The goal of racial equality was advanced with yesterday's Supreme Court's decision  to end the use of "voluntary schemes" to create racial balance in our schools.  Responses to that decision have been largely predictable with the liberals maintaining that it reverses decades of civil rights progress and conservatives arguing it brings us closer to the day when people are judged "not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character," as expressed by Rev. Martin Luther King in his "I have a dream" speech.

One pleasantly surprising repsonse was from Juan Williams, a senior correspondent for National Public Radio and political analyst for Fox News, who, in an op-ed in today's New York Times celebrated the court's decision as a seminal moment in our efforts to provide an exceptional educational experience for all children.  It's unfortunately obligatory that we note that Mr. Williams is black; we look forward to the day that the merits of an argument aren't predicated on race, but we're clearly not yet there.

In a particularly illuminating epiphany, Mr. Williams describes a conversation with Justice Thurgood Marshall, who was the lead NAACP attorney in Brown v. Board of Education, the case that judicial activists champion and constructionists deride.  Justice Marshall told Williams that "seating black children next to white children in school had never been the point" of Brown.  Rather, Marshall reasoned that if black children attended schools with white children those schools would receive better funding and therefore black children would have access to improved educational services.

However, historical insights aside, there is something uniquely inspiring about Mr. Williams' editorial because it shows there is hope that all Americans can move beyond characterizing and cataloging people according to race.  Indeed, how many times have you heard friends and relatives, none of whom is racist, describe a situation that uses race as a descriptor when it has no bearing on the story.  It's usually along the lines of, "...this colleague, a black dude, told me about how he caught the largest Rainbow Trout of his life."  They don't intend to convey anything by the racial innuendo, but they're simply conditioned--thanks to liberalism, which has insisted that we race is dispositive of character or values--to include it.

Mr. Williams is also the author of a book titled "Enough," that should be on all Americans' summer reading lists.  He argues that the problems of African-Americans can be traced directly to themselves, from charging black children who aspire to academic excellence with trying to be "white," to blaming whites for the disporportionate incarcertation rates for blacks.

Although there are few policy issues where we would find ourselves in agreement with him, Williams has our unconditional endorsement in his efforts to move us beyond skin color, to a place where we truly see one another first and foremost as human beings.

The instinct to regulate is a mixed motivation to bring a measure of control to human activities that are prone to craven self-interest based on the misinformed belief that the free market of ideas is susceptible to, if not tantamount to, political anarchy.  That formula is perfectly reflected in the unconstitutional abridgment of free speech known as McCain-Feingold, the law that inhibits and prohibits certain kinds of political speech.  An editorial by George Will in The Washington Post clarifies the fundamentals of a recent challenge to that law as well as the compelling reasons to celebrate this incremental victory for freedom of speech.

Mr. Will provides the appropriate sub-text to politicians' justification for supporting these laws when he writes that "McCain-Feingold's actual purpose is to protect politicians from speech that annoys them."  Indeed, it's a cynical motivation that seeks to handicap political contests by preventing what politicians consider an exploitation of the system, which, of course, is merely the confluence of various individuals expressing themselves through proxies they financially support.

Why do they find that so hostile to their understanding the public good?  Underlying these efforts is a distortion of an otherwise reasonable principle of political equality or, in the civic world, egalitarianism.  We're all for the equitable application of rules in political contests but campaigns are all about distinguishing the ideas that candidates support and therein lies the rub:  Not all ideas are equal, which is to say, the candidates who support them will never enjoy an equality of response from the electorate, which translates into disparate support--financially as well as electorally.

Since money is the mechanism that provides political candidates with the platform for communicating with the public and because the expression of ideas is protected speech, the money that is used to support those ideas ought to enjoy the same protection. 

The most appropriate constitutional balance is to allow people to make political contributions but mandate absolute transparency in the process of timely reporting.  Those who view these uninhibited freedoms with trepidation should use the erstwhile Soviet Union as an example of the logical extension of circumscribed speech.  The conclusion we should reach is that even a modest step towards control of speech such as McCain-Feingold is not just an encroachment on our freedoms but an incremental movement towards the complete control of those freedoms by the State.

