Democrats love their political stunts. A week or two ago we were subjected to one such legislative gimmick, a war surtax.

Arguing it is unfair to continue to pass the cost of the war in Iraq to future generations, three senior House Democrats Tuesday offered a long-shot plan to raise taxes to pay for the $150 billion bill for the war in 2008.

At the same time, one of the Democrats, Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, announced he would delay action on the White House’s war request for next year, saying he refuses “to continue the status quo.”

The tax plan, unveiled by Obey and Reps. John Murtha, D-Pa., and Jim McGovern, D-Mass., would require low- and middle-income taxpayers to add 2 percent to their tax bill. Wealthier people would add a 12 to 15 percent surcharge, Obey said.

Sponsors of the tax plan appeared more interested in making a point ? getting people to focus on the cost of the war ? than offering it as a serious proposal.

If a surtax is an appropriate way to get people to focus on costs, I have a few proposals. We’ve got mandatory spending, on things like welfare, medicare, medicaid and social security, which are simply burgeoning out of control. In the future they will completely overshadow the rest of the federal budget. Even defense isn’t going to come close to the expense of running the welfare state. These charts from Heritage’s “Federal Revenue and Spending: A Book of Charts” illustrates what costs we really need to concern ourselves with.

I’m sure you also notice the exponential growth in interest which is projected to occur. The reason for that is simple. As entitlement programs explode the federal budget, the deficit is going to grow right along with them. As a percentage of GDP, the deficit is currently projected to take off before 2020.

This rapid growth is going to be fueled entirely by the growth in entitlement spending. So in the previous chart, the interest payments can also be attributed to our welfare state programs.

Given all this, when will democrats propose a nanny-state surcharge to highlight these unsustainable costs?

Democrats have long complained that Bush has “alienated” our allies. Yet it’s the Democrats who are willing to place partisan political games above the interests of maintaining strong relationships with key allies. Turkey has the most secular government in the Middle East, is a member of NATO and wants to become a member of the European Union. A natural ally against radical jihadist government and terror groups, one would think. Too bad the democrats want to throw all that away over an issue that happened a century ago.

Turkey warns United States over Armenian vote

Turkish lawmakers visited Capitol Hill on Tuesday and their president has written to President George W. Bush, warning of damage to bilateral ties if Congress backs a bill recognizing the 1915 massacres of Armenians as genocide.

The House of Representatives’ Foreign Affairs Committee is to consider the bill on genocide Wednesday. If it passes the committee, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi could then decide to bring it to the House floor for a vote. She has been a long-time supporter of the resolution.

. . . A senior lawmaker of Turkey’s ruling AK Party, Egemen Bagis, led a delegation to Capitol Hill to warn that passage of the resolution would put military cooperation with Turkey at risk and endanger U.S. troops in Iraq.

The bulk of supplies for troops in Iraq pass via Turkey’s Incirlik airbase. In an interview with Reuters, Bagis noted that thousands of Turkish truck drivers, construction workers, engineers and contractors have been risking their lives to help the U.S. effort in Iraq.

Democrats should follow their own advice and not alienate our allies, especially over something that is completely irrelevant to solving present problems.

In an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times, Larry Sabato suggests that we scrap the constitution, convene a constitutional convention and come up with a new governing document. Now, such an idea shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand. There may come a time when this sort of action is necessary. At this time, however, there is no such need. In fact, today’s biggest problems stem from where the Constitution is being ignored, not where it’s being followed. But let’s look at Sabato’s list of complaints.

Restoring the war powers balance. The framers split authority concerning matters of war-making between the president (commander in chief) and Congress (declaring war). Does anyone seriously believe that they would have approved of the executive department waging years-long wars without the explicit approval of the legislature? Yet the advantages accruing to any president — the unitary nature of the office, the swift action that only he can take in a hair-trigger world, his dominance of the televised public forum — have created an emperor as much as a president. The constitutional balance of shared war-making must be restored.

…

Now this issue I don’t want to say too much about, because there’s significant scholarly debate over just what powers the original constitution granted. Is the congressional authority to declare war a substantial power to decide when to engage war or just a declarative ability to announce what has already been decided? There are many smart legal and constitutional scholars who disagree over that answer. However, the War Powers Act already requires congressional approval, so Sabato’s point is moot. His real complaint seems to be that they granted it in the case of Iraq, but that’s something he should take up with Congress, not tear up the Constitution over.

* Creating a more representative Senate. Stunningly, just 17% of the current American population elects a majority of the U.S. Senate. This is because even though California has about 70 times the population of Wyoming, both states get two U.S. senators. The larger states may have 83% of the nation’s people, but they get nothing without the approval of the lightly populated states. In the beginning of the republic, the population differential between the large and small states — and thus the unfairness — was far less.

But today, the structure of the upper chamber of Congress is completely outmoded. Let’s build a fairer Senate by granting the 10 states with the greatest population two additional senators each, and the next 15 most populated states one additional senator each.

