National Homeland Security Knowledgebase Campaign websites

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

McCAIN'S CAMPAIGN COLLAPSES

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published on NewsMax.com on February 27, 2007.

The John McCain candidacy, launched amid much hope, fanfare, and high expectations, may be dying before our eyes.

Even worse, it may go out with a whimper instead of a bang.

It may not end in an Armageddon style primary defeat, but just dry up from lack of support, money, or interest.

Throughout all of 2006, McCain sat atop the polls right next to Rudy Giuliani. In the Fox News survey of December, 2006, he was getting 27 percent of the Republican primary vote to Rudy's 31 percent. But, after Giuliani announced that he was running, the Arizona senator fell to 24 percent while Rudy soared into the stratosphere at 41 percent of the primary voters. But even when McCain was polling well, he wasn't raising the money he needs for this campaign.

In the last quarter of 2006, during a time when he was tied for front-runner status in the GOP and doing well in general election matchups against likely Democratic rivals like Hillary Clinton, he raised only $1.7 million according to his filing with the Federal Elections Commission.

Even worse, he had less than $500,000 on hand, pocket change in a presidential race and barely adequate for a run for Congress.

Part of McCain's problem was that he wasn't raising money. But the other part has been that he is spending money too rapidly — and not on reaching voters but on paying political consultants. One top Republican operative from the old Reagan campaign commented, "McCain has hired every consultant he can find. He has all the top names, but no money."

What is McCain's problem?

Why did he go from the most exciting candidate in the race a year ago to the verge of oblivion today?

Fundamentally, he failed to heed the Shakespeare's admonition "to thine own self be true." The John McCain of the 2000 campaign is nowhere in evidence in 2007.

Instead of challenging the party establishment, he pathetically waits at its door, hoping to be invited. Where he used to challenge the religious right, he now panders to them. Once he led the battle against big tobacco, for corporate governance reform, in favor of campaign financing changes, and in support of action against global warming.

Now he has been identified with two issues, neither popular in the Republican Party: The Iraqi troop surge and amnesty for illegal aliens.

Rather than stake out an independent voice apart from the Bush administration, he has become the last survivor at Custer's Last Stand in its support of its policies.

Republican strategist and Reagan campaign manager Ed Rollins makes an interesting point about McCain: He has switched roles. He has gone from being the McCain of the 2000 race, challenging the party orthodoxy, offering new ideas, and demanding reforms and changes to the Bush of the 2000, toeing the party line and only timidly venturing different ideas if he advances them at all. And this is no way to win the presidency or even the Republican nomination. But where it has counted, on the two core issues that move Republican voters these days — tax cuts and immigration — McCain is badly out of step with the GOP base.

He voted against the Bush tax cuts, the only real success of the administration and the main accomplishment of the president's first term. On immigration, his bill, cosponsored by Ted Kennedy, permits illegal aliens to become citizens without returning to their native lands and seeking legal entry.

Both positions run afoul of the deepest views of the Republican primary electorate. But beyond the substantive problems with the McCain candidacy, he has simply failed to impress the American public with his performance on the television talk shows that are the core of this year's pre-primary nominating process.

He looks small, shrunken, weak, cowed, and timid. He shows all of his 70 years of age including the roughly lived period at the hands of the tender mercies of the North Vietnamese. It is hard to imagine him as a strong leader as he meekly answers questions from the likes of Tim Russert and George Stephanopoulos.

other problem can be summed up in one word: Rudy.

Giuliani, with extensive management experience and a track record of heroism on 9/11, projects a strong image of leadership and a kind of charisma that McCain has trouble matching.

The excitement Rudy's candidacy has generated has swelled his poll numbers at a time when McCain, who announced too early and campaigned for too long, was fading. As Rudy surged in January 2007, it was clear that McCain had peaked too soon.

Has Giuliani, too, peaked too soon?

Perhaps he has. But the nominating process for the 2008 election seems destined to be a very early one.

With many major states advancing their primaries to early February, 2008, and the 24/7 cable talk shows and Internet Web sites focusing full time on the race, the evaluation of the candidates may be complete before the first votes are cast.

Since only the front-runner in the autumn of 2007 is likely to be able to generate the campaign cash to afford to advertise and campaign simultaneously in all the big states that are advancing their primary dates, it is probable that whoever is ahead at the end of 2007 in each party will be the nominee.

In view of this early calendar, Rudy seems to have peaked at the right time while McCain is fading badly.

Rudy also surges at a time when the other candidates are disappearing from the Republican nominating process. In addition to McCain's swoon, the other possible top contender, Mitt Romney has stalled and is falling backwards. His flip-flop-flip from pro-life to pro-choice and back to pro-life again is not winning him any converts.

Before he ran for senator against Kennedy in Massachusetts, he was pro-life. Then, as he ventured into America's most liberal state as a Republican candidate, he said that his experience with a relative who died after an illegal abortion led him to reconsider his stand on the issue. "I will protect and defend a woman's right to choose" he said as he campaigned for the governorship after losing his Senate bid against Kennedy. But after he had been re-elected as governor and began to focus on a possible presidential race, Romney rediscovered his roots and began to "evolve" on the issue back to a pro-life position, a change which isn't fooling anybody or satisfying either side.

On the issue of homosexuality, Romney promised during their debates to be a better friend of gay rights than Kennedy had been. But now he is campaigning on an anti-gay marriage platform.

Beyond these two legitimate issues, Romney is, unfortunately, paying a steep price for his Mormon faith, something that should not be an issue in this campaign . . . but is.

If Newt Gingrich doesn't enter the race, who is there who can challenge Rudy Giuliani?

If Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, it will be Hillary vs. Rudy in the battle of the giants. And poor John McCain will go back to the Senate.





AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Monday, February 26, 2007

Schwarzenegger calls for Iraq timetable

By UPI Staff
United Press International
February 26, 2007

WASHINGTON (UPI) -- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says he is in a "post-partisan phase," and intends to serve the people instead of the interests of his party.

Appearing on CBS's "Face the Nation," the Republican Schwarzenegger said he hopes his new attitude will inspire the 2008 presidential hopefuls on both sides.

"It just means that you ultimately want to serve the people rather than your party," he told "Face the Nation" host Bob Schieffer Sunday. "Because I think the elected officials are public servants and not party servants."

Schwarzenegger, who was invited for dinner at the White House, joined congressional Democrats in the Iraq debate saying the United States needs a clear timetable for redeploying troops from Iraq.

"We should let the Iraqis know that we are here," for a specified time," he said, "and then we're going to draw back. We're going to draw our troops out of Iraq."

Schwarzenegger is scheduled to give a speech at the National Governors Conference Monday focusing on the importance of a centrist attitude, working with opposite parties without losing sight of principles.

 





AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Senator says 'global warming liberals' threaten economy


Jim Brown
OneNewsNow.com
February 26, 2007


Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill recently told a panel of world leaders they are ready and eager to join the fight against human-caused climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, one U.S. senator says proponents of the global warming theory have "an obsession" with shutting down the American economy.

Hear This Report
advertisement

Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman have introduced legislation that would place mandatory caps on carbon-dioxide emissions. However, some Senate Republicans, including Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, are vowing to do everything they can to make sure such a measure never becomes law.

