GOVERNMENT & POLITICS

News from the Swamp: 2008 SOTU

On Monday night, President George W. Bush gave his seventh and final State of the Union Address. Of course, the Leftmedia were quick to dismiss the speech as that of a lame duck, but then again, they have been calling the President a lame duck since the day after his re-election in 2004. As longtime Patriot readers know, we have often commended President Bush for his leadership in the Long War against Jihadistan. Accordingly, the SOTU contained numerous references to major progress on the warfront, particularly in Iraq, as well as the promise to “stay on the offense… keep up the pressure… [and] deliver justice to our enemies.” President Bush reminded Americans that success in this war is critical to our national interests. Perhaps most important, the President thanked the men and women of our Armed Forces and their families for their sacrifice. As with any war, there have been misjudgments and mistakes, but the President has never wavered from his commitment to meet the challenge head-on, and we believe history will judge him favorably for his resolve to fight terrorists and spread freedom to Afghanistan and Iraq.

On the other hand, President Bush is decidedly not conservative when it comes to domestic issues. In fact, when one listens closely to the schizophrenic portions of his speech, it’s often hard to tell which party he belongs to. He did warn voters in 2000 that he was a “compassionate” conservative (as if there were any other kind), which in his case has translated into ever-bigger government. The President called for restraint with earmarks and pledged to veto bills that are thusly laden, which he promptly followed with calls for Congress to “double federal support for critical basic research in the physical sciences,” pay to fight global climate change, bail people out of home foreclosures and expand funding for embryonic stem cell (ESC) research now that adult stem cells can be reprogrammed to behave like ESCs. Here we might remind the President that good intentions are not always constitutional.

All in all, the media probably got it right on this address—it was of little consequence. Few things will be accomplished in Washington this year with the election nearing and the two parties fighting tooth and nail for every vote. Come to think of it, that may not be a bad thing.

In the Senate: Expanded stimulus

President Bush and House leaders agreed on an economic “stimulus” package last week, and on Tuesday the House passed H.R. 5140, the Recovery Rebates and Economic Stimulus for the American People Act of 2008, at a cost of $146 billion. The ball is now in the Senate’s court, and senators on both sides of the aisle are pushing to add a host of spending items to the package. Shocking, we know. Operating under the belief that the President would never veto the package he himself asked for, liberal and moderate senators are stuffing all sorts of government spending into the bill. Adding a few billion in unemployment benefits and another few billion in food-stamp extensions, millions for home-heating subsidies for low-income families and mortgage counseling for sub-prime borrowers and pretty soon, the Senate is dealing with real money—$157 billion, to be exact. It would seem that the Senate is not actually looking to stimulate the economy, but instead is crafting a social-service bonanza. There is hope, however, as Senate Republicans promised on Thursday to block the bill.

New & notable legislation

The House approved H.R. 5104, extending for 30 days the Protect America Act of 2007, which reauthorizes terrorist surveillance.

The Senate passed a 15-day extension of S. 2248, the Terrorist Surveillance Act, also shorthanded as the FISA bill (for “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act”). The approval for wiretapping likely terrorists was set to expire by the end of Friday, so Congress now has a small span of time in which to get it right.

Campaign watch: McCain wins Florida; Giuliani out

John McCain conquered the Sunshine State this week, edging out Mitt Romney, while Rudy Giuliani’s hopes for the presidency simultaneously came to an end. Giuliani’s strategy, though inventive in this most uncertain of campaign years, placed expectations on a Florida victory too high and kept him out of the limelight of the earlier contests. As he exited, Giuliani endorsed McCain, as did California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, giving McCain even greater momentum coming into Super Tuesday. The Republican race is now down to four men, including Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul, which means it’s really down to two men—McCain and Romney. As we said last week, please don’t shoot the messenger.

The contest between the GOP frontrunners got ugly on Saturday, when McCain accused Romney of calling for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. The charge was false, but the damage was done, prompting National Review’s Andrew McCarthy to propose, “I’m starting to think Sen. McCain should not be allowed to mention the other candidates’ names within 30 days before a primary. I mean, he levels an allegation about Romney that’s just flat not true, and if some organization wanted to run an ad calling him on it, they would be in violation of his ‘reform’ of campaign finance regulations. What a racket!” McCain was likely trying to steer the debate away from the economy, which is a strong point for Romney, a successful businessman who, unlike McCain, doesn’t have to defend voting against the Bush tax cuts.