This is just ridiculous. The entire point of each state receiving equal seats in the Senate is to ensure that the interests of smaller states wouldn’t be overwhelmed by the larger ones. What we actually need is to return to the original arrangement where the Senators are appointed by the state legislatures. Let’s repeal the 17th amendment. The Senate is not supposed to be a body that responds to every whim and fancy of popular opinion, that’s what the House of Representatives is for. Plus, it would ultimately return some power to the states by giving them more control over their Senators.

* Transforming presidential elections. Americans don’t have to be convinced that our presidential election system is broken. The nation needs a sensible system of rotating regional primaries so that it would no longer be subject to the selfish whims of a few states.

Why should the constitution address party primaries? Parties aren’t supposed to be institutionally attached to government. They are far too much so already.

The electoral college also must be overhauled, with more populated states receiving additional electors so that a candidate who loses the popular vote can no longer become president. Why not abolish it entirely? The state-based electoral college isolates and simplifies recounts. Imagine how hopeless our predicament would be if the 2000 Florida recount had to be conducted nationwide.

Well at least he has one thing right. But the larger states don’t need any more electors. Can a President really understand and represent the interests of all of America is he only has to campaign in California, Texas and New York?

* Ending second-class citizenship. We promote the cultural myth that any mother’s son or daughter can grow up to be president, but it isn’t even literally true.

The founders were concerned about foreign intrigue in the early days of an unsettled republic, so they limited the presidency to those who were “natural born” citizens. But the melting pot that is now the United States includes an astonishing 14.4 million Americans who were not born on U.S. soil and are therefore ineligible for the presidency — a number sure to grow substantially. Among them are 30,000 members of the U.S. armed forces who risk life and limb to defend those enjoying first-class citizenship.

Though I really don’t see any great need for it, this one I don’t see doing much harm. With today’s modern media and technology, there’s really no chance of an agent of a foreign power winning a national election. The scrutiny is simply too intense and the publics access to information too great. I wouldn’t be upset if this we enacted, but it’s hardly reason to scrap the Constitution. Sabato concludes by stating that he’s “barely scratch the surface in identifying long-delayed constitutional reforms.” If he wasn’t going to list all his arguments, he could have at least picked his best ones. If these are his best, color me unimpressed.

I have a better idea than Sabato. Rather than throwing out the best Constitution ever written, let’s throw out all those laws that blatantly ignore it.

Here is a transcript from Freep.com of the debates. I’m posting the selected portions of the first segment, cleaning up some of the transcription oddities, and the answers I would give (the correct ones). Still, it is rather lengthy, so it isn’t all going on the main page.

BARTIROMO: The economy is America’s greatest strength. In a recent poll by the Wall Street Journal and NBC News, two-thirds of the American people said that we are either in a recession or headed toward one. Do you agree with that? And, as president, what will you do to ensure economy vibrancy in this country?

THOMPSON: I think there is no reason to believe that we’re headed for a recession. We’re enjoying 22 quarters of successive economic growth that started 2001 and then further in 2003 with the tax cuts that we put in place. We’re enjoying low inflation. We’re enjoying low unemployment. The stock market seems to be doing pretty well.

I see no reason to believe we’re headed for an economic downturn.

As far as the economic prosperity of the future is concerned, I think it’s a different story. I think if you look at the short term, it’s rosy. I think if you look at a 10-year projection, it’s rosy.

But we are spending money we do not have. We are on a mandatory spending lockdown that is pushing us in a direction that is unsustainable. We’re spending the money of future generations, and those yet to be born. That has to do with our mandatory spending problem.

Everyone knows that we have to address that. And it’s the fundamental and foremost challenge, I think, facing our country economically.

Much as with global warming, consensus does not mean fact, and opinions are not reality. By definition of a recession as two consecutive quarters of negative growth, I’d have to say we’re not in one. So yes, I disagree with the two thirds of those polled. Secondly, as president it wouldn’t be my job to be the caretaker of the economy. What you’re implying is some level of management over what should be a laissaz-faire free market economy. Quite honestly, any move in that direction is a bad idea in my opinion.

BARTIROMO: Senator, you painted a very nice picture. The Dow and the S&P 500 today at new highs — tonight — record numbers. And, yet, two-thirds of the people surveyed said we are either in a recession or headed for one.

Why the angst?

THOMPSON: Well, I think there are pockets in the economy that, certainly, they’re having difficulty. I think they’re certainly — those in Michigan that are having difficulty. I think you always find that in a vibrant, dynamic economy.

I think that not enough has been done to tell what some call the greatest story never told, and that is that we are enjoying a period of growth right now and we should acknowledge what got us there and continue those same policies on into the future.

I have no idea why people in the most wealthy country in the world insist on seeing economic hardship forever just over the horizon. Maybe it is some sort of willful denial of reality in order to demonize republicans, or to gain support for social programs. Maybe for some inexplicable reason they still actually believe the mainstream media. Really, I have no clue

BARTIROMO: Governor Romney, here in Detroit, Michigan, alone, one in every 29 homes went into foreclosure in the first six months of the year. Whose job is it to fix this problem? The government or private enterprise?