"It's just amazing to me that all these global-warming liberals -- and keep in mind their agenda is just to stop any kind of construction, any kind of electricity generation -- come along and say that global warming is taking place," Inhofe says. "I'm from Oklahoma [and] we've had three of the coldest days in the recorded history of [the state]."

Of course, when that apparent climatologic contradiction is pointed out to the environmentalists, the conservative senator notes, "they'll say, 'Oh, well that's part of global warming because it causes extreme conditions.'"

Inhofe, Senator Kit Bond of Missouri, and other global-warming skeptics in Congress argue that mandatory emissions caps would raise the cost of electricity for poor and middle-class families. Still, he says global-warming proponents are apparently unmoved by this argument and "there's no way in the world we're ever going to be able to stop them from this obsession to take away our ability to run and operate this great machine we call America."

The Oklahoma Republican says he hopes people will understand that the global-warming issue has nothing to do with polar bears, nor with drilling, but rather has to do with economics and the politics of those pushing liberal global-warming "solutions." The real issue at hand, he asserts, "is whether or not they're going to able to stop us from generating electricity to keep America moving."

The agenda of "global-warming liberals," Inhofe contends, is "to stop any kind of construction or electricity generation in the U.S." He believes mandatory emissions caps threaten the U.S. economy and would hurt many of the Americans who can least afford the increased fuel costs that would result.





AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Sunni and Shiite division has come to America


Chad Groening
OneNewsNow.com
February 26, 2007


An author and expert on Islam says the burgeoning Muslim population in places like Dearborn, Michigan, has led to the same kind of Sunni-Shiite divisions that have characterized the Middle East. But despite the division, he says both groups consider the U.S. as "The Great Satan" and want to see it dominated by Islam.

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch, a project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He says in the past Sunnis and Shiites in America had to be together, usually in a mosque controlled by the larger Sunni population. But now Spencer says the two groups are separating and having the same kind of tensions that we see in the Middle East. The division has come about, he says, because so many Muslims have moved into the area.

"Sometimes [Shiites] went and were welcomed [at the Sunni mosque]," Spencer explains, "[and] sometimes they went as long as they kept quiet about the differences. [Now] we're seeing for the first time in America Sunnis and Shiites separating, when before they had to be together."

Members of Dearborn's Shiite community have blamed Sunnis for the vandalism of three mosques and a dozen businesses in Shiite enclaves. "Now, with the advent of separate mosques and both sides growing in numbers and in power, we'll see more and more of this kind of friction that we are seeing in Dearborn," cautions the Jihad Watch director.

Though there has been vandalism and tension among the two groups in places like Dearborn, Spencer does not think the kind of violence that has occurred in Europe and the Middle East will occur in the U.S. The Jihadist leaders in America, he believes, are "smart enough" to realize they can "operate far more easily and get far more done" without that kind of violence.





AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Sunday, February 18, 2007

Olbermann's Record of Hateful Diatribes Against Conservatives

News Source: Media Research Center 

From calling President Bush a "compulsive liar" who has committed "impeachable" offenses and forgotten "the lessons of 9/11" so "may this country forgive you," to denouncing Donald Rumsfeld as a "quack" pushing "fascism," to bringing up the possibility that conservatives might intentionally "provoke potential terrorists" in an effort to "maintain influence and control of the presidency," to accusing Rush Limbaugh of "following the logic and ethics of Osama bin Laden," to sliming Fox's Chris Wallace as "a monkey posing as a newscaster," Keith Olbermann has used his MSNBC Countdown show over the past year to launch vitriolic personal attacks on those with whom he disagrees. He even once tagged the Media Research Center as a "rabid right-wing spin group" which has been "inventing liberal bias since 1987."

Back in 1998, he asserted that "the person Ken Starr has reminded me of facially all this time was Heinrich Himmler" and asked if Starr's pursuit of Bill Clinton prompts "some sort of comparison to a persecutor as opposed to a prosecutor for Mr. Starr?"

Below are highlights of some of Olbermann's more obnoxious left-wing comments, with links to full transcripts and videos:

# June 27, 2006 Media Reality Check by the MRC's Brad Wilmouth: "The 'Worst' of MSNBC's Keith Olbermann; 3rd Place Cable Host Uses 'Worst in the World!' Segment to Savage Conservatives & His Competitors." The study found:

The segment is a strong measure of the MSNBC host's overwhelming bias against conservatives as the segment has served as a launchpad for attacks against conservative figures and positions at a dramatically greater rate than against the left. By a staggeringly lopsided 8 to 1 margin, Olbermann has targeted conservatives, sometimes with substantial venom, while hitting a comparatively minuscule number of liberals.

Olbermann's "Worst Person in the World" segment normally features three nominees, although sometimes fewer, for the title of the same name, with the third place award labeled "Worse," second place labeled "Worser," and the first place award labeled "Worst." His targets have ranged from dumb criminals to politicians and public figures, many of whom have simply made controversial statements upsetting to Olbermann. MRC analysts examined every "Worst Person" segment, beginning with the first installment on June 30, 2005, and ending with June 23, 2006. The total number of nominees counted during the period was 592. Of these, 197, or about one-third, were politically salient figures. Out of these 197 nominees, there were 174, or 88 percent, that featured an attack on a conservative target or ideas, compared with 23 nominees, or 12 percent, that featured an attack on liberal targets or ideas.

For the full report, and link to a list of Olbermann's targets: www.mrc.org


# January 17 CyberAlert: Olbermann Blasts '24' as Pro-Bush 'Fearmongering,' 'Brainwashing'

The night after the four-hour, two-night season premiere of Fox's 24 ended with a "suitcase nuke" being set off by Middle Eastern terrorists in a Southern California warehouse, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann saw a nefarious plot to aid President Bush: "Is 24 just entertainment or is it propaganda designed to keep people thinking about domestic terrorism to keep us scared?" He demanded Tuesday night: "Gripping drama or thinly veiled propaganda?" Olbermann recounted how 24 "featured a mall attack, a would-be suicide bomber on a subway, and a successful suicide bombing on a passenger bus. Not in places where these things have already happened, but in a country called the United States of America. In case you missed the point, the show finished up with a nuclear weapon detonating in a major American city, literally conjuring up the administration's imagery for the war in Iraq, the good old mushroom cloud." Olbermann soon proposed that "if the irrational right can claim that the news is fixed to try to alter people's minds or that networks should be boycotted for nudity or for immorality," then "shouldn't those same groups be saying 24 should be taken off of TV because it's naked brainwashing?"

For more: www.mrc.org


# January 3 CyberAlert: Olbermann: Bush Extending 'Senseless' War to Aid 'War Profiteers'

On Tuesday's Countdown, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann used his latest "Special Comment" attack on President Bush to accuse the President of extending the "senseless, endless" war in Iraq as part of an ulterior motive to transfer money to "war profiteers" because "you can't sell [the Army] any more [Humvees] until the first thousand have been destroyed." Olbermann: "The service men and women are ancillary to the equation. This is about the planned
| |
More See & Hear the Bias

obsolescence of ordnance, isn't it, Mr. Bush? And the building of detention centers? And the design of a $125 million courtroom complex at Gitmo, comp...

Obama Ranks as Most Traveled Senator

Barack Obama's two years in the Senate have taken him around the world, from Russia to Iraq to Kenya -- an itinerary more costly to taxpayers than any other senator who took office with him.

