The New Federalist

The Orange Revolution comes to the White House

2005-04-05T19:55:00.000-07:00

President George W. Bush talks with Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko in the Oval Office, Monday, April 4, 2005. White House photo by Eric Draper

Yesterday the Orange Revolution came to Washington, D.C., as President Viktor Yushchenko of the Ukraine met with President Bush. A video of their joint press conference is available here.

Excerpts from the two leaders' remarks are provided below. Although President Bush spoke first at the joint press conference, I have provided excerpts of President Yushchenko's remarks first below out of respect for the Ukrainian President. President Yushchenko still literally wears the scars from his election campaign against the corrupt, Putin-backed candidate, Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych - the former Ukrainian Prime Minister - apparently had Yushchenko poisoned with dioxin during the campaign. See here for some background.

President Bush and President Yushchenko shake hands after a press availability on Monday, April 4, 2005. The Ukrainian President and his wife visited the White House for the day. White House photo by Paul Morse

President Viktor Yushchenko:

* * *

Mr. President, dear American friends, for me, for my wife, it is a great honor and privilege to be received here in the White House and to hear the words that are addressed to my country, my nation, my homeland.

Our ideals are simple and eternal: We want democracy and freedom -- our apparent European aspirations, which we were discussing from the first days, many days before the Maidan events when me and my team went into the politics. This is my vision; this is the vision shared by my team. This is something that my father taught me.

The legacy that we inherited is a very difficult country; Ukraine, where the rule of law did not exist and human rights were not observed; where half of the national economy is a shadow. The humiliated profession of journalism, the journalists wanted to speak the truth and stood against the official power, they could pay dearly. Dearly -- I mean it -- they could pay their lives for it. We're talking about the country where the number one problem remains to be corruption. We're talking about the country where the huge problem remains the problem of poverty. We realize all those challenges. We realize that it's only -- the work that has to be done by the Ukrainian power will help cope with the problems that the country inherited.

However, it is very important, Mr. President, to feel that we have partners standing by, that we are not left in solitude in coping with these troubles. Our conversation began with my saying that, for Ukraine, it was a very long road to the Oval Office. I do appreciate the attention that you display and the words that you have said. And I would like to, once again, reiterate that the ideals of Ukraine are democracy, which we perceive as the priority of people's interests in political, economic and other areas of development. These are freedom of speech that are the oxygen for democracy, this is a market economy which grants equal rights to people, this is the reliable system of social guarantees that secure protection to the weak.

Shortly speaking, the ideals for the new Ukraine are the ideals shared by the Western civilization. I fully concur with my American colleague in his saying that the freedom is not the gift for America, this is the Godly gift.

* * *

President George W. Bush:

* * *

Thank you. It's an honor to stand with a courageous leader of a free Ukraine. Mr. President, you are a friend to our country and you are an inspiration to all who love liberty. Welcome to America, and we're pleased to welcome your wife, as well. We're looking forward to having lunch with you.

President George W. Bush gestures to Ukraine President Viktor Yushchenko Monday, April 4, 2005, during a press availability at the White House.White House photo by Paul Morse President Yushchenko was the first head of state I called after my inaugural address. I told him that the Orange Revolution was a powerful example -- an example of democracy for people around the world. I was impressed, I know millions of my fellow citizens were impressed by the brave citizens who gathered in Kiev's Independence Square and rightly demanded that their voices be heard. It's an impressive moment, Mr. President, and an important moment. I've oftentimes told our fellow citizens that the world is changing, freedom is spreading -- and I use Ukraine as an example, along with Afghanistan and Iraq, about a changing world. A world, by the way, changing for the better, because we believe free societies will be peaceful societies.

Mr. President, I appreciate your vision. I want to thank you for our discussion we just had. We discussed a lot of matters. We talked about the neighborhood, of course. We talked about your commitment to fighting corruption; your deep desire to introduce principles of the marketplace in Ukraine. I told the President that our nation will stand by Ukraine as it strengthens law enforcement, as it fights corruption, as it promotes a free media and civil society organizations. To this end, I've asked Congress to provide $60 million for new funding to help you in your efforts, Mr. President.

* * *

For more on President Yushchenko's historic visit, see this post at the excellent Orange Ukraine weblog.

I see a long, friendly, and productive relationship for the Ukraine and the United States going forward. Best wishes to President Viktor Ukraine as he works to end corruption in his country and as he works to bring freedom of the press and other individual liberties to the long-suffering Ukrainian people.

President George W. Bush and Ukraine President Viktor Yushchenko are joined at the podiums by first ladies Laura Bush and Kateryna Yushchenko on Monday, April 4, 2005, in the East Room of the White House. White House photo by Paul Morse

Some additional photos are available here.

Pope John Paul II and President Ronald Reagan worked together to assist the Solidarity movement in the liberation of Communist Poland

2005-04-04T20:58:00.000-07:00

Pope John Paul II and President Ronald Reagan hold discussions at the Vatican

Via Newsmax:

* * *

After Archbishop Karol Wojtyla's rise to the papacy in 1978, he soon ignited a prairie fire for freedom in his native Poland.

The Russians had become unnerved by the discontent brewing in Poland, a nation that had remained a Soviet satellite since Russia "liberated" her from Nazi occupation after World War II.

As early as 1981, the Reagan administration had warned both Moscow and the Polish government against taking action against Poland's growing Solidarity movement.

When the Russians appeared to be on the brink of an invasion – similar to ones they had launched to crush freedom movements in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, President Reagan's White House made clear the U.S. would not be acquiescent again.

* * *

June 7, 1982[:] . . . a private Vatican meeting [was held] between President Reagan and Pope John Paul II. The two men were alone for 50 minutes and the subject of their discussion was Poland and the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe.

