Recently in Shameless Exploitation Category

By now, most of you are surely aware that Hillary made up the story about dodging sniper fire out of whole cloth. Her campaign offers no reasonable explanation to accompany their characterizations of "misstatement" and "minor blip". Had Hillary ever landed in a dangerous region under hostile fire (or the threat of same), they would have been quick to trot the details out as proof that Hillary simply remembered a detail or two incorrectly but her underlying story was indeed true.

Since that hasn't happened, we're left with the curtain completely pulled back in a way we rarely see when it comes to our politicians. So the blogosphere is having fun with the somewhat threadbare (in this case, anyway) "misspoke" language being utilized by Hillary's campaign. My favorite comes from John Hinderaker at Powerline:

It Lacked the Added Virtue of Being True

Follow the link for video of the CBS report that hammered the stake through Hillary's tale. Adding additional comic interest is that this helps Obama, whose resume is even thinner than Hillary's.

Back when we moved to Delaware, TB was skeptical about settling in the Newark area. "It's so far from work", she said. "And gas prices are going up."

"Look", I replied, "No matter how high gas prices get, we need to stay the course. If we just keep our large V8-equipped vehicles running as much as possible, in no time at all we'll be a short drive from the beach, and our property values will go through the roof! You just gotta be patient."

She and the kids still thought I was off my rocker, and I still catch flak about it to this day. Soon, though, that patience is going to pay off in spades. Vindication, baby. Vindication.

Three guesses who she blames, and the first two don't count:

"For too long, President Musharraf failed to confront effectively his growing unpopularity. The Bush Administration enabled Musharraf's delusion by ignoring his undemocratic acts and lack of internal support in exchange for his assistance in efforts against terrorism.

"Pakistan will only be a reliable and capable ally against terrorism when its government is not seen as an enemy by its own people. The interests of the United States are best advanced by policies that do not promote one goal at the expense of the other."

It's always Bush's fault with these people, isn't it? However, there's more than a little irony in Nancy taking a jab at Musharraf failing to address his unpopularity as she leads a House with the lowest approval rating in history. Instead of taking cheap BDS-driven shots at the administration, maybe she should address her own "growing unpopularity".

Update (11/6/07 7:08AM): Patrick Leahy blames Bush, too.

This online film from Nickelodeon has to be seen to be believed. I can't understand the mental process that drove them to feature children being utilized as unwitting tools by the anti-American World Can't Wait (WCW).

While it's to be expected from WCW (they've targeted young impressionable minds before), for Nickelodeon to glorify this kind of disgusting propagandizing of children is beyond reprehensible.

Goodbye, Nickelodeon. You're no longer welcome in our home.

BTW, I don't place all the blame on Nickelodeon. Simple decency prevents me from expressing my feelings about this child's parents - he surely didn't sink into the WCW cesspool on his own.

h/t Michelle Malkin and ArmyWifeToddlerMom

From yesterday evening on Fox News (via Hot Air):

I want to make it abundantly clear: if there’s anyone who believes that these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment. If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.

A few folks were willing to give him a pass the last time. Not me, and I knew he'd repeat it sooner or later. To Charlie, our troops are greedy and/or desperate mercenaries who lack the civic spirit to join the military for altruistic reasons.

And we get some insight as to why he feels this way: "...as I did when I was 18 years old". Since the only reason Charlie joined was to escape his own poor neighborhood, that must be why everyone else joins. Very sad.

Maybe the lack of opportunity was what drove him to seek public office as well. You know, 'cause nobody would submit to being interviewed on Fox News if they had a decent career.

Over at Hot Air, watch the video of Charlie defending his proposal to reinstate the draft (something he's done before, if you'll remember).

Allahpundit couldn't follow it. Michelle couldn't follow it. It's mostly nonsense.

However....

It really sounds to me like he's suggesting that the troops aren't patriotic since money was all that lured them into service.

Added to Kerry's infamous moment of Freudian clarity and Murtha's characterizations, does that mean that Democratic leadership views the troops as stupid, lazy, cold-blooded mercenaries?

Maybe he'd like to eliminate pay, benefits, and bonuses to the troops. You know, so only the real patriots would want to serve be conscripted...

Well, good luck with that, Charlie.

Other bloggers confused by what Rangel said:

Conservative Blog Therapy
Jeremayakovka
Right Voices

Hey CREW, if you folks are still into attacking churches, how's about checking this out?

NASHVILLE -- In his race for U.S. Senate, Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D) has been outspent by millions, and his image has been battered by a barrage of negative ads, including the now-infamous spot with a blonde floozy that has been pulled off the air. Several polls show him trailing.

But being an underdog has its own righteous appeal, and the campaign used that status yesterday not only to rally voters but as evidence that God had looked with favor upon the Democratic campaign.

The fact that they are still in the race despite the odds, Ford told an African American crowd at Mount Zion Baptist Church here, was evidence that "we got something else at work."

"I think the congressman said something wise -- we got another manager in this race," Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told the group.

(crickets chirping)

um, guys?

(crickets chirping)

I thought so.

Via Little Green Footballs, a revealing view of Ned Lamont's base:

It certainly fits the pattern I've noticed among some Lamont supporters. I'm not ready to put a label on it, save to say that even just a small hint of it here and there is certainly disturbing and sad.

The nutroots know how utterly unappealing these views are to most Americans, and some are trying to keep a lid on any open discussion that may cast them in a bad light. Right now, in some places, if you use a normally acceptable far-left greeting such as "Gaza is a gulag", you might be answered with "...let’s leave this subject alone until next Wednesday. Please."

How very sad.

From Kerry's website earlier:

Statement of Senator John Kerry

As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop.

I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended.

It is clear the Republican Party would rather talk about anything but their failed security policy. I don’t want my verbal slip to be a diversion from the real issues. I will continue to fight for a change of course to provide real security for our country, and a winning strategy for our troops.

"I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative..." - In other words, "It's a shame that the troops (and the rest of you ignorant peasants as well) are too lazy and uneducated to understand the finely nuanced humor from my superior intellect."