The Illinois Democrat's travels in 2005 and 2006 cost taxpayers nearly $28,000 as he studied nuclear proliferation, AIDS, Middle Eastern violence and more.

Eight other freshmen senators took office in 2005, and about $19,200 was the most anyone spent for government-paid travel, according to reports filed with the Senate Office of Public Records.

Obama's journeys are unusual for such a junior senator, but not for someone thinking of a presidential run someday.

"Valuable or not, it's the thing they all do to show that they're knowledgeable about the world," said Stephen Hess, a George Washington University professor and former presidential aide.

Obama was one of two freshmen members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the 109th Congress. He spent $18,822 in per diem and transportation costs in 2006 as he visited Middle East hotspots and toured Africa. The previous year he spent $8,313 visiting the former Soviet Union and the United Kingdom.

The freshman with the next greatest spending on taxpayer-funded trips was Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., whose visits included China, Russia and the Middle East at a cost of about $19,200. Ranking third was freshman Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who spent $17,867 to visit China and Kuwait, among other places.

From NewsMax.com

 

A move to arm pilots on International flights

From the Buckeye Firearms Assn. website- http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3542

By Dan Roman:

Last week the USA Today ran a story, "U.S. asks to arm pilots abroad" From the story

    For the first time, the U.S. government is asking foreign countries to allow pilots to carry guns in the cockpit when they fly overseas.

    The Homeland Security Department, working with the State Department, is trying to expand a 4-year-old program that allows thousands of pilots to carry guns on domestic flights.
Well, it's about time! It's been more than five years since our country was attacked using our own airliners, and more than four years since congress passed a law that mandated pilots be permitted to carry guns to defend their cockpit. First they must pass required background checks, psychological screening and a week long firearms training curriculum. They are volunteers and not compensated. Travel, food, lodging, and other expenses are not even reimbursed.

Click on "read more" to continue reading.



The law states that the U.S. Secretary of State can negotiate agreements with foreign governments to enable U.S. pilots to fly armed on flights between our countries. Secretary of State Colin Powell never raised a finger to effect these needed changes. Now Condoleezza Rice is finally getting to this important task.

Of course some countries do not want armed pilots. Again from the article:

    "Sweden would rather not see any weapons aboard airplanes," said Michael Mohr, homeland security liaison at the Swedish Embassy in Washington.
Well now, we'd rather not have armed hijackers on my plane! Heck while we are making our wish list, we'd rather not have engine problems or hydraulic leaks, or pressurization problems. We'd rather not have medical emergencies, abusive passengers, weather problems or mechanical delays either. We'd rather have a good meal, and a winning super Lotto ticket too please. Unfortunately, the 9/11 hijackers didn't ask any of the murdered pilots or crew if they would "rather" have their throats cut.

Mohr went on to say,

    "There's a concern about arms and very sensitive equipment inside airplanes."


No - there isn't. We care about people, not equipment. There is a concern that people associated with radical islam will hijack our airplanes and use them as guided missiles to kill thousands of our innocent men, women and children again.

Federal Air Marshals, armed pilots, Secret Service, FBI, Customs, and many other law enforcement officers fly armed on airplanes every day. Any peace officer can carry on a plane, with a need such as escorting a prisoner, after watching a short video tape. And the last time you heard of any of these guns harming any "very sensitive equipment inside airplanes" was – NEVER. It is of no concern.

This has already been debated to death. Handguns do not pose a dire threat to airliners. Evil people do. Unfortunately, so do bureaucrats who can't tell the difference between the two, but sit in their comfy cubicle and tell those who would be murdered about their dim-witted concerns for the airplane's equipment. Their actions enable terrorists to carry out their ruthless plans.

The article was actually fairly well written, with no gross errors or lies. It is worth reading. But then they ended with ludicrous statement.

    Aviation security consultant Rich Roth said some pilots "feel better" carrying guns, but he doubts they could thwart a hijacker. "If you're sitting in the flight deck and they get through, you have no time to do anything with a weapon," Roth said.


It's good to present both sides of a discussion, but Roth is an idiot. He obviously knows nothing about guns, airplanes, or self defense. He is probably certain that a citizen could never stop or prevent a crime with a firearm either, even though it happens about every 13 seconds in our country. Maybe he still thinks the earth is flat and revolves around the sun.

The armed pilots program is a good one, but it needs many improvements. It's been four years, and no pilots have shot anyone in a fit of rage as those hoplaphobes predicted. Just like with concealed carry, they were wrong then, are wrong now, and no longer have enough credibility to be bothered with. The lack of progress of the armed pilot program over the last four years proves that congress must again mandate that the job be done right.

Two groups working to fix the programs problems are:
Federal Flight Deck Officer Association
Airline Pilots Security Alliance.

Click here for a reminder of what happens when pilots don't have the necessary tools at hand.


Editor's note: Author's name has been changed for security reasons. He holds an Airline Transport Pilot license with type ratings for B-757 and B-767 airplanes and flies for a major U.S. Airline. His co-workers were among the first murdered on 9/11/2001.

Mayor to President?

From Taegan Goddard's Political Wire- http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/02/16/mayor_to_president.html

"No United States senator has been elected president since John F. Kennedy in 1960, but former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (R) is challenging an even more formidable historical hurdle: No former mayor has been elected president since Grover Cleveland of Buffalo in 1884 and Calvin Coolidge of Northampton, Mass., in 1924," reports the New York Times. "And no mayor has ever become president without serving first in some other elective office beyond City Hall."

"While New York's City Hall has, historically, been more diving board than springboard, Mr. Giuliani's candidacy presents several opportunities for optimism in this political campaign. He enjoys unusual national stature for a former city official at a time when being identified with New York might become a political advantage. In a field crowded with senators and governors -- including a woman, a black and a Mormon -- a former mayor could present himself as the ultimate beyond-the-Beltway outsider."
 
*********************************************************
Quotes of Note:
 
"You should be able to have a national campaign make a serious decision for president in nine weeks."

-- Newt Gingrich, quoted by Cox Newspapers.
 
**********************************************************
 
"How many good-looking presidents have we had?"

-- A strategist for Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), quoted by Washington Wire, when asked about the significance of rival Mitt Romney's "matinee-idol visage."

Thursday, February 15, 2007

HERE COMES NEWT

By DICK MORRIS

February 14, 2007 -- To echo the famous Negro League pitcher Satchel Paige: "Don't look back, Newt Gingrich might be gaining on you." Newt, consigned by many observers to Elizabeth Dole or Dan Quayle status in this GOP nominating process, appears to be moving up into contention, overtaking former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and battling to be the conservative alternative to either former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani or Arizona Sen. John McCain

To grasp what's happening, don't think of states like New Hampshire or Iowa or worry whether it's too early or too late. The key to following the Republican presidential nominating process this year is to recognize its essential similarity to the tennis's U.S. Open at Forest Hills. There are quarter-finals, semi-finals, and finals.

In the quarter-finals, the center and the right each sort out the nominees to choose their candidate. On center court, Giuliani seems to be gaining a decisive lead over McCain's impoverished presidential campaign. But on the right-hand court, unnoticed by most pundits, Gingrich seems to be building a lead over Romney and a host of conservative wannabes. The ultimate winner of the Giuliani/McCain quarter-final will face the winner of the Gingrich/Romney match-up in the semi-finals.

