John Hagee on Memorial Day

"I want you to close your eyes and picture in your mind the soldier at Valley Forge, as he holds his musket in his bloody hand.

"He stands barefoot in the snow, starved from lack of food, wounded from months of battle and emotionally scarred for the eternity away from his family surrounded by nothing but death and carnage of war. He stands though, with fire in his eyes and victory on his breath. He looks at us now in anger and disgust and tells us this. …

"I gave you a birthright of freedom born in the Constitution and now your children graduate too illiterate to read it. I fought in the snow barefoot to give you the freedom to vote and you stay at home because it rains. I left my family destitute to give you the freedom of speech, and you remain silent on critical issues, because it might be bad for business. I orphaned my children to give you a government to serve you and it has stolen democracy from the people.

"It's the soldier, not the poet, who gives you the freedom of speech.

"It's the soldier, not the campus organizer, who allows you to demonstrate.

"It's the soldier, who salutes the flag, serves the flag, whose coffin is draped with the flag that allows the protester to burn the flag!"

Halleluiah, it's raining moderates.

A centrist block is seeking compromise in the judicial fillibuster issue. They are also looking at forging a power block that might be able to offer bipartisan plans for many issues. Let's all hope so...

Schroeder loses North Rhine-Westphalia. Not as good as it sounds.

Everyone loves to see Gerhard Schroeder get kicked in the goodies. In Saturday's regional elections, Schroeder's SPD lost control of NRW for the first time since 1966. Sounds good, right? Though the good guys won (the Christian Democratic Union), the major reason the SPD lost was because of the labor market reforms forced down the communist throat of the Germans.

Unemployment is at a post-war high in NRW, and voters blame it on the reforms which have cut unemployment benefits for the habitually unemployed, and those who refuse job offers. These are good reforms that have nothing to do with the higher unemployment rate. The real culprit is of course complex, but is largely because the German economy is out of synch with the rest of Europe right now, and because monetary policy is set in Brussels, money is too tight in Germany, but just right in France and Italy. The result? The French are barely growing even with a favorable monetary policy, the Italians are on strike for no particular reason, the Brits, who still set their own monetary policy, are in year 13 or so of their expansion, and the Germans, far and away the most powerful economy in continental Europe, are stagnant.

The ECB won't cut rates because they are inflation obsessed and focused on M3 supply (a braod measure of money which includes equities, etc.), and they are more concerned with their own reputation as inflation busters than they are with a growing, strong Europe.

So Schroeder loses, and that is good. They intend to call early elections. Don't count Schroeder out, but if Angela Merkel, the leader of the CDU wins, I hope she's not tempted to reinstate protectionist, labor "friendly" policies which hurt labor in the long term, along with damaging the overall economy, and thereby loweringthe chances of long-term poverty reduction.

Congratulations CDU, don't betray your center-right principals.

Why "The Politics of No" forces a loss on all Americans.

The ranting E.J. Dionne defends blind rejectionism from the Democrats in Congress over Social Security. He is short-sighted.

The argument runs thusly: say no until Bush loses, then, when you've got a majority somewhere, propose your union-based, big government, growth-busting solution. He says that "for everything there is a season" and this is the season of no.

Does anyone else see the very obvious problem that extremists of all stripes seem blind to? The Republicans are threatening to go nuclear over the (completely unconstitutional, but traditional) judicial filibuster. The Democrats point out that if the filibuster is eliminated, what will the Republicans do when the Dems dominate the government? True. Um, that goes both ways.

If the Democrats refuse to even participate in the debate over Social Security simply to give Bush a black eye, what do they think the Republicans will do when the Dems finally stop whining and make their own Social Security "solution"? Will the Republicans come and negotiate? well, by the time the Dems are back in power, it will likely be because the social conservatives finally piss off the (good, decent) Goldwater Republicans, and party unity is lost to some extent. The Goldwaters will object to the inevitable "throw more money at it" solution that the Dems will propose, and the social conservatives will object to it as somehow against God's will (okay, just because they are pissed, and don't compromise anyway).

The nuclear option is on the table because Gingrich decided that blue-slipping (the process by which a senator from the nominee's home state could secretly hold up a nomination without reason) was dishonest, and required that nominees at least be considered by committee. Because of that, the limited Constitutional power allotted to the Senate to advise and consent (read: give an up or down vote) was implicated in public. The legislature is just supposed to vote on these nominees, not decide who the executive could nominate. The Dems say that this doesn't mean there should be a rubber stamp. Fair enough, but in the rare event that the executive and the Senate broadly agree on a nominee, a minority cannot remove a nominee, because nomination is an enumerated executive power, and just a very limited Legislative power to vote, and approve or disapprove thereby. The right to vote against a nominee removes the idea of a rubber stamp. Just because the President and a majority of the Senate disagree with you, doesn't mean there is a rubber stamp. Stop crying, move on.

The point: when one party dominates, sometimes the other party simply can't stand in the way of everything. When the people speak, and call on one party to rule, the ball moves faster in one direction. That is the way it is. That's the way it was meant to be. That's the way it was when the Dems were in power (and when Roosevelt threatened to stack the Supreme Court if they didn't pretend that his "reforms" were Constitutional... There is a reason why the Constitution can be altered... anyhow...). Please also note that when Ruth Bader Ginsburg came before the Senate, she said that abortion was central to a woman's dignity. She was confirmed 97-3. Advise and consent. NO LITMUS TEST, just an evaluation of competence of the Executive's nominee (in accordance with the Constitution). The next year, the people thought the government had become too liberal and they voted in the Gingrich revolution (yes, the house, not the senate, but there IS a link... I think). None of Bush's nominees are close to that level of controversy, and yet ALL Democrats refuse to allow a vote because they use a LITMUS TEST, not a simple evaluation of competence. Compare that to Ginsburg: only three Republicans voted against a VERY liberal Clinton nominee because she was competent, NOT because they think abortion is a good idea, i.e., NO LITMUS TEST. Things have gotten far more bitter. Three guys hated her; they voted against her; they moved on.

The minority can slow things down, but when they resort to the "politics of no," they salt the earth for years to come. Make a proposal and fight for it, or get out of the way.

Stem cells and the Republican party

Highlighting a spilt in the Republican party, Republicans can't agree on a position on the ban of stem cell research. This is a genuine difference in morality, and one in which the government ought to have no part.

The Roe v. Wade decision is a horrible piece of judicial overstepping that is indefensible. Casey v. Planned Parenthood is perhaps more defensible, but still a step into the realm of the Legislature and States Rights. Either way, until the judiciary overturns these decisions and returns the power to the states, as (soon to be Chief) Justice Scalia has advised, the Legislature (nor the Executive) ought to have the power to restrict legitimate medical research resulting from a practice that the Judiciary has declared a fundmental (privacy, autonomy, etc.) right (i.e. abortion).

If those decisions are overturned in the manner suggested by Scalia, and the power to regulate abortion is given to the states, then stem cell research should be regulated by the states. Undoubtedly, the Legislature would declare a commerce clause right to regulate stem cell research on a Federal level, however, getting the votes necessary to squash stem cell research looks iffy right now, as the afore linked article displays, when you add in a States Rights question, fewer Republicans will support it (obviously Dem would oppose a ban on stem cell research).