Writing in "The Holy Alliance, Ronald Reagan and John Paul II," one of the Pope's biographers, Carl Bernstein, described what happened: "Reagan and the Pope agreed to undertake a . . . campaign to hasten the dissolution of the communist empire … Richard Allen, Reagan's first National Security advisor [was quoted as declaring] ‘This was one of the great . . . alliances of all time.' "

* * *

In October of 1982, President Reagan took the first open step to exert pressure on Poland's Communist masters.

Following that government's outlawing of the Solidarity movement, which the Pope had publicly and covertly supported, Reagan suspended Poland's Most Favored Nation trading status, costing cash-strapped Poland some $6 billion a year in sales.

Solidarity was the weapon that the Pope and the U.S. would use to batter down the tyrannical Polish Communist government.

The trigger was an unemployed electrician, Lech Walesa, who had worked at the Gdansk shipyards. He was one of the leaders in a clash there in December 1970, was fired in 1976, and in 1980 became leader of the labor movement that became Solidarity.

Under the iron hand of the Communist regime, that movement could not survive on its own.

The mastermind of the U.S.-Vatican strategy was Reagan's CIA director, William J. Casey. A famous World War II spymaster and also a devout Catholic, Casey saw the Vatican as a secret conduit to supply the Solidarity movement with the financial resources it needed to survive and grow.

The clandestine U.S. support using the Vatican's Catholic network grew to $8 million a year during the mid 1980s. High tech communications equipment was smuggled in along with printing equipment, supplies, VCRs and freedom tapes.

Thanks to the Vatican's covert pipeline, over a seven year period 1,500 underground newspapers and journals and 2,400 books and pamphlets were circulated.

Using CIA supplied equipment Solidarity was even able to insert slogans and messages at breaks during soccer matches.

By 1988 Solidarity was strong enough to stage nationwide strikes in 1988 which forced the government to open a dialogue with it.

* * *

As Jesuit scholar Thomas J. Reese, S.J. has written, the Pope's "support of Solidarity in Poland began the avalanche that swept Communism from Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union."

During Solidarity's years of confronting both Moscow and the Polish government the danger of armed Soviet intervention in Poland in the face of the growing anti-Communist movement was always present.

In the end, however, Soviet domination of Poland and Eastern Europe ended, along with the Soviet Union itself, without a shot being fired, thanks to the alliance between Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II – an alliance formed between two men who understood the evil nature of communism and knew how to bring it down.

* * *

Another staunch foe of Communism, The Right Honorable Baroness Margaret Thatcher, wrote moving eulogies for both Pope John Paul II and President Reagan.

Now we all need a Terry Schiavo bracelet: "If I'm incapacitated, I want to live!"

2005-03-27T20:13:00.000-08:00

Now we all need a Terry Schiavo bracelet: "If I'm incapacitated, I want to live!" (That used to go without saying.)

If my (soon-to-be) ex-spouse could pull the plug on me while I was incapaciated in the hospital ... she'd do it in a second. And she'd have me cremated quick - with no autopsy. Kind of like - well - you know who.

In the words of Mark Steyn:

* * *

Where do you go to get a living-will kit saying that in the event of a hideous accident I don't want to be put to death by a Florida judge or the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals? And, if you had such a living will, would any U.S. court recognize it?

* * *

During another Easter season, five years ago, the Clinton Administration and the INS rolled over the Florida State court system - to seize Elian Gonzalez (as opposed to today's non-seizure of Terry Schiavo) - in a way that would make today's Republican Congress and President blanch.

I'm off to order my "Let me live!" bracelet now...

Move over Brad & Jen. Britney Spears is knocked-up!

2005-03-24T19:09:00.000-08:00

Britney Spears is pregnant per the Las Vegas Review-Journal

The Las Vegas Review-Journal is reporting that Britney Spears is pregnant.

I kind of saw this coming...

Via the Drudge Report.

Seriously though - good luck to Brit.

National Health Care in practice: "If the person named on this computer-generated letter is deceased, please accept our sincere apologies."

2005-03-21T20:46:00.000-08:00

Socialized Medicine in Action: Canadians Face Long Waits for Health Care

Socialized health care in practice:

* * *

TORONTO [March 21, 2005]- A letter from the Moncton Hospital to a New Brunswick heart patient in need of an electrocardiogram said the appointment would be in three months. It added: "If the person named on this computer-generated letter is deceased, please accept our sincere apologies."

* * *

More from, of all places, the New York Times:

Full Hospitals Make Canadians Wait and Look South

* * *

MONTREAL, Jan. 15 [2000] - Dressed in her orchid pink bathrobe and blue velour slippers, douardine Boucher perched on her bed at Notre Dame Hospital here on Friday and recounted the story of her night: electric doors constantly opening and closing by her feet, cold drafts blowing across her head each time an ambulance arrived in the subzero weather, and a drug addict who started shouting at 2:30 a.m., "Untie me, untie me."

But as nurses hurried by on Friday morning, no one thought it remarkable that Ms. Boucher, a 58-year-old grandmother awaiting open heart surgery, had spent a rough night on a gurney in an emergency room hallway. After all, other hallways of this 3-year-old hospital were lined with 66 other patients lying quietly on temporary beds.

To explain overflowing hospitals here and across the nation, Canadian health officials are blaming the annual winter flu epidemic.

But, at the mention of flu, Daniel Brochu, the veteran head nurse here, gave a smirk and ran his pen down the patient list today: "Heart problem, infection problem, hypertension, dialysis, brain tumor, two cerebral hemorrhages." On Thursday, he said, crowding was so bad that he was able to admit one patient only after the ambulance crew agreed to leave its stretcher.

* * *

The siren song of socialism must be fought forever. This is because there will always be suckers who actually think they can get someting for nothing. And there will always be politicians who are willing to get those suckers' votes...