As McCain drops in the polls — he's down to 22 percent while Rudy is up at 34 percent in the latest Fox News poll — some conservatives seem eager for a "real Republican" to challenge for the nomination. Their first choice, former Virginia Sen. George Allen, lies a-moldering in the grave and his runner-up, former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, has gone home to Tennessee.

 

 

 

 

 Most observers assumed that Romney would fill the void. But he doesn't seem to have been able to do so. It may be a racist refusal to vote for a Mormon or, more charitably, Romney's flip-flop-flip from pro-life to pro-choice to pro-life, or it may have been his inconsistency on gay issues, but Mitt seems to be going the way of his father — out of contention. The Fox News poll, which recorded a surge to up to 8 percent of the GOP vote in its Dec. 5-6 tally, now has Romney dropping back to only 3 percent of the vote.

Enter Newt. Hungry for new ideas and desperate after losing Congress, Republican voters seem to be rallying to the only real genius in the race — the former Speaker. The statute of limitations seems to have expired on his personal scandals and Gingrich is striking a responsive chord among conservatives.

Fox News's Jan. 30-31 survey had Newt leaving Romney way behind and challenging McCain for second place. The former Speaker's vote share was 15 percent, giving him third place in the current standings.

Episodically, I just addressed a 450-person Lincoln Day dinner of the Lane County Republican Party in Eugene, Ore. A show of hands brought these results: Giuliani, 50 percent; Gingrich, 30 percent; McCain, 6 percent; Romney, 4 percent. A few days before, a speech to an Orlando investors group produced similar results.

But, as the slogan of the New York State Lottery goes: "You can't win if you don't play." Newt's current posture of waiting until the fall of 2007 to see how the process sorts itself out won't work. The process abhors a vacuum. If Gingrich doesn't move out to respond to the affection of the GOP base, one of the minor-leaguers — Huckabee, Brownback, Gilmore, Thompson, Hunter or Tancredo — will.

The irony of the GOP field at the moment is that while most Republicans are conservatives, the two frontrunners — Rudy and McCain — are moderates. And this isn't Nelson Rockefeller's Republican Party anymore! Gingrich is filling a real political need and if he moves out smartly and files his paperwork, takes his announcement bows, and journeys to Iowa and New Hampshire as a candidate, he might well be a contender.

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Jonathan Livingston Obama

 

I've caught Obama fever! Obamamania, Obamarama, Obama, Obama, Obama. (I just pray to God this is clean, renewable electricity I'm feeling.)

Only white guilt could explain the insanely hyperbolic descriptions of Obama's "eloquence." His speeches are a run-on string of embarrassing, sophomoric Hallmark bromides.

In announcing his candidacy last week, Obama confirmed that he believes in "the basic decency of the American people." And let the chips fall where they may!

Obama forthrightly decried "a smallness of our politics" -- deftly slipping a sword into the sides of the smallness-in-politics advocates. (To his credit, he somehow avoided saying, "My fellow Americans, size does matter.") 

He took a strong stand against the anti-hope crowd, saying: "There are those who don't believe in talking about hope." Take that, Hillary!

Most weirdly, he said: "I recognize there is a certain presumptuousness in this -- a certain audacity -- to this announcement."

What is so audacious about announcing that you're running for president? Any idiot can run for president. Dennis Kucinich is running for president. Until he was imprisoned, Lyndon LaRouche used to run for president constantly. John Kerry ran for president. Today, all you have to do is suggest a date by which U.S. forces in Iraq should surrender, and you're officially a Democratic candidate for president.

Obama made his announcement surrounded by hundreds of adoring Democratic voters. And those were just the reporters. There were about 400 more reporters at Obama's announcement than Mitt Romney's, who, by the way, is more likely to be sworn in as our next president than B. Hussein Obama.

Obama has locked up the Hollywood money. Even Miss America has endorsed Obama. (John "Two Americas" Edwards is still hoping for the other Miss America to endorse him.)

But Obama tells us he's brave for announcing that he's running for president. And if life gives you lemons, make lemonade!

I don't want to say that Obama didn't say anything in his announcement, but afterward, even Jesse Jackson was asking, "What did he say?" There was one refreshing aspect to Obama's announcement: It was nice to see a man call a press conference this week to announce something other than he was the father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby.

B. Hussein Obama's announcement also included this gem: "I know that I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change." As long as Obama insists on using Hallmark card greetings in his speeches, he could at least get Jesse Jackson to help him with the rhyming.

If Obama's biggest asset is his inexperience, then if by the slightest chance he were elected and were to run for a second term, he will have to claim he didn't learn anything the first four years.

There was also this inspirational nugget: "Each and every time, a new generation has risen up and done what's needed to be done. Today we are called once more, and it is time for our generation to answer that call." Is this guy running for president or trying to get people to switch to a new long-distance provider?

He said that "we learned to disagree without being disagreeable." (There goes Howard Dean's endorsement.) This was an improvement on the first draft, which read, "It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice."

This guy's like the ANWR of trite political aphorisms. There's no telling exactly how many he's sitting on, but it could be in the billions.

Obama's famed eloquence reminds me of a book of platitudes I read about once called "Life Lessons." The book contained such inspiring thoughts as:

"When was the last time you really looked at the sea? Or smelled the morning? Touched a baby's hair? Really tasted and enjoyed food? Walked barefoot in the grass? Looked in the blue sky?" (When was the last time you fantasized about dismembering the authors of a book of platitudes?)

I can't wait for Obama's inaugural address when he reveals that he loves long walks in the rain, sunsets, and fresh-baked cookies shaped like puppies.

The guy I feel sorry for is Harold Ford. The former representative from Tennessee is also black, a Democrat, about the same age as Obama, and is every bit as attractive. The difference is, when he talks, you don't fantasize about plunging knitting needles into your ears to stop the gusher of meaningless platitudes.

Ford ran as a Democrat in Republican Tennessee and almost won -- and the press didn't knock out his opponent for him by unsealing sealed divorce records, as it did for B. Hussein Obama. Yet no one ever talks about Ford as the second coming of Cary Grant and Albert Einstein.

Maybe liberals aren't secret racists expunging vast stores of white guilt by hyperventilating over B. Hussein Obama. Maybe they're just running out of greeting card inscriptions.




Ann Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," "Slander," ""How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)," and most recently, "Godless."

For Better or Worse...Travelers Launches Wedding Insurance

More than 3,000 weddings take place every day in the U.S., with the average cost now reaching $27,000 each. Recognizing that the "big day" comes with a mighty financial commitment, Travelers announced today the launch of the Wedding Protector Plan, an insurance policy covering weddings.

"A wedding is a large investment both emotionally and financially," said Alan Tuvin, vice president of product management for Travelers. "There are a lot of moving parts to a wedding and things can go wrong. It is important to protect such a significant financial investment."

The Wedding Protector Plan provides coverage, with no deductible, for a variety of unfortunate occurrences associated with a wedding event. For example, coverage is provided if a hurricane causes the necessary and unavoidable cancellation or postponement of the event. Other coverages include postponement for withdrawal of military leave, forfeited and lost deposits, extra expenses associated with special attire, transportation, photographs, and entertainment expenses.

