Military Families Honored in D.C. Rally; Moonbats Attack

My previous post on Saturday's huge anti-war rally in D.C. drew quite a bit of traffic (was it in the hundreds, the thousands-- who knows?), due no doubt to a plug from conservative syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin on her blog. The least I can do is salute her with a link to the right.

A photo similar to the one the right should have led at least one local news story concerning what the Washington Post called a "tiny" Families United for Our Troops and Their Mission rally on Sunday near 4th & Independence Avenue. It represents the climatic moment in a speech given by Gary Qualls, of Temple, Texas, when he raised a cross bearing the name of his son, who was killed in Iraq.

Qualls caused men in the crowd to dry their eyes as he read portions of the final letter from Marine reservist Lance Cpl. Louis W. Qualls. He told the story of reading the letter and then, within the hour, experiencing the horror of a visit to his home by military representatives, who had come to tell him that his son was dead. Qualls finds comfort in his belief that his son died for a righteous cause.

Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan did not even mention her son at the Saturday rally, despite the fact that her fame began with her standoff in Crawford, Texas, where she demanded that Bush meet with her and tell her why her son died in Iraq. (Likewise, the Washington Post declined to quote Sheehan's speech beyond "This is amazing!" Sheehan's claim that America condones torture was not sufficiently newsworthy for Post reporter Petula Dvorak, who was fascinated by the announcements that a child named Adam had lost his mother and then found her.) Click on photo above for full-size view of the stage flag backdrop.

At the Sunday rally, Qualls said, "I have a surprise." He said he went to the location of the Sheehan vigil, where crosses bearing the names of soldiers killed in Iraq had been placed by anti-war protestors. He then pulled out a large cross bearing his son's name and announced, "This is the first cross repossessed from Cindy Sheehan's unholy vigil."

Perhaps Sheehan did not mention her son because she had already capitalized as much as she could on the sympathy card. As famed Watergate celebrity G. Gordon Liddy declared at the rally: "Cindy Sheehan is whoring her good son's name, her son who died in the cause for freedom."

Meanwhile, across the street from the rally, a group of approximately 15 counter protestors engaged in intermittent chanting that competed with the rally speakers.

Upon closer inspection, it becomes apparent that something quite interesting occurred. One of the protestors is clearly praying. In any other context, public prayer such as this would cause one to be in danger of heckling from liberals-- catcalls of "Bible thumper" or "religious extremist." But if the person of faith joins an anti-war protest, she can peacefully lie down like a lamb next to lions.

Later, there was a changing of the guard, and the hard-core Moonbat Special Forces arrived.














This second shift did not "do dialogue." Anyone dressing like a quasi-ninja and wearing a bandana is not interested in an exchange of ideas. These people gathered together to taunt families that had lost sons in the war on terror.

The Washington Times described the Moonbat attack:

Several police officers were sent across Fourth Street Northwest when more than a dozen anti-war protesters taunted the Gold Star mothers, fathers and supporters as they left the Mall after the three-hour rally.
"Fascists go home," protesters said. Others held signs that read: "Impeach Bush" and "American People Supporting a Dictatorship."
"Why should they do that? Why is the war my fault?" Mrs. Ellsworth said. "I gave my son, so why are they screaming and yelling at me?"

And so the discussion between left and right continues in the land of free speech.

More photos . . .

This banner was designed by D.C. Young Republican Jen Neuren and manufactured by former DCYR Rob Hagman.

3"Have you forgotten?"

"God Bless Our Soldiers-- Liberating the World of One Tyrant at a Time." A woman making an independent documentary of both protests Saturday and Sunday questioned whether this is a case of mission creep.

Anti-War Rally in D.C.: Speakers Label Bush "War Criminal"; Call for Impeachment

More than 100,000 people converged on the ellipse under overcast skies just south of the White House in Washington, D.C. this morning for an anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-capitalist rally. The rally was sponsored by United for Peace and Justice and ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism). ANSWER is believed to have strong ties to communist organizations.

