by Gary Gross at 03:40 AM

I've repeatedly said that Harry Reid is the most delusional leader that the House or Senate have ever seen. After reading this article in the Hill Magazine, I'm forced to rethink that. It's possible that Nancy Pelosi may have eclipsed Sen. Reid. Here's what I'm basing that opinion on:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on Thursday shut the door on expanding oil and gas drilling beyond areas that have already been approved for energy exploration, drawing a clear distinction from her counterparts in charge of the Senate. “This call for drilling in areas that are protected is a hoax, it’s an absolute hoax on the part of the Republicans and this administration” Pelosi said at her weekly press conference. “It’s a decoy to punt your attention away from the fact that their policies have produced $4-a-gallon gasoline.” Pelosi’s stand may put her at odds with a growing number of members of the Democratic Caucus who have been moving toward possible compromises with Republicans on ways to expand domestic energy production. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) on Wednesday told reporters that expanded offshore drilling is not off the table, and that Democrats will take a look at whether states should be able to choose to drill off their coasts. “I’m not knee-jerk-opposed to anything,” Reid said.

Reid's signalling that he's open to increasing exploration, though I suspect that that's because he knows that Pelosi will stop the bill in the House.

When Ms. Pelosi says that drilling is a hoax, how does she explain the cuban Economic Zone?

  Continue reading "Pelosi Plays the Fool"

by Gary Gross at 11:35 AM

It's obvious that we're heading for a showdown between Senate Democrats and 'Big Oil'. The Senate is ratcheting things up with their (non) energy plan. Here's a few details of their non-plan:

The Democrats' energy package also would:

• Make oil and gas price gouging a federal crime, with stiff penalties of up to $5 million during a presidentially declared energy emergency.
• Authorize the Justice Department to bring charges of price fixing against countries that belong to the OPEC oil cartel.
• Require traders to put up more collateral in the energy futures markets to curb speculation.

This isn't productive. Then again, the Democrats have been unproductive for the most part since retaking the majority. (I'm thankful for that because their agenda is radical.) As I said here, increasing taxes on oil companies while preventing them from producing more oil here at home is counterproductive.

The only thing it's good for is to have Democrats thump their chests and say 'We're punishing evil big oil'. It apparently isn't important that they've done nothing to be part of the solution. In fact, it apparently isn't that important that they're part of the problem.

People are looking for solutions. The Democrats' plan (I'm using the term loosely) isn't a solution; it's a political ploy. If Republicans keep pushing Newt's plan, they'll quickly be seen as having a solution. If Republicans are seen as having the solution, they'll get a big fundraising lift and in the polls.

  Continue reading "Heading For a Showdown"

by Gary Gross at 11:50 AM

Marc Ambinder is reporting something that's sure to bother King Obama:

Matt Burns, the spokesman for the GOP convention in St. Paul e-mails to say that the RNC's convention office in St. Paul has received numerous telephone calls in the last few hours from people who identify themselves as Clinton supporters asking how they can help Sen. McCain.

So much for disaffected Hillary people making their way back to the Democratic side, huh? This is Obama's nightmare scenario.

H/T: Gateway Pundit

by Gary Gross at 03:23 AM

Based on this St. Cloud Times editorial, written by James Mogen, pro-growth capitalism is now part of the far right. Here's how Mr. Mogen arrives at that conclusion:

Continuing to use her office for campaign activities, Rep. Michele Bachmann recently touted her support from the right-wing radical organization Club for Growth on her congressional Web site. The club is a far right-wing group made up of Wall Street financiers. You may be familiar with the group for its negative ads in 2004.

Instead of denouncing extreme groups like them, Bachmann is proud of its support and is now taking direction from the club. After the club demanded that representatives submit to their “key votes,” Bachmann opposed the recently passed farm bill, which promises to bring major support for area farmers, environmental initiatives and hungry children and families.

CFG is a "right-wing radical organization"? Based on what criteria? Mr. Mogen doesn't give us the criteria by which he arrived at that conclusion. Instead, this is typical of his 'logic':

This group, like Bachmann, is far more conservative than the Minnesotans she is supposed to represent.

In fact, the club has been known to go after moderates who vote their district. The club’s support for Bachmann illustrates her own far-right positions are out of line with those of the 6th District.

Saying that Rep. Bachmann is "far more conservative than the district" she's supposed to represent doesn't make sense. If this were true, how did she get elected? Mr. Mogen certainly can't honestly say that Rep. Bachmann ran as a squishy moderate, either. Anytime I hear someone speaking with this type of certitude, I worry because there isn't room for differing perspectives.

  Continue reading "Pro-Growth Capitalism is Far Right Now?"

by Gary Gross at 01:31 AM

Lost in the discussion about what the Golden Child's motivation was in talking about his uncle...um, great-uncle...um...grandfather liberating Auschwitz...um...Buchenwald is how intellectually curious Sen. Obama is while challenging his decisionmaking and understanding of Iraq. Here's how Sen. McCain accomplished that:

"Sen. Obama has been to Iraq once, a little over two years ago he went and he has never seized the opportunity except in a hearing to meet with Gen. [David] Petraeus," McCain said at a campaign event in Reno, Nevada. "My friends, this is about leadership and learning."