On the Left: Obama wins S. Carolina; Edwards out

Barack Obama handily won the South Carolina primary last week, thanks to the overwhelming support of blacks. Hillary Clinton saw the loss coming days in advance, so she played down the importance of the contest and skedaddled to Tennessee as soon as the polls closed. Obama received only one in four votes among whites, a fact Clinton surrogates were quick to play up in their continued attempt to paint Obama as the “black” candidate. In fact, Bill Clinton compared Obama’s Palmetto State victory to professional race hustler Jesse Jackson’s 1984 and 1988 wins there, implying that the Illinois senator’s chances of winning the nomination, much less the presidency, are remote at best.

Bill’s ill-considered remarks, as well as his overall role as his wife’s hatchet man on the campaign trail, have troubled other Democrats, and many people who blindly supported the Clintons in the past are beginning to realize what conservatives have known all along: that these two will say and do anything to gain political power. The race-baiting tactics that the Clintons have engaged in are shattering the thin veneer of political correctness their party embraced in the 1990s. As Malcolm X might have said, the chickens have come home to roost.

Indeed, liberals everywhere are turning against the Clintons. Even the Kennedy clan, longtime fans of Bill and Hillary, is backing Obama. As shifty, deceitful, lecherous liberals, Sen. Edward Kennedy and Bill Clinton were made for each other. Clinton’s race baiting was the final straw for Kennedy, though, who endorsed Obama last week. Caroline Kennedy and Ethel Kennedy also threw their support behind the man they believe best embodies the spirit of John and Bobby Kennedy and celebrated author Toni Morrison, who famously referred to Bill as the “first black president,” has endorsed Obama to be the first real [half] black president.

No matter how you slice it, the Democrats will make history this year because either a woman or a black man will be their party’s nominee for president of the United States. After a third-place showing in South Carolina, John Edwards realized that neither of his two Americas wanted him to be president. He’s holding off on endorsing either Clinton or Obama, but his own support base is so shallow that it’s unlikely his endorsement will carry much weight. Of note, the Associated Press reports, “Edwards said he was suspending his campaign rather than ending it, but aides said that was simply legal terminology so that he can continue to receive federal matching funds for his campaign donations.” Ever the trial lawyer.

Clintonistas booted from CNN, for now

CNN has decided to remove self-professed Shi’ite Clintonites James Carville and Paul Begala from their commentator line-up during the race for the Democrats’ presidential nomination. Repeated complaints about the bias of the Clintonistas from the Obama campaign to the news network’s head office prompted CNN to acquiesce until after the nomination is decided. Rest assured, once the candidate is chosen, the two will be invited back to spew their unrepentant anti-Republican hatred. It isn’t known as the Clinton News Network for nothing.

NATIONAL SECURITY

Warfront with Jihadistan: Troop reduction?

That deafening silence you hear is the Leftmedia refusing to report on our troops’ successes in Iraq. Nevertheless, though not reported, much continues to happen in and around Iraq, and U.S. commanders are planning the next steps. Now that U.S. troops have done much to quiet Iraq and set it on a course for reconstruction, many are asking, “When can they start to come home?” This will be the big question for 2008, and the answer will be critical, as drawing down troop levels too quickly may allow the jihadis to re-infest Iraq and reignite the sectarian violence that “the surge” has so effectively quelled.

One U.S. brigade, the building block of the U.S. fighting force in Iraq, returned home last December without being replaced, leaving 19 brigades there. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently said that he hoped conditions would allow a further reduction to ten brigades by the end of President Bush’s term, which would be the lowest U.S. force level in Iraq since the 2003 invasion. However, Lieutenant General Ray Odierno, combat commander under General David Petraeus, has said that he would be uncomfortable with any reductions below 15 brigades before commanders have a chance to see what effect that reduction had, and General Petraeus himself recently said that it would probably be too early to make that assessment before March 2008. Given the tremendous sacrifice our troops have made in securing Iraq, a quick drawdown does not seem reasonable at this point. Our political leaders would do well once again to take their cue from our commanders in the field.