Jesse Jackson's appearance on stage immediately preceded anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan (see picture, above), and he was easily the most moderate speaker. "There is a time for war," Jackson said, but this is a "war built on lies." He added that "We'll change the Congress in 2006 and change the White House in 2008," ending with the chant "Bring the troops home now."

Cindy Sheehan did not allow the large media presence to moderate her speech. She called for "checks and balances on this out-of-control criminal government."
Sheehan charged that "This is a government that condones torture." "Tell them that it's not okay to torture any person." Apparently Sheehan soaked up too much Texas sun during her famous vigil. President Bush made the United States position on torture very clear during a meeting with Hungarian Prime Minister Peter Medgyessy on June 22, 2004: "We do not condone torture," Bush said. "I have never ordered torture. I will never order torture. The values of this country are such that torture is not a part of our soul and our being."

Sheehan demanded: "Don't invade countries that pose no threat to our country." The idea that Iraq posed no threat to the United States prior to the invasion is not in line with what the vast majority of government officials believed at the time. Sen. John F. Kerry on Jan. 23. 2003, said, "[T]he threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." (More Democratic pre-war statements here.)

Sheehan ended her brief speech with the question "How many other people's children are you going to sacrifice for the lies?" and began the chant "Not one more."

Democratic Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) appeared earlier in the show and was the only member of Congress who spoke. Her comments were off the map in terms of reality. She lamented: "A cruel wind blows across America. . . . It blew disenfranchisement into Ohio and Florida. . . . We were forced to endure fraud in the elections of 2000 and 2004."

Eventually she got to the war part: "A war started over deliberately fraudulent evidence." And then she applied the Katrina smear: Federal officials responding to Hurricane Katrina were "criminally incompetent in providing our security." McKinney wasn't done yet, charging that the "ill wind" has a global impact, including Venezuela, Hati, and Africa. According to this Congresswoman, someone was guilty of "high crimes and more than misdemeanors."

More highlights:

< Someone from Community Labor United asked for an end to the "war against poor, black, uneducated people."

< The Raging Grannies riled against "corporate pigs" in a song they sang on stage.

< Rally co-sponsor United for Peace and Justice representative Leslie Cagan, who could not see over the podium, spoke of "that dangerous man that pretends to be the leader of this country." She added that the "co-conspirators upon on Capitol Hill need to hear from us."

< Nancy Woolforth, an executive council member of the supposedly-mainstream labor union AFL-CIO hurled invective against "FEMA creeps who would not rescue 150,000 black and poor people." She charged that "The Bush Administration does not give one damn about those people" and that "Halliburton is stealing Iraq and its resources."

< A man representing the Free Palestine Alliance, a subsidiary of ANSWER, yelled quite loudly throughout his speech and said "They cannot profit over our misery." He later led the crowd in the chant "Impeach George Bush."

< After handing her child to her husband, a National Lawyers Guild member spoke of the "criminals who occupy Congress."

In addition to the demogogues stirring emotions on stage, plenty of participants added their share of nasty rhetoric. One particularly amusing hand-written sign held by a college-age woman stated: "Impeach the theif." Apparently Bush stole her dictionary.

Everyday, police put their lives on the line for citizens, and this is what they get.

The communists were out in force: "Capitalism means mass murder-- Socialist Revolution is the only solution."

Other signs included a large one stating "The Bush Regime Engineered 9-11" as well as many yellow "Impeach Bush" signs. A large truck sign quoted Republican activist Grover Norquist alongside a picture of flooded New Orleans.

After an hour and a half, it was time for me to head home. The crowd still had a march and a rock concert ahead of it. I headed to Constitution Avenue and 15th Street before the speakers were finished. The streets were filled with so many people that it was difficult to walk through the crowd. If I was a far-left liberal, the event would have been a magnificent occasion, with plenty of opportunities to meet like-minded people from around the country.

The massive scale of the rally was an indication of how much angst there is in the country, as well as an indication of how much hatred there is of the Bush Administration with its approval ratings around 40 percent. A head-in-the sand response from Republicans is inadequate. The opposition is very motivated.

