Joe Andrew, a Democratic National Committee chair for five minutes, lives and operates out of Washington, D.C. But when it comes to giving news conferences about the presidential campaign, his podium is in Indianapolis. That is where Andrew went from Beltway boy to Hoosier to make his "big" announcement on changing sides from Sen. Hillary Clinton to Sen. Barack Obama.

And the whole word gasped.

Well, not really the whole world. In all honesty, the collective gasp was heard from within the Beltway, that patch of geography where the chattering elite class of politicos live, breathe and eat.

But drive 15 minutes in any direction outside of the Beltway, and no one knows who Joe Andrew is or why his deflection should affect their vote.

Here is the problem that the media seems to ignore in this race for the Democrats: While there is plenty of headlines and pontifications about superdelegates moving their support to Obama, there is a curious dismissal of Clinton's string of strong wins with the John Deere voters.

As blogs become the voice of Mainstreet America, the superdelegates' opinions matter less and less. That's where the disconnect is most clearly seen. At the center of this is Howard Dean, the man who fancies himself as an outsider. In reality, he, like Markos Moulitsas, is a Washington insider with a brash voice pretending to speak for the people.

Salena does the nation a great service by calling voters in the Heartland John Deere voters. They're trying to tell people who their preference is for the Democratic nomination. The superdelegates aren't listening. Here's one of Salena's most stinging rebukes:

While putting nearly 2,000 miles in the Hoosier State in the past week, the reflections and opinions of the voters is not that different than what I saw in Ohio and Pennsylvania. And those opinions are that superdelegates to them are people who make their minds up based on their experiences and geography, i.e. Washington D.C.

The voters make their opinions and decisions on their experiences in their geography, i.e. Middle America.

Yet the story remains that Clinton cannot mathematically win. Well since Barack Obama cannot win either without her dropping out, perhaps what the analysis should be is why voters continue to vote her in while Beltway news conferences tell them "no, no, no."

Neither compares with how Bill Clinton connected with how he connected with John Deere voters. That's diminished now, mostly attributable to his spending the last 16 years inside the Washington-New York media bubble. That's another post for another day.

Here's another key Salena observation that the Democrats have ignored:

There is a huge disconnect between the Joe Andrew voters and the John Deere voters in this world. No one can win in the general election without them. They are the Reagan Democrats that swing elections. The last time I checked, the voters who live in the Beltway have never swung a national election. Ever.

As one Hoosier voter said to me along the road, "just let us vote. Stop telling us it is over before we go to the booth."

Like you, the status of the DeSoto Bridge repairs is very important to me. There are few arteries or bridges more vital to the St. Cloud area. Regrettably, it's critical projects just like this that are shortchanged most by rampant pork barrel spending in Washington.

That's why I've taken a pledge to not take any earmarks this year while working with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle who are determined to reform the earmarking system. It is our hope to replace a system of backroom backscratching with one in which projects are judged on merit and each of your tax dollars is spent wisely on real priorities.

What I saw last year opened my eyes to how corrupt the system had become. One Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman threatened another Representative on the floor of the House, telling him he'd never get an earmark in any billhe was responsible for crafting, all because of a difference of opinion.

Here's what ABC News reported at the time:

Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., who for six years served as an FBI special agent investigating public corruption as a member of the Chicago bureau's organized crime unit, says that Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee's subcommittee on defense, violated House ethics rules Thursday for threatening to strip any funding for Rogers' projects after Rogers pushed for the elimination of a government center in Murtha's home district.

On the floor of the House of Representatives Thursday, Rogers alleges, Murtha, upset by Rogers' aggressive attempts the week before to kill the project in Murtha's home district, said something along the lines of "I hope you don't have any earmarks in the defense appropriation bill because they are gone and you will not get any earmarks now and forever."

Rogers said he replied by saying, "This is not the way we do things here" and "is that supposed to make me afraid of you?" "That's the way I do it," Murtha said, according to Rogers.

Minnesota's senior member in the House, Jim Oberstar, will likely fight her tooth and nail because he's in love with this corrupt system, too. Here's what President Bush said in chastizing Jim Oberstar:

“The way it seems to have worked is that each member on that (Transportation) committee gets to set his or her own priorities first,” Bush said. “That’s not the right way to prioritize the people’s money. Before we raise taxes, which could affect economic growth, I would strongly urge the Congress to examine how they set priorities.”

Rep. Bachmann is the polar opposite of John Murtha and Jim Oberstar. I've said, half-kiddingly, that they should 'retire' John Murtha's office when he's no longer there. If they don't choose that option, then I've suggested that they rename the office to "The Corporate Welfare Headquarters".

I'm proud to call Michele my representative in the US House of Representatives. I'm thankful that she cares about spending our tax dollars efficiently. That's why she's one of the rising stars in the GOP.

