever tarnish the Nobel Prize.”

 

###

 

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through the ideas of liberty. Visit TCPR online at: www.tennesseepolicy.org.

We arrived back in town from a family visit on the Georgia coast just in time to watch the Republican debate Fred debut.

Fred Thompson’s first debate performance last night was a solid performance, but not exceptional. Over time, Thompson suffers a noteworthy detriment to his campaign, in that he may be too concerned with the Constitution for some segments of the Republican party. However, last night was mostly economic issues, and on that point of discussion, I heard little I disagreed with from any of the candidates, save Ron Paul’s harping protectionism, which may play well in Michigan but does no service to the country-at-large. Such protectionist drivel is nothing short of detrimental to our longterm economic health. Fred made it plain that he is a free trader.

Anyhow, it is clear that all the other candidates had been through many debates. Everyone seemed comfortable, and Thompson’s comfort will grow with each successive debate. Last night certainly did not hurt his candidacy.

As for the moderators, Chris Matthews did not disappoint, confirming once more that he has an incurable bout of diarrhea-of-the-mouth. At least Maria Bartiromo was there and professional.

UPDATE Some have questioned my assessment of Ron Paul’s protectionist tendencies. Here is my response from the comments

If he isn’t a protectionist, he certainly needs to explain how he is going to keep all those manufacturing jobs here, or get them back. The natural mechanisms of free trade ensure that most manufacturing jobs do in fact get exported.

Anyhow, here is a list of Paul’s recent free trade votes:

*  NAFTA superhighway threatens widespread eminent domain. (Sep 2007)
* Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005)
* Voted NO on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. (Jul 2004)
* Voted NO on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement. (Jul 2003)
* Voted NO on implementing free trade agreement with Chile. (Jul 2003)
* Voted YES on withdrawing from the WTO. (Jun 2000)
* Voted NO on ‘Fast Track’ authority for trade agreements. (Sep 1998)
* No restrictions on import/export; but maintain sovereignty . (Dec 2000)
* End economic protectionism: let dairy compacts expire . (Aug 2001)
* Rated 76% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record. (Dec 2002)

Oh yeah. That’s a free trader if I ever saw one. Since his rating by CATO in 2002, he has been a staunch protectionist.

I SCHIP in for Hillary and Obama

The reauthorization for the SCHIP bill, which now covers health care for poor children, has become the Democrats’ latest, most favored weapon to push more government growth. Democrats in the House and Senate have sent a bill to the White House that expands SCHIP to cover “children” up to the age of 25, and encompasses families making over $80,000.00 per year. Right now SCHIP covers needy children only. Republicans in both houses favor a reauthorization of the current program.

Now, I realize that Democrats consider anyone under 25 to be a child, as demonstrated in the way their leadership portrays the average American serviceman (to be fair, that snippy remark of mine doesn’t quite prove enough). The bedrock of liberalism rests on the premise that the government is better at taking care of you than you are yourself - to a liberal, we are all children in need of paternalistic government protection. Acting on this principle, Democrats in Congress nary blink once at yanking 2 million otherwise insured children out of the private sector and making them health wards of the state.

The Democrat sponsored bill for SCHIP reauthorization would take an estimated 2 million children out of private insurance coverage. This is the first step in a grand plan to nationalize 16% of the American economy, taking 10 million privately employed people out of the private sector and effectively putting them on the federal payroll. That’s a $2.1 trillion growth in government, which would nearly double the current size of the federal government. Remembering Hillary’s failure in 1993, the Democrat’s approach is now more nuanced, sneakily seeking to kick start universal health care using America’s youth as bait. The inherent self-perpetuating nature of bureaucracy makes preventive action not only advisable, but necessary. It is vital we stop such an irresponsible expansion now, before it even exists. We conservatives have had a tough time enough reducing the size of government since the 1960s, due both to years of Democrat congresses and missed opportunities by the executive.

As I have mentioned on this site numerous times, the problem with health care costs and availability is that there is not enough competition in the system, not too much. Adding more government, and taking health care out of capable, private hands is the wrong answer.

Son of a Coal Miner

Senate and House Democrats appear to have lost their collective minds.

Harry Reid, the son of a coal miner (he wanted me to tell you that), has taken to the Senate floor to denounce Rush Limbaugh. That’s right - Rush Limbaugh.

That would be like Mitch McConnell coming out and attacking…well, there’s no one on the liberal side that would even compare to Rush Limbaugh. All of Air America’s audiences combined never rivaled Limbaugh’s popularity. Nevermind, then. The greater point is that the Democrats, and especially Harry “we’ve already lost” Reid, are in desperate need of a vehicle to recalibrate their “support” of the troops, when the phony soldier incident seemingly falls in their lap. Too bad they don’t fact check.

If the Democrats were truly as popular with the people as they claim, and as well positioned as the pundits declare, such a dice roll certainly wouldn’t be necessary. If Limbaugh was a lion of the right before, he is a tyrannosaurus rex now.

The truth is, and the greater fun of it is, that the national Democrats are in a terribly bad place, where they adopt a strategy that actually includes a coordinated attack on a private individual, thrown down on the United States Senate floor, with all the constitutional protections that affords. The claims themselves are ludicrous - that Limbaugh doesn’t support American troops, and that he is unpatriotic (Reid’s words, not mine), stemming from Limbaugh’s criticism of a confirmed fraud, Jesse Macbeth. Fuel has been added to the fire with the help of Media Matters, a de facto arm of the Hillary Clinton campaign machine. Even more ludicrous is that the Democrats’ attacks are easily refuted by casually reviewing some rather easily available transcripts. If this attack hadn’t happened on the Senate floor, both Harry Reid’s and Tom Harkin’s drivel would certainly constitute actionable defamation. Maybe Reid, Harkin et al have been talking to John Murtha, who has been painfully learning just this over the past year.

In an attempt to raise the term “moral equivalence” to a stratospheric level, deplete of oxygen, Maryland Democrat Steny Hoyer declares Limbaugh’s comments to be no better than those of MoveOn.org, the liberal advocacy group that recently accused a serving four star general of treason in The New York Times. How is this done with straight face, you ask?

It’s called the willing suspension of disbelief.

UPDATE My apologies for only mentioning three Democrats in this post.

UPDATE UPDATE And worth reading, the response to Harry Reid and company - the slap down letter from ClearChannel.