80% of D.C. is Pro-Life?

I had the pleasure of having lunch this past week at Old Ebbitt Grill with a prominent pollster located in the Washington area. He conducts phone surveys for candidates and parties.

He claims that his survey of households in the District of Columbia revealed that 80 percent of voters in the District are pro-life. If true, the figure is truly astounding. His hypothesis is that blacks-- who make up nearly 60 percent of the D.C. population --are traditionally pro-life.

As stated in the D.C. Republican Party platform, the party has declined to take a position on the abortion issue: "Because there are various views in our Party on right to life/choice, the District of Columbia Republican Committee does not support any language in the platform on this issue."

I'll hold my fire on the wisdom of a political party leaving any pertinent issue alone because there is disagreement within the ranks. But D.C. Republicans may be missing out on a winning issue-- someone should conduct and publish a statistically-accurate poll to determine the truth.

Katrina-Rita Provides Mandate to Cut Spending

In the immediate wake of the Katrina Hurricane, libertarians and conservatives were understandably dismayed at the estimated price tags hovering in the $200 billion range. The true funding request may be worse. The Washington Times reports that Louisiana Senators Mary Landrieu and Republican David Vitter have come forward with a $250 billion initial request, including $70 billion in tax breaks.

The list contains some ridiculous items. $25 million for sugar cane research? Instead, how about a $25 million study to determine why local Louisiana politicians are so corrupt? $5 billion to pay the mortgages of hurricane victims for six months is certainly understandable, but why not loan the victims the money?

But there is hope. This week, the House Republican Study Committee announced its proposal "Operation Offset," a list of government programs that can be cut to offset the spending on Katrina. The list is a starting line for saving more than $500 billion over 10 years.

Some of these cuts include:

< Delay the implementation of the Medicare prescription drug program for one year. Savings: $31 billion in one year.

< Repeal highway pork earmarks in the recent transportation authorization bill. Savings: $25 billion over 10 years.

< Eliminate the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, including federal funding for Democratic and Republican conventions. Savings: $550 million over 10 years

< Reduce federal subsidies for Amtrak routes that do not yield profits. Savings: $2.5 billion over 10 years.

< Eliminate federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Savings: $5.6 billion over 10 years.

< Charge federal employees for parking. Savings: $1.5 billion over 10 years.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay on Tuesday called the Medicare proposal "a non-starter," pointing the finger at President Bush's opposition to the idea. He was noncommital about reopening the highway bill and even argued that lawmakers might try to wedge in even more perks if given the chance.

Now is the time for the Republicans to finally step forward and cut wasteful spending that exceeds the proper scope of limited government. The cuts should be heavily tilted towards corporate welfare and fancy pork projects rather than on programs that directly affect the poor.

Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) laid it on the line for Delay and President Bush: "If we Republicans who are now in charge of both houses of Congress and the presidency are unable to make tough decisions and provide leadership, then we're going to be telling the American people we're no different [than the Democrats]."

I am not a fan of Senator and potential Presidential candidate John McCain (R-AZ). Among other issues, his advocacy of political-speech-suppressing "campaign finance reform" has drawn the ire of many libertarians and conservatives. But his principled opposition to the $730 billion Medicare drug benefit, which at the time of its passage was supposedly going to cost "only" $400 billion over 10 years, is inspiring. In the wake of the Katrina spending proposals, McCain now says that with respect to the drug benefit, he is in favor of "[e]ither delaying it, reducing it or eliminating it." We need more leadership like that.

Two Votes for Roberts in today's Washington Post

Senate Democrats who hope to somehow thwart the appointment or minimize the number of votes in favor of John Roberts as the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court suffered two setbacks today.

First, the moderately liberal Washington Post endorsed Roberts in an editorial today. This wasn't one of those wavering, begrudging Post editorials. The paper calls for a near-unanimous vote in Roberts's favor: "Nominees of comparable quality have, after rigorous hearings, been confirmed nearly unanimously. We hope Judge Roberts will similarly be approved by a large bipartisan vote."

