By Noam N. Levey | Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — Taking another step into the abortion debate, the Obama administration Friday will move to rescind a controversial rule that allows health-care workers to deny abortion counseling or other family-planning services if doing so would violate their moral beliefs, according to administration officials.

The rollback of the "conscience rule" comes just two months after the Bush administration announced it last year in one of its final policy initiatives.

The new administration's action seems certain to stoke ideological battles between supporters and opponents of abortion rights over the responsibilities of doctors, nurses and other medical workers to their patients.

Seven states, including California, Illinois and Connecticut, as well as two family planning groups, have filed suits challenging the Bush rule, arguing it sacrifices the health of patients to religious beliefs of medical providers.

The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology has reported cases such as that of a Virginia mother of two who became pregnant because she was denied emergency contraception. In Texas, the group said, a rape victim had her prescription for emergency contraception rejected by a pharmacist.

Supporters say the rule protects doctors who should not be forced to prescribe treatments such as birth control pills or the so-called morning-after pill.

President Barack Obama — a longtime supporter of abortion rights — has been expected to reverse a number of Bush-era policies restricting access to family-planning services.

But he also has been sensitive to the explosiveness of the reproductive-rights issue.

Last month, without ceremony Obama overturned a ban on U.S. funding for international aid groups that provide abortion services.

The move by the Department of Health and Human Services to throw out the conscience rule is being made equally quietly as the budget plan is made public.

Officials stressed Thursday that the administration is looking for input from people across the ideological spectrum before it finalizes the rollback after the standard 30-day comment period.

"We believe that this is a complex issue that requires a thoughtful process where all voices can be heard," said one official, who was not authorized to speak on the record.

Officials said the administration will consider drafting a new rule to clarify what health-care workers can reasonably refuse for patients.

For more than 30 years, federal law has allowed doctors and nurses to decline to provide abortion services as a matter of conscience, a protection that is not subject to rulemaking.

In promulgating the new rule last year, Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said it was necessary to address discrimination in the medical field.

He criticized "an environment in the health-care field that is intolerant of individual conscience, certain religious beliefs, ethnic and cultural traditions and moral convictions."

Officials said the Obama administration's goal is to make the rule clearer.

nlevey@tribune.com

The Americans Who Risked Everything

 My father, Rush H. Limbaugh, Jr., delivered this oft-requested address locally a number of times, but it had never before appeared in print until it appeared in The Limbaugh Letter. My dad was renowned for his oratory skills and for his original mind; this speech is, I think, a superb demonstration of both. I will always be grateful to him for instilling in me a passion for the ideas and lives of America's Founders, as well as a deep appreciation for the inspirational power of words which you will see evidenced here:

"Our Lives, Our Fortunes, Our Sacred Honor"

Much To Lose

What kind of men were the 56 signers who adopted the Declaration of Independence and who, by their signing, committed an act of treason against the crown? To each of you, the names Franklin, Adams, Hancock and Jefferson are almost as familiar as household words. Most of us, however, know nothing of the other signers. Who were they? What happened to them?

I imagine that many of you are somewhat surprised at the names not there: George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry. All were elsewhere.

Ben Franklin was the only really old man. Eighteen were under 40; three were in their 20s. Of the 56 almost half - 24 - were judges and lawyers. Eleven were merchants, nine were landowners and farmers, and the remaining 12 were doctors, ministers, and politicians.

With only a few exceptions, such as Samuel Adams of Massachusetts, these were men of substantial property. All but two had families. The vast majority were men of education and standing in their communities. They had economic security as few men had in the 18th Century.

Each had more to lose from revolution than he had to gain by it. John Hancock, one of the richest men in America, already had a price of 500 pounds on his head. He signed in enormous letters so that his Majesty could now read his name without glasses and could now double the reward. Ben Franklin wryly noted: "Indeed we must all hang together, otherwise we shall most assuredly hang separately."
Fat Benjamin Harrison of Virginia told tiny Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: "With me it will all be over in a minute, but you, you will be dancing on air an hour after I am gone."

These men knew what they risked. The penalty for treason was death by hanging. And remember, a great British fleet was already at anchor in New York Harbor.

They were sober men. There were no dreamy-eyed intellectuals or draft card burners here. They were far from hot-eyed fanatics yammering for an explosion. They simply asked for the status quo. It was change they resisted. It was equality with the mother country they desired. It was taxation with representation they sought. They were all conservatives, yet they rebelled.

