Part I

While liberals may think of the 1960s as the beginning of many “progressive” trends in American society, cold hard facts tell a very different story. The 1960s marked the end of many beneficial trends that had been going on for years — and a complete reversal of those trends as programs, policies, and ideologies of the liberals took hold.

Teenage pregnancy had been going down for years. So had venereal disease. Rates of infection for syphilis in 1960 was half of what it had been in 1950. There were similar trends in crime. The total number of murders in the United States in 1960 was lower than in 1950, 1940, or 1930 — even though the population was growing and two new states had been added. The murder rate, in proportion to population, in 1960 was half of what it had been in 1934.

Every one of these beneficial trends sharply reversed after liberal notions gained ascendancy during in the 1960s. By 1974, the murder rate had doubled. Even liberal icon Sargent Shriver, head of the agency directing the “war on poverty,” admitted that “venereal disease has skyrocketed” even though “we have had more clinics, more pills, and more sex education than ever in history.”

Part II

For decades, the liberal media and the intelligentsia have had to struggle mightily against good economic news. Their whole vision of the world — and of themselves — is at stake.

It’s not easy. Even Americans in the bottom 20 percent in income have higher real incomes than in the past and such staples of middle class life as microwave ovens and motor vehicles are now common among “the poor.”

What can the liberal-left do? They can keep pointing out how the bottom 20 percent’s share of the national income is declining.

Of course people don’t live on percentage shares, they live on real income. Moreover, it is not the same people permanently stuck in the bottom 20 percent. Three-quarters of the people in the bottom 20 percent in 1975 were also in the top 40 percent at some point over the next two decades.

Nor is there anything mysterious or sinister in the fact that the percentage share of the national income going to the bottom 20 percent has declined.

How do most people get income? They work for it. What happens when pay for work goes up? The gap between those who are working and those who are not widens. Most of the people in the bottom 20 percent are not full-time, year-around workers.

There are, in fact, more heads of household who are full-time, year-around workers in the top 5 percent than in the bottom 20 percent.

Regardless of what the facts are, you can always find exceptions to those facts. The liberal media inundate us with stories about those exceptions, who are presented as if they were the norm.

Thirty years ago a couple of shaggy haired losers made their way to the outfield of Dodger Stadium where they planned to burn the American flag. At the last moment, outfielder Rick Monday swooped in and rescued the flag right as it was about to be set ablaze. As Memorial Day approaches, NewBusters remembers this important moment with a short video clip and looks back at the incident.

An excellent piece from the UK’s The Observer today about the beginnings of Islamic Jihadism in London.

In 1988, the novelist and British citizen Salman Rushdie published his novel, The Satanic Verses. A bitter satire on Islam which understandably gave serious offence, its publication provoked uproar in the Islamic world with protests in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, that led to the deaths of five Muslims. Shortly afterwards, in Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa, sentencing Rushdie to death for writing the book, along with ‘all involved in its publication who were aware of its content’. As a result, Rushdie was forced to go into hiding for many years and to live the life of a highly guarded fugitive, with a bounty on his head for anyone who succeeded in killing him.

This incitement to murder a British subject and his associates in the publishing world set the Muslim community in Britain alight. Literally so - they burned the book in the street, in scenes uncomfortably reminiscent of Nazi Germany. There was a positive feeding frenzy of incitement. Sayed Abdul Quddus, the secretary of the Bradford Council of Mosques, claimed that Rushdie had ‘tortured Islam’ and deserved to pay the penalty by ‘hanging’.

The important thing to note here is the reaction of many in London and their failure to stand up for democratic values under assault by radical Islamic Jihadism.

The importance of this episode and the no less significant reaction to it by the British establishment can hardly be overestimated. Such scenes were unprecedented in Britain. The home of freedom of speech was playing host to the burning of books and an openly homicidal witch-hunt. Yet not one person who called for Rushdie to be killed was prosecuted for incitement to murder. The most the government could bring itself to say was that such comments were ‘totally unacceptable’.

On the contrary, they seemed to be not only accepted but even endorsed by certain members of the British establishment. Far from universal condemnation of this murderous expression of religious fanaticism, various people used their public position to jump prematurely upon Rushdie’s grave. Eminent historian Lord Dacre said he ‘would not shed a tear if some British Muslims, deploring Mr Rushdie’s manners, were to waylay him in a dark street and seek to improve them’. In Leicester, Labour MP Keith Vaz led a 3,000-strong demonstration intent on burning an effigy of Rushdie and carried a banner showing Rushdie’s head, complete with horns and fangs, superimposed on a dog.

With this kind of history of appeasement, is it any wonder that Europe currently faces the gravest threat to it’s existance since WWII? Can we really be surprised at the emergence of Londonistan?