No National Health Care in America? That's just sad.

Via Fark, Yahoo News and The New York Times.

Speaking of health care ... here's more than you ever wanted to know about circumcision. Via Classical Values.

Jane Fonda: Moral Compass of the Vietnam Era Left

2005-03-19T17:55:00.000-08:00

Jane Fonda, moral compass of the Vietnam Era Left

While leading the anti-war movement with John Kerry, supporting the Communist Vietnamese, and helping American POW's get extra torture, Jane Fonda, moral exemplar, was also:

(1) having sexual threesomes with her French director husband, and

(2) "ceased eating except for crusts from his bread and rinds from his camembert."

Bob loses reason to smile as Feds raid Enzyte's headquarters

2005-03-19T17:35:00.000-08:00

Enzyte Bob loses his mojo

Smiling Bob - of Enzyte's ubiquitous commercials - just lost that loving feeling. The Feds have raided Enzyte's Cincinnati headquarters. Bob's little missus back at the clubhouse has gone looking for the golf pro.

Via Fark. Original Fark post, with comments, here.

Justice Scalia eviscerates Justice Kennedy's legal reasoning in the Eighth Amendment case of Roper v. Simmons

2005-03-05T10:14:00.000-08:00

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

Here's an excerpt from Justice Scalia's dissent in Roper v. Simmons:

* * *

DONALD P. ROPER, SUPERINTENDENT, POTOSI CORRECTIONAL CENTER, PETITIONER v. CHRISTOPHER SIMMONS

On writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Missouri

[March 1, 2005]

Justice Scalia, with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Thomas join, dissenting.

* * *

III

Though the views of our own citizens are essentially irrelevant to the Court's decision today, the views of other countries and the so-called international community take center stage.

The Court begins by noting that "Article 37 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, [1577 U. N. T. S. 3, 28 I. L. M. 1448, 1468-1470, entered into force Sept. 2, 1990], which every country in the world has ratified save for the United States and Somalia, contains an express prohibition on capital punishment for crimes committed by juveniles under 18." Ante, at 22 (emphasis added). The Court also discusses the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), December 19, 1966, 999 U. N. T. S. 175, ante, at 13, 22, which the Senate ratified only subject to a reservation that reads:

"The United States reserves the right, subject to its Constitutional restraints, to impose capital punishment on any person (other than a pregnant woman) duly convicted under existing or future laws permitting the imposition of capital punishment, including such punishment for crime committed by persons below eighteen years of age." Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, S. Exec. Rep. No. 102-23, (1992).

Unless the Court has added to its arsenal the power to join and ratify treaties on behalf of the United States, I cannot see how this evidence favors, rather than refutes, its position. That the Senate and the President--those actors our Constitution empowers to enter into treaties, see Art. II, §2--have declined to join and ratify treaties prohibiting execution of under-18 offenders can only suggest that our country has either not reached a national consensus on the question, or has reached a consensus contrary to what the Court announces. That the reservation to the ICCPR was made in 1992 does not suggest otherwise, since the reservation still remains in place today. It is also worth noting that, in addition to barring the execution of under-18 offenders, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child prohibits punishing them with life in prison without the possibility of release. If we are truly going to get in line with the international community, then the Court's reassurance that the death penalty is really not needed, since "the punishment of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is itself a severe sanction," ante, at 18, gives little comfort.

It is interesting that whereas the Court is not content to accept what the States of our Federal Union say, but insists on inquiring into what they do (specifically, whether they in fact apply the juvenile death penalty that their laws allow), the Court is quite willing to believe that every foreign nation--of whatever tyrannical political makeup and with however subservient or incompetent a court system--in fact adheres to a rule of no death penalty for offenders under 18. Nor does the Court inquire into how many of the countries that have the death penalty, but have forsworn (on paper at least) imposing that penalty on offenders under 18, have what no State of this country can constitutionally have: a mandatory death penalty for certain crimes, with no possibility of mitigation by the sentencing authority, for youth or any other reason. I suspect it is most of them. See, e.g., R. Simon & D. Blaskovich, A Comparative Analysis of Capital Punishment: Statutes, Policies, Frequencies, and Public Attitudes the World Over 25, 26, 29 (2002). To forbid the death penalty for juveniles under such a system may be a good idea, but it says nothing about our system, in which the sentencing authority, typically a jury, always can, and almost always does, withhold the death penalty from an under-18 offender except, after considering all the circumstances, in the rare cases where it is warranted. The foreign authorities, in other words, do not even speak to the issue before us here.

More fundamentally, however, the basic premise of the Court's argument--that American law should conform to the laws of the rest of the world--ought to be rejected out of hand. In fact the Court itself does not believe it. In many significant respects the laws of most other countries differ from our law--including not only such explicit provisions of our Constitution as the right to jury trial and grand jury indictment, but even many interpretations of the Constitution prescribed by this Court itself. The Court-pronounced exclusionary rule, for example, is distinctively American. When we adopted that rule in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643, 655 (1961), it was "unique to American Jurisprudence." Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, 415 (1971) (Burger, C. J., dissenting). Since then a categorical exclusionary rule has been "universally rejected" by other countries, including those with rules prohibiting illegal searches and police misconduct, despite the fact that none of these countries "appears to have any alternative form of discipline for police that is effective in preventing search violations." Bradley, Mapp Goes Abroad, 52 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 375, 399-400 (2001). England, for example, rarely excludes evidence found during an illegal search or seizure and has only recently begun excluding evidence from illegally obtained confessions. See C. Slobogin, Criminal Procedure: Regulation of Police Investigation 550 (3d ed. 2002). Canada rarely excludes evidence and will only do so if admission will "bring the administration of justice into disrepute." Id., at 550-551 (internal quotation marks omitted). The European Court of Human Rights has held that introduction of illegally seized evidence does not violate the "fair trial" requirement in Article 6, §1, of the European Convention on Human Rights. See Slobogin, supra, at 551; Bradley, supra, at 377-378.