It was principle, not property, that had brought these men to Philadelphia. Two of them became presidents of the United States. Seven of them became state governors. One died in office as vice president of the United States. Several would go on to be U.S. Senators. One, the richest man in America, in 1828 founded the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. One, a delegate from Philadelphia, was the only real poet, musician and philosopher of the signers. (It was he, Francis Hopkinson not Betsy Ross who designed the United States flag.)

Richard Henry Lee, a delegate from Virginia, had introduced the resolution to adopt the Declaration of Independence in June of 1776. He was prophetic in his concluding remarks: "Why then sir, why do we longer delay? Why still deliberate? Let this happy day give birth to an American Republic. Let her arise not to devastate and to conquer but to reestablish the reign of peace and law.

"The eyes of Europe are fixed upon us. She demands of us a living example of freedom that may exhibit a contrast in the felicity of the citizen to the ever-increasing tyranny which desolates her polluted shores. She invites us to prepare an asylum where the unhappy may find solace, and the persecuted repost.

"If we are not this day wanting in our duty, the names of the American Legislatures of 1776 will be placed by posterity at the side of all of those whose memory has been and ever will be dear to virtuous men and good citizens."

Though the resolution was formally adopted July 4, it was not until July 8 that two of the states authorized their delegates to sign, and it was not until August 2 that the signers met at Philadelphia to actually put their names to the Declaration.

William Ellery, delegate from Rhode Island, was curious to see the signers' faces as they committed this supreme act of personal courage. He saw some men sign quickly, "but in no face was he able to discern real fear." Stephan Hopkins, Ellery's colleague from Rhode Island, was a man past 60. As he signed with a shaking pen, he declared: "My hand trembles, but my heart does not."

"Most Glorious Service"

· Robert Morris, merchant prince of Philadelphia, delegate and signer, met Washington's appeals and pleas for money year after year. He made and raised arms and provisions which made it possible for Washington to cross the Delaware at Trenton. In the process he lost 150 ships at sea, bleeding his own fortune and credit almost dry.

· George Clymer, Pennsylvania signer, escaped with his family from their home, but their property was completely destroyed by the British in the Germantown and Brandywine campaigns.

· Dr. Benjamin Rush, also from Pennsylvania, was forced to flee to Maryland. As a heroic surgeon with the army, Rush had several narrow escapes.

· John Martin, a Tory in his views previous to the debate, lived in a strongly loyalist area of Pennsylvania. When he came out for independence, most of his neighbors and even some of his relatives ostracized him. He was a sensitive and troubled man, and many believed this action killed him. When he died in 1777, his last words to his tormentors were: "Tell them that they will live to see the hour when they shall acknowledge it [the signing] to have been the most glorious service that I have ever rendered to my country."

· William Ellery, Rhode Island delegate, saw his property and home burned to the ground.

· Thomas Lynch, Jr., South Carolina delegate, had his health broken from privation and exposures while serving as a company commander in the military. His doctors ordered him to seek a cure in the West Indies and on the voyage, he and his young bride were drowned at sea.

· Edward Rutledge, Arthur Middleton, and Thomas Heyward, Jr., the other three South Carolina signers, were taken by the British in the siege of Charleston. They were carried as prisoners of war to St. Augustine, Florida, where they were singled out for indignities. They were exchanged at the end of the war, the British in the meantime having completely devastated their large landholdings and estates.

· Thomas Nelson, signer of Virginia, was at the front in command of the Virginia military forces. With British General Charles Cornwallis in Yorktown, fire from 70 heavy American guns began to destroy Yorktown piece by piece. Lord Cornwallis and his staff moved their headquarters into Nelson's palatial home. While American cannonballs were making a shambles of the town, the house of Governor Nelson remained untouched. Nelson turned in rage to the American gunners and asked, "Why do you spare my home?" They replied, "Sir, out of respect to you." Nelson cried, "Give me the cannon!" and fired on his magnificent home himself, smashing it to bits. But Nelson's sacrifice was not quite over. He had raised $2 million for the Revolutionary cause by pledging his own estates. When the loans came due, a newer peacetime Congress refused to honor them, and Nelson's property was forfeited. He was never reimbursed. He died, impoverished, a few years later at the age of 50.

