Maj. Tammy Duckworth

Maj. Tammy Duckworth is an American hero. She is running for the U.S. House of Representatives as a Democrat in the Illinois 6th; I do not support her candidacy.

Maj. Duckworth is an American hero because she volunteered to go to Iraq with her unit even though she says she was against the war. She lost her two legs there when the helicopter she was riding in was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade. Just as the loss of two legs and one arm did not entitle Capt. Max Cleland to a seat in the U.S. Senate, the loss of two legs does not entitle Maj. Duckworth to a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.

I'm calling out all my liberal friends and the liberal media for their opportunistic and exploitive support of Maj. Duckworth. I'm also a little concerned about the manner in which Maj. Duckworth admits to exploiting her injuries.

Is Maj. Duckworth a leader? Is she capable of conceiving, drafting, and selling landmark education reform legislation? Does she have a plan to save Social Security? If so, what is it? Can she stave off the loss of manufacturing jobs in the United States? Can she build a coalition to reduce the tax burden on middle-class families? Does Maj. Duckworth have the answer to illegal immigration? What are her ideas for maintaining a national economy that is humming along? What are her ideas for driving unemployment below the current, historically low 4.7%?

Other than saying she supports our troops in Iraq, what are her ideas for winning the war in Iraq? Other than saying the President has conducted the war poorly, what are her ideas for conducting it properly? While we know she supports our troops, what does she think of Sen. John F. Kerry who voted against $85 billion in support for the troops? Would she have voted for the support? While we know she thinks the war could be fought "better", would she have voted for it in the first place? What does she think of Sens. Hillary Clinton, John F. Kerry, John Edwards, and the many, many other Democrats that voted for the war?

Or, do Democrats think her only redeeming quality is that she's a Democrat and she lost two legs in the War? Partisan Democrats actually give the impression that they want to high-five each other when they say, "and she lost two legs in the war in Iraq." But here is my question, what would the national Democrats think of Maj. Duckworth if she was pro-life? If the only thing Maj. Duckworth campaigned on was outlawing partial-birth abortion and promoting parental notification? Yeah, not so giddy. (Recall how national Democrats attack Republican African-Americans and you see my point.)

Maj. Duckworth holds opinions with which I simply disagree. She's pro-abortion. I would never vote for her. This doesn't change my opinion that she's an American hero. The Democrats opportunistic exploitation of some veterans leaves me scratching my head. Again, why, exactly, did they abandon Maj. Paul Hackett?

DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff

When the avian flu returns to the front page, I hope the liberal extremists are as fervent in reminding us that Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Judge Michael Chertoff, was at an avian flu conference in Atlanta on Monday, August 29, 2005, the day that Hurricane Katrina made landfall in New Orleans, as the liberal extremists are fervent in reminding us when Hurricane Katrina is on the front page that the Secretary was at an avian flu conference on Monday, August 29, 2005.

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case challenging the Federal ban on partial-birth abortions. As readers of this space know, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 was passed by huge majorities in the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives. In the Senate the vote was 64 - 33 with three Senators not voting (no surprise here, the Great Equivocator, Sen. John F. Kerry, that giant of political thinkers and firm-stand-taking, was one of the three; Sens. Edwards and Biden were the two others.) Sixteen Democrats, including liberal extremist, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D, VT), voted for the ban of this barbaric procedures that the late, great, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D, NY) called infanticide.

I only point out the facts about the vote so that readers of this space will know how to interpret the lies and demagoguery of the liberal media when it reports on this story. Already the Boston Globe is shading their reporting with too many quotes from the Planned Childlessness crowd.

Also, as readers of this space know, the U.S. Supreme Court will not be directly commenting on Roe v. Wade in this case, no matter how much rhetoric the pro-abortion fans dump into the media. The U.S. Supreme Court will only be addressing whether the Federal government can place restrictions on certain types of abortions procedures. Obviously, the PEOPLE think restrictions should be placed on this gruesome procedure. For the umpteenth time since starting this space, I think the PEOPLE should decide these things. If you agree with me, be careful, you may be labeled an "extremist" by the radical Left.

This will be the first of many posts on this subject; my primary driver for posts will be articles or columns appearing in the Boston Globe; I'll correct factual errors when the Globe permits them and I'll rebut stupid arguments made by columnists (surely there will be many).

Anyway, the letter:

Editor,

Strangely missing from today's news article on the U.S. Supreme Court agreeing to hear the case challenging the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (the Ban) was any mention that the vote to pass the Ban was 64 - 33 in the U.S. Senate and 281 - 142 in the U.S. House of Representatives. Odd, no? The most notable Senator voting for the Ban was liberal stalwart, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D, VT) (Justices agree to hear abortion case, February 22, A2).

Based on the pro-abortion rhetoric contained in the article, the many quotes and arguments from a representative of Planned Childlessness, and no mention of the vast support this Ban enjoyed from the PEOPLE, your readers already have reason to be suspicious of the Boston Globe's reporting on this issue.