Democrat Barack Obama says he was outraged by the comments of his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and saddened by the spectacle of his appearance on Monday. Wright said Monday that criticism surrounding his fiery sermons is an attack on the black church.

Obama told reporters Tuesday that Wright's comments do not accurately portray the perspective of the black church. Obama said, "I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw yesterday."

Wright's incendiary comments have dogged Obama's presidential campaign.

Reverend Wright is not the man he thought he was…..so naturally people will ask: what took you so long to figure it out? 20 years and only yesterday? are you that oblivious or is this statement political and calculating? and others will applaud him…saying what courage to address the issue…that he is standing up for what he believes even if it means denouncing someone you had admired..and that he is showing candor…

Let's pose this hypothetical question: If Sen. Obama truly didn't notice Pastor J-Wright's disgusting statements over a 20 year period, why should we think that he's qualified to be the leader of the free world?

I don't doubt that people will defend Sen. Obama. I don't doubt that some will praise Sen. Obama for distancing himself from Pastor J-Wright. To those Obama apologists, I'll simply ask one question: Why didn't Sen. Obama distance himself from Pastor J-Wright faster?

In fact, I've thought of another question: Considering Michelle Obama's statements that America "is a downright mean country" and that she was finally proud to call herself an American after people started voting for her husband, why should we believe that Sen. Obama doesn't believe in much of what Pastor J-Wright preaches?

For that matter, why did Sen. Obama stay on the board with William Ayers? Why didn't he utterly renounce Ayers' terroristic attacks in the harshest language possible? After all, the things Ayers did and the things that Pastor Wright said weren't just mildly controversial. Ayers killed people but didn't think he'd done enough. Wright said that white people had invented the AIDS virus to commit genocide on the black race. Wright also told the audience at the National Press Club yesterday that America is a terrorist nation.

Greta, thanks for saying on a large stage what many of us on smaller stages have been thinking for quite some time.

It's time to start questioning everything that Sen. Obama says. We really don't know who he is or what his beliefs are. Based on the information available, America should be worried about him getting elected in November.

Before this year's historic campaign, poisoned at the root by overt and ugly sexism and covert and coded racism, Democrats have never been asked to choose quite so nakedly which absolutely necessary demographic they would like to do without. Here is the question, a cynic might suggest, that the Democratic Party must answer this summer: Do we want to lose because we drove away blacks or because we drove away white women?

In fact, it's more accurate to say that this rift first started with Howard Dean's presidential campaign. He repeatedly said that he represented the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." That rift got wider in August, 2006, when Ned Lamont defeated Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary in Connecticut. That night, a new type of Democrat was born: Lieberman Democrats. Brendan Loy typifies Lieberman Democrats, socially and economically liberal but hawkish about national security.

Let's return to the present. Pennsylvania's primary is a perfect illustration of the split that's becoming more apparent each day. Blue collar Democrats will vote overwhelmingly for Hillary. Rich, white liberals will join African Americans in enthusiastically voting for Sen. Obama. Once Sen. Obama wins the nomination, alot of Hillary's DLC supporters will leave the Democrats' coalition and vote for John McCain.

While it'd be wrong to think that these DLC types to abandon the Democratic in dramatic numbers, their defections would be catastrophic for the Democrats.

What's that got to do with this year's race? Sunday night, I talked with a political insider in Pennsylvania. This insider told me that Sen. McCain has a definite shot at putting Pennsylvania in the red state column, regardless of the candidate. That figures to be the case in other blue collar states across the country.

This year, Democrats know we have an embarrassment of riches—two terrific candidates. But one is truly transformative. Obama isn't just winning elections; he's exciting millions of new voters. In North Carolina, 165,000 people have registered this year alone, three quarters of them eligible to vote in the Democratic primary. Skeptics question whether Obama can win working-class voters, but in Virginia and Wisconsin, two states the party aims to carry in November, he romped through—winning every demographic group across the lines of education, religion, ethnicity, race and income. With critical Senate races in places like Colorado and New Mexico, Democratic leaders are excited that the "coattails" of an Obama campaign can win a new generation of Red State Democrats. Last February, Virginia's Democratic Gov. Tim Kaine was asked whether a Democratic candidate could carry Virginia for the first time since LBJ did it in 1964. "The right Democrat could," he replied. Two days later, he endorsed Obama.

Sen. Kerry's statement that "the party aims to carry" Virginia this November is boilerplate stuff. I pointed out in this post, it appears as though Virginia, Missouri, Ohio and Florida are solidly in the Red column. Just because Democrats can "aim to carry" the state doesn't mean it's a done deal.

I'd finally say that the Democrats have an embarassment but it isn't an embarassment of riches. The Philadelphia Fiasco showed people that Hillary and Obama are clueless about economic issues, not to mention the fact that they've both got ethical skeletons in their closets that might disqualify them on that basis alone.

