Mike Huckabee

Joe Carter, Mathew Anderson, and Justin Taylor make the conservative case for supporting Mike Huckabee.

I don’t like the Fair Tax and I don’t think a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage is a good idea, but I do agree Mike Huckabee deserves serious consideration from Republican Primary voters.

Nobel Peace Prize

Hehehehahaha...heh..ohhh...hahahahahehehehehahahahehehehehehehe...ohhh...hehehehehehehahahahahaha....

Update: Hehehehahaha...heh..ohhh...hahahahahehehehehahahahehehehehehehe...ohhh...hehehehehehehahahahahaha....

Tolerance at Columbia

I am often amused, and sometimes frustrated, at how the word “tolerance” rarely actually means tolerance to those who call for others to be more tolerant. The loudest advocates of tolerance are some of the most closed minded members of our society. Disagreement is an essential attribute of tolerance, yet the staunchest advocates of tolerance demand that others agree with them.

For example, a heterosexual who believes there is no moral difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality is not capable of being tolerant because this person does not have a disagreement with the homosexuals who feel the same way. The only heterosexuals who are capable of being tolerant to homosexuals are the heterosexuals who believe there is a moral difference between the two lifestyles, yet chooses to treat homosexuals the same as they treat heterosexuals.

Self government and democracy are most often credited for the greatness of America. As I observe the world, I’m not so sure. I see a lot of democratic organizations and democratic governments that aren’t so great. Majorities can be just as tyrannical as a single tyrant. I believe America became great because early on in our history the leaders decided that Americans had a right to be left alone. Diversity and true tolerance are a part of our historical fiber.

Many American Universities claim to support and allow tolerance, but few actually allow disagreement or divergence from political correctness in state schools or orthodoxy in private schools. Opponents of human caused global warming, evolution, or affirmative action are labeled ignorant or hateful and are never tolerated.

By inviting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, to speak at Columbia University, President Lee Bollinger is practicing tolerance if President Bollinger does not agree with the views of the Iranian President. I would like to believe we are witnessing tolerance at the University level, but I suspect we are witnessing a University and a University President who are intolerant of those of us who want to defeat radical Islam.

Cruelty to Animals

Several times a year I hear a story in the news about a Pit Bull in Southern California killing a child. Pit Bull owners are quick to claim the individual dog or the individual owner is to blame for the death but the Pit Bull breed is no more dangerous than any other breed.

Amazing how some folks can rationalize just about anything. Of course the Pit Bull is the most dangerous breed of dog. This is precisely why Pit Bulls are used in dog fighting and why property owners in high crime areas use Pit Bulls to guard their property. Pit Bulls get the job done like no other breed.

Most of America is outraged by Michael Vick’s treatment of his dogs. Some in the minority are making the point that Michael Vick’s treatment of dogs is no worse than the way many animals are killed before becoming human food or killed during the sport of hunting.

A line of demarcation between moral and immoral behavior is the intentional infliction of pain. Moral people always make an effort to avoid inflicting pain on other living creatures, and when possible, make an effort to relieve the pain of other living creatures. There is a moral hierarchy that goes from humans through other mammals and then through other living creatures. Dogs and other mammals are not morally the same as humans, but humans still have a moral obligation to never inflict unnecessary suffering on other mammals, even, perhaps even especially, when the other mammals are our food.

Michael Vick will plead guilty and be punished for cruelty to animals. I don’t know if his punishment will fit his crime. However, I do know Pit Bulls are just as dangerous to humans as they are to other dogs. We should have just as much contempt for any Pit Bull owner who puts humans at risk by their ownership and failure to control their dog as we do for a dog owner who allows dogs to suffer.

Glass Houses

I am amazed [not really] that this story about Glass Houses was never picked up by the national media.

The unfair Tax

Death and taxes are referred to as the only two certainties in life. Of course there are certainly more certainties than these two, but an obvious certainty that relates to death and taxes is the word “fair”. We can be absolutely certain that when someone uses the word “fair” as a modifier, their idea or proposal may seem fair to them but it is anything but fair for most everyone else.