The Court has been oblivious to the views of other countries when deciding how to interpret our Constitution's requirement that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... ." Amdt. 1. Most other countries--including those committed to religious neutrality--do not insist on the degree of separation between church and state that this Court requires. For example, whereas "we have recognized special Establishment Clause dangers where the government makes direct money payments to sectarian institutions," Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 842 (1995) (citing cases), countries such as the Netherlands, Germany, and Australia allow direct government funding of religious schools on the ground that "the state can only be truly neutral between secular and religious perspectives if it does not dominate the provision of so key a service as education, and makes it possible for people to exercise their right of religious expression within the context of public funding." S. Monsma & J. Soper, The Challenge of Pluralism: Church and State in Five Democracies 207 (1997); see also id., at 67, 103, 176. England permits the teaching of religion in state schools. Id., at 142. Even in France, which is considered "America's only rival in strictness of church-state separation," "[t]he practice of contracting for educational services provided by Catholic schools is very widespread." C. Glenn, The Ambiguous Embrace: Government and Faith-Based Schools and Social Agencies 110 (2000).

And let us not forget the Court's abortion jurisprudence, which makes us one of only six countries that allow abortion on demand until the point of viability. See Larsen, Importing Constitutional Norms from a "Wider Civilization": Lawrence and the Rehnquist Court's Use of Foreign and International Law in Domestic Constitutional Interpretation, 65 Ohio St. L. J. 1283, 1320 (2004);
Center for Reproductive Rights, The World's Abortion Laws (June 2004), http://www.reproductiverights.org/
pub_fac_abortion_laws.html. Though the Government and amici in cases following Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), urged the Court to follow the international community's lead, these arguments fell on deaf ears. See McCrudden, A Part of the Main? The Physician-Assisted Suicide Cases and Comparative Law Methodology in the United States Supreme Court, in Law at the End of Life: The Supreme Court and Assisted Suicide 125, 129-130 (C. Schneider ed. 2000).

The Court's special reliance on the laws of the United Kingdom is perhaps the most indefensible part of its opinion. It is of course true that we share a common history with the United Kingdom, and that we often consult English sources when asked to discern the meaning of a constitutional text written against the backdrop of 18th-century English law and legal thought. If we applied that approach today, our task would be an easy one. As we explained in Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U. S. 957, 973-974 (1991), the "Cruell and Unusuall Punishments" provision of the English Declaration of Rights was originally meant to describe those punishments " 'out of [the Judges'] Power' "--that is, those punishments that were not authorized by common law or statute, but that were nonetheless administered by the Crown or the Crown's judges. Under that reasoning, the death penalty for under-18 offenders would easily survive this challenge. The Court has, however--I think wrongly--long rejected a purely originalist approach to our Eighth Amendment, and that is certainly not the approach the Court takes today. Instead, the Court undertakes the majestic task of determining (and thereby prescribing) our Nation's current standards of decency. It is beyond comprehension why we should look, for that purpose, to a country that has developed, in the centuries since the Revolutionary War--and with increasing speed since the United Kingdom's recent submission to the jurisprudence of European courts dominated by continental jurists--a legal, political, and social culture quite different from our own. If we took the Court's directive seriously, we would also consider relaxing our double jeopardy prohibition, since the British Law Commission recently published a report that would significantly extend the rights of the prosecution to appeal cases where an acquittal was the result of a judge's ruling that was legally incorrect. See Law Commission, Double Jeopardy and Prosecution Appeals, LAW COM No. 267, Cm 5048, p. 6, ¶1.19 (Mar. 2001); J. Spencer, The English System in European Criminal Procedures 142, 204, and n. 239 (M. Delmas-Marty & J. Spencer eds. 2002). We would also curtail our right to jury trial in criminal cases since, despite the jury system's deep roots in our shared common law, England now permits all but the most serious offenders to be tried by magistrates without a jury. See D. Feldman, England and Wales, in Criminal Procedure: A Worldwide Study 91, 114-115 (C. Bradley ed. 1999).

The Court should either profess its willingness to reconsider all these matters in light of the views of foreigners, or else it should cease putting forth foreigners' views as part of the reasoned basis of its decisions. To invoke alien law when it agrees with one's own thinking, and ignore it otherwise, is not reasoned decisionmaking, but sophistry.9

The Court responds that "[i]t does not lessen our fidelity to the Constitution or our pride in its origins to acknowledge that the express affirmation of certain fundamental rights by other nations and peoples simply underscores the centrality of those same rights within our own heritage of freedom." Ante, at 24-25. To begin with, I do not believe that approval by "other nations and peoples" should buttress our commitment to American principles any more than (what should logically follow) disapproval by "other nations and peoples" should weaken that commitment. More importantly, however, the Court's statement flatly misdescribes what is going on here. Foreign sources are cited today, not to underscore our "fidelity" to the Constitution, our "pride in its origins," and "our own [American] heritage." To the contrary, they are cited to set aside the centuries-old American practice--a practice still engaged in by a large majority of the relevant States--of letting a jury of 12 citizens decide whether, in the particular case, youth should be the basis for withholding the death penalty. What these foreign sources "affirm," rather than repudiate, is the Justices' own notion of how the world ought to be, and their diktat that it shall be so henceforth in America. The Court's parting attempt to downplay the significance of its extensive discussion of foreign law is unconvincing. "Acknowledgment" of foreign approval has no place in the legal opinion of this Court unless it is part of the basis for the Court's judgment--which is surely what it parades as today.

