If you are unable to view html within your email program please use the following link to view Chuck Muth's latest News and Views: http://chuckmuth.com/newsandviews/nv.cfm To unsubscribe please visit: http://www.chuckmuth.com/remove X-ListMember: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AND THE NUMBER 1 ANSWER IS… Peter Roff at UPI reports that, “A group of presidential scholars surveyed by Loyola Marymount University said national security and terrorism will be the top 2004 campaign issue.” I tend to agree. So let’s assume that national security and terrorism are THE issues folks will be making their decision on in November. You have President Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld on one hand...and John Kerry, Michael Moore and Linda Ronstadt on the other. Hmmmm. Can you say, “blowout,” boys and girls? REPUBLICANS & THE BLACK VOTE At a speech to the Urban League on Friday, President Bush continued his outreach to the African-American community and made a compelling argument for why blacks should stop mindlessly voting for Democrats. “Does the Democratic Party take African-American voters for granted?” he asked the audience. “Have the traditional solutions of the Democratic Party truly served the African-American community? Have class warfare or higher taxes ever created decent jobs in the inner city? . . . I'm here to say there is an alternative this year. . . . I'm here to ask for your vote.” Do you think he’ll get even a double-digit portion it? Peer into your crystal balls and answer this week’s “Survey Says!” question: Do you think President Bush will get more than 10 percent of the black vote this November? * Yes * No Cast your vote by clicking the “Survey Says!” tab at www.citizenoutreach.com YOUR GOVERNMENT (IN)ACTION “I have been paying attention to the statements made by various members of the (September 11) commission, and one by John Lehman really stands out. Lehman talks about profiling. More specifically...TSA screeners actually crossing the bounds of political correctness and paying special attention to Middle Eastern men who travel by air. Lehman says that under current rules and regulations any airline that pulls aside more than two Middle Eastern-looking passengers for some extra screening at one time faces fines for discrimination… “Questions: How in the world can the American people take their government's anti-terrorism efforts seriously when the people who are charged with protecting us have to abide by asinine rules such as this? Last Saturday I watched TSA agents at the Denver airport manhandle an old man with a cane as they groped, wanded, shoved, pushed, pulled and harassed him for almost ten minutes...allowing him to fall at least three times. Now you tell me that these same agents can't pull more than two Middle Eastern men aside at any one time for fear of legal action? Government. Only government.” - Talk show host Neal Boortz THE ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY “(T)o ignore the fact that our enemies in this war are Islamist terrorists, and not elderly grandmothers or six-year-old boys, is a violation of government's ultimate responsibility to protect the basic right to life of innocent Americans.” - Washington Times editorial, 7/23/04 IN DEFENSE OF PROFILING “The report is full of plans and schemes to reorganize the bureaucracy, and such is necessary, but first we have to persuade everyone that getting serious is necessary. If that means paying special attention to the men most likely to kill us, we have to do that, political correctness be damned. If blue-eyed Southern Baptists and blue-haired Lutheran grannies from Minnesota crash airliners into office buildings, we must profile blue-eyed Southern Baptists and blue-haired Lutherans and be wary of them aboard airliners.” - Wes Pruden, “Pruden On Politics,” 7/23/04 KILLING THE CLINTON GUN BAN “Do not expect the assault weapons ban to be extended when the current 10-year prohibition expires in September. While the White House has indicated that it supports an extension, it has not put any pressure on House GOP leaders, who do not want to renew the ban.” - The Hill “Tipsheet,” 7/23/04 GEE, THANKS REPUBLICANS “After a decade of Republican rule, there has been an almost 50 percent increase in pages of federal tax rules. Tax forms and instructions are longer, individuals (are) spending more on tax advice, and there are more social engineering provisions in the code.” - Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute CATCH & RELEASE “Let me state the obvious for the 9,999th time: America is still not serious about enforcing its immigration laws. The latest addition to my homeland insecurity files comes from New Ipswich, N.H. “Last week, the local police there stopped a speeding van. The driver was on the road with a suspended license. Upon inspecting the vehicle, the cops found 10 people stuffed inside. . . . After a Spanish-speaking translator was brought in from a nearby town, the New Ipswich cops learned the 10 individuals in question had paid a smuggler up to $10,000 each to get into the United States. “...The vigilant cops of the New Ipswich Police Department, who are constantly urged by the bureaucrats in Washington to be on heightened alert, immediately contacted federal immigration authorities. The response they received from the U.S. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement was: So what? “According to New Ipswich Police Chief Garrett Chamberlain, the feds told his department they didn't have the resources to take the admitted illegal aliens into custody. Besides, since they were ‘only’ garden-variety illegal aliens and not ‘previously deported’ aliens or violent criminals, there was no reason to hold them. “ ‘You gotta be kidding me,’ Chief Chamberlain told me in an interview this week. . . . . Chief Chamberlain is furious and decided to go public with the incident, despite a politically correct code of silence among police chiefs about open-borders chaos. ‘We're asked by our government every day to increase our awareness and try to apprehend’ lawbreakers, Chief Chamberlain mused, ‘and then they tell me to kick 'em loose? It's frustrating.’ “ - Columnist Michelle Malkin POWER STRUGGLE “In a showdown on the role of Congress and the courts in defining marriage, the House voted yesterday to strip federal judges of the ability to rule on such cases, leaving the matter up to the states. The Marriage Protection Act would prohibit the Supreme Court and other federal courts from deciding challenges to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which says no state could be forced to accept a same-sex ‘marriage’ entered into in another state. “...Though the definition of marriage was the basis for yesterday's fight, in the end it was more a battle over constitutional power and the fundamental division of government. ‘Thomas Jefferson wrote that leaving federal courts as the ultimate arbiter of all constitutional questions is, 'a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy,' ’ (House Judiciary Committee Chairman James) Sensenbrenner said. ‘This legislation heeds Jefferson's wise words.’ “Opponents instead pointed to the 1803 Supreme Court decision Marbury v. Madison, in which the court established itself as the arbiter of constitutionality. “...But John Hostettler, Indiana Republican and the bill's sponsor, said Article III of the Constitution...gives Congress the power...to curb the Supreme Court's jurisdiction in all but a few cases. ‘Anyone that actually reads the Constitution and has a basic understanding of grammar and the English language in general can find the fact that the Constitution grants the Congress the authority,’ he said.” - Washington Times, 7/23/04 DEFINE “FUNDAMENTAL” “Fundamental rights should not be subject to geographical boundaries or the passions of ever-changing political majorities," the Anti-Defamation League told UPI in calling on the U.S. Senate to reject the House’s “court-stripping” legislation dealing with the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). That’s a legitimate point. After all, Americans don’t lose their right to free speech just because they cross from Texas into Oklahoma. But then the question comes down to this: Is marriage a “fundamental right”? What do you think? Weigh in on our Discussion Board at: http://blog.chuckmuth.com/blog/ THREE MORE FILIBUSTERS...YAWN Senate Democrats added three new judicial nominees to their filibuster list this week. And in a prepared statement, President Bush said, “These filibuster tactics are shameful and inconsistent with the Senate’s constitutional obligation. . . . Prior to this Congress, the filibuster had never been used to block the confirmation of a judicial nominee. But in recent months, the use of this obstructionist tactic by some Democrats has become commonplace. With today's action, ten appeals court nominees have now been filibustered.” Shameful? Yup. Unconstitutional. Yup. Obstructionist? Yup. Unfair to the nominees? Yup. So what’s the president doing about it? “I again urge the Senate -- Republicans and Democrats alike -- to put an end to the partisan politics…” “Urge,” huh? Yeah, that’ll really strike fear into the hearts of in Ted Kennedy and Pat Leahy. I’m sure now that the president has “urged again” that this shameful, unconstitutional and unfair obstruction come to an end that the Democrats will finally back down. Good grief. You sit in the most powerful office on the face of the planet and the best you can do after TWO YEARS against something you consider so shameful is “urge again”? Maybe, just maybe, it’s time to crack a few skulls? And what the heck is the president doing lumping his fellow Republicans in with the Democrats over this issue? Granted, GOP leaders may be acting like “girlie men” by not playing hardball and overriding the filibusters using the “nuclear option,” but they aren’t responsible for the obstruction. Not one Republican is part of these filibusters. This “friendly fire” shot by the president was wholly inappropriate. How about re-arming, re-aiming...and actually pulling the trigger, Mr. President? SHAKY CASE FOR RE-ELECTION “How much credibility does President Bush now have on small-government conservative reform? He has done virtually nothing about it in his first term, except cutting taxes while boosting spending. It is fair to ask what the president now proposes (for a second term). But it is also fair to judge him not by what he says he'll do, but by what he has done. And it's not a pretty picture. . . . And the president wonders why some conservatives are luke-warm about his re-election.” - Columnist Andrew Sullivan FAMOUS LAST WORDS “Government is not the solution, it’s the problem.” - Ronald Reagan * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Chuck Muth’s News & Views is published by Citizen Outreach, a non-partisan, 501(c)3 non-profit corporation. The opinions and views expressed in Chuck Muth's News & Views reflect those of the writers, editors and columnists therein and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Citizen Outreach, its officers, directors or employees. Published by: Citizen Outreach Chuck Muth Editor/Publisher 611 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE, #439 Washington, DC 20003-4303 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE, just go to: http://www.chuckmuth.com/newsletter/ To be REMOVED, go to: http://www.chuckmuth.com/remove/default.cfm Or send your request to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To make a secure online contribution to Citizen Outreach, go to the “Donate” page at www.citizenoutreach.com.