The Illinois senator is the strongest nominee because he has shown that he can learn from mistakes and respond to challenges with the best weapon America has: the truth. He has already had a presidential moment in this campaign. Faced with criticisms about his faith, Obama gave one of the most eloquent, brave and bracingly honest speeches I have ever heard a politician give. Instead of trying to say the right thing, he just tried to tell the truth, in all its unvarnished complexity. There is no greater sign of his respect for people everywhere than a refusal to insult their intelligence.

There's no denying that the speech was eloquent. There's also no denying that people were still asking why Sen. Obama stayed at Pastor J-Wright's church. Until he answers why he stayed, people will question his decisionmaking abilities.

The bad news for Sen. Obama is that that' just part of his problem. People still question why he had connections with Tony Rezko and William Ayers. Sen. Obama can whine all he wants about guilt by association isn't fair. The fact remains that John McCain doesn't have those types of skeletons in his closet.

MR. GIBSON: All right. You have however said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent.” It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent. SENATOR OBAMA: Right.

MR. GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

SENATOR OBAMA: Right.

MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year, $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair. And what I want is not oppressive taxation. I want businesses to thrive and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don’t have it and that we’re able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools. And you can’t do that for free, and you can’t take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children and our grandchildren and then say that you’re cutting taxes, which is essentially what John McCain has been talking about. And that is irresponsible.

But here's the deal: During the debate, Obama bungled his answers on tax policy, big time. Period. End of sentence. End of story. To my liberal friends in the media, all I can say is: Get over it. Your guy has a very poor grasp of basic economic principles.

First off, you don't raise taxes during a recession. That's a no-brainer. Second, doubling the capital-gains tax rate will affect Americans up and down the income ladder, not just rich hedge-fund managers. In addition, capital-gains tax cuts are self-financing, and they stimulate jobs and the economy. You want to raise budget revenues and spark economic growth? Cut the cap-gains tax rate. That's what history shows.

The Wall Street Journal's Steve Moore points out that in 2005, almost half of all tax returns reporting capital gains came from households with incomes under $50,000, while more than three-quarters came from households earning less than $100,000.

Obama also proposed uncapping the payroll tax, another blunder that will hit people up and down the income ladder. While Obama pledges tax hikes only for folks earning more that $200,000 a year, his tax hike on payrolls would actually slam middle-income earners. The cap on wages subject to the payroll tax is presently $102,000. By eliminating that cap Obama will be soaking veteran firemen, cops, teachers, and health-service workers, along with a variety of other occupations.

Kudlow pointing out the people who'd get hurt by Obama's tax policy certainly won't help Sen. Obama with the middle class voters he'll need to win in November. Kudlow saying that Sen. Obama "has a very poor grasp of basic economic principles" will surely be used to attack Sen. Obama as incompetent and not qualified to the next president. This paragraph isn't helpful to Sen. Obama's campaign:

In effect, Obama's economics are bad and his social circle is very limited. This is one of the many reasons why a quarter of the Hillary Democrats are telling pollsters they'll likely move to John McCain in the general election.

Obama's real agenda is far-liberal left. It's an ideology that places income redistribution above economic growth. That's his real message. And it's the same one that sunk Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry. Bill Clinton? He was a growth Democrat. So he won twice. But Obama is aligning himself with the Democratic losers. And that will make him a loser as well.

But friends like Chicago political strategist Marilyn Katz said Ayers should not be a campaign issue.

Katz met Ayers when he was 17 and they were members of Students for a Democratic Society, a peaceful group from which the Weather Underground splintered. She noted Ayers' work with Mayor Daley to overhaul the Chicago Public Schools and likened him to Black Panther-turned-U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush.

"What Bill Ayers and Bobby Rush...did 40 years ago has nothing to do with" the presidential campaign, Katz said. Ayers "has a national reputation. He lectures at Harvard and Vassar. He writes the textbooks that are the standard for innovative approaches to reaching inner-city youth."

Let's put the proverbial shoe on the other foot for a moment. What if a reporter found out that John McCain had some ties with Tim McVeigh back in the 1980's? Does anyone think that the media wouldn't have be right to examining just how tight the ties were between those men? I'd bet the proverbial ranch that MoveOn.org and Kos would say that that's proof of Sen. McCain's extreme right wing tendencies.

Let's take this a step further. Some lefties are saying that Obama is the victim of guilt by asasociation, both with Ayers and with Pastor J-Wright. Let's ask the next logical question. Which other presidential candidate had ties to an unrepentant terrorist while attending a church with a racist pastor?