A local point of interest, the Great Equivocator, Sen. John F. Kerry, was one of three Senators that did not vote on the Ban. No real surprise here. (End of letter.)

Oh, if you want to read a great column on political correctness gone crazy, check out professor Alan Dershowitz's column at boston.com/Today's Paper/Opinion.

The USA PATRIOT Act

My point on the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (the Act) is that I honestly believe the President of the United States, the leader of the global war on terror, George W. Bush, thinks it truly helps in the war effort. I honestly believe a great majority of Republican U.S. Senators think the same thing. I honestly believe that most Democrats in the U.S. Senate think the same thing but they don't know how to stand up to the liberal national media that loves to hate the Act and the liberal extremists that hate the President. The very worst of the Senate Democrats vote for the Act and immediately pander to the hate-filled extremists; this is not leadership.

These were my words from my January 7, 2006 post that were also included in a letter to the editor of the Boston Globe:

One has to wonder about the education the students at Wellesley High School are receiving when the head of the social studies department, Ms. Diane Hemond, says, "They need to hear the other perspective . . . for them to hear a US Senator (Sen. Orrin Hatch) is great. Because Senator Kennedy couldn't come, we weren't going to cancel the event" in explaining a student protest of Sen. Hatch's defense of the PATRIOT Act (Students protest speech by GOP senator, January 7, B3).

On October 25, 2001, the United States Senate passed the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT Act) Act of 2001 by a vote of 98 - 1, Sen. Kennedy and your other Senator, John F. Kerry, voted FOR the Act. If Wellesley High School wants the "other perspective" they better book Sen. Russ Feingold (D, WI), the only Senator to vote against the Act (Sen. Mary Landrieu, D, LA did not vote) and the only Senator with any credibility in criticizing the Act.

If the "protesters" are really serious about their position, I'm sure Sens. Kennedy and Kerry have local offices where the students, or anyone else truly outraged by the Act, can stage an honest protest. (End of letter.)

On February 6, 2006, I posted:

For those that missed it, last week the United States Senate voted to extend the USA PATRIOT Act for another 5 weeks (while negotiators draft permanent changes for Congress to consider); the vote was 95 - 1. Based on how the liberal media rails against the Act, you would never imagine the wide-spread support the Act enjoys. As with the original vote in October 2001 (98 - 1), only Senator Russ Feingold (D, WI) voted against the Act. I have no problem with what I believe to be the Senator's principled differences. What's hysterical is the extraordinary demagoguery waged against the Act by so many others that still end up voting for the Act. Pander. Pander. Pander. Oh, and how about that 95 - 1 vote? Darn, if only we had a "uniter" in the White House. (End of February 6 post.)

I re-print, in its entirety, the column by Bush-hater, Mr. Robert Kuttner, that was published in the Boston Globe on Saturday, February 18:

The other day, editors of the American Prospect interviewed the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid. I pressed Reid about the difficulty that Democrats were having mounting a unified opposition to President Bush, even on issues such as the badly bungled Medicare prescription drug program. Reid did not respond directly on privatized Medicare drugs, where his caucus is divided. (Blogger's note: Eleven Democrats voted for Medicare reform, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein, CA - see my December 31, 2005 post for more details.)

Instead, the minority leader invoked the bravery of Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. Reid said, ''An example of how people really appreciate your standing up for what you believe is Russ Feingold, the only person, in the Senate, to vote against the Patriot Act - the only person. The Republicans in 2004 spent tons of money going after him on that one issue, and it didn't matter because people believed that Russ Feingold did it because he thought it was the right thing to do." Indeed, last year, when John Kerry carried Wisconsin by a bare 12,000 votes, Feingold sailed to reelection by more than 330,000 votes. ''I so admire Russ Feingold," Reid added.

The vote for the so-called Patriot Act, giving the executive branch unprecedented investigative powers to override traditional liberties, came in the hysterical wake of 9/11. Congress at least had the wit to insist that the act be reviewed after five years. Now, the Patriot Act is about to be extended, with only the most trivial sops to civil liberties. And guess who is all alone, yet again?

Senator Russ Feingold.

When Democrats agreed to support an extension making only superficial changes, Feingold vowed to filibuster. On Thursday, the Senate voted to end debate. Exactly two other senators voted with Feingold (Blogger's note: That's 97 - 3 for those scoring at home.). One was octogenarian Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who carries a copy of the Constitution around in his pocket (Blogger's note: Sen. Byrd is also the only ex-Klansman in the Unites States Senate and he's also the only U.S. Senator to vote against Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas for the U.S. Supreme Court, but the liberal extremists love him anyway!). The other was the flinty former Republican Jim Jeffords of Vermont, the Senate's lone independent. Reid, who so admires Feingold's courage, left Feingold all alone yet again.