Again raising the issue of Obama's willingness to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, McCain also said of the Illinois senator, "He wants to sit down with the president of Iran but hasn't yet sat down with Gen. Petraeus, the leader of our troops in Iraq?"

I'd think that a minimal requirement for being commander-in-chief is learning firsthand what our guys are doing, especially in war zones. Another requirement would be understanding the consequences of the decisions he makes. We can only speculate on the damage Sen. Obama's immediate troop withdrawal policy would have on the region, on the jihadists and on the Maliki government. What's beyond speculation, though, is that removing our troops at the rate Sen. Obama is talking about would embolden the jihadists.

  Continue reading "Sen. McCain Hit His Highness Hard"

by Gary Gross at 04:46 PM

The Republican Party isn't the majority party here in Minnesota nor in our nation's capital for a variety of reasons. I'd submit that the biggest reason why we aren't the majority party is because we stopped being the party of ideas. Here in Minnesota, though, we're taking corrective action, action that doesn't rely on the state party.

Instead, what a group of activists have done is turned the MOB (Minnesota Organization of Bloggers) into the Activists' News Network. Many of our state legislators stay in touch with what's important to working class people by reading blogs like True North, Powerline, MDE, SCSUScholars, Let Freedom Ring, Ladies Logic and Shot In The Dark. Our House GOP leadership reads the blogs on a daily basis, as do their staff.

The House GOP Caucus has used this to stay in touch with what's important with activists. That's important because the activists/citizen journalists stay in touch with their neighbors, co-workers and friends. I can't emphasize this point enough. If the GOP wants to return to majority status anytime soon, it has to start with listening to what the people are saying.

  Continue reading "The Path To The Majority"

by Gary Gross at 09:40 PM

Barack Obama is really acquiring a whiny tone to his statements. It isn't appealing for the supposed unifier of all things political to have such a negative tone. This time, he's whining that Hillary is stirring up trouble with the Florida delegation to the Democratic Convention. Here's his latest whiny diatribe:

"The Clinton campaign has been stirring this up for fairly transparent reasons," Obama told reporters on the plane from San Juan, Puerto Rico, to Chicago, adding she had not done so earlier in the race when she did not need the delegates to win.

"Let's not...pretend that we don't know what's going on. I mean this is, from their perspective, their last slender hope to make arguments about how they can win, and I understand that," Obama said.

It's rather slick that Sen. Obama didn't talk about the legality of not seating the Florida delegation. that's the last thing he wants to talk about. It appears as though winning is more important to Sen. Obama than is the potential disenfranchisement of almost 2 million voters. That's a pretty partisan move for THE postpartisan candidate, isn' it?

  Continue reading "Obama: That Pesky Hillary Just Won't Go Away"

by Gary Gross at 04:22 AM

I just wrote about Rep. Paul Kanjorski's corruption. Now I find that he's anti-capitalist, too:

The current high price of gas has led to a lot of crazy proposals from gas tax holidays to creating a tax deduction based upon energy consumption. But Rep. Paul Kanjorski's (D-PA) may top them all in terms of its stupidity. From the Times Leader, Kanjorski's plan would do the following:

• H.R. 5800 would tax industries’ windfall profits.
• The bill would set up a Reasonable Profits Board to determine when these companies’ profits are in excess, and then tax them on those windfall profits.
• As oil and gas companies’ windfall profits increase, so would the tax rate for those companies.
• Kanjorski said his legislation will encourage oil companies to lower prices to prevent them from receiving higher tax rates.

Here's what the Tax Foundation said about Kanjorski's economic model:

  Continue reading "Do We Need a "Reasonable Regulation Board"?"

by Gary Gross at 11:39 AM

Fred Thompson's op-ed in this morning's WSJ is just what conservatives need to hear at exactly the right time. Here's one of Sen. Thompson's reminders as to what's possible when conservatives stick with their first principles:

The power of conservative principles is borne out in the most strong, prosperous and free country in the history of the world. In the U.S., basic constitutional government has been preserved, foreign tyrannies have been defeated, our failed welfare system was reformed, and the confiscatory income tax rates of a few decades ago have been substantially reduced. This may be why the party where most conservatives reside, the Republican Party, has won seven of the last 10 presidential elections.

Americans haven't tired of having common sense applied to our nation's most troubling problems. Instead, Americans have recognized that conservative principles haven't been applied nearly often enough. I suspect that Americans have felt let down that today's 'conservatism' isn't Reaganite conservatism.

  Continue reading "Conservatism’s Demise? Not Hardly Says Sen. Thompson"

by Gary Gross at 10:24 AM

Though Howard Dean wants all his problems to disappear, that won't happen now that the Florida Democratic Party filed a lawsuit against the DNC for disenfranchising their voters. This comes just a day after Hillary threatened to take that fight straight to the Convention in Denver.

Florida's history of discrimination against African Americans should force the national Democratic Party to count all of the state's delegates at its national convention, a federal lawsuit filed Thursday claims.

The suit, filed by state Senate Democratic Leader Steve Geller and two other Democrats, claims that the federal Voting Rights Act prohibits the national party from stripping the state of its convention delegates.

The Civil Rights-era law requires the U.S. Justice Department to approve any significant voting change in Florida to make sure it doesn't disenfranchise minority voters. Geller argues that includes the Democratic National Committee's demand that Florida switch "from a state-run primary to party-run caucus system" to avoid losing its delegates.