* * *

Read Justice Scalia's entire dissent in Roper v. Simmons here. The majority opinion is also available here (scroll up to the top).

Commentary from The American Thinker is available here.

Some comments on this article are available at Lucianne.com.

And, of course, Justice Scalia - the best, most freedom-loving, judicial-tyranny-resisting - member of the Court, was appointed by President Ronald Reagan.

Dino Rossi leads both Christine Gregoire and Maria Cantwell in latest Rassmussen poll

2005-02-26T09:24:00.000-08:00

Washington State gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi leads both his opponent, Christine Gregoire, and Washington State's U.S. Senator, Maria Cantwell, in a recent Rasmussen poll

A February 25 Rassmussen poll indicates that, in a survey of 500 likely voters about the 2006 Washington State U.S. Senate race, Dino Rossi attracts 47% of the vote to Maria Cantwell's 44%.

Overall, Rossi is viewed favorably by 55% of Washington's voters, while Cantwell is viewed favorably by just 54%. Further, gubernatorial candidate Christine Gregoire is viewed favorably by just 50% - and, remarkably, JUST 42% BELIEVE GREGOIRE LEGITIMATELY WON LAST NOVEMBER'S ELECTION!

Forty-four percent (44%) believe Rossi was the real winner! 15% of respondents indicated that the didn't know who won.

Stefen Sharkansky of Sound Politics predicts that soon-to-be Governor Rossi, by then in the middle of his second term, would be a very formidable challenger to Patty Murray in 2010.

Via Sound Politics and Polipundit.

Gallup Poll: Ronald Reagan is people's choice as greatest American President

2005-02-22T23:51:00.000-08:00

A Gallup Poll has found that Americans rate Ronald Reagan as the greatest American President in history

A Gallup Poll has found that Americans rate Ronald Reagan as the greatest American President in history. Via Editor and Publisher.

I highly recommend Reagan's autobiography, An American Life. It was a real page-turner - and I was continually amazed at Reagan's modesty and humility. That such a kind, gentle man could also be such a strong, pivotal world leader must be attributed to an inner strength - and strength of convictions.

Reading Reagan's autobiography - his life story in his own words - makes clear how silly and cartoonish were the criticisms he received from the liberals of Europe and America during his Presidency. Reagan was the "dumb" "unilateralist cowboy" of the liberals' caricatures in the 1980's. Such caricatures seem all too familiar today. Then, as now, liberals' response to strength and clarity was ad hominem attacks that said more about them than their target.

Fortunately, the 700 million people freed behind the old Iron Curtain know better - as do a new generation of Reagan admirers back home. (And the 50 million people now living in freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq will recognize George W. Bush as Reagan's true heir). Indeed, in a very real sense, the Presidency of George W. Bush would never have happened but for the trail blazed by Ronald Reagan.

Reagan was one of history's greatest advocates for freedom - and perhaps freedom's greatest champion. And yet he tells his life story with a gentleness and humility that astounds. His personal "city on a hill" was a humble adobe ranch house, in his beloved California mountains, which he helped build with his own hands.

The people's choice for greatest American President - Ronald Reagan - is the right choice.

Here are some other Reagan resources:

Images from President Ronald Reagan's funeral

Text of Margaret Thatcher's Eulogy for President Ronald Reagan

The Cheerful Cold Warrior: President Ronald Wilson Reagan, 1911 - 2004

Ronald Reagan Presidential Library

Ronald Reagan Foundation

Young America's Foundation (saved and preserved President Reagan's Western White House, Rancho del Cielo, in 1998)

Reagan condolence book and tributes

President Ronald Reagan: Recipient - Presidential Medal of Freedom

The new Evil Empire: Global Terrorism -

Al Qaeda murderers behead innocent American civilian, Nick Berg, in or near Baghdad, Iraq on May 11, 2004.

The New Screaming Left ("NSL") Party

2005-02-05T13:48:00.000-08:00

The New Screaming Left ("NSL") Party: Juan Cole + Howard Dean = the vanguard of something new and nasty. A new political movement. The NSL.

NSL eminence grise, Juan Cole, provides a series of nasty ad hominem attacks against Jonah Goldberg in the true spirit of the New Screaming Left ("NSL") Party

Wonder what got this lefty to screamin' (this time)? Go read the rest of the story here, plus some more thoughts on the subject here.

Flexing its muscles, the NSL has taken control of a reeling Democratic Party, installing the NSL poster-boy, Howard Dean, as Chairmain of the DNC.

Howard Dean during his "I have a scream speech" - the touchstone moment (and scream) for The New Screaming Left ("NSL") Party

While were talking about the "I have a scream speech," my favorite Dean scream remixes are the ones with background music by Outkast and Ozzy Osbourne, but I digress.

Dean's DNC Chair selection has caused serious misgivings among non-NSL Democrats - and disbelieving joy among Republicans.

So - who will be celebrating at the Presidential Inauguration of January 2009 - Juan Cole and the NSL or Jonah Goldberg and the Republicans? With the DNC Dean selection, I believe the Democrats have laid the groundwork for more nasty, screaming commentary from Juan Cole - and from the rest of the NSL - four years hence. In short, the DNC Dean selection will work to the Republicans' benefit - as long as Bush and the GOP stick to their principles and plans, thereby reliably driving the NSL metrosexuals and other NSL Party faithful in apoplexies of white-knuckled, venom-spitting rage (see, again, the Dean photo, above).

The New Screamling Left (NSL) Party might consider making this their home page. Or this. Or this. See? The New Screaming Left ("NSL") Party. I wasn't kidding. To paraphrase Faber College's Dean Wormer: loud, vicious and full of hate is no way to go through life, son.

