GOVERNMENT & POLITICS

First Amendment rights under attack

Democrats in the Senate and the House are preparing a full-frontal assault on the First Amendment rights of conservative groups in parallel legislative moves. The Senate ethics bill, passed Thursday night, contains a provision that will hold grassroots groups that attempt to “influence the general public” to the same rules as Washington lobbyists. This means that basically any group that suggests you write your congressman about an issue, from the humble editorial shop of The Patriot to the pastor of your local church, needs to file financial reports or face a $200,000 fine. In addition, any such group aside from liberal-loving unions that spends or collects more than $25,000 in three months would also be required to file.

The debate will continue, though, while House Democrats move to reinstall the “Fairness Doctrine” in an effort to silence conservative talk radio. The doctrine, which was allowed to die a quiet death during the Reagan administration, for years forced television and radio stations to give equal time to conservative and liberal opinion. Though it was never actually made law, now Democrats want to enforce the Fairness Doctrine in the proposed Media Ownership Reform Act. Under the guise of giving people a choice in the political views that they absorb in the media, Democrats are actually looking to force conservative talk radio stations to cede time to lousy liberal programming like Air America (which recently declared bankruptcy for lack of listeners). So much for the marketplace of ideas. The only programming choice liberals want to give the public is left and further left.

What to do with the conservative base

Newt Gingrich said recently that the GOP needs to abandon the idea of appealing narrowly to its conservative base if it wants to succeed in future elections. Gingrich, who may be a candidate for president in 2008, suggested that Republicans follow Ronald Reagan’s lead. “He was brilliant at avoiding base-narrowing appeals and emphasizing base-broadening appeals.” That doesn’t mean compromising on issues to win more votes; to the contrary, Gingrich is advocating a Reaganesque strategy of working to bring more voters into the conservative fold.

To eschew the strategy of Karl Rove may seem anathema to GOP strategists, but after 2006 the case can be made that it is time for a change. Unfortunately, House Republican leaders seem to disagree. For instance, Jeff Flake (R-AZ), who is a champion of pork-spending reform, has been bumped off the Judiciary Committee in what some say is a punitive move for drawing attention on 60 Minutes to the congressional spending spree. Minority Leader John Boehner denied that Flake is being punished; that he was merely edged out because there are fewer GOP seats to go around. However, Flake ranks higher in seniority than six other Republicans remaining on the committee. Another questionable move by Boehner was to keep Jerry Lewis (R-CA) as the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. When Lewis was chairman of Appropriations in the last Congress, he let more than 13,000 earmarks into the 2005 budget.

So, if Republicans really want change, we respectfully suggest they begin by recognizing the American people’s ability to bring it. In next week’s State of the Union Address, for instance, President Bush would do well to quote Bill Clinton’s 1995 SOTU opening remarks to a Senate and House controlled by Republicans (in that case, for the first time in four decades):

“Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, members of the 104th Congress, my fellow Americans, again we are here in the sanctuary of democracy, and once again, our democracy has spoken. So let me begin by congratulating all of you here in the 104th Congress, and congratulating you, Mr. Speaker. If we agree on nothing else tonight, we must agree that the American people certainly voted for change…”

Of course, in this instance, he may want to substitute “Madame” for “Mr.”

New law authorizes courts martial of civilians

With a little-noticed and minimally debated change to the 2007 defense-appropriations bill passed by Congress late last year, military contractors and other civilians in “contingency operations” such as Afghanistan or Iraq could be prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) instead of U.S. civilian courts. While Senator Lindsey Graham’s (R-SC) five-word provision is intended to close a loophole that allegedly makes it difficult to prosecute military contractors, some fear the new law could be applied to other civilians in war zones, such as journalists or civilian government employees. Previously, contractors were accountable under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA), which gives federal prosecutors authority over foreign battlefields. No contractor has been prosecuted under MEJA, in spite of reported criminal incidents.

The constitutional issues of this legislation are obvious, as is the potential for abuse. For example, an unscrupulous commander could use the UCMJ, which gives commanders wide legal latitude, to pressure journalists to get their story “right.” A better approach may be Representative David Price’s (D-NC) proposal that would strengthen MEJA. “Military law,” Price says, “is not appropriate for civilians.”