Profiles of valor: Army Spec. Pettus

Army Specialist Marion Pettus III was part of a combat patrol in Baghdad when an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) detonated near his team. Pettus, a medic with the 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, responded to an Iraqi who had been hit. “We were rolling through a route called ‘Screaming Lady’ and we got hit with an IED. I saw a local [Iraqi] go down and called it out,” Pettus said. “My section sergeant decided to turn the patrol around, so we went back and dismounted.” A common terrorist tactic, however, is to detonate a second IED when responders arrive at the scene, as was the case in this instance. Four soldiers were injured by the second blast, including a sergeant and another medic. Pettus went to work tending to the wounded and getting them into evacuation trucks. On the way back, Pettus finally realized he had been hit as well. “As we got into the truck on the way to the cache, I felt my leg burning,” he said. “I realized that I’d gotten hit in the leg and didn’t even know it.” That wasn’t the worst of it, though. “We got back to [Forward Operating Base] Liberty, and when I took my Kevlar off and put my hand on top of my helmet, I realized I had a hole in it.” Pettus suffered traumatic brain injury in the second blast but is determined and progressing in his recovery. For his actions, he was awarded the Bronze Star with combat “V” for valor and a Purple Heart, though his father, Marion Pettus, Jr. , was unable to attend the ceremony due to a conflict: He was serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Immigration front: Victimitis

If the mainstream media are to be believed (and that’s a big “if”), the problem in the ongoing immigration debate is not lawbreakers; it’s the laws themselves. The New York Times recently ran a story on Arkansas’ newly passed Proposition 300, a law that prevents illegal aliens from receiving in-state tuition and state financial assistance to attend college. Rather than highlight the criminality of illegal immigration itself or on the economic impact of funding services for illegal aliens, The Times, in its hallmark objective journalistic fashion, mentions these only briefly and then focuses on the plight of young men and women suddenly “denied” help in obtaining a college education. Noting the “disappoint[ment of] many college-aged Mexican-Americans” (we include this term loosely), The Times cites one such student who expressed dismay that many people she grew up with “now have no future,” and “their shot at the American dream is gone.”

In reality, the American dream is alive and well. What’s nearly gone is the once commonplace understanding that our laws are not of the pick-and-choose salad-bar variety, and that illegal aliens have no sacred right to immunity.

If The Times’ article is slanted, the Associated Press had the gall to blame an infant’s death on immigration laws. In a “pull-at-your-heartstrings” attempt to demonize supporters of legitimate immigration laws, the AP recently faulted Oklahoma’s House Bill 1804 (the Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007) for the death of the two-month-old child of illegal aliens. Fearing deportation, the child’s parents delayed seeking medical care for their sick child for ten days. When they finally brought him to a clinic, it was too late.

The AP reports, “A ruptured intestine that might have been treatable instead killed the U.S.-born infant, making him a poster child for opponents of House Bill 1804 months before it was enacted.” Notwithstanding that the law was not yet in effect, and despite the fact that it includes an exception for emergency medical care, the AP chose to blame the bill for the infant’s death, citing bill descriptions ranging from “xenophobic” to—you guessed it—“Nazi”-like. The truth is that the poor boy was not denied care by the system but by his own parents. Yet, in the AP’s list of priorities, the truth apparently ranks far below partisan demagoguery.

BUSINESS & ECONOMY

More action to fix economy

As news reports indicated that the economy had “nearly stalled” in the fourth quarter last year “with a growth rate of just 0.6 percent,” the Federal Reserve cut interest rates for the second time in as many weeks. The half-point reduction followed last week’s reduction of three quarters of a point and brought the prime rate to three percent in the biggest-ever cut in such a short time. Of course, as we have noted, Congress is also working to offer rebates to Americans, which at the earliest will not be in the hands of consumers until May.

Indeed, the economy is not as strong as it could be—housing in particular is a problem. More specifically, sub-prime mortgage lending is a problem, possibly to the tune of $500 billion. The Fed’s cut of the interest rate was probably the only thing it could do, and it may help relieve the pressure caused by the sub-prime market.

