A Nation of Immigrants

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free... Rudolf and Emilie Potz would have been greatly moved by Emma Lazarus' sincere words, had they understood them, as they landed on U.S. soil in 1952. Exhausted from a two-week voyage as passengers on the lower level of a cargo ship with their two young daughters, America was the opportunity, challenge, and hope of their lives. They had survived what millions of Germans, including their baby daughter, had not. After working at a concentration camp in Siberia, Emilie and just 10 others—out of an original 500—lived through near starvation and two harsh winters. Rudolf, drafted by the German army, ended World War II as a prisoner of war in Serbia.

Doubtful that the other was still alive, the couple found each other through the International Red Cross, six years after their last meeting. The reunited Potz family, like millions of "displaced persons" left without a home when Europe's borders were redrawn, applied for immigration to the United States. A Baptist church in New Haven, CT, sponsored the four Germans, providing their passenger fare, temporary housing, and a full-time job for Rudolf. Grateful for the church's generosity, the Potz family became long-time members of the congregation. Rudolf worked diligently—for the next thirty years—as a doorman at the telephone company. After completing their family with the births of two sons, they soon bought their first home. Today, the Potz children and grandchildren are grateful for Rudolf and Emilie's perseverance and legacy.

For hundreds of years, individuals and families have overcome obstacles to pursue America's offer of freedom and opportunity. The United States admits between 700,000 and 900,000 legal immigrants annually, while a growing 500,000 enter illegally. President Bush and members of the U.S. Congress have advocated that illegal immigrants be rewarded with citizenship, yet millions who bring needed skills, education, and respect for our process and laws are turned away. Lazarus' poem represents hope to newcomers, yet those who request entrance offer America much in return.

In addition to supporting an immigration policy that protects our nation's borders, Americans should consider the numerous positive, unique instances of foreigners becoming loyal citizens. Though extraordinary, the Potz family's immigration story is just one of millions that shaped the United States. What is your story? What is your family's story? In sharing these accounts, Americans honor not only their own heritage, but remind each other of the hard-working, determined, and grateful pioneers that made our country great.

Traditional Catholics going the way of the Dodo?

Favazza says not so fast. Click the link for more on the Washington Time's survey of American Catholicism as well as Fav's thorough analysis of the survey's findings.

Evil squirrels undermining Iranian regime

Be very afraid...

Is Reid's TP really that thick?

Via Memeorandum, I would be shocked if Think Progress hadn't shown itself to be such a disingenuous shill in the past.

TP's post is about Harry Reid's evasion of the following question:

"Do you think the Iraqi people will be safer with US troops out?"

Pretty straightforward. "Yes" would work. "No," too. But Reid, visibly uncomfortable, retreats from the question after an uneasy pause, leaving Chuck Schumer to dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge in the background and TP to, well, cover Reid's behind after the fact.

TP shills:

In fact, as the ABC segment showed, Reid did answer the question, telling Tapper: “It is clear that the Iraqi people don’t want us there. It is clear that there is now a state of chaos in Iraq, and it is up to the Iraqi people to make themselves safe.”

Funny, that's not actually an answer to the question that was posed to him. If we'll recall: "Do you think the Iraqi people will be safer with US troops out?" Don't see an "I think" or "I believe" in there at all.

Let's go to the tape for confirmation:

Why so evasive, Senator? Sort of begs a follow up question: Does Reid just keep his thoughts to himself about what's going on in Iraq?

Uh, no.

TP, for its part, goes on to defend a position Reid never took for himself.

These talking points have been refuted time and again. Numerous military and diplomatic analysts argue that withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq would in fact “prevent Iraq’s multiple sectarian conflicts from spreading beyond its borders and gives Iraq and its neighbors the right incentive to help resolve Iraq’s internal conflicts.”

So Reid thinks...?

Fact is, Reid doesn't say the Iraqis will be safer because he knows that they won't be. If he thought they'd be safer, he'd simply say so; Reid surfs the political winds like the best of them, but as we (and Tommy) know, he's not exactly good at making things up on the fly.

Good thing he's got double-ply to do that for him.

Ron Paul: Pre-Truther

I thought the Chertoff comment was irresponsible, but congrats Ron, you one-upped him. Apparently it's not al Qaeda we need to be concerned about; it's Dubya.

Republican presidential candidate, Rep. Ron Paul, said the country is in "great danger" of the U.S. government staging a terrorist attack or a Gulf of Tonkin style provocation, as the war in Iraq continues to deteriorate.

The Texas congressman offered no specifics nor mentioned President Bush by name, but he clearly insinuated that the administration would not be above staging an incident to revive flagging support.

"We're in danger in many ways," Paul said on the Alex Jones radio show. "The attack on our civil liberties here at home, the foreign policy that's in shambles and our obligations overseas and commitment which endangers our troops and our national defense."

Paul was asked to respond to comments by anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan that the U.S. is in danger of a staged terror attack or a provocation of an enemy similar to the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 before the Vietnam War.

During the radio interview, Paul said the government was conducting "an orchestrated effort to blame the Iranians for everything that has gone wrong in Iraq."

Good to see Ron and Cindy are on the same page.

Friday Night Culture Shot: Barbie Girl

in a way you've never heard it before. Gives me hope.

And a bonus shot:



Have a great evening.

It's a Dance Dance Revolution in Anbar province

They're celebrating a victory over al Qaeda in Iraq. I know what you're thinking... al Qaeda's in Iraq?

Apparently. (Via MyPetJawa)

Economic BOOM-SHAKA-LAKA!

I blame BushCo. That, and capitalism.

"This is far and away the strongest global economy I've seen in my business lifetime," U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson declared on a recent visit to Fortune's offices.

Lots of charts at the link, but check this one out... Note where the boom started (or alternatively, where it didn't start):

Oh yeah. We also closed at a record high for the Dow yesterday. Nearing 14,000. Not too shabby.

Not all thefts from the National Archives are created equal

or prosecuted equally. Whatever happened to Sandy, anyhow?

Millenial teens less sexually active, more likely to have safe sex

The stats are certainly going in the right directions. In view of our post about Missouri teens and the right-to-life issue, this latest report is especially fascinating.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Fewer high school students are having sex these days, and more are using condoms. The teen birth rate has hit a record low.

More young people are finishing high school, too, and more little kids are being read to, according to the latest government snapshot on the well-being of the nation's children. It's good news on a number of key wellness indicators, experts said of the report being released Friday.

"The implications for the population are quite positive in terms of their health and their well-being," said Edward Sondik, director of the National Center for Health Statistics. "The lower figure on teens having sex means the risk of sexually transmitted diseases is lower."

In 2005, 47 percent of high school students -- 6.7 million -- reported having had sexual intercourse, down from 54 percent in 1991. The rate of those who reported having had sex has remained the same since 2003.

Of those who had sex during a three-month period in 2005, 63 percent -- about 9 million -- used condoms. That's up from 46 percent in 1991.

The teen birth rate, the report said, was 21 per 1,000 young women ages 15-17 in 2005 -- an all-time low. It was down from 39 births per 1,000 teens in 1991.

Interestingly, this was predicted in 1991 in a book called Generations, cited just yesterday by USNews columnist Michael Barone (who also happened to cite the NB in his post... thanks Mike!) Of particular relevance is this passage from the authors, William Strauss and Neal Howe:

Teen pathologies—truancy, substance abuse, crime, suicide, unwed pregnancy—will all decline...Teen sex...will become less matter-of-fact and starkly physical, more romantic and friendly.

