|
Thursday, July 05, 2007  A Blog Farewell It is with much regret that I must stop blogging on NRO. My duties at Landmark Legal Foundation, as a radio host, and as an author of two upcoming books simply do not allow me to write with the frequency and depth I would like. But I will see you at The Corner from time to time. I want to thank K-Lo for her extraordinary support. And thanks to those who've come to this site to read my thoughts. You can tune me in on the radio! 07/05 05:11 PM Tuesday, July 03, 2007 The Commutation The way I see it, Lewis Libby was about to become a political prisoner and the president prevented that. 07/03 02:31 PM 
Friday, June 29, 2007 The End If you've not read this yet, you should. 06/29 09:36 AM Thursday, June 28, 2007 Executive Decisions Have you noticed that the media almost always side with congressional Democrats in their battles with the executive branch on constitutional matters? This is no different.
The president didn't cause a constitutional confrontation. The requests by these committees — seeking information that clearly seeks to weaken the president's power to not only to fire his own employees, but to protect the decision-making process surrounding those decisions — are politically motivated. Here's what the White House should do — "a slow bleed." That's right, the same strategy employed by the Democrats in the Iraq war should be used against these committees from a legal perspective. In short, the White House should litigate this to the bitter end. It should throw every legal obstacle it can muster in front of these partisan committees. It should appeal all setbacks and take it all the way to the Supreme Court. And hopefully, but the time the matter is resolved, it won't matter. The administration will be over. These subpoenas are nothing more than the latest attempt to undermine President Bush in his legitimate exercise of power, which would also weaken the constitutional structure of separation of powers. These committees have no evidence that the U.S. attorneys were fired for the purpose of obstructing any criminal investigations, despite months of hearings and testimony. (As an aside, I am not saying the courts have a role in deciding this issue — which may be considered a political issue — only that the White House should avail itself of all legal tactics available to fight this congressional power grab.) 06/28 05:34 PM Wednesday, June 27, 2007 How Quickly They Forget So, Elizabeth Edwards takes offense at Ann Coulter's joke. Edwards now calls for civility. And yet, I remember when Elizabeth Edwards said this. 06/27 11:33 AM Today at the Journal The open-borders race-baiters at the Wall Street Journal are back.
As I pointed out here, the Journal's position comes down to this: "Washington still wants to 'do something' about immigration, we propose a five-word constitutional amendment: There shall be open borders. ..."
What drives the editorial writers at the Journal is their insatiable demand, on behalf of their advertisers, for sweat-shop conditions and slave wages. For they know that the Department of Homeland Security and ICE, and the INS before them, are incapable of enforcing the vast array of new provisions in the proposed comprehensive amnesty bill. Indeed, they’re counting on it. Since 1965, the government has promised the public border security in exchange for amnesty.
Today’s Journal writers aren’t as honest as their predecessors. They deny this bill provides for amnesty. In the past, they would have proudly proclaimed it. Today’s Journal writers take refuge in the anonymity of the editorial page as they assassinate the character of those with whom they disagree. Apparently, those who insist on enforcing the law are racists. Those who insist that the government fulfill its obligation to secure the border and punish businesses that hire illegal aliens are anti-Hispanic.
What causes a usually intelligent collection of writers to become so emotionally untethered? They refuse to debate National Review editors. They reject the late Dr. Milton Friedman’s opposition to open-borders in an entitlement society. Friedman was our nation’s foremost libertarian economist. They denigrate the positions held by William F. Buckley, a founder of modern conservatism, and Ed Meese, one of conservatism’s leading constitutional scholars and originalists. They distort statistics in a vain attempt to counter the Heritage Foundation’s research — the premiere conservative think tank.
Moreover, the Journal writers are beset with delusion. They pretend that those opposing the comprehensive amnesty bill are a vocal minority within the Republican party. Well, most reputable polls show that Americans, regardless of party, overwhelmingly oppose amnesty and insist on border security. They don’t favor open borders, as the Journal editorial page does.
And while the Journal writers wrap themselves in the propaganda of La Raza and LULAC, claiming to represent the best interests and majority viewpoints of downtrodden Hispanics both here and abroad, I think that would come as a surprise to the folks they claim to represent. Maybe in their next editorial these champions of social justice can provide a list of their bona fides.