The Fair Tax is not only unfair to those Americans who have spent a lifetime, or anytime at all, saving for retirement, it is also a proposal based on ridiculous assumptions.

Basically, the fair tax would replace income and payroll taxes with a national sales tax. This change would have the immediate effect of rewarding those who are in debt, since those in debt bought before they earned, and punishing those with savings, since those with savings earned before they bought. Those who are in debt paid a lower sales tax when they bought and will payer a lower income tax when they earn. Those with savings paid a higher income tax when they earned and will also pay a higher sales tax when they spend. How is that fair?

The big hook of appeal of the Fair Tax is the claim it would Abolish the IRS. Is it logical to assume some employees cheat when calculating their Income Taxes but no Vendors will cheat when calculating their Sales Tax? Of course not; any and every tax system needs a form of oversight and enforcement. Black market, under the table, employment transactions in the current system will be replaced with black market, under the table, sales transactions in the new system.

The so-called Fair Tax also proposes to give money to those under poverty limits. This payment is called a “prebate”. Those who don’t work, or who don’t choose to do productive work, will have enough money to meet their basic needs. How can this prebate possibly exist without cheaters gaming the system? How can this prebate possibly function without tons of administrative costs for oversight?

The best tax system is a tax system that taxes a little bit in a lot of places. Ideally, it would tax so little that decisions are not influenced or controlled by the tax implications of the decision and cheating on taxes is minimized. The best society is a society that does not depend on government to tax, regulate, and spend.

Mike Huckabee seems like a really good guy, but if he thinks changing one bad tax system for another bad tax system is a good idea, he isn’t a good choice to be the next President of the Untied States. If Governor Huckabee and others want to improve the tax system, they should start by reducing all taxes and limiting the role of government in our lives. Somehow, I don’t think Governor Huckabee could buy enough votes without proposing new ways to spend our money.

In the mean time, using the word fair, combined with the word tax, should be against the law.

The only way to Lose is to Quit

I am surprised by the large number of people who believe situations in life must always be improving or life is getting worse when the lesson everyone learns about life as they age is that there are no straight lines to success.

How many couples can claim to have never broken up during the courtship process? Almost all couples go through periods of certainty regarding a lifetime together and periods of panic regarding a decision to spend a lifetime together. The certainty creates more intimacy while the panic creates fears, but both are part of the process of becoming a married couple. Life is not worse due to the panic periods; life becomes better as the periods of panic lead to the end result.

Most of the media and opinion makers focus on individual events when reporting about the success and failure of Iraq. Political punditry believes that bad news is proof of the failure of American involvement and good news is proof of the success of American involvement. I don’t look at the situation in Iraq like most of the pundits look at it.

To me, the situation in Iraq is progressing the way I would expect it to progress on the way to success; which means lots of unexpected and unforeseen events, many setbacks, a determined and sophisticated enemy, and a whole lot of Americans and Iraqis who are ready to quit. This is all part of the process of becoming a functioning democracy; life is not a strait line. The only way to lose is to quit.

Still More God is not...

Joe Carter links to John Mark Reynolds satirical pieces Ten Commandments for Evangelical Leaders in Politic and L.O.S.E. (Lovingly Opposed to Sin and Evil) Position Paper 1.

The statement “God is not a Republican or a Democrat” can be understood one of two ways.

More fundamentalist readers of this statement within L.O.S.E. take it literally and believe we should do nothing God would not do. God pays no taxes. We should not pay taxes. God does not obey speeding laws. We should not obey speeding laws. In fact, God is not an American so we should not be Americans.

This causes our members that take their bumper stickers less literally (and more poetically) some difficulties. They point out that God also has no gender or single location. It has proven hard for some L.O.S.E. members to be metrosexual and omnipresent.

As a result these more “liberal” L.O.S.E. members understand the holy bumper sticker to imply that Christians can be in a political party, but cannot believe that God favors one party over any other or that one party is more godly than another.