"The purpose of this lawsuit is not to support one candidate over another; it's to enforce one of the most basic tenets of our democracy: Count the votes as they were cast," Geller said in announcing the lawsuit.

This isn't the first time that the DNC has been accused of holding primaries that weren't all that democratic. Gov. Ed Rendell made a similar accusation in late April:

  Continue reading "Florida D's File Suit Against DNC"

by Gary Gross at 01:08 PM

Most of Barack Obama's success in the early primaries is attributable to his selling the notion that he would step beyond the partisan politics practiced by mere mortals. He would be a uniter of all people, causing racism and poverty to disappear. Now that the bloom is off that rose, facts are contradicting that image. The Detroit Free Press is reporting that Sen. Obama met with one of the most anti-semitic Muslim clerics in America during his recent visit to Michigan. Here's some of the details:

Imam Hassan Qazwini, head of the Islamic Center of America, said in an email that he met with Obama at Macomb Community College. A mosque spokesman, Eide Alawan, confirmed that the meeting took place. During the meeting, the two discussed the Presidential election, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the Iraq war, according to Qazwini.

As usual, Debbie Schlussel asked the most important question:

Barack Obama claims he's against HAMAS and Hezbollah and is offended by President Bush's speech in Israel about Obama's ethos of "appeasement." So why is he meeting with one of Hezbollah's most important imams and agents in America, Imam Hassan Qazwini? And why is this open anti-Semite and supporter of Israel's annihilation getting to discuss "the Arab-Israeli conflict" in a private one-on-one meeting with Obama? What was said? I think we can do the math.

This week, Sen. Obama took offense at being called an appeaser, then spent the rest of the week distancing himself from his statement at the YouTube debate. One of his minions even tried ignoring the fact that Obama originally said that he'd meet with Ahmadinejad, Castro, Chavez and Kim Jung Il without preconditions.

  Continue reading "Obama the Uniter?"

by Gary Gross at 01:38 PM

Salena Zito has a must read post on her Primary Colors blog that talks about the disconnect between superdelegates and voters. It's a stinging rebuke of the Democrats' nominating process, too.

Joe Andrew, a Democratic National Committee chair for five minutes, lives and operates out of Washington, D.C. But when it comes to giving news conferences about the presidential campaign, his podium is in Indianapolis. That is where Andrew went from Beltway boy to Hoosier to make his "big" announcement on changing sides from Sen. Hillary Clinton to Sen. Barack Obama.

And the whole word gasped.

Well, not really the whole world. In all honesty, the collective gasp was heard from within the Beltway, that patch of geography where the chattering elite class of politicos live, breathe and eat.

But drive 15 minutes in any direction outside of the Beltway, and no one knows who Joe Andrew is or why his deflection should affect their vote.

Here is the problem that the media seems to ignore in this race for the Democrats: While there is plenty of headlines and pontifications about superdelegates moving their support to Obama, there is a curious dismissal of Clinton's string of strong wins with the John Deere voters.

The reality is that elitist Democratic Washingtonians love being in the power chair. They love to think that their's is the final opinion, that their's is the opinion that matters most.

As blogs become the voice of Mainstreet America, the superdelegates' opinions matter less and less. That's where the disconnect is most clearly seen. At the center of this is Howard Dean, the man who fancies himself as an outsider. In reality, he, like Markos Moulitsas, is a Washington insider with a brash voice pretending to speak for the people.

  Continue reading "Stop Telling Me It's Over"

by Gary Gross at 03:18 AM

Michele Bachmann, my representative, has been unfairly criticized for signing a pledge that she wouldn't accept earmarks. Her political opponents didn't bother finding out why she made this pledge. Thursday afternoon, I got a mailing from Rep. Bachmann that explains her position on earmarks. It also tells about what she's doing to take the corruption out of the earmark process. First, here's Michele's explanation on why she took the pledge:

Like you, the status of the DeSoto Bridge repairs is very important to me. There are few arteries or bridges more vital to the St. Cloud area. Regrettably, it's critical projects just like this that are shortchanged most by rampant pork barrel spending in Washington.

That's why I've taken a pledge to not take any earmarks this year while working with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle who are determined to reform the earmarking system. It is our hope to replace a system of backroom backscratching with one in which projects are judged on merit and each of your tax dollars is spent wisely on real priorities.

Contrary to what her political opponents say, Rep. Bachmann isn't opposed to earmarks:

  Continue reading "Rep. Bachmann on Earmarks"

by Gary Gross at 02:41 PM

Wow!!! Greta van Susteren just posted something on the Pastor J-Wright-Obama controversy. To say that it was a blistering attack on Sen. Obama's observational skills is understatement. First, here's what the AP is reporting on Sen. Obama's statement:

Democrat Barack Obama says he was outraged by the comments of his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and saddened by the spectacle of his appearance on Monday. Wright said Monday that criticism surrounding his fiery sermons is an attack on the black church.

Obama told reporters Tuesday that Wright's comments do not accurately portray the perspective of the black church. Obama said, "I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw yesterday."

Wright's incendiary comments have dogged Obama's presidential campaign.

