GOVERNMENT & POLITICS

Campaign watch: It’s all over but the crying

Hillary Clinton announced Wednesday that she will announce Saturday that she is suspending her campaign for the presidency, a sly way of admitting she’s toast. Despite handily winning the Puerto Rico primary last week, and re-emphasizing Barack Obama’s inability to connect with low-income and Hispanic voters, Clinton is all but finished as a contender for the nomination. She split the difference with Obama in the Montana and South Dakota primaries Tuesday, but the delegates he earned were enough to put him over the top and claim the nomination. Apparently, her $215 million was no match for his $265 million. Indeed, she ends her campaign more than $30 million in debt.

At first, Clinton vowed not to make any decisions about leaving the race on the night Obama clinched the nomination, but circumstances made all the decisions for her. Superdelegates are flocking to her opponent, as is campaign money and general momentum. Clinton’s inability to convince the DNC rules and bylaws committee that she was the rightful heir to all the delegate votes of Florida and Michigan didn’t help her position either.

Clinton offered up the idea on a conference call with supporters this week that she would be willing to be Obama’s VP, though she later disavowed such efforts. The two did meet Thursday night privately. Given the bad blood between them, and the nightmarish prospect of having to manage both Clintons within his administration, it would seem rather odd if Obama chose Hillary for the bottom half of his ticket. Besides, having limped to the finish line as he did, bringing Hillary aboard would only amplify his weaknesses as a presidential candidate. Then again, nothing would surprise us—talk of the “dream ticket” and all that. He does need her votes. Finally, Clinton’s ambition is second to none, and Obama’s track record of choosing associates is less than stellar. What other choice does he have?

This week’s ‘Braying Jackass’ award

“It’s all politics. It’s all about the bias of the media for Obama… I’m telling ya, all it’s doing is driving her supporters further and further away—because they know exactly what it is—this has been the most rigged coverage in modern history.” —Bill Clinton

From the Left: Obama’s pesky connections

Barack Obama announced that he was ending his 20-year membership in the Trinity United Church in Chicago this week, months after his former pastor and mentor Rev. Jeremiah Wright drew heat for his racist, anti-American rants. Early on Obama tried to claim that Wright’s hateful words had been cherry-picked by a media eager to tear him down, but how often does one need to say that America got what it deserved on September 11, 2001, before one surmises that the person is a loose cannon?

Then there is Father Michael Pfleger, also a former “spiritual advisor” to the Illinois senator. Pfleger, the Caucasian pastor of Chicago’s Saint Sabina, a Roman Catholic church located in a mostly black parish, is the same type of racist rabble-rouser and America hater as Wright. Pfleger, in fact, is associated with all the big names in white-hating America: Farrakhan, Sharpton, Jackson, West and the like. Of Hillary’s tearful moment in New Hampshire, Pfleger said, “I really don’t believe it was put on. I always thought she felt, ‘This is mine. I’m Bill’s wife. I’m white. And this is mine. I just got to get up and step into the plate.’ And then out of nowhere came, ‘Hey, I’m Barack Obama.’ And she said, ‘Oh d***, where did you come from? I’m white. I’m entitled. There’s a black man stealing my show’.” In another rant-filled “sermon,” Pfleger declared, “Racism is still America’s greatest addiction. I also believe that America is the greatest sin against God.”

Obama wasted little time in addressing the issue this go-around, saying he was “deeply disappointed” in Pfleger, and that he “doesn’t reflect the country I see or the desire of people across America to come together in common cause.” Way to get tough, Barry.

Another Obama associate, Chicago fundraiser Tony Rezko, was convicted Wednesday on 16 of 24 counts, including fraud, money laundering and political corruption. He will be sentenced on 3 September. Rezko and Obama entered into a sweet real-estate deal in 2005, which helped Obama purchase a posh home in Chicago. After Rezko’s indictment, Obama returned $150,000 to Rezko associates and donated $72,650 to charity, an amount equal to Rezko’s contributions to Obama’s campaign. He added that he was “saddened” by news of the conviction and that he “isn’t the Tony Rezko I knew.” Funny, but that statement seems to apply to a lot of Obama’s close friends.