As much as I love to read everything Joe Carter writes, I find some of the comments and commenter’s at his site to be very hateful towards anything and everything Christian. John Mark Reynolds himself makes an appearance in the comments to Joe’s piece and he cuts through the nastiness with some of the best comments about slavery and Christianity I have read anywhere. It’s well worth a peak.

The Value of a Large Brood

Rusty Lopez writing about (over)protecting our children:

While someone may consider a certain practice as "overprotection", another may simply see it as an exercise in safety. And while someone may consider it a positive thing to let a child "learn the hard way", another may see such an approach as reckless abandon. It would seem that context, intentions, and application ultimately determine how "overprotective" any individual practice may be.

He then goes on to write:

Safety, as a way of life, is not a capitulation to the fear of reality, exemplified by a lack of faith in God; it is an acknowledgment of the realities of our physical existence, and of our responsibilities regarding such realities. These responsibilities are grounded in wisdom. It is, indeed, interesting that God chose to include the entire genre of Wisdom Literature in the Bible. While our culture may think "live and learn", the book of Proverbs exhorts us to, "Learn! Then live!"

I agree with Rusty, parenting is not a question of whether to protect our children or not protect our children. We have to protect our children as we prepare them to not need our protection any longer.

In the traditional American family, mothers have a tendency to over-protect as they nurture their children and fathers have a tendency to under-protect as they train their children. A balance between mothering and fathering provides the right amount of protection and preparation.

However, in a dysfunctional family the balance is lost. This is why so many of the sons of well intentioned single moms end up unprepared to handle adult responsibilities. This why marriage is so necessary to always raising the next generation of Americans. This is why husbands and wives must both fight their desire to dominate a marriage as they both maintain purposeful and assertive respect for each other.

There is also something to be said for large families. Families with more than two children are functionally better for raising children to be adults because it is harder for parents to over-protect their children when the brood is larger. Perhaps this is one of the reasons European society seems so immature compared to America now and one of the reasons America seems headed in the wrong direction.

Update: I bet none of these kids are over-protected.

Among the "fun facts" listed on Discovery Health's Web page devoted to the Duggars: A baby has been born in every month except June; the Duggars have gone through an estimated 90,000 diapers, and Michelle, 40, has been pregnant for 126 months - or 10.5 years - of her life.

Mayor Giulini's Economic Soul

Mayor Giuliani is advocating free market reforms for improving health care in America.

Most Republicans believe in expanding individual choice and decision-making. I believe we can reduce costs and improve the quality of care by increasing competition. We can do it through tax cuts, not tax hikes. We can do it by empowering patients and their doctors, not government bureaucrats. Instead of being more like Europe, we need to be more like America.

Of course he is right about health care. However, his free market solution to health care will also solve many of the other problems in America now, including reliance on oil from the Middle East. So why is he advocating government mandates when it comes to energy, but free market solutions when it comes to health care? Why does he trust Americans to make their own health care choices but not their own energy choices? Why does he trust health care providers to be innovative and efficient but not energy providers? Does Mayor Giuliani have an economic soul or is he just making appeals to different voting blocks?

Stealing From our Children

Many politicians, especially members of the Democratic Party, like to equate cutting tax rates with stealing money from our children.

Writing today at RCP, Robert Samuelson projects the cost and size of our current Federal commitment to retirees.

Consider the outlook. From 2005 to 2030, the 65-and-over population will nearly double to 71 million; its share of the population will rise to 20 percent from 12 percent. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- programs that serve older people -- already exceed 40 percent of the $2.7 trillion federal budget. By 2030, their share could hit 75 percent of the present budget, projects the Congressional Budget Office.

Mr. Samuelson also asks some very good questions:

Little wonder politicians stay silent. But think tanks ought to be thrilled, because these changes pose basic questions about government. What should it do? For whom? Why? How big can it grow without weakening the economy? Does that matter? Is social justice more important than economic growth? Do gains in life expectancy and the well-being of the elderly justify significant changes in Social Security and Medicare?