"A lot goes into planning your wedding within your budget," said Tuvin. "Travelers wants to ensure that your budget will not spiral out of control when the unexpected happens."

The top wedding claims and problems typically include damage to wedding attire, mishaps with event photography, cancellation due to illness or bereavement, and no-shows by contracted vendors.

Travelers created www.ProtectMyWedding.com, which offers a Risk Quiz to help consumers determine how much risk surrounds their wedding, plus examples of coverages provided. Consumers can then use the online agent locator to find a nearby Travelers independent agent to discuss purchasing protection. As long as the wedding is more than 14 days away, it's not too late. The Web site also offers an e-newsletter for newlyweds, which covers topics from lifestyle to money management tips, designed to help couples become in-synch with their lives as one.

The Wedding Protector Plan can cover events in the United States, Puerto Rico, Canada, the United Kingdom, Mexico, Bermuda, Bahamas, Turks and Caicos, the Caribbean Islands (excluding Cuba and Haiti) and cruise ships leaving from a port within those territories (some restrictions apply).

For more information on how to protect a wedding, contact a Travelers independent insurance agent or visit www.ProtectMyWedding.com.

Travelers is a business of The St. Paul Travelers Cos., Inc., a property casualty insurer selling primarily through independent agents and brokers.

Source: The St. Paul Travelers Cos.

Rutherford Institute Offers help for Church Super Bowl Parties

Rutherford Institute Offers to Assist NFL in Creating Exemption for Churches Wanting to Hold Big-Screen Super Bowl Viewing Parties in 2008

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. — In a recent letter to the National Football League, John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute, has offered to assist the NFL in proposing legislation that would allow churches and other non-profit entities to display the Super Bowl at gatherings, regardless of the size of the viewing screen, so long as no fees or charges are made in connection with the gathering. Institute attorneys had contacted the NFL prior to the Feb. 4, 2007 Super Bowl on behalf of an Indiana church that had been warned against hosting a "Super Bowl Bash" to which church members and guests were invited to watch the championship game on a wall projector at the church. However, because the NFL refused to publicly recant its position prior to the Bowl game, many churches were forced to either cancel their events, have their members and guests gather around a single, small television to watch the game, which precluded any kind of large gathering, or disregard the NFL's dictates altogether. A copy of the Institute's letter is available here.

"If the NFL is concerned about maintaining public good will and increasing viewership of the Super Bowl game, it needs to take the high road in this matter. Otherwise, they will only succeed in alienating a large portion of the American people who happen to be churchgoers," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "Churches have a constitutional right to assemble their congregants, and it shouldn't matter whether these people are gathering to protest the war, pray for the nation or watch a football game."

The dispute arose after NFL attorneys warned officials at Fall Creek Baptist Church in Indianapolis against hosting a "Super Bowl Bash" to which church members and guests were invited to watch the championship game between the Indianapolis Colts and the Chicago Bears on a wall projector at the church. Some of the things to which NFL attorneys reportedly objected were the church's plan to charge partygoers a fee to attend; the church's use of the words "Super Bowl" in its promotions; the church's plan to use a projector to show the game on a 12-foot-wide screen; and the church's plan to show a video in conjunction with the game highlighting the Christian testimonies of Colts coach Tony Dungy and Chicago Bears coach Lovie Smith.

Despite the church's willingness to drop the use of the words "Super Bowl" and not charge attendees a small fee to cover the cost of snacks, the NFL remained adamant in its insistence that the event be cancelled. After being contacted by The Rutherford Institute, NFL officials conceded that churches could show the Super Bowl at the event so long as 'there [is] no charge for the event' and the church does not use NFL trademarks to promote the event. Thus, as Whitehead points out in his letter, "The only matter up for debate is the size of the viewing screen—which can be considered a superficial concern, at best." The NFL makes an exception to its mass-viewing policy with large-screen TVs for sports bars that show televised sports on a regular basis.


"Freedom Under Fire" is a registered trademark of The Rutherford Institute.

The Rutherford Institute is an international, nonprofit civil liberties organization committed to defending constitutional and human rights. Information about the Institute and its ongoing efforts to defend religious freedom is available at http://m1e.net/c?49385008-HEiDS7v/OdACU%402251696-.Cr2RPiauQA6k.

(c) 2007 The Rutherford Institute

Monday, February 12, 2007

Time to Put English First

February 12, 2007

by Newt Gingrich 

One of the most frequent complaints I hear when I'm out traveling and speaking to groups is the lack of importance given to English as the language of success in the United States today. Whether it's the government's printing election ballots in other languages or bilingual education, Americans are concerned about the future of English as a unifying bond in our country.

Of course, don't expect to hear a lot of discussion of this topic in Washington. When was the last time you heard a politician talking about the fact that the Rasmussen poll reported that support for English as the official language was 85 percent? Or that the Zogby poll had it at 84 percent? With overwhelming public support like this, you would expect that promotion of English to be on the agenda of every elected official. But it's not. Instead, talking about English as a unifying bond -- and about learning English as the essential precondition for success in America -- is taboo. Why? Because the left labels anyone who talks about the importance of learning English as bigoted against immigrants.

Not 'English Only.' English First.

When the left and the elite media are done with it, any expression of support for emphasizing the importance of English is turned into a lack of support for welcoming new Americans. Those who support "English first" -- that is, those who believe that English should be the language of government, but other languages are perfectly fine in communities and commerce -- are portrayed routinely as supporters of "English only" -- that is, advocates of outlawing all languages other than English.

But historically, nothing could be further from the truth. English is not and never has been the only language in America. My wife's grandmother came to the United States as a young woman speaking only Polish. She learned English quickly, but her children grew up speaking both Polish and English.

For much of our history, the U.S. has absorbed waves of immigrants by helping newcomers assimilate into our culture. After all, there's no such thing as a genetic U.S. citizen. To become an American means becoming an American in values, culture and historic understanding.

Our one nation under God grows and prospers by embracing and welcoming the newly arrived and helping them to adjust properly.

Most Americans support continuing this welcoming tradition. But to do so successfully, we have to ensure that English remains our language of government and public discourse. In fact, to be pro-English and pro-assimilation into American culture is to be pro-legal immigration. If we fail to properly assimilate newcomers into the United States, the American people won't long support continuing immigration.

Australia Switches From Multiculturalism to Citizenship

You don't have to look far to see other countries who have experimented with failing to assimilate their immigrants and lived to regret it.

The Canadian government is currently taking another look at its policy of allowing dual citizenship for immigrants.

In Australia, they recently renamed their Ministry for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to the Ministry for Immigration and Citizenship. What's in a name change? Plenty. The change marks a shift by the Australians from a policy of government enforced multiculturalism -- encouraging immigrants to cluster in the same communities and schools and retain the culture of their old countries -- to a policy of assimilation. The reason for the change wasn't politics, it was profoundly practical. Their policy of multiculturalism had led to the creation of a closed and violent ghetto of Lebanese Muslims.

Instead of making Australia a more culturally rich and vibrant place, failing to assimilate new immigrants had the opposite effect and made the country a more violent place. Congratulations to the Howard government for having the courage to believe in their Australian cultural values and national identity.