Let's give Greta credit for asking the most pertinent questions in this paragraph:

  Continue reading "Greta Takes Obama To The Woodshed"

by Gary Gross at 04:16 AM

When the final analysis is written about this year's Democratic nominating process, this statement will surely be proven right:

Before this year's historic campaign, poisoned at the root by overt and ugly sexism and covert and coded racism, Democrats have never been asked to choose quite so nakedly which absolutely necessary demographic they would like to do without. Here is the question, a cynic might suggest, that the Democratic Party must answer this summer: Do we want to lose because we drove away blacks or because we drove away white women?

Early in the process, GOP strategists rightfully worried about Hillary's and Obama's big turnouts. What's needed, in my opinion, is something that happened right after George Bush's re-election. That's when the Nutroots pushed Howard Dean down the DNC's throats. From Day One, disaster was predictable, even inevitable. The Nutroots saw the Clinton/DLC connection as GOP lite. The Clintons saw the Nutroots as McGovernite losers. In other words, they hated each other.

In fact, it's more accurate to say that this rift first started with Howard Dean's presidential campaign. He repeatedly said that he represented the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." That rift got wider in August, 2006, when Ned Lamont defeated Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary in Connecticut. That night, a new type of Democrat was born: Lieberman Democrats. Brendan Loy typifies Lieberman Democrats, socially and economically liberal but hawkish about national security.

Let's return to the present. Pennsylvania's primary is a perfect illustration of the split that's becoming more apparent each day. Blue collar Democrats will vote overwhelmingly for Hillary. Rich, white liberals will join African Americans in enthusiastically voting for Sen. Obama. Once Sen. Obama wins the nomination, alot of Hillary's DLC supporters will leave the Democrats' coalition and vote for John McCain.

While it'd be wrong to think that these DLC types to abandon the Democratic in dramatic numbers, their defections would be catastrophic for the Democrats.

What's that got to do with this year's race? Sunday night, I talked with a political insider in Pennsylvania. This insider told me that Sen. McCain has a definite shot at putting Pennsylvania in the red state column, regardless of the candidate. That figures to be the case in other blue collar states across the country.

by Gary Gross at 03:03 PM

In this Newsweek op-ed, John Kerry declares that Sen. Obama is the "truly transformative" presidential candidate. What he forgot to say is that he's inept when it comes to putting together economic policies.

This year, Democrats know we have an embarrassment of riches—two terrific candidates. But one is truly transformative. Obama isn't just winning elections; he's exciting millions of new voters. In North Carolina, 165,000 people have registered this year alone, three quarters of them eligible to vote in the Democratic primary. Skeptics question whether Obama can win working-class voters, but in Virginia and Wisconsin, two states the party aims to carry in November, he romped through—winning every demographic group across the lines of education, religion, ethnicity, race and income. With critical Senate races in places like Colorado and New Mexico, Democratic leaders are excited that the "coattails" of an Obama campaign can win a new generation of Red State Democrats. Last February, Virginia's Democratic Gov. Tim Kaine was asked whether a Democratic candidate could carry Virginia for the first time since LBJ did it in 1964. "The right Democrat could," he replied. Two days later, he endorsed Obama.

Statistically speaking, Sen. Kerry is right; Sen. Obama did carry working class voters. That was then, this is now. It isn't a stretch to think that Sen. Obama wouldn't have done well with working class Democrats had he made his bitter comments earlier in the cycle. Had voters known then what they know now, it's likely that this would've been a completely different race.

Sen. Kerry's statement that "the party aims to carry" Virginia this November is boilerplate stuff. I pointed out in this post, it appears as though Virginia, Missouri, Ohio and Florida are solidly in the Red column. Just because Democrats can "aim to carry" the state doesn't mean it's a done deal.

  Continue reading "John F. Kerrry: Obama "Truly Transformative""

by Gary Gross at 05:48 PM

The aftereffects of the Philadelphia Fiasco continues much as I expected. One of the highlights from the Philadelphia Fiasco for Republicans was Sen. Obmama's answer on capital gains taxes, which I spoke to here:

MR. GIBSON: All right. You have however said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent.” It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent. SENATOR OBAMA: Right.

MR. GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

SENATOR OBAMA: Right.

MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year, $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair. And what I want is not oppressive taxation. I want businesses to thrive and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don’t have it and that we’re able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools. And you can’t do that for free, and you can’t take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children and our grandchildren and then say that you’re cutting taxes, which is essentially what John McCain has been talking about. And that is irresponsible.

Today, Larry Kudlow takes that answer apart as only he can do. Here's the part that zeroes in on Obama's chest:

But here's the deal: During the debate, Obama bungled his answers on tax policy, big time. Period. End of sentence. End of story. To my liberal friends in the media, all I can say is: Get over it. Your guy has a very poor grasp of basic economic principles.

First off, you don't raise taxes during a recession. That's a no-brainer. Second, doubling the capital-gains tax rate will affect Americans up and down the income ladder, not just rich hedge-fund managers. In addition, capital-gains tax cuts are self-financing, and they stimulate jobs and the economy. You want to raise budget revenues and spark economic growth? Cut the cap-gains tax rate. That's what history shows.

The Wall Street Journal's Steve Moore points out that in 2005, almost half of all tax returns reporting capital gains came from households with incomes under $50,000, while more than three-quarters came from households earning less than $100,000.