Meanwhile, the antithesis of the NSL, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice gets it right:

* * *

"There cannot be an absence of moral content in American foreign policy," she says. "Europeans giggle at this, but we are not European, we are American, and we have different principles."

* * *

Indeed, Condi. More like this, please.

Funniest line I've read lately: "If i ever owned a pilates studio, i would call it Pontius Pilates." Ha. From annika's journal. That's #56.

Last but not least, some VERY incredible photos from the Hubble space telescope. Via Normblog.

The sad state of our national Ponzi Scheme known as "Social Security"

2005-01-26T16:23:00.000-08:00

See for yourself - click here:

Here's more on the infamous Charles Ponzi. Our "Social Security" system is exactly like a Ponzi Scheme in every way except that, when the government sets up a Ponzi Scheme, it's legal and everybody's scared not to say nice things about it.

The Reagan/Bush commitment to the cause of freedom. Plus: Instapundit writes one of his rare clunkers.

2005-01-20T21:15:00.000-08:00

"George W. Bush has done more to advance the cause of freedom in the world than any president since Ronald Reagan." PLUS: Instapundit writes one of his rare clunkers on Hillary's "sincere" religiosity. (Gag). Somebody give Dick Morris' number to the good professor.

An Inauguration for a politician who wasn't even elected? How can anyone listend to this stuff about "freedom" when ... I see dead people - dead people who voted for Christine Gregoire. More votes than voters you say? Is that wrong?

"George W. Bush has done more to advance the cause of freedom in the world than any president since Ronald Reagan. And like Reagan, the Left vilifies him for it."

Exactly so. Ronald Reagan liberated 170 million people behind the Iron Curtain. Now George W. Bush has liberated 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Reagan/Bush commitment to advancing the cause of freedom has increasingly been mocked by a bitter, misguided Left - embodied in the brazenly mendacious Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid. Indeed, the Boxer/Reid disciples on the hard-left are painful to watch.

Nor will the Reagan/Bush commitment to the cause of freedom ever be appreciated - much less praised - by the hard-left shills posing as legacy media "reporters," such as Sarah Boxer and Faye Fiore. And let's not forget Lawrence O'Donnell.

The blogosphere's capacity to expose the bias and mendacity of the Left and its legacy-media echo-chamber never ceases to amaze.

Of course, the righty blogosphere has its falls from grace too. Even the normally sage Instapundit can let his strong desire for warm, fuzzy feelings of fairness and balance totally engulf his normally well-oiled faculties.

First he wrongly sees a legal/judicial/moral basis for gay marriage where there is none. (Scroll down to his MSNBC column of February 25, 2004). Plus, there's no way around the fact that judicially-imposed gay marriage must inevitably lead to judicially-imposed legal polygamy. Legislatures make laws - courts are only supposed to interpret pre-existing laws. In short, it's about who decides. In other words, if the courts make gay marriage legal, such a decision will have to be based on judicial logic that will make polygamy legal too, inevitably. (That is, if there's no rational basis to prevent man-man or woman-woman marriage, why is there a rationale to prevent man-man-man or woman-woman-woman marriage?) The states' legislatures can divvy things up finer than the courts - whose judgments have to be taken to their logical conclusions. That's the practical reason why strict constructionist policy - legislatures make laws, not courts - is the right policy.

Then Instapundit comes down on the "pro" side of cloning.

Now he falls for the latest transparent trickery of Hillary - her new-found "sincere" religiosity. (Vomit reflex being actively restrained). Dick Morris didn't fall for it: "Hillary hides her true self behind a 'HILLARY' brand that is chatty, charming, giggly, and warm - but is far from her true personality." Glenn should know better. Dick Morris has what lawyers like Glenn call "personal knowledge" - which is what you need in court if you're going to testify about something (as a fact witness).

I mean - really - what does Glenn need to see the obvious: a bright red(-state) neon sign over Hillary's head flashing "NOW POSITIONING MYSELF TO THE RIGHT IN ANTICIPATION OF THE 2008 GENERAL ELECTION"? Newsflash to Glenn: Hillary has a luxury that Kerry never had. Hillary doesn't have to pander to the Deaniac Left. The Deaniac Left will forgive Hillary any sin, any policy, with a wink and a nod, as they whisper among themselves: "She's just being smart." They'll get it - they'll APPROVE of Hillary's transparent feint to the right. But somehow Glenn doesn't.

Obvious (to me) predicion: Hillary will position herself to the right on many issues over the next 4 years - to help her win the general election in 2008 - because she knows that her path to the the Democrat Party nomination in 2008 will be strewn with roses - not criticisms. Indeed, her feints to the right will be praised by her adoring fans on the left as *genius*. And just to anticipate the credulous question from the person crawling out of a cave, who will inevitably pop-up and ask with a straight face: "couldn't Hillary actually BE conservative": please remember that ancient history (it was a whole ten years ago) when Hillary tried to steer us down the path of socialism for our health care system. The person promoting socialsim for a large percentage of the U.S. economy is really a conservative? Next thing you know Neil Kinnock will be running for President on the Constitution Party ticket. Sheez.

In truth, the above credulous person would be unknowingly half right. Hillary's not conservative - but she's probably not liberal either. She - like many politicians, but just to a different intensity - just wants power. If someone offered Hillary an iron-clad deal that she could be President if she (1) invaded Iran, (2) privatized 100% of Social Security, and (3) signed a gay marriage ban into the Constituion ... I doubt she'd bother to read the fine print before signing with glee.

(Indeed, Hillary could also come out in favor of (1) gay marriage, (2) cloning, and (3) faith-based programs ... and then create a blog called "Instapundt" - but I digress).

I am truly saddened as I can see now that a long series of transparent Hillary strategems will be praised by the left and swallowed whole by the right as "sincere." What's the use of all these wonderful "new media outlets" if a politician really CAN fool all the people all the time?