What I find amusing is that Sen. Obama's defense, and the defense by his supporters, is that Hillary Clinton is just as guilty because Bill Clinton pardoned members of the Weather Underground:

Ben LaBolt, an Obama spokesman, on Friday defended Obama's handling of the Ayers matter and noted Clinton has ties to the Weather Underground through her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

“In the debate, Obama called the acts Ayers committed 40 years ago ‘detestable,’... and any attempt to connect him with those events is outrageous,” LaBolt said. “While Obama, Mayor Daley, and others in Chicago’s academic and civic communities have known Bill Ayers in recent years...President Clinton pardoned a member of the Weathermen who participated in a heist that left two police officers and a security guard dead, and commuted the sentence of another, and we have yet to hear where Senator Clinton stands on President Clinton's actions.”

Apparently, Mr. LaBolt doesn't understand that that argument won't work against John McCain.
I just found this must read post on Lynn Sweet's blog:

For those who have forgotten or weren’t born yet here is a list of a few of the activities. Just think if this were happening today:

7 October 1969 – Bombing of Haymarket Police Statue in Chicago, apparently as a “kickoff” for the “Days of Rage” riots in the city October 8–11, 1969. The Weathermen later claim credit for the bombing in their book, “Prairie Fire.”

8 October-11, 1969 – The “Days of Rage” riots occur in Chicago in which 287 Weatherman members from throughout the country were arrested and a large amount of property damage was done.

6 December 1969 – Bombing of several Chicago Police cars parked in a precinct parking lot at 3600 North Halsted Street, Chicago. The WUO stated in their book “Prairie Fire” that they had did the explosion.

27 December-31, 1969 – Weathermen hold a “War Council” meeting in Flint, MI, where they finalize their plans to submerge into an underground status from which they plan to commit strategic acts of sabotage against the government. Thereafter they are called the “Weather Underground Organization” (WUO).

13 February 1970 – Bombing of several police vehicles of the Berkeley, California, Police Department.

16 February 1970 – Bombing of Golden Gate Park branch of the San Francisco Police Department, killing one officer and injuring a number of other policemen.

6 March 1970 – Bombing in the 13th Police District of the Detroit, Michigan. 34 sticks of dynamite are discovered. During February and early March, 1970, members of the WUO, led by Bill Ayers, are reported to be in Detroit, during that period, for the purpose of bombing a police facility.

6 March 1970 – “bomb factory” located in New York’s Greenwich Village accidentally explodes. WUO members Theodore die in t. The bomb was intended to be planted at a non-commissioned officer’s dance at Fort Dix, New Jersey. The bomb was packed with nails TO INFILICT MAXIMUM CASUALTIES UPON DETONATION.

30 March 1970 – Chicago Police discover a WUO “bomb factory” on Chicago’s north side. A subsequent discovery of a WUO “weapons cache” in a south side Chicago apartment several days later ends WUO activity in the city.

10 May 1970 – Bombing of The National Guard Association building in Washington, D.C..

21 May 1970 – The WUO under Bernardine Dohrn’s name releases its “Declaration of a State of War” communique.

6 June 1970 – The WUO sends a letter claiming credit for bombing of the San Francisco Hall of Justice; however, no explosion actually took place. Months later, workmen in this building located an unexploded device which had apparently been dormant for some time.

9 June 1970 – Bombing of The New York City Police Headquarters.

27 July 1970 – Bombing of The Presidio army base in San Francisco. [NYT, 7/27/70]

12 September 1970 – The WUO helps Dr. Timothy Leary, break out and escape from the California Men’s Colony prison.

8 October 1970 – Bombing of Marin County courthouse. [NYT, 8/10/70]

10 October 1970 – Bombing of Queens traffic-court building . [NYT, 10/10/70, p. 12]

14 October 1970 – Bombing of The Harvard Center for International Affairs [NYT, 10/14/70, p. 30]

1 March 1971 – Bombing of The United States Capitol. ” [NYT, 3/2/71]

April, 1971 – abandoned WUO “bomb factory” discovered in San Francisco, California.

29 August, 1971 – Bombing of the Office of California Prisons. [LAT, 8/29/71]

17 September 1971 – Bombing of The New York Department of Corrections in Albany, NY [NYT, 9/18/71]

15 October 1971 – Bombing of William Bundy’s office in the MIT research center. [NYT, 10/16/71]

19 May 1972 – Bombing of The Pentagon . [NYT, 5/19/72]

18 May 1973 – Bombing of the 103rd Police Precinct in New York

28 September 1973 – Bombing of ITT headquarters in New York and Rome, Italy. [NYT, 9/28/73]

6 March 1974 – Bombing of the Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare offices in San Francisco

31 May 1974 – Bombing of The Office of the California Attorney General.

17 June 1974 – Bombing of Gulf Oil’s Pittsburgh headquarters .

11 September 1974 – Bombing of Anaconda Corporation (part of the Rockefeller Corporation).

29 January 1975 – Bombing of the State Department in (AP. “State Department Rattled by Blast,” The Daily Times-News, January 29 1975, p.1)

16 June 1975 – Bombing of Banco de Ponce (a Puerto Rican bank) in New York.

September, 1975 – Bombing of the Kennecott Corporation.