ROMNEY: It’s everybody’s job. It’s inexcusable that Michigan is undergoing a one-state recession, that the rest of the country is growing and seeing low levels of unemployment, but Michigan is seeing ongoing, high levels of unemployment, almost twice the national rate. Industry is shrinking here, jobs are going away. This is just unacceptable. And, therefore, everyone’s going to have to come together to solve the problem.

And that means, from the president’s standpoint, the president’s going to have to stand up and say — you know what? — to the auto industry: The door’s always open. We’re ongoing to work with you and make sure that you have a listening ear and someone who will participate with labor and with management.

Number two, we’re going to make sure that we invest in technology and research. A lot of that relate into energy, fuels, automotive research like material sites to help boost Michigan once again.

We’re going to have to fix the schools, as Newt Gingrich pointed out. 22 percent of Detroit kids don’t — excuse me, 22 percent graduate from high school. That’s unacceptable.

We’re also going to have to do a better job keeping our taxes down. Jennifer Granholm has made a big mistake by raising taxes. I was, frankly, a little nervous to — about being here tonight. I figured she was going to pot a tax on the debate before we got finished.

(LAUGHTER)

ROMNEY: So…

(APPLAUSE)

And we’re going to have to go to work, as well, to make sure that there’s a level playing field around the world, as we compete, to make sure that American goods are pushing into other markets, but goods coming overseas aren’t getting an advantage, as they do now, with embedded taxes.

There’s a lot we can do to strengthen Michigan. And in some respects, what Michigan is seeing, the entire nation is going to see, unless we take action now to get Michigan stronger.

Whose job is it to fix the problem of houses going into forclosure? Is this a serious question? You’re really serious about this? Okay… well, I hear rumors that once upon a time people didn’t buy beyond their means, that they actually considered terms to agreements, and that they didn’t let desire or a sense of deservedness overrule financial sanity. So to answer your question, it isn’t up to the government or private industry to fix this problem, this problem belongs to individuals.

Matthews:Congressman Paul, I think you have questions and concerns about the bonanza in the hedge fund industry. Do you?

PAUL: Yes. I think this is not a consequence of free markets. What’s happening is, there’s transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class to the wealthy. This comes about because of the monetary system that we have. When you inflate a currency or destroy a currency, the middle class gets wiped out.

So the people who get to use the money first which is created by the Federal Reserve system benefit. So the money gravitates to the banks and to Wall Street.

That’s why you have more billionaires than ever before. Today, this country is in the middle of a recession for a lot of people. Michigan knows about it. Poor people know about it. The middle class knows about it. Wall Street doesn’t know about it. Washington, D.C., doesn’t know about it.

But it’s because of the monetary system and the excessive spending. As long as we live beyond our means we are destined to live beneath our means.

And we have lived beyond our means because we are financing a foreign policy that is so extravagant and beyond what we can control, as well as the spending here at home.

And we’re depending on the creation of money out of thin air, which is nothing more than debasement of the currency. It’s counterfeit. And it is a natural, predictable consequence that you’re going to have people benefit from it and other people suffer.

So, if you want a healthy economy, you have to study monetary theory and figure out why it is that we’re suffering. And everybody doesn’t suffer equally, or this wouldn’t be so bad.

It’s always the poor people — those who are on retired incomes — that suffer the most. But the politicians and those who get to use the money first, like the military industrial complex, they make a lot of money and they benefit from it.

This isn’t an answer, just a note. I was tempted to remove what Congressman Paul said and replace it with <insert democrat talking points>, but I figure the more people that see how completely bonkers this guy is, the better.

Now for the answer. It isn’t the president’s job to set monetary policy. That falls to the legislature and to the Fed.

See how easy that was Ron? No class warfare involved!

MATTHEWS: Thank you, Congressman.

(APPLAUSE)

BARTIROMO: Senator McCain, what about that? How are you going to win the middle class back?

Wall Street executives are making millions of dollars every year, paying tax rates of 15 percent, while the average guy out there is paying 30 percent in taxes.

Is this system fair?

MCCAIN: Everybody is paying taxes and wealth creates wealth. And the fact is that I would commend to your reading, Ron, “Wealth of Nations,” because that’s what this is all about. A vibrant economy creates wealth. People pay taxes. Revenues are at an all time high.

What’s the problem? It’s not just here in Michigan. It’s in the heartland of America. We’re losing industrial jobs and we’re not taking care of those who are left behind.

Every town hall meeting that I have people say, “I don’t know if I’m going to have health insurance or now.” We’re going to have to bring costs under control of health care if we’re going to assure people that they’re going to have retirement and they’re going to be able to have the much needed medical care that they are — need, as
they grow older. The fact is that Social Security is going broke.

