As a conservative, I am a strong believer in following the Constitution.  My political philosophy derives from following a strict interpretation of the Constitution.  The rule of law is paramount.

This way of thinking should also apply to interpreting how to view the prosecution of terrorist KSM.

Since I am not an attorney — and have little knowledge of military law — I have important questions to ask related to the KSM prosecution, the answers to which will craft my opinion on his prosecution process.  These are not leading questions…I really don’t know the answers.  I hope my Redstate colleagues will be able to respond with facts.  We cannot let patriotic emotion cloud reasoned judgment based on the applicable law.

Question:  From a legal standpoint, were the attacks on 9/11 an “act of war” or a criminal action?  The targets were both civilian and military, but since the perpetrators did not represent the government of another country, can such an act of terrorism legally be considered an “act of war”?

Question:  Can the U.S. “declare war” on a “group” rather than a “country”?

Question:  In a military action (such as in Iraq or Afghanistan) is it possible to capture and/or detain individuals who are known accused “criminals”?  I suspect the answer is “yes.”  Hypothetical example:  if Al Capone had been captured by the U.S. military during World War II in Germany, could our forces have detained him and transported him to the U.S. for criminal prosecution?

The legal responses to these questions are paramount in determining the appropriate legal approach to KSM’s prosecution.  My heart agrees with those demanding a military trial, but I’m not sure my “head” is there yet.

Depending on the legal responses to the above questions, one may be able to make a case that because KSM did not act on behalf of a government, his actions were not an “act of war.”  Therefore his actions were criminal in nature.  As a criminal, his capture by U.S. military forces is irrelevant to his legal status.  Therefore his prosecution should be handled in the same fashion as any other non-U.S. citizen who commits crimes within the borders of the U.S. and is captured and returned to the U.S.

Have I analyzed this correctly?  If not, where are the flaws in this logic?

This morning I was watching This Week on ABC.  During one of the commercial breaks a new Chevrolet advertisement appeared.

In the 60 second spot, the new Chevy CEO was walking and talking in glitzy Madison Avenue style in front of new or newly redesigned Chevy automobile products.  The music soundtrack was upbeat and positive.  I’m sure Mr. Chevy CEO was saying some really nice things about the quality and affordability of his company’s cars.

Only one problem.  You could see him.  You could hear the music.  His mouth was moving.  But nothing he said could be heard.

Not sure where the problem was.  It could have been in the original production.  It could have been a bad copy the network played.  It could have been a bad copy for the local station.  In any event, it was another embarrassing moment for Government Motors.

A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year.

A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons a  year.

So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.

They claim 700,000 vehicles, so that’s 224 million gallons saved per year.

That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.

Five million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption.

More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars.

So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million.

We spent $8.57 to for every dollar saved.

How good a deal was that ???

They’ll probably do a great job with health care though!!

I don’t know Linda Franklin, but I received a forwarded email from her which is short and to the point.  It’s worth repeating:

Obama’s health care plan will be written by a committee whose head says he doesn’t understand it,

Passed by a Congress that hasn’t read it and whose members will be exempt from it,

 Signed by a president who smokes, funded by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes,

Overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that is broke..

What could possibly go wrong?

NEW YORK (OP) — In a surprising move sure to rock professional sports, The National Football League announced today the creation of a 31st team.  Tentatively dubbed “The Federal Co-ops,” the new team is slated to begin play in four years, or for the 2013 season.

Roger Goodell, NFL Commissioner, said, “President Obama and the Democratic leadership have been in secret negotiations for the past several months to provide the funding necessary for a true ‘America’s Team’ in the NFL.  Team owners were persuaded by the fact that more than 60 percent of U.S. residents live outside the immediate market area of an NFL franchise.  This represents about 180 million people who are not directly covered by one of our teams, and the Administration convinced us our existing cadre of 30 teams did not allow for appropriate competition.”

