Eliminate The Death Tax

A FreedomWorks alert:

Eliminate the Death Tax for Good

Tell your senators to repeal the death tax once and for all.

The House voted to make the repeal of the death tax permanent by a margin of 264-163. The bill is going on to the Senate, but is threatened by a minority filibuster. Permanently getting rid of the death tax would not only allow family businesses and farms to be passed down; it would stop government destruction of small companies. Let your Senators know that the death tax is unjust, unwise, and needs to be abolished once and for all.

From their sample message:

No section of the tax code is more unfair and dangerous to our entrepreneurial economy than the Death Tax. With rates as high as 55 percent, the Death Tax punishes people who build a successful business and try to leave that legacy to their family. Moreover, the Death Tax’s modest contributions to the federal Treasury are dwarfed by its staggering impact on the U.S. economy.

S & M For Kids

Last night, while channel surfing (always a mistake), I had the misfortune of coming upon a rerun of Fear Factor on FX. The segment featured an attractive woman, strapped in a torture chamber, screaming in terror while a hooded figure methodically pierced her flesh with about a dozen syringe needles.

Welcome to basic cable.

According to the Parents Television Council website, Fear Factor is the third-most-watched show among children 14 and under. My first question is "Where are the parents?" My second is "Why do I have to pay for this sickening trash?"

But the news is not all bad. The PTC is fighting back, and has setup a Capwiz alert you can use to fight for a la carte cable:

URGENT ACTION ALERT

FCC's Report Helps Cable Companies But Ignores Public Outrage Over Indecency

Contact Congress and Support "A La Carte" Cable Option

Yesterday, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) delivered a report to congress slamming the per-channel sale of cable programming, or "a la carte" cable subscriptions. An "a la carte" system would give parents the ability to choose which channels they want, and to pay only for those channels, rather than forcing parents to continue to subsidize extremely graphic sexual, profane and violent cable programming on channels they never watch.

But the Commission's report didn't even address indecency on cable - even though the gratuitous, graphic and sordid material so prevalent on cable is the primary reason so many parents are demanding "a la carte."

Earlier this week, the PTC released a Special Report that demonstrates exactly why parents need the "a la carte" option: Cable television is rife with the most licentious, decadent and perverse content imaginable. The PTC's report shows that obscene language, horrific violence and graphic sexual content are readily available on advertiser-supported basic cable during all hours of the day,"

We must warn you, the examples provided in the PTC's report are extremely graphic. Most adults will be shocked and disgusted by these content examples. Do not let any children see this report. But you need to read it to see what you -- and millions of other parents -- are forced to pay for in order to access the wholesome, family-friendly programming your family wants to see. You can also view a number of video clips from the actual cable broadcasts referenced in the report. But again - these examples are absolutely shocking. We cannot emphasize enough how graphic these video clips are.

To say that cable television is in the sewer would be an insult to sewage. Parents want and need to have the power to choose their cable networks. The cable industry won't do it, and the FCC won't do it, so we're taking our fight to our elected officials. Contact your representatives in Congress today to demand the FCC create a new report that addresses the issue of indecent content found on cable television programming, and ask your representative to support "a la carte" cable subscriptions.

A copy of your letter will be sent to all 5 FCC Commissioners and to your local media as well.

A New Holiday Classic

It's A Dan-Derful Life

Nuclear Option 2

The Jerusalem Post's Caroline B. Glick explains why France, Germany and Britain's recent, risible agreement with Iran has removed diplomacy from the strategic equation:

In the unlikely event that the issue is ever turned over to the Security Council, France will veto sanctions even if Russia and China could be bought off to abstain. As the Iraqi oil-for-food scandal has shown, even if sanctions were to be levied, there is no credible way to enforce them.

So where does this leave the Jews who, in the event that Iran goes nuclear, will face the threat of annihilation? Crunch time has arrived. It is time for Israel's leaders to go to Washington and ask the Americans point blank if they plan to defend Europe as Europe defends Iran's ability to attain the wherewithal to destroy the Jewish state. It must be made very clear to the White House that the hour of diplomacy faded away with the European Trio's latest ridiculous agreement with the mullahs. There is no UN option. Europe has cast its lot with the enemy of civilization itself.

The prevailing wisdom in Washington these days seems to be that the US is waiting for an Israeli attack on Iran. There is some logic to such a policy. No doubt, the Arabs and the Iranians will all blame America anyway, but they are not America's chief concern here. Britain and Germany are.