English is the Language of American Success and Cultural Identity

We need a similar kind of courage here in America.

English is the language of American success and provides the basis for American cultural unity.

As a part of any comprehensive immigration reform, we should renew our commitment to our cultural values by teaching legal immigrants to speak and read the English language, educating them about U.S. citizenship based upon U.S. history and giving them an understanding of the Founding Fathers and the core values of American civilization. We should continue to encourage those who want to become U.S. citizens, but it is important that we grant citizenship to only those individuals who also want to embrace and assimilate into the culture of the United States.

Action Agenda to Promote the English Language

What can we do to make English the language of government and civic discourse? Three action items top the list:

  1. President Bush should end multilingualism in federal documents. The requirement that federal documents be printed in different languages was created by executive order. President Bush should repeal this executive order.

  2. Make English the language of U.S. citizenship. Return to English language ballots, to a focus on English language literacy as a prerequisite of citizenship, and to an insistence that U.S. dual citizens vote only in the United States and give up voting in their birth nations. These were principles widely understood and accepted for most of American history, and they enabled us to absorb millions of immigrants and assimilate them and their children into an American civilization.

  3. Replace bilingual education with intensive English instruction. We should have a National Program for Intensive English Instruction that would provide highly intensive English and U.S. history and civics training for new immigrants so that they can have the practical skills to become successful U.S. citizens.

It's the Right Thing to Do.

We can be dramatically more successful in helping those who want to embrace American values and culture, and become citizens, to assimilate far more effectively. As we work to reform our immigration policies, especially citizenship reform measures, we must never lose sight of the self-evident truths affirmed at our founding. That we are all created equal -- citizen and non-citizen alike -- because we recognize that we are all endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If we are to live out these truths, then we must recognize that every person has an inherent human dignity that must be respected. And that these truths morally bind us to create a workable immigration solution -- founded upon English as the official language of government and patriotic integration as the fundamental model of citizenship for new Americans.

Your friend,
Newt Gingrich

P.S. - I have two events coming up in New York City I want to make sure you have the opportunity to attend. This Thursday, February 15, I will be speaking at the 92nd Street Y and signing copies of my book, Rediscovering God in America. Then, on February 28, I will be back in New York City at historic Cooper Union for what promises to be a lively exchange of ideas with former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo. I hope you can make plans to join me.

Hillary's Nightmare: Ralph Nader

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

February 9, 2007 -- After his role in destroying Al Gore's chance to win the 2000 election, consumer activist and all-around maverick Ralph Nader would seem to have lost his credibility as a presidential candidate. In 2004, as if to punish him for his spoiler role, he got only 1 percent of the national vote, not enough to have any impact on the election.

But Ralph may have new life if he runs again in 2008. As Congress sifts its way through the various resolutions on the war in Iraq, Senator Hillary Clinton will find herself on the spot, torn between preserving her mainstream viability by supporting the troops in the field and maintaining her front runner status in the Democratic Party by courting the anti-war left. She will be asked to vote on Senator Barack Obama's bill to set a timetable of troop withdrawal culminating in a total pullout by March 2008, and on bills to cut off funding for Bush's "surge" of twenty thousand extra troops.

To date, Hillary has rejected setting a timetable, saying that it undermines our mission and encourages the enemy to hang in there, and says she will vote against cutting off funds for our troops while they are in harm's way. If she continues with these positions, she will become the right of the Democratic 2008 field. Obama may also oppose a funding cutoff, but his focus on a timetable for withdrawal would put him to Hillary's left. And former VP candidate John Edwards, who doesn't sit in the Senate anymore, will loudly proclaim his support for both a timetable and a funding cutoff, making him the left flank of the three-way race.

If Hillary doesn't change her positions — always a possibility when dealing with her — but still appeases the left enough to win the nomination, she may run smack into Ralph Nader as a professed, overt, and absolutely committed anti-war candidate. In a race of Rudy Giuliani vs. Hillary Clinton vs. Ralph Nader, a dedicated opponent of the war has only one possible vote: Nader.

The ranks of antiwar voters could swell Nader's performance far above the dismal 1 percent he got in 2004 and even above the 3 percent he won in 2000. It is not inconceivable that Nader could pass 5-7 percent of the vote or go even higher if he is the only antiwar candidate in the field.

The real question is: How will Hillary finesse the left and still keep opposing a timetable for a pullout and supporting funding for troops? She will try to ratchet up her anti-war rhetoric, even as she votes to let it continue. Her recent declaration at the Democratic National Committee that she would "end" the war as president, reminiscent of Eisenhower's 1952 vow to "go to Korea", is an example of this strategy. Her criticism of Bush and the Pentagon will become ever more strident as she tries to make the left focus on what she says not on what she does.

This approach may appease the broad center of the Democratic Party enough to win their votes for Hillary, but it will not satisfy the purist, activist, antiwar left. They will nurse grudges over Hillary's defeat of their anti-war hero: John Edwards. If the animosity spills over into the general election, it could catalyze a Nader candidacy in the fall of '08.

Nader doesn't like Hillary. He recently called her a "panderer and a flatterer." He told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that while he has not decided to run, "I'm committed to trying to give more voices and choices to the American people on the ballot. That means more third parties, independent candidates and to break up this two-party elected dictatorship that is becoming more and more like a dial for the same corporate dollars."

Sounds like a candidate to me.

Saturday, February 10, 2007

25K for food critic's poison pen

 
The Irish News building
The Irish News says it intends to launch an appeal
The Irish News must pay £25,000 plus court costs to a west Belfast Italian restaurant owner after a jury found a food critic's review to be defamatory.

Journalist Caroline Workman's August 2000 review criticised the quality of food and drink, the staff and the smoky atmosphere in the Kennedy Way premises.

Owner Ciarnan Convery claimed the article was a "hatchet job".

The newspaper pleaded justification and fair comment. It will appeal the jury's unanimous defamation verdict.

Mr Convery's legal team claimed at Belfast High Court that the review was defamatory, damaging and hurtful and said the Irish News has failed to apologise or print a retraction.

The outcome of this case raises profound questions involving the freedom of the press
Irish News spokesman
Mr Convery, a former taxi driver who opened the restaurant in 1991, said he was delighted at the ruling.

"I think justice has been done. Goodfellas is a successful business and today's verdict has proved to me, my staff and my customers that we did the right thing by launching the libel action."

An Irish News spokesman said the verdict raised "profound questions involving the freedom of the press.

"We firmly believe that newspapers must have the right to publish fair and honestly written reviews, contributed by experts in their particular field and engaging in either praise or criticism when it is justified," he said.

"We are convinced that a public interest issue of the utmost importance is at stake here, and we have therefore instructed our lawyers to enter an immediate appeal."

Thursday, February 08, 2007

Sadly, Al Gore's Nobel Nomination Is No Joke

By Doug Patton
February 5, 2007

According to the rules of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, the organization's "peace prize" is given each year to "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

Setting aside for a moment the fact that the nominees rarely fulfill those lofty qualifications, the Nobel Committee nevertheless has awarded the coveted prize over the years to some of the most outstanding recipients of the day, people who have stood head and shoulders above the rest of us in stature, vision, courage and actions in promoting peace in our world. These exceptional individuals have included theologian and medical missionary Albert Schweitzer (1952); the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1964); Mother Teresa of Calcutta (1979) and Polish political leader Lech Walesa (1983).