The Patriot Act is a long-standing wish list on the part of prosecutors and spymasters who would sacrifice liberties to needless short-cuts: warrantless wiretaps; ''sneak and peak" searches where the target doesn't learn of the search; gag orders on recipients who are compelled to produce confidential medical and business records; fishing expeditions in libraries; and more mischief that violates the intent of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, making Americans less free but no more secure against terrorist attack.

But think of all we've learned since 9/11. For starters, we learned that 9/11 happened mainly because the administration was otherwise engaged. As the testimony of Richard Clarke and others made clear, the administration was obsessed with Iraq, and spent Bush's first nine months ignoring escalating warnings of an imminent Al Qaeda attack. Having the Patriot Act on the books pre-9/11 wouldn't have helped, given the administration's failure to connect dots that were known under existing surveillance law.

Most pointedly, we've learned that Bush feels free to disregard what Congress permits. The original Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 gave the government expansive surveillance powers for national security purposes, but retained higher standards of procedure and proof for intelligence data used in prosecutions. The Patriot Act blew a big hole in those protections. But even so, President Bush, in declaring that he can do whatever he wishes as commander in chief, including secret and illegal taps of Americans, doesn't feel constrained by either act. Presumably this war power could also include mass round-ups, permanent detentions, summary executions, anything at all.

What better moment to reign in Bush's extra-constitutional power-grab than when the Patriot Act is up for review? But, no. That might seem ''un-Patriotic" (get it?). As Feingold declared,''If Democrats aren't going to stand up to an executive who disdains the other branches of government and doesn't worry about trampling on the rights of innocent Americans, what do we stand for?"

Good question. As Harry Reid correctly observes, Bush can wave the bloody shirt of 9/11 all he wants; voters don't punish legislators such as Feingold who stand up for principle. One such principle, surely, is that this nation must remain a constitutional democracy. That notion is also good politics. It has been since 1789.

Feingold's courage needs to be honored, not by celebrating him as a brave loner, but by following his leadership. Legislators of both parties need to preserve our liberties, despite ominous claims of permanent war and unchecked power. If not, God save the Republic. (End of Kuttner column.)

The Act has been supported by 98 - 1, 95 - 1 and 97 - 3 votes in the U.S. Senate. The PEOPLE have decided they want this law. I trust my own reading of parts of the Act (HR 3162; section 215 and Sec. 501 seem to be the controversial sections), all but one U.S. Senator, and the President of the United States. The extremists can rail against the Act, but they should honestly rail against the Act by attacking Sens. John F. Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama as well as the Republicans, when they do so. To change the Act, the extremists should seek out candidates who run on an anti-Act platform and then do all they can to get such candidates elected. When enough like-minded candidates have been elected, they can try to change the law. That's how it works in our democracy. Wake me when the extremists find candidates to run against Kerry and Clinton in Democratic primaries. Otherwise, the extremists should . . . well, . . . be quiet.

Congratulations to the President for uniting 97 partisan U.S. Senators on a vote to end Sen. Feingold's filibuster. That is leadership. Just thought I'd point this out because liberal extremists don't seem to know it when they see it.

Oh, and on November 3, 2005, I wrote that Sen. Feingold was principled. I wrote it again on February 6, 2006. Mr. Kuttner is a professional (hate-monger?), Sen. Reid is a professional politician and I'm just "ZACKlyRight" . . . first! . . . again!

Editing Posts

Just a quick operational post today: yes, as the Administrator of this weblog, I can open prior posts and edit them. As many of you may have noticed, I've started the process of opening the prior posts and dropping in a title. I'm doing this because I need a tool to help me find material that I've written in the past, but it also helps you find a post on a particular subject. This problem became evident this morning when I started yet another USA PATRIOT Act post and I wanted to find some of the language I had previously used. Crimeny, it was a painfully slow exercise.

That I can edit prior posts requires this statement: I will never edit a prior post to make me look more intelligent than I am, allow me to say, "told you so", or delete evidence that I, too, can write some stupid stuff sometimes (I'm not CBS News, afterall). For example, way down below, I predicted Judge Emilio Garza to be the next Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. I did not go back and type in "Samuel Alito" after he was confirmed by a bi-partisan vote in the United States Senate. I'm not going to pinpoint where, but I have not deleted two or three pretty stupid mistakes I've made. On three occasions or so, I've alerted you to factual mistakes I've made and I've corrected them in a subsequent post rather than simply edit the offending post. I encourage readers to alert me to factual errors; we can disagree about philosophy, policy, motive, etc. but let's not disagree about the facts.

I have edited for spelling and grammar. Yesterday, I corrected "Utta" to "Uta" (from my Feb. 16 post). If I find a double "the the" that spell check wouldn't pick up, I'll go back and delete one. I do apologize for making the Uta Pippig correction a full 21 hours after the original post having recently learned that 20 hours is an extremely long time according to the Washington press corps.