According to sources, the White House pushed hard for the Co-ops to begin play as early as this season.  However due to funding concerns, as well as the influence of a vocal minority of team owners, the introduction of the new team will not begin play until 2013.  The funding for the Co-ops is being generated by a surtax on the revenues of the Dallas Cowboys and the Pittsburgh Steelers, the two teams with the current highest market value.  The remaining teams will not be subject to the surtax, however the agreement allows for the surtax to be leveed among the other teams as soon as 2011.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said, “It is frankly immoral that so many of our citizens have gone so long without a professional football team they can call their own.  No longer will residents of Omaha have to feel like second-class citizens by having to identify with the Chicago Bears, Minnesota Vikings, Kansas City Chiefs, St. Louis Rams or Denver Broncos.  All of these are fine teams, but they just don’t provide the access and affordability that a federal team will be able to provide.”

The Co-ops will be owned by a group of football fan citizens from each market area without a professional team.  These individuals will be named by a soon-to-be created “Football Czar,” who will be based in the White House.  The team will not have a formal home stadium, but instead will rotate its home games throughout the regions of the country which — until now — did not have a professional franchise.

Ticket prices for Co-op games will start at $5 for end zone seating and top out at $20 for luxury suites.  The team will also provide up to twenty percent of the seats in each game free to residents with an income lower than five times the national poverty level.  In addition, Goodell announced that television rights and revenues will be shared disproportionately with the new league entrant.  “Initially, the Co-ops will receive ten percent of television revenues, building up to 80 percent by their fifth year in the league.  We feel certain this distribution ratio will have no material impact on the rest of the league.  Our existing franchises have a history of financial stability, though it’s obvious they have inflated their ticket prices.  The new competition will keep all of our team’s pricing structures at a competitive level without jeopardizing their ability to make reasonable profits.”

In another major announcement, the NFL plans to widen the standard football field by ten yards and will add ten yards to the length of each endzone.  Goodell stated, “The White House has also reasonably demonstrated the size of the field used in the Canadian Football League provides for a more open, fast-paced game.  We agree.”  Sources indicate the NFL Competition Committee is also privately giving serious consideration to modifying the shape of the football to become more spherical, resembling the type of ball used in other countries’ version of football.

For months, two notorious, wicked, evil, immoral brothers — Public Option and Co-op Option — terrorized the country.  One day, Public Option died and his brother, Co-op Option, was given the responsibility of organizing the funeral.  He went far and wide to find a minister who would officiate at the ceremony, but alas, he could find none.

The clergy hesitation wasn’t due to their fear or callousness, but rather due to the surviving brother’s requirement that the appointed minister describe at the funeral his Public Option brother as a “Great Man.”  None of the ministers could ethically do so.

However, a little known minister who went by the name Mark O’Bryan (MOB) finally volunteered.

At the funeral, millions of citizens attended or viewed the ceremonies, not out of interest in the deceased Public Option, but rather to see if Rev. O’Bryan would actually compromise himself by calling Brother Public Option a “great man.”

When Rev. Mark O’Bryan stood to give the eulogy, he said, “We all know that Public Option was a most vile, wicked, evil, immoral person.   But compared to his brother…………”

There is an aspect to our conservative response to healthcare reform which is growing increasingly troubling to me.

When we provide our own “solutions” to the perceived healthcare “crisis,” one particular proposal is to enhance healthcare insurance policy portability by breaking down state regulatory barriers prohibiting a person in one state from purchasing a less expensive or more appropriate policy in another state.

On the surface, I think this proposal makes a lot of sense.  It seems to promote the free market and consumer empowerment.

However, as a federalist and constitutionalist, what business is it of the federal goverment to meddle with state laws and regulations?  If one state wants to have more or less healthcare insurance regulation, doesn’t the constitution permit it to do so? 

If, as conservatives, we promote the idea of the federal government forcing states to fall in line on health insurance portability, aren’t we opening up ourselves to allowing the federal government to usurp state sovereignty in other areas as well?