There have been others, however, who, when mentioned in the same breath with the Nobel Peace Prize, simply make us laugh and/or shake our heads. These recipients include failed Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev (1990); Palestinian terrorist Yasir Arafat (1994); U.N. Secretary-General in charge of corruption Kofi Annan (2001) and the most incompetent American president of the 20th century, Jimmy Carter (2002).

In fact, a few years ago, I wrote a column about the absurdity of awarding the prize to Carter, who had by then established his own annoying little unofficial state department for the sole purpose of embarrassing the Bush Administration all around the world. Apparently, this was the primary impetus driving the Nobel Committee to award the inept one-termer a cool million bucks and a boatload of undeserved credibility. (Not to worry: the Peter Principle has reasserted itself with the publication of Carter's new anti-Semitic book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.")

This year, we have an even more ludicrous nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize. Al Gore has been nominated for the prize on the strength of "An Inconvenient Truth," his film about global warming. Of course, the adoring leftist legions of Hollywood also have nominated Gore's fantasy film for an Oscar as the best documentary of the year.

The former vice-president, who still believes he won the 2000 presidential election, may be trying to leverage his continued celebrity into another race for the White House (campaign slogan: "Re-elect Al Gore!").

Gore was nominated for the Nobel by Boerge Brende, Member of the Norwegian Parliament and a former Minister of Environment, and a Socialist Left Party leader named Heidi Soerensen.

"Al Gore, like no other, has put climate change on the agenda," said Brende. "A prerequisite for winning the Nobel Peace Prize is making a difference, and Al Gore has made a difference."

Yes he has, and that's what makes him so dangerous. The real danger of Gore's popularity is that his speculations are helping to drive a juggernaut of pseudo-science that cannot be proven by any measurable scale. In fact, his hypotheses frequently contradict reality. For example, Gore warns that sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere is shrinking, but neglects to mention that sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere actually is increasing.

A recent "Wall Street Journal" article quotes a United Nations study that estimates Gore's solutions for supposed manmade climate change would cost a staggering $553 trillion over the next century. That means that every man, woman and child on planet earth would be 30 percent poorer in the year 2100.

Most meteorologists know they can't give us an accurate forecast beyond next week. Yet Al Gore and his cadre of "scientists" can tell us what's going to happen fifty years from now? Please.

Sadly, Al Gore probably will win the Nobel Peace Prize. After all, he is at least as deserving as Jimmy Carter, Kofi Annan or Yasir Arafat.

-----------

Doug Patton is a freelance columnist who has served as a political speechwriter and public policy advisor. His weekly columns are published in newspapers across the country and on selected Internet web sites, including Human Events Online, TheConservativeVoice.com and GOPUSA.com, where he is a senior writer and state editor. Readers may e-mail him at dougpatton@cox.net.

Sunday, February 04, 2007

U.S. Senator Capri Cafaro?

I haven't seen it mentioned elsewhere, but I have heard rumors that newly appointed Ohio Senator and frequent candidate Capri Cafaro (D-Who this hell knows this week), is already looking past her 2008 re-election for the Ohio Senate seat she was appointed to, and planning to run statewide in 2010 for U.S. Senate; either challenging George Voinovich, or pursuing the open seat Voinovich would retire from.

Does her family fortune and four years of legislative experience make her a contender?

For more info on Capri check these links--
http://bigworld1.blogspot.com/2006/02/whats-going-on-in-ohios-13th.html

http://ohio2006elections.blogspot.com/2006/11/ohio-sen-30th-32nd-breaking-cafaro-d.html

The DFAS shuffle

More from The Plain Dealer on the DFAS debacle......
House Democrats' changes in base realignment money, NE Ohio delegation's conflicting priorities threaten new jobs

Congress set up the Base Realignment and Closure Commission at the end of the Cold War to keep politics at arm's length whenever the United States needs to reduce the size of its military infrastructure. With input from the Pentagon, the commission periodically develops a list of proposed changes that go to Congress for an up or down vote, with no amendments allowed.

The BRAC process has worked so well that it is often held up as a model for handling other thorny issues. Even communities that have lost bases generally say they've gotten a fair shake.

In 2005, the Pentagon suggested shuttering the Defense Finance and Accounting Service's Cleveland center during the fifth round of BRAC closings. But a coalition of local business and political leaders made such a strong counter-argument that the commission recommended expanding the Cleveland center rather than closing it. The Pentagon had planned to add 275 jobs by the end of this summer, with another 733 to follow in 2008.

Those plans suddenly are in limbo. The House of Representatives passed a $464 billion bill on Wednesday to keep much of the federal government running until Oct. 1. Under the omnibus package, most departments get to spend at the same levels they did last year. But the House's new Democratic leaders made about $10 billion in adjustments to free up cash for their priorities, including college financial aid and veterans' health. Roughly $3 billion came from the base-realignment budget.

That so upset Rep. Steve LaTourette that the Madison Republican, a tireless advocate for Cleveland DFAS, voted against the entire appropriations bill, which went to the House floor with no chance to amend. Democrat Dennis Kucinich of Cleveland also voted no, though mainly, he wrote in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, because the bill contains money for nuclear weapons that he opposes. Democrat Stephanie Tubbs Jones voted for the bill because, her office said, she feared that otherwise the federal government would shut down later this month. Note to the congresswoman: The bill passed 286-140. Outrage expressed on behalf of your constituents wouldn't have derailed the train.

The appropriations bill now goes to the Senate, where the BRAC money could be restored. But the Senate is unlikely to take up the spending bill until after its Iraq war debate. That might be perilously close to the Feb. 15 deadline for passage, meaning the Senate might be loath to make changes. If it doesn't, Democratic leaders in both chambers have promised to restore the BRAC money, possibly in a supplemental defense appropriation that might arrive on Capitol Hill as early as Monday.

Republicans might have avoided this situation if they had passed fiscal 2007 spending bills when they still ran Congress. Because they didn't, the new kings of the Hill are playing a bit of shell game with BRAC. Cleveland DFAS may well get the money it needs, but the uncertainty is unfair to those who might be transferred or hired here and to the agency as it tries to plan for future space and security needs.

This community won the DFAS fight with facts and diligence. It needs to stay vigilant - and its representatives in Washington need to flex some muscle - so that that victory isn't spoiled by the very politicking BRAC was supposed to prevent.

Paradoxes pervade DFAS vote

From The Plain Dealer...
 
Sunday, February 04, 2007

Washington -

If you wanted a case study on bi zarre, unpredictable and arguably schizophrenic behavior, you'd have done well to watch the Ohio delegation in Congress last week.

Start with Rep. Dennis Kucinich. Ohioans doubt the former Cleveland mayor can become president; he got 2 percent support from the state's Democratic voters in a new Quinnipiac University poll. Yet Kucinich nonetheless fought for constituents - sort of - in the lead-up to the big House vote of the week, a $464 billion spending measure to keep the government going through this fiscal year.

Kucinich argued, as did Ohio's senators and others, that it would be a shame to subject the NASA Glenn Research Center in Brook Park to threatened job-killing reductions in aeronautics research. In the end, big cuts were avoided.

Kucinich then sent out a news release declaring victory. But something was missing from even the fine print.