5/26/06 - Senator Wyden -

Mr. President, I rise today to attempt, once again, to raise awareness of the plight of countless rural communities due to the impending expiration of the Secure Rural Schools and County Self-Determination Act. I regret that the lack of concern at the White House and the inertia in Congress forces me to put a hold on David Bernhardt, the administration’s nominee for Interior Solicitor. It is time for everyone to focus their attention on the needs of the more than 700 rural counties in over 40 States that are depending on the reauthorization of this county payments legislation.

. . .

I will hold this nominee–and many nominees coming after him, if need be–until the administration finds an acceptable way to fund county payments.

I don’t know much about whatever bill the Senator is whining about, and frankly I don’t care. What’s important is his willingness to obstruct in his duties in order to strong arm the legislation that he wants through the Senate. Why should one Senator have this much power to obstruct? If you want your agenda passed, make sure your party gets elected to the majority. If it doesn’t, you don’t get to then hold nominees hostage until you get what you want.

5/25/06 - Representative Bonner -

. . . ABC News, both last night and again this morning, is guilty of throwing high standards and ethical behavior out the window. Their report that our Speaker, Denny Hastert of Illinois, is being investigated by the Justice Department lacks one essential element to a good news story: the facts. Even after the Justice Department issued a 10-word statement that said “Speaker Hastert is not under investigation by the Justice Department,” ABC refuses to retract this story. Instead, they cite an unnamed source in the Justice Department as the only evidence they need to throw trash into the mainstream.

Freedom of the press is a precious liberty. It should never be taken for granted, nor, my friends, should it be trampled on by people who stand behind this ideal instead of standing on the bedrock principle of getting the facts right and reporting the truth.

5/25/06 - Representative Foxx -

. . . [T]he press has reached a new low in this country. I am appalled that ABC World News Tonight ran a false story claiming that our Speaker of the House, who is of the utmost integrity, is under investigation by the Justice Department.

How convenient for them to mistakenly accuse the Speaker of the massive corruption that a Democrat Congressman is charged with, and then use the capabilities that only the mass media possesses to deliver that lie into the living rooms of every American.

Let me read to you the Justice Department’s press release issued yesterday. Here it is. Before ABC ran its blatantly false story, this press release did not mince words and said, “Speaker Hastert is not under investigation by the Justice Department.”

Enough said.

Not only is ABC pushing a fake story with no evidence, they are pushing it harder than the real corruption story, that of Democrat Rep. William Jefferson.

Newsbusters -

The Hastert claims led “World News Tonight” on Wednesday. But what about Monday night, when ABC’s Jake Tapper had the story on the FBI finding $90,000 in a Democratic congressman’s freezer?

Monday night’s broadcast didn’t get to Congressman William Jefferson until 20 minutes into the show, with no promotion at the show’s beginning. The program began with anchor Elizabeth Vargas promoting four other stories: identity theft against veterans, hurricane forecasts, the health of race horse Barbaro, and a segment on back pain.

In his most recent blog entry, Speaker Hastert has clarified his objection to the search of Rep. William Jefferson’s office.

The issue that has concerned me, as Speaker, since Saturday night is not if the FBI should be able to search a member of Congress’ office, but rather how to do it within the boundaries of the Constitution.

I regret that . . . they did not work with us to figure out a way to do it consistently with the Constitution. But that is behind us now. I am confident that in the next 45 days, the lawyers will figure out how to do it right.

And yet, Speaker Hastert has not made a convincing case that there is any Constitutional issue here.

Orin Kerr’s initial analysis shows little to support the Speaker’s position.

Given that executing a search warrant involves neither an arrest nor questioning, it would seem to me that the [Speech and Debate] Clause isn?t applicable. Further, Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 626-27 (1972), seems to suggest that Congress is not generally exempt from criminal process under the Clause.

May 23 Press Gaggle

First she starts in with her usual DNC talking point camouflaged as a question.

Helen Thomas: The President apparently has gotten several messages, underground, back-channel and so forth, through intermediaries for direct talks with Iran. Surely he is not going to blow a — speaking of opportunities with Iraq, this is an opportunity to talk directly to Iran. And why doesn’t the President do it? And don’t give me the — I’m sure the three other allies and so forth would be very happy if we talked directly to Iran.

MR. SNOW: Well, if you don’t wish me to answer the question, then I’ll just move to the next questioner.

Ha! This is so much fun. Continuing…

Helen Thomas: I want you to answer after I’ve told you what my premise is. (Laughter.)

MR. SNOW: This from Secretary of State Helen Thomas. The position has always been clear. . .

Mr. Snow then goes on to explain, once again, the very simple position that we aren’t going to let Iran jerk us around - like we let Iraq do for over a decade - with obvious stall tactics. Helen then responds with a pathetic liberal cry that America is “[laying] down the laws for everybody else”. Then something wonderful happens, the useful idiots in the press are finally called out for what they are.

MR. SNOW: . . . what Iran is trying to do is to negotiate through the press right now.