Although history is a rich mosaic of lessons, it requires a refined sense of judgment and proportion to render them applicable to our contemporary world.  David Talbot's article about John F. Kennedy in Time purports to provide us with a geopolitical road map to guide us through our treacherous landscape where danger lurks at every turn.  While it attempts to glean from JFK's approach to dealing with Cuba, the Soviet Union, and other threats a recipe for handling the likes of al-Qaeda, there are so many mismatching parts that it's simply not convincing.

As a piece that outlines the detailed history of Kennedy's legacy, his eloquent speeches, and occasionally deft handling of complex foreign policy, it's a rewarding exercise, but Talbot's argument that JFK's political raison d'etre was to maintain the peace doesn't provide the strategic resonance to compel us to adopt it.

Talbot argues that Kennedy's personal experience in war as well as his stunning mishandling of the Bay of Pigs resulted in a deep disillusionment concerning the efficacy of military intervention.  Combined with Kennedy's insistence that America must speak with its enemies--e.g., the Iraq Study Group's recommendations--the picture that emerges is one that we know would be attractive to at least one side of the political aisle, and it isn't the Republicans.

By the time Kennedy ascended the political stage the Cold War was becoming a grave concern with saber rattling and thinly veiled threats from the Soviet Union which boiled over into the Cuban Missile Crisis.  Although the threat was real it was measurable and identifiable which allowed Kennedy to craft a political and potentially military response.  Keeping the lines of communication open with the Kremlin was, indeed, crucial, but it was predicated on the astute assumption that the Russian threat was truly a mix of reality and bluster, and, as such, afforded the U.S. the opportunity to exploit it.

We would be hard-pressed to find Middle East experts who believe the same applies to Iran's Ahmadinejad, who believes he is the 12th Imam and who has sworn the destruction of Israel and calls America "the Great Satan."  Further, Iran is merely one component of a multifaceted threat manifest in the strategically beguiling reality called asymmetrical warfare.  Indeed, we're dealing with an omnipresent, shadowy threat entirely unconnected with any single state, all of which share only one goal--our destruction. 

That leads us to the question of whether speaking with our enemies, a la JFK, would be productive?  As a method of sounding out their determination to achieve a nuclear weapon, talks or negotiations might play an interim role with Iran, but only with the ultimate aim of preventing them from achieving their goal.  Talks for the sake of talking, which is the most prominent feature of the Democrats and the EU's plan, only provides Iran the time it needs to complete its mission.  It's also a fools errand because the Dems actually believe that talks without the threat of military action are effective.

JFK would be the first to recognize that the threat of Islamic extremism is a clear and present danger, that mitigating that threat can only be achieved by clarifying what the U.S. is willing to do to prevail and then following through.  The Islamic radicals have correctly calculated that America and the West do not have the political will for a protracted battle and they're actively exploiting that vulnerability.

Although peace is a desireable goal, it does not exist in a vacuum.  In fact, virtually every period of peace in history was purchased and secured by war followed by documents of surrender and enforceable agreements.  However, peace is never possible when a determined foe has pledged to destroy you, and that's why JFK's approach would be doomed to failure today.

Although the genesis of political will may be the result of the perceived balance between opportunity and antagonism, it must pass through a final filter before it's expressed, and that is the influence of culture and values.  Writing in The Washington Times, Newt Gingrich chronicles the disparity between the barbarity of our modern world and the apparent dearth of political will to combat it.

He begins by quoting a poll that concludes that 85 percent of Americans believe its important to defend our nation and its allies and 75 percent believe it's important to defeat America's enemies.  From there he provides a litany of challenges and lessons relative to Norman Podhoretz's characterization of our battle against the radical Islamists--i.e., World War Four--and concludes that they all "point to the need for a war policy that is substantially bigger and more robust than President Bush."