October 20, 1981 – Brinks robbery in which several members of the Weather Underground stole over $1 million from a Brinks armored car near Nyack, New York. The robbers murdered 2 police officers and 1 Brinks guard. Several others were wounded.

1981 “Guilty as hel*. Free as a bird. America is a great country,” Ayers said when interviewed by David Horowitz.

September 11, 2001 “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” Ayers is quoted in NYT article

In the final summary of this relationship, what will be known is that a major political party's presidential nominee had rather dubious ties to an unrepentant terrorist. When people learn that, I suspect that they'll say, in overwhelming numbers, that Sen. Obama should've immediately denounced Bill Ayers' terrorist attacks and immediately distanced himself from Ayers.

A federal judge in Washington has ordered Democratic Rep. Jim McDermott to pay more than $1 million in attorney’s fees awarded to Minority Leader John A. Boehner as part of a protracted lawsuit involving an illegally taped cell phone call.

U.S. District Judge Thomas P. Hogan ruled that McDermott, D-Wash., must pay $1,053,181, plus $520,761 in interest to Boehner, R-Ohio.

Boehner sued McDermott in 1998, accusing him of leaking the contents of a conference call that a Florida couple had illegally taped from Boehner’s cell phone in 1996.

In the call, Republican leaders, including then-Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia (1979-99), discussed responding to ethics allegations against Gingrich, who served as Speaker from 1995 to 1999.

McDermott at the time was the ranking Democrat on the House ethics panel.

The attorney’s fee payment comes on top of $60,000 in damages that McDermott already has paid Boehner out of his legal expense fund.

In December, McDermott paid Boehner $50,000 in court-ordered punitive damages, $10,000 in statutory damages and another $4,169 in interest, according to public disclosure filings. The payment was made shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a federal appeals court ruling in Boehner’s favor.

“While the amount of damages assessed in this case is significant, I submit that defending the First Amendment is beyond measure and worth every penny,” McDermott said in a statement, adding, “With the end of this case, another threat against the First Amendment has been met and turned back.”

Rep. McDermott just got hammered for $1.5 million for accepting a tape of a conversation that was done without a warrant. In fact, it wasn't done by a law enforcement agency. It was intercepted by a retired Florida couple. This ruling happened at a time when Democrats are accusing President Bush of wiretapping Americans without a warrant. That irony wasn't lost in this IBD editorial:

Compare that with Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., ordered on Monday by a federal court to pay nearly $1.2 million to House Minority Leader John Boehner, after breaking federal wiretapping laws.

McDermott had disclosed to reporters a secret tape of a 1996 cell phone conversation between Boehner and other GOP leaders about a House ethics committee reprimand of then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich. In late 2006, that same ethics panel found McDermott's actions "not consistent with the spirit of the Committee's rules", but didn't discipline him. McDermott remains in Congress today.

Considering the McDermott case, not to mention disgraced ex-New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer using state police to gumshoe the State Senate GOP leader, it's not President Bush abusing power to hurt political adversaries; it's Democrats.

The reality is that Democrats are close to being the thugs that they accuse Republicans of being.

Here's Steve Beren's statement on McDermott's disgrace:

“Today is April Fools Day, and it is time for Jim McDermott to stop fooling around. It is time for a new exit strategy, one that removes McDermott from office. Jim McDermott should cut a check, pay the fine, and resign now! The time has come for McDermott to go. When you look at the record of this case, you have to conclude that McDermott has placed himself above the law. A member of congress ought to be a citizen representative, with the highest ethics and deepest patriotism. McDermott's unethical behavior, unworthy of any citizen, is absolutely unworthy of a member of congress. His flagrant disregard of his legal and ethical responsibilities disqualify him from office. Of course, this is the same McDermott who opposes our troops and opposes a victory strategy in the war against Islamic terrorism. So when McDermott puts himself above the law, it's hardly surprising.”

Despite the planned event getting canceled, Vets for Freedom did hold an event, stopping at the American Legion Post 225 in Forest Lake. Here's a brief recap from the Forest Lake Times:

After threats of an anti-war protest on Monday forced Forest Lake High School to cancel a visit by the Vets for Freedom national heroes tour, the group successfully made the visit to Forest Lake. On Tuesday, the Vets for Freedom bus rolled into the parking lot at American Legion Post 225 which was selected as alternate site for the tour.