The Rasmussen polls released yesterday reported on Mitt Romney’s and Sarah Palin’s competitive state against President Obama in 2012.  Another reputable polling outfit, Public Policy, released its latest poll yesterday, with some interesting results:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_National_720.pdf

Among other things, Sarah Palin appears to be more popular among Northeastern Republicans than in other parts of the country.

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/07/notes-on-palin-and-gop.html

And, among four potential GOP contenders (Romney, Palin, Huckabee and Gingrich), Huckabee’s spread versus Obama and his overall favorability numbers are the best.

It would be interesting to have Rasmussen include Huckabee in their next 2012 polling exercise.

Each May, we all honor our precious Mothers.  By “all,” I mean individuals, institutions (such as churches), the media, and others.  We call our Mothers and send them cards thanking them for their love, support, gifts, and all the things we know about — and sometimes don’t know – which have brought richness to our lives.

We attend church services where we present roses or other flowers to the mothers in attendance.  We publicly thank them for their love, support, gifts and all the things they have done which brought richness to our lives.

We watch news shows and other television programs about our mothers which bring tears to eyes.

This is how it should be.

Then, inexplicably, a month later, it seems much of society takes a different tact on Fathers’ Day.

On an individual basis, I think we well honor our Fathers.  The calls, the cards, and the gifts we give our fathers tangibly demonstrate our love, affection and appreciation for the support, guidance, sacrifices and wisdom they have provided.  This is how it should be.

Why is it, then, that so many institutions, media outlets, and commentators use Fathers’ Day as an opportunity to bash fathers?

Instead of flowers (or, perhaps another more appropriate masculine gift…say a sleeve of ProV1’s?), our pastors preach about the “death of fatherhood” and all the things fathers should be doing — and aren’t — to fulfill their family responsbilities.

Commentators remind us of the societal ills caused by absentee fathers, by abusive fathers, by deadbeat fathers.

Can you imagine the uproar if a pastor or commentator used Mothers’ Day to rail against the ills of unwed mothers or the abortion rate?

This year, let us all — individuals, institutions, and media commentators — celebrate the joys of fatherhood and the incredibly important role fathers play in society.  Or better yet, let’s just pick up the phone and tell our own father we love him and appreciate the sacrifices he’s made for us.

Many marraige counselors say what men want most from their wives is honor and respect.  I agree.  We crave this from our wives…and our children.

So, Dad…or “Pop” as we sometimes call you…thanks for living your life as an honorable man.  I respect you because of your values.  Later this year you will turn 70 years old, though you still have the clarity of mind and stamina of one half your age.  I know you won’t be around forever.  I hope God sees fit for you to see your own son become a grandfather and perhaps even a great-grandfather.  That would be that finest Fathers Day present I could ever have.

Several months ago, I made my first political contribution to the NRSC.  I promised the telemarketer who called that I would contribute $X  for every GOP senator who voted against the TARP bill.

Last month, the same telemarketer called again for more money.  I basically told them to take a hike because I was furious that Sen. John Cornyn and the NRSC had endorsed Florida Governor Crist for U.S. Senate on the day Crist made public his intentions to run for the seat.

In addition, I had several Facebook exchanges with Sen. Cornyn regarding my distaste for cutting Marco Rubio’s knees out from under him so early in the process.  After all, the GOP senate primary in Florida was a year away at the time.  (I learned from an acquaintance on Cornyn’s staff that he really does personally post and respond on Facebook…it’s not a staffer.)

Cornyn’s reasoning for the Crist endorsement went something like this:  we have limited financial resources at the NRSC, so we need to focus our resources on other states where competition will be stiffer but where we may have a shot at saving or picking up a critical senate seat for the GOP.  Crist’s name recognition and approval in Florida would likely give him general election success with little difficulty, or so Cornyn surmised.  I was not persuaded by his rhetoric as I thought it was shortsighted, given the GOP’s long term needs to build conservative support among Hispanics.