Although we generally honor President Reagan's 11th Commandment, which is to not criticize a fellow Republican, there is mounting evidence that the universal diffidence that has successfully infected Europe has metastasized to the United States.  Indeed, the political will that was so much in evidence in Mr. Bush after 9/11 has abated, the apparent prey of chronic criticism from what is over-generously referred to as 'the civilized world.'

However, it's also arguably the case that Mr. Bush is merely responding to an electorate stricken by arm chair fatigue over the challenges of winning the war against the Islamic extremists, which, to the degree it's true, is hardly flattering.  Combined with a pandemic moral confusion concerning who precisely this enemy is--and who it isn't--it's truly no surprise that the 'civilized world' is funding Palestinian groups responsible for terrorist activities.

Further, other than Senator Joseph Lieberman, no one seems willing to declare that if we have evidence that Iran is providing munitions used to kill American soldiers it will result in a military strike.  We seem to have succumbed to the fear  that if we attack our enemies it will incite them, which is a patently defeatist strategy.  The same anemic approach seems to be in play in many of our negotiations which begin by asking the enemy how many concessions they're willing to accept.

No nation ever won a war by predicating its strategy on a degree of capitulation.  This, of course, is like no war America has ever fought and it could not have happened a worse moment in its history, one where principles and the resolve that emanates from them are endangered, creating a dangerous leadership vacuum.

Our choices are few and our prospects aren't terribly encouraging, but one thing is certain:  If the Democrats win the White House in 2008 we can be assured that America will become just another political proxy of the EU, a docile and subservient lapdog, obliged to ask permission before defending its sovereignty.

Democrats, of course, would deny that, but judging by their performance in Vietnam, not to mention the 1990s, during which the Clinton Administration gutted the military and effectively ignored the nascent terrorist threat, their counterarguments are less than convincing.

Constructive criticism and evidence-based counter-arguments are the foundation of any substantive dialog.  However, when people resort to ad hominen attacks without the benefit of solid argumentation it becomes both a waste of our time and counter-productive.

"Zen," whose occasionally insightful comments were welcome, has become sardonic and personal in his responses, and therefore has earned himself a one-way trip to a black hole in cyberspace.  The following comment, which may be acceptable on other blogs, will not be tolerated here; it was in response to our post titled "Therapy for Jihadists?":

Wow - you so fear the return of the Nazis that you are willing to become one to prevent it.

Besides the despicable accusation, there is nothing in that post that indicates a fear of the "return of the Nazis," but many people today believe counter-arguments can be credible without the support of facts or thoughtful persuasion.

Again, we welcome vigorously argued viewpoints that are grounded in reason and focus on ideas not the opponents.  But since Zen has become prone to personal broadsides, he'll join the others who have been banned, people who are apparently more interested in character decimation than dialog.

Subsequent comments from him will be referred, unread, to Spam.

Writing in Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria insists that we must not use the same generic characterizations for the many disparate terrorist groups, from Chechen separatists in Russia to Sunni jihadists in Egypt.  By doing so we can not only better understand them but find ways to suppress the allure of radical Islam to the young men who might be seduced by its siren song.  Indeed, in his view our goal should be to encourage the Muslim people to see themselves as "masters of the modern world and not as victims."

According to Mr. Zakaria, the causes of jihad "relate to the alienation, humiliation and disempowerment cause by the pace of change in the modern world...".  His analysis reflects an endorsement of the geopolitical psychologist for whom individual  'empowerment' is more critical than prevailing against an inimical foe.  Does anyone recall such social-psychological introspection about the Nazis, with the goal of bringing them into the fold of the modern, egalitarian world?

Why, when America and the West have been the target of dozens of attacks over the last three decades, with thousands of innocents killed, not to mention our military losses, is it incumbent upon us to understand the peculiar inner-workings of the radical Muslim mind?

It's certainly smart to study one's enemy, to, as Zakaria notes, understand the "root causes of jihad," but only with the goal of achieving his annihilation as rapidly as possible, not out of a civic largess to help his collective self-esteem so he feels less like a victim. 