Social Security, Medicare, and even Medicare prescription benefits, are all well intentioned programs of a benevolent Federal government. The only problem with the plan is the source of the benevolence. Most of the retirement benefits in 2030 prescribed by our Federal government will be paid by workers who aren’t even old enough to vote today and many of the benefits will be paid by workers who aren’t even born yet.

Mandating benefits that are paid by non-voters is clearly taxation without representation. But even worse, mandating benefits to be paid in 2030 and beyond really is stealing from our children. If politicians were truly concerned about our children, they would stop this Ponzi scheme immediately. I’m not holding my breath, though.

Knuckleheads

Just Drill, Baby by Pete Du Pont.

Selected excerpts:

First, we are not running out of oil. In 1920 it was estimated that the world supply of oil was 60 billion barrels. By 1950 it was up to 600 billion, and by 1990 to two trillion. In 2000 the world supply of oil was estimated to be three trillion barrels.
...
But ethanol is not a good gasoline substitute. It takes some seven gallons of oil to produce eight gallons of corn-based ethanol--diesel fuel for the tractors to plant and harvest the corn, pesticides to protect it, and fuel for trucks to transport the ethanol around the country. So there is not much energy gain, nor with all the gasoline involved does it help with global warming by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. And ethanol yields one-third less energy per gallon than gasoline, so that mileage per gallon of ethanol-blended auto fuel is less than gasoline mileage.

Sometimes it is hard for me to believe how incompetent our Federal Government has become. Oil, Nuclear Power, and even coal can solve all of the energy needs of America, but our elected representatives are choosing to use tax money to promote ethanol production. What absolute knuckleheads!

The Tide (of opinion) Has Turned

From A War We Just Might Win at the New York Times.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

I wonder if any of the editors at the New York times ever read any of their own editorials.

Mayor Fiscal Conservative?

Pundits keep claiming that while Mayor Giuliani is not a social conservative, he is most certainly a fiscal conservative. Perhaps, Mayor Giuliani, writing at RCP, could change a few of their minds.

America needs to become energy independent.

Why? Do we also need to become textile, agriculture, manufacturing, IT, and service independent? What is unique about energy? Wouldn’t most fiscal conservatives be in favor of purchasing goods and services from where each can be produced with the most value?

Presidents Nixon and Carter talked about energy independence, but not a lot got done.

Great, President Nixon and Carter were two of the least fiscally conservative Presidents of my lifetime and now Mayor Giuliani is referencing them as reliable authorities.

It will require setting goals, sticking to them and energizing the American people to achieve them. It will require expanding our reliance on a much more diverse range of energy sources that America can control.

Soviet style fiscal conservatism is not fiscal conservatism to most real fiscal conservatives.

But it is embarrassing that Brazil is so far ahead of America in the use of ethanol.

Why? Does America have to always lead? Don’t fiscal conservatives believe lots of small experiments are superior to national directives? If Brazil is successful, can’t America copy their success or purchase ethanol from them? Are we sure we want to use food for fuel? Do we want or need more corn fields instead of drilling holes?

The government needs to help business establish competitive, cost-effective technologies in the short-run.

President Nixon and Carter might even know this sounds a lot more like Lenin than it sounds like Reagan.

We can sell our advances to countries like China and India.

Just like we used to buy from China and India when each of those two countries were centrally controlled. Oh wait, we didn’t buy from them when they were centrally controlled; we started buying from them when they started allowing entrepreneurs to individually make economic decisions.

Mayor Giuliani may be right about the war on terror, but when he pens a piece like this, he is only going to get support from those who think Nixon and Carter were good Presidents.

Influence

Disney stubs out smoking from its films

Walt Disney on Wednesday became the first Hollywood studio to phase out cigarette smoking in its films, saying smoking scenes in future Disney-branded movies would be “non-existent”.

Mr Markey, who has called for tougher action to stop children from smoking, said it was “time for other media companies to similarly kick the habit and follow Disney’s lead”.