And take this liberal obstructionists: "Judge Roberts represents the best nominee liberals can reasonably expect from a conservative president who promised to appoint judges who shared his philosophy." In addition, "broad opposition by Democrats to Judge Roberts would send the message that there is no conservative capable of winning their support." The Post has honed in on a point that deserves considerable attention.

The Democrats have focused considerable attention on determining Roberts's position on Roe v. Wade, and left the impression that if they believe he would vote to overturn Roe, then Roberts will not get their vote. How can the Democrats square this treatment with the Republican reaction to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was confirmed 96-3? Republicans certainly had no doubt that Ginsburg would be a reliable Roe vote, but the vast majority voted to confirm her due to her high qualifications and deference to President Clinton, given that he had just won an election (with 43 percent of the vote).

The other shoe was dropped by liberal stalwart David Broder in a column titled Roberts's Sterling Showing, right across the page from the Post editorial. He opens with both guns blazing, writing that Roberts "is so obviously-- ridiculously --well-equipped to lead government's third branch that it is hard to imagine how any Democrats can justify a vote against his confirmation." Broder challenges Democrats who have complained that Roberts failed to detail his stances on issue of importance to interest groups. Broder agrees with Roberts that "to answer those questions on pending issues would be, in effect, to enter into 'a bargaining process,' to swap commitments in return for votes."

These two editorials are representative of independent liberal thought. Although the Post may have its own agenda, the opinions expressed are free of interest group and Senatorial politics. The Post spelled out exactly how President Bush should react if Roberts receives fewer than 80 votes: "Mr. Bush could conclude there is nothing to be gained from considering the concerns of the opposition party in choosing his next nominee."

GOP Offers a Real Contrast in the Mayor's Race

A September 12 news article in the Washington Post concerning the D.C. mayoral race referred to the Democratic primary as being “all-important.” Those two words summarize the conventional wisdom that the Democratic primary is the “real” race and the general election is a sideshow. There is, however, still considerable time for a viable Republican candidate to step forward before the Post’s snub of the Republican Party is justified.

In the article, Linda W. Cropp refers to her “experienced leadership” and labels competing frontrunner Adrian M. Fenty a “novice.” The Post is reduced to contrasting the candidates’ backgrounds and personalities because their ideology is so similar. Only a Republican candidate can offer voters a true contrast of visions.

The Post should uphold its civic duty to fully cover the election through November of next year without dismissing the Republican candidate before he or she is even known.

(Submitted as a letter to the editor on 9/13/05.)

Federal Judge Declares Pledge of Allegiance Unconstitutional

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled today that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause (see AP story below).

I have glanced over Judge Karlton's opinion. His ruling is based on the fact that the Supreme Court found in the previous case involving atheist Michael Newdow that the plaintiff did not have "prudential" standing, but did hold that Newdow did have Article III standing. Citing caselaw authority, Judge Karlton concluded that a case that is dismissed by reason of a lack of prudential standing is still considered precedential if it earlier reached the merits. Therefore, the Judge concluded that he was still bound by Ninth Circuit precedent, which found the pledge unconstitutional.

The real issue here is the activist Ninth Circuit rather than Judge Karlton. If we are going to apply neutral principles when labeling which judges are "activist," one might say that Karlton was merely trying to avoid being reversed by the Ninth Circuit. According to the structure of the judiciary, the federal judge's authority is trumped by the appellate court.

* * *

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was ruled unconstitutional Wednesday by a federal judge who granted legal standing to two families represented by an atheist who lost his previous battle before the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."
Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

John Roberts Supports a Constitutionally-Tethered Right to Privacy

One revelation from today's hearings concerning the suitability of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts involved his views on the constitutional right to privacy. Hearts were fluttering on both the left and the right.