For those who have studied Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington, two of our seminal Middle East scholars, you know that there are plausible reasons for the advent of the radical Islamist movement.  It begins with a culture mired in an ancient form of government--theocracy--which all successful nations have long ago jettisoned for some form of self-determination.  Ruled by despots who control every aspect of its citizens' lives it's no wonder there is widespread misery, frustration, and a uniform sense of fatalism.

But, does that justify murdering Westerners whose democratic systems of governance provides unprecedented individual and economic freedoms?  And, why should we provide the barbaric elements within the Muslim world with the kind of civic and economic assistance that we would for struggling nations in Africa, especially when so many of their nations' leaders have expressed no interest in reforming to bring their Neolithic form of government into the 21st century?

For those who have, such as those in Indonesia, we should certainly offer encouragements, but only in the context of making it unambiguously clear that we intend to eradicate the Muslim extremists like the pestilence they are.

There seems to be a theme emerging from the amorphous advocates of stealth appeasement and that is their predisposition to downplay the threat of Islamic radicalism by insisting it will never materialize into something on a magnitude of the Nazi juggernaut. From that premise their argument that the comparison of the threat of Islamic extremism to the early moments of World War Two is a case of mistaken identity has the ring of plausibility.

A well written if misguided example comes to us from Ian Buruma who argues that invoking Hitler and the Third Reich as a way to demonstrate the lethality of radical Islamism may be "a highly effective way to denounce people with whose views one disagrees, [but that such comparisons] are usually false" [emphasis added]. 

That italicized phrase betrays the Achilles heel of an argument predicated on a "disagreement," which is to say they are reticent to ever use the word evil when describing the radical Islamists.

You see, a disagreement is akin to the civilized 'soft power' approach to dealing with belligerents which presupposes that you and your opponent are arguing about relative value of America's space program, not about a religion that has been deftly retooled into a vicious weapon and is manifest in cells in over 60 nations worldwide.  In this context, going to war in the conventional sense is foolhardy and a waste of our blood and treasure, and that is how they render plausible their argument that this isn't another Nazi onslaught that we must confront.

It's the sign of either intellectual smugness or a transparently political motivation when people are unable to cull from history the timeless motivations of evildoers and translate them into a contemporary geopolitical milieu.  Indeed, because al-Qaeda doesn't have a Panzer division, a Luftwaffe, or legions of uniformed soldiers, the likes of Mr. Buruma coyly dismisses them as well as those who believe otherwise and labels them neocons bent upon fomenting global war against a low level threat.

No one is arguing that al-Qaeda will roll into America and begin a successful campaign of capturing a succession of states.  Rather, if you read Mark Steyn's "America Alone," you understand how they have already begun to insidiously work their way into culturally weak nations such as France, where, thanks to political correctness they enjoy rights disproportionate to any other immigrants, and where they are adroitly seeding the civic landscape with a noxious theocratic philosophy that is growing exponentially each year.

Given the unsustainable birth rates in Europe, the EU is on a glide path to be host to a major Islamic population with a powerful strain of extremism that will leverage rights and laws in their favor and incrementally extinguish the indigenous culture.  What this process does share with the mid- to late 1930s is twofold:  First, it features an identifiable group that has declared its intent to achieve global supremacy, and, second, it is burdened by a culture of appeasement based on an obdurate denial of evil.

Those who are unable to make that connection will one day be chronicled by historians and although they lived decades apart from the Chamberlains of the 30s, they will fit quite neatly in the paradigm responsible for abetting that war and the one we're currently waging.

As we've noted, when Democrats tell us they're going to listen to the voice of the people we best check our wallets.  As recently reported in the Denver Post, receipts from Referendum C, which Colorado voters narrowly approved in 2005, and which allowed the state to retain tax revenues above a certain percent, will likely increase by $2.2 billion, due to favorable economic conditions.