Lives, Fortunes, Honor

 

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/folder/american_who_risked_everything_1.member.html

 

June 25, 2008 - 12:50 ET

Glenn Beck’s Summer Political Tour ‘08

GLENN: The last few days I haven't read the newspaper. I read it on Sunday and that's when I said, you know what, I'm not going to read the newspaper until I have to go back to work, because I read this story from the Associated Press. Everything seemingly is spinning out of control. Washington, Associated Press: Midwestern levees are bursting. Polar bears are adrift. Gas prices are skyrocketing. Home values are abysmal. Airfares, college tuition and health care border on unaffordable. Wars without end rage in Iraq, Afghanistan and against terrorism. Horatio Alger, twist in your grave.
The can-do, bootstrap approach embedded in the American psyche is under assault. Eroding it is a dour powerlessness that is chipping away at the country's sturdy conviction that destiny can be commanded with sheer courage and perseverance. The sense of helplessness is even reflected in this year's presidential election. Each contender offers a sense of order and hope. Even so a battered public seems discouraged by the onslaught of dispiriting things.

Let me tell you something, America. That's where I stopped reading because this is nothing but a lie. I know how you feel because it's the way I feel. I know that you say to yourself, how are we ever going to get out of this. Where is that person that is going to lead us out of this? I feel the same way you feel when I fill my tank with gas. I feel like you do every time I watch television and I listen to John McCain or Barack Obama speak. When I hear that they are making a priority of finding biodegradable balloons for the Democratic National Convention, I think to myself, that's your priority? Biodegradable balloons? When I hear that they have just passed a bill in the Senate to bail out 400,000 more people out of bad mortgages, these are people that were too risky for government loans and they're allotting each of these people $750,000. If you're too risky for a government loan, why are you buying a 3/4 of a million dollar home? I feel the same way you do. But maybe I have something that you don't because I rarely have this when I'm away from people. But when I travel around the country and when I hear the voices of the average person in talk radio, when you call in, I know where our strength really is. It's in you.

Now, we're looking for a leader, but since when did America start waiting around for a leader? It shows that the lie of our government in the last 100 years has really taken root deep inside of you. We're pioneers. All the way from the pilgrims to today we're pioneers. We were people that took chances. We were people that took risks. We were people that did the unthinkable and we still are. But every step of the way the government is in there and the media is in there telling you that you're not. Well, you are. You are a pioneer. You are the leader of your family. You are the leader we've been looking for. The media is focusing on what everything -- everything that's wrong with America, and I play a part in that. I think I give you a different spin than the rest of the media. I tell you what's wrong with America and what's really causing it, and it ain't you. So let me tell you some of the things that are right with America because we still lead the world in the principles that matter most, the rules of law, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from an oppressive government, although that one's slipping by the wayside rapidly.

So let's talk about our economy. For everything that I've said about the economy and how much trouble we are in, I have also said look at the body blows this economy has taken since 9/11, one right after another. Body blow, body blow, body blow. Consider that California has the same GDP as the entire country of France. Illinois has the same GDP as the entire country of Mexico. New York has the entire GDP of Brazil. Florida, the same as South Korea. Texas, the entire GDP of Canada. Michigan, the GDP of Argentina. Missouri, the GDP of Poland. The projected GDP of the U.S. in 2007 is just shy of the next four biggest economies on planet Earth combined: Japan, Germany, China, and Great Britain, combined. That's how big this company of ours is. When you think of it just that way and you think of it as a company whose earnings are bigger than Japan, Germany, China and the U.K. combined, you think to yourself maybe we should get somebody who knows a little something about business to run this country.

We topped the world again in technological economic innovation. World survey found 77% of Americans are very proud of their nationality. We're tied with those from Ireland. Canadians come in second at 60%, British 53%. 43% of, oh, the gods of Sweden are very proud of their nationality and only 20% of Germans. So what's right with America? Well, you know we talk all the time about nut job college professors, liberal indoctrination. But the truth is while all of that's going on, our universities are still ranked among the highest in the world. We attract over half a million foreign students every year. They leave their country to come here to study. We open up the same colleges and universities to over 80,000 foreign professors, scholars, educators. We've always wanted and continue to want the best and the brightest to teach and educate, our best, our brightest. That's a part of what makes America great. It's not us versus them. We seek out talent. We invite talent. We don't care about their nationality. We don't care about their race. We want them here. Unfortunately those in Washington are now forcing us to ship their best and their brightest back home. But even with that happening we still have over 250 Nobel Prize winners. We have more than double the number of Nobel Prize winners than the British who have the second highest number of Nobel Prize winners. Double number two. More Americans have been awarded the Nobel Prize than individuals from the next three runner-up countries combined. We have more students studying at universities and colleges, about 14 million. More than India, Japan and China do combined. Even though their combined populations dwarf ours, it's not only the number, but the reality that anyone can go to the best colleges and universities in America. Anyone can go to college. The doors of the university are not reserved for the select, those with the right family connection. It's not reserved only for the children of the political elite, but your son or daughter, the son or daughters of farmers, the son or daughter of a radio deejay or a baker. They can all go to college, top tier college universities, if they work hard. And education isn't just formal in America.