Oh, and the next Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court will be Emilio Garza.

Tomorrow a pretty long post on the USA PATRIOT Act; I'm starting it now; look for it about noon.

Random Issues

I'm trying something different tonight; just some quick, random thoughts; really, I won't mind a few comments letting me know if I hit or missed with this change-up:

Last night, I watched Secretary of State Dr. Condoleezza Rice school the Country's most stupid Senator, John F. Kerry, on C-SPAN; they were replying her appearance from earlier in the day before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. A Rice/Kerry 2008 presidential election would be a Republican landslide. Everything Kerry said last night came out haughty and arrogant; everything sounded like, "James, bring the Mercedes Benz around front." Dr. Rice, meanwhile, gave clear and cogent answers when trying to respond to what could have been a question; with Kerry you just never know. And she smiled. And like her boss at the Mrs. Coretta Scott King funeral, she was gracious against attacks and implied insults.

From my September 20, 2005 post, here is a Sen. Kerry quote: "Katrina is the background of a new picture we must paint of America. For five years our nation's leaders have painted a picture of America where ignoring the poor has no consequences; no nations are catching up to us; no pensions are destroyed. Every criticism is rendered unpatriotic . . . Well, Katrina did happen, and it washed away that coat of paint and revealed the true canvas of America with all its imperfections (In college speech, Kerry upbraids Bush administration, September 20, A9)." First, go back and read the whole post, it's pretty good. Second, now you know what I mean when the person that said this would have trouble posing a question to Madame Secretary Dr. Rice.

The two letters to the editor that the Boston Globe printed in response to Mr. Jeff Jacoby's article from yesterday were one neutral and one against.

Exactly why is a prisoner that is suspected of killing his wife and nine-month old daughter transported wearing a bullet-proof vest? It indicts all of us and it makes him look like a victim.

I Googled "national Democrats, attack, war veterans" and didn't come up with any new material other than the stuff I've already covered. I promised I'd stay on top of this, so I'll do this same search every few days and let you know what pops.

I think I'm uncomfortable that so many people think U.S. Supreme Court Justices have to be "brilliant". I mean, I think I'm uncomfortable that people think a document that is written in plain English can only be explained to me, oh, excuse me, to the dumb Americans, to us, by brilliant Justices. The document is written in English! I can read the 19th Amendment. I can develop my own opinion about what it says. I will vote for elected officials that have the same opinion. No "brilliant" Justice will ever be able to convince me that women can't vote . . . well, unless they're on a cell phone at the same time, of course.

One more time for emphasis on one of Mr. Jacoby's points from yesterday, the idea of "hate crimes" is ridiculous. My life is not worth less than a homosexuals just because I'm a heterosexual. If we are both beaten to death by some animals, the animals get the same penalty for beating me as they do the homosexual. My brother's life is not worth less than an African-American males life. If both are beaten to death by animals, the animals get the same penalty for beating my brother as they do the African-American. Substitute any two victims you like; one is not less than the other. Just like I can read the U.S. Constitution, I can also read the Declaration of Independence. It says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, . . . ." I don't need some "brilliant" Justice or politician codifying something other than this. Plus, no one, and I mean, no one, knows, exactly, what goes on inside anyone else's head. To try to criminalize what goes on there is . . . well, ridiculous.

Men's figure skating is simply unwatchable (recall, I think Terry O'Reilly was the greatest hockey player of all-time).

Lindsey Kildow is one tough woman. She is fast making me forget my two favorite female athletes of all time, her friend, Picabo Street and marathoner, Uta Pippig (recall, I think Terry O'Reilly was the greatest hockey player of all-time).

Okay, so I tried to have some fun tonight. If you didn't like this post, blame it on the folks that were asking for less time between posts; maybe I can't deliver three days in a row.

Anyway, back to mostly serious stuff in the next post.

Hate Crimes

Jeff Jacoby, the only non-extremist that writes for the Boston Globe (well, maybe Joan Vennochi can be considered pretty mainstream), wrote the following in today's Globe:

Suppose that in 2005 unknown hoodlums had firebombed 10 gay bookstores and bars in San Francisco, reducing several of them to smoking rubble. It takes no effort to imagine the alarm that would have spread through the Bay Area's gay community or the manhunt that would have been launched to find the attackers. The blasts would have been described everywhere as ''hate crimes," editorial pages would have thundered with condemnation, and public officials would have vowed to crack down on crimes against gays with unprecedented severity.

Suppose that vandals last month had attacked 10 Detroit-area mosques and halal restaurants, leaving behind shattered windows, wrecked furniture, and walls defaced with graffiti. The violence would be national front-page news. On blogs and talk radio, the horrifying outbreak of anti-Muslim bigotry would be Topic No. 1. Bills would be introduced in Congress to increase the penalties for violent ''hate crimes" -- no one would hesitate to call them by that term -- and millions of Americans would rally in solidarity with Detroit's Islamic community.