“We know that the presence of smoking in a movie significantly influences a child’s decision to start,” he said. “This is troubling given the fact that a vast majority of smokers begin smoking before their 18th birthday. I am pleased that Disney is embracing a policy that is consistent with the long-term public health of the nation.”

Wouldn’t the Hollywood depiction of any behavior be a significant influence on a child’s decision to start or stop the depicted behavior? Bad behavior portrayed in a positive way could influence a child to behave badly and good behavior portrayed in a negative way could influence a child to abandon or reject good behavior.

Could you ever imagine any of the following headlines?

Walt Disney on Wednesday became the first Hollywood studio to phase out premarital sex in its films, saying premarital sex scenes in future Disney-branded movies would be “non-existent”.

or

Walt Disney on Wednesday became the first Hollywood studio to phase out lying to parents in its films, saying lying to parent scenes in future Disney-branded movies would be “non-existent”.

or

Walt Disney on Wednesday became the first Hollywood studio to phase out religious bigotry in its films, saying religious bigotry scenes in future Disney-branded movies would be “non-existent”.

I don’t think so. Disney and congress aren’t really interested in promoting good behavior and discouraging bad behavior; both are only interested in the politically correct influence on their bottom lines.

More God is not...

Joe Carter on Politically Correct Politics

From this truism, though, some people derive the false assumption that since God does not provide his imprimatur for a particular party platform that the choice between voting for a Democrat or a Republican is morally neutral. This is almost certainly false. Political choices are almost always moral choices. Such decisions are fraught with moral danger and each Christian, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, must determine for themselves how best to follow their conscience.

Obviously some decisions are easier than others. Despite the excuses we may make for our historical-cultural setting, no Biblically oriented evangelical should ever support a candidate who condones such evils as "outrages against human dignity" (i.e., slavery, racial segregation, torture, abortion). Other times the options may force a choice among the lesser of two or more evils (pro-abortion candidate Hillary Clinton, pro-abortion candidate Rudy Giuliani, or a pro-life third party candidate?). In each case, though, the choice should be to follow one's conscience in applying Biblical principles to political decisions.

Unfortunately, some Christians wish to maintain the illusion of political neutrality even when it conflicts with our moral obligations.

In the name of Christ

Affirming and defending the truth of the Gospel narratives in the Bible is practically a no-brainer. Affirming and defending the actions of professing Christians is a whole different matter. Hugh Hewitt links to an essay by Bill Lobdell in the L.A. Times about his journey from unbeliever, to believer, to Religion writer, to loss of faith.

Selected excerpts:

On wanting to become a Religion writer:

I wanted to report objectively and respectfully about how belief shapes people's lives. Along the way, I believed, my own faith would grow deeper and sturdier.

My desire to be a religion reporter grew as I read stories about faith in the mainstream media. Spiritual people often appeared as nuts or simpletons.

In one of the most famous examples, the Washington Post ran a news story in 1993 that referred to evangelical Christians as "largely poor, uneducated and easy to command."

On the Catholic Priest sex scandal:

At the time, I never imagined Catholic leaders would engage in a widespread practice that protected alleged child molesters and belittled the victims. I latched onto the explanation that was least damaging to my belief in the Catholic Church — that this was an isolated case of a morally corrupt administration.

But then I began going over the documents. And interviewing the victims, scores of them. I discovered that the term "sexual abuse" is a euphemism. Most of these children were raped and sodomized by someone they and their family believed was Christ's representative on Earth. That's not something an 8-year-old's mind can process; it forever warps a person's sexuality and spirituality.

Many of these victims were molested by priests with a history of abusing children. But the bishops routinely sent these clerics to another parish, and bullied or conned the victims and their families into silence. The police were almost never called. In at least a few instances, bishops encouraged molesting priests to flee the country to escape prosecution.

The judge ruled in the favor of Uribe, then pastor of a large parish in Whittier. After the hearing, when the priest's attorney discovered I had been there, she ran back into the courtroom and unsuccessfully tried to get the judge to seal the case. I could see why the priest's lawyer would try to cover it up. People would be shocked at how callously the church dealt with a priest's illegitimate son who needed money for food and medicine.