What's right with America? People are allowed to have the freedom to go and do. Americans invented the cotton gin. It revolutionized the world. Isn't it funny that the government didn't come up with the cotton gin. As we talk about illegal immigration, what was the argument against abolishing slavery? The South couldn't pick the cotton. The South couldn't get it done. Their economy would collapse. We fought the Civil War. The cotton gin replaced the slave. Bifocals were invented by Benjamin Franklin. Meat could be stored all year in a refrigerator after an American inventor, Oliver Evans, drafted the plans for the refrigerator. The sewing machine was American. Safety pin, telephone, incandescent light bulb, cash register, Ferris wheel, crayons, bubble gum, photocopiers, the artificial heart, the automobile, the first flight airplane. Coca-Cola. By invented the Popsicle.

Healthcare, our healthcare, oh, have you seen the stories on healthcare? Let me give you the true story on healthcare. In 1900 the life expectancy in America was 50 years old, life expectancy. You were dead by 50. Today it's more than 75 years. But it's more than just living longer. Our healthcare system, our prescription drugs have allowed us to lead and experience more fuller lives. In too many countries it appears that people who are just too old, just too old, have nothing to do but wait and die. Consider this. The vice president of the United States, Dick Cheney, has had four heart attacks, four. He's not only active. He's the vice president. What a commentary on a broken healthcare system. People want to focus on the negative of our healthcare. Say, yeah, but the benefits are only for the rich. Really? Unfortunately the facts don't prove that out.

In 1900 a rich person lived to 60. The poor person died at 45. 15 years separation. Today the life expectancy of an affluent person in America, a rich person, 78 years old. Poor person, somebody who lives in the gutter in America, 74. A four-year difference. Yes, the rich have advanced and they have benefitted, but the poor have advanced and benefitted even more, and that is what makes America great. Right now in the United States we spend roughly $2 trillion on healthcare. We spend more than any other country in the world per capita averaging $4,631 per person. That's more than Switzerland, Germany, Canada and any other country in the world. Heart disease, we haven't conquered it but we're beating it. Death by heart disease, fallen 67% in the last 50 years. The much talked about Canadian system, consider that 400 Canadians in the full throes of heart attack or other cardiac emergency have been sent to the United States, over the border because no hospital can provide lifesaving care that they require there in Canada. In the United Kingdom one in eight patients wait more than a year for hospital treatment. The British government just recently set a new goal, to keep wait times to less than 18 weeks. That, by the way, is four months. In Canada almost a million citizens, a million citizens can waiting for necessary surgery and more than a million Canadians can't find a regular doctor. You think our healthcare is so bad, let me show you the healthcare system up in Canada that everybody wants us to have. In a small town in Norwood, Ontario, they have a drawing every week. Every week they have a drawing. Somebody wins, somebody who lives in Norwood Ontario, somebody wins the right to go see the town's doctor. Congratulations. You are a winner in the Canadian healthcare system.

Memories of Fallen Marines Counter ACLU’s Latest Attempt to Tear Down Mt. Soledad Cross

Thursday, April 10, 2008

ANN ARBOR, MI – On next Monday, April 14, 2008, the Honorable Larry Alan Burns, a federal district court judge in Southern California, will hear oral arguments in the ACLU’s latest lawsuit to tear down the Mt. Soledad Cross.   When Judge Burns considers the case, he will have in his file a compelling brief supporting the Mt. Soledad Cross filed by the Thomas More Law Center.

The Law Center’s friend of the court brief was filed on behalf of the families of Marine Majors Michael D. Martino and Gerald Bloomfield, III, both of whom were killed in combat in Iraq on November 2, 2005 when their attack helicopter was shot down by a surface-to-air missile.   Their memories are now preserved by plaques located under the Mt. Soledad Cross, which were dedicated in their honor by their Marine Squadron.   (Click here to read brief.)