Obama-Mania kicks into overdrive

Barack Hussein Obama has succumbed to the cheering crowds and the media buzz and announced the formation of an exploratory committee to run for president in 2008. From his books to his television appearances to snapshots of him frolicking at the beach, it seems that people can’t get enough of Obama. He supposedly has enough star power to make Hillary Clinton nervous, and his meteoric rise to the top of the Demo heap has put her heretofore confident campaign into high gear.

Based on history, Clinton needn’t worry too much about the Barack attack. Obama appeals to the larger public (that rarely votes) because of his Capra-esque polemics against Washington, but we’ve seen his kind before. Ross Perot, John McCain and Howard Dean all raised the roof on presidential politics, but in the end they were unelectable because they couldn’t hold up to the scrutiny necessary in choosing this nation’s leader.

Then there’s Sam Brownback. Until the Kansas senator announced that he was running for president this week, with the notable exception of Jim Gilmore, conservative voters could not point to a candidate that they could honestly support. Brownback’s announcement (which you’ll have to find on his website because the Leftmedia is too obsessed with Obama to pay attention) lays out his case for a run for the White House. Respecting the culture of life and protecting the institution of marriage, energy independence, leaner government and a strong national defense are what Sam Brownback supports. Which raises the following question: Just what is Obama selling, besides his book?

New and Notable Legislation

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) seeks co-sponsors for his Sunlight Act (HR 170), which would require greater transparency in the legislative process.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) will introduce the Tax Code Termination Act, which would sunset the entire federal tax code in 2010 and require the implementation of an entirely new code. If only!

Rep. John Carter (R-TX) introduced legislation to prevent the Social Security Administration from paying benefits on unauthorized or illegal work.

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) introduced the Adoption Tax Relief Guarantee Act, which would make permanent the $10,000 child-adoption tax credit, set to expire in 2010.

NATIONAL SECURITY

Democrats assail President’s Iraq plan

Last week Democrats criticized the administration’s “New Way Forward” in Iraq before the plan was even announced. This week criticism has turned to legislation. In the Senate, Armed Service Committee chairman Carl Levin will introduce a nonbinding resolution “simply saying that we do not agree that more troops are the answer.” Levin is joined by Democrat Sen. Joe Biden, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and Republican narcissist Chuck Hagel, a possible 2008 presidential contender. “I will do everything I can to stop the president’s policy as he outlined it Wednesday night,” said Hagel. Now that’s a stance the GOP base will love.

Freshly returned from her weekend visit to Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Sen. Hillary Rodham-Clinton has stepped up her own criticism of the President’s plan. Troop increases in Iraq are “a losing strategy,” she asserted.

Asked about Levin & Co.’s maneuver, Sen. John McCain, who has voiced concern that another 21,000 troops may not be enough, was blunt: “A motion of disapproval I view as purely a political ploy to do further damage to the president of the United States. If they’re dead serious, then we should have a motion to cut off funding.”

House Democrats, predictably, are proving more aggressive in response to the President’s plan. Rep. John Murtha, chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, is working to insert language in a defense-spending bill to cut off funds for U.S. soldiers scheduled to go to Iraq this spring. Majority leaders Pelosi (House) and Reid (Senate) will only say they don’t support cutting funds to troops “currently in Iraq.”

By contrast, Republican Rep. Sam Johnson, a Vietnam-era POW, will introduce a bill prohibiting Congress from cutting any funds to deployed personnel. “[F]or those who don’t agree with the President’s plan,” challenged House Minority Leader John Boehner as he announced the Johnson bill, “what’s their alternative, what’s their plan?”

This week’s ‘Braying Jenny’ award

“It is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating the U.S. troop presence in Iraq. Introduced in a bipartisan way in the United States Senate, that resolution will be supported in the House by the Democrats. We do not support the escalation of the war. We do not think it is in our national interest. We will engage the public in that debate.” —House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, announcing support for the Senate’s nonbinding resolution against increasing troop strength in Iraq

Arab states back ‘New Way Forward’

As the debate over the President’s Iraq plan comes to a boil here at home, the response in the Middle East should be a lesson to the naysayers. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice traveled to the Middle East this week to garner support for the plan and came away with a joint communique from the six states of the Gulf Cooperation Council, together with Egypt and Jordan, that “welcomed the commitment.” Rice stressed that the leaders with whom she had met want “to give this a chance.” At least one of the signers, Saudi Arabia, expressed concern over the Iraqi government’s commitment to disarming Shi’ite militias that terrorize the minority Sunni community. Sec. Rice also stressed Iraq’s responsibility: “[T]here is, in fact, a burden on the Iraqi government to perform.”