Obama also proposed uncapping the payroll tax, another blunder that will hit people up and down the income ladder. While Obama pledges tax hikes only for folks earning more that $200,000 a year, his tax hike on payrolls would actually slam middle-income earners. The cap on wages subject to the payroll tax is presently $102,000. By eliminating that cap Obama will be soaking veteran firemen, cops, teachers, and health-service workers, along with a variety of other occupations.

Larry Kudlow saying that Sen. Obama "bungled his answers on tax policy" carries some weight with financial types. The more that Sen. Obama talks about tax fairness instead of solid tax policy, the more incompetent and inexperienced Sen. Obama looks.

Kudlow pointing out the people who'd get hurt by Obama's tax policy certainly won't help Sen. Obama with the middle class voters he'll need to win in November. Kudlow saying that Sen. Obama "has a very poor grasp of basic economic principles" will surely be used to attack Sen. Obama as incompetent and not qualified to the next president. This paragraph isn't helpful to Sen. Obama's campaign:

In effect, Obama's economics are bad and his social circle is very limited. This is one of the many reasons why a quarter of the Hillary Democrats are telling pollsters they'll likely move to John McCain in the general election.

Finally, this might be the most damaging portion:

Obama's real agenda is far-liberal left. It's an ideology that places income redistribution above economic growth. That's his real message. And it's the same one that sunk Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry. Bill Clinton? He was a growth Democrat. So he won twice. But Obama is aligning himself with the Democratic losers. And that will make him a loser as well.

When Bill Clinton ran in 1992, nobody questioned his expertise on economics. Clearly, people are questioning Sen. Obama's economic expertise. That can't bode well for him this fall.

by Gary Gross at 12:41 PM

This article in the Chicago Sun-Times seems to make a case that William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn have become productive members of society who don't deserve the ridicule they're currently getting. Check out this section of their article:

But friends like Chicago political strategist Marilyn Katz said Ayers should not be a campaign issue.

Katz met Ayers when he was 17 and they were members of Students for a Democratic Society, a peaceful group from which the Weather Underground splintered. She noted Ayers' work with Mayor Daley to overhaul the Chicago Public Schools and likened him to Black Panther-turned-U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush.

"What Bill Ayers and Bobby Rush...did 40 years ago has nothing to do with" the presidential campaign, Katz said. Ayers "has a national reputation. He lectures at Harvard and Vassar. He writes the textbooks that are the standard for innovative approaches to reaching inner-city youth."

Ms. Katz seems to be suggesting that we see both the good and the bad that Ayers has done. I don't see the need to do that in this instance because the evil things that William Ayers did 40 years ago are that evil. Furthermore, I find it difficult, if not impossible, to forgive him while he remains unrepentant.

Let's put the proverbial shoe on the other foot for a moment. What if a reporter found out that John McCain had some ties with Tim McVeigh back in the 1980's? Does anyone think that the media wouldn't have be right to examining just how tight the ties were between those men? I'd bet the proverbial ranch that MoveOn.org and Kos would say that that's proof of Sen. McCain's extreme right wing tendencies.

Let's take this a step further. Some lefties are saying that Obama is the victim of guilt by asasociation, both with Ayers and with Pastor J-Wright. Let's ask the next logical question. Which other presidential candidate had ties to an unrepentant terrorist while attending a church with a racist pastor?

What I find amusing is that Sen. Obama's defense, and the defense by his supporters, is that Hillary Clinton is just as guilty because Bill Clinton pardoned members of the Weather Underground:

Ben LaBolt, an Obama spokesman, on Friday defended Obama's handling of the Ayers matter and noted Clinton has ties to the Weather Underground through her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

“In the debate, Obama called the acts Ayers committed 40 years ago ‘detestable,’... and any attempt to connect him with those events is outrageous,” LaBolt said. “While Obama, Mayor Daley, and others in Chicago’s academic and civic communities have known Bill Ayers in recent years...President Clinton pardoned a member of the Weathermen who participated in a heist that left two police officers and a security guard dead, and commuted the sentence of another, and we have yet to hear where Senator Clinton stands on President Clinton's actions.”

It's interesting that Sen. Obama's spokesman tries rationalizing his ties with Prof. Ayers by tying Hillary to the Weather Underground. That isn't the way to get this issue resolved. All that does is show a stark contrast between the Democrats' candidates and John McCain.

Apparently, Mr. LaBolt doesn't understand that that argument won't work against John McCain.
I just found this must read post on Lynn Sweet's blog:

For those who have forgotten or weren’t born yet here is a list of a few of the activities. Just think if this were happening today:

7 October 1969 – Bombing of Haymarket Police Statue in Chicago, apparently as a “kickoff” for the “Days of Rage” riots in the city October 8–11, 1969. The Weathermen later claim credit for the bombing in their book, “Prairie Fire.”

8 October-11, 1969 – The “Days of Rage” riots occur in Chicago in which 287 Weatherman members from throughout the country were arrested and a large amount of property damage was done.

6 December 1969 – Bombing of several Chicago Police cars parked in a precinct parking lot at 3600 North Halsted Street, Chicago. The WUO stated in their book “Prairie Fire” that they had did the explosion.

27 December-31, 1969 – Weathermen hold a “War Council” meeting in Flint, MI, where they finalize their plans to submerge into an underground status from which they plan to commit strategic acts of sabotage against the government. Thereafter they are called the “Weather Underground Organization” (WUO).