Democratic Senator Herb Kohl asked Roberts: "The Griswold v. Connecticut case guarantees that there is a fundamental right to privacy in the Constitution as it applies to contraception. Do you agree with that decision and that there is a fundamental right to privacy as it relates to contraception? In your opinion, is that settled law?" One way Supreme Court justices are able to expand precedent is by phrasing the holdings of prior cases in general terms. Roberts reeled the Senator's statement back in: "I agree with the Griswold court's conclusion that marital privacy extends to contraception . . . The court, since Griswold, has grounded the privacy right discussed in that case in the liberty interest protected under the due process clause.

Kohl announced that he was "delighted" with Roberts' answer because "many, many constitutional scholars believe that once you accept the reasoning of Griswold and find that the Constitution does contain a right to privacy and a right to contraception, that you've essentially accepted . . . the basis for the court's reasoning and decision on Roe, that a woman has a constitutionally protected right to choose." Roberts declined Kohl's invitation to comment, but there is a strong argument that Kohl's unnamed scholars are wrong.

The precise issue before the Court in Griswold in 1965 was whether a Connecticut law that forbid the use of contraceptives invaded the privacy of married individuals. The case centered on the sanctity of marriage and its fundamental values. Justice Douglas in the majority opinion asked: "Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship." Justice Goldberg in his concurring opinion wrote: "Although the Constitution does not speak in so many words of the right of privacy in marriage, I cannot believe that it offers these fundamental rights no protection."

Griswold was more about marriage than it was about sexual privacy. Or so the state of Massachusetts thought until the Supreme Court, in the 1972 case Eisenstadt v. Baird, struck down a similarly hardly-ever-enforced law against contraceptives that applied only to unmarried people.

The Court majority admitted that Griswold had been based on the unique marriage relationship, but then, like sly Senators, it spun the case from there: "[T]he marital couple is not an independent entity with a mind and heart of its own, but an association of two individuals each with a separate intellectual and emotional makeup. If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." At that moment, the Court leapt into new territory that laid the foundation for the Roe decision the following year. Eisenstadt is the key evolutionary link between Griswold and Roe.

In sum, Roberts carefully limited himself to the specific holding of the Griswold case, leaving himself a jurisprudential exit if the issue of reconsidering Roe should ever come before him.

Update 9/14/05: Marshall posted this entry at www.Confirmthem.com (a project of Redstate.org) and it is discussed at some length with 34 responses at: http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=1228.

Updated: Senators Begin Questioning Roberts

This morning, the second day of the hearings, the real (red) meat began with Senators doing their best to pry into John Roberts' personal views on assorted issues from civil rights to abortion.

Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee Senator Arlen Specter asked Roberts a number of questions concerning Roe v. Wade, especially the importance of respecting previously-decided cases. Roberts did not reach the issue of whether he thought Roe was a proper ruling. "I should stay away from discussion of specific cases," he told Specter.

The cringe moment of the morning came when pro-choice Republican Spector pulled out a huge chart detailing 38 Supreme Court cases, which Spector claimed represented 38 times that the Supreme Court had a chance to overrule Roe: "Would it surprise you to know that there have been 38 occasions where Roe has been taken up, not with a specific issue raised, but all with an opportunity for Roe to be overruled? . . . would you think that Roe might be a super-duper precedent in light of 38 occasions to overrule it?"

"Which side is he on?" is the question that came to mind. Deflating the abortion issue for Roberts by bringing it up before the Democrats is a proper tactic, but spelling out in great detail the numerous opportunities that the Court supposedly could have overruled Roe and declined to do so hardly helps cast Roberts in the mainstream (assuming that he would vote to overturn Roe). "Super-duper precedent"? Perhaps the Senator was citing Scottish law again.

Roberts set Spector straight: "The interesting thing, of course, is not simply the opportunity to address it, but when the court actually considers the question." Roberts was being kind, as he must. The key purpose of precedent is that it permits a court to decide the issues in the case at hand without a need to redecide every prior controversy all over again each time a new case comes before the Court. Supreme Court decisions are long enough, full of historical recounting of precedent. It is a principle of judicial restraint that judges should not interpret the law any further than is needed to decide the case at hand.

Roberts pointed out that the proper place for a judge to begin would be with Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), which directly considered the issue of whether Roe should be overruled.