The fact is that Medicare is going broke. That’s a little straight talk and we’ve got to fix it.

And we have to get spending under control and we Republicans who came to power in 1994 to change government, government changed us.

And unless we get spending under control and eliminate all this waste and pork-barrel spending, the latest is this public works, $21 billion worth of pork barrel projects in public works, which the president should veto.

Another one he should veto is the SCHIP program, which he should say, “Take the ‘C’ out of, because now it’s for everybody, like every other entitlement program.” And, by the way, a dollar a pack increase for cigarettes? So we want to take care of children’s health and we want everybody to smoke? I don’t get it.

And we’ve got to get wasteful spending under control.

(APPLAUSE)

BARTIROMO: So you’re saying, Senator — so you’re saying the system is fair?

My question was: Is the system fair?

MCCAIN: Sure, it’s fair.

Should we — because the bulk of the taxes are paid by wealthy people. Should we reform our tax code, which is completely broken, which no one understands, no living American understands? Absolutely, we should fix our tax code.

And we should fix it immediately. And we should have Congress either vote up or down on a freer, fairer, simpler tax code.

(APPLAUSE)

And I believe that Americans deserve that.

No, the system isn’t fair. And whats more, its unfair across the board. Government takes far too much money from taxpayers. It’s also not the president’s job to fix the system. I lay this one directly at the feet of congress.

MATTHEWS: Great transition. Governor Huckabee, tell us about your fair tax. You’re going to get rid of the IRS. You’re going to have a, basically, consumer tax.

Won’t that discourage spending?

The American economy seems to always be driven by people buying things, maybe, they can’t even afford. If you put a tax on spending, as opposed to income, won’t that encourage people to hoard their money, rather than spend it…

HUCKABEE: Now, Chris…

MATTHEWS: … and hurt the economy?

HUCKABEE: You know Americans better than that. Nothing’s going to discourage them from spending money.

(LAUGHTER)

Just go to any shopping center on Saturday. You’ll find that people aren’t having to be begged to go spend money.

No, the fair tax does something that is absolutely phenomenal for the economy: It untaxes productivity.

It untaxes those things which we export. It means that for the first time in a long time in this country, instead of exporting our jobs, we’ll actually be exporting products that we make in America, and we’ll be able to make sure that there’s a level playing field.

It ends the underground economy that right now makes it so that folks like us end up paying taxes, but drug dealers don’t; illegalsdon’t; prostitutes and pimps, they don’t. But we do.

You know, a lot of people are going to be watching this debate, they’re going to hear Republicans on this stage talk about how great the economy is. And, frankly, when they hear that they’re going to probably reach for the dial.

I want to make sure people understand that for many people on this stage the economy’s doing terrifically well, but for a lot of Americans it’s not doing so well. The people who handle the bags and make the beds at our hotels and serve the food, many of them are having to work two jobs.

And that’s barely paying the rent. And you know what else? They don’t think that they can afford for their kids to go to college. They’re pretty sure they’re not going to be able to afford health insurance.

And so I hope, in the course of this, we can talk about how a fair tax really lifts up everybody, including those at the bottom of the economic spectrum and untaxes the poor people in our culture.

I personally support the fair tax as a small step in the right direction, but once again, it isn’t the president’s job to be legislator in chief. It also isn’t the president’s, or government’s job to encourage or discourage behavior in regards to an individual’s spending habits.

Senator Brownback, are you prepared to say, categorically, that under a Brownback administration, there will not be a tax increase?

BROWNBACK: Yes.

And I’d like to use the rest of my answer — and time — to talk about some other things.

(LAUGHTER)

Because, clearly, the last thing we need to do is raise taxes in this country. Currently, the country now, the average citizen works until the first part, the middle of May, just to pay their taxes. We’re taxed to the max.

And I think it’s not enough just to say I’m not going to raise taxes. What should we go to differently? Because the current tax code really is an abomination. People don’t understand it, it’s manipulative, it’s Washington trying to direct people’s lives.

So I put forward a proposal of an optional flat tax. And putting that on the table, saying, “OK, you can pick this — if you want to stay in the code, go ahead, God bless you. But here’s an optional flat tax.”

16 countries around the world have gone to the flat tax. Nobody has gone back away from it, because it creates growth, it creates growth in the economy, and it increases revenue for the government.

And we also — we have to get spending under control. Here you’ve got to change the system. And I’ve been around it long enough to see that Republicans or Democrats in control, the system is built to spend.

Our constituents come in all the time to my office and they say, “I’m a conservative, but could we have this bridge? How about this hospital?” They never say, “We’ve got too much federal money. Would you please cut it?” Nobody has ever told me that.

So I think we need to take that BRAC military process for base-closing, apply it to the rest of government.

So you have an annual process for culling federal spending, that requires a vote of Congress.

I would be unwilling to sign into law a tax increase, and it would take an override by congress.

BARTIROMO: So name one program you would cut.