13 February 1970 – Bombing of several police vehicles of the Berkeley, California, Police Department.

16 February 1970 – Bombing of Golden Gate Park branch of the San Francisco Police Department, killing one officer and injuring a number of other policemen.

6 March 1970 – Bombing in the 13th Police District of the Detroit, Michigan. 34 sticks of dynamite are discovered. During February and early March, 1970, members of the WUO, led by Bill Ayers, are reported to be in Detroit, during that period, for the purpose of bombing a police facility.

6 March 1970 – “bomb factory” located in New York’s Greenwich Village accidentally explodes. WUO members Theodore die in t. The bomb was intended to be planted at a non-commissioned officer’s dance at Fort Dix, New Jersey. The bomb was packed with nails TO INFILICT MAXIMUM CASUALTIES UPON DETONATION.

30 March 1970 – Chicago Police discover a WUO “bomb factory” on Chicago’s north side. A subsequent discovery of a WUO “weapons cache” in a south side Chicago apartment several days later ends WUO activity in the city.

10 May 1970 – Bombing of The National Guard Association building in Washington, D.C..

21 May 1970 – The WUO under Bernardine Dohrn’s name releases its “Declaration of a State of War” communique.

6 June 1970 – The WUO sends a letter claiming credit for bombing of the San Francisco Hall of Justice; however, no explosion actually took place. Months later, workmen in this building located an unexploded device which had apparently been dormant for some time.

9 June 1970 – Bombing of The New York City Police Headquarters.

27 July 1970 – Bombing of The Presidio army base in San Francisco. [NYT, 7/27/70]

12 September 1970 – The WUO helps Dr. Timothy Leary, break out and escape from the California Men’s Colony prison.

8 October 1970 – Bombing of Marin County courthouse. [NYT, 8/10/70]

10 October 1970 – Bombing of Queens traffic-court building . [NYT, 10/10/70, p. 12]

14 October 1970 – Bombing of The Harvard Center for International Affairs [NYT, 10/14/70, p. 30]

1 March 1971 – Bombing of The United States Capitol. ” [NYT, 3/2/71]

April, 1971 – abandoned WUO “bomb factory” discovered in San Francisco, California.

29 August, 1971 – Bombing of the Office of California Prisons. [LAT, 8/29/71]

17 September 1971 – Bombing of The New York Department of Corrections in Albany, NY [NYT, 9/18/71]

15 October 1971 – Bombing of William Bundy’s office in the MIT research center. [NYT, 10/16/71]

19 May 1972 – Bombing of The Pentagon . [NYT, 5/19/72]

18 May 1973 – Bombing of the 103rd Police Precinct in New York

28 September 1973 – Bombing of ITT headquarters in New York and Rome, Italy. [NYT, 9/28/73]

6 March 1974 – Bombing of the Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare offices in San Francisco

31 May 1974 – Bombing of The Office of the California Attorney General.

17 June 1974 – Bombing of Gulf Oil’s Pittsburgh headquarters .

11 September 1974 – Bombing of Anaconda Corporation (part of the Rockefeller Corporation).

29 January 1975 – Bombing of the State Department in (AP. “State Department Rattled by Blast,” The Daily Times-News, January 29 1975, p.1)

16 June 1975 – Bombing of Banco de Ponce (a Puerto Rican bank) in New York.

September, 1975 – Bombing of the Kennecott Corporation.

October 20, 1981 – Brinks robbery in which several members of the Weather Underground stole over $1 million from a Brinks armored car near Nyack, New York. The robbers murdered 2 police officers and 1 Brinks guard. Several others were wounded.

1981 “Guilty as hel*. Free as a bird. America is a great country,” Ayers said when interviewed by David Horowitz.

September 11, 2001 “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” Ayers is quoted in NYT article

When you read that extensive list of terrorist attacks, it's important to focus on Ayers' quote in the NYTimes, saying that he felt that "we didn't do enough." Does anyone in their right mind think that they "didn't do enough"?

In the final summary of this relationship, what will be known is that a major political party's presidential nominee had rather dubious ties to an unrepentant terrorist. When people learn that, I suspect that they'll say, in overwhelming numbers, that Sen. Obama should've immediately denounced Bill Ayers' terrorist attacks and immediately distanced himself from Ayers.

by Gary Gross at 11:02 AM

Yesterday, Judge Thomas Hogan ordered Rep. Jim McDermott to pay Rep. John Boehner the damages stemming from a 1998 lawsuit. Here's the gist of Judge Hogan's ruling:

A federal judge in Washington has ordered Democratic Rep. Jim McDermott to pay more than $1 million in attorney’s fees awarded to Minority Leader John A. Boehner as part of a protracted lawsuit involving an illegally taped cell phone call.

U.S. District Judge Thomas P. Hogan ruled that McDermott, D-Wash., must pay $1,053,181, plus $520,761 in interest to Boehner, R-Ohio.

There's alot of history behind this ruling. Here's a nice summarization of that history:

Boehner sued McDermott in 1998, accusing him of leaking the contents of a conference call that a Florida couple had illegally taped from Boehner’s cell phone in 1996.

In the call, Republican leaders, including then-Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia (1979-99), discussed responding to ethics allegations against Gingrich, who served as Speaker from 1995 to 1999.