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed its brief on behalf of Sybil and Robert Martino—parents of Major Martino—and Julie Bloomfield—spouse of Major Bloomfield.   The brief contains several moving photographs of family members at the grave site at Arlington National Cemetery and at the Mt. Soledad Memorial.    (Click here to see photographs.)

Richard Thompson, the President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, commented, “Rather than focusing solely on cold legal precedent, we wanted the court to feel the devastating impact removing the cross will have on families who have given up their most precious possession in defense of our country.   Ironically, the ALCU wants to use the very constitution these Marines died protecting to eliminate the memory of their sacrifices. ” 

In May 2006, Major Martino and Major Bloomfield’s unit, which had recently returned from Iraq, sponsored a plaque dedication ceremony at the memorial to commemorate the fallen Marines’ heroic service and to provide a place to honor them.   Over three hundred Marines stood in line for over three hours to meet the Marines’ families and to pay respect for their fallen comrades.  

The Law Center stepped in and defended the Cross just weeks before it was to be taken down pursuant to an agreement between the City of San Diego and a self-proclaimed atheist who was seeking to remove it.   From that point on, the Law Center, with assistance from its West Coast Regional Director, Charles LiMandri, has played a significant role in defending the Cross.   The Law Center ultimately prevailed in both the state and federal courts by successfully petitioning the federal government to transfer the cross from city to federal property, thereby rendering a district court’s order to remove the cross moot.       

However, the ACLU soon thereafter filed a new lawsuit, this time against the federal government, claiming the transfer was improper and that the display of the memorial cross as part of this veterans’ memorial violated the so-called “wall of separation of church and state. ”  Federal government lawyers are defending the cross in this new lawsuit.   However, the Law Center is supporting their efforts by adding a new perspective to the legal arguments supporting the cross-the importance of the cross to the surviving family members.  

Robert Muise, the Thomas More Law Center attorney who authored the brief, is a former Marine Major himself.   Said Muise, “Our brief demonstrates that tearing down the memorial cross will cause real, irreparable harm to these grieving families, as compared with the contrived ‘harm’ the ACLU will ‘feel’ because the memorial cross remains.   Indeed, it is the ACLU in this case who is creating the sort of religiously-based divisiveness that our Constitution was designed to prohibit. ”

The Mt. Soledad Cross is the centerpiece of this world class veterans’ memorial.   Over 2,000 plaques honoring individuals or groups of veterans are displayed at the memorial.   Some of the plaques contain Stars of David, honoring Jewish veterans.   There is also a large American flag flying at the base of the memorial.   In a letter to the private association that maintains the memorial, President Bush stated, “Mount Soledad becomes a place to reflect on our past, be inspired by true patriots, and offer war veterans our heartfelt gratitude for the freedom we all enjoy today. ” (Click here to read this letter from President Bush.)

After enduring many months of Robert's personal and unprovoked attacks on my son Jeff, and myself, I began writing to one of the moderators about it and at first it seemed like he was doing something about it by deleting Roberts account. But somehow Robert was always able to do something no other member of Townhall who'd been "banned" can't (now, nor has ever been able to) do, come right back on using his very same screen name(s).
None of us has been able to figure out how he was able to do this when no one else can.
So, on hearing of the unique way that the moderators were able to finally get rid of another, and granted more vile poster than Robert (tr), I wrote to Chris suggesting that he get the people who'd succeeded in banning "tr" to do the same to Robert as I've had it with his constant either blatant, or just snide, thinly veiled, attacks on my son, USMC Lt.

His reply to me is pasted below.

It took months and months of my complaints to see any action against TR, and the only reason that went through was because he was so obscene so often.  As much as people dislike Robert, he is rarely offensive to the degree that TR was, no question.  Everyone may disagree with what he has to say and the fact that he posts as often as he does, but his actions are rarely outside the rules of TH.  He isn’t inventing screen names like TR was – “F*ck You Chris the Moderator” being the straw that broke the camel’s back.  By comparison, Robert is a model TH user.  In reality, we know this is not true, but his assault on our users is not quite extreme enough. 

Sorry I can’t help anymore, but TR was the first and only person that has ever been banned – and that was because of the most extreme circumstances that he laid out for us. 

 

Chris 

 

So, I have just taken the additional step of writing emails to Johnathan Garthwaite, who as far as I know is the owner/founder of Townhall and two other people who I've been lead to believe have some managerial control here at Townhall. They are Mary Katherine Ham, and Amanda Caprenter.