BROWNBACK: The advanced technology program would be a good one to start with. It goes toward high-end spending, corporate welfare programs. There’s an abundance of those that we’ve gone at. I worked with Senator McCain; a number of us did.

But cutting spending is tough to do because you’ve always got somebody pushing back and seeking more.

That’s why you’ve got to change the system, so that it regularly requires a vote of Congress on things to cut. That’s what will actually reduce spending.

Only one? Once again I’m going to say that you should look to congress for answers on this. Personally I’d be delighted to see all social programs cut. I don’t believe that the federal government should be a charity… a charity with forced donations. I’d even take opting out of programs (and keeping the taxes that would otherwise go into such programs), as a small step in the right direction.

HARWOOD: Senator Thompson, in the kind of dynamic economy that you mentioned lots of new jobs are created, but a lot of jobs are lost as well. The Bureau of Labor Statistic says three-fourths of manufacturing workers who lose their jobs and get new ones see their incomes go down.

How would you explain to those people that their shrinking American dream is the price of progress, and what would you do to help them?

THOMPSON: Well, in a dynamic economy there are jobs lost and there are jobs gained, and so far there have been more jobs gained. And to put up barriers and say that so-and-so cannot lose a job would be the wrong thing to do in a free market economy. It’s been so well for us. It’s made us the most prosperous nation in the history of the world.

But there’s some things that you can recognize about the manufacturing industry and how important it is to us and how we can do something for the industry to help them hire more people and keep the wheels rolling.

Government policies, in terms of taxing and spending and regulation — the manufacturing industry is, in large part, an international industry, nowadays, which means prices are set internationally.

Manufacturers cannot do much about that, but they get hit with costs, domestically. We can do a lot about their costs, in terms of taxes and regulation.

We have the second highest corporate tax penalty in the world. We need to do better than that. We need to open up foreign markets. A lot of them are closing their markets to our people. Our people are not afraid to compete, if the markets are open and the currency’s not devalued.

It is the job of neither the president nor the government at large to manage employment or wages. This will probably upset a certain blog owner, but I would be happy to see tarriffs imposed to offset unfair and predatory business practices from abroad.

MATTHEWS: Congressman?

HUNTER: Yes, let me answer that. You know, Senator Thompson, there is one place where the federal government has a role in manufacturing. And that’s ensuring that everybody’s playing by the rules.

Now, when Communist China devalues their currency by 40 percent, they undercut American products around the world. They undercut them so low that we can’t even pay for the cost of materials and meet their prices.

Now, that has put 1.8 million working Americans out of work. And that job, the job of enforcing those rules, is the president’s job. That’s what I intend to do.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask Senator McCain, you know, when a lot of us grew up, in the late ’50s and early ’60s, a young guy could come out of high school, marry his girlfriend from school, get a job at a big industrial plant making planes or making subways, and provide for a family with a middle-class income and his spouse wouldn’t have to work.

Will we ever go back to that world again?

MCCAIN: I’d like to say yes, Chris, but I think we are in the midst of a revolution that we haven’t seen since the industrial revolution. A lot of people don’t know that 50,000 Americans now make their living off eBay.

We know that people have been left behind. We know that the tax code is eminently unfair. We know that one of the big problems right here in Detroit is that when they — before they turn a wrench on a new care it’s a $1,700 legacy cost for health care for their retired employees. For Toyota, it’s $200.

We’re going to have to fix health care. We’re going to have to fix Social Security. And this line about it’s just discretionary spending that’s a problem — the problem is, my friend, the American people no longer have trust and confidence in us that we will fix anything. As president, I’ll fix them.

And the point is, that we need to have job retraining programs. We need to go to the community colleges. We even need, if you’re a senior laid-off worker, who gets another job, to make up in compensation for the amount of money that’s the difference between the job that they lost.

We have to fix these programs.

But, first, we’ve got to go to the American people with clean hands. We’ve got to tell them, we’ve stopped spending $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana. I don’t know if that’s a paternity issue or a criminal issue.

(LAUGHTER)

MCCAIN: I’ve got — we’ve got to tell him that we will not spend $2 billion on an aircraft tanker which I was able to stop and save the taxpayers $2 billion because of this incredible, extravagant waste in defense spending today, which is the biggest part of our budget.

None of my business. How families choose to structure themselves isn’t any of government’s business. Regarding the possiblity, sure. Get on your congressmen and senators to cut taxes and it could be possible for a lot more families.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

Ugh… no more! Basically my point with this was that currently the powers of the presidency go far beyond what they’re intended to be. The president isn’t supposed to be the chief legislator, the country’s accountant, or the authority figure telling us that cigarettes are bad for us. The fact that none of the republican candidates even brought up the question of what falls under the powers and responsibilities of the president makes the nomination of any of them a rather dubious proposal. Just once I’d have liked to have heard “I’d be happy to give my opinion, but as a matter of policy I don’t believe I have the authority under article II of the constitution to push my personal opinion into the lawbooks”.