Couldn't find any stats on "truancy," but substance abuse? Down. Crime? Down. Suicide? Down.
Teen pregnancy? Well, that's what this post is largely about. And yes, down. And abortion among teens? You guessed it. Down.

You can probably guess what book I'm about to order on Half.com...

Good, good stuff. Looks like that huge swing in 18-29 year old support of the pro-life cause may have had some corollary effects. Just maybe.

The notorious openness of the Left strikes again

DailyKos says "See ya!" to Cindy Sheehan. Ace reports:

A useful idiot who is no longer useful gets purged from the movement.

I can't post here anymore because my potential run for Congress is not on the Democratic ticket.

...If Speaker Pelosi does her constitutionally mandated duty and I don't run,
then I can come back and post.

I know a lot of you are hostile towards my candidacy. Please
understand that I am doing it for your children and grandchildren
(and my surviving ones.)

Remember, it's the left that allows "colorful and far-ranging" debates on the issue while the right moves in robotic lockstep where partisan power is the only governing imperative.

Does. Not. Compute.

Breaking: House votes to pull troops out by April

Story's here. The vote? 223-201. Hope to comment on it a bit later on.

In the meantime, could the Dems please answer a simple question? Pretty straightforward.

Update 7/13 @ 12:41am: So, Missourians, how did your representatives vote? Via MissouriPulse:

• Rep. Roy Blunt: No
• Rep. Todd Akin: No
• Rep. Sam Graves: No
• Rep. Kenny Hulshof: No
• Rep. JoAnn Emerson: Yes
• Rep. Russ Carnahan: Yes
• Rep. Ike Skelton: Yes
• Rep. Emanuel Cleaver: Yes
• Rep. Lacy Clay: Yes

Lady Bird Johnson passes on at age 94

The Washington Post has the story. Briefly:

As first lady, she was perhaps best known as the determined environmentalist who wanted roadside billboards and junkyards replaced with trees and wildflowers. She raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to beautify Washington. The $320 million Highway Beautification Bill, passed in 1965, was known as "The Lady Bird Bill," and she made speeches and lobbied Congress to win its passage.

"Had it not been for her, I think that the whole subject of the environment might not have been introduced to the public stage in just the way it was and just the time it was. So she figures mightily, I think, in the history of the country if for no other reason than that alone," Harry Middleton, retired director of the LBJ Library and Museum, once said.

Our prayers are with the family.

"Gut feeling" that there's going to be an attack?

Uh, is that backed up by some intelligence?

CHICAGO — Fearing complacency among the American people over possible terror threats, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said in Chicago on Tuesday that the nation faces a heightened chance of an attack this summer.

"I believe we are entering a period this summer of increased risk," Chertoff told the Chicago Tribune's editorial board in an unusually blunt and frank assessment of America's terror threat level.

"Summertime seems to be appealing to them," he said of al-Qaida. "We do worry that they are rebuilding their activities."

Still, Chertoff said there are not enough indications of an imminent plot to raise the current threat levels nationwide. And he indicated his remarks were based on "a gut feeling" formed by past seasonal patterns of terrorist attacks, recent al-Qaida statements, and intelligence he did not disclose.

Particulars please? I don't doubt that al Qaeda is in a state of continuous plotting, but c'mon, don't say that the circumstances are right for an attack and not provide evidence backing that up. I think I could have done this interview myself and said, "Yeah, they just tried to attack the UK, so it's not outside the realm of possibilities that they'd try to attack us."

But that assessment is about as deep as Chertoff's assessment, who has stacks and stacks of intelligence to inform his opinion. Pretty sure he could cite things a bit more concretely. Anything this summer believed to be credible? Chertoff says no. So, then... that "gut feeling" comes from what?

Living under an ambiguous threat of perpetual attack makes the idea of perpetual attack less threatening, and if complacency is what Chertoff wants to head off, he's going about it the wrong way.

How do you say "ridiculous" in Chinese?

According to Google Translate, it's "可笑," but practically speaking, the answer is your own federal government.

The Feds are after Boston to provide multilingual polling services to non-English speaking voters, and according to court documents, Chinese and Vietnamese in particular. Michelle has the latest on the Chinese angle, but I'd like to point out some statistics from the Federal Government's voting rights complaint against the city back in 2005:

According to the 2000 Census, Boston has a total population of 589,141, and a citizen voting-age population of 388,579 persons. ...There are 9,825 and 4,220 Chinese and Vietnamese voting age citizens respectively among whom 50.1% [4922, or 1.3% of the voting population] of the Chinese citizen voting age population and 61.2% [2583, or .7% of the voting population] of the Vietnamese citizen voting age population are limited English proficient.

The numbers are so small that it's worth considering how many of these people actually vote (maybe half, based strictly on American voting patterns), and of those, how many could easily manage a short English-language ballot.

But it gets better; the Feds were upset in 2005 that Boston "fail[ed] to make available bilingual personnel to provide effectively assistance and information needed by minority language voters" (although the Feds apparently didn't mean all minority language voters.) The resulting settlement "requires the City of Boston to provide, for the first time, bilingual ballots, translated voting materials, and interpreters."

Boston has 22 wards and, by my count, 254 polling places, so does the city have to provide 254 translators of Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese for each election? An army of 508 catering to, at most, 7500 people?

Interestingly enough, Boston (via MM)

now prints ballots in Cantonese and Mandarin Chinese, as well as Spanish, Portuguese, Vietnamese, Creole and (coming soon, no doubt), Gaelic, Vulcan and that South African click-click language from “The Gods Must Be Crazy."

And then there's this:


So... where's Vietnamese? Portuguese? And how do you say "superfluous" or "P.C." in Creole?

I should probably give Boston a call.

Support for abortion disintegrating in bellwether Missouri

In the July/Aug edition of Reason Magazine, Radley Balko reviews "The Politics of Abortion," a new book written by Anne Hendershott. Hendershott's conclusions about the future of Roe v. Wade fit in quite nicely with the study I'm about to cite.

First: the article from Reason.

IN 1985 A prominent liberal legal figure argued that Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that established a constitutional right to an abortion, was a "heavy-handed judicial intervention" that "was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict." The writer was Ruth Bader Ginsburg, now an associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court--and also now a strong supporter of Roe.

Ginsburg isn't the only backer of abortion rights to have taken issue with the 1973 decision. In 1995, for example, the University of Chicago's Cass Sunstein, a superstar among liberal law professors, wrote in the Harvard Law Review that the high court "should have allowed the democratic processes of the states to adapt and to generate sensible solutions that might not occur to a set of judges." Roe, he argued, centralized an issue centered around privacy, reproduction, and medical ethics, all matters that traditionally have been the province of the states. Moving those moral debates to Washington forced a one-size-fits-all policy on the entire country, raising the stakes, and therefore the contentiousness, of an already divisive issue.

A new book by a staunch critic of abortion also suggests a decentralized approach. In The Politics of Abortion, the conservative sociologist Anne Hendershott offers a scathing, unabashedly polemical history of the pro-choice movement. While Hendershott leaves no ambiguity about her own position on the issue, she closes the book by calling not for more federal antiabortion laws but for returning the issue to the states. It is time to end the "superficial slogans that rally the troops but build impenetrable barriers," she writes. "Taking the discussions out of the courts and back to the realm of local policy, where we might once again debate the politics of abortion as neighbors and friends, would be a good start."