This is as forced an apology as I've ever heard. And the addition of swipes at the right just give the impression that he hasn't had a change of heart since he made the "I don't apologize" speech yesterday. He's sorry anyone was offended, but not sorry he said it.

Even if, as he says, was making a joke about Bush, it would still warrant an apology. I've griped about the level of discourse in politics before, nowhere is it more of a problem than among our elected officials. The decline of statesmanship in Congress over the last thirty years is truly shameful. As a country, we deserve for our elected officials to set standards for dignity and grace. They can and should disagree - just act like adults.

Making jokes about the troops or the president in this manner is simply juvenile. It shows a distinct lack of maturity and character. The inability to offer a simple and contrite apology when necessary is a serious flaw - one that Kerry seems determined to display over and over.

Nope - this didn't cut it.

This comes up every election - the agreement made with the Dems promising not to notice voter fraud unless it happens right in front of a poll-watcher's nose:

That consent decree prohibits the RNC from engaging in, assisting in or participating in any "ballot security program," other than "normal poll watch functions," "unless the program (including the method and timing of any challenges resulting from the program) has been determined by this Court to comply with the provisions of the Consent Order and applicable law." Applications by the RNC "for determination of ballot security programs by the Court shall be made following 20 days notice to the DNC which notice shall include a description of the program to be undertaken, the purpose(s) to be served and the reasons why the program complies with the Consent Order and applicable law."

At this point, it is too late for the RNC to comply with the 20 day deadline for notifying the DNC of any intended application to the Court for approval of any ballot security program. We assume, therefore, that the RNC does not intend to apply to the Court for approval of any such program, and that you intend to respect both the letter and the spirit of the law. For that reason, we also assume that the RNC will refrain from engaging in, assisting in or participating in any "ballot security program" carried out by anyone, including the RNC itself, its state or local parties, Republican candidates or allied organizations such as the Republican National Lawyers Association or National Republican Senatorial Committee.

It doesn't matter 25 years after the fact why there's a consent decree - it's what the Dems use it for here and now. And if a Republican sees voter fraud outside the scope of the decree, the Dems will use the decree to prevent any consequences.

It's comical that Howard would issue this letter decades after its relevance ended when in much more recent times, he and his party have blocked (or attempted to block) every single proposal to stem voter fraud. And illegal immigrants, imaginary people, and the dead are voting in droves, mostly for Democrats.

No, I guess it really isn't comical, is it?

...but occasionally it comes out for all to see. There's a pattern this year - the racist treatment of Steele, racism (and yesterday's possible anti-semitism) in liberal blogs. The constant screeching of "racism" at conservatives in cases where there is none.

Hate does this - nothing else can.

Does anyone really think these people will calm down and start acting like adults if they win?

Of course, we know where they aren't:

Jack Carter has tried to reach out to Nevada voters who the Carters say 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry ignored. He talks openly about his Baptist faith, and appeared last weekend with his father at a black church in Las Vegas.

But it's okay when they do it....

One of the left's most repugnant figures is Michael Rogers. He's the sleaze who's been claiming to have a list of gay Republicans he intends to expose. The rest of the left seems to at least privately applaud his disgusting campaign - as long as it helps the cause, right, guys?

Outing a few minor staffers has been greeted by collective snores, I guess he's decided to up the ante with a little guilt by association. Press release here.

Anyway, the pond was left uncovered for a brief time today as Rogers set his sights on none other than Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican Party. Apparently in Michael Roger's world, if you have a gay friend, you must be gay yourself:

Today, I challenge to James Dobson to ask Ken directly: Are you a member of the so-called "homosexual lifestyle" and do you expect my followers to support you at the polls?

Rogers seem to forget an itty bitty fact - Ken Mehlman isn't running for office, and Dobson's "followers" won't see Ken's name on any ballot. Oh, and there's also a very lame video there with nothing to support his innuendo. Zzzzzzzzzz.

I'm waiting for his claim that President Bush is gay cause he knows Dick Cheney's daughter. What a pathetic loser.

The left, through their shills in the media, have been enjoying themselves thoroughly over the remarks made by Rush about Michael J. Fox. Here's what they're reporting about the interview had last night with Katie Couric:

NEW YORK (AP) -- In a response to charges by conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, Michael J. Fox defended his appearance in recent political campaign ads, saying he was neither acting nor off his medication for Parkinson's disease.

On the contrary, he had been overmedicated, the actor said during an interview aired on Thursday's "CBS Evening News with Katie Couric."

"The irony of it is that I was too medicated," Fox told Couric, adding that his jumpy condition as he spoke to her reflected "a dearth of medication -- not by design. I just take it, and it kicks in when it kicks in."

"That's funny -- the notion that you could calculate it for effect," he said. "Would that we could."

The 7 1/2-minute interview with Fox, whose shaking at one point dislodged the microphone clipped to his jacket lapel, aired in two segments taped Thursday afternoon on the "Evening News" set. (Watch fox tell Couric that he doesn't want pity -- :32)

Fox drew some conservative criticism after an ad began running in Missouri during the World Series. It showed Fox visibly shaking while urging fans to vote yes for stem-cell research and Democratic Senate challenger Claire McCaskill -- and no to the Republican incumbent Jim Talent. (Watch the visibly ill Fox make a pitch for McCatskill -- 2:35)

"They say all politics is local, but it's not always the case," Fox says in the 30-second spot. "What you do in Missouri matters to millions of Americans -- Americans like me."

The Democrats have largely succeeded with the ads - a prominent conservative figure gave them the soundbite they wanted: "either off his medication or acting". And Ann Coulter, despite her ill-chosen words about the 9-11 widows, has been proven right once again about the tactics of the left. The right is villified as cruel and uncaring about the sick and dying in the ads, and in the aftermath, now stand accused of attacking the sick and defenseless messenger.

Were it not for the fact that left's entire argument is built on a lie, it would be perfect. As a result, I predict little effect on the elections. While the ads will sway a few of the gullible, those who already have views that disagree with their premise will just be angered.