McDermott at the time was the ranking Democrat on the House ethics panel.

The attorney’s fee payment comes on top of $60,000 in damages that McDermott already has paid Boehner out of his legal expense fund.

In December, McDermott paid Boehner $50,000 in court-ordered punitive damages, $10,000 in statutory damages and another $4,169 in interest, according to public disclosure filings. The payment was made shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a federal appeals court ruling in Boehner’s favor.

What's hillarious is McDermott's statement after being notified of the ruling:

  Continue reading "Court to McDermott: Pay Up"

by Gary Gross at 10:29 PM

The message that the anti-war protesters sent in getting the Vets for Freedom event canceled at Forest Lake High School was that an event with military vets isn't to be tolerated. They aren't the only people that deserve criticism. I'd say that FLHS principal Steve Massey also deserves criticism heaped on him for caving to political pressure from a fringe liberal blog.

Despite the planned event getting canceled, Vets for Freedom did hold an event, stopping at the American Legion Post 225 in Forest Lake. Here's a brief recap from the Forest Lake Times:

After threats of an anti-war protest on Monday forced Forest Lake High School to cancel a visit by the Vets for Freedom national heroes tour, the group successfully made the visit to Forest Lake. On Tuesday, the Vets for Freedom bus rolled into the parking lot at American Legion Post 225 which was selected as alternate site for the tour.

Pete Hegseth is the executive director of the organization and a 1999 Forest Lake High School graduate who served with the Army in Iraq. Hegseth said on Tuesday he was disappointed with the school decision to cancel the event as it was an opportunity for students to hear stories from military personnel who have served their country. Hegseth said the high school program would not have taken a position on the Iraq War but would have conveyed a message to students about the importance of patriotism and military service to country.

  Continue reading "Can't Have That Happening"

by Gary Gross at 10:56 AM

Silvestre Reyes' dishonesty is showing. Here's where Rep. Reyes goes wrong in his March 20th Strib op-ed:

As the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, I am committed to taking this fight to the terrorists, but I remain convinced that we can do that while stopping this administration, or any administration, from conducting warrantless spying on Americans. Our responsibility includes not only the safety of the American people but also the safety and sanctity of the American Constitution. We must protect both.

Rep. Reyes is spinning this beyond acceptable levels. He's writing about Rep. Michele Bachmann's op-ed about the expiration of the FISA reform bill known as the Protect America Act (PAA). In the law that expired, FISA was updated temporarily. It expired after 6 months.

Everyone who knows anything about intelligence gathering knows that FISA deals only with foreign surveillance, hence the name Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It has nothing to do with surveilling Americans.

Let's first examine why the PAA was enacted. A FISA Appellate Court judge ruled that foreign communications that passed through an American telecommunications switch needed a warrant because it was deemed a domestic communication. In this judge's mind, it didn't matter that the sender and recipient weren't Americans. It didn't even matter that neither the sender or recipient weren't even in the United States. All that mattered was that the communication passed through an American switch.

DNI Chairman Mike McConnell testified to this in Congress. He repeated that information to FNS's Chris Wallace:

  Continue reading "As Intellectually Dishonest As It Gets"

by Gary Gross at 12:44 AM

Embattled Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has experienced one of the most awful weeks in American political history. As I said here, you know it's bad when revealing extensive ties to Chicago political fixer Tony Rezko isn't the big news of the week. Clearly, the Pastor J-Wright scandal has temporarily sucked the oxygen out of the presidential campaigns. As bas as that seems, this article in WND adds another chapter to the Pastor J-Wright scandal. This headline says it all:

Obama Church Published Hamas Terror Manifesto

It gets worse from there:

The Hamas piece was published on the "Pastor's Page" of the Trinity United Church of Christ newsletter reserved for Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., whose anti-American, anti-Israel remarks landed Obama in hot water, prompting the presidential candidate to deliver a major race speech earlier this week.

Hamas, responsible for scores of shootings, suicide bombings and rocket launchings against civilian population centers, is listed as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department.

Here's more of the details of what got printed in Pastor J-Wright's page:

In his July 22, 2007, church bulletin, Wright reprinted an article by Mousa Abu Marzook, identified in the newsletter as a "deputy of the political bureau of Hamas." A photo image of the newsletter was captured and posted today by the business blog BizzyBlog. The Hamas piece was first published by the Los Angeles Times, garnering the newspaper much criticism. Here's that image:

Here's a portion of Mousa Abu Marzook's LA Times op-ed:

  Continue reading "Obama's Awful Week Gets Worse"

by Gary Gross at 08:07 PM

Conservatives have frequently complained about the media's anti-conservative bias. That's why it's worth commending ABCNews for this article about the contradictions highlighted in Obama's J-Wright speech. Here's the opening of their article:

Buried in his eloquent, highly praised speech on America's racial divide, Sen. Barack Obama contradicted more than a year of denials and spin from him and his staff about his knowledge of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's controversial sermons.

Similarly, Obama also has only recently given a much fuller accounting of his relationship with indicted political fixer Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a longtime friend, who his campaign once described as just one of "thousands of donors."

Until yesterday, Obama said the only thing controversial he knew about Rev. Wright was his stand on issues relating to Africa, abortion and gay marriage.