I could not agree more.

The issue of abortion has been lingering as a national concern for a quarter-century because it wasn't, and isn't, the People making a final determination on whether, what, and when abortion procedures would be permitted in their communities; it is the Supreme Court that, for the last three decades, has had nearly exclusive power over the matter, leaving a volatile issue squarely on the table of American discourse but completely outside the People's control.

Which brings us to the Midwest, where it appears national bellwether Missouri is ripe for a fresh discussion of the abortion issue. (h/t GOP Bloggers)

Over 30,000 survey interviews were conducted in the state between 1992 and 2006. Participants were asked: "On the debate over abortion policy, do you consider yourself to be pro-life, pro-choice or somewhere in between?" Those who gave a definitive answer were then asked how strongly they held their view.

Results in 1992 were largely in step with what study authors Christopher Blunt and Fred Steeper call the "self-interest hypothesis." Women and men under 30 were the most ardently "pro-choice" (39 percent) and the least likely to be strongly "pro-life"( 23 percent).

Today, by contrast, among the current generation of 18- to 29-year-olds, 36 percent say they are strongly "pro-life," while just 18 percent say they are strongly "pro-choice," the study authors said.

The trend was particularly evident among women in that age bracket. Forty 40 percent identify themselves as strongly "pro-life" and only 20 percent as strongly "pro-choice."

To briefly summarize, the data show a pretty radical swing from 1992 "very pro-life" self-IDs to 2006 self-IDs. Roughly speaking, pro-lifers have doubled in Missouri over the last 14 years; meanwhile, pro-choicers have halved in number.

I fished around the Internet and found the full report, "Turnaround on Abortion," here. Below are a few of the graphs to give you a flavor of what the study's authors found; the results are, shall we say, remarkable in their implications.


If Roe v. Wade does get reversed, it doesn't mean the end of abortion. It would, however, restore authority to the states to decide what can and cannot happen within their borders, which for a state like Missouri, would have far-reaching -- and in terms of human rights, likely positive -- consequences.

Let's hope the decision comes down very, very soon. It is time.

Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) caught in scandal of his own,

although it appears the facts that constitute occurred, and were resolved, some years ago. (via Hot Air)

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., apologized Monday night for “a very serious sin in my past” after his telephone number appeared among those associated with an escort service operated by the so-called “D.C. Madam.”…

“This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible,” Vitter said in the statement. “Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling. Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there — with God and them. But I certainly offer my deep and sincere apologies to all I have disappointed and let down in any way.”

No doubt, there will be questions about whether Vitter should resign; Dan Riehl, for one, is in that camp.

But there's a staleness about this situation that reminds me of another scandal-in-scandal... and one unusually related to the current situation: that of former speaker-elect Bob Livingston.

If you'll remember, Livingston (R-LA) resigned his post during the height of the Clinton impeachment debate after it was exposed he'd had an affair some years before, which to those that really mattered -- his wife in particular -- was already common knowledge. Nonetheless, he stepped down as an example to the President that even past indiscretions can undercut one's authority.

And who replaced Livingston as a representative? None other than David Vitter, who went on to become the Senator he is today.

Should Vitter follow Livingston's lead, not only in the Senate, but in his role as a chair in the Giuliani campaign? That's, of course, a decision he must make and, if he stays, a situation voters will have to weigh when he comes up for re-election in 2010. CQBlog thinks this could very well be a passing shame, with more phone numbers to be linked to public officials.

Regardless, situations like this undermine the public's respect for Washington (whatever's left of it,) and a long list of public officials who used the "Madam's" services will not help that degradation.

ISRAEL INVADES LEBANON

They're apparently fortifying positions three kilometers inside Lebanese territory, as well as digging hundreds of "trenches and individual bunkers." The UN has issued a condemnation of the action, citing Lebanese sovereignty.

Wait, did I say Israel invaded Lebanon? Sorry, Syria invaded Lebanon, not Israel. Last Thursday actually, with no response from the UN or, for that matter, from the world media. Michael Totten observes:

Syria can, apparently, get away with just about anything. I could hardly blame Assad at this point if he believes, after such an astonishing non-response, that he can reconquer Beirut. So far he can kill and terrorize and invade and destroy with impunity, at least up to a point. What is that point? Has anyone in the U.S., Israel, the Arab League, the European Union, or the United Nations even considered the question?

Meanwhile, the Syrian government is evacuating its citizens from Lebanon in advance of…something they expect to happen after July 15, 2007.

It’s going to be an interesting summer.

If it had been Israel, I'm pretty sure we would have heard about this by now... don't you? (Via Instapundit)

Speaking of upcoming chaos

Apparently everyone hates everyone in Iraq and Iran.

CAIRO, Egypt: The leader of an al-Qaida umbrella group in Iraq warned Iran in a new audiotape released Sunday to stop supporting Shiites in Iraq, giving leaders in the neighboring country two months to sever ties or they would face a “severe war.”

Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, who leads the Islamic State in Iraq, said his Sunni fighters have been preparing for four years to wage a battle against Shiite-dominated Iran.

“We are giving the Persians, and especially the rulers of Iran, a two month period to end all kinds of support for the Iraqi Shiite government and to stop direct and indirect intervention … otherwise a severe war is waiting for you,” he said in the 50-minute audiotape. The tape, which could not be independently verified, was posted on a Web site commonly used by insurgent groups.

This should be entertaining to say the least. No doubt, the Sunni dominated al Qaeda and Shiite dominated Iran aren't exactly bosom brothers, but geez.

Blame BushCo. It's all about Iranian oil after all.

al-Sadr scoots back into Iran

But keep in mind, Iran has nothing to do with Iraq. Never has. Never will.

al-Sadr on the other hand.... now that's a "different" story.

Those pesky facts always seem to show up

For the anti-Libbites and BushCo haters, a question: Exactly which law did the White House break that gave rise to the Valerie Plame case? As in what did they cover-up, what was the conspiracy, how was Cheney connected... I'll take any answer, really. (Properly cited, of course.)

Via Memorandum, an excerpt from Robert Novak's latest book, The Prince of Darkness:

It is important to note that Armitage reached out to me before Joe Wilson went public on the New York Times op-ed page and on "Meet the Press" with an account of his Niger report that he said contradicted 16 words in Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address: ("The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa.")

I was ushered into Armitage's big State Department inner office promptly at 3 p.m. Neither of us set ground rules for my visit. I assumed, however, that what Armitage said would not be attributed to him but would not be off the record. That is, I could write about information he gave me but would not identify him by name. During a long career, I had come to appreciate that sort of thing in countless interviews without putting it into so many words. I viewed what Armitage told me to be just as privileged as if he had made me swear a blood oath.

Armitage was giving me high-level insider gossip, unusual in a first meeting. About halfway through our session, I brought up Bush's sixteen words. What Armitage told me generally confirmed what I had learned from sources the previous day while I was reporting for the Fran Townsend column.

I then asked Armitage a question that had been puzzling me but, for the sake of my future peace of mind, would better have been left unasked.

Why would the CIA send Joseph Wilson, not an expert in nuclear proliferation and with no intelligence experience, on the mission to Niger?

"Well," Armitage replied, "you know his wife works at CIA, and she suggested that he be sent to Niger." "His wife works at CIA?" I asked. "Yeah, in counterproliferation."