In the interview last night, Fox claims to respect the views of those who object to killing human embryos for medical research. But the message in his ads shows that he in fact has none. Indeed, Michael's message is "If you don't vote for the Democrats, I will suffer. If the Republicans win, my blood will be on your hands." How selfish and cynical he is in this galling demagoguery. Rather than tiptoe around Fox's illness (wouldn't want to offend, after all), the true nature of these repugnant ads should be held up as an example of the of why the left is unfit to lead.

To Michael (and the Democrats who you support):

How dare you?

How dare you suggest that my belief that we shouldn't kill the unborn for medical research equates to a desire for you to suffer?

How dare you infer that my belief that all lives are equally important and deserving of our protection equates to a desire for you to die?

Again, how dare you? You and those you campaign for show an ugliness that should have become extinct long ago, along with the medical experiments that were routinely performed on those who couldn't defend themselves in asylums, prisons, and most recently, concentration camps. To those of us who believe that life begins at conception, your side has ressurected that barbaristic and inhumane mindset. Apparently the presence of shiny stainless steel equipment and starched white labcoats makes it all oh-so clinical, emotionless, and acceptable to you. To me, it's same twisted reasoning that defended slavery as natural order because "they aren't really human".

You also claim you want respect and not pity. But if the only way, in your view, for that respect to be shown is to accede to your selfish and barbaristic wants, then you shall not have it. For your small-minded and disrespectful view of my beliefs, and your inability to shed a brutal ethos that should have perished at Dachau, you have earned my pity.

Oh, and about the flap with Rush - his statements have been argued completely elsewhere, I feel no need to go into them at length. For what it's worth, though, I disagree with Captain Ed, who appears to feel that Rush's remarks were appropriate. Instead, I fall on the side that feels Rush erred in his phrasing. He nearly got it right - then he backed off, fearing what the reaction would be. I wish he had been more bold instead.

Yes, CREW gave me a visit. I didn't believe it at first, so I emailed CREW through their contact page and received confirmation that the comment was genuine. I'll have to admit to being very surprised - I'm not usually kind in my posts about CREW.

I posted a few days ago about CREW's complaint to the DOJ concerning Curt Weldon. A comment was posted by Naomi Seligman Steiner, CREW's Deputy Director, taking issue with what I posted. Here's her comment:

In response to your wrongful assertion, CREW did recieve the e-mails as they appear. They were redacted upon receipt. CREW did not edit them in any way.

Naomi Seligman Steiner
CREW

The statement challenged by Ms. Stein was this sentence following the images of the emails:

"All of the dark line redacting was CREW's doing, I smudged out a few names they left in place."

I wrote this to explain the two visually different types of editing done on the images - the heavy black lines vs the smudging I added. No other point was intended by the statement. However, I should have worded it differently. CREW's letter to the DOJ states that the emails were provided to them in pre-redacted form:

"Although the emails CREW received were heavily redacted, we have been able to authenticate them."

My apologies to CREW for the error, and the original post has been corrected.

The remainder of the post stays as is - please note that no other portions of the post were challenged in any way.

And the Democrats are outraged. How do we know they are outraged? Because they leaked it:

A conference call to the committee's nine Democrats on Wednesday to inform them of the aide's suspension prompted outrage, said two congressional officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about internal committee business.

The officials said that the National Intelligence Estimate was marked "secret," rather than "top secret" or another more restrictive classification. As a result, thousands of people would have had access to it, including the intelligence, armed services and international relations committees of the House.

While I'm encouraged that some effort is being made to determine the sources of the leaks, this story is near zero for me. Why? 'Cause there is nothing but suspicion here so far. The Democrats correctly state that a large number of people have access to the NIE, and we don't know if the staffer ordered the report for someone else or for himself.

What I still don't get is why Congress ignores the press (and their role) in all of this. Classified information requires controls and boundaries. Once it crosses outside of those boundaries, it's no longer classified information - it's stolen classified information. One would think the government could leverage this to compell reporters to reveal the leakers as part of a criminal investigation, since receiving stolen goods is a crime. Until we do, the leaks will never stop. And while the left may think it's cute to leak classified data for political purposes, the fact is that it harms our country when they do so.

So until I see someone being prosecuted, I'm going to have to assume that this staffer suspension (along with all of the promises of investigation for past leaks) is simply intended to be eyewash - red meat for the base.

For me, though, it's a flavorless meal that leaves me not just unsatified, but starving.

John Conyers has released a new book, based on his "Constitution in Crisis" report. From the press release:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 17 /U.S. Newswire/ -- A report by House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers and the Democratic staff, "George W. Bush versus the U.S. Constitution", is now available in book form, with an introduction by Ambassador Joseph Wilson, whose wife, Valerie Plame, is a former CIA agent, outed and harassed by the Administration, and a Foreword by Congressman Conyers.

Having an introduction by "Ambassador Joseph Wilson, whose wife, Valerie Plame, is a former CIA agent, outed and harassed by the Administration", gives an appropriately delusional beginning to a tome that promises to be full of delusion and deception. I'm sure Conyers and his partners in this saw the news last month on Plamegate. To continue this nutty tinfoil hat stuff when even the NYT now concedes that there wasn't a coordinated outing from the White House of Valerie Plame, places Rep. Conyers outside the mainstream of sane and rational thought. Don't expect the rest of the book to reverse that trend.

But it's not just his thoughts at play here. The press release claims the book is based on "A report by House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers and the Democratic staff". It isn't even that. This report started, as I said above, as a document titled "Constitution in Crisis", a 350 page document you can download here. Written by him and his staff? Maybe partially, but the real credit belongs to a bunch even more delusional and ill-informed than Rep. Conyers (Screen cap here):

Much of the research in this report is a product of the input and hard work of DailyKos, Huffington Post and Conyersblog readers over the last six months (the help with my "timeline project" was particularly useful). I also am so grateful to progressive talk radio hosts and listeners, who have refused to allow the American people to forget the nation was deceived into war.

Get it? Conyers goes past the the arguably nutty Kos and Arianna and shoots staight for their readers. Yup - when you really need info about classified documents and intelligence practices, no better source than the comment threads of Kos and HuffPo. And every single loony BDS theory is in there - from the venerable "BushLied" meme, to the notion that the terrorist surveilance program tapped "millions" of American's domestic calls. Each and every one has been thoroughly disproven countless times, so I won't rehash them here. Consider the source, folks. It was mostly researched not by a respected investigatory agency, but by the readers of the Daily Kos.