It always saddens me when Glenn, of all bloggers, totally misses the boat. Alas, I guess that's one of the reaons I keep up this humble little blog.

Indeed, sometimes I get the sense that Glenn is doing a "slow-motion David Brock" - such as the one that left us with the new Bush-hating incarnation of Andrew Sullivan. I sure hope not. (In fairness, Sullivan is still a great writer and still worth reading. It's just that his seemingly never-ending cheap shots at Bush make his blog almost unreadable.)

Hmmm. Maybe I should change my blog title to "InstapunditWatch." Nahhh. It's not that bad. Yet.

(And also, in fairnss to Glenn, he's still the best blogger out there - which is a fair accomplishment since there's now only about a zillion blogs. Glenn's unique combo of quality, quantity and yes, brevity, make him the most heavily-traffiked blog on the, er, Internets. It's just 'cause I like his blog so much that makes his posts on things like Hillary's "sincere" religiosity seem like such finger-nails on a chalkboard).

Via Captain's Quarters, Fraters Libertas, Patterico's Pontifications, and Instapundit.

The continuing saga of Sandy "Hamburgler" Berger

2005-01-14T07:32:00.000-08:00

McDonald's now has collectible glasses featuring former U.S. National Secuirty Advisors. This one-of-a-kind drinking glass features former Clinton Administration national security chief, Samuel "Sandy" Berger.

Did Sandy "Hamburgler" Berger really stuff "about forty or fifty" classified documents into his socks? And he was our National Security Advisor? If you or I went into the National Archives and stuffed classified documents into our socks, wouldn't we already be in jail?

More on the McDonald's collectible drinking glass: former National Security Advisor Sandy Burger - affectionately called "sloppy" by his former colleagues - is famous for his funny capers. He once tried to sneak out of the National Archives with "forty to fifty" secret documents in his socks! That silly Hamburgler! He's done it again! Collect the entire set!

And how did the Hamburgler get that gig as National Secuirty Advisor, anyway? Ronald McDonald's awesome power must be stopped.

Speaking of the hamburgler, what DO they call a Quarter Pounder in Israel? Now you know. Link via Colby Cosh.

This is cross-posted at nikita demosthenes.

How much money did CBS pay Dick Thornburgh and Louis D. Boccardi - and their associates - for the "independent" Rathergate Report?

2005-01-13T20:10:00.000-08:00

Les Moonves' gambit: will CBS' damage-control wet-dream - the Thornburgh/Boccardi "independent" report - do the trick? Will it save CBS from federal criminal prosecution for publishing forged documents as true military records?

The Rathergate Report is available here. The Report's exhibts and appendicies are here. The CBS "reaction" (ha ha - read below) is here. Some good commentary on the report, with links, is available at Instapundit.

Why is the legacy media unable or unwilling to ask this screamingly obvious first question about the Rathergate Report? How much money did CBS pay Dick Thornburgh and Louis D. Boccardi - and their associates - for the Rathergate Report?

Has it actually come to this? Does the legacy media just assume that the blogosphere will ask the tough questions in any anti-legacy-media (or anti-Democrat) story?

For Pete's sake, this is the first question one hears in court - and in most situations where the press is not covering itself - when an organization PAYS MONEY TO SOMEONE to generate a controversial (and potentially exonerating) report about the organization itself.

So - for all the talk about the legacy media now taking honesty and "good reporting" seriously - we will know this is true when this happens: CBS news tells us how much money they paid Thornburgh/Boccardi et al. - or a legacy media reporter at least asks CBS this screamingly obvious question.

Suppose President Bush paid some private panel to generate a report about his possible wrong-doing - and the resulting report exonerated Bush? How long do you think it would take a reporter to ask Bush or his spokesman, "How much money did President Bush pay the members of the panel and their associates"? That would be the FIRST QUESTION. And it would be pursued relentlessly until it was answered. And once Bush admitted the sum paid - this would completely eviscerate the value of the "findings" of the report in the minds of the legacy media and probably the public as well.

There is another reason why this question is important - and this is a point that has not been made very often: the Rathergate Report is actually a damage-control wet-dream for CBS senior management. The Thornburgh/Boccardi Report gives the public the (false) impression that some entity INDEPENDENT of CBS News has opined fairly as to the correct findings in, and the correct solutions to, CBS' Bush Guard story debacle.

This is not the case. CBS has, in effect, issued an internal report about its own wrong-doing which - SURPRISE! - exonerates CBS senior management. The fact that an "independent" panel issued the report is completely and entirely off-set by the fact that such "independent" panel was paid cold hard cash for their report ... by CBS senior management. CBS President Les Monves should be on the hook too for the Bush Guard story debacle too. Moonves' clever "independent report" two-step shows that Monves and Heyward may have screwed-up horribly as managers - but they're awesome at damage control.

The reason this is a damage-control wet-dream for CBS senior management is that it gives them a depressingly good chance of completely avoiding the tough questions that STILL NEED TO BE ASKED by a truly independent source - like a federal prosecutor or a federal grand jury. These hard and troubling questions include:

1. Did CBS News commit a federal crime by publishing, and vouching for, forged documents as true military records? This conduct would, in fact, be a crime. And it is pretty clear that CBS PROBABLY DID COMMIT THIS CRIME - since their own document examiners who opined on the authenticity of the documents said that the documents were not authentic (or couldn't reliably be said to be authentic) - and they said this BEFORE the report aired.
Where's the follow-up? Answer: so far there hasn't been any follow-up because of the alleged "independence" of the Thornburgh/Boccardi Report.
When will a federal prosecutor or a federal grand jury at least ask the question whether CBS committed a crime? I think it's at least probable from the facts in the Report itself that CBS did commited this federal crime.