He mentioned her first name, Valerie. Armitage smiled and said: "That's real Evans and Novak, isn't it?" I believe he meant that was the kind of inside information that my late partner, Rowland Evans, and I had featured in our column for so long. I interpreted that as meaning Armitage expected to see the item published in my column.

The exchange about Wilson's wife lasted no more than sixty seconds.

I never spoke to Armitage again about Wilson.

TIME profiles second richest man in the world

...as if the distinction even matters.

The piece itself, while short on revelations, is worthwhile. Gates is doing a lot with his fortune starting in 2008 when he leaves his regular role at Microsoft for his philanthropic work, and the article foreshadows some of this upcoming endeavor.

The background stuff is pretty good, too, like the part where it talks about a photo Gates took when he was 22.

He's got a flowered collar, tinted glasses and feathered blond hair, and he looks so happy, you'd swear he knew what the rest of his life was going to be like. He also has a sign around his neck: it's a mug shot. "I was out driving Paul [Allen]'s car," Gates says, flashing that same smile 30 years later. "They pulled me over, and I didn't have my license, and they put me in with all the drunks all night long. And that's why the rest of my life, I've always tried to have a fair amount of cash with me. I like the idea of being able to bail myself out." Mission accomplished.

The mugshot, from TheSmokingGun:
Take a look, if not for the life story, then for Gates's views on the future. (I'm curious to see what he means by adopting "creative capitalism;" perhaps only time will tell.)

Economy keeps going up and up

Gateway's covering it. So too is Powerline, which observes,

It's interesting to trace the grievances against the economy during the Bush administration over time. The progression goes something like this: recession; jobless recovery; the creation of too many low wage jobs; new jobs too concentrated in high paying categories.

Next stop? Conspiracy.

New Seven Wonders of the World?

Didn't even know they were taking a poll on it. (via Google Hot Trends)

LISBON (Reuters) - The Great Wall of China, Petra in Jordan and Brazil's statue of Christ the Redeemer are among the modern-day seven wonders of the world chosen in a poll of 100 million online voters, organizers said on Saturday.

The other four are Peru's Machu Picchu, the mountain settlement that symbolizes the Incan empire, Mexico's Mayan ruins at Chichen Itza, the Colosseum in Rome and the Taj Mahal in India.

The seven winners were announced at a glitzy show at Portugal's Benfica stadium following what is likely to be the biggest ever online poll at www.new7wonders.com.

Method's cool by me if there wasn't excessive spamming... although it's not like the last method was any more scientific.

Inflect, Al. Inflect your voice.

Update @ 8:37pm: Welcome Hot Air readers! Have a look around and consider adding us to your daily reading by clicking here. If you do, your wildest dreams will come true. (Also be sure to vote in the poll at right... extra dream power there.) And without further delay:

Update 7/11 @ 11:01pm: The riveting video of Al Gore addressing the DC audience was removed by YouTube. Que triste. Even without the video, my hope is that Gorezillabot runs for President and the "mystique" surrounding the man vanishes into the self-indulgent, self-righteous monotony we've all come to expect from the Almighty Goracle. Meanwhile, we still have Garth with Al keeping time in the video below. Enjoy.

Update 7/11 @ 11:16pm: And then again, we don't. Apparently all unofficially hosted Live Earth video has been removed from the Internet. Just as well; I doubt many people would be drudging Live Earth clips up to relive the event a second time anyhow. After all, so few saw it the first time.

Social cons jump on Mitt Romney for porn

Probably could have put that better. Then again, probably not.

BOSTON -- Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney, who rails against the "cesspool" of pornography, is being criticized by social conservatives who argue that he should have tried to halt hardcore hotel movie offerings during his near-decade on the Marriott board.

Two anti-pornography crusaders, as well as two conservative activists of the type Romney is courting, say the distribution of such graphic adult movies runs counter to the family image cultivated by Romney, the Marriotts and their shared Mormon faith.

"Marriott is a major pornographer. And even though he may have fought it, everyone on that board is a hypocrite for presenting themselves as family values when their hotels offer 70 different types of hardcore pornography," said Phil Burress, president of Citizens for Community Values, an anti-pornography group based on Ohio.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a leading conservative group in Washington, said: "They have to assume some responsibility. It's their hotels, it's their television sets."

Not only does FRC think that pornography is wrong for hotels to offer, but it also thinks that having pornographic material available at hotels is a prosecutable offense in itself. From last year:

A coalition of conservative groups that "strongly believe" hotel porn is prosecutable have issued an "urgent appeal" to the Department of Justice to "immediately investigate" two leading in-room adult movie distributors, RAW STORY has found.

"Pornographic movies now seem nearly as pervasive in America's hotel rooms as tiny shampoo bottles, and the lodging industry shows little concern as conservative activists rev up a protest campaign aimed at triggering a federal crackdown," David Cary reports for the Associated Press.

"Federal crackdown"? With all due respect, isn't this the sort of social engineering we complain the Left is trying to exact on the rest of us? Smoking, driving our cars, eating...

And then there's this from a statement released by the FRC on Wednesday:

The idea that pornography is a victimless crime should be consigned to the ash heap of history.

Uh, first, pornography isn't a crime. Second, what happened to the oft bally-hooed mantra of "personal responsibility" on the part of the viewer? Attacking Romney for not ending the scourge of in-room porn is of the same brand of opportunism we abhor from the Left; why should we accept it from the Right?

And that includes Romney's "railing" against porn, which I would chalk up to his wanting to appease groups like FRC and others. If he is seriously making "the porn issue" a fundamental part of his campaign, I am going to have rethink the support I've given him so far and let my libertarian feet wander. Porn's bad. We get it. Let's move on to issues that matter.

If social conservatives want to drag this issue and others -- school prayer, creationism, sexual mores, and the like -- into the primary, fine; they'll just get a candidate they'll never like, or a candidate no one will elect. Let's see if they wise up.

LA Times asks: Scandal in the mayor's office? What scandal?

Buried with an apparent eye to damage control.

Of course, newspapers have to appeal to their core readership... which in the case of the Los Angeles Times, is apparently Klingons.

Image from Newseum

From the article:

"If the public trusts you to do the right thing in your capacity as a public official on issues impacting them and their families — schools, public safety, transportation, jobs — then you can survive the personal issues regardless of whether they do or do not trust you personally," said Democratic Party operative Chris Lehane, who worked for President Clinton.

The article doesn't mention, of course, that Lehane is a political surrogate of Hillary's campaign-- which also has Villaraigosa as a campaign co-chair. Again, damage control.

Los Angeles Mayor embroiled in scandal

One known, one upcoming. Very Bill...



...so it's not surprising that he's connected to Hill's campaign. From Gateway:

Blog rumors were flying this morning that there was more to the story than what was being reported on Hillary Clinton's National Co-Chair and LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's recent affairs.

Earlier... The mainstream news reported today that the mayor's lover at Telemundo, Mirthala Salinas, was put on leave while the station investigates whether her romantic relationship with Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa breached journalistic ethics. Salinas was the reporter who broke the story of his affair on the news in LA.

Then... Lonewacko and Mayor Sam's Sister City reported this on the leak:

The story goes that the "girlfriend" of a particular member of the City Council has "disclosed" that it was none other than Mirthala Salinas herself who allegedly leaked news of the affair she was having with the Mayor. Salinas' motivation? The Mayor had allegedly already moved on to a new relationship with an unnamed Korean female developer - and as they say "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."