Still, I’d take all most some of them over any of the democrat candidates.

Democratic Operation “Critics Be Silent” is getting into full swing. Sending loud and clear the message that “Americans have the freedom to speak their mind if and when we say they do” the Soros funded thought police have expanded their list of the condemned to include radio hosts Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin, in addition to Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. These men are dangerous to the left’s mastery of the electorate’s ignorance and so must be destroyed.

According to the American Spectator, Representative Henry Waxman from the crazy westerland has tasked his investigative inquisitory staff to gather intelligence on these radio talkers. No doubt the thousands of hours of transcripts available will provide endless fodder for cherry-picking and taking quotes out of context. Once satisfied they’ve manufactured enough inflammatory lies and attributed them to their ideological opponents, they will then use these “wingnut dossiers” to bolster their case for legislating government control over basically any speech they find disagreeable. Because let’s face it, this won’t end with a few conservative talk shows. Once they’ve thrown the bill of rights out the window in favor of arbitrary bureaucratic regulation of political speech everyone is fair game.

Rep. Henry Waxman has asked his investigative staff to begin compiling reports on Limbaugh, and fellow radio hosts Sean Hannity and Mark Levin based on transcripts from their shows, and to call in Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin Martin to discuss the so-called “Fairness Doctrine.”

“Limbaugh isn’t the only one who needs to be made uncomfortable about what he says on the radio,” says a House leadership source. “We don’t have as big a megaphone as these guys, but this all political, and we’ll do what we can to gain the advantage. If we can take them off their game for a while, it will help our folks out there on the campaign trail.“

The kind of hypocrisy we’re seeing here from the democratic party is off the scale. We’re programmed to believe that they left dominates in matters of civil rights and is all about the little guy. And here we have elected officials sending out operatives in an effort to bring the weight of government down on a few individuals who dare oppose them.

The hypocrisy goes deeper. In late 2005, several house members, including Waxman, signed a letter of complaint to Dennis Haster about NSA wiretapping of terrorists. The letter included the following:

“We believe that the President must have the best possible intelligence to protect the American people, but that intelligence must be produced in a manner consistent with our Constitution and our laws, and in a manner that reflects our values as a nation,” the letter says.

So the President shouldn’t eavesdrop on Al Qaeda phoning their operatives in the U.S. But sending out Washington cronies to track what law abiding American citizens have to say about their government is A-OK. How is that consistent with our constitution? It isn’t. How does that reflect the values of our nation? It doesn’t. It reflects only what power hungry liberals value: power and control.

Now think back to Whitewater. Webb Hubbell, a Clinton crony, served 18 months for fraud related to the scandal. Rep. Dan Burton, Republican, chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, released transcripts of recorded phone conversations between Hubbell and his wife. Henry Waxman wrote a letter to Burton condemning him for, get this, releasing only selected parts of the transcript to make it sound as if he was implicating the Clintons. (Sound familiar?) From USA Today, May 4, 1998:

Democrats say the Republican chairman of a House
oversight committee pursued a vendetta against Bill and Hillary
Rodham Clinton by selectively releasing transcripts of a Whitewater
figure’s taped jailhouse conversations.

“Your actions suggest . . . you are out of control and fulfilling
the promise you made two weeks ago to ‘get’ the president,” Rep.

Henry Waxman wrote Sunday to Indiana Rep. Dan Burton, chairman
of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee.

Waxman, D-Calif., said Burton “apparently unilaterally altered”
transcripts of taped telephone conversations that Clinton friend
Webb Hubbell had with his wife, Suzy, while he was in prison.

I highly doubt Waxman intends to similarly criticize Media Matters, et. al. for their out of context vendetta against Rush Limbaugh. Indeed, I think it’s clear that Waxman intends to jump on board. There is no means too shameful for democrats when the end is unilateral control of the entire media.

Leak Severed a Link to Al-Qaeda’s Secrets

A small private intelligence company that monitors Islamic terrorist groups obtained a new Osama bin Laden video ahead of its official release last month, and around 10 a.m. on Sept. 7, it notified the Bush administration of its secret acquisition. It gave two senior officials access on the condition that the officials not reveal they had it until the al-Qaeda release.

Within 20 minutes, a range of intelligence agencies had begun downloading it from the company’s Web site. By midafternoon that day, the video and a transcript of its audio track had been leaked from within the Bush administration to cable television news and broadcast worldwide.

The founder of the company, the SITE Intelligence Group, says this premature disclosure tipped al-Qaeda to a security breach and destroyed a years-long surveillance operation that the company has used to intercept and pass along secret messages, videos and advance warnings of suicide bombings from the terrorist group’s communications network.

This is absolutely inexcusable. The refusal of this White House to vigorously pursue leaks of sensitive national security material has lead to an environment where Washington officials, staff or bureaucrats can seriously harm the efforts of those working to protect America with impunity. One can’t help but wonder if this wasn’t done because of the fact that SITE is a private institution. Whoever leaked this material should be put in jail. It’s time to take leaks of secret information seriously.