News from the Swamp: Budget buster

On the Hill: Democrats in the House and Senate passed the $3.1-trillion 2009 budget plan this week, a nonbinding resolution, as they patted themselves on the back for their fiscal responsibility. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) boasted that the budget plan would “strengthen the economy and create jobs. It will provide tax cuts for the middle class, and it will restore fiscal responsibility by balancing the books by 2012 and maintaining balance in 2013.” The fine print reveals the secret to this promise. The plan assumes that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will cost nothing after next year. It also anticipates that the Bush tax cuts will expire by 2011. In other words, Democrats are about to hit Americans with the largest tax hike in history. And that doesn’t include the Alternative Minimum Tax, which Democrats continue to ignore as it prepares to hit more than 20 million middle-class families.

Investor’s Business Daily further puts the lie to the Democrats’ rhetoric on fiscal responsibility: “[T]he 2009 budget for the first time ever spends $1 trillion on discretionary (non-defense, non-entitlement) items.” Change you can believe in, all right.

Congressional earmark games

The House is busy slipping some dead-of-night earmarks into the $601-billion defense authorization, complete with language compelling federal agencies to spend the money or else lose funding next time around, contrary to a White House directive that federal agencies not spend such money. This blatant rejection of earmark reform flies in the face of the pledge that put Democrats in charge of Congress in 2006. Rather than cutting back earmarks or at least posting them transparently for all to see, the fresh pork is dropped into the conference report after the bill has already passed. The White House has threatened a veto of any pork-laden legislation, and we hope that President Bush is up to the fight. Exposing Democrats for the spendthrift hypocrites that they are before Election Day could make for some illuminating news, if anyone’s paying attention.

New & notable legislation

This week the Senate debated yet another climate-control bill, though it got yanked Friday morning. So much for “the most important issue facing the planet.” Touted by former Vice President and (lest we forget) Nobel laureate Al Gore, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act threatened to cripple the economy with higher energy costs and hundreds of thousands of lost jobs. The bill called for a 70-percent reduction of greenhouse gases by capping the amount of carbon dioxide released by affected industries. Companies would receive emissions allowances that could be auctioned or traded on the open market, known as cap and trade.

Gov. Schwarzenegger claimed the bill and the “leadership of states such as California” would pave the way for national reform, while Boxer remains on the Bush-bashing bandwagon, blaming the administration for trying to destroy a solution to global warming. Apparently, neither has read the National Association of Manufacturers’ prediction that California will lose more jobs than any other state. Forecasts place Texas, Florida and Georgia among the hardest to be hit overall.

Supporters downplay costs using a speculative mix of conservation, expansion of energy alternatives such as solar, wind and carbon-free nuclear power, and the sale of emission-allowance credits. Bill Kovacs of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce points out the folly of their reasoning: “What is currently drafted just isn’t realistic.” Kovacs added, “Among the bill’s many flaws, the business community recognizes that the necessary technologies aren’t currently available to meet the demands of the bill. So while we reduce the use of fossil fuels, what energy sources do we use to run the economy until we develop and deploy new technologies?”

Republicans used parliamentary tactics, such as having the clerk of the Senate read the entire 491-page bill on the floor over a 10-hour span, to derail the legislation. They also hammered Democrats for proposing what would amount to an increase in the price of gas just as it approaches $4 a gallon. Finally, some backbone.

From the states: Tennessee judges

Because of a quirk in state law, the Tennessee practice of having judges selected by an elite group of lawyers, based on a “standard of merit” rather than a vote of the people, will soon meet its well-deserved end. A bill to reauthorize the method failed to pass the state’s legislature. Now, instead of selection by the state’s Judicial Selection Commission, after a yearlong “wind-down” period, the choice of the judges and would-be judges will revert to the will of the people of Tennessee.

While picking judges on their merits seems to be apolitical on its face, in reality, Tennessee’s system had been co-opted by lawyer groups which created their own Star Chamber of sorts and wielded the true power over judge selection. They even vetoed jurists who were favored by Democrat Governor Phil Bredesen.

The election process, while fickle, is actually prescribed by Tennessee’s Constitution. So instead of ingratiating themselves with a small group of powerful attorneys, those who wish to become judges will have to prove themselves to the voters instead. Tennessee is the first state to revert to plebiscite from merit selection, but if the voters do their job, it won’t be the last.