We can see the Dems in Denver salivating over that extra money as they loosen their belts in anticipation of the fiscal feeding frenzy.  But what we find troubling is the cavalier way in which they discuss it, without any recognition that all of the money, but in particular, the excess revenue, is due to our low-tax structure.  For the left it's like an unlimited buffet where the bill never comes, but for those taking the entrepreneurial risks and creating the income, it's quite another matter.

So we're made to suffer Jim Carpenter, Democratic Governor Bill Ritter's chief of staff, who disavowed the moniker tax raiser for Mr. Ritter, preferring the left's euphemism, that he's merely "keeping faith with the voters."  Once again we have another example of Democrats who exploit easy sound bites that they pray resonate with citizens.  But which voters is he talking about as he utters those whistling-past-the-graveyard assertions?

Indeed, when the likes of Mr. Carpenter says Ritter and the Dems are going to "solve problems" it's merely code for an expanded footprint for government that will cost tax payers more of their hard-earned cash.  But that's what Democrats do:  Since their largess with other people's money is limitless, no problem is too great for them to tackle, from health care to education, and regardless of the magnitude of the problem, their recommendations have a Pavlovean predictability--raise taxes.

We can also sit in stunned silence when we hear Mike Mauer, an economist for the allegedly nonpartisan Legislative Council, tell us that the unemployment rate in Colorado for college-educated workers is 1.9 percent, and that's a problem.  Why?  Because employers will have to "recruit out-of-state workers to keep the economy growing."

Why is it that these academic types, who excell at spinning intellectually abstruse scenarios but who probably never met a payroll themselves, are hair-trigger Cassandras, always ready to proclaim doom.  Their tacit job description is to set the economic stage for tax increases to, as the left says, "invest" in our economy.

What they and their legislative minions never seem to remember is that less is more:  Just keep taxes and regulations low and people who actually run businesses and take risks will do the rest.

In the meantime, how about returning the $2.2 billion in taxes above the original amount we were told you'd haul in?  But then your Falstaffean buffet would be cut to tofu and rice--or, what we might call, just deserts.

Continuing the theme in yesterday's post concerning optimism and pessimism, we turn to Bernard L. Schwartz, whose piece in The Politico argues that Democrats ought to reclaim their historical mantle of economic optimism.  Although he crafts an argument that has the feel of credibility it ultimately doesn't mesh well with the contemporary Democratic Party's platform.

The challenge for Democrats is not just to disabuse mainstream Americans of their reflex for "tax and spend" policies, but rather to convince us that their newly minted euphemism for it--"investment"--has any more credibility or is truly not a back door approach to "taxing the rich."

Delving deeper into the contemporary Democratic psyche we would inevitably bump up against their insistence that income inequality is the result of our capitalist system which they view as inherently "unfair."  Their political stock would rise if they candidly agreed that differences in income are more nearly the product of innate talent and hard work, and that those are variables largely beyond the rightful scope of government.

None of this is tied to the obvious virtues of optimism, which, in military parlance, is a force multiplier.  Instead, it forces us to define the parameters of government intervention and to recognize the corrosive impact on individual freedom and motivation that intrusive government policies have. 

Further, the left's reflexive recourse to government solutions reflects a disdain of the individual's capacity to make reasonably informed decisions on his own behalf which, as the failed Great Society demonstrates merely blunts motivation.

Finally, if the Democrats want to convince us of their sincerity for an economic course correction, they will also work towards a race neutral--or, as Ronald Reagan called it, colorblind--society, one in which the color of one's skin is not dispositive of one's values, character or potential.

They can achieve all of this, but it will take a fundamental realignment of some of their most hallowed myths concerning human nature and the role of government.  But it would also be strong evidence of a nascent respect for the principles and values on which our Republic was founded--and that would be a welcome change.

You may recall the story about the two men with pickets, one says "The world will end tomorrow," the other says, "The world will never end," and the line below is, "One's an optimist the other's a pessimist, but we don't know which is which.