This msut be one of the worst weeks anyone's ever suffered in the history of American politics. The biggest problem currently facing Obama is the Pastor J-Wright problem. Sen. Obama initially told FNC's Major Garrett that he hadn't heard any of Pastor J-Wright's inflammatory speeches. Yesterday, he admitted that he'd heard them but did nothing about them.

The question I have is this: Why didn't Sen. Obama chastize Pastor J-Wright for his incendiary commentary? That's the minimum he should've done. Sen. Obama would've been perfectly justified in leaving TUCC. I suspect that that would've been the politically smart move, too.

That's awful enough but that isn't all. Last Friday, Sen. Obama also admitted that Mr. Rezko was more than "just one of 'thousands of donors.'" I told a friend last Saturday that "You know it's a bad week for Sen. Obama when his admitting to having close ties to Tony Rezko isn't the worst news of the week for him.

His initial reaction to the initial ABC News broadcast of Rev. Wright's sermons denouncing the U.S. was that he had never heard his pastor of 20 years make any comments that were anti-U.S. until the tape was played on air.

But yesterday, he told a different story.

"Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes," he said in his speech yesterday in Philadelphia.

That giant sucking sound you're hearing is Sen. Obama's credibility disappearing down the drain. While he might not get hurt by his contradictions in the Democratic nomination process, I'll bet the proverbial ranch that they'll destroy him in the general election.

In the case of his relationship with Rezko, Obama has also been slow to acknowledge the full extent of his relationship.

It was only last week that he revealed Rezko had raised some $250,000 in campaign contributions for him.

The campaign had initially claimed Rezko-connected contributions were no more than $60,000, an amount the campaign donated to charity. Then the figure grew to around $86,000, and there were additional revelations that put the amount at about $150,000. Obama's $250,000 accounting was a substantial jump and clearly contradicted earlier campaign statements that Rezko was just one of "thousands of donors."

Sen. Obama can't afford any more hits to his credibility. He created an image of transcending race and political affiliation. Now it's verifiable fact that he's attended a racist church pastored by an America-hating pastor. If it gets any worse, he can forever kiss his presidential ambitions goodbye.

The bad news is that I'll be posting something later tonight that'll add to Sen. Obama's troubles. Sen. Obama's ugly week is about to get uglier.

by Gary Gross at 10:14 AM

We all remember the stink that erupted when Hillary essentially said that, yes, Dr. Martin Luther King's speeches mattered but it took an LBJ to get the Civil Rights Act passed. Part of the reason why we remember it so well is because Sen. Obama replied by saying this:

"Don't tell me that words don't matter."

NHale Media just put together a devastating YouTube video based on that theme. Here's that video:

Barack Obama would be wise to learn the lesson that actions matter, too. Frankly it would've been nice to see Sen. Obama stand up to Pastor J-Wright for the saying the inflammatory, hate-filled words he said.

It's difficult to respect someone who won't stand up to that type of hatefulness until it's politically necessary to do so. That isn't a portrait in courage. That's a portrait in political damage control. You'll forgive me if I don't feel particularly inspired by that.

by Gary Gross at 11:25 PM

This afternoon, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. Based on the questions that the strict constructionist jurists asked, it appears likely that DC's gun ban law won't be sustained. Here's what Stephen Breyer asked:

Justice Stephen G. Breyer noted the number of people killed by handguns and asked if it was unreasonable for a "city with a very high crime rate to say 'no handguns here.'"

Here's how Chief Justice John Roberts responded to Breyer's question:

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked: "What's reasonable about a total ban on possession?"

Here's the Washington Post's reporting that makes me believe that DC's ban will be overturned:

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, often seen as the deciding vote on the divided court, immediately made it clear he did not accept the District's arguments, and the views of a vast majority of federal appeals courts, that the Second Amendment provided only a collective right to gun possession in furtherance of military purpose.

The amendment states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Kennedy said he thought the much-debated first clause was simply "reaffirming" the importance of the Constitution's militia clause and that it clearly stated "there is a right to bear arms" that is separate.

Liberals thought that Justice Kennedy would vote like Sandra Day O'Connor. Based on his votes since Justice O'Connor retired, it's clear that they thought wrong. While Justice Kennedy isn't another Scalia or Roberts, it's clear that he isn't another Justice O'Connor either.

Here's another part of the Post's reporting that sounds reasonable:

But a finding of an individual right means the court must decide what kind of restrictions would be proper for legislation to impose and under what standard a court should judge them.

Solicitor General Paul D. Clement told the justices that too strict a standard would imperil the federal government's efforts to restrict machine guns or "plastic" guns meant to avoid metal detector screening. The right to bear arms, Clement argued, "always coexisted with reasonable regulations of firearms."

Alan Gura, representing those challenging the District law, said he agreed that the "government can ban arms that are not appropriate for civilian use," but he said handguns clearly are not included in such a restriction.

I wouldn't be surprised if my Second Amendment friends took exception to my comments. That said, we regulate things because they conflict with public safety. The lone exception should be the First Amendment.

When the ruling is issued, likely in late June, the Roberts Court will likely restore sanity to the Second Amendment. That's the difference between an activist court and a strict constructionist court.

That's why it's vitally important to elect John McCain to succeed President Bush. If we can get another reliable strict constructionist confirmed, then we will have established sanity on the Supreme Court for another generation.