The joint communique came on the heels of Sec. Rice’s announcement that she would meet with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to discuss issues surrounding the creation of a Palestinian state. To date, America’s track record on brokering a two-state solution isn’t encouraging. Clearly, Rice’s announcement also attempts to provide cover for the Arab leaders who endorsed the President’s Iraq plan against hardliners who oppose any U.S. presence in the region.

The communique prompted the Iraqi government to announce the arrest of several dozen members of the Mahdi Army in recent weeks. These arrests constitute President Nouri al-Maliki’s first public act against the powerful Shi’ite militia whose leader, Muqtada al-Sadr, helped place him in power. Maliki went on to press for a speedier arming of Iraq’s army, saying that given the equipment, “I think that within three to six months our need for the American troops will dramatically go down.”

Warrantless wiretaps grind to a halt

Faced with intense pressure from the new Demo majorities in Congress, and on the heels of a negative ruling from a Cincinnati federal appeals court, the Bush administration announced this week an end to the NSA-administered warrantless-wiretap program against al-Qa’ida suspects in the United States. Instead, the Justice Department claims it has an arrangement with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to obtain warrants with the “necessary speed and agility.” However, we fear congressional Democrats’ promise for a spate of hearings on the program, beginning this week with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, may have brought the program to a premature halt. We’ve noted previously with respect to the USA Patriot Act that in times of war and national crisis, it is necessary that the pendulum between individual liberty and corporate security swing toward the latter.

It may be worth reminding these champions of civil liberty that, three days after the bloodshed of September 11, 2001, they—the U.S. Senate and House—voted 98-0 and 420-1, respectively, to authorize the President “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.” If the administration’s so-called warrantless-wiretap program wasn’t authorized under that mandate, limited as it was to suspected al-Qa’ida associates, then what exactly did Congress authorize the President to do?

One last round of applause for the America-hating New York Times for illegally making public this vital counter-terrorism program.

China successfully tests anti-satellite weapon

Well, apparently somebody thought the Star Wars program was a good idea. Unfortunately, that somebody was China.

According to Aviation Week, China successfully tested an anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon earlier this month. On 11 January, an ASAT weapon, believed to be a modified mid-range missile, fired from the vicinity of the Xichang Space Center destroyed the aging Fengyun weather satellite. Air Force radars later found multiple radar targets where the satellite used to be. This test occurred about four months after a Chinese ground-based laser system allegedly lit up a passing U.S. military satellite.

Contrary to popular interpretation, this test is not a technological leap forward for the Chinese. Four years ago China conducted a similar launch under the thinly veiled auspices of a commercial mission. Rather, the Chinese action is a purely political ploy, intended as a shot across the bow of the U.S.—a response to American satellite-intelligence missions over China, as well as renewed American interests in space-based defenses. Clearly, when it comes to the High Ground, China intends to play for keeps.

Border agents begin prison sentences

Former U.S. Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos, 37, and Jose Alonso Compean, 28, surrendered to U.S. Marshals this week to begin prison sentences for the non-lethal shooting of a Mexican drug smuggler caught illegally entering the U.S. with 750 pounds of marijuana. The two agents were sentences to 11 and 12 years in prison, respectively, having been convicted in October on charges of inflicting serious bodily injury, assault with a deadly weapon, illegal discharge of a firearm and civil rights violations. The agents did shoot the man while he was fleeing and wrongly concealed evidence by picking up the shell casings afterward, but the punishment hardly matches the crime. In fact, we were under the impression that Border Patrol agents were tasked with protecting the border—even if it means shooting a drug smuggler, heaven forbid.

Ramos was a ten-year veteran of the agency and a former nominee for “Agent of the Year;” Compean had served for five years. Both men leave behind wives and three children, each. Of note, Homeland Security investigators actually traveled to Mexico to track down Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, the agents’ “victim,” and granted him immunity from drug-smuggling charges and entry into the U.S. in exchange for his testimony against the two officers.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican and known advocate for stringent border enforcement, has led the effort to have the two agents exonerated, but the White House has refused to commute their sentences. “This is the worst betrayal of American defenders I have ever seen…[President Bush] obviously thinks more about his agreements with Mexico than the lives of American people and backing up his defenders,” said Rohrabacher. “Our border agents risk their lives daily to uphold our immigration laws and defend our borders. If the conviction of Ramos and Compean is an indication of how our government will repay them, we can be certain good men and women will soon flee the ranks of Border Patrol service.” So much for this administration’s promise to “get serious” on border security.