What the US needs is plausible deniability regarding an Israeli strike vis- -vis Britain and Germany, in order to get itself out of the trap that Paris has set for it. An Israeli strike against the Iranian nuclear program will leave Germany in an uncomfortable public position. Berlin cannot condemn the Jews for doing what we can to prevent another Holocaust without losing whatever crumbs of moral credibility it has built up over the past 50 years.

As for Britain, if Israel were to conduct the attack on its own, the British would be hard-pressed to abandon the Americans; thus, the danger that British involvement with the Paris-based multipolarists on Iran will breach the Anglo-American alliance could be somewhat mitigated.

On the other hand, if the Bush administration does not accept Israeli reasoning, the fact will still remain: Israel cannot accept a nuclear Iran.

Nuclear Option 1

Human Events has a nice explanation of how democracy may soon return to the senate:

You've heard of the "nuclear option." But how about the "constitutional option?"

The phrase relates to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's reported decision to force through a long-overdue change in Senate rules governing the confirmation of judicial nominees. Frustrated by the Democrats' unprecedented use of procedural tactics to torpedo President Bush's nominees for the federal appeals courts, Frist and his Senate colleagues have allegedly decided to deploy what conservative jurists describe as the "constitutional option" during the next confrontation over a judicial nomination.

The "constitutional option" refers to a Senate rules change that would guarantee something most legal experts always took for granted--that even the most controversial nominee will, at the end of the day, receive an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. During Bush's first term, outgoing Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle abandoned more than two centuries of Senate tradition and established the Daschle Precedent of denying nominees a floor vote through the use of the filibuster, a potent procedural tool that effectively raises the number of votes required for confirmation from 51 to 60. Thus, Bush's nomination of an esteemed jurist such as Miguel Estrada to the D.C. Court of Appeals failed even though Estrada consistently won the support of 53 senators during Republican efforts to break the Daschle filibuster.

How would the "constitutional option" unfold? The next time Senate Democrats balk over a principled Bush nominee, Frist would attempt to resolve the impasse. Failing that, he would ask the presiding officer of the Senate to rule on the appropriateness of applying the 60-vote supermajority requirement to judicial nominees. The presiding officer is a senator who oversees Senate floor debate and is empowered to interpret Senate rules and establish binding Senate precedents. Given the gravity of this ruling, expect to see the Senate president pro tem, Alaska Republican Ted Stevens, occupy the chair when Frist issues his challenge to the 60-vote requirement.

Next, the presiding officer would rule that using the filibuster in this narrow set of circumstances is inappropriate, perhaps noting (but only in passing) the constitutional concerns that arise when a Senate minority effectively eviscerates the "advice and consent" requirement with respect to court nominees. The ruling would lower the confirmation threshold from 60 to 51 votes. On cue, a senior Democrat, either the new minority leader, Nevada's Harry Reid, or perhaps Senate procedural expert Robert Byrd of West Virginia, would appeal the ruling of the chair. The ensuing floor vote to implement the presiding officer's ruling, which would unfold largely along party lines, requires only a simple majority.

It is worth noting that a number of seasoned conservatives with long Washington memories object to this strategy. They recall the days when liberals controlled both the White House and Capitol Hill. Then, the only thing standing between the American people and a surge of big-government legislation was a determined minority of conservative senators willing to use the filibuster on behalf of core conservative principles. These conservatives worry that one day Blue America liberals will control the levers of power and will use this precedent against conservatives. But those who support the change anticipate that it would be extraordinarily narrow in scope, applying only to nominations to the federal bench and specifically excluding other presidential nominations and bills on the legislative calendar.

Khomeini in Dearborn

At FrontPage Magazine, Robert Spencer reminisces about the Dearborn Moslems' hero:

I wonder if anyone at the Dearborn protest realized that the appearance of these signs in Dearborn, Michigan, exalting this man as a hero, indicated that Khomeini's vision for society is alive in America today -- and that it is dangerously naive to assume that all Muslims immediately and unquestioningly accept American pluralism and the idea of a state not governed by religious law. The Netherlands is just finding out, thanks to the cold-blooded murder and attempted decapitation of the "blasphemer" Theo van Gogh by a Muslim who appears to have been part of a larger jihadist cell, that not all the Muslims in Holland are the committed pluralists and secularists that they have been assumed to be by credulous European authorities.