Lately I’ve been pondering the irony of the Crist-endorsement having the exact opposite effect of its original intent.  It has stirred the competitive juices of the GOP base, which will now require the NRSC to allocate funds to Crist to win the primary — exactly what Sen. Cornyn and the NRSC wanted to avoid by endorsing Crist in the first place.

But this evening, the “lightbulb” came on and now I understand what’s going on.  Please accept my apologies, Sen. Cornyn.  You are one step ahead of me (and likely many other angry GOP conservatives). 

Here’s what I believe is going to happen:

By endorsing Crist to focus limited financial resources on other races, the NRSC is now on record that they will not provide significant funds to Crist in the GOP primary.  In the meantime, Rubio’s fundraising is picking up steam and he will ultimately have a war chest that will allow him to effectively compete in the primary.  The NRSC is basically saying, “Charlie, you gotta win this one on your own, ol’ buddy.  You can do it.  We need our money in other places.”

It will be very interesting to see what the NRSC does when the primary race tightens in the polls and in campaign contributions.  My bet is that the NRSC will re-iterate its “endorsement” but never direct funds to help Crist win the primary.

By endorsing Crist so early on, the NRSC may have just assured Rubio’s primary victory.

Congratulations to my “bestest” RedState blogger friend, mbecker, for his RedHot posting privileges.  Even though his commentary is often “redhot” itself, he tells it like he sees it, and — believe it or not — does have a “cuddly” side.

As for me, I’ll have to settle for continued “Mr. EdHot” posting privileges.  And I thank the RedState editors for the honor of being able to participate in the finest conservative blogger community in cyberspace.

The march toward Obama’s vision of total control of individual’s lives continues.  From the authors of Universal Healthcare comes the sequel:  Universal Retirement Savings:

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/planning-to-retire/2009/06/05/should-retirement-savings-be-required.html

This is an attempt to try to achieve the type of universal coverage in retirement that we are hoping to achieve in healthcare,” says Mark Iwry, Deputy Assistant for Retirement and Health Policy for the U.S. Treasury.

That’s funny, the water in my pot is a bit warmer than yesterday.  In fact, I’m starting to see a few boiling bubbles surface.  It must be a jacuzzi!  I think I’ll just lie in here a bit longer and take a nap.

Word out of Hollywood today that President Obama’s speech in Egypt has inspired Jack Nicholson to agree to play the lead in a new movie about U.S.-Iranian relations.  See the trailer below.

<object width=”320″ height=”265″><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/0A5lVv3gnUU&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0″></param><param name=”allowFullScreen” value=”true”></param><param name=”allowscriptaccess” value=”always”></param><embed src=”http://www.youtube.com/v/0A5lVv3gnUU&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” allowscriptaccess=”always” allowfullscreen=”true” width=”320″ height=”265″></embed></object>

It was inevitable that additional video of SC Justice nominee Sonio Sotomayor would surface.  This may explain some of her leanings toward using personal experiences and “empathy” in her rulings.  In addition, the video reveals never-before-seen footage of Sen. Chuck Schumer and other Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_4_ZC3IM_g

Perhaps someone can embed this video for me.  I still can’t figure out how to do it.

Promoted from the diaries by Neil Stevens, with a comment: This is apparently not the first time George Tiller has been shot at. He was shot in both arms back in 1993. He also has a history of flouting sensible regulation and oversight on abortion, in a quest to perform as many late-term abortions as possible.

Because of that, combined with the fact that reports say there were steps taken to cut out security cameras, I find it highly likely that this was a politically-motivated shooting. It is entirely the wrong thing to do though, achieves nothing to save lives, and must be prosecuted vigorously. The rule of law matters. After all, how could we even enforce abortion laws if we can’t enforce murder laws?

Abortionist shot and killed in Wichita, newspaper says.

Given the nature of this breaking news event, this post will not exceed the minimum threshold word count or supplemental analysis.

I have two early observations about today’s announcement of Sonia Sotemayor as President Obama’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.