On the lack of grace by Mormons towards ex-Mormons:

The people at the conference were an eclectic bunch: novelists and stay-at-home moms, entrepreneurs and cartoonists, sex addicts and alcoholics. Some were depressed, others angry, and a few had successfully moved on. But they shared a common thread: They wanted to be honest about their lack of faith and still be loved.

In most pockets of Mormon culture, that wasn't going to happen.

Part of what drew me to Christianity were the radical teachings of Jesus — to love your enemy, to protect the vulnerable and to lovingly bring lost sheep back into the fold.

As I reported the story, I wondered how faithful Mormons — many of whom rigorously follow other biblical commands such as giving 10% of their income to the church — could miss so badly on one of Jesus' primary lessons?

On TBN:

SOME of the nation's most powerful pastors — including Billy Graham, Robert H. Schuller and Greg Laurie — appear on the Trinity Broadcasting Network, benefiting from TBN's worldwide reach while looking past the network's reliance on the "prosperity gospel" to fuel its growth.

TBN's creed is that if viewers send money to the network, God will repay them with great riches and good health. Even people deeply in debt are encouraged to put donations on credit cards.

"If you have been healed or saved or blessed through TBN and have not contributed … you are robbing God and will lose your reward in heaven," Paul Crouch, co-founder of the Orange County-based network, once told viewers. Meanwhile, Crouch and his wife, Jan, live like tycoons.

I began looking into TBN after receiving some e-mails from former devotees of the network. Those people had given money to the network in hopes of getting a financial windfall from God. That didn't work.

I spent several years investigating TBN and pored through stacks of documents — some made available by appalled employees — showing the Crouches eating $180-per-person meals; flying in a $21-million corporate jet; having access to 30 TBN-owned homes across the country, among them a pair of Newport Beach mansions and a ranch in Texas. All paid for with tax-free donor money.

He was thrilled to tell me that he had stopped getting dialysis because Hinn had said people are cured only when they "step out in faith." The decision enraged his doctors, but made perfect sense to Gibson. Despite risking his life as a show of faith, he wasn't cured in Anaheim. He returned to Canada and went back on dialysis. The crowd was filled with desperate believers like Gibson.

It’s hard for me to blame non-believers for a lack of faith when a believer can lose his faith and when so much evil is done in the name of Christ. Oh well, perhaps we can revive our image by being strong on anti-Global Warming proposals and by insisting tax payers foot the bill for all of the corruption in Africa.

No Difference?

Some professing Christians maintain that God is not a Republican or a Democrat. These professing Christians must also believe that God approves of a woman’s right to kill her unborn baby. At least two, and probably all three, leading Democrats believe abortion should be a covered expense in their universal health care proposal.

Speaking on behalf of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards before the family planning and abortion-rights group Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Edwards lauded her husband's health-care proposal as "a true universal health-care plan" that would cover "all reproductive health services, including pregnancy termination," referring to abortion.

Asked about his proposal for expanded access to health insurance, Obama said it would cover "reproductive-health services." Contacted afterward, an Obama spokesman said that included abortions.

Clinton has not yet released her health-care proposal. She provided a bruising critique of Bush administration policies and Republican conservatives on abortion rights and contraception policy.

The Leader we need is the Leader we've got

President Bush, the leader we would never reelect, is the leader we need, and thankfully, the leader we’ve got.

Rich Lowry has the details.

Selected excerpts:

Bush is as confident and upbeat as ever. Even once-friendly commentators like the Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan wish he'd show some strain and worry as the war drags into its fifth year. But Bush must have confidence and optimism written into his DNA. As leaks, GOP defections and plummeting approval ratings swirl all around him, he remains resolute: The Iraq war must, and can, be won.

He curtly rejects the suggestion that he will be forced by troop constraints to pull back the surge come next spring, no matter what. "I'm sure that in the bowels of the Pentagon, people are looking at troop rotations and troop movements," he says. "That is not the primary objective of our commander on the ground -- next question."