With Khomeini a hero in Dearborn, Americans may be finding that out for themselves before long. Just where American Muslims stand on Khomeini's doctrines -- and how many stand with Khomeini -- are still forbidden questions for the major media. But if the old man could have spoken from his sign in Dearborn, he might have said, "Ignore me at your own risk."

Phone Calls and Food for Troops

Two worthy programs from the US Department of Defense:

Military Phone Card Donation Program Goes Public

The Department of Defense announced today that any American can now help troops in contingency operations call home. The Defense Department has authorized the Armed Services Exchanges to sell prepaid calling cards to any individual or organization that wishes to purchase cards for troops who are deployed. The “Help Our Troops Call Home” program is designed to help servicemembers call home from Operations Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

For those wishing to donate a prepaid calling card to a military member may log on to any of the three Armed Services Exchange web sites: the Army and Air Force Exchange Service http://www.aafes.com/, the Navy Exchange Service Command http://www.navy-nex.com/, and the Marine Corps Exchange http://www.usmc-mccs.org/. Click the “Help Our Troops Call Home” link. From there, a prepaid calling card may be purchased for an individual at his or her deployed address or to “any service member” deployed or hospitalized. The Armed Services Exchanges will distribute cards donated to “any service member” through the American Red Cross, Air Force Aid Society and the Fisher House Foundation.

The Armed Services Exchanges operate telephone call centers in Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, and other countries and aboard ships -- anywhere servicemembers are deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. All of these locations stay busy around the clock to keep up communication between deployed troops and their loved ones. The cards available through the “Help Our Troops Call Home” program offer the best value for calls made from the call centers, never expire, and there are no added charges or connection fees.

Individuals and organizations also can show their support to deployed troops and their families with gift certificates. The “Gift of Groceries” program allows anyone to purchase commissary gift certificates at http://www.commissaries.com or by calling toll free 1 (877) 770-GIFT. The Armed Services Exchanges offer the “Gift From the Homefront” gift certificate for merchandise at these exchange web sites: http://www.aafes.com and http://www.navy-nex.com or by calling toll free 1 (877) 770-GIFT. Gift certificates may be purchased to be mailed to servicemembers and family members or will be distributed to “any servicemember.” Only authorized commissary and exchange patrons may redeem the gift certificates at military commissaries and exchanges, including those stores supporting deployed personnel around the globe.

Fifth Columnists March in Michigan

Little Green Footballs has a revealing entry on an anti-Israel, anti-America march marking the end of Ramadan in Dearborn. Be sure to click through on the Getty Images link, to view photos of the marchers carrying portraits of Khomeini. Charming.

God Judge His Soul

The many sickening, sycophantic reactions to Arafat's death bring to mind the words of philosopher Eric Hoffer:

"When cowardice is made respectable, its followers are without number both from among the weak and the strong; it easily becomes a fashion."

Eric Hoffer (1902-83), U.S. philosopher. The Passionate State of Mind, aph. 203 (1955).

In today's Boston Globe, Jeff Jacoby offers a proper "tribute":

Arafat The Monster

YASSER ARAFAT died at age 75, lying in bed surrounded by familiar faces. He left this world peacefully, unlike the thousands of victims he sent to early graves.

In a better world, the PLO chief would have met his end on a gallows, hanged for mass murder much as the Nazi chiefs were hanged at Nuremberg. In a better world, the French president would not have paid a visit to the bedside of such a monster. In a better world, George Bush would not have said, on hearing the first reports that Arafat had died, "God bless his soul."

God bless his soul? What a grotesque idea! Bless the soul of the man who brought modern terrorism to the world? Who sent his agents to slaughter athletes at the Olympics, blow airliners out of the sky, bomb schools and pizzerias, machine-gun passengers in airline terminals? Who lied, cheated, and stole without compunction? Who inculcated the vilest culture of Jew-hatred since the Third Reich? Human beings might stoop to bless a creature so evil -- as indeed Arafat was blessed, with money, deference, even a Nobel Prize -- but God, I am quite sure, will damn him for eternity.

Arafat always inspired flights of nonsense from Western journalists, and his last two weeks were no exception.

Derek Brown wrote in The Guardian that Arafat's "undisputed courage as a guerrilla leader" was exceeded only "by his extraordinary courage" as a peace negotiator. But it is an odd kind of courage that expresses itself in shooting unarmed victims -- or in signing peace accords and then flagrantly violating their terms.