Angry? Well, before the Democrats’ new “ethics” bill prevents us from doing so, we encourage you to contact the White House to express your displeasure at these convictions. You can contact the White House via e-mail at , by phone (202-456-1414) or fax (202-456-2461).

BUSINESS & ECONOMY

The real deal on the House Medicare bill

The Senate is unlikely to pass it. The President has threatened to veto it. Economists, insurers and pharmaceutical-industry experts say it won’t work. Yet none of this stopped the House from passing a Medicare bill that would call for the government to negotiate prices directly with drug companies. Twenty-four Republicans joined every single House Democrat in passing legislation that is sure to raise drug prices and keep new medicines out of the hands of seniors and the disabled.

Democrats think that the power of Uncle Sam can force drug companies to negotiate for lower prices on the drugs purchased by some 40-million Americans under the Medicare umbrella. The major flaw in this logic is that if the government acts as the single negotiating entity with drug companies, there is no incentive for them to cave to lower prices, which in some cases could be below the cost of producing the drug in question. Prices will remain lower only if companies negotiate deals with individual insurance providers, which is the market approach currently in place. It’s also an approach that’s working quite well: The average monthly premium for the Medicare prescription-drug benefit has dropped by 42 percent since 2003. The net cost of the drug program has fallen by close to $200 billion. While the only good entitlement program is a dead entitlement program, Democrats still embody Ronald Reagan’s adage on government: “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

Demos bring back taxes with a vengeance

San Fran Nan Pelosi has signaled a return to the tax-and-spend days of yore. Cleverly titling her new tax hike as an “energy bill,” Pelosi and her soldiers have decided to attack “big oil” by increasing royalty payments and rolling back tax cuts for the oil and gas industry enacted in 2004 and 2005. There hasn’t been a vote in the House to raise taxes in 13 years, and during that time taxpayers were given a $2-trillion tax break that generated more than $500 billion in new revenue for the government. Now, with the Demos in charge, those days are over.

Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), one of the authors of this bill, looks forward to ending President Bush’s “sweetheart deals with Big Oil.” And Markey actually thinks he’s helping working Americans. Unfortunately, the 32-percent to 35-percent hike in royalty payments that oil companies are facing will be passed on to the consumer, as all corporate tax hikes ultimately are. If American consumers realized this, it’s doubtful that they’d want Markey and his friends in their corner.

Taxes, benefits and Social Security

As the latest round of “bipartisanship” overtakes Washington, Social Security may actually make its way back to the forefront. Before anyone gets excited, though, the likely options include benefit cuts and tax hikes. We’re not talking a minor tax increase; we mean the elimination of the cap on Social Security taxes—no more $94,200 ceiling. The White House is giving conflicting signals on the tax increase. President Bush has said he is opposed to tax increases, but Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Press Secretary Tony Snow give the impression that everything is on the table.

Rep. Mike Pence of the conservative Republican Study Committee argues that though reform went in the tank last year, it wasn’t because Americans rejected the idea of personal accounts. They were bored with talk of “solvency,” which Pence says has less to do with what reform is about than creating a system in which people get a return for their investment. He also makes the case that a tax increase could be devastating to the economy. Small-business owners, who in reality bear the whole 12.4-percent withholding burden, would be hit especially hard. (This would deal them a double whammy after the minimum-wage increase.) Pence challenges the Bush administration to submit a budget that doesn’t raid the current surplus and to be clear about rejecting tax increases, while getting back to advocating the real benefit of personal-retirement accounts. We could use many more like Rep. Pence on Capitol Hill.

CULTURE

Editor’s Note: In commemoration of the more than 47-million unborn victims of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, this week’s Culture section is devoted in its entirety to the history and contemporary reverberations of the Roe decision. By providing this brief look into the sanctity of life, we hope to keep alive an issue that has, in recent years, lost the attention of much of the conservative community.