So far, Roberts is on track for confirmation.

(Photos courtesy CNN.com and AFP/Micah Walter)

Announcing Dali's Wineblog

Not content with providing the Nation's Capital with my uncanny insights into what ails Washington and America, I will be providing you with the "common man's" perspective on art museums, wine, travel, and other cultural topics. And of course, Salvador Dali.

The first entry of Dali's Wineblog suggests that there is more art in the strip clubs than in the Las Vegas Museum of Art. Visit the blog here or via the link on my profile.

Dali's Wineblog will be updated much less frequently than Reflections, and in fact I will often report what I have discovered over the past year. The meaning behind the art or wine is not diluted with time, unlike politics. Cindy Sheehan is already passé. Salvador Dali will never go out of style. The man was a genius.

So stop on by if you need a break from politics and want something more meaningful than sports scores.

D.C. Young Republicans Conduct Outreach at Adams Morgan Day Festival

The District of Columbia Young Republicans operated a table from Noon - 6 p.m. at the annual Adams Morgan Day Festival.

Along the way, DCYRs introduced people to the Republican Party by providing interested individuals with literature on Congressman Tom Davis's bill that would give D.C. a vote in the House of Representatives, "W" stickers calling for action on Social Security, and flyers promoting D.C. Delegate candidate Erran Persley.

Democrats such as DNC head Howard Dean often attempt to brand the Republican Party as the party of rich white males. The fallacy of this notion was evident today given that young Republicans who signed up for membership information at the festival were black, white, Asian, male, and female.

Kudos to DCYR Chairman Soren Dayton, who pulled a six-hour shift. (Pictured above are Soren and DCYR member Cameron McKenzie.)

Previous D.C. Young Republican-related posts

Aug. 28: DCYRs announce Persley: “The candidate for the People, not the politicians.”
Aug. 3: Republican Erran Persley to Challenge D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton
July 27: D.C. Young Republicans Speak Out Against D.C.'s Dangerous Gun Laws

Americans Aren't Buying Democratic Katrina Spin . . . Yet

Partisan Democrats, activists, and bloggers rained down a torrent of sharp criticism upon Bush and second-guessed the Administration's response at every point immediately following the Katrina tragedy. It didn't help that some congressional Republicans contributed a fair share of critical comments.

Despite the onslaught, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Tuesday, only 13 percent said President Bush is to blame for the problems in New Orleans following the hurricane, 18 percent said federal agencies, 25 percent blamed state or local officials, and 38 percent said no one is to blame. Perhaps those who selected the option "no one is to blame" have reserved judgment and are waiting to get the full story.

Moveon.org will be holding a Katrina-related protest rally near the White House at 1 p.m. today in order to throw more darts at the President. And so the unfair criticism-- unfair because it is so sharp, so narrowly focused on Bush, and so quickly applied without gathering all of the facts--continues unabated. Republicans will need a strong backbone . . . because the some Democrats will be knifing them in the back every step of the way. The Democratic leadership wants the Presidency and the Congress back in their control, and they are not above politicizing Katrina to get what they want.

Evacuee Tim and Anonymous Speak Out on New Orleans Situation

My recent post, The Politics of the New Orleans Crisis, attracted some attention (my response to one post appears below). But my brother Tim, who is a displaced resident of New Orleans and may have nothing left but his business computer and car, was unable to post a comment using our parents' dial-up connection. So I'm reprinting his email below, which raises some of the charges that have been aired in recent days:

The blame lies squarely on [Louisiana Governor] Blanco and more importantly on [New Orleans Mayor] Nagin -- I do not think there has ever been a President, that if approached and told that thousands of the nation's citizens would perish, would not spring into action. NAGIN AND BLANCO DID NOT ASK FOR THE NEEDED EQUIPMENT/PERSONNEL -- Additionally, it is not a secret that a hurricane hitting NOLA is one of the top ten potential natural disasters... I guess that they forgot about the thousands of (black) indigent citizens that do not own cars or a means for evacuation...