Fortunately, those sickening scenarios are only hypothetical.

Here is one that is not: In the past two weeks, 10 Baptist churches have been burned in rural Alabama. Five churches in Bibb County - Ashby Baptist, Rehobeth Baptist, Antioch Baptist, Old Union Baptist, and Pleasant Sabine - were torched between midnight and 3 a.m. on Feb. 3. Four days later, arsonists destroyed or badly damaged Morning Star Missionary Baptist Church in Greene County, Dancy First Baptist Church in Pickens County, and two churches in Sumter County, Galilee Baptist and Spring Valley Baptist. On Saturday, Beaverton Freewill Baptist Church in northwest Alabama became the 10th house of worship to go up in flames.

Ten arson attacks against 10 churches - all of them Baptist, all in small Alabama towns, all in the space of eight days: If anything is a hate crime, obviously this is.

Or is it? ''We're looking to make sure this is not a hate crime and that we do everything that we need to do," FBI Special Agent Charles Regan told reporters in Birmingham. Make sure this is not a hate crime? If 10 Brooklyn synagogues went up in flames in a little over a week, wouldn't investigators start from the assumption that the arson was motivated by hatred of Jews? If 10 Cuban-American shops and restaurants in Miami were deliberately burned to the ground, wouldn't the obvious presumption be that anti-Cuban animus was involved? Apparently Baptist churches are different.

''I don't see any evidence that these fires are hate crimes," Mark Potok, a director of the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center, told the Los Angeles Times. ''Anti-Christian crimes are exceedingly rare in the South." But are anti-Christian crimes really that rare? Or are they simply less interesting to the Left, which prefers to cast Christians as victimizers, not victims?
A search of the SPLC's website, for example, turns up no references to Jay Scott Ballinger, a self-described Satan worshiper deeply hostile to Christianity, who was sentenced to life in prison for burning 26 churches between 1994 and 1999. Yet if those weren't ''hate crimes," what were they?

Running through the coverage of the latest church burnings is an almost palpable yearning to cast the story in racial terms. ''Federal investigators are looking for two white men for questioning in connection with a string of church fires in central Alabama," began a National Public Radio story on Friday. ''Race may be a factor." In fact, race seems not to be a factor at all - five of the churches had mostly white congregations, five were largely black. To a media ever ready to expose racism in American culture, the arsonists' lack of regard for skin color must be maddening.

In 1996, a spate of fires in the South was wildly and falsely trumpeted in the media as an eruption of racism. ''We are facing an epidemic of terror," said Deval Patrick, the Clinton administration's assistant attorney general for civil rights. But as it turned out, there was no racist conspiracy. More than a third of the arsonists arrested were black, and more than half the churches burned were white. So perhaps it is progress of a sort that, this time around, the media are keeping in check the urge to cry ''Racism!"

But real progress will come only when we abandon the whole misguided notion of "hate crimes," which deems certain crimes more deserving of outrage and punishment not because of what the criminal did, but because of the group to which the victim belonged. The burning of a church is a hateful act regardless of the congregants' skin color. That some people bend over backward not to say so is a disgrace. (End of Jacoby essay.)

Great job, Jeff.

For those not from the greater Boston area or unfamiliar with the liberal extremism of the Boston Globe, let me tell you how the letters to the editor work. When the Globe publishes essays from their stable of leftists, the letters selected for publication are the ones that say, "right on!"; there is rarely an opposing view to the Left. Primarily, the letters critical of a Globe essay are those attacking Mr. Jacoby. I'll let you know what happens here.

Before the constitutional scholars comment, yesterday when I wrote that, " . . . Democrats that cannot decide if al Qaeda operatives in this Country deserve protection by our Constitution or not . . . ", I should have made clear the operatives were not U.S. citizens. The U.S. Constitution, of course, protects all U.S. citizens.

The Democratic Party didn't attack any other veterans today. You can trust that I'll stay on top of this story, though. To wit, this was pulled from the AP story published (and buried) in today's Boston Globe: Another grass-roots group that backed Hackett (see yesterday's post), Democratic war veterans, expressed outrage as well. ''Hackett brought credibility on the No. 1 issue facing the nation - the war in Iraq," said Jon Soltz, an Iraq combat veteran and executive director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America Political Action Committee. ''The Democratic Party loses credibility on that issue because he is no longer running, and because they had a hand in his decision." Watch out, Jon, or the national Democrats will put you in their sights.