Helen Thomas: — no —

MR. SNOW: Sure, it is. And you’re doing an able job of it, Helen. So what’s going on here is that Iran, in responding to pressure, is trying to change the subject. And we’re not going to let them change the subject. The subject —

Helen Thomas: It isn’t changing the subject —

MR. SNOW: Of course, it is.

In a recent townhall, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld responded to a question about American resolve and whether it will last after the end of this administration by correctly asserting the need for historical perspective on the war on terror.

First, I think that we need to do a better job of teaching history in our schools, and to the extent that people have some knowledge of our Revolutionary War and the fact that there were just vicious divisions and arguments about what should be done; the Civil War, World War II. I lived through World War II. My father was on a carrier. And in parts of our country, they were just determined not to be engaged in that war?at all. And the vitriolic comments that were made about President Roosevelt, the — I mentioned the Cold War and what took place.

. . . [T]his is nothing new is my point. And if people understood that, if they’d studied history, if they appreciated the debates and the arguments, they’d have. . .greater confidence, it seems to me, in our country.

Like so many other issues, this comes back, atleast in part, to education. Not only is the lack of quality education a concern, but the anti-American sentiments so routinely injected into the curriculum are harming our country. It’s bad enough that most Americans don’t understand the gravity of the threat we face, but even some that do don’t have the historical perspective to comprehend the committment and sacrifice necessary to combat it. America can not afford to lose it’s resolve in this war. If we decide to just quit and head home, radical Islam is not going to let up. They’ll take the fight to our cities and our streets.

President Bush focused on immigration in his weekly radio address yesterday.

. . . First, America must secure its borders. Since I became President, we’ve increased funding for border security by 66 percent, hired thousands more Border Patrol agents, and caught and sent home about 6 million illegal immigrants. Yet, we have much more work to do.

I don’t know if anyone buys his “I’ve been tough on immigration” claim, but there’s no doubting that we must secure our borders. That’s an easy one to get right, so score one for Bush.

. . . Second, to secure our border we must create a temporary worker program that provides foreign workers a legal and orderly way to enter our country for a limited period of time. This program would reduce pressure on the border, meet the needs of our economy, and allow honest immigrants to provide for their families while respecting the law. And it will help us make certain we know who is in our country and why they are here.

I agree with the President on this one. A common sense guest worker program, of the type advocated by Newt Gingrich, is a net positive. However, it needs to be limited, and it can’t be used to reward past illegal behavoir.

Third, we need to hold employers to account for the workers they hire by creating a better system for verifying documents and work eligibility. The system should include a new tamper-proof identification card for every legal foreign worker. This card would help us enforce the law and leave employers with no excuse for breaking it. And by making it harder for illegal immigrants to find work in our country, we would discourage people from crossing the border illegally in the first place.

Another point for Bush.

Fourth, we must resolve the status of millions of illegal immigrants who are already here. They should not be given an automatic path to citizenship. This is amnesty, and I oppose it. Amnesty would be unfair to those who are here lawfully, and it would invite further waves of illegal immigration.

Some people think any proposal short of mass deportation is amnesty. I disagree. There’s a rational middle ground between automatic citizenship for every illegal immigrant and a program of mass deportation. Illegal immigrants who have roots in our country and want to stay should have to pay a meaningful penalty, pay their taxes, learn English, and work in a job for a number of years. People who meet these conditions should be able to apply for citizenship — but approval will not be automatic, and they will have to wait in line behind those who played by the rules and followed the law.

Sigh. Bush stumbles here, big time. Conservatives need to stop regurgitating liberal talking points from the open borders crowd. That the only way to get rid of illegal aliens is to deport them is a ridiculous strawman argument. You don’t need to deport them. If they can’t get work or government handouts, and have to be out of the country to apply for a guest worker card, they will leave on their own. And he’s wrong about what is and is not amnesty, as well.

Amnesty is when a person or group of people are made except from punishment. The punishment for illegal entry into the United States is deportation. Any program that removes the possibility of that punishment from occuring is amnesty, period. How hard you make it for them to becomes citizens is irrelevent. If they are allowed to take part in that process while illegally in the United States with no threat of deportation, that is amnesty, plain and simple.

Fifth, we must honor the great American tradition of the melting pot by helping newcomers assimilate into our society. Americans are bound together by our shared ideals, an appreciation of our history, respect for our flag, and the ability to speak and write in English.

Again, another easy rhetorical point for the President. We obviously need to do a better job assimilating immigrants.

The President has all the right talk, but the devil’s in the details. He has a long way to go to prove to conservatives that he’s serious about border security.

A simple note at the end of Thursday’s press gaggle squashed a growing liberal argument of “hypocracy” after the passage of the Inhofe amendment making English the national language. Since it’s passage there have been references to the fact that the White House website has the President’s speeches available in spanish. Not surprisingly, this is due to a Clinton administration rule:

Spanish translation on the White House website is guided by OMB policies for federal public websites and an EO 13166 by President Clinton.