Another commentator, columnist Gwynne Dyer, asked, "So what did Arafat do right?" The answer: He drew worldwide attention to the Palestinian cause, "for the most part by successful acts of terror." In other words, butchering innocent human beings was "right," since it served an ulterior political motive. No doubt that thought brings daily comfort to all those who were forced to bury a child, parent, or spouse because of Arafat's "successful" terrorism.

Some journalists couldn't wait for Arafat's actual death to begin weeping for him. Take the BBC's Barbara Plett, who burst into tears on the day he was airlifted out of the West Bank. "When the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose above his ruined compound," Plett reported from Ramallah, "I started to cry." Normal people don't weep for brutal murderers, but Plett made it clear that her empathy for Arafat -- whom she praised as "a symbol of Palestinian unity, steadfastness, and resistance" -- was heartfelt:

"I remember well when the Israelis re-conquered the West Bank more than two years ago, how they drove their tanks and bulldozers into Mr. Arafat's headquarters, trapping him in a few rooms, and throwing a military curtain around Ramallah. I remember how Palestinians admired his refusal to flee under fire. They told me: `Our leader is sharing our pain, we are all under the same siege.' And so was I." Such is the state of journalism at the BBC, whose reporters do not seem to have any trouble reporting, dry-eyed, on the plight of Arafat's victims. (That is, when they mention them -- which Plett's teary bon voyage to Arafat did not.)

And what about those victims? Why were they scarcely remembered in this Arafat death watch?

How is it possible to reflect on Arafat's most enduring legacy -- the rise of modern terrorism -- without recalling the legions of men, women, and children whose lives he and his followers destroyed? If Osama bin Laden were on his deathbed, would we neglect to mention all those he murdered on 9/11?

It would take an encyclopedia to catalog all of the evil Arafat committed. But that is no excuse for not trying to recall at least some of it.

Perhaps his signal contribution to the practice of political terror was the introduction of warfare against children. On one black date in May 1974, three PLO terrorists slipped from Lebanon into the northern Israeli town of Ma'alot. They murdered two parents and a child whom they found at home, then seized a local school, taking more than 100 boys and girls hostage and threatening to kill them unless a number of imprisoned terrorists were released. When Israeli troops attempted a rescue, the terrorists exploded hand grenades and opened fire on the students. By the time the horror ended, 25 people were dead; 21 of them were children.

Thirty years later, no one speaks of Ma'alot anymore. The dead children have been forgotten. Everyone knows Arafat's name, but who ever recalls the names of his victims?

So let us recall them: Ilana Turgeman. Rachel Aputa. Yocheved Mazoz. Sarah Ben-Shim'on. Yona Sabag. Yafa Cohen. Shoshana Cohen. Michal Sitrok. Malka Amrosy. Aviva Saada. Yocheved Diyi. Yaakov Levi. Yaakov Kabla. Rina Cohen. Ilana Ne'eman. Sarah Madar. Tamar Dahan. Sarah Soper. Lili Morad. David Madar. Yehudit Madar. The 21 dead children of Ma'alot -- 21 of the thousands of who died at Arafat's command.

The Chimera Vanishes

In today's Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens offers a brief Arafat retrospective and reminds us of the hope inherent in the world's oldest terrorist's demise:

Once in power in Ramallah, the abuses became much worse. Critics of his government were routinely imprisoned and often tortured. In 1999, Muawiya Al-Masri, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, gave an interview to a Jordanian newspaper denouncing Arafat's corruption. He was later attacked by a gang of masked men and shot three times. (He survived.)

Yet for all this, Arafat continued to ride the wave of international goodwill. The Europeans gave him the Nobel Peace Prize. The Clinton administration saw him as the one man who could "deliver" the Palestinians to make peace with Israel. The peace camp in Israel, championed by the late Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, more or less agreed; to them, Arafat was the thug who'd keep the Palestinian street quiet. Arafat strung them along, more or less, until his bluff was called by the Israeli peace offer at Camp David in July 2000.

After that, there was just no point in keeping up appearances, and so came the intifada. It was a premeditated act. As Arafat had already told an Arab audience in Stockholm in 1996, "We plan to eliminate the state of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian state. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion. . . . We Palestinians will take over everything, including all of Jerusalem."

It goes without saying that Arafat failed in that endeavor. The Israelis belatedly realized that the maximum they could concede was less than the minimum Arafat would accept, and refused to deal with him. For its part, the second Bush administration cut off the international life support. In this sense, Arafat's illness--so far undisclosed by his doctors--can easily be diagnosed: He died of political starvation.