This basic document, with the addition of some scary sounding mischaracterizations of the terrorist surveilance program, forms the new book. I'd like to get some tips from Rep. Conyers - usually when I try to get the foil that tight, it rips.

Conyers believes this material forms the justification for his oft-stated desire to impeach President Bush. And if the Democrats get control of the House, he's made no secret of the fact that he intends to utilize his chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee for that exact purpose.

All based on the fever-swamp conspiracy theories of the readers of Daily Kos and the Huffington Post.

More later (maybe) when my lunch digests a little more...

...in today's Washington Post to decry Republican name-calling. In the process, he continues to show why Democrats like him don't deserve to be in power. His message is unmistakably clear - Iraq is hard, we might lose, so we should give up.

Had the forefathers of this country decided that the possibility of losing was enough not to try, we'd still be a colony today. How about WWII? Winning wasn't a given when we engaged in Europe - matter of fact, we went over there because our allies were losing. Murtha's head-in-the-sand brand of defeatism would have condemned Europe to defeat at the hands of Hitler all because it was too hard.

Is Iraq a mess? Yes. Do the Iraqi people deserve the even worse chaos and loss of life that would ensue if we simply pulled up stakes and abandoned them? No.

Murtha was quite the humanitarian when speaking out on the loss of Iraqi life when he claimed our troops were killing them in cold blood without the benefit of a complete investigation. If our continued presence while the Iraqis gradually take over saves lives that would otherwise be lost in the expanded sectarian violence that would surely erupt if we left now, why wouldn't Murtha support that? Cause it wouldn't further his political ambitions? Some humanitarian, eh?

Lots of things are hard, Jack. Lots are painful, too. Running away from things that are right because they might be hard and/or painful shouldn't be the trademark of a decorated veteran.

Earlier this month, I posted about how the arguments by the left simply don't hold water when applied to the debate about estate taxes. The repeal effort on the table at the time failed in the Senate, but the issue is back. Thursday the House passed a partial repeal - upping the exemption from its current 2 million to 5 for individuals and 10 million for couples. While this "lite" version is a mistake in that it still embraces inequality in the tax code, it's a step in the right direction and should make later efforts to repeal the death tax easier.

In my previous post, I discussed why the arguments of the left on this issue are based on deception. I saw a couple more examples raised earlier this week that further serve to illustrate my point. First, an unsigned editorial in the Washington Post gives the usual dishonest tripe so popular with many on the left:

LIKE THE GHOUL in the horror movie that refuses to die, estate tax repeal has returned from the grave to stalk the halls of Congress. Just two weeks after abolitionists failed in the Senate, they have regrouped behind a new bill that would achieve most of what they want -- not quite the elimination of the tax but its "reform" into insignificance. Like full repeal, this reform would expand the budget deficit and exacerbate inequality.

The deficit canard is the cornerstone of robotic liberal groupthink whenever government and money are discussed lately. In this case (as in most), it's being used dishonestly. The deficit does not exist because of tax cuts - the simple and irrefutable fact is that revenues have increased dramatically for the government in spite of (or more accurately, because of) the previous cuts. The deficit is a product of one thing and one thing only - irresponsible spending habits in Congress. Until this fact is recognized and addressed universally by both left and right alike, no serious deficit reduction is possible.

"Exacerbate inequality" - this one is rooted entirely in raw emotion and couldn't be more dishonest since it really doesn't have anything to do with fairness unless you're viewing it through the eyes of a six year old. "Timmy has a newer bicycle than me. It's not fair!" should not be the type of argument that mature people employ. Only a mortally flawed sense of fairness rooted in envy and greed view a progressive tax code as fair.

But what is fair? I have a friend that believes that if government costs 3 trillion to run, each of the 300 million people in the US should chip in ten grand, since all citizens benefit equally from the government's core responsibilities (common defense, domestic tranquility, etc). While it's hard not to appreciate the brutal simplicity of his argument, it's a model that doesn't take into account that a large portion of our population doesn't generate income, i.e., the very young and the very old being the largest groups to use as examples. So in recognition of this, we tax based on income. In such a system, fairness is also a simple concept if you can set aside greed and envy:

If I make 10 times more than you, I should pay 10 times the taxes.
If I make 100 times more than you, I should pay 100 times the taxes.

Seem fair? Not to the left, where childishness reigns. Add a "liberal" dose of covetousness, and "fair" suddenly becomes a grotesque caricature where an impaired syllogism views the following as just:

- You make 10 times more than I do, so you should pay 20 times more taxes.
- You make 100 times more than I do, so you should pay 400 times more taxes.

And it's just comical when applied to estate taxes:

- Your estate is worth 100 times more than mine, so I should pay no taxes, and you should pay 46%.

The truth is that fairness has nothing to do with the liberal views on taxation. Period. The Post article gives us a hint of why(emphasis mine):

The nation faces the expensive retirement of the baby boomers. It is grappling with rising inequality. Its prized social mobility may ultimately be threatened if the richest members of society are allowed to pass unlimited riches to their children.

I don't recall which part of the tax code addressed "social mobility". Can anyone help with a reference? This green-eyed phenomenon is even more plainly illustrated in a post I came across in FireDogLake yesterday. The author, Ian Welsh, should be lauded for his honesty in showing the true basis of the liberal view of taxes (I've included the bulk of the post so that context won't be an issue, only leaving out the graphs about income inequality and estate tax distribution. Please follow the link to see the graphs. Emphasis added.):

To summarize:

The top 1% pays 94.8% of all estate taxes.
The top 1/2 a percent pays 86.5% of all estate taxes
The top .1% pays 51.3% of all estate taxes

Most people will never be effected by the Estate Tax. Ever. But you will be effected if it’s repealed.

Here he shows clearly that the estate tax is unfair. Either 1% is being unfairly targeted, or 99% is skating out of their responsibilities. It's a point he misses altogether, though.