The Democrats are continuing with their usual efforts to use their governmental authority to intimidate and silence critics. In complete defiance of the most basic of American principles, as articulated in the First Amendment, congressional Democrats are using taxpayer money to attack those who disagree with them in the public sphere in a blatant and unethical effort to advance their party.

Rep. Henry Waxman has asked his investigative staff to begin compiling reports on Limbaugh, and fellow radio hosts Sean Hannity and Mark Levin based on transcripts from their shows, and to call in Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin Martin to discuss the so-called “Fairness Doctrine.”

“Limbaugh isn’t the only one who needs to be made uncomfortable about what he says on the radio,” says a House leadership source. “We don’t have as big a megaphone as these guys, but this all political, and we’ll do what we can to gain the advantage. If we can take them off their game for a while, it will help our folks out there on the campaign trail.“

So who will investigate this blatant abuse of authority? Which media outlets will decry this “chill” on free speech? I’m not holding my breath that any will step up to the plate.

The last “Cold Case” episode on CBS depicted fundamentalist Muslim teens stoning a girl for engaging in sexually promiscuous activity. Maybe the entertainment industry is wising up a little bit to the kinds of torment women face in the Muslim world.

Actually, they’re not. Because I lied. The episode wasn’t about Muslims. It was about Christian teens in an abstinence club killing one of their own to keep their hypocritical sexual activity under wraps. It was also about the negative effects of abstinence education.

You should stock up on water and non-perishable food items to ride out the inevitable civil unrest this will cause within the restive Christian community. They’re very sensitive about this Christianophobia stuff, you know.

See Also: Christianophobic ad sparks riots in San Fransisco

Following a White House call for approval of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Senate seems heading toward ratifying this long defunct treaty. So what is the Law of the Sea Treaty, what does it do and should we support it?

Simply, the treaty defines who controls the seas and its resources and provides a mechanism for resolving disputes over those issues. A certain numbers of miles off the coast of a nation belong to that nation. A certain number of miles beyond that is a province of exclusive economic, but not territorial, control for that nation. The rest, international waters, are controlled by the UN body which decides who gets to make use of its resources. In reading the text of the treaty, it doesn’t take long for the red flags to be raised. From the Preamble:

Recognizing the desirability of establishing through this Convention, with due regard for the sovereignty of all States, a legal order for the seas and oceans which will facilitate international communication, and will promote the peaceful uses of the seas and oceans, the equitable and efficient utilization of their resources, the conservation of their living resources, and the study, protection and preservation of the marine environment,

Bearing in mind that the achievement of these goals will contribute to the realization of a just and equitable international economic order which takes into account the interests and needs of mankind as a whole and, in particular, the special interests and needs of developing countries, whether coastal or land-locked,

Thanks to historic use of “equitable” as a weapon for socialists, it’s rare that it is possible for resources to be utilized both efficiently and “equitably” at the same time. The Soviet Union learned this the hard way. Whenever you see something like “equitable” used in a situation like these, ask yourself two key questions. Who decides what is equitable and how is having such authority not central planning?

And just what are the “special interests and needs of developing countries”? Are these interests in conflict with developed countries? If so, how much will we be asked to sacrifice for these “developing” countries, who always seem to be in a perpetual state of “development” and yet never manage to actually become developed?

We also see mention of environmental interests, which raises further important questions. Will these interests take precedence over all other considerations as environmentalists, usually getting their way, typically demand?

To answer at least some of these questions, let’s see what various policy experts and affected interests have to say about the treaty.

The Navy is completely supportive of the treaty. In a prepared statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Admiral Patrick Walsh, Vice Chief of Naval Operations, states simply that he supports the treaty because it “helps our Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airmen and Coast Guardsmen do their job,” and that he believes “our Navy can better protect the United States and the American people if we join the Law of the Sea Convention.”

Admiral Walsh notes four specific benefits, only capable of being provided by “binding treaty law”, granted by the treaty that are of benefit to our Armed Forces:

1 The Right of Innocent Passage, which allows ships to transit through foreign territorial seas without providing the coastal State prior notification or gaining the coastal State?s prior permission.

2 The Right of Transit Passage, which allows ships, aircraft, and submarines to transit through, over, and under straits used for international navigation and the approaches to those straits.

3 The Right of Archipelagic Sealanes Passage, which, like transit passage, allows transit by ships and aircraft through, over, and under normal passage routes in archipelagic states, such as Indonesia.

4 The right of high seas freedoms, including overflight and transit within the Exclusive Economic Zone.

In addition to these benefits, Admiral Walsh also points to the expansive claims of certain foreign nations:

The Convention also allows us to exercise high seas freedoms in foreign exclusive economic zones, including conducting military activities without coastal state interference. And this is important—the single most contentious issue in oceans law and policy today is the attempt by some foreign coastal States to treat the exclusive economic zone ? or EEZ ? like a territorial sea. The Convention makes clear that coastal States enjoy resource rights within the EEZ, but they do not enjoy and may not assert full sovereignty within the EEZ.