Pete Hegseth is the executive director of the organization and a 1999 Forest Lake High School graduate who served with the Army in Iraq. Hegseth said on Tuesday he was disappointed with the school decision to cancel the event as it was an opportunity for students to hear stories from military personnel who have served their country. Hegseth said the high school program would not have taken a position on the Iraq War but would have conveyed a message to students about the importance of patriotism and military service to country.

Had these anti-war protesters just staged a protest, I would've been fine with that. I would've ridiculed them for their beliefs but I would've defended their constitutional rights to the Nth degree. instead of staging a protest, though, these unidentified anti-war groups pressured Principal Massey into cancelling the event. That's censorship, which, unfortunately, isn't uncommon within the anti-war movement.

Their forcing the event's cancellation is proof of their fascist tendencies. Before anyone gets upset by the use of that term, here's the definition I'm referring to:

A reactionary or dictatorial person.

We can't have that happening.

As the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, I am committed to taking this fight to the terrorists, but I remain convinced that we can do that while stopping this administration, or any administration, from conducting warrantless spying on Americans. Our responsibility includes not only the safety of the American people but also the safety and sanctity of the American Constitution. We must protect both.

Everyone who knows anything about intelligence gathering knows that FISA deals only with foreign surveillance, hence the name Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It has nothing to do with surveilling Americans.

Let's first examine why the PAA was enacted. A FISA Appellate Court judge ruled that foreign communications that passed through an American telecommunications switch needed a warrant because it was deemed a domestic communication. In this judge's mind, it didn't matter that the sender and recipient weren't Americans. It didn't even matter that neither the sender or recipient weren't even in the United States. All that mattered was that the communication passed through an American switch.

DNI Chairman Mike McConnell testified to this in Congress. He repeated that information to FNS's Chris Wallace:

In other words, Rep. Reyes is spinning this when he says that he's "convinced that we can do that while stopping this administration" from "conducting warrantless spying on Americans." Rep. Reyes should be ashamed of himself for implying that this has anything directly to do with domestic intelligence gathering. the only way it would affect domestic intelligence gathering is if the NSA or CIA spots the name of an American citizen or "person". If they spot someone living in the United States, then they get a warrant from a court to surveil them.

The only issue left to resolve on the legislation is whether they'll grant retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies that assisted in this effort. Here's how Rep. Reyes opens his op-ed:

A March 14 article by Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., made several errors in decrying House inaction on electronic surveillance legislation.

First, on the very day her note was published, the House passed legislation that would grant new authority for electronic surveillance. This bill, which represents a collaborative effort between the House and Senate, would give intelligence agencies stronger tools to track terrorist communications while preserving important constitutional rights for Americans.

Two other things that Rep. Reyes isn't mentioning is that the Senate bill passed by a 68-29 margin, a truly bipartisan effort, and that the Senate bill wouldn't be considered because it would pass with similar bipartisan support.

Rep. Reyes is simply doing Speaker Pelosi's bidding and doing a lousy job of it at that. Here's what Sen. Kit Bond, Rep. Peter Hoekstra and Rep. Lamar Smith said in their Washington Post op-ed about the lapsing of the PAA:

We are less safe today and will remain so until Congress clears up the legal uncertainty for companies that assist in collecting intelligence for the government, and until it gives explicit permission to our intelligence agencies to intercept, without a warrant, foreign communications that pass through the U.S. Here’s why:

- Intercepting terrorist communications requires the cooperation of our telecommunications companies. They’re already being sued for having cooperated with the government after 9/11. So without explicit protection for future actions (and civil liability protection for the help they provided in the past), those companies critical to collecting actionable intelligence could be sidelined in the fight.

It has already happened, briefly. “[W]e have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress’ failure to act,” Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and Attorney General Michael Mukasey wrote in a letter dated Feb. 22 to Mr. Reyes, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

- The old FISA law does not adequately protect the U.S., which is why it was revised by the Protect America Act last summer. The problem is that, although it has a few work-around-provisions, such as allowing intelligence agencies to conduct surveillance for up to 72 hours without a warrant, FISA ultimately requires those agencies to jump through too many legal hurdles. Those include the Fourth Amendment’s “probable cause” requirements, protections never intended for suspected terrorists’ communications that are routed through the U.S.

Second, the expiration of the so-called "Protect America Act" (PAA) has not degraded our nation's intelligence collection capability. Bachmann chose to quote the director of national intelligence in his Feb. 5 testimony to support her argument, but on Feb. 23 the administration had to issue a retraction of those statements, stating that the government is now getting full cooperation from telecommunications companies and that the authorities of the PAA remain in full effect.

I find it troubling that the congresswoman chose to use a subsequently retracted statement in lobbying on a matter of such importance.