NATIONAL SECURITY

Warfront with Jihadistan: Al-Qa’ida is losing

Slowly but surely, like a boa constrictor squeezing the life out of its prey, the U.S. military is crushing al-Qa’ida around the world, with significant successes in recent months. Just a year ago, prior to the troop surge in Iraq, a National Intelligence Estimate stated that al-Qa’ida had “regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability” and was ready to strike the U.S. again. Now, however, CIA Director Michael Hayden says, “On balance, we are doing pretty well. Near strategic defeat of al-Qa’ida in Iraq. Near strategic defeat for al-Qa’ida in Saudi Arabia. Significant setbacks for al-Qa’ida globally.” Quite a change of outlook in just a year.

In addition to the surge in Iraq, much of this success can be attributed to increasing use of Predator drones, air strikes against al-Qa’ida leadership, and better human intelligence on the ground to pinpoint where that leadership is. In January, senior al-Qa’ida operative Abu Laith al-Libi was killed by a Predator strike. Last month, explosives expert and key al-Qa’ida trainer Abu Sulayman al-Jazairi and more than a dozen others were delivered to their “virgins” by a U.S. air strike in Pakistan. Potential jihadis are realizing that being in al-Qa’ida is now a death sentence, and recruits are becoming harder to find. The MSM and all appeasement-minded Demos should take note, however, that now is not the time to let up. While badly hurt, al-Qa’ida is still dangerous and still capable of hitting us again… hard. Keeping the pressure on, until the last jihadi is dead or in prison, is the only way to fight the Long War. Indeed, on this 64th anniversary of D-Day, we might look to that effort as an example.

This week’s ‘Alpha Jackass’ award

“Whatever the military success, and progress that may have been made, the surge didn’t accomplish its goal, and some of the success of the surge is the good will of the Iranians—they decided in Basra when the fighting would end, they negotiated that cessation of hostilities—the Iranians.” —House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Tehran) suggesting that the country that is killing Americans in Iraq deserves our thanks for military success we have fought hard to achieve there

Department of Military Correctness: Christian coins

As we noted recently, sometimes political correctness affects even the military. First it was the soldier using the Koran for target practice. Insensitive, yes, but punishable? Hardly. Now a U.S. Marine has been removed from duty for distributing coins promoting Christianity to Muslims in Fallujah. Time magazine reports, “One side asked: ‘Where will you spend eternity?’ The other contained a verse from the New Testament: ‘For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16’.” The Marine apparently gave out about 10 such coins before one was reported to a mosque and a complaint was filed with the U.S. military demanding the “harshest punishment” for the offense. The Marine was removed temporarily from duty pending an investigation.

It is important to note that the military prohibits “proselytizing any religion, faith or practices.” However, this is not a concerted effort by the Marine Corps and it can hardly be considered “proselytizing” to pass out a coin. We grant that our relationship with the Sunnis who are now helping us in Anbar province is tenuous and it should not be rocked by controversy, but we suggest that there are far more important things to attend to.

To see just how slippery this slope is, one only needs to look at Great Britain, where two American evangelical ministers were recently told by authorities to “stop handing out gospel leaflets in a predominantly Muslim area of Birmingham.” If they didn’t stop, they would “get beaten up” —by whom was unclear. What was clear is the indifference of the authorities and the unwillingness of this once-proud nation to defend its culture and its Christian heritage.

Profiles of valor: USA Pfc. McGinnis

On Monday, President Bush presented only the fifth Medal of Honor for valor in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, given posthumously to U.S. Army Private First Class Ross McGinnis. McGinnis also was promoted to Specialist and awarded the Silver Star. The Medal of Honor citation reads that McGinnis “distinguished himself by acts of gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty while serving as an M2.50-caliber Machine Gunner, 1st Platoon, C Company, 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment, in connection with combat operations against an armed enemy in Adhamiyah, Northeast Baghdad, Iraq, on 4 December 2006. That afternoon his platoon was conducting combat control operations in an effort to reduce and control sectarian violence in the area. While Private McGinnis was manning the M2.50-caliber Machine Gun, a fragmentation grenade thrown by an insurgent fell through the gunner’s hatch into the vehicle. Reacting quickly, he yelled ‘grenade,’ allowing all four members of his crew to prepare for the grenade’s blast. Then, rather than leaping from the gunner’s hatch to safety, Private McGinnis made the courageous decision to protect his crew. In a selfless act of bravery, in which he was mortally wounded, Private McGinnis covered the live grenade, pinning it between his body and the vehicle and absorbing most of the explosion. Private McGinnis’ gallant action directly saved four men from certain serious injury or death. Private First Class McGinnis’ extraordinary heroism and selflessness at the cost of his own life, above and beyond the call of duty, are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army.”