The general estimate of the cost of repeal is a trillion dollars a decade. A hundred billion a year. The government is already bleeding money, in both deficit and substantial debt. Any tax repeal - whether estate, or capital gains, or corporate taxes, wille eventually have to be made up (yes, the creditors will eventually want their money back.) Estate tax repeal will be paid for at some point, by the middle class. And by your children.

TANSTAAFL - There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. If you want a tax cut now, you pay for it later - with interest. If the rich want a tax cut now, the middle class will pay for it later, with interest.

This, as I pointed out before, is demonstrably false. Revenues have increased dramatically due to prior tax cuts, the problem is runaway spending. Fix that problem, and the middle class and children will be fine. By the way, 100 billion dollars a year, if correct (Not saying it isn't, but there are competing estimates of the effect of estate tax repeal) taken away from government control (where it would be badly mismanaged) and left in the private sector could create/sustain 3.2 million $15/hour jobs. Think the government would use the money even a fraction as well?

But I want to say something more about the estate tax.

There is no fairer tax. If it were up to me, it wouldn’t just be reinstated to it’s full 1999 level, it’d be increased to tax even more from the richest DEAD PEOPLE.

That’s right - dead people. By all means, let’s call it the death tax.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t expect to take it with me. I don’t think my money goes with me wherever it is I go when my heart stops beating. I don’t think I need money after I’m dead.

This has a morbid "They're dead! Quick, take the watches and wallets! No, leave the Timex - but get the Rolex from that guy over there!" quality to it that should offend anyone's sense of morals. If you think this isn't a popular view among the left, read the comments - Mr. Welsh gets lots of praise for his canonization of this grave-robbing mindset.

And I don’t think my heirs need more than a few million dollar head start over everyone else. Sure, if I ever have kids, I’d want to give them a head start, but I don’t deceive myself that they did anything to, like, deserve it, other than with the "lucky sperm contest".

Now we get to the heart of his argument. Jealousy. Greed. Envy. We should tax estates because the heirs don't deserve their inheritance. What I can't figure out: Why they don't display this level of contempt for the Kennedys?

Taxation is a zero sum game. You can take the money from dead people - who don’t need it or you can take it from living people who do need it.

Except heirs are living people, aren't they?

You can tax it from the kids of the rich, who did nothing to deserve it and who can probably make it on a few million from Daddy and Mummy; or you can tax it from people who actually earned it by the sweat of their own brow.

Moving from envy to hatred... They don't deserve it because Ian wasn't born lucky. Does arrogance trump aristocracy?

Oh, and those stories about people losing their family farms to the estate tax? Myth - no one has ever been able to find even one.

I'll agree with that one. Farms are indeed protected as far as I know. Now, about the medium-sized privately owned businesses...

The estate tax, the death tax, is about letting people have more money when they’re alive, and only taxing it when they’re dead.

And that, to me, makes it better than every other tax in existence.

Except you'd have more money if the government didn't tax the dead. Like it or don't, even Paris Hilton will use her money for your benefit. How? She'll spend it. She'll invest it. Every dollar that stays in the private sector helps improve the economy for all of us, increasing the chances that you or I will be able to induct our children into the "lucky sperm club". And the purpose of any tax should be to fund the government - not perform social engineering.

So forget estate tax repeal - let’s turn it around and increase the estate tax. Because dead people don’t need money, and living people do, and no matter how much rich people love their kids they didn’t do anything for the money, and a head start of a few million is enough for anyone.

But we're talking about fairness. And a twisted sense of fairness borne of contempt and envy isn't fair by any rational standards. A tax policy based on some masterbatory Robin Hood-ish fantasy is neither fair nor workable.

But government needs to be funded, right? So let's talk fair. Right and wrong do not change because of scale. If Paris Hilton doesn't deserve her inheritance because she didn't earn it, then equally do my children not deserve their comparatively meager one. An inheritance, if you believe it's unearned therefore undeserved, remains so whether it's 20 grand or 20 million.

So the fair answer is once again very simple. If you want to tax estates, then tax them all equally. No exceptions and the same rate for all, or my preference - tax none. Anything in between is counter to the principles upon which our republic was founded.

I say repeal the death tax. Then get to work bringing fairness and transparency to the rest of the tax code. That means eliminating regressive taxes that unfairly target the poor (like corporate taxes), and making every earned dollar look the same to each and every American.

I'm sure over the course of this week there will be lots of pixels devoted to the shameful defeatist posturing of Rep. John Murtha yesterday on Meet the Press. Indeed, there already has. Today's Wall Street Journal has a terrific twofer on the politics of cut 'n run^TM and the war in general.

The first, Iraq and Congress, says of Murtha:

As for Mr. Murtha's proposal that U.S. forces should redeploy to some nearby part of the Middle East, this is merely a disguise for what everyone would understand was a defeat in Iraq. Anyone who doubts it should merely listen to Mr. Murtha, who said again yesterday on NBC's Meet the Press that "We can't win a war like this." It's more accurate to say that our troops have a harder time winning a war with political leaders as inconstant as Mr. Murtha, who voted to commit U.S. troops but now lacks the will to finish the job.

Certainly Rep. Murtha deserves the credit for being the loudest of those who would abandon Iraq and prove to the world that the United States can't be counted on to keep its word. And who could blame him? After all, what use is our integrity as a nation when the Majority Leader post is on the line? And the thrust of his message should not be mistaken by anyone, considering the ill-chosen comparison to Beirut or Somalia, both of which cost the US dearly by emboldening the ideology and strategy of Al-Qaeda.

It simply cannot be other than raw stupidity to repeatedly claim a need to "change directions" and offer only examples that abandoned friends and contributed greatly to 9/11. Murtha would have us take that route again, once and for all eliminating any measure of trust that might be placed in us by a nation in need.

But Murtha isn't alone - he has the backing of an opportunistic party so hell-bent on regaining power that they eagerly anticipate our nation's failure so that they can cynically sweep in and pick up the pieces. Nancy Pelosi referred to the war as a "grotesque mistake" recently. I wonder how the groups in Iraq most subject to the murderous whims of Saddam Hussein feel about the suggestion that their plight under Saddam was just fine by Nancy, and any attempt to liberate them was a "mistake"? Her political posturing fails to consider that the real mistakes have already been judged by history:

Most terrorism experts are agreed that the precipitous withdrawal from both places emboldened our enemies by convincing them the U.S. could always be made to back down in any conflict. Not repeating those mistakes may be reason enough to stay the course in Iraq.