Vets and Elections

Folks, I cannot make this up. Just four days ago I addressed the fact that 55 veterans were running for Congress this November as Democrats. I said they ALL (yes, even the other, apparently misguided, 40 veterans that were running as Republicans) should be treated with dignity and respect. I said ALL of them, if they had something to say, should be heard. I said that if the Boston Globe mistreated anyone of them, I'd let you know. Well, so far the Boston Globe has not (it's only been four days, afterall), but the machinery of the Democratic Party has! I post here the AP story that hit the news wires today . . . Google it yourself to verify not a word has been altered:

(AP, February 14, 2006) Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett, a Bush administration critic who had been recruited by top Democrats to run for U.S. Senate, said Tuesday he was reluctantly dropping his campaign and declared his political career over.

Hackett said he was pressured by party leaders to drop out of the Senate primary and run for the House against Republican Rep. Jean Schmidt instead.

National Democratic leaders, especially Sen. Charles Schumer, added to that pressure by telling his top fundraisers to stop sending money, Hackett said. "My donor base and host base on both coasts was contacted by elected officials and asked to stop giving," Hackett told The Associated Press on Tuesday. "The original promise to me from Schumer was that I would have no financial concerns. It went from that to Senator Schumer actually working against my ability to raise money."

Schumer, a New York Democrat who heads the party's Senate campaign committee, was not immediately available for comment. But committee spokesman Phil Singer said neither the campaign committee nor Schumer "reached out to donors to ask them to take sides in this race."

Singer praised Hackett for making a "statesman-like decision" that would help the party in an important race.

The deadline for candidates to file for the May 2 primary is Thursday.

Hackett, a Cincinnati attorney and Marine Reservist, captured national attention last summer by blasting Bush's war policies, raising huge sums on the Internet and capturing 48 percent of the vote in one of the country's most conservative House districts. Republican Jean Schmidt won the special election in a tight race.

Hackett had declared his candidacy for Republican Mike DeWine's Senate seat after it appeared Democratic Rep. Sherrod Brown would not run.

A few days afterward, Brown announced that he would run, and national Democrats privately began urging Hackett to step aside for the more seasoned politician.

Democrats also considered Schmidt vulnerable in a rematch against Hackett. She was widely criticized for saying in a speech about a troop pullout recommendation by Rep. John Murtha, a decorated Vietnam veteran: "Cowards cut and run, Marines never do."

But Hackett said he had promised three Democrats running in the district that he would not run. "I couldn't sleep with myself if I did to them what was done to me," he said. "At the end of the day, my word is my bond and I will take it to my grave," he said. "Thus ends my 11-month political career."

Hackett said he still supports the party's effort to unseat DeWine. "Whatever personal emotions I have about Sherrod, if he asks me to help in some way, and I can help and it doesn't interfere with my own life, I will do the best to help him," Hackett said.

Party leaders had been urging Hackett to switch to the House race since Brown jumped in, and on Sunday, some national Democrats made those requests public. "If he stays in the Senate race, I'm with Paul Hackett, but this is about the House race and giving us another member of the Democratic caucus," said Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio. Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, also urged Hackett on Sunday to run for Congress instead.

Ohio Democratic Party Chairman Chris Redfern said Hackett still has the popular support to have an impact. "It is my hope that whatever disappointment he might feel about these circumstances, that he will seize a different moment in the future," Redfern said. (End of AP story.)

I'll let the readers decide for themselves if the February 8 gathering of 55 congressional Democrat candidates, all veterans, on the steps of the Capitol was nothing more than a photo op.

I think Major Paul Hackett (USMC, ret.) should be heard; the national Democrats do not.

With this post I'd also like to note that I did make a factual error in my February 10 post. Yes, there are 95, oops!, 94 veterans running for Congress in November but they are not all War in Iraq veterans as I mistakenly wrote. The 94 covered the time from Vietnam forward.

Lastly, referencing just one word in the AP story above, Ms. Schmidt was not "criticized" for the comment she made, she was "opportunistically demagogued" by Democrats that cannot articulate a coherent position on the war in Iraq. She was "opportunistically demagogued" by Democrats that cannot decide if al Qaeda operatives in this Country deserve protection by our Constitution or not. Ms. Schmidt was "opportunistically demagogued" by Democrats that refused to acknowledge she was quoting a Marine that was serving in Iraq at the time Rep. Jack Murtha was calling for immediate withdrawal of troops (though he later voted against immediate withdrawal).

Going forward, I'll let you know if the Boston Globe or the national Democratic Party mistreats any of the remaining veterans running for Congress in November.

Finally, Happy Valentine's Day to all. Yes, even to the liberal extremists. Maybe Chuck Schumer and Howard Dean wouldn't be so angry if they just got . . . hugged . . . yeah, hugged, every once in a while.

Sen. Joseph Maxwell Cleland

A reader asked me about Sen. Max Cleland in my last post. Based on the wording of the question, the reader appears to have an unfavorable opinion of Sen. Cleland.

Captain and Sen. Joseph Maxwell (Max) Cleland did not "drop a grenade on himself." After spending quite a bit of time researching this (research that started during the 2004 Presidential election), it appears that Cpt. Max Cleland picked-up a "hair-triggered" grenade that another soldier dropped on a helicopter pad in Vietnam. I don't know how a grenade so armed did not explode when it was dropped, but it didn't. Instead, it exploded after it was picked-up by Cpt. Cleland. He lost an arm and two legs in the explosion.