More importantly, how in the hell do you get an already struggling, seasonally-dependant, leisure-ridden economy started again???

Meanwhile, a few Anonymous observers found their way to my blog and posted their rants, er, thoughts. Keep in mind that if you post something, you're fair game. Here's one particularly misguided individual.

Ya, libertarian principles certainly helped in the evacuation of New Orleans.
You are an idiot, and so is every other f****** libertarian. If you hate government so much, stop using f****** roads, don't send your kids to public schools, don't use the post office, don't go to public parks and beaches, etc. You are an idiot who feigns intelligence simply because they ad pictures on their blog. You are pathetic.

Here's my response, which I admit I wrote while listening to music and standing on my head:

Ya, libertarian principles certainly helped in the evacuation of New Orleans.

It's important to clarify that I am a libertarian-leaning Republican. I believe in limited government. Saving citizens from an imminent catastrophe is a proper role of government. However, it's worth pointing out that Mayor Nagin remarked in an interview that Wal-Mart responded faster with providing aid than did the federal government.

You are an idiot, and so is every other f****** libertarian.

Way to preempt intellectual discussion with an ad hominem attack! Have you been keeping up with your NARAL-sponsored classes? By the way, I was tempted to delete this comment due to the profanity, but I am, after all, a libertarian kind of guy. I do, however, reserve the right to delete a posting. Here's a clue: the author undercut his argument by using profanity.

If you hate government so much, stop using f****** roads, don't send your kids to public schools, don't use the post office, don't go to public parks and beaches, etc.

This line of thought is totally off-topic, which is New Orleans, remember? I haven't declared my position on any of these matters. But government every year, every day takes money from everyone by force. I'm not going to stop using roads I helped fund, same with parks and schools. Not using roads would also reduce every strong proponent of very limited government to a hermit. But privitizing roads doesn't sound like a bad idea to me. Shouldn't the people who use the roads pay for them? Why should the public transportation user subsidize the gas-guzzling, environmentally-challenged SUV vehicle user? We already have toll roads in many places.

As for the public schools, in many areas they are a disgrace. That is why the school choice movement has taken so much hold that Democrats are jumping on board.

We should consider ending the Postal Service monopoly on common mail.

You are an idiot who feigns intelligence simply because they ad pictures on their blog. You are pathetic.

Nice ad hominem attack closing. I feel like I've been the subject of a 30-second attack ad. Thanks for the back-handed compliment on the pictures. Send me your mug shot and I'll post it here next to your commentary.

Well, I've written a lot tonight--

be sure to check out the other two posts.

Senatorial Discourtesy: Landrieu Threatens to Assault President Bush

"If one person criticizes [our sheriffs], or says one more thing, including the president of the United States, he will hear from me - one more word about it after this show airs and I - I might likely have to punch him - literally," Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu declared while on a helicopter flight viewing the New Orleans devastation on ABC's This Week.

This is politics at its worst. If President Bush defends his administration by exercising his freedom of speech (and his constitutional duty to speak on matters of public concern as the Chief Executive) by placing some of the blame where it might properly lie-- with local governmental authorities, well then Senator Landrieu promises to literally assault him. Issuing vague threats to harm individuals who disagree with one's position, coming from a public official, smacks of fascism.

Former President Clinton committed as much the same offense by remarking that he might have hurt Congressman Dennis Hastert-- who is incidentally third in the line of succession behind the Vice President --if they had been in the same room. (See my previous posting on this story.)

The strategy of at least some Democrat is to place all of the blame on George W. Bush. And if anyone (that means you, too) suggests that the locals might share some responsibility, Landrieu "might likely" have to punch said individual. Does anyone see some comparisons to Pat Robertson here?

Bush names Roberts to be Chief Justice

President Bush today nominated Judge John Roberts to follow in William H. Rehnquist's footsteps by appointing him to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. It's an excellent decision. The hearings will be delayed in light of the Katrina insanity and out of respect for Justice Rehnquist.