It would be foolhardy to believe otherwise. Surrender in Iraq would be Al-Qaeda's greatest victory - not only would it embolden Bin Laden to plan more attacks, it would make his recruiting far easier.

Now Dianne Feinstein wants to followup the spectacular failure of the Kerry plan last week with a repeat of the surrender-based politics that have worked so well for the Democrats Republicans of late. Good. Let them bring it up every week if they want - right up to the mid-term elections. Let them ask the American people if our national integrity has any value at all.

Or at least that's the plan (H/T Protein Wisdom):

Marine may call Murtha as witness

A criminal defense attorney for a Marine under investigation in the Haditha killings says he will call a senior Democratic congressman as a trial witness, if his client is charged, to find out who told the lawmaker that U.S. troops are guilty of cold-blooded murder.

Attorney Neal A. Puckett told The Washington Times that Gen. Michael Hagee, the Marine commandant, briefed Rep. John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, on the Nov. 19 killings of 24 Iraqis in the town north of Baghdad. Mr. Murtha later told reporters that the Marines were guilty of killing the civilians in "cold blood." Mr. Murtha said he based his statement on Marine commanders, whom he did not identify.

Mr. Puckett said such public comments from a congressman via senior Marines amount to "unlawful command influence." He said potential Marine jurors could be biased by the knowledge that their commandant, the Corps' top officer, thinks the Haditha Marines are guilty.

"Congressman Murtha will be one of the first witnesses I call to the witness stand," Mr. Puckett said yesterday.

Mr. Puckett represents Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, an eight-year Marine who was a key participant in the Haditha operations that resulted in the 24 civilian deaths.

I don't know if the claim of unlawful command influence will have any traction - but somebody in the command structure thought these Marines were guilty. And the choice of Murtha as a recipient of the leak shows malice as it should have been predictable what would be done with it.

But the fact is that we don't yet know what the truth is regarding Haditha. I'm hoping they're innocent, but recognize that it could go the way of those who hope that they're guilty. If you're reading this and saying "but I don't hope they're guilty - I just know they are" then you're being dishonest. You can't know any more than I can since the facts haven't all been revealed. Only a fool driven by more emotion than brains could reach a conclusion of innocence or guilt on the public facts as they currently stand.

So if you believe they're guilty, it's not fact, but hope alone that drives you, and I don't have it in me to even pity you.

Murtha has hope, too. Political gain seems like such a petty motive, doesn't it? But his reprehensable act cuts both ways - if there is something that the Marines should be brought to justice for, Murtha and his informant may have given them the tools to avoid it. If they're innocent, they'll never be able to remove the stain that's been smeared on them.

That's not something to be proud of, folks. Why don't some of you "hopefuls" tell me again how courageous and patriotic Murtha is - OK?

Update (5:00pm EST): Okay, okay - I had a change of heart on the drive home from work. "Patriotism" is overused nowadays anyway - just like "integrity". Both are terrific concepts, but the application of each changes dramatically depending on perspective.

So in all fairness, it's entirely possible that Murtha believes that selling out a few Marines to achieve his party's and his own objectives is beneficial to the country, therefore, patriotic. You know, kinda like that woman down in Texas who claimed that the only way to save her kids was to drown them. So, in that spirit, the last paragraph of this post is corrected to read:

That's not something to be proud of, folks. Why don't some of you "hopefuls" tell me again how Murtha did the right thing - OK?

There. I feel so much better now.

Today's first sighting - AP:

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon Thursday confirmed that 2,500 U.S. troops have died in the Iraq war since it began more than three years ago. The grim milestone was announced just hours before the House was to begin a symbolic election-year debate over the war, with Republicans rallying against calls by some Democrats to set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

I take back the nice remarks.

Arianna hits bottom and digs yesterday as she shows her utter contempt for the troops and advises Democrats to sell out our military for political gain as "drugged up, hallucinating, and stressed out" killers for whom Haditha is an everyday occurance.

She starts by extending allegations about Haditha to all the troops.

It means the killings in Haditha -- like Abu Ghraib, like Bagram, like Guantanamo, like all the everyday, unheralded horrors perpetrated on innocent Iraqi civilians -- have made America less safe.

After all, says Arianna, smearing our troops is the moral thing to do. She continues by expressing her approval of Murtha's use of the tactic:

This is the issue that nationalizes the 2006 races. It's the right stance strategically (as Jack Murtha has been saying for months). It's the right stance morally. And it's also the right stance politically.

This is disgustingly cold and calculating by anyone's standards. But hey, it's about regaining power, right? After all, painting them as "baby killers" worked before...

And to Arianna, this represents an opportunity to be exploited - nothing more.

If Democrats can make this their defining issue, they can stop worrying about the laundry list of "what ifs" they are now obsessing over: What if people forget about Katrina and Abramoff and DeLay? What if gas prices come down? What if GOP gerrymandering trumps voter unrest? What if the gay marriage ruse works again? What if, what if, what if...

They need to calm their nerves and keep it simple. It's about making us safe, stupid. And keeping our worn-out, stressed-out, missionless troops in Iraq is making us less -- much less -- safe.

This is not just sick - it exposes an icy vacuum where heart and soul should be. In Arianna's case, I think the last thin veil of "I support the troops" - if indeed it was ever visible - has forever fallen away.

Update: Welcome Blackfive readers!

Haven't done one of these in a while - Cindy's moonbatty antics bore me. Yesterday, though, she closed (if that's possible) ranks with Murtha and much of the media in convicting the Marines who fought in Haditha and have yet to benefit from a finished investigation, much less a fair trial.

Written on the same day that terrorists slaughtered 20 civillians on buses, and knowing full well that it was a fairly normal day for the terrorists, Cindy wants us to know that regardless of the outcome of any investigation and/or legal proceedings, she knows who the real monsters are - and it ain't just a few bad apples, either. From My Lai to Haditha By Cindy Sheehan:

War turns our mostly normal American youth into wanton murderers who have lost their own humanity and love of others. Haditha in this war and My Lai in another disgusting war were unfortunately not aberrations.