Kucinich had actually voted against the spending measure.

Next, turn to Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Kucinich's cross-town Democratic colleague.

Unlike Kucinich, she voted for the bill.

It was necessary, she said through her spokeswoman, to keep the government operating, since the Republican Congress of 2006 failed to pass bills to pay civil servants' salaries and keep the lights on.

This budgetary mess could have been avoided, she and others said, had the GOP leadership done its job last year. Instead, the House was forced to make decisions about 2007 spending only five days before President Bush was to unveil his 2008 budget.

But there's a twist. The 2007 spending measure, if approved by the Senate as expected, will deny Bush much of the money he wants to use for consolidating military bases.

That would please cities that hated to see their bases go.

Problem is, their pain was to be Cleveland's gain, with 1,000 new payroll-processing jobs for the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) offices in downtown Cleveland. Which is in Tubbs Jones' district.

Cleveland's receipt of the new jobs now will be delayed and could be jeopardized, warned Steve LaTourette, the Republican congressman from Lake County who has been chiefly responsible for Cleveland's anticipated gain. Naturally, he voted Wednesday against the spending bill that puts those jobs at risk.

Kucinich shared that concern, which is one reason he, too, voted no, despite his cheers for NASA. The other reason: The measure included more than $6 billion for nuclear weapons.

"I cannot bring myself to vote for any legislation that further endangers the world," Kucinich said on the floor.

So to recap the score: LaTourette, who voted against the bill, put out a news release expressing his worries over DFAS jobs. Kucinich, who also voted against it, sent out a news release praising jobs being saved at NASA, but didn't mention his "no" vote. Tubbs Jones, who voted for the bill, was silent - sort of.

She issued a news release late Wednesday - mentioning neither DFAS nor NASA. Rather, hers was in praise of a decision by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. that could delay and possibly halt big companies such as Wal-Mart from opening banks.

"I commend the FDIC on their decision . . ." her release said.

What about the possible loss of expected jobs in her district?

Not to worry, her office said when asked. DFAS can be saved through a supplemental spending bill that Bush will send to Congress soon. Democrat Marcy Kaptur of Toledo, a member of the subcommittee that approves defense spending, made similar assurances.

About that supplemental bill: Its main purpose will be to provide more money for the Iraq war. Democrats expect to approve it, even though they deplore the war, because they want to support American troops.

So if Tubbs Jones is correct, DFAS might not lose after all. The war in Iraq, hated by Tubbs Jones, the majority in Congress and much of the country, will save it.

Who said Congress has no sense of irony?

Koff is The Plain Dealer's Washington bureau chief.

To reach Stephen Koff

skoff@plaind.com, 216-999-4212

Church Defies NFL, Will Host Super Bowl Party

 

As we've previously reported, Fall Creek Baptist Church in Indianapolis was told by the NFL that it couldn't hold a Super Bowl party. But another church, Indianapolis Second Baptist, has decided to go ahead and have a party without the NFL's consent.

Second Baptist's senior pastor, the Rev. David Greene, said in a press release and a separate letter to his congregation that the church's Super Bowl event was a way to minister to people, and that the NFL shouldn't be able to stop it.

"The NFL implied that it has a problem with the venue and medium that local churches conduct ministry," Greene said in the news release. "We want to save souls by any means necessary. Football, traditional service, street ministry -- it doesn't matter."

Although I believe the NFL has the legal right to control whether its broadcasts are used to attract people to big gatherings, I also believe there is absolutely no chance that the league will go after the church. Suing a church for a Super Bowl party would be horrible PR, and the NFL values PR above all else.

Saturday, February 03, 2007

'Manhood' Check Costs Hoops Coach Job

Maine Athletes Told to Put Hands Down Their Pants
AP Sports
 
LEEDS, Maine (Feb. 2) - A high school basketball coach was fired after telling his players at halftime to reach into their pants to "check their manhood," administrators said.
 
Leavitt Area High School Principal Patrick Hartnett said coach Mike Remillard told the varsity boys Jan. 23 that "tonight's game was about who had the biggest (male genitalia) in town."

"He then required his players to all stand up and put their hands down their pants and check their manhood," Hartnett said in the statement, which was read to school board members Thursday by Superintendent Thomas J. Hanson a day after the coach was dismissed.

All but one player followed the coach's instructions, Hartnett said. The team won the game.

Remillard, who was in his fourth season as varsity coach, called the pep talk "normal locker room banter from Fort Kent, Maine, to San Diego, California," but said he still should not have done it.

"Was that tactic appropriate? No. And I'm paying the price for it," Remillard said.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press.

Thursday, February 01, 2007

House cuts jeopardize new Cleveland jobs

Now we get to see concrete proof of what losing Mike Dewine in the Senate, and having Steve LaTourette leave the House majority, with Dennis Kucinich & Stephanie Tubbs-Jones moving into the majority. Greater Cleveland & Ohio have lost a ton of clout---

Thursday, February 01, 2007 Sabrina Eaton
Plain Dealer Bureau

Washington - The House of Representatives on Wednesday approved a spending bill that cuts $3 billion from a Pentagon base realignment program that was to bring hundreds of new jobs to Cleveland.

Republicans said they feared the cut will jeopardize or delay the transfer of jobs to Cleveland from Defense Department payroll centers that were shuttered by the Base Realignment and Closure Commission. Democrats who control Congress pledged the money will be restored.

"We are confident that in the end, Cleveland will enjoy the good jobs it won," said Steve Fought, a spokesman for Toledo Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur, a member of the appropriations subcommittee that funds the Defense Department.

The cuts in base closure money were part of a $463.5 billion spending bill to fund government departments whose budgets weren't approved before Congress adjourned last year. It was approved by a 286-140 vote. The U.S. Senate is scheduled to consider the measure during the week of Feb. 12.

The bill boosts federal spending for health research, education, and veterans. While spending on most other federal programs will remain unchanged from 2006, the bill provided less than President Bush wanted for foreign aid and the BRAC program. It also trimmed from the aeronautics budget of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, which helps finance activities at the agency's Glenn Research Center in Brook Park.

Congress last year provided $929 million for aeronautics, but the bill the House passed had a 4 percent cut, according to figures from Sen. George Voinovich's office. Some members of Congress feared it would be worse, since Bush wants to emphasize space exploration and last year proposed cutting aeronautics by 22 percent.

The agency could move money around within programs to meet Bush's priorities. But Cleveland Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich said he and other Ohio lawmakers got language in the bill preventing NASA from moving large sums out of Glenn's budget. The measure also continues a ban on involuntary layoffs through Sept. 30, when the fiscal year ends, Kucinich said.

Republicans criticized many aspects of the plan approved Wednesday, but were particularly upset about the BRAC cuts and the potential impact on the Defense Finance and Accounting Service office in Cleveland.

"The Ohio delegation worked diligently to convince the Department of Defense and the BRAC Commission to make the best decisions for U.S. defense interests and protect Ohio's excellent military facilities," Voinovich said.

A White House statement said that cutting Bush's $5.6 billion BRAC request will delay base closures, reduce savings, and "negatively impact many communities throughout the country that have begun making specific plans in response to BRAC."

Read More at-http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/stories/index.ssf?/base/isope/117033465494910.xml&coll=2