Another Haditha Marine cleared

“Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them,” Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) said in May 2006, “and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.” Murtha was referring to the Haditha “massacre,” an incident in which 24 Iraqi civilians were killed after a roadside bomb killed Marine Corps Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas in November 2005. Five Marines had already seen charges against them dropped, and this week brought a sixth. 1st Lt. Andrew Grayson finally got the not-guilty verdict for which he had waited more than two years. Grayson, who was actually not even present with the others at Haditha, was found not guilty of making false statements, obstruction of justice and attempting to separate from service fraudulently. One Marine, Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, still awaits trial, but it seems to us that Murtha and others who have made a spectacle of the situation should be preparing their apologies.

BUSINESS & ECONOMY

Regulatory Commissars: How to lower prices

The spectacle of liberals in fiscally strapped states making unrealistic and unsupportable promises of government-controlled health-insurance schemes is providing Republicans with a chance to campaign on conservative ideas in the field of healthcare. Some conservatives have begun to take action on this topic.

In Florida, the state legislature unanimously approved Republican Governor Charlie Crist’s proposal to allow insurers to sell cheaper insurance containing fewer of the costly government requirements that price consumers out of the market. Only in overregulated markets does the idea of shedding costly government requirements to enable entities to meet consumer desires seem radical. In New Jersey, where the health-insurance market was destroyed by state-government intervention in the 1990s, Republican Assemblyman Jay Webber will introduce legislation to let residents purchase low-cost health insurance from any policy issued in any other state. Despite New Jersey’s costly mandates, Webber’s reform will prove ineffective unless the state also discards the guaranteed-issue and community-rating laws that increased premiums for a family policy anywhere from 500 to 700 percent. (No, that’s not a misprint—New Jersey insurance costs are about double those of states lacking these laws.)

Health-insurance reform is an issue conservatives can win on—if they quit acting like big-government liberals. Billions in unsustainable debt through expanding bankrupt government programs is never a good idea, nor is it conservative. Conservatives succeed only when they act like conservatives.

Income Redistribution: Rangel’s Reward

Democrats sure know how to say thank you. Or perhaps it’s just coincidence that a bill passed by the House last week contains a special tax perk for trial lawyers—one of the largest contributors to Democrat campaigns. Buried in the Energy and Tax Extenders Act of 2008 is a provision, offered by House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY), which would let trial layers deduct the up-front expenses they incur while chasing ambulances—er, filing contingency-fee lawsuits—whether or not they anticipate future reimbursements for these expenses. Under current law, these expenses, deemed “loans” to clients, are deductible only if not repaid. Rangel’s Reward would allow lawyers to claim deductions now and, in essence, defer tax payments until they receive reimbursements—which, as we know from watching infamous class-action lawsuits unfold, can take years.

A Rangel spokesman claims, “This is purely a matter of fairness and tax equity. The individuals who would benefit from this provision are already eligible to deduct expenses related to contingency-fee lawsuits, the only question is when.” In reality, though, the bill gives trial lawyers a green light, no speed limit, and free gas to launch a convoy of ambulance chasers.

Of course, as a rule, tax cuts are a good thing, but when they come in the form of special-interest loopholes that reward often-frivolous, economy-wrecking lawsuits, we hardly see the “fairness and equity” in that.

Judicial Benchmarks: ‘New source review’

Starting in the 1970s, an environmental policy called “new source review” demanded that, according to The Wall Street Journal, “The Environmental Protection Agency would review new sources of air pollution and require these new sources to install the latest available emissions-reduction technologies. Existing sources were exempt unless they expanded their capacity to generate new pollution.”

In the 1990s, the Clinton administration decided that the rule was outdated. Rather than change the wording, however, the brainiacs realized if “new” is interpreted to mean “old,” then every time a company tries to fix a source of air pollution they also have to retrofit. Slick, no? Apparently, it escaped the Clintonistas that companies would not fix problems, but instead simply move plants (and jobs) to countries where there are no environmental obligations. The economic effects of that would likely not show up for years—at least well into the term of the next administration. Changing the rules in the middle of the game is what Democrats do best (see: Florida, 2000 and 2008).