Oh, and this caught my attention as well:

Our soldiers need to start disobeying the unlawful order to even be deployed to Iraq and not raise their weapons in appeasement to the Bush Regime and say: "This war is the criminal, I am not. Threaten me if you will, but I am not going to be an accomplice in your crimes against humanity."

That, my friends, sounds like sedition to me.

H/T AllahPundit as Hot Air.

I'd be remiss if I didn't comment on the Ben Domenech story. I won't rehash the particulars of his resignation from the Post, they're covered in great detail elsewhere.

But the story does raise a concern about the level of responsibility that our information-driven world requires. There's no question that Ben was aggresively attacked by a sizable crowd on the left, and on topics that fell far out of bounds for civil debate. I didn't have to follow very many links to see for myself that the attacks were vicious, personal, and intended to harm someone for the sole reason that the attackers disliked his message. That they found something in Ben's past that appears to be wrong in no way excuses the methods and motivations that led to their discovery. The finding of wrongdoing in Ben's past wasn't their goal - tearing down an individual out of fear and hatred for his beliefs was.

Again, I'm offering no excuse for Ben's actions. But no one can offer one for those folks that tore him down, either.

I wish Ben the best of luck in the future - and I'm glad he's continuing to post at RedState.

This quote from this morning's NSA hearings is one of the most shamelessly dishonest I've heard from the Democrats:

Sen. Patrick Leahy: "My concern is for peaceful Quakers who are being spied upon, and other law-abiding Americans and babies and nuns who are placed on terrorist watch lists..."

I guess that sets the tone for today, doesn't it? The Dems appear to want to top their performance in the Alito confirmation hearing.

Yesterday All Things Beautiful posted a nice roundup of the former Army sergeant Mark Seavey's exchange with Mothra and Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.). The video of the exchange is available at Michelle Malkin. Here's the words of Mark Seavey:

"Yes sir my name is Mark Seavey and I just want to thank you for coming up here. Until about a month ago I was Sgt Mark Seavey infantry squad leader, I returned from Afghanistan. My question to you, (applause)

"Like yourself I dropped out of college two years ago to volunteer to go to Afghanistan, and I went and I came back. If I didn't have a herniated disk now I would volunteer to go to Iraq in a second with my troops, three of which have already volunteered to go to Iraq. I keep hearing you say how you talk to the troops and the troops are demoralized, and I really resent that characterization. (applause) The morale of the troops that I talk to is phenomenal, which is why my troops are volunteering to go back, despite the hardships they had to endure in Afghanistan.

"And Congressman Moran, 200 of your constituents just returned from Afghanistan. We never got a letter from you; we never got a visit from you. You didn't come to our homecoming. The only thing we got from any of our elected officials was one letter from the governor of this state thanking us for our service in Iraq, when we were in Afghanistan. That's reprehensible. I don't know who you two are talking to but the morale of the troops is very high."

I'll add my comment to the fray, albeit late. It's beyond belief that an elected servant chooses to ignore a constituent like this - and in public, too. I hope some Republican shows this tape on the house floor the next time support for the troops comes up as a subject.

This tape would be a terrific cornerstone of a Republican ad campaign as well.

It's a new year, but the moonbats remain the same. The Senorita of Shameless Exploitation yesterday shows us once again the immeasurable distance between her thought processes and reality:

"Then we have the unfortunate innocents of Iraq. I have heard reports of up to as many as 200 of them killed yesterday. So if 200 were reported, one has to really wonder what the true count was. Bill O'Reilly and George Bush define a terrorist as someone who "kills innocent men, women and children." Am I the only one who sees the irony and stunning hypocrisy in this statement?" Who do Bill and George think are being killed in Iraq? Well-trained and an organized Army? Terrorists? We all know that is false. This is who is being killed in Iraq: living breathing human beings, identical to Americans, or any other human beings on earth, who are just trying to go about their lives trying to survive in a war torn country that was no threat to America or our way of life."

Cindy suggests that the "200" deaths are attributable to Bush, therefore the artificially low number reported. Here's who really killed 200 people two days ago:

KERBALA/RAMADI, Iraq (Reuters) - Two suicide bombers killed 120 people and wounded more than 200 in attacks near a Shi'ite holy shrine and a police recruiting center on Thursday, the bloodiest day in Iraq for four months.

Seven U.S. soldiers were killed in two roadside bomb attacks, three bombs exploded in Baghdad and insurgents sabotaged an oil pipeline near the northern city of Kirkuk, causing a huge fire.

Coming a day after 58 people died in a wave of bombings and shootings, the latest bloodshed ratcheted up tension between Iraq's minority Sunni Arabs and majority Shi'ite Muslims.

Am I the only one who sees the irony and stunning hypocrisy in Cindy's refusal to see that her beloved "freedom fighters" are the terrorists responsible for the deaths?

In a rare moment of clarity, Cindy admits the ineffectiveness of her (along with the rest of the hate America crowd) tactics of marches and vigils:

"Apparently, candlelight vigils do very little to stop, or even slow down a little, the carnage committed by the war criminals in DC."

I wonder if this revelation affects her plans for a moonbat convergience in Crawford this Easter. So what to do to correct it? More of the same!

"Hold your vigils and marches in relevant places: such as warmongering local Congressional offices."

Yeah, Cindy, that should do it. (snicker)

Via AP/Yahoo:

"This Congress has done very little oversight," Reid, D-Nev., said on "Fox News Sunday." "There should be an investigation and hearings."

Reid acknowledged that he was briefed by the administration about the surveillance program "a couple of months ago."

Of course, when he learned about this a couple of months ago, he asked for hearings then. Didn't he?

To go from this:

To this:

Shows that Cindy's acting skills are improving. I bet she's taken lessons. Maybe she'll get her own TV show next year.

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin

In London, Euromoonbats continue to fawn over Cindy Sheehan. Now they're turning her into the Princess of Pathetic Plays:

LONDON (Reuters) - U.S. peace activist Cindy Sheehan, who won wide attention with a vigil outside President George W. Bush's ranch in the name of her soldier son killed in Iraq, is the subject of a new play by Nobel laureate Dario Fo.