None of the current members of the Court were an apparently good fit. Scalia had moderated his tone recently, some speculated it was an attempt to make himself palatable for the position. But Scalia has issued more than a few scathing, and sometimes personal, dissenting opinions-- not exactly a concensus-builder. Justice Clarence Thomas is a very original thinker with some interesting theories, but he has been unable to attract concurring votes. Furthermore, Justice Thomas hardly ever asks questions at oral argument, but a Chief Justice is supposed to take the lead on such occasions.

Judge Roberts will bring a fresh air to the Court, but yet he is already intimately familiar with its members. His congenial style fits well with the institution. Virtually all observers agree that Roberts is exceptionally well-qualified to sit on the Court. It was simply the right choice.

The Politics of the New Orleans Crisis

The Politics of Blame

As soon as it became clear that Katrina had devastated New Orleans, the blame game began. The German critics cried that the disaster was George W. Bush's fault because he had failed to accept the importance of combating global warming. Then critics pointed out that Bush had sought to cut funding that would have bolstered the New Orleans levees that broke (even if Bush had supported the funding, it would have come too late). Now FEMA's slow response time has garnered criticism from many prominent Republicans. Apparently it's time to kick Bush while he's down.

Who should be blamed? Two groups have so far missed their fair share of blame: (a) all of us, for collectively ignoring the federalist component of the Constitution and, relatedly, (b) the politicians of New Orleans.

Our Constitution is built on the premise that the vast majority of power should reside in the states and that the federal government is a government of limited powers, as specified in Article I, Section 8. The federal government's Spending Power has been out of control for quite some time, bolstered by the exercise of its power to impose an income tax under the 16th Amendment, ratified in 1913. The trend has been for the states to look more and more to the federal government to provide financial assistance for a variety of local concerns.

The problem is that Washington, D.C. is far removed from the people of New Orleans. Money for levee construction in New Orleans must compete with pet projects all across the country. Any number of political considerations in D.C. result in the anomaly that funding for a bridge in Alaska that will benefit 8,000 people takes precedence over the safety of hundreds of thousands of people in Louisiana. The people of New Orleans are the mercy of congresspeople who represent the interests of their home states.

New Orleans politicians-- perhaps political forces of the past more so than the current ones --are also at fault. New Orleans permitted building in areas below sea level and then, in hindsight at least, failed to protect those areas from massive flooding. Call it a reverse unfunded mandate. New Orleans permitted development in risky areas, and then believed it was entitled to federal assistance. After the disaster, an emotional New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin told the feds to "get off your asses and do something, and let's fix the biggest goddamn crisis in the history of this country." Nagin self-righteously condemns slow action from the federal bureaucracy, but he must share in some of the blame for the crisis.

Bill Clinton v. Dennis Hastert

"It looks like a lot of that place could be bulldozed," Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert said in an interview about New Orleans on Wednesday. Hastert conceded that the people of New Orleans would rebuild their city, but noted that there are "some real tough questions to ask. How do you go about rebuilding this city? What precautions do you take?" He questioned whether it made sense to spend billions rebuilding a city that lies below sea level.

Hastert's statements drew sharp criticism from New Orleans politicians. Although Hastert raised important considerations, the timing was definitely off. The body count has not even been announced. However, when told of Hastert's comments, Bill Clinton's reaction was thuggish. Had they been in the same place when the remarks were made, Clinton said, "I'm afraid I would have assaulted him." Clinton's impulse control issues with young women are a matter of legal record, but perhaps now propensity for violence should be added to the list.

Update 9/4/05:

School Buses Not Deployed by Mayor Nagin

Word now is that Mayor Nagin failed to utilize school buses to evacuate residents; now those buses lie useless and likely damaged by water. Drudge Report quotes a Louisiana disaster plan as stating: "The primary means of hurricane evacuation will be personal vehicles. School and municipal buses, government-owned vehicles and vehicles provided by volunteer agencies may be used to provide transportation for individuals who lack transportation and require assistance in evacuating." Mayor Nagin chastized the federal government for its slow response possibly to direct attention away from his own shortcomings.