The Journal writers are prodding Republicans to play ethnic politics. They argue that if the Republicans are viewed as anti-Hispanic, they will lose elections. Of course, the Journal writers are perpetuating that smear by assigning racist motives to opponents of the bill. But Republicans do best when they run on principle and act on principle. Unlike the Journal writers, I happen to believe that Hispanic Americans are motivated by the same principles as other Americans, including — liberty, security, the rule of law, capitalism, and faith.
The Journal assigns recent losses in Hispanic support for the Republican party to opposition by the “vocal minority” within the party to amnesty. Where’s the evidence for this? For all we know, a majority in the Hispanic community is opposed to the war, profligate spending, or any of a dozen other issues. In the last election, support for the Republican party declined across the ethnic spectrum, including among whites.
The Journal writers have contributed little useful to this debate and have only succeeded in badly wounding their own reputations. 06/27 11:30 AM Well Said, Rudy "Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani on Tuesday accused former President Clinton of not responding forcefully enough to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing or later terrorist attacks." 06/27 12:00 AM Tuesday, June 26, 2007 Does the White House Subscribe to the New York Times? Somebody needs to tell the president, who has ordered his top staff to shut GITMO asap.
06/26 11:39 AM Law@War Great piece at the American Thinker. J. R. Dunn writes, in part:
The American legal system is the latest of our institutions to collapse in the face of terrorism. Cherished pillars of our society and polity have dropped, one after the other. In most cases, it was only to be expected. The media lasted a matter of days, the academy not even that long. The Democrats slid early, through a combination of cynicism, opportunism, and ideology. The Republicans are tottering, never having actually grasped what it meant to act as a "war party". The CIA, the State Department, and much of the federal bureaucracy have, as always, proven themselves masterly at looking out for their own interests.
But there was always some hope for the law. The legal system, with its deep sense of tradition, its intellectual resources, its clear concept of mission, and its simple, stolid inertia (sometimes as much as virtue as a failing), its refusal to be hurried concerning matters of import, had plenty of anchors to keep it from slipping the same way that more ephemeral sectors had.
That hope is now gone. With a series of decisions made over the past few weeks, the American legal establishment - both civil and military — has met and surpassed the lowest expectations of its critics. More here. 06/26 11:29 AM Sunday, June 24, 2007 Unfair Chris Wallace had Dianne Feinstein on Fox News Sunday this morning. She said she is looking into reviving the Fairness Doctrine. Now, after Jim Inhofe said that he overheard Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer discussing regulating talk radio a few years ago, Clinton and Boxer denied it. When the Center for American Progress released its report attacking talk radio, its most prominent co-author denied he was setting the stage for reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. Now Feinstein admits what is obvious. Clearly the Left is plotting to use the power of government to destroy talk radio and impose its hosts and views on a resistant public.
Also, Wallace failed to ask Feinstein a single question about her serious ethical conflicts involving her husband's businesses and the awarding of defense contracts, which forced her to resign as chairman of a key Senate subcommittee. Yet, in the round-table session, he spent a great deal of time discussing the non-issue — advanced in Sunday's Washington Post — of the vice president refusing to provide classified documents to an inferior executive-branch office. 06/24 07:05 PM Dissin' Fred Like a Lib This has to be one of the most absurd assertions about Fred Thompson yet. "I still have reservations about Thompson's lighting out for Hollywood rather than serving his country in a time of war and crisis... More here. And yet, Thompson is leaving acting and a considerable income to serve his country in a time of war and crisis. John McCain has become a career politician. He wasn't going to leave the Senate whether or not 9/11 occurred. He has been planning on running for president, using the Senate as his launching point, for a decade. So what? Does that make him more patriotic or better suited to be president? But why take the low road about not serving your country? Did our friend who wrote the comment to which I link resign from his law practice and join the Marines after 9/11? Liberals argue this way, not serious conservatives. Besides, if the current Republican field was satisfactory to the grassroots, Thompson would not have caught on as he has thus far. 06/24 11:48 AM Why is this an issue? This is an internal executive branch matter dealing with the handling of classified information. It's not a constitutional issue. It's not a congressional issue, despite this reports "input" from the usual Democrat partisans. If the president doesn't direct the vice president to comply with an inferior executive branch office, even though his predecessor issued an executive order covering the entire executive branch, there's no issue. Or, the president could formally issue another executive order modifying the Clinton order and exempting the vice president's office from coverage. Rather than arguing that the vice president, as president of the Senate, is exempt from coverage, I would have argued that this is a purely internal executive branch issue. Therefore, who cares what Dick Durbin, Rahm Emanuel or the Democrat front group CREW have to say about it.