2. Did CBS slander and libel President Bush (due to malicious intent) and the other people in the story, such as General Hodges - and a defenseless dead man, Colonel Killian himself? The Thornburgh/Boccardi Report tries to direct us away from these questions. These are very fair questions.

3. Did CBS and the Democrat Party coordinate the roll-out of this "story" about Bush's Guard service? The Report itself give strong evidence of this. When will the FEC or other federal agency begin investigating the very serious possibility that CBS News and the Democratic Party coordinated with one other - in violation of federal law - to generate a false story about a sitting President at the height of a political campaign?

Other thoughts on the Rathergate Report

Thought Number One.

Throughout their report, and especially leading up to page 208 of the Report, Thornburgh and Boccardi go to great pains to shoot down Dan Rather's "fake but accurate" defense. Thornburgh and Boccardi rightly opine that, if the documents are forged (or if their authenticity cannot be determined, as they would say it) then any content in the documents is utterly irrelevant.

Indeed, this is the only rational position that one could take. If I go draft a forged document, "signed" by Dan Rather, in which Dan extols the virtues of space unicorns, the fact that my "signed" document is a forgery would totally obviate any need for anyone to still question what Dan really does like space unicorns. Even though such forged document's "content" about Dan and space unicorns might be "right on the money" - to use Dan's consistent language about the forged Guard documents from the Report.

This simple proposition - that forged documents cannot prove anything - still, stunningly, seems beyond Dan's comprehension.

Thornburgh and Boccardi actually seem somewhat amazed themselves, in their own report, that Dan Rather apparently - TO THIS DAY - still does not comprehend this most basic of points. And, of course, if Dan doesn't get this, how on Earth can he be reliable as a reporter?

Indeed, one must ask, doesn't Dan Rather's failure to get this most basic of points - that forged documents are not good proof for anything - show that Dan DOES have an extreme liberal bias, or that he's completely insane, or both? I mean that seriously. How can Dan still not concede this simple point?

See Thornburgh/Boccardi's careful summary - at page 208 of the Report and leading up to page 208 - of how all the content "confirmation" for the forged documents (which Rather and Mapes STILL tout) evaporates under scrutiny. Thornburgh and Boccardi actually seem to be going out of their way to help Rather and Mapes "get it" - i.e., that forged documents cannot be good proof for anything.

Yet, amazingly, Rather and Mapes still insist that they - and the viewing public - can rely on the "content" of forged documents. Stunning.

Thought Number Two.

After reading the report, it becomses pretty clear what actually happened. So it's unclear, if the legacy media can air the Bush Guard story with so little proof, why someone can't opine on what really did happened here - now that there's so much proof of it.

What happened - as the Report clearly appears to support - is that Bill Burkett forged the infamous Bush Guard "documents" himself. Burkett simply made a copy of Killian's signatue from an existing document - cut if off of his copy - and pasted onto the bogus documents prepared by Burkett. (This is why the "authentication" of the "documents" by CBS's "expert," Matley - by comparing "signatures" - was always so absurd).

Burkett then tried to peddle the forgeries to several news organizations. Mary Mapes of CBS News was the only reporter so blinded by Bush hatred that she actually took this bait. Apparently Burkett sought to kill two birds with one stone. He was a serial Bush-hater and he needed money. So Burkett tried to get CBS to actually pay him for his forged anti-Bush "records." You do have to give Burkett an A+ for creativity and chutzpah.

The above suppositions are bolstered by several Report-supported facts: (1) the Bush Guard "documents" used Texas Army National Guard lingo (like "billet"), and not Texas Air National Guard lingo - in which service Bush served; Bill Burkett had served in the Texas Army National Guard; (2) no one has to this day established that the documents came from anyone other than Bill Burkett; and (3) Bill Burkett lied at least three times (about Conn, and "Lucy Ramirez," and about an anonymous mailing) about the source of the "documents" according to the Report.

Indeed, CBS's mid-level producer (Howard) became convinced, apparently pretty early on, that CBS had been the victim of a "hoax" by Burkett.

Why can no legacy media report actually say that the above evidence strongly supports the above conclusion? For all the thousands of words written about this story I have yet to see a legacy media reporter at lease opine that maybe the whole Bush Guard "story" (including the "documents") was created out of whole cloth by Burkett. Why? This IS pretty clearly what, in fact, happened.

Unfortunately, it appears that the legacy media will never, ever, be trustworthy when it comes to reporting wrong-doing by ... the legacy media.

So - viva the blogosphere. What did we do before it existed? I guess - I know - that we swallowed a lot of legacy media falsehoods - and usually we didn't even know it.

Again - viva the blogosphere.

Thought Number Three.

You want to know the punchline on the whole Thornburgh/Boccardi "independent" report?

It was published in Times New Roman.

As Glenn would say - heh.

Thought Number Four.

CBS - to this day - has not retracted the September 8 Bush Guard story "reported" by Dan Rather on "60 Minutes Wednesday."

Why hasn't CBS formally run a retraction?

There was an off-the-cuff comment run in the Washington Post recently, in which Les Moonves told Dana Milbank that the report "has been retracted."

This is a dodge.

An actual retraction goes something like: here's where we were wrong ... and here's what the truth is. And it's in black and white in a press release - or it's done on the airwaves.

CBS has not done this.

Why? Probably because they would open themselves up to federal criminal prosecution - and claims of libel and slander - as discussed above.

CBS is trying to weasel out of a retraction - and the legacy media is letting them get away with it.

P.S.

See, also, the excellent Rathergate commentary at Captain's Quarters.

Note: This is cross-posted at nikita demosthenes.

Welcome to The New Federalist weblog

2004-12-17T11:08:00.000-08:00

Welcome to The New Federalist weblog.