It's time that the House stopped their charade. It's time that they stopped spinning their irresponsible behavior. It's time that they passed the Senate bill so that we're fighting the terrorist with everything we've got in our arsenal rather than fighting them with one arm tied behind our back.

Obama Church Published Hamas Terror Manifesto

It gets worse from there:

The Hamas piece was published on the "Pastor's Page" of the Trinity United Church of Christ newsletter reserved for Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., whose anti-American, anti-Israel remarks landed Obama in hot water, prompting the presidential candidate to deliver a major race speech earlier this week.

Hamas, responsible for scores of shootings, suicide bombings and rocket launchings against civilian population centers, is listed as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department.

In his July 22, 2007, church bulletin, Wright reprinted an article by Mousa Abu Marzook, identified in the newsletter as a "deputy of the political bureau of Hamas." A photo image of the newsletter was captured and posted today by the business blog BizzyBlog. The Hamas piece was first published by the Los Angeles Times, garnering the newspaper much criticism. Here's that image:

Why should any Palestinian 'recognize' the monstrous crime carried out by Israel's founders and continued by its deformed modern apartheid state, while he or she lives 10 to a room in a cinderblock, tin roof UN hut?That that op-ed ran in the LA Times is bad enough. That it was reprinted in Pastor J-Wright's newsletter calls into question how deep his hatred of Israel runs. Let's remember that this isn't something from 10 years ago. That op-ed ran last July. It's that much more troubling considering the fact that Pastor Wright accompanied Louis Farrakhan on a trip to Libya where he met Col. Qhadhaffi.

I'll take Sen. Obama at his word when he says that Pastor Wright has been his mentor. That's troubling because Pastor Wright's thinking towards Israel is far outside mainstream evangelical Christian thinking. Let's set that aside temporarily for the sake of this discussion. Let's pretend that evangelical Christians didn't take a position on Israel. Instead, let's think about this from a State Department standpoint. It seems like Hamas has been on the State Department's list of known terrorists forever.

That brings me to this question: What impact has Pastor J-Wright's views on Israel had on Sen. Obama? Sen. Obama says that he hasn't talked politics with Pastor J-Wright but, prior to this week, he insisted that he hadn't heard any of Pastor J-Wright's inflammatory sermons, too.

Another troubling portion of the WND article talks about one of Sen. Obama's foreign policy advisors views about Israel. Here's the portion I'm specifically refering to:

WND reported in January that Malley, an Obama foreign policy adviser, has penned numerous opinion articles, many of them co-written with a former adviser to the late Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat, petitioning for dialogue with Hamas and blasting Israel for policies he says harm the Palestinian cause.

Malley also previously penned a well-circulated New York Review of Books piece largely blaming Israel for the collapse of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations at Camp David in 2000 when Arafat turned down a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and eastern sections of Jerusalem and instead returned to the Middle East to launch an intifada, or terrorist campaign, against the Jewish state.

Malley's contentions have been strongly refuted by key participants at Camp David, including President Clinton, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and primary U.S. envoy to the Middle East Dennis Ross, all of whom squarely blamed Arafat's refusal to make peace for the talks' failure.

Suffice it to say that this story eliminates the possibility of the Obama-J-Wright controversy going away anytime soon. It's more likely that it'll prolong Sen. Obama's suffering.

Buried in his eloquent, highly praised speech on America's racial divide, Sen. Barack Obama contradicted more than a year of denials and spin from him and his staff about his knowledge of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's controversial sermons.

Similarly, Obama also has only recently given a much fuller accounting of his relationship with indicted political fixer Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a longtime friend, who his campaign once described as just one of "thousands of donors."

Until yesterday, Obama said the only thing controversial he knew about Rev. Wright was his stand on issues relating to Africa, abortion and gay marriage.

The question I have is this: Why didn't Sen. Obama chastize Pastor J-Wright for his incendiary commentary? That's the minimum he should've done. Sen. Obama would've been perfectly justified in leaving TUCC. I suspect that that would've been the politically smart move, too.

That's awful enough but that isn't all. Last Friday, Sen. Obama also admitted that Mr. Rezko was more than "just one of 'thousands of donors.'" I told a friend last Saturday that "You know it's a bad week for Sen. Obama when his admitting to having close ties to Tony Rezko isn't the worst news of the week for him.

His initial reaction to the initial ABC News broadcast of Rev. Wright's sermons denouncing the U.S. was that he had never heard his pastor of 20 years make any comments that were anti-U.S. until the tape was played on air.

But yesterday, he told a different story.

"Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes," he said in his speech yesterday in Philadelphia.

In the case of his relationship with Rezko, Obama has also been slow to acknowledge the full extent of his relationship.

It was only last week that he revealed Rezko had raised some $250,000 in campaign contributions for him.