There's really nothing here. 06/24 09:03 AM Follow the Liberal Money Well, well ... the author of the Center for American Progress report attacking conservative talk radio — Paul "Woody" Woodhull — just happens to be financially and professionally involved with two liberal talk radio programs — Ed Schultz and Bill Press. See here and here.
Nothing in this report discloses Woodhull's conflict of interest. You're led to believe that the findings were unbiased and untainted. It now turns out that the author has a direct financial interest in using the government to dismantle conservative talk radio. 06/22 11:34 AM Having Another Go at Libby It appears the hapless judge in the Lewis Libby so-called trial is getting cold feet. He has now filed a supplemental opinion to his not-so-brilliant opinion last week denying Libby's request to remain free while his case is on appeal. If the legal issues that serve as the basis for Libby's appeal are not substantial, you have to wonder why the hapless judge would bite the apple a second time. 06/22 10:00 AM Thursday, June 21, 2007 There He Goes Again Looks like the president is preparing to cave on another front.
UPDATE: Or, maybe not. AP could be wrong. 06/21 06:19 PM Trent Lott on the Fairness Doctrine Associated Press; June 3, 1987:
"But Rep. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said the burden on broadcast journalists is minimal. 'We have unfairness now even with the Fairness Doctrine,' he said. 'Heaven knows what would happen without a Fairness Doctrine.' "
Communications Daily; October 26, 1987: Since Reagan's veto of the earlier fairness bill, Hollings and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) have vowed to see the doctrine become law by other means. And in case fairness is lifted from reconciliation in the Senate, the lawmakers are said to have a backup. Dingell, reportedly with the blessings of House Speaker Jim Wright (D-Tex.) and minority leaders, Robert Michel (R-Ill.) and Trent Lott (R-Miss.), plans to fasten a fairness amendment to a catch-all spending bill (the continuing budget resolution). The current resolution, which keeps the government operating, expires on Nov. 10, and Reagan would be unlikely to veto such a measure.
06/21 03:30 PM This Is Not Progress The Center for American Progress and Free Press (yeh, right) is a sleazy operation. It was set-up by Bill Clinton's impeachment chief of staff, John Podesta, and is run by him today. It is no coincidence that Podesta would issue this report now, as its purpose is to help Hillary Clinton by unleashing yet another assault on talk radio. Groups like this claim to speak for the public and wrap themselves in fairness and equality. But their purpose is to intimidate radio executives. The fact is that the Clintons and the Democrat Party created Air America. It is a failure. The public has tuned it out and it doesn't get ratings. And before Air America, the public rejected such short-lived liberal hosts as Mario Cuomo and Jesse Jackson. Talk radio is the most democratic broadcast forum in existence. Competition is fierce between hosts, between companies, and even with hosts within the same companies. Talk radio must also compete with all the other offerings in radio — including all news, sports, urban, rock-and-roll, hip-hop, business, Spanish, etc. There has never been more diversity in programming. Talk radio must also compete with IPods, Internet broadcasting, and other technologies that offer entertainment and content.
In the name of speech and competition, the report calls for severe government regulation of talk radio.
The Center for American Progress and Free Press is an IRS designated tax-exempt 501 (C)(3) organization, based on its representation to the IRS that it is a non-partisan group operating in the public interest. My guess is that Podesta is in regular communication with the Clinton campaign and he or others may well be coordinating some of their activities on her behalf and on behalf of the Democrat Party. A tax-exempt group must not participate in partisan political activity. If an investigation is warranted, it seems to me the IRS ought to look at the Center for American Progress's tax status — in the public interest, of course.
UPDATE: http://michellemalkin.com/
UPDATE II: Look at the Center for American Progress's deep ties to Democrat funders and operatives. Here, here, here, and here. Here's an excerpt from Frontpagemag.com:
The institutional manifestation of the Hillary-Soros axis is a group called the Center for American Progress, whose president John Podesta formerly served as chief of staff to the Clinton White House. Hillary has no official connection to the Center. However, her dominance of the organization seems to be something of an open secret among leftists. One insider told a UPI reporter that the Center is “the official Hillary Clinton think tank.” Robert Dreyfuss of The Nation wrote of the Center, “It’s not completely wrong to see it as a shadow government, a kind of Clinton White House-in-exile – or a White House staff in readiness for President Hillary Clinton.” The Center for American Progress received its start-up funding from Soros and was, in fact, Soros’ brainchild.
06/21 12:01 AM |
|
| 
|