Gateway's got a pretty good idea of who it is, so go to him to find out.

Question: Will Villaraigosa be fired? And how does this reflect upon Hillary?

Has al Qaeda infiltrated Britain's police force?

It appears so, and apparently that won't be changing anytime soon. (h/t Hot Air)

Up to eight police officers and civilian staff are suspected of links to extremist groups including Al Qaeda....

The dossier was drawn up with the help of MI5 amid fears that individuals linked to Islamic extremism are taking advantage of police attempts to increase the proportion of ethnic staff.

Astonishingly, many of the alleged jihadists have not been sacked because - it is claimed - police do not have the "legal power" to dismiss them.

We can also reveal that one suspected jihadist officer working in the South East has been allowed to keep his job despite being caught circulating Internet images of beheadings and roadside bombings in Iraq.

He is said to have argued that he was trying to "enhance" debate about the war.

Classified intelligence reports raising concerns about police staff's background cannot be used to justify their dismissal, sources said.

Stay tuned.

Tyra Banks

Figured that would be enough to get your attention.

I got tipped off by this video that a segment featuring Tyra Banks going crazy over Vaseline existed that I had never heard of before. Could it be real?

Take a look.

Tyra Banks Goes Insane

Add to My Profile | More Videos

That's what I call "brute force excitement." Here's the video I stumbled upon that tipped me off.

Yeah. So that's all I've got. This all apparently happened at the end of last year, so my apologies for stuffing your reader with stuff you've seen before. But hey, it's still funny. And it is Tyra Banks... could have done far worse to everyone.

Lieberman: Greatest senator Conn. ever had

Actually, I don't know any of the other senators, but of the ones I'm familiar with (him,) he's tops. Side question: Not that he'd do it or that Republicans would accept it, but... would he be a viable VP candidate on a Republican ticket? Certainly has a claim to the "independent" and "liberal" mantles, throwing a curve ball into the race. Also forms a "unity ticket" within the Republican Party.

Just a thought.

HARTFORD, Connecticut (Reuters) - U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, an independent who supports Democrats in Congress despite his backing of the Iraq war, said on Thursday he was not ruling out endorsing a Republican in the White House race.

The 2000 Democratic vice presidential candidate said he also wants to see if an independent enters the crowded field of 2008 presidential hopefuls.

"I'm going to chose whichever candidate that I think will do the best job for our country, regardless of the party affiliation of that candidate," the Connecticut senator told reporters in the state capital Hartford.

Johnston to be traded for radical cleric?

That's the rumor. (h/t Jawa)

JAFFA, Israel – In exchange for the release of BBC reporter Alan Johnston, Britain told the Hamas terror group through mediators it would free from jail an extremist sheik accused of serving as al-Qaida's spiritual adviser in Europe, Palestinian sources involved in the negotiations claimed to WND.

The sheik, Abu Qatada, is accused among other things of advising 9/11 terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui and attempted shoe-bomber Richard Reid. Qatada's sermons were found among the possessions of 9/11 operational leader Mohamed Atta.

The Palestinian sources involved in the Johnston negotiations claimed the British government pledged through a third-party mediator to release Abu Qatada after six months so the release wouldn't appear connected to Johnston's freedom.

Not that he hasn't be convicted of anything...

Abu Qatada's legal team claimed in hearings last May [2006] that he would be in danger of torture or ill-treatment if he was deported. The Islamist preacher has been convicted in his absence in Jordan of involvement in a series of terror attacks. The charges he faced in Jordan carry a maximum sentence of life with hard labour.

Will update if more comes of this. May very well be six months down the road...

Quote of the Day

If 'ifs' and 'buts' were beer and nuts, we’d have a heckuva party.

- Kevin Madden, a Romney spokesman, in refusing to answer the question as to how much of his personal fortune, estimated at somewhere between $190 million and $250 million, Romney would spend on his bid for the Presidency.

Interesting note: Without Romeny's infusion of personal funds in the from of loans to his campaign he would be in financial straits similar to John McCain.

Nice hair

WaPo has the scoop.

P.S. This photo is from Edwards' "Opportunity Rocks" college tour in which it is suspicioned he used his nonprofit group to basically campaign (a big "no-no" according to the FEC).

So, two lawyers walk into a bar....

As an addendum to this post, the fictitious dialogue below, taken from The Volokh Conspiracy, functions as a plausible example of how human beings - in practice - elevate the use of emotion over logic in forming and arguing their political opinions. This is done as a means to serve a predetermined desired outcome, often in favor of a certain political party or ideology.

Two lawyers, one very liberal and the other very conservative, meet over a beer to chat about recent legal stories in the news. . . .

Lib: I've been thinking a lot about the new Supreme Court. Those new Justices are totally political — they vote the conservative way every time. I'm just glad the more liberal justices kept opposing their efforts.

Con: Funny, I've been thinking about the Libby case. The case against Libby was totally political. I'm just glad President Bush undid some of the damage.

Lib: Do you really think the case against Libby was political? What's your basis for saying that?

Con: Wait, you first. You said that the two new Justices are totally political. What's your basis for saying that?

Lib: Just look at how they voted. Alito and Roberts were on the conservative side of all those 5-4 decisions. Do you think that was a coincidence?

Con: I don't think it was a coincidence — Alito and Roberts are conservatives, so it's not too surprising. But isn't it a pretty far step to go from saying that Alito and Roberts are conservatives to saying that their decisions were purely political? Don't you have to look closely at the merits of each case to see which side is more persuasive?

Lib: Stop being an apologist. It's not really so hard. Any Justice who votes so consistently for one side in ideological cases is obviously just being political.

Con: You mean like Justices Stevens, Souter, Breyer, and Ginsburg? Each and every one of them voted for the liberal side in every single one of those ideologically divided cases. Does that mean their decisions were purely political, too?

Lib: Hmm, let me think about that. No, that's different. The Supreme Court is about helping the little guy against the powerful. The liberal Justices are following in that great tradition.

Con: I think the Supreme Court is about the law, actually. Sometimes the law favors the little guy and sometimes it favors the powerful. But when you say that "the Supreme Court is about helping the little guy," you're just pretending that decisions matching your policy views are somehow fundamental constitutional truth.

Lib: Well, it's certainly the role I think the Supreme Court should have.

Con: But isn't that just your politics speaking? You're a liberal because you think the government should help the little guy. So you embrace judicial decisions that reflect that view as being "correct." On the other hand, instead of looking at the facts and law of each case, you just dismiss judicial decisions that clash with your policy views as "purely political." It validates your worldview, but it doesn't really add anything.

Lib: Let's move on to the Libby case. Why do you think it was political?

Con: Oh, please. The Libby case was purely political from the beginning. Liberals tried to use it to indict Cheney and Rove over the Iraq war in an effort to cripple the Bush Administration. Fitzgerald was an overzealous prosecutor who was trying to do their bidding. He obviously was acting politically against the Bush Administration.

Lib: Do you have any proof that Fitzgerald had any political motives?

Con: I don't need proof. Just look at what he did. I can't think of any other explanation.

Lib: But isn't this the same reasoning you found so objectionable a minute ago? When I thought Alito and Roberts were being purely political based on the outcomes they reached, you objected that I was just saying that because it validated my worldview. And yet now you say that Fitzgerald was just being political because of the positions he took. Aren't you the one trying to validate your worldview now?

Con: Stop playing "gotcha." I know politics masquerading as law when I see it. And I see it with the Libby prosecution.