Nor will Bush allow the political environment to constrain his policy. He cites his decision to go forward with the surge in January, even though the "outcry was quite significant." He knew what people were thinking: "How can he possibly do this? Didn't he see, didn't he hear?"

What he saw was a war effort that was stumbling, so he removed his top generals and brought in Gen. Petraeus and his surge plan. His confidence in Petraeus is total: "My job ... is to say to David Petraeus, 'I trust your judgment, I trusted you going in and I trust you now.'" He calls Petraeus "the most credible person in the fight at this moment."

Bush says that one of his most important audiences is not just the American public, but the enemy, who "thinks we're weak." He says "these are sophisticated people and they listen to the debate." They doubt "that we're going to be tough enough. I really believe that the additional forces into Iraq surprised them -- a lot."

In trying to game out the future U.S. policy in Iraq, there is an intense focus on the periphery -- what is Defense Secretary Robert Gates thinking, what's the Lugar-Warner plan? But what's still most important is the center of this storm, where President Bush sits, apparently in no mood whatsoever to budge.

On the Run

I’ve noticed over the years how the major networks and newspapers are very good at uncovering and reporting about corruption in government and business, but completely derelict at uncovering and reporting about corruption within their own news industry.

Jack Kelly writes a good piece today about progress in Iraq that starts with a refutation of CNN reporting.

CNN's Michael Ware said in a broadcast Jan. 30 that Ramadi is "the true al Qaida national headquarters." If that were true, al Qaida is in bigger trouble in Iraq than most of us realize.

Radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt devoted his show last Wednesday to the (overwhelmingly negative) opinions of Iraq war veterans on the demands of Democrats that U.S. troops be pulled out. One call was from "Bruce in Upland," whose son is a soldier currently serving in Iraq.

"I will speak for my son who right now is bored out of his mind in Ramadi, because he hasn't heard a shot fired in combat now in about six or seven weeks," Bruce said.

I am encouraged to see this specific critique of mainstream media.

Mr. Kelly then goes on to describe a dynamic taking place among the Iraqi people.

U.S. intelligence thought there were about 1,000 al Qaida in Baquba when Operation Arrowhead Ripper began June 19. Those who haven't fled have been killed or captured.

The smaller part of the reason for the dramatic improvement in Ramadi and Baquba is the change in strategy embodied by the surge. The larger part is the change of heart of most of al Qaida's former allies.

Mr. Yon was with U.S. troops in the Spring of 2005, when they fought insurgents in the Baquba suburb of Buhritz. Among "the most proficient at killing our people," he said, were the 1920s Revolution Brigades.

In April the 1920s Revolution Brigades attacked al Qaida and asked for U.S. help. Last week Mr. Yon returned to Buhritz with a leader of the group, "Abu Ali."
Mr. Yon asked Abu Ali why his group switched sides. "Al Qaida is an abomination of Islam," he replied. "Cutting off heads, stealing peoples money, kidnapping...every type of torture they have done."

Sheikh Abdul Sattar al Rishawi, founder of the Anbar Salvation Council, gave similar reasons for his change of allegiance.

When al Qaida ran Baquba, it would amputate the two fingers used to hold a cigarette of any Iraqi caught smoking. Men who refused to grow beards were beaten, as were women for the "sexually suggestive" behavior of carrying tomatoes and cucumbers in the same bag, Mr. Yon said. He recounted finding the bodies of beheaded children.

Al Qaida's brutality has alienated the overwhelming majority of Sunnis as well as the Shias who were the primary targets of its attacks. When the U.S. can provide them with protection, ordinary people are turning on al Qaida with a vengeance.

Most of al Qaida's leaders and many of its foot soldiers escaped from Baquba, and probably will try to establish another "capital" elsewhere. But they're running out of places to go.

The U.S. Senate is debating today about a proposal to require withdrawal of American troops. Some of our politicians are either clueless or actually want al Qaida to win in Iraq.