Pasted below is a copy of my letter to Mary Katherine. 

 

So, I'm sending you a copy of the complaint I just sent to Jonathan Garthwaite about a poster named "Robert" who for quite a while made multiple daily personal attacks on my son who's a regular here, and makes a point of being continually abusive to certain of your columnists.
Michelle Malkin, David Limbaugh and Ann Coulter chief among them, as well as
EVERY ONE of the regular members whom he makes posts to.
Check out his comments to Michelle Malkin in todays column, if one of the moderators hasn't deleted them yet.
What you'll see is typical of what he writes to her EVERY WEEK, and EVERY WEEK one of your moderators has to delete his comments.

Better yet, he gloats to everyone who's reported him as offensive to your moderator Chris Regal, that NOBODY CAN DO ANYTHING about what he says to the columnists and/or in the threads.

Granted, what Robert says to everyone isn't as offensive as posting messages to your moderators telling them to F.O., but it's none the less offensive to the rest of us who are here for serious discussion.
If you've noticed your readership and the number of posts dropping lately, A LARGE part of it is that we're sick of having to endure the childish antics of Robert and are starting to choose to stay away since your moderators either can't, or won't, do anything about Robert.

Banks have made loans against some dubious collateral lately, but John McCain's fund-raising list? That was the security the candidate put down when he took out a $3 million loan in November to get his then-struggling campaign through the primaries. There's a lesson here about campaign finance reform.

Mr. McCain's candidacy was by last fall in serious trouble, his campaign coffers having drained away. Desperate for cash, the McCain campaign went to the bank for a loan -- in this case Fidelity & Trust Bank of Maryland, which lent $3 million on the strength of Mr. McCain's willingness to document his fund-raising prowess.

The Arizonan is one of the most influential members of the Senate Commerce Committee, which regulates much of American business, and he would remain powerful even if he lost his Presidential bid. With industries lining up to pay protection money to committee Members, Mr. McCain would not be short of donors to help retire his Presidential campaign debt. Subprime he is not.

According to Federal Election Commission regulations, loans to candidates must be made "in the ordinary course of business." That means market interest rates and the same repayment terms that a similarly situated non-politician borrower would face. Along with a donor list, Mr. McCain also put up a life insurance policy and other campaign assets. Though the bank could have conceivably sold or rented the donor list if Mr. McCain failed to repay the loan, the market value would have been significantly less than with the Senator throwing his political weight behind it.

The Senate has strict ethical rules about mixing the powers of office with re-election tactics. Cleta Mitchell, a lawyer who specializes in campaign finance law, says that by pledging his fundraising lists as collateral, Mr. McCain "used his position in the Senate to receive treatment not available to others." Other experts disagree that this crossed an ethical line. However, there's no doubt the November cash infusion helped Mr. McCain survive long enough to compete and win in New Hampshire, and ultimately to become the GOP's presumptive nominee.

The McCain campaign argues that there is nothing illegal here, and that this has become fairly common practice. But this was not Mr. McCain's line in his moralizing heyday while trying to pass the McCain-Feingold reform bill in 2002. During his last run for President in 2000, he targeted corporate giving and called the system "little more than an elaborate influence-peddling scheme in which both parties conspire to stay in office by selling the country to the highest bidder."

We'll assume none of Mr. McCain's fund raising is "influence peddling." But imagine how much more open and transparent campaign finance would be if reformers like Mr. McCain hadn't built our current maze of fund-raising and spending limits.

Let Americans donate what they want as long as it's disclosed promptly so voters can see who's giving what to whom. Under that system the Senator might have been able to call on a few friends and allies to keep him going, rather than invoke his ability to tap all of those high bidders who beseech the Commerce Committee. Our readers can decide which system is more, or less, corrupt.

On Sunday, Nancy Pelosi was asked on CNN whether she feared squandering the success of President Bush's "surge" in Iraq with a hasty withdrawal. "There haven't been gains, Wolf," the House Speaker told anchor Wolf Blitzer. "The gains have not produced the desired effect which is the reconciliation of Iraq. This is a failure. This is a failure."

Yesterday, the Iraqi Parliament passed a budget, approved an amnesty for thousands of detainees and enacted a crucial law on provincial powers. Sunni lawmaker Adnan al-Dulaimi called it "the greatest achievement possible for the Iraqi people."