Still, many Americans think the government drives the economy, an idea which the knowledgeable among us reject. Even the Bush administration is in on the nonsense. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said, “We now need the full Congress to move forward as soon as possible because consumers—the American people—are waiting for that check and that is going to help them.” We expect such things from Democrats, and, predictably, Senator Chuck Schumer chimed in, declaring that when economic growth slows as it did last year, “alarm bells should be going off urging Washington to give the economy a good shot in the arm.” Golly, Chuck, it seems Americans wouldn’t know what to do with without being given instructions and handouts from Washington.

This week’s ‘Alpha Jackass’ award

“We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse-gas emissions ‘cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.” —Bill Clinton

Income Redistribution: The Laffer curve

Arthur Laffer is an economist probably best known for theorizing the “Laffer curve,” which depicts the reality that when taxes are cut, federal revenues increase. It is a concept that has completely eluded the demagogues on Capitol Hill for years. The reasons for this are relatively simple: Those with higher incomes have more to gain from avoiding taxes and spend money looking for ways to do so, while those with lower incomes have less flexibility in that area. Therefore, when tax rates for “the rich” are reduced, less effort is made to avoid taxes, while more money is made to begin with, yielding higher tax revenues for the federal government.

Democrats, of course, operate on the class warfare platform and want to raise taxes on people with higher incomes and lower taxes on those with lower incomes. When Ronald Reagan took office, the top marginal rate was 70 percent. Today, it is 35 percent. The top one percent of income earners paid less than 18 percent of all federal income taxes in 1981, whereas today, the same group pays nearly 40 percent of all income taxes. Facts are stubborn things. Democrats were responsible for the 70-percent rate and likely wouldn’t mind a return there. One result of such economic nonsense would be far less revenue to the federal government. More important, it will harm the economy by redistributing wealth and stifling job creation. Look on the bright side—at least Chuck Schumer would be pleased.

Around the nation: State attempts at HillaryCare

This week, Californians dodged a bullet, so to speak, as so-called “healthcare reform” went down to defeat. A proposal similar to that of Massachusetts, which would mandate that residents either purchase health coverage or apply for subsidized coverage if they could not afford it on their own, was proposed and rejected in the state legislature. Despite passing in the Assembly, the highly problematic proposal agreed on by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez was nixed by Senate Leader Don Perata, a Democrat. Of course, some Golden State Democrat senators objected because they prefer going immediately to a single-payer plan that would eliminate private insurers altogether instead of the halfway-there step of the Nunez-Schwarzenegger plan. But how did Perata explain voting the proposal down? The comparable Massachusetts version has run vastly over-budget even before being fully implemented, and cash-strapped California can’t afford it as they stare down a $14.5-billion shortfall. Even some Democrats can be educated.

Meanwhile, how far out of balance is Massachusetts’ healthcare? Recent reports indicate that costs will rise by 85 percent—$400 million—in 2009. The Boston Globe says the cost increase is mainly due to the fact that most of the people signing up are looking for state-subsidized healthcare. Keen sense of the obvious. Mitt Romney has campaigned on the success of his efforts, but that is likely to change as costs go up. “He’s in a bit of a bind. It’s his signature accomplishment,” said Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute. “Mitt Romney has found out that you can’t be a little bit pregnant on government-run healthcare. It’s hard to tell everyone you’re the heir to Ronald Reagan while you’re touting Hillary Clinton’s healthcare plan. There is no material difference between the two.”

CULTURE

Georgia concealed carry

The Georgia House of Representatives passed a bill Thursday that could significantly improve the state’s concealed-carry law, which until now has been widely regarded as one of the worst in the nation. House Bill 86 would allow Georgia residents who posses a weapon permit to carry their firearm in public and state parks, restaurants that serve alcohol, and houses of worship, among other places.

The bill also removes the ambiguous clause in Georgia’s current law that prohibits firearms at “public gatherings.” That infamous prohibition has its roots in the Camilla Massacre of 1868, when hundreds of armed blacks and Republicans marched on Camilla, Georgia, to protest the General Assembly’s expulsion of 32 black legislators. The Mitchell County Sheriff organized a posse and ambushed the marchers, killing and wounding more than 40. Whites in Camilla were later heard to lament that if only the blacks had not been armed, the whites could have easily surrounded and killed all of them. Soon afterward, Georgia’s General Assembly passed a gun-control law that prohibited the carrying of arms at public gatherings. While the law as authored sounded race-neutral, it was initially enforced only against blacks, while whites comfortably ignored it.