Admiral Vernon Clark, former Chief of Naval Operations, offers a similar assessment:

The Law of the Sea Convention supports our ability to operate wherever, whenever, and however needed under the authority of widely accepted law. The Convention codifies the right to transit through, over, and under essential international straits and archipelagic water. It reaffirms the sovereign immunity of our warships and other public vessels. It provides a framework to counter excessive claims of states that seek illegally to expand their maritime jurisdiction and restrict the movement of vessels of other States in international and other waters. And it preserves our right to conduct military activities and operations in exclusive economic zones without the need for permission from or prior notice to foreign governments.

Also appearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, President of the Center for Security Studies Frank Gaffney warns of supranational agencies wielding too much power.

LOST?s Transnationalist architects have long sought to build up supranational agencies. This treaty allows them to do so in unprecedented ways by: conferring on LOST ?organs? responsibility for regulating seven-tenths of the planet (i.e., the world?s oceans and the vast natural resources to be found in and below them); levying what are tantamount to international taxes; and imposing mandatory and un-appealable decisions in disputes that may arise involving parties to the Treaty.

To date, the full, malevolent potential of the Law of the Sea Treaty has been more in prospect than in evidence. Should the United States accede to LOST, however, it is predictable that the Treaty?s agencies will: wield their powers in ways that will prove very harmful to American interests; intensify the web of sovereignty-sapping obligations and regulations being promulgated by this and other UN entities; and advance inexorably the emergence of supranational world government.

Heritage also warns of UN corruption:

When international bureaucracies are unaccountable they, like all unaccountable institutions, seek to insulate themselves from scrutiny and become prone to corruption. The International Seabed Authority Secretariat is vulnerable to the same corrupt practices that have been present at the U.N. for years. The most pertinent example of this potential for corruption is the United Nations Oil-for-Food scandal, in which the Iraqi government benefited from a system of bribes and kickbacks involving billions of dollars and 2,000 companies in nearly 70 countries. Despite ample evidence of the U.N.?s systemic weaknesses and vulnerability to corruption, the U.N. General Assembly has yet to adopt the reforms to increase transparency and accountability proposed by former Secretary-General Kofi Annan and others. This example is particularly pertinent considering that the Authority could oversee significant resources through fees and charges on commercial activities within its authority and potentially create a system of royalties and profit sharing.

Doug Bandow, writing for the CATO Institute, calls the treaty “collectivist in nature and inimical to U.S. interests.”

Most objectionable is Section XI, that portion of the treaty governing seabed mining. The provisions of Section XI may have the effect of forever discouraging such operations, even where there might be huge benefits. Regulations are to be administered through a complicated system of committees and agencies within the International Seabed Authority, a creation of the United Nations that has ultimate jurisdiction over the agreement.

Funding for the ISA, and for enforcement of the LOST, would flow disproportionately from the United States. The ISA?s current budget is modest, but the revised agreement changed none of the underlying institutional incentives that bias virtually every international organization, most obviously the UN itself, toward extravagance.

In his report, Bandow also points out that even with the treaty, we’ll still have to actively protect our navigation rights. The treaty has not prevented signatories - such as Brazil, China, India, Pakistan or North Korea - from making the kinds of expansive claims mentioned by Admiral Clark as a reason for ratification.

Jeremy Rabkin of the Competitive Enterprise Institute is opposed to the lose of sovereignty:

In the past, the United States has jealously guarded its national sovereignty. It has never agreed to treaties under which new standards can be imposed, without express U.S. consent, by the decision of international bureaucrats or by coalitions of hostile?and potentially hostile?nations. What the United States does do in many areas it should do in regards to this treaty?assert its rights under customary international law. The Law of the Sea treaty is not necessary to secure claims which the U.S. already makes on this basis (regarding economic rights in U.S. coastal waters and rights of passage elsewhere). It is a dangerous concession to international fashion to accept the idea that U.S. rights are dependent on the approval of shifting majorities of other nations.

The National Center for Public Policy Research raises similar objections in a recent press release.

On balance, the risks of the treaty seem to outweigh the benefits, which are marginal at best. Signing doesn’t absolve us of having to combat the expansionist claims of other nations, but will expose us to the same kind of attacks that have plagued so many other UN bodies. So much power in a regulatory body populated by the usual thuggish dictators bent on eroding American power is a prescription for disaster. Senate Republicans need to oppose this treaty and protect American sovereignty.

How can one tell the difference between popular and controversial? Well, if we take the example of media organizations like Reuters, it’s simple. If Republicans oppose something then it’s popular, but when Democrats oppose something it’s controversial (another). Never mind that tough immigration controls actually were popular, while most people probably haven’t even heard of SCHIP.

More on how media is covering the democrats latest political stunt here.