* * *

We'll assume Ms. Pelosi isn't actually disappointed by the latest good Iraq news. Yet the political calendar in Washington, with its noisome demands for benchmarks and timetables, is increasingly out of step with the strategic calendar in Baghdad. Getting them into line will be the great challenge of the Bush Administration's final months in office.

On Monday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates took a step in that direction by announcing that there would be a pause in troop reductions in Iraq once the five additional "surge" brigades were withdrawn this summer. "I think that the notion of a brief period of consolidation and evaluation probably does make sense," said Mr. Gates on a visit to Baghdad, endorsing the recommendation of General David Petraeus.

Ryan Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador in Iraq, will also soon begin negotiating a "status of forces" agreement with the Iraqi government to establish the parameters for a long-term security relationship. In a Washington Post op-ed yesterday, Mr. Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice noted that the U.S. has no fewer than 115 such agreements with other nations, covering everything from rules of engagement to how troops will get their mail.

"Nothing to be negotiated will mandate that we continue combat missions," they wrote. "Nothing will set troop levels. Nothing will commit the United States to join Iraq in a war against another country or provide other such security commitments."

Such an agreement shouldn't be controversial, especially given that the government of Nouri al-Maliki doesn't plan to extend the U.N. resolutions that authorize the coalition's presence in Iraq beyond the end of this year. The next President will need an accord whatever he (or she) intends to do in Iraq. Yet both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are trying to make a campaign issue of this, demanding that any agreement be authorized by Congress. The Democratic rivals also seized on Mr. Gates's comments about a pause in U.S. troop reductions, with Mr. Obama warning of "war without end."

At this point in the Democratic primary season, even a declaration of surrender by al Qaeda in Iraq would probably be treated as further evidence of Bush Administration incompetence. Speaking of which, this week the Times of London published remarkable excerpts from letters by two al Qaeda chieftains in Iraq that were seized late last year in a U.S. military raid.

"The Americans and the apostates launched their campaigns against us and we found ourselves in a circle not being able to move, organize or conduct our operations," wrote one terrorist "emir." The loss of Anbar Province, he added, had created "panic, fear and an unwillingness to fight," while the flow of foreign jihadis had dwindled as they lost faith that their "martyrdom" would yield results. In a second letter, another al Qaeda leader complains how his force shrank to fewer than 20 fighters from 600.

What remains of al Qaeda has reportedly been driven north to Mosul, and may soon face an offensive by U.S. forces and an increasingly confident Iraqi Army. All the more reason, it seems to us, to make sure our forces in Iraq remain adequate to finish the job and not let al Qaeda slip away to fight another day -- as critics of the Administration constantly allege it did in Afghanistan.

So it's strange that some senior military brass -- including, we hear, Army Chief of Staff George Casey -- are pushing for faster troop drawdowns in the hopes of easing the strain that long and repeated deployments have imposed on soldiers and their families. Nobody wants to overburden the military, but we can think of nothing that would "break" it more completely than losing a war. For evidence, look at what happened to military readiness and morale in the years after the fall of Saigon in 1975. The Army and Marines in Iraq have adapted from their earlier troubles to a counterinsurgency strategy that is working. General Petraeus should be given as long as he needs.

What is certain is that next January U.S. forces will still be deployed in Iraq in large numbers. Securing the conditions by which they can drive out al Qaeda and tame the Shiite militias, deter Syria and Iran, and guarantee Iraq's integrity and freedom would be a worthy legacy for this Administration, and a useful inheritance for the next.

Gordon Bitner Hinckley - June 23, 1910 - January 27, 2008
Years as President: 1995–2008

In loving memory of Gordon Bitner Hinckley, Prophet of God, and 15th President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

As I watched the funeral services today for President Hinckley, I remembered how much he has done over the course of his life to move the church forward. Not just here in Utah, but also in the rest of the United States, and across the world.

President Hinckley has been in the leadership of the church since 1961. Some of his accomplishments are listed below.

Born in Salt Lake City on June 23, 1910, Gordon B. Hinckley was prepared from his youth to be a prophet.

After graduating from the University of Utah, he was called to serve a mission to Great Britain.

After he returned, he embarked on a lifetime of service for the Church. He was employed as the executive secretary of the Church Radio, Publicity, and Literature committee, before he was called to be an Apostle in 1961.

He was later called to serve as a counselor to President Kimball, President Benson, and President Hunter.