In more recent years, the clause has been used to justify the arrest of a Georgia resident who carried his firearm into a Wal-Mart store, which police said constituted a “public gathering.” The charge was later dropped, but the incident served to illustrate the ambiguity of the law.

House Bill 86 is now headed to the Georgia Senate for approval. We urge our Georgia readers to contact their Senators and ask that their state’s shameful, racist-inspired gun law be replaced with this sensible legislation.

In other gun news, Illinois Rep. Aaron Schock (R-Peoria) has introduced legislation that would make concealed carry legal in the state of Illinois. “This is becoming an increasing priority for people. I am hoping that we will be able to give this right to our citizens, as 48 other states have already done,” Schock said.

’Non Compos Mentis’: Green v. Green

As the story from The San Jose Mercury News begins, “Talk about a clash of cherished green values.” A humorous case of green-versus-green began harmlessly enough in Sunnyvale, California, when an environmentally conscious couple planted redwood trees in their back yard from 1997 to 1999. Unfortunately, their neighbor, also an environmentalist, decided in 2001 to go ahead with installing a ten-kilowatt solar system to power his house, but the tall redwood trees now block his solar panels. “I offered to pay for the removal of the trees. I said let’s try to work something out,” the neighbor said. “They said no to everything.” So, Mr. Solar Panels filed a complaint with the Santa Clara County District Attorney, arguing that the trees reduce the electricity he can generate. It turns out that Mr. and Mrs. Redwood are in violation of California’s Solar Shade Control Act, written (by a Republican) in 1978 to prevent a loss in investment for folks installing solar panels. “It’s not that we think trees are more or less important than solar collectors. It’s that our state’s leaders have said under the following circumstances, solar takes precedence,” said the deputy district attorney. In December, the Redwood couple was found guilty of one count of violating the Solar Shade Control Act, and now they can boast, “We are the first citizens in the state of California to be convicted of a crime for growing redwood trees.”

Detroit mayor caught in affair

Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick has a problem, and it’s not just that his city is one of the most dangerous in the country. The mayor, married with three children, apparently had an affair with his chief of staff, who was married at the time with two children. The two were caught after The Detroit Free Press obtained 14,000 often-explicit text messages, which revealed their efforts to meet and conceal their relationship. The Free Press’ curiosity was piqued after two former bodyguards accused the mayor of using his security unit to cover up his extramarital affairs. Two police officers claim to have been fired for investigating those accusations, and the city subsequently shelled out $9 million to the settle the officers’ lawsuit. While under oath, Mayor Kilpatrick testified that there were no affairs and he may now find himself without a job or a law license, in addition to facing perjury charges.

While the Associated Press did pick up on the obvious parallels with Bill Clinton in this “Clinton-style scandal,” there was one thing they left out, leading The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto to ask, “Just one question: What is his political party? In 32 paragraphs, the AP never gets around to telling us. That can mean only one thing: not Republican.”

And last…

Los Angeles has long been at the forefront of cultural evolution, popularizing such things as the fast food drive-thru. The latest innovation from the California coast is the vending machine. Not just any vending machine, but a black-armored one that dispenses marijuana. That’s pot, weed, grass, Mary Jane, dope, reefer, ganja, hash… Well, you get the idea. This machine is, of course, for medicinal purposes only and will be located at three Herbal Nutrition Centers throughout the city, where the inventor and owner says folks will enjoy “convenient access, lower prices, safety [and] anonymity.” Before lighting up the bong, one must have a card authorizing marijuana use and prepay for the goods, but that hasn’t mollified authorities. “Somebody owns [it], it’s on a property and somebody fills it,” said one DEA special agent. “Once we find out where it’s at, we’ll look into it and see if they’re violating laws.” If a “look into it” includes testing the product to make sure it’s legit, we predict the special agent will lighten up.

Veritas vos Liberabit—Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander, Publisher, for The Patriot’s editors and staff. (Please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm’s way around the world, and for their families—especially families of those fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who granted their lives in defense of American liberty.)