On April 4, 1968 (also the day Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated), Captain Cleland earned the Silver Star; on April 8, 1968, Captain Cleland lost three limbs.

It is absolutely true that Sen. John F. Kerry and the machinery of the Democrat Party exploited Sen. Cleland during the 2004 Presidential election and the Democrats continue to exploit him today. Sen. Cleland's service to his Country, and his tremendous personal sacrifice, cannot be impugned. The truth of his injuries does not diminish his service, yet the national Democrats, with the national liberal media as an accomplice, continue to misrepresent Sen. Cleland's injuries; they almost seem embarrassed that the injuries were not the result of enemy fire. Sen. Cleland's bravery and service are honorable enough. How can Sen. Cleland's extraordinary service to his Country not be enough for the national Democrats?

Captain Max Cleland wore the uniform of the United States of America and 38 years ago carried a rifle in a swamp halfway around the world because the Commander-in-Chief, President Lyndon Johnson, said he should. Returning from combat where he very easily could have sustained the injuries he did receive, he fell victim to a tragic accident. I was asked for my thoughts on Sen. Cleland. I think Sen. Cleland is an America hero. I disagree with his pro-abortion positions, his disregard for the Second Amendment, and his desire to raise taxes, but he's still an American hero. Being an American hero does not entitle anyone to a seat in the United States Senate, however.

Two hundred and fifty-five Swift Boat Veterans that didn't think Sen. John F. Kerry was fit to be Commander-in-Chief carried rifles in a swamp halfway around the world as well.

For what is only the "next" time because I know I will write it again, ALL veterans that have something to say should be heard. They should ALL be treated with dignity and respect. And, then, let the voters decide, as they did in Georgia when the voters decided to not return an American hero to the U.S. Senate in 2002.

Vets and Elections

The Boston Globe gleefully published a puff piece by Jon Sarche (Associated Press) about all the Iraq veterans returning from the war to run as Democrats in upcoming elections (Angry over Iraq war, veterans launching congressional runs, February 8, A5).

I'm taking the easy way out tonight and simply re-printing some of my words from my December 1, 2005 post (please treat yourself by going back and reading the entire post).

"Two hundred and fifty-five war veterans that served in Vietnam earned enough medals to armor-plate a Humvee in Iraq that Sen. Kerry voted against armor-plating (recall his vote against $85 billion in support after he voted to send the troops to Iraq). Whether you agree with these men or not, they absolutely earned their right to speak without their character being impugned by the liberal extremists. These 255 men, of course, are the self-named Swift Boat Vets and POWs for Truth. That the Left, and especially Sen. Kerry, has morphed their name into a pejorative verb is disgusting. Where's the outrage? Rep. Jack Murtha should speak. He has every right to say whatever he wants without being called a name. But 255 men that also carried a rifle in a swamp are vilified because they don't support Sen. Kerry? ALL veterans should be treated with respect; it would be nice if the liberal media showed some toward these men or any other veteran that supports Sen. Hillary Clinton and the President . . .

. . . Wow, the U.S. House of Representatives recently voted 403 - 3 to not immediately withdraw troops from Iraq . . . notables voting with the President and voting to not immediately withdrawal the troops were Reps. John Murtha (D, PA), a 73-year old Marine veteran decorated for combat service in Vietnam . . . the day after Rep. Murtha argued for withdrawal (but, later voted against withdrawal), another Representative addressed the House in support of the war on terror. His name is Sam Johnson. Mr. Johnson served in the United States Air Force for 29 years. He was a prisoner of war in Vietnam for seven years and he served more than three and a half of those years in solitary confinement. The day Mr. Johnson was returned to the general prisoner population from solitary confinement, he presented himself to the assembled American officers and said, "Lieutenant Colonel Sam Johnson reporting for duty, sir." Mr. Johnson's decorations include two Silver Stars, two Legions of Merit, the Distinguished Flying Cross, one Bronze Star with Valor, two Purple Hearts, four Air Medals and three Outstanding Unit Awards. Mr. Johnson, certainly, has earned the right to speak . . . and be heard. Why weren't his comments covered in the Globe? It's outrageous that the liberal media is "cherry-picking" comments of veterans to attack the President. ALL of the veterans deserve to be heard. It is absolutely chilling that the hate-Bush crowd believes that only veterans that are critical of President Bush have any credibility. The denigration of 255 swift boat veterans that questioned Sen. Kerry's fitness for Commander-in-Chief has to stop. (End of December 1 excerpts.)