The campaign had initially claimed Rezko-connected contributions were no more than $60,000, an amount the campaign donated to charity. Then the figure grew to around $86,000, and there were additional revelations that put the amount at about $150,000. Obama's $250,000 accounting was a substantial jump and clearly contradicted earlier campaign statements that Rezko was just one of "thousands of donors."

The bad news is that I'll be posting something later tonight that'll add to Sen. Obama's troubles. Sen. Obama's ugly week is about to get uglier.

"Don't tell me that words don't matter."

Barack Obama would be wise to learn the lesson that actions matter, too. Frankly it would've been nice to see Sen. Obama stand up to Pastor J-Wright for the saying the inflammatory, hate-filled words he said.

It's difficult to respect someone who won't stand up to that type of hatefulness until it's politically necessary to do so. That isn't a portrait in courage. That's a portrait in political damage control. You'll forgive me if I don't feel particularly inspired by that.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer noted the number of people killed by handguns and asked if it was unreasonable for a "city with a very high crime rate to say 'no handguns here.'"

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked: "What's reasonable about a total ban on possession?"

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, often seen as the deciding vote on the divided court, immediately made it clear he did not accept the District's arguments, and the views of a vast majority of federal appeals courts, that the Second Amendment provided only a collective right to gun possession in furtherance of military purpose.

The amendment states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Kennedy said he thought the much-debated first clause was simply "reaffirming" the importance of the Constitution's militia clause and that it clearly stated "there is a right to bear arms" that is separate.

Here's another part of the Post's reporting that sounds reasonable:

But a finding of an individual right means the court must decide what kind of restrictions would be proper for legislation to impose and under what standard a court should judge them.

Solicitor General Paul D. Clement told the justices that too strict a standard would imperil the federal government's efforts to restrict machine guns or "plastic" guns meant to avoid metal detector screening. The right to bear arms, Clement argued, "always coexisted with reasonable regulations of firearms."

Alan Gura, representing those challenging the District law, said he agreed that the "government can ban arms that are not appropriate for civilian use," but he said handguns clearly are not included in such a restriction.

When the ruling is issued, likely in late June, the Roberts Court will likely restore sanity to the Second Amendment. That's the difference between an activist court and a strict constructionist court.

That's why it's vitally important to elect John McCain to succeed President Bush. If we can get another reliable strict constructionist confirmed, then we will have established sanity on the Supreme Court for another generation.

One of the critical tools that has allowed us to keep the homeland safe after 9/11 has been the Protect America Act. It updated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to deal with new, deadly challenges in this age of terror -- enabling intelligence services to immediately listen to phone calls made between foreign terrorists.

But on Feb. 16, the Protect America Act expired -- even though the Senate voted to reauthorize it with a strong, bipartisan vote, and even though the same bipartisan support exists in the House as well.

Why, then, has it expired?

Because the House Democratic leadership has simply refused to allow a vote, knowing it will pass. In fact, 21 House Democrats wrote to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, urging her to bring the bill to the floor.

While this inaction may score cheap political points with the fringe elements of the Democratic caucus, American families are needlessly imperiled. This is not an exaggeration. This is not hyperbole. This is fact, confirmed by our intelligence community and agreed upon by Republicans and Democrats alike.

Meanwhile, our intelligence-gathering agencies can't operate at peak efficiency:

We are less safe today and will remain so until Congress clears up the legal uncertainty for companies that assist in collecting intelligence for the government, and until it gives explicit permission to our intelligence agencies to intercept, without a warrant, foreign communications that pass through the U.S. Here’s why:

• Intercepting terrorist communications requires the cooperation of our telecommunications companies. They’re already being sued for having cooperated with the government after 9/11. So without explicit protection for future actions (and civil liability protection for the help they provided in the past), those companies critical to collecting actionable intelligence could be sidelined in the fight.
• It has already happened, briefly. “[W]e have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress’ failure to act,” Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and Attorney General Michael Mukasey wrote in a letter dated Feb. 22 to Mr. Reyes, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

It's important to ask if there are other reasons why Ms. Pelosi wouldn't let the Senate bill come to a vote. The answer is a resounding yes. To have this bill pass over her objections would make her look weak, unable to control her own caucus. She can't offord to look weak or ineffective heading into the white-hot spotlight of the election season.

If Ms. Pelosi can't control her minions on this vote, they might well rebel on other votes, too. At some point, she'll have to give in. The telecommunications companies won't cooperate without immunity. When the first commercials get shot of Mike McConnell testifying that his hands are tied because the Protect America Act lapsed, when that commercial shows the Senate passing the PAA renewal with immunity by a 68-29 vote, the average voter won't side with Ms. Pelosi. They'll side with Mike McConnell in a heartbeat.

Rep. Bachmann is right on the money in pointing out how the Democratic leadership has failed in its primary responsibility. They should be ashamed of themselves.