What remains? Very little, I suspect. None of his deputies can possibly fill his shoes, which are those of a personality cult, not a political or national leader. There is nothing to unite Palestinians anymore, either; their loyalties to the cause will surely dissipate in his absence. Arafat was remarkable in that he sustained the illusion he created till the very end. But once the magician walks off the stage, the chimera vanishes.

Not Specter

An alert from the Family Research Council:

In what has to be the height of arrogance and ingratitude, Senator Arlen Specter, the man set to become the head of the Judiciary Committee, warned President Bush against nominating pro-life judges. This is after President Bush campaigned for Sen. Specter over pro-life Pat Toomey and is responsible for Specter's re-election to the Senate. While the senator did vote for the confirmation of Clarence Thomas, he has spent much of his public life fighting against the confirmation of pro-life judges--including leading the fight against Ronald Reagan's nominee to the Supreme Court, Robert Bork. He has a history of pandering to the aggressive abortion lobby, and a Specter chairmanship would be disastrous. As chairman, he would control the confirmation process of federal judges, including nominees to the Supreme Court. He would also determine the makeup of the Senate Judiciary Committee staff, which would go a long way toward determining the committee's political and judicial philosophy.

What is especially troubling about the Sen. Specter's comments is that they come on the heels of an election that overwhelmingly affirmed pro-life candidates and a pro-family philosophy. With the addition of five new pro-life senators, the Senate itself became significantly more pro-life on Tuesday. Now is not the time to shrink from the duty to protect the dignity of life and family. President Bush has stated repeatedly throughout the months leading up to the election his commitment to a culture of life and his legacy will likely be defined in large part by who he appoints to courts in the next four years.

Majority Leader Dr. Bill Frist has affirmed his agreement with the President time and again regarding his understanding of the courts, the role of the Senate in the confirmation process, and the dignity of life. Senator Frist and the overwhelming majority of pro-life Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee need to stand up for the President and the American people and oppose the Specter litmus test. Our pro-life President and his colleagues in the Senate MUST NOT ALLOW Sen. Specter to determine the makeup of our courts! Sen. Specter should not become the next Judiciary Committee chairman.

Call Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Republican Committee Members through the Capitol Switchboard, 202-224-3121:

Orrin Hatch Chuck Grassley Jon Kyl Mike Dewine Jeff Sessions Lindsey Graham Larry Craig


Additional Resources
Senate Judiciary Committee
http://www.frc.org/index.cfm?i=LK04K07&f=WU04K05&t=e

The Best Week Ever

President Bush is on his throne and Arafat is at hell's door. Does it get any more perfect than this?

Insurgents

Use of lawyers and judges to impose their will upon the majority has been a tactic of the Left for decades, and now in a chilling press release, RNC Communications Director Jim Dyke lays out in detail how the Democrats plan to stage what amounts to an election day coup d'etat:

After filing more than 40 lawsuits in 18 battleground states in recent weeks, and in keeping with their Election Day playbook, Democrats are prepared to execute an Election Day litigation strategy. As soon as the polls open in the morning, their touted 10,000-plus lawyers will systematically file litigation to change the rules in battleground states across the nation and create a sense of chaos.

Before the day is out, Democrats will begin to argue that every provisional ballot should be counted, regardless of the circumstances or legality in which it was cast, thus allowing them to convert third party registration fraud into voter fraud on behalf of John Kerry.

The Democrats’ Election Day litigation strategy has three primary objectives:

Securing special rules and extensions for the benefit of Democrats in predominately Democrat precincts.

Eliminating traditional safeguards against voter fraud, including I.D. requirements and voting in precinct.

Creating a sense of chaos, with the hope of casting a shadow of doubt over Election Day.

Read it all. And remember, if Kerry wins, these people will be running things and making lifetime judicial appointments.

Kerry Must Be Defeated, Part II

Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch agrees with Paul Johnson:

. . . will that keep Osama from proclaiming that a Kerry victory is a victory for the global jihad and the assumption of dhimmi status by the USA? Don't bet on it.

Why does that matter? Some will say, of course, that there won't be any victory for the global jihad, no matter which candidate wins: both have pledged to fight terrorists. True, but nonetheless it matters a great deal.

The perception that America has followed Spain into dhimmitude could become the cause of a worldwide explosion (so to speak) of jihadist activity from mujahedin who have renewed evidence to believe that they are facing a paper tiger - just as Osama himself did after the Black Hawk incident in Somalia.