1. Headline:  “First Black President Nominates First Hispanic SC Justice.”  Unfortunately both parts of this statement are inaccurate.  Our president is not black but of mixed race.  Sotemayor is not the first Hispanic nominee.  FDR nominated an Hispanic justice (a Spanish-American).
2. One broadcast journalist made the comment that the selection of Sotemayor will help President Obama solidify his political ties to Hispanics, especially in border states.  This reminds me of a situation which occurred in my life in the early 1990’s.  I was managing a CEO search for a hospital along the U.S.-Mexican border in a community with a heavily-dominant Hispanic population.  I mentioned to the search committee chair that I presumed there would be a preference for Hispanic candidates, given the nature of the community and the medical staff.  His answer surprised me.  He said, “One-third of our medical staff is Mexican-American, one third is Caribbean-Hispanic, and one-third is Central/South American Hispanic.  There is significant distrust and ill-will between all three groups.  If we hire an Hispanic CEO, he or she will immediately lose the support of two-thirds of the medical staff.  However, if we hire a non-Hispanic, he or she will be equally distrusted by all!”

I have heard about this intra-Latino rivalry in other places, too.  It’s unfortunate that it exists, but it does exist.  It will be interesting to see how the Mexican-American community reacts to a Puerto Rican Latino SC Justice nominee.  Personally, I hope any person or group opposing her nomination does so on the basis of her qualifications and/or judicial philosophy.  However, if President Obama is looking to score political points with the Hispanic community in border states, he may find it not so easy in this case.

I read the following short blurb in yesterday’s (5/13/09) USA Today.  I was immediately struck with the thought that there must be an appropriate political analogy in this story somewhere.  Rather than write one myself, I thought I would open it to my Redstate colleagues to come up with their best efforts.  I will select the winner, who will receive the prestigious “Oats & Bridle Award” — which is being custom designed and ordered straight from my barn stall.

Fort Worth — Researchers are trying an unusual aproach to combat fire ants - parasitic flies that turn the insects into zombies.  The phorid flies “dive-bomb” the fire ants and lay eggs.  The maggot that hatches inside the ant eats away at the brain.  Later, the ant starts wandering for about two weeks until its head falls off and it dies.

Let the blogger-writing-games begin.

As most of you know, recently a nationally-known comedian told a joke with a punch-line insinuating the death of a political thought leader.  Well, now the comedian has apologized.  It seems any attempt at humor that deals with political leaders and death, is well, off-limits….but only when it’s a joke about a Democrat.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/10/golf-analyst-feherty-sorry-pelosi-joke-dallas-magazine/

Forgive me if this is old news.  If it was news at the time it happened I missed it.

Thanks to Mollie Ziegler Hemingway in this month’s edition of Christianity Today for bringing it to my attention.

http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/2009/may/1.56.html

“…former President and Rhodes scholar Bill Clinton revealed a startling ignorance about basic science shortly after President Barack Obama increased federal funding of stem-cell research that destroys embryos.  After CNN presented him as a policy expert on the matter, Clinton referred a half-dozen times to human embryos as ‘unfertilized’ and said they would only ‘become human beings’ if they were fertilized, which couldn’t happen with the embryos in question.”

Here’s the CNN video in question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmh9p1rlkQk

Gosh, there’s so many directions one can take after seeing this.  Was this merely a “senior statesman moment” for our former President?  Or is he really ignorant of the basic science of conception?

If a generally “moderate” Democrat is confused on the basic premise of embryonic stem cells, how many others also don’t fully comprehend what’s happening here?

Can you imagine the uproar if George W. Bush had made such a statement?

Reeling from his public relations disaster on handling the waterboarding issue, Obama may be backtracking on his decision to try Gitmo detainees in U.S. criminal courts.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30531510/

Our President is proving to be an enigma.  On one hand, the longer he’s in office the more his innate liberal worldview becomes apparent.  On the other hand, he occasionally admits the Bush Administration had it right.  Let’s see how the liberal human rights organizations react to this news.