Lib: Ah, but as a wise man said not long ago, "isn't that just your politics speaking?" You support the war in Iraq and the Bush Administration. The Libby prosecution threatened the Administration and put some pretty unflattering attention on the White House and the road to the war. So instead of looking at the facts and law of the criminal case, you just dismiss it as "purely political." It validates your worldview, but it doesn't really add anything.

Sen. Domenici (R-NM) setting Iraq timetable for March

My guess is that the progress report on the surge will be less than reassuring, and at this point, "somewhat positive" isn't going to cut it. It also doesn't help that Domenici is up for re-election in 2008. Not that he's been in any trouble; InTrade has him 85% to win.

Either way, Allah has the rundown. As he observes, this may be the end game on Iraq.

Quote of the Day

It's a bit patronising for us 21 year olds to try to start to change the world. Especially when we're using enough power for 10 houses just for (stage) lighting. It'd be a bit hypocritical. Someone asked us to give a quote about...[Global Warming] and it's like 'who cares what we think about what's happening'? There's more important people who can have an opinion. Why does it make us have an opinion because we're in a band?

- Arctic Monkeys drummer Matt Helders, explaining why the group is not on the bill at any of Al Gore's Global Warming charity concerts

Change?

Shifting sands of the GOP electorate?

Stability

The national poll positions of many candidates seeking the Republican Presidential nomination stabilized according to the latest Rasmussen national poll of 624 likely Republican voters.

Additionally, not only did the positions of the candidates stabilize, but so did the extent of their support.

Number one remained Fred Thompson with 27% of the respondents favoring him. Giuliani was second with 24% and Romney was third with 13%. Rounding out the top five are McCain in fourth with 12% and Mike Huckabee with 3%.

The stories within the story pit Thompson vs. Giuliani and Romney vs. McCain.

Thompson outflanks Giuliani with a 16 point advantage over Giuliani. However, Giuliani holds a greater lead among party moderates. The nomination process might boil down to who has more influence within the party after the 2006 election, conservatives or moderates.

There have been calls by conservatives to shift the party to the right - citing a widely accepted reason of the Republican lost in 2006 was they were not conservative enough - which would presumable bode badly for Giuliani. But there have also been calls by moderates to select a candidate that can appeal to moderate voters, who often function as the swing vote in general presidential elections, as a way to increase the likelihood of a 2008 Republican Presidential victory - a call which would presumably bode poorly for Thompson.

Moving to Romney vs. McCain. Romney has thus far been unable to gain traction in the national polls. However, it is not necessary to win national polls week in and week out as this post states. But rather the nomination can be won by winning in one early primary state and translating momentum from that victory into other. Essentially, place all your eggs into one basket to get the snowball rolling down the hill. This is Romney's strategy and his best chance for success.

McCain's poll position can be summed up in one word: immigration. It is widely held that his vocal stance in favor of the unpopular immigration bill has killed his campaign. It is whispered he will exit the race by September as a result of lagging support in the polls and lackluster fundraising, all of which take root in the issue of immigration.

Emotional

Emotion (i.e. not logic) has a firm grip on the cognitive steering wheel when people engage in the political decision-making process a study released today reports.

People twist the facts to get to the conclusion they want and then their mind rewards them for it by triggering certain "happy" parts of the brain. Below are several separate quotes taken from the article, which can be read in its entirety here.

The test subjects on both sides of the political aisle reached totally biased conclusions by ignoring information that could not rationally be discounted....

The tests involved pairs of statements by the candidates, President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry, that clearly contradicted each other. The test subjects were asked to consider and rate the discrepancy. Then they were presented with another statement that might explain away the contradiction. The scenario was repeated several times for each candidate.

The brain imaging revealed a consistent pattern. Both Republicans and Democrats consistently denied obvious contradictions for their own candidate but detected contradictions in the opposing candidate.

"We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," said Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory University. "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts."

The study points to a total lack of reason in political decision-making.

Olbermann blah blah Libby blah impeach blah greatest crime of the century

What is an American?

What is an American? Such a seemingly simple question is incredibly difficult to answer. What makes us different from anyone else on Earth?

Americans are different because we dream big. We are the land of opportunity, the place of prosperity. Anyone here has the chance to live the American dream. A person can go from absolutely nothing to something, rise from total poverty to complete success. All it takes is an idea or a vision and the hard work needed to reach that goal.

One of the great things about college is seeing all of the potential that exists. There is so much talent and ability in the “kids” who will one day be leading our country.

A good friend of mine at UMKC is Chung. Chung came to the United States from Vietnam as a young teenager. He spoke hardly any English. He had incredible difficulty in his high school classes for several years simply because he couldn’t understand what the teachers were saying.

But Chung worked hard and overcame these hurdles. Today, he speaks near-flawless English. He has the talent and desire to accomplish anything. Right now, Chung wants to be a doctor, and he’ll be a good one. But if he wanted, he could be a lawyer or an accountant. That’s what makes America great: You can be anything that you want to be. Americans don’t just dream big; we make our dreams a reality.

Americans also have overwhelming amounts of courage to defend our country. When the days are darkest, when the threat is strongest, when hope is bleakest, American soldiers are fearless. Americans have always answered the call to subdue the enemies of our country and freedom. During their service, some lost friends they had grown to love. Some never came home to those they had always loved. But many more overcame these obstacles, survived the suffering, and returned home as heroes.

Josh is one of my heroes. He has been my friend since middle school. We share the same interests and even the same birthday. When we graduated, I chose to attend college; he became a construction worker. I used my mind; he used his hands. Our career paths may have been different, but our values were not. We both have a deep love for this country.

That love for America caused Josh to join the United States Army more than two years ago. He served for a year in Iraq, and twice was nearly killed by roadside bombs. But not even the danger of war could cause him to regret one of the most important decisions of his life. Josh loves America, and he is a proud United States solider.

As time marches on, Americans remember those who have come before us and what they have done. We remember the great, and we attempt to emulate them. We remember the failures, and we attempt to avoid repeating their mistakes. But maybe our greatest memories are of those who have served our country. We remember those who have served, and we honor them. We remember those who have given their lives in the defense of freedom, and we mourn them.

I was in Washington, D.C. on Father’s Day a few years ago. Late that night, I walked by the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. At the foot of the Wall, cards had been left for fathers who never came home to their families. I read several of these cards. One touched me deeply, and I will never forget what it said. The innocence of youth could be seen in a child’s handwriting. “Grandpa,” the card read, “I wish that I could hav mit you be4 you dide. You are the best grandpa in the world, but if you were still here, I would lit you be my Valentine. Love, Stephen.”

There are many things that make a person an American. We dream great dreams, we defend a great county and we remember the great heroes that have lived before us. And as can be seen in Stephen’s note, those values are passed on to younger generations, who will also be great. That’s what makes an American.

Johnston released; and... is Gaza run by fourth-graders?

Johnston had been held for nearly four months in solitary confinement and with no sunlight, which he likened to being "buried alive." That changed last night when his captors, The Army of Islam, released him to the presiding Hamas government in Gaza, who returned him to British authorities, though not until they held a joint press conference with him.

Fantastic. And yes, a fantastic propaganda opportunity as well.

After his release, Johnston was surrounded by armed Hamas security men and hustled to a press conference with Ismail Haniyeh, the former Palestinian prime minister who now heads the Hamas regime in Gaza. Haniyeh draped a Palestinian flag around Johnston’s shoulders — which he quickly removed — and pinned a Palestinian flag pin on his blue blazer.