In 2003, that next administration decided that new did not mean old, but only for new enforcement actions. Existing (“old”?) enforcement cases proceeded under the newspeak semantics. Why the Bush administration split the baby is unknown, but perhaps it was the so-called “new tone.” This week, in U.S. v. Cinergy, a federal jury found in favor of the defendant, Cinergy, that it had acted “reasonably” to comply with upgrades and maintenance. Maybe it was obvious that laws have to be applied consistently. Then again, the Justice Department hasn’t ruled out an appeal. New tone indeed.

CULTURE

Around the nation: Vote on marriage and abortion

For decades the courts have been trampling the will of the people by means of judicial diktat. As articulated by Justice Baxter in his dissent in the recent California same-sex “marriage” ruling, the courts have been engaging in “legal jujitsu.” That same decision by the California Supreme Court to legalize same-sex “marriage” may seem to be confined to California, but the Golden State will no doubt turn into the Las Vegas for same-sex couples. Fortunately, the court may not have the last word. A constitutional amendment enshrining the traditional definition of marriage into the state constitution has been approved for California voters to decide on this November’s ballot. The measure faces an uphill battle, however, not just to win over popular opinion, which has been shifting away from banning same-sex marriage, but also to overturn precedent. The state Supreme Court refused to stay its ruling until after the November vote, so issuance of new “gender neutral” marriage licenses will begin on 17 June. Voters may be reticent to “take away” an established right. Still, there is something that strikes us as just not right about the phrase, “I now pronounce you Party A and Party B.”

In other ballot news, voters in Colorado will vote this fall on Amendment 48, entitled “Definition of a Person,” a constitutional amendment that would define children not yet born as being protected under the law. Let’s hope the voters have more sense than the courts.

Non Compos Mentis: Eat this bug

If there were a Pulitzer Prize for absurdity, the climate-change alarmists at Time magazine would be formidable contenders. Just over a month after the newsweekly ran an insulting Earth Day-related cover image of Marines raising a tree at Iwo Jima instead of an American flag, Time’s editors have cooked up their craziest idea yet: Eating bugs might be the way to save our planet. “Afraid of insects?” Time asks. “Get over it. Bugs are surprisingly nutritious—and far better for the environment than traditional sources of protein.” Apparently, livestock are responsible for 18 percent of the world’s greenhouse-gas emissions, and since bugs require fewer resources to grow than cattle while offering a similar amount of protein per ounce, it might soon be morally imperative that Americans cook bugs instead of beef. According to Paul Vantomme, an officer at the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization, “This is an idea that shouldn’t just be ridiculed.” Well, that changes everything.

In fairness to entomophagists (a fancy word for “insect eaters” and “Democrats”), there was a period in human history when bugs played a prominent part in a balanced diet. It was called the Dark Ages, and outfits like Time are showing just how far they will go in an attempt to bring back those halcyon days. Certain members of Time’s (declining) readership are willing to go even farther: One commenter on the magazine’s Web site notes, “Well, aren’t we going to be using energy to cook the insects? Why not just eat them raw?” You first, pal.

And last…

Speaking of livestock, the London Telegraph reports, “New Zealand scientists claim to have developed a ‘flatulence inoculation’ aimed at cutting down on the massive amount of methane produced by its sheep and cows.” New Zealand’s trade minister Phil Goff crowed, “Our agricultural-research organization just last week was able to map the genome… that causes methane in ruminant animals and we believe we can vaccinate against [flatulent emissions].” Judging by the extensive research done, the problem is big enough to merit more than just a spray of Glade. It is estimated that sheep and cattle produce about 90 percent of New Zealand’s methane emissions. By contrast, the animals produce only two percent of emissions in the U.S. Perhaps we have more modest mammals. Another tidbit that caught our attention was news that farmers in New Zealand have protested “flatulence tax” proposals by sending parcels of manure to members of parliament. Now there’s a cap-and-trade plan we could go for.

Publisher’s Note

Please join us in welcoming aboard our newest little Patriot, Bethany, daughter of The Patriot’s Managing Editor, Nate Jackson, and wife Olivia. Momma and baby are doing great, though the proud parents are looking for a stunt double to stand in for her when her older sister and brother are around.

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.)