Roe v. Wade turns 34

On Monday, the most tragic Supreme Court fiat in America’s history will turn 34. The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision federalized a legal issue that historically had been individually decided by each state. Seven unelected justices struck down Texas’ abortion law—and by extension, those of the other states—instead of having elected legislators properly decide the matter. The primary issue, of course, remains the right to life affirmed in our Declaration of Independence.

Since Roe, more than 47-million babies have been denied this foundational right, trumped by the so-called “right to choose,” although at the time abortion advocates couched the decision as a privacy issue under the “penumbra” of the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment. Justice Byron White and William Rehnquist, who were the lone dissenters, wrote, “The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers, and with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the [issue]…” Thus, seven black-robed despots overruled the will of the people.

With regard to rights and “rights,” columnist Thomas Sowell aptly notes, “It is hard to think of any word that has confused more issues than the word ‘rights.’ Nowadays, almost anything that anybody wants is called a ‘right’ —a magic word that does away with the need for evidence, logic or even common sense.” Indeed, some of these newfound “rights” were totally alien to Americans during our first 300-plus years on the continent.

Yet abortion is also a deeply personal issue. For those mothers and fathers seeking healing from a tragic loss and the ensuing emotional distress, the peddlers of abortion offer no comfort or understanding. If you or someone you know suffers silently the anguish of abortion, we encourage you to read “Empty Arms”—60 stories of hope and healing from across the nation. (100 percent of the proceeds go to the National Memorial for the Unborn.)

The New York Times’ latest whopper

The New York Times Magazine printed a cover story on 9 April last year about the murder of an infant in El Salvador and the ensuing conviction and 30-year sentencing of the mother. The Times claimed that the case involved the abortion of an 18-week-old unborn baby. The article painted the incident as the typical repression of a woman’s “right to choose,” indicating that the abortion was ruled a murder. However, since the object of mainstream journalism is leftist advocacy, not objective reporting, the Times failed to research original court documents until November, when “details… were brought to the attention of editors.” A correction was printed last week, but no retraction or disciplinary action (that we know of) has taken place.

The sad truth is that the woman gave birth to a full-term baby, whom she then strangled to death. The main source for the article was Ipas, an abortion-advocacy organization in El Salvador. Ipas planned to use the article for fundraising purposes. We suppose, really, that the Times did the same thing. Shame on them.

New battles… and new hope

There is hope in the battle for life. Pro-life groups are more active than ever, seeking and winning victories. Yet there are also losses to recover from and new battles to fight. As pro-lifers gain restrictions on abortion, such as parental notification and partial-birth-abortion bans, new fronts emerge. Embryonic-stem-cell research threatens life just as much as partial-birth abortion, yet Congress is seeking to further existing federal funding of this despicable and unnecessary practice.

As we’ve reported before, embryonic stem cells have yet to provide any cure for even a single disease. Meanwhile, real strides are made every day with adult stem cells, which are now treating more than 70 diseases in human patients. Recently, amniotic stem cells—those found in the amniotic fluid surrounding a baby or in the placenta—were found to have many of the best characteristics of their adult and embryonic cousins, without requiring that a human life be sacrificed to obtain them.

Advocates of embryonic stem cells seem dogmatically bound in their thinking that the best way to save a life requires taking another. “Nothing to see here,” they say about adult stem cell successes. “Now let’s get to expanding federal funding of ESC research.” Democrats made funding ESCR a priority in their first 100 hours, although a veto is expected from President Bush. We just have to ask: What is it that makes the destruction of life—embryo, unborn baby or the infirm—a sacrament to the religion of liberalism?

And last…

Who would have known that all this time idiots in New Jersey couldn’t vote? Judging by their elected officials, not we. Nevertheless, that is precisely the case, since the state constitution currently reads “no idiot or insane person should enjoy the right of suffrage.”

“Idiot” used to be the definition of someone with an IQ below 20, while “imbecile” and “moron” were the next rungs on the ladder. Today, of course, we have far more sensitive terms for the mentally handicapped: The varying degrees of retardation are now “Mild,” “Moderate,” “Severe” and, for an IQ of 20, “Profound.” Yet whether one prefers the old terminology or the new, at least these disenfranchised dolts can still serve in Iraq.

Lex et Libertas—Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander, Publisher, for the editors and staff. (Please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm’s way around the world, and for their families, especially those of our fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who have died in defense of American liberty while prosecuting the war with Jihadistan.)