Mark Davis of the Dallas Morning News believes there is ample evidence for pessimism and, in certain respects his case is compelling.  With respect to the war in Iraq and General Patreaus' ill-named "surge," Mr. Davis is convinced the critics are correct--that it simply won't work.  His argument doesn't echo the Democrats' choreographed whining that we invaded for the wrong reasons and the cynical charges about WMD.  In contrast, he believes--correctly--that we haven't been sufficiently aggressive, that we've let world politics and the naysayers at home dictate the terms of engagement.

There are profound lessons about the nature of evil that our generation has either poorly learned or, more likely, never learned.  It's also true that in any age there are cultural influences that can diminish, perhaps dismiss, those lessons, whose principles are best measured in the loss of lives.

It's clear that ours is an age that is instinctively disinclined to champion those quintessentially American values that rallied the masses to support our nation during its darkest hours.  In large measure that's because a significant portion of us have been convinced that our historical reputation as a force for good in the world can no longer be taken for granted.

In part, we can thank our public school system, which is a platform for liberalism and one that holds America to an unrealistic standard while wallowing in a despicable kind of national self-loathing.

We can achieve stability in Iraq if we can muster the courage at home to understand what's at stake, and an integral part of that in understanding that our honor and principles are on the line.  We needn't be pessimistic nor should we view the world in the rosy hues of unfiltered optimism.

Whether it's Iraq or immigration, the solution is to stare down the enemy, on the battle field or at home--and as many times as not, it's the latter, not the former.

We seldom hear of the real-life stories of lawful immigrants who desperately wish to become American citizens, who are hard-working members of society, but for whom the legal path has been treacherous.  We know of one such individual and he provided us with a description of his plight, which follows:

I arrived in the US from Canada in 2001. I entered with a TN Visa sponsored by my employer.

Over the last 6 years I have tried to become a US Citizen, but to no avail.  I have been turned down for Landed immigrant, Green card and any other method that would allow me to become an American.

I have no criminal past, my wife and daughter have no work options and we have survived as a single income family for the last 6 years.  My question is, how do I become a US citizen?  I do not wish to be a duel national or a resident alien; I wish to be an American.  The American flag is the only flag in front of my house, no others.

My motivation is not governed by financial gain, I am not being persecuted in my country of origin nor am I asking this great nation to provide for me, but what can I provide to this nation.  My motivation is born of admiration and loyalty.

All avenues have been a dead end, I am not seeking financial gain or hiding from a criminal past, no one in our household is working under the table or avoiding tax.  We wish to be Americans.

The current immigration proposals are catering to illegal status, but there is nothing whatsoever to facilitate my desire to become an American.  I wish to pledge allegiance to the flag, renounce my other citizenship and commit 100% support to this great nation.  I will be a contributor not a burden.

For me there is no one marching or protesting, there are no parades.  I cannot demand special treatment, and the current bills being put forth are not addressing those who take the hard road of honesty and honor.  The current provisions are only for illegal entry and exploitation of country.

If I were permitted to become a citizen, then with hand over heart I will put my name forth and publicly pledge my allegiance.

E. Pluribus Unum

This individual happens to be a neighbor of the editor's, but his story is far from unique.  As we can attest, he is a hard-working, tax-paying individual, who is a loyal patriot and only wishes to make his pledge formal by becoming a citizen--yet the system has effectively precluded him from doing so.

That paradox is only compounded by the fact that millions of illegals are here exploiting the system, a drain on our health care and educational systems, and many of whom have no desire to become American citizens.  Rather, they are merely economic mercenaries, collecting a pay check and sending the money home, with no interest in assimilating by pledging their allegiance to our nation.

But, listening to Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, we're racist if we oppose the current bill, which is just a back door method that my neighbor has no access to--why?--because he's taken the legal approach, and is still unable to become a citizen.

This is the supreme irony and it's one every American should tell their Congressional representatives about, while demanding a change in the system to one that streamlines the process for those want to become citizens the honest way, not catering to the lobbies that wittingly support illegal behavior.