The February 8 article I cite above states that 95 Iraq veterans are running for Congress in November; fifty-five are registered Democrats and 40 are registered Republicans. Of the Democrats, the articles says they are "engineers, teachers, lawyers, business owners, and a pastor (I did say puff piece, right?)." Crimeny, they donated 16 lungs, 43 kidneys and there's a story floating around that one donated his perfectly-functioning heart to a little girl in exchange for a mechanical heart (yes, I'm joking). The article doesn't state from which elderly men and women the Republican candidates steal their meal money (still joking).

I wish ALL 95 Iraq war veterans running for Congress the best. I hope all 95 are treated fairly by the media. I'll let you know if the Boston Globe mistreats anyone.

The USA PATRIOT Act

For those that missed it, last week the United States Senate voted to extend the USA PATRIOT Act for another 5 weeks (while negotiators draft permanent changes for Congress to consider); the vote was 95 - 1. Based on how the liberal media rails against the Act, you would never imagine the wide-spread support the Act enjoys. As with the original vote in October 2001 (98 - 1), only Senator Russ Feingold (D, WI) voted against the Act. I have no problem with what I believe to be the Senator's principled differences. What's hysterical is the extraordinary demagoguery waged against the Act by so many others that still end up voting for the Act. Pander. Pander. Pander. Oh, and how about that 95 - 1 vote? Darn, if only we had a "uniter" in the White House.

As I noted below, I was a caller on the Eagan and Braude show a couple of weeks ago and I did make the point to Mr. Braude that "elections matter." Very quickly, some other points I made were that the Republican Party has a long history of trying to empower the Executive Branch. I cited three instances during the Clinton Administration. They were:
1. giving the President the power to fast-track foreign trade agreements,
2. giving the President the line item veto, and
3. rescinding the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

I was right on 1. and 2., but I was wrong on 3. On 2., the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the line item veto in a 6 - 3 opinion. On point 3., the Republican Congress narrowly defeated rescinding the War Powers Resolution. The reason I mis-recollected this was that many prominent Republicans supported the rescission, most notably Reps. Henry Hyde (IL) and Newt Gingrich (GA). Yes, my angry, liberal, friends, Republicans gave President Clinton more power and some wanted to give him even more than that.

Elections Matter

In my inaugural post, August 2, 2005, I said elections mattered; I must have been making reference to the John Roberts' nomination or confirmation. Again, the brilliant Sen. Barack Obama and I think very much alike.

Amazing, al Qaeda's number two leader and Sen. John F. Kerry, Sen. Harry Reid, Gov. Howard Dean, and Boston Globe columnists Robert Kuttner, James Carroll and Derrick Z. Jackson all share the same opinion of the leader of the global war on terror, President George W. Bush. This is what Ayman al-Zawahri said about our President over the weekend, "Bush, you are not only defeated and a liar, but, with God's help and might, a failure. You are a curse on your own nation and you have brought and will bring them only catastrophes and tragedies (Qeada deputy mocks Bush, Boston Globe, January 31, A7)." Amazing.

During last night's State of the Union address, the Democrats sat on their hands when the President said, "As we make progress on the ground, and Iraqi forces increasingly take the lead, we should be able to further decrease our troop levels - but those decisions will be made by our military commanders, not by politicians in Washington, DC." Of course I don't like to question the patriotism of Congressional Democrats, but, boy, they sure make it hard not to! They can't applaud for the decision-making ability of career soldiers? Of Generals? Do Democrats loath the military that much?

During last night's State of the Union address, the Democrats sat on their hands when the President said, "So to prevent another attack - based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute - I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al-Qeada operatives and affiliates to and from America. Previous Presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have - and Federal courts have approved the use of that authority. Appropriate members of Congress have been kept informed. This terrorist surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It remains essential to the security of America. If there are people inside our country who are talking with with al-Qeada, we want to know about it - because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again." Of course I don't like to question the patriotism of Congressional Democrats, but, boy, they sure make it hard not to! Oh, I already wrote that. Oh, well.

I wonder if Derrick Z. Jackson, African-American columnist for the Boston Globe, is going to do a screed against Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia. Recall, Sen. Byrd is an ex-Ku Klux Klan member and the only Senator in history to vote against African-American, U.S. Supreme Court nominees Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas. On Tuesday, Senator Byrd voted for Judge Samuel Alito, the nominee that Sen. Ted Kennedy and Globe columnist Jackson implied was a white racist. Acknowledging Mr. Jackson to be nothing more than a liberal demagogue, I'm betting that he lets politics trump principle. You see, Sen. Byrd is a Democrat. He's the Dean of Democrats. He's the "conscience of the Senate". Mr. Jackson should be so proud of himself.

Senator John F. Kerry said the confirmation of Samuel Alito would essentially be a "coup" by President Bush on the judiciary. Wow, I would have thought you would need some juice to stage a coup. Yes, I'm positive of it, President Bush is definitely a weak President as he averaged just 68 votes for each of his extremely conservative Supreme Court nominees.