Put into perspective that this man had just been released from one of the most psychologically harrowing experiences you can imagine, and then remind yourself the head of a government personally tried to turn him into a political pawn for the cameras. I'm not asking Hamas to be more sophisticated in its propaganda campaigns, but let's not act like we don't know what they're doing.

And speaking of propaganda, let's not forget: Johnston was released on the Fourth of July. Independence Day. The multiple meanings of this are obvious, and as we've come to know, Hamas is not exactly the master of nuance. And because it's nuance-differently-abled, it makes Hamas' behavior easy to predict, it having developed a diplomacy IQ of a ten year old lo these many decades. From April:



Hamas makes no bones about wanting to destroy Israel, overtake the West, spread Islam, and promote a culture of death for Allah.

And yet, the Left unceasingly and unflinchingly plays the role of a lackadaisical parent and enabler who thinks its boy is just being a boy... even when he's in his 40s, living in the attic, and setting fire to the neighbor's dog. Following Johnston's release, a video was almost immediately posted on YouTube with the title, "Proof that Diplomacy Works: Hamas Able to Free Alan Johnston."

Proof?

Haniyeh would not disclose details of the deal that led to the reporter’s release.

But on Monday, Hamas snatched the Army of Islam’s spokesman, possibly as a bargaining chip, and then released him on Tuesday. Hamas also said Tuesday there would be no crackdown on the group, which is dominated by the powerful, heavily armed Doghmush clan.

That's what counts as diplomacy? "We won't kill you?" Wonder if the Left would be so beneficent if the US adopted that as one of its diplomatic precepts. Methinks not. And let's not forget the timing here: If Johnston was freed on the Fourth of July, isn't it reasonable to believe that he could have been freed several days before, but wasn't?

Coincidences do happen. Just not with Hamas.

A Day to Celebrate

Fifty-six brave men made history in Philadelphia 231 years ago. Most Americans know basic information about the most famous of these men. Most know that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. Most know that John Hancock signed his name large enough so that the king of England could read it without his spectacles, and that other patriots like John and Samuel Adams were there. Some even know that Ben Franklin said, “We must all hang together, or most assuredly, we will all hang separately.”

But what about the other 51 signers? Who were they? Their names may be forgotten, but their sacrifices live on as powerful testimonies of the price that was paid to found this country. The stories of all 56 men can be found in the book Greatness to Spare by T. R. Fehrenbach, but I believe the best examples of sacrifice come from the signers from New York and New Jersey.

In late 1776, the British captured New York City. They found out which New Yorkers were in the Continental Congress and immediately pursued them.

Francis Lewis was not at home when the British arrived, but his wife was. The British captured her and treated her brutally. Even though she was eventually set free, her health had deteriorated so much that she died shortly after release.

Philip Livingston’s houses were occupied by the British and his family was forced to flee. His health failed, and he did not live to see American victory.

William Floyd’s possessions were stolen and his property destroyed. Floyd’s wife died before the war ended.

Lewis Morris also lost his house and property. Morris owned about 1,000 acres of forestland, which the British clear-cut.

The signers from New Jersey did not fare any better.

John Hart’s wife was on her deathbed when Hart was forced to leave her side to escape. He lived as a fugitive. The British offered him a pardon if he would simply surrender and swear allegiance to the Crown. He refused. When he was finally able to return home, his wife was dead and his thirteen children were missing. He never found all of his family again and died soon thereafter.

John Witherspoon’s house was plundered and his library of more than 300 books was burned. His son was also killed in the Battle of Germantown.

Richard Stockton evacuated his family, but he was recognized by a British sympathizer. The British arrived, captured him and looted his estate. Stockton was eventually released, but he was in poor health. It was not long before he died.

Two of Abraham Clark’s sons served in the army. Both were captured, brutally treated and even starved. The British offered to release his sons if he deserted the American cause. He refused. Thankfully, both of Clark’s sons were eventually released alive.

The commitment that the Signers possessed can be summed up by Thomas Nelson, a Virginia signer who lived in Yorktown. Throughout the war, he donated money, food and horses to the military. In 1781, the British General Cornwallis was trapped at Yorktown. Nelson was on the front lines and noticed that the Americans were bombarding everything except his house, which was being used as a British headquarters. Nelson ordered that the cannons be lowered and that his house be leveled to the ground. The resulting onslaught killed several officers, and days later, the British surrendered. But America never repaid Nelson, and he died bankrupt.

Greatness to Spare finishes with a moving summary:

Fifty-six Americans pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

It was no idle pledge. Nine Signers died of wounds or hardships during the Revolutionary War.

Five were captured or imprisoned, in some cases with brutal treatment.

The wives, sons, and daughters of others were killed, jailed, mistreated, persecuted, or left penniless. One was driven from his wife’s deathbed and lost all his children.

The houses of twelve Signers were burned to the ground. Seventeen lost everything they owned.

Every Signer was proscribed as a traitor; every one was hunted. Most were driven into flight; most were at one time or another barred from their families or homes.

Most were offered immunity, freedom, rewards, their property, or the lives and release of loved ones to break their pledged word or to take the King’s protection. Their fortunes were forfeit, but their honor was not. No Signer defected, or changed his stand, throughout the darkest hours. Their honor, like the nation, remained intact.

Because of their actions 231 years ago, some of the 56 men lost their lives. Some lost their fortunes. But not a single man lost his honor. So as we celebrate today, remember the stories of the brave men who declared our independence and remember the price they paid so that we could live free.

Independence Day

Quote of the Day: A message of Freedom

...meddling in the economy creates conflict, as special-interest groups seek to rip us off through big government. The voluntarism of the free market, on the other hand, brings social cooperation and peace. - Congressman and Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul

This quote is applicable if one thinks of the Republicans in Congress as an interest group interested in their own power; and especially so, considering (part of) the voter reasoning behind the outcome of the 2006 elections actually was the interest-group -like behaviour of the Republican majority in spending our money and running our government.

Interested in the perseverance of their own power they legislated in a manner that they felt would maintain that power - spending money recklessly and expanding government irresponsibly.

The message of freedom and limited government is good; and as conservatives we should dedicate ourselves to it. But we should temper our dedication to any party only so far as that party represents the message we endorse.

What is so refreshing about Ron Paul is that I truly believe that he will not ever place his own power above the limited government and liberty principles he holds so dear. In essence, we need more Ron Pauls because when our party places its principles above self-interested personal motives, like power, its the people who win - because freedom works and the United States proves it day in and day out.

Freedom is something to be loved, cherished, celebrated and demanded. Happy Fourth of July!

Gates toppled as world's richest man

And how.

It was Sentido Común's founder, Eduardo Garcia, who highlighted [Carlos] Slim's rapidly rising wealth in April, although by his calculations the Mexican had not only beaten [Warren] Buffett in the wealth stakes by then but also edged past [Bill] Gates.

Now, however, Mr Garcia says there is no doubt that the little-known Mexican has finally captured the coveted top slot, following a surge in America Movil's shares over the second quarter. This is estimated to have boosted his fortune to an estimated $67.8bn (£33.6bn) - equivalent to 8% of Mexico's gross domestic product - compared with $59.2bn for the Microsoft mogul, putting him in the lead by a decisive $8.6bn.