Although the Republican field of presidential contenders is peopled with political heavyweights, there does seem to be a paucity of traditional conservatives, in the Reagan mold.  Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, correctly sees political outsider and telegenic conservative Fred Thompson as the candidate with real star power.  The others can't make that claim.

Close observers of his career know that Senator McCain, a man with an admirable war record and many years of service in the senate, is not a prototypical conservative.  We jump to former mayor Rudy Guiliani, whose steely resolve on 9/11 and administrative record as mayor of New York City are laudible, has irreconcilable differences with most conservative voters.  Former governor Mitt Romney is an articulate, bright man, but whose conservative credentials, to put it kindly, haven't been test-driven.

In light of this field of strong but marred candidates, Mr. Thompson has an allure that is hard to deny.  He has a presence that telegraphs strength and confidence as well as political balance, by which we mean an implicit understanding of competing agendas and the ability to draw the best from each side of the aisle.

Indeed, from what we've seen, he's a true conservative and his personality recalls the understated confidence we found in Ronald Reagan, whose quiet but unflappable ability to wend his way through political mine fields made his allies smile and drove his enemies to distraction.  That sense of political bearing is evident when Thompson addresses complex issues that demand both a detailed working knowledge and the capacity for eloquently and cogently convincing viewers that his approach is superior.

If you've heard him speak you know that it's less a matter of disparaging his opponents than it is of articulating his position in forceful but thoughtful ways.  He doesn't lecture or speak down to us, he simply works his way through the argument in ways that allow him to fade into the background--because it's the ideas that are animated and resonate in your mind. 

That's what Reagan did, as did Jack Kennedy and others befor him.  If you read their remarks on paper they have surprising clarity of purpose and they persuade with the ease of someone comfortable in his skin, and so we are subtly drawn into listening because it's both informative and enjoyable.  In short, we like him, we feel we know him, and, critically, we trust him, because what he's saying is not calculated, it lacks the annoying nuance of politicians who want to appeal to all, and, it's consistent.

All of which is both refreshing and reassuring, and in our day and age, that's as rare as it is worthy of our attention--and support.

Since we continue to hear the echoes of our failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as well as the left's assertion that Saddam Hussein had only questionable ties to al-Qaeda, it's instructive to hear the facts from someone all liberals trust, Al Gore:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64

In this video clip from 1992 we see Mr. Gore delivering a speech which provides a rigorously detailed analysis of Saddam's regime, its history of terrorism, murder, genocide, as well as his ambitions for a nuclear weapon.

None of that changed in the two subsequent decades and his flouting of the United Nations' Resolutions merely provided more justification for decapitating his regime.  Further, with Iran's aggressive designs to acquire a nuclear weapon, it's clear that were Saddam still in power he would be working just as hard to match his arch enemy's every step.

It's only through the eyes of the modern liberal, for whom military intervention is anathema, that the elimination of Saddam and the seeding of a rudimentary form of self-determination for Iraq's 25 million people is wholly without merit.

Freedom is a universal goal, one that we should spread worldwide, and certainly not something we should arrogantly assume people in the Middle East are in capable of achieving.  The same, of course, was said with equal conviction--and ignorance--of the Japanese and Germans, and those are now bastions of freedom.

Yes, for purely political reasons, some among us are disinclined to admit that the virtues of freedom ought to be enjoyed by all people, otherwise they would not be so adamant about withdrawing from Iraq, whose citizens would be subjected to the barbarity of Iran and al-Qaeda.

The degree to which our values are aligned with our behavior is one of the touchstones of integrity and a hallmark of political candor.  Examining the field of Democratic presidential nominees we have John Edwards, who has reaped millions as a trial lawyer, spends $400 to have his hair cut, and, while preaching the virtues of leaving a small carbon footprint, travels on a private jet, and lives in a sprawling mansion that consumes many times the energy of a normal house.