"Peace Mom" received its world premiere in London on Saturday night, starring British actress Frances de la Tour, with both Sheehan and Italian dramatist Fo in the audience.

The one-woman show is based on extracts from Sheehan's letters to Bush and other writings. De la Tour delivered the monologues beneath large pictures of Sheehan's son Casey and a tank in the Iraqi desert in front of a plume of fire.

"Frances did such an amazing job of conveying my feelings of anger and betrayal," a tearful Sheehan said after the play.

I'm assuming this was classified as a comedy. If the name Frances de la Tour (pictured to the right) sounds familiar, it is. She plays the giant headmistress Madame Maxime in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

Additionally, the play is going on tour:

The play was rushed into production to conclude a day-long conference of activists opposed to the U.S.-led war in Iraq, with de la Tour reading some passages from a script.

Fo, the leftist playwright who won the 1997 Nobel Prize for Literature, said his wife and artistic partner Franca Rame would star in a longer final version of the play in Italy.

I guess he has a knack for fiction. By the way, one of Fo's websites is creepy.. And here's another website of his where apparently, he's running for mayor of Milano. And if you're curious what kind of it takes to win a Nobel prize for literature, here's a sample of his "work" from 2004:

Dario Fo’s new play has aroused not only ire but a lawsuit. The Nobel Prize winner’s latest, The Two-Headed Anomaly, pokes fun at Italian premiere Silvio Berlusconi, with Fo himself playing the prime minister and Fo’s wife, Franca Rame, playing Veronica Lario (Berlusconi’s wife).

In the play, Berlusconi is visited by Russian leader Vladimir Putin, who gets shot by Chechen rebels, and part of Putin’s brain is put into the Italian’s head. The result is a vodka-drinking, confused drunk worried about men trapped in a submarine.

What a good choice to write a play about a demented moonbat. And to top it off, here's an excerpt from his bio in Columbia Encyclopedia:

A long-time member of the Communist party (he was denied entry into the United States in the early 1980s), Fo has often been critical of the policies of the Roman Catholic church, which has termed some of his plays blasphemous. Forceful, wittily anarchic, and often disturbing, his work was impeded by Italian censorship before 1962. In 1968, Fo and his wife, actress Franca Rame, with whom he has frequently collaborated in writing and acting, began presenting plays on contemporary issues. The most famous of these is Accidental Death of an Anarchist (1970), a farce about the alleged suicide of an anarchist in police custody. Among his more than 70 other plays are Mistero Buffo (1969), Can't Pay, Won't Pay (1974), The Pope and the Witch (1989), and The Devil with Boobs (1997). Fo was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1997.

Say it isn't so! Cindy being canonized by a communist? I wonder where we've seen that before...

Cindy Sheehan on her soapbox son, Casey, from an interview in the Guardian:

"His recruiter told him that even if there was a war, he would never see combat because he had scored so high in the entrance exam - he'd only be in a support role," says Cindy.

Obviously she feels that all those in combat roles are dimwits. I guess she didn't see this.

Also, she needs a massage:

The non-stop campaigning has taken its toll, she says, and Cindy feels in need of a good massage: "I really feel I'm carrying the whole world on my shoulders," she says.

Any combat soldiers want to help her out? I didn't think so.

Hat tip Little Green Footballs

No matter how you support the terrorists, it's still support.

Whether you support them directly by undermining our nation's mission in Iraq.

Or indirectly by supporting others who give aid and comfort to our enemies.

It's still support. And there's a special phrase just for the kind of anti-American sub-human Howard has proven himself to be. But I promised not to use it here.

H/T Michelle Malkin, who has a terrific roundup of opinion on this.

Update: Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert weighs in:

"We should all be grateful that Governor Dean is not General Dean. Rather than standing by our troops who are fighting the War on Terror, Howard Dean has made it clear the Democratic Party sides with those who wish to surrender.

"This type of rhetoric for political gain is irresponsible. But even worse, it sends the wrong message to our troops who are fighting terrorism on the front lines and to the millions of Iraqis who are days away from another landmark accomplishment in their march towards freedom. We must take the fight to the terrorists in Iraq, rather than fight them here. I urge Governor Dean and the Democratic party to put away their negative and harmful political rhetoric."

Well said, Mr Speaker.

Update 2: RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman being interviewed on the same radio station that Howard Dean used as a urinal yesterday (emphasis mine):

"It's fairly extraordinary. I can't remember any time in history where the leader of a national party, one of our 2 national parties, predicted that America would lose a war we were engaged in. I think it sends the wrong message to our troops, the wrong message to the enemy, the wrong message to the Iraqi people just 10 days before the election."

"...You think about it, this isn't anything new. Just this past weekend on Sunday, John Kerry talked about American troops engaged in terroristic and other activity, terrorizing kids and children. He talked about we've already seen Nancy Pelosi embrace a retreat and defeat strategy...you have the Democratic nominee in '04, Democratic national chairman, lead Democrat in the House, have all now come out embrace a retreat and defeat strategy while our country is at war."

Host: "Well I actually asked him about that. I mean, I think that Murtha is the one that started it. Nancy Pelosi is now agreeing with it, that we should have these troops, and they're using the word redeployed within 6 months. Howard Dean won't go there. He says he wants it to happen within 2 years. So, if anything, the Democrats seem to be undecided about, you know, about agreeing on a time frame here. And do you think that it's wrong from its get-go to have any sort of a time frame at all or should there be?"

Ken Mehlman: "...here's why a time frame is a mistake.... If you tell the enemy when you're going to stop fighting, then the enemy knows when it needs to hold out (UI). If you want the Iraqi people to risk their lives, run for office (UI) vote in this election (UI) 10 days and do the things they're doing, if they know that after a given period, they're going to be abandoned to Zarqawi, they're much less likely to do it. You want the enemy to understand that there is no alternative but to air their grievances at the political process, then obviously, again, giving them a time frame is a mistake. Imagine if we had said to Hitler in 1942 that in 2 years we're going to pull out of Europe. Hitl