Earlier this year, Slim chastised Gates and Buffett for "acting like Santa Claus" through their charities, arguing that good business improves the lives of people better than giving handouts. Sounds fine if Slim was an authentic libertarian, but that's apparently not the reality. Ashley March at the Cato Institute:

According to our Director of the Center for Global Liberty and Proserity, Ian Vasquez, far from understanding Objectivism, “Slim is the biggest hypocrite and worst mercantilist in Latin America. He’s one of the reasons mexico has not grown faster; among other things, he’s ruthlessly maintained a telecom monopoly in mexico, making it a huge bottleneck in the economy and one of the most expensive places to make calls.”

Sigh.

Windfall Profits Tax applied to Politicians

This glaring hypocrisy comes complements of Cafe Hayek.

Today's New York Times reports on Sen. Barack Obama's record-breaking fund-raising spree to finance his bid for the Presidency. Last quarter Sen. Obama raised, as the Times puts it, "a whopping $31 million."

These funds, of course, are all voluntarily contributed. The fact that I, personally, do not care for much of what Sen. Obama espouses is irrelevant: lots of people like what he says. They like it enough to contribute to his campaign. The result, designed by no one, is a huge campaign chest for Sen. Obama. He will be well-financed to pursue his ambition. (In my opinion, this ambition is an especially greedy and venal one, but that's just my opinion.)

In May, however, the very same Sen. Obama called for Senate hearings into allegedly excessive pay for CEOs of corporations.

The Senator is either ethically inconsistent or intellectually inconsistent (or both). The pay of private-sector CEOs is determined by market forces. No one -- absolutely not a soul -- is forced to contribute money to fund CEO salaries. Those who pay such salaries do so voluntarily.

It's the same with those who contribute to political campaigns such as Sen. Obama's. Everyone who does so, does so voluntarily. I wonder how Sen. Obama would react to someone suggesting that his bulging campaign chest is the result of "greed" and behind-closed-doors deviousness by him and his campaign staff. I wonder if he thinks that government should hold hearings to "investigate" the unprecedented ummph and possible anti-social consequences of his fund-raising success?

And if he fails to win his bid for the Presidency, might we conclude that he, like a highly paid CEO who fails to improve the company's fortunes, is really undeserving of the largess bestowed upon him?

I guess the question is, why are CEO salaries treated differently from campaign coffers and ought they be? This may just be a result of my ever increasing cynicism, but can anyone say public opinion?

Using public opinion, mob rule, and one's campaign to pit one socio-economic class against each other, where one class uses government to bring down the other, for political gain while simultaneously exempting oneself from the behaviour (making too much money) held in contempt sounds unethical, unfair, and un-unifying. (I thought Democrats were always ethical, fair, and unifying)

When put this way it almost sounds tyrannical, which happens to be defined as when the interests of the majority are placed so high above those of the minority government action can be described as despotic. Not much sounds more despotic to me than punishing someone because they are successful and rewarding those because they were not.

If McCain leaves race for Prez, he'll become the de facto head of Republican Party

...and as such, be in a position to choose his heir apparent. Seriously.

Allah is following the news that John McCain raised a lackluster$11.2 million in the last quarter of fundraising, and what it might mean for his political future.

They had hoped to raise $100 million for the year, says his campaign manager … who’ll now, according to Byron York, be working without pay. Your quote of the day comes from McCain advisor John Weaver commenting on the impact of the amnesty bill: “We do know that it had a significant effect in this last quarter. We’re very proud of John taking a leadership role in this … but we wouldn’t be straight with you if we told you that it didn’t have an impact. Having said that, that debate is now over … but it did have an impact.”

Steyn’s been hearing from “ostensibly well-informed” readers that McCain will drop out within the next few days. Obviously untrue or else he wouldn’t have bothered to reduce his staff, but it does give us our exit question: When? The McCain Campaign Death Poll is now open for business.

Assuming McCain does drop out, what does this mean for the race for President? Actually, a great deal. McCain's electability within the party has been faltering for some time; whether you look at unscientific polls like that to the right of this post or professionally conducted surveys, McCain's way back in the primary race.

But that doesn't mean he doesn't have any pull. With a President and head-of-party polling somewhere south of inanimate objects, there's a real opening for McCain to choose who the next Republican Presidential nominee will be. Keep in mind that in head-to-head races with Democrat opponents, McCain does very well. And those aren't just Republican votes he picks up; those are the votes of independent voters, too, who heretofore have not really been involved in the process. Say what you will about his politics, but even for people in my generation, McCain has a considerable following of voters totally removed from the day-to-day struggles on Capitol Hill who see McCain only as a war hero and maverick -- and an electable Presidential candidate. The primary (and specifically, Rudy Giuliani, who intrudes a little on his "maverick" turf) stands in the way of this.

With his withdrawal, McCain would become the widely-respected non-running senior member of the Republican Party, from whom an endorsement could mean the difference between electoral success and failure.

The ball is in his court. McCain can take on a far greater role in this race if he withdraws from it, taking on more power by ostensibly spurning it. Stay tuned.

Three doctors implicated in Glasgow attack

Two things. First, that the accused conspirators are doctors runs against the idea that the jihadists' war is one solely of economics; there's something else at work here. Second, shouldn't someone check to see if these guys had an unusually pronounced fatally rate at their respective hospitals?

Video below via LGF

Monday Early Afternoon (Pop) Culture Shot

7-11s turn into Kwik-E-Marts in Simpsons promotion

Kwik-E-Mart's official website is here (and here). More info here.

Thank you. Come again.

Former jihadist criticizes coverage of terrorist activities

Gateway Pundit's got it. Here's a sampling of Hassan Butt's commentary:

If our country is going to take on radicals and violent extremists, Muslim scholars must go back to the books and come forward with a refashioned set of rules and a revised understanding of the rights and responsibilities of Muslims whose homes and souls are firmly planted in what I'd like to term the Land of Co-existence. And when this new theological territory is opened up, Western Muslims will be able to liberate themselves from defunct models of the world, rewrite the rules of interaction and perhaps we will discover that the concept of killing in the name of Islam is no more than an anachronism.

GP's got a link to Butt's email address; feel free to express your thanks.

MTV VJ/former Rolling Stone editor rips Moore a new one

A News Busters catch. Who would have thought that someone from same group that produced journalist/fiction writer Gideon Yago ("I try to call it as you see it") would call Moore's film propaganda? We give to you: Kurt Loder.

Fidel Castro's island dictatorship, now in its 40th year of being listed as a human-rights violator by Amnesty International, is here depicted as a balmy paradise not unlike the Iraq of Saddam Hussein that Moore showed us in his earlier film, "Fahrenheit 9/11." He and his charges make their way — their pre-arranged way, if it need be said — to a state-of-the-art hospital where they receive a picturesquely warm welcome. In a voiceover, Moore, shown beaming at his little band of visitors, says he told the Cuban doctors to "give them the same care they'd give Cuban citizens." Then he adds, dramatically: "And they did."

If Moore really believes this, he may be a greater fool than even his most feverish detractors claim him to be.

Check out Busters for the rest.

More Jihadi propoganda on YouTube

...equipped with a clip of Osama bin Laden himself. Is there a reason this is OK, but conservative vids like those produced by Hot Air are not?

Israeli kills Farfour the Hamas Mouse in last episode

Now thatsa good jihadi programming. (via Breitbart)


Link: sevenload.com

Update 7/2: Cookie Monster weighs in.