In February, Senator Barack Obama said he would run a positive campaign without the divisive personal attacks, also called "oppositional research," that informed previous elections.  Yet just this week his campaign surreptitiously released just such dirt on his competitors, because the allure was just too much to resist.  Honesty, we know, has its limits.

We turn next to Senator Hillary Clinton, the candidate with more baggage than a legion of porters at the Sherry-Netherland could carry.  Recall her pledge that were she elected president her first action would be to raise corporate income taxes, as well as her stern vilification of drug companies, defense contractors, and the oil industry.

In a moment of irony worthy of Shakespeare, this week she divested large amounts of stock from all three of those industries.  And, as anyone with Economics 101 under his belt will tell you corporations don't pay income taxes--we do, and when you increase those taxes they're passed on, dollar-for-dollar, to consumers.  Therefore, her attempt to sound virtuous by hobbling corporations is nothing more than a stealth income tax.

You see, for the liberals, behavior needn't match values because, in the imperial vein of English kings an queens, they are inherently superior and we should feel privileged to serve in their fiefdom.

In a final fit of dramatic cynicism, the organization that bears Mother Theresa's name and continues her legacy has demanded that the New York senator cease using a picture of her with the sainted Catholic in her campaign.  We apparently have to remind Mrs. Clinton that the Catholic Church teaches that abortion is a grave moral sin, one wholly antithetical to the will of God. 

For her and her liberal soul-mates it's just a "choice," which is a convenient denial of the grim reality of nearly 50 million innocents whose lives were snuffed in the womb.

The presidential season hasn't yet fully bloomed so we can be assured of many months of high political theater as they Democratic field repeats the ritual of making lofty pronouncements only to belie their sincerity with behavior that contradicts them.

Here in Colorado Springs, El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa is considering restricting the kind of mail county inmates can receive.  As described in an article in the Gazette, the sheriff seems to be emulating Maricopa County (Arizona) Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who has received national renown--and notoriety--for the tough measures he has instituted for prisoners.

Apart from the Constitutional issues, which the ACLU will descend upon, carrion-like, this raises an interesting question concerning the rights that inmates should be afforded.  It is also instructive to see how inmate treatment has evolved in the past few decades, from the gray-steel structures with cold cells to some of the federal prisons whose iron bars are conspicuous by their absence, and where inmates enjoy cable television, access to an exercise room, a library and other amenities.

No one would suggest that inmates should be mistreated; in fact, they should be afforded a clean, safe, and reasonably healthful environment.  But should they have access to and be provided with what, for some tax paying Americans, are luxuries that are beyond their reach?  And, where does restricting mail service to post-cards--which is what Sheriff Maketa is proposing--fall on this continuum?

One of the problems that has insidiously worked its way into our collective thinking, whether it's the rights of prisoners or those of high school students, is the notion that everyone is entitled to rights, without limits or qualification.  Indeed, at the core of our reticence to restrict rights is our sense that civic egalitarianism should be extended to one and all.

But should every American, in fact, be afforded all rights?  High school students can't vote or serve in the military, they can't own property or make legally binding decisions, so why do many of us feel compelled to impute to them the rights adults enjoy? 

A similar argument applies to inmates, but with an even stronger justification.  These are people who have been convicted of breaking our laws, from white crimes of forgery and embezzlement to assault, murder, and rape.  They have earned their way into a setting where they no longer pose a danger to law-abiding citizens.  Why should we spend one penny more than we must to make them comfortable, perhaps more comfortable than our lowest, law-abiding, income earners?

In short, we shouldn't, and Sheriff Maketa would do well to continue importing Sheriff Arpaio's program of prisoner austerity, because life in the big house--or the big tent, as the case may be--should not be pleasant.  In fact, each day should be a clear and present reminder that they have breached society's laws, and that there is painful price to pay.

The recent theme of coddling prisoners and calling them victims is a despicable inversion of the truth as well as an affront to our sense of justice, which historically informed our criminal justice system.  Treat them humanely, but never let them forget that while they're in prison it's the hard-working, law-abiding citizens who are footing the bill for their illicit behavior.