Since becoming Church President on March 12, 1995, he has directed the most intense temple building program in the history of the Church in an effort to extend temple blessings to more members.

He has exhibited vitality and energy as he has traveled about the world meeting and speaking to members of the Church. Through television interviews and national press publications, he has increased media attention and improved the public image of the Church.

He has counseled Church members to fellowship new converts, befriend members of other faiths, live exemplary lives, and avoid the evils of the world.

I have watched in awe as this man has accomplished great things over the last 13 years in spite of his advanced age. He was 84 years old when he became our Preisdent, but he never let that slow him down.

He was a truly great man and will be missed. God be with you Gordon, til we meet again.

Useful Idiots on the Left
Mark Alexander
From Patriot Post Vol. 04 No. 38; Published 24 September 2004 
http://patriotpost.us/alexander/edition.asp?id=275

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents...." --James Madison

Nineteenth-century historian Alexis de Tocqueville once observed, "Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."

Tocqueville was commenting on liberty and free enterprise, American style, versus socialism as envisioned by emerging protagonists of centralized state governments. And he saw on the horizon a looming threat -- a threat that would challenge the freedoms writ in the blood and toil of our nation's Founders.

Indeed, a century after Tocqueville penned those words, elitist Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt tossed aside much of our nation's Constitution. Though its author, James Madison, noted in Federalist Paper No. 45 that "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined [and] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce," FDR summarily redefined the role of the central government by way of myriad extra-constitutional decrees, and greatly expanded the central government far beyond the strict limits set by our Constitution.

FDR, perhaps unwittingly, used the Great Depression to establish a solid foundation for socialism in America, as best evidenced in this dubious proclamation: "Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle."

If Roosevelt's "American principle" sounds somewhat familiar, then you're likely a student of history (or The Patriot). Not to be confused with the Biblical principle in the Gospel according to Luke, "From everyone who has been given much, much will be required...", which some Leftist do-gooders cite as justification for socialist policies, Roosevelt was essentially paraphrasing the gospel according to Karl Marx, whose maxim declared, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

Notably, the Bible places the burden of responsibility for stewardship on the individual, while Marx and FDR placed the burden of responsibility for stewardship on the state. In failing to discern this distinction, FDR set the stage for the entrapment of future generations by the welfare state and the incremental shift from self-reliance to dependence upon the state -- ultimately the state of tyranny.

English writer, sociologist and historian H.G. Wells, whose last work, The Holy Terror, profiled the psychological development of a modern dictator based on the careers of Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler, said of Roosevelt's reign, "The great trouble with you Americans is that you are still under the influence of that second-rate -- shall I say third-rate? -- mind, Karl Marx."

More to the point, Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev said of Roosevelt's "New Deal" paradigm shift, "We can't expect the American people to jump from capitalism to communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have communism."

Clearly, Khrushchev was onto something. FDR never embraced self-reliance as the essential ingredient of a free society, nor have his Demo-successors Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. Why? Perhaps it's because they inherited their wealth, their privilege and their political office.

Recall how Kerry's handlers tried to cast their candidate as a man of the people? He is anything but. Remember, this is a man who has twice married multimillionaire heiresses; a man who has multiple mansions on multiple continents; a man who windsurfs (poorly) off tony Nantucket; a man who rides a bicycle that costs more than some new cars; a man who spends, oh, maybe $15,000 to jet his hairdresser cross country for a trim.

The character of these "inheritance-welfare liberals" -- those who were raised dependent on inheritance rather than self-reliance -- is all but indistinguishable from the character and values of those who depend on state welfare.

Today, more than 70 years after FDR seeded American socialism, the Soviet Union is but a memory. In addition, China and most other states with centralized economies (Cuba notwithstanding) are undergoing a dramatic shift toward free-enterprise -- as well as the political challenges that accompany such a shift. Yet despite the collapse of socialism around the world, inheritance-welfare liberals still dominate the Democrat Party and control their Leftmedia propaganda machine. They continue to advocate all manner of dependence upon the state (the poor man's trust fund).

V.I. Lenin knew precisely what he was talking about when he famously dubbed Western Leftists "useful idiots," those Western Leftists who sided with Socialists in political debates.

Has America learned its lessons, or is our great nation still under the spell of its useful idiots. Perhaps one day an American majority will reject the candy of the inheritance-welfare liberals, will restore our Constitution as the central authority of the land, and will reclaim self-reliance as the central character of our people.