Ranger from the North

Check out the dissent written by Justice Scalia for McCreary v. ACLU (via RealClearPolitics). Here's one of my favorite paragraphs:

What distinguishes the rule of law from the dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority is the absolutely indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be grounded in consistently applied principle. That is what prevents judges from ruling now this way, now that--thumbs up or thumbs down--as their personal preferences dictate. Today's opinion forthrightly (or actually, somewhat less than forthrightly) admits that it does not rest upon consistently applied principle. In a revealing footnote, ante, at 11, n. 10, the Court acknowledges that the "Establishment Clause doctrine" it purports to be applying "lacks the comfort of categorical absolutes." What the Court means by this lovely euphemism is that sometimes the Court chooses to decide cases on the principle that government cannot favor religion, and sometimes it does not. The footnote goes on to say that "[i]n special instances we have found good reason" to dispense with the principle, but "[n]o such reasons present themselves here." Ibid. It does not identify all of those "special instances," much less identify the "good reason" for their existence.

David Hogberg writes about Senator DeMint's plan to use the Social Security surplus to create personal accounts. Discussion of a similar plan in the House can be found in a Political Diary entry linked to in the previous post.

Diana West discusses the Australians who were convicted of saying things that are politically incorrect.

Matt of Stones Cry Out posts about Iran and includes a link to another excellent column by Michael Ledeen. Matt writes,

There's no ending the terrorism in Iraq, or anywhere else in the world, so long as the Islamo-facist nexus is based out of Tehran.

I completely agree. There can be no victory in the GWoT without ending Iran's sponsorship of terrorism, and that can only be accomplished by ending Iran's current regime.

Best of the Web took the day off on Friday so a free look at Political Diary was offered instead. It has several good entries; check it out. I thought the ones about Social Security were especially interesting. And yes, I am intimidated by the picture of Chief Justice Rehnquist.

...at least when you're in Australia,

Aussie Thoughtcrime Victims (lgf)

or Italy,

Prophet of Decline - An interview with Oriana Fallaci (Tunku Varadarajan, OpinionJournal)

Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world:

All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.

Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.

The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."

- President George W. Bush, 2nd Inaugural Address, January 20, 2005

The President's entire address can be found here.

Abigail recently reminded us that supporting democracy in Iran should be a high priority for the United States and our allies in the GWoT. I believe the gentleman from the American Enterprise Institute she saw interviewed by SuperAnchor Brit Hume was Michael Ledeen. Here is an article by Dr. Ledeen about the recent "election" in Iran. At the end of the article, Dr. Ledeen speculates (based on comments by the DCI) that the Iranian regime may be hosting a special guest.

Meanwhile, the director of central intelligence gently reminded us--or so it appears--that we have profound problems to resolve with the mullahs. Time asked him how we were doing in the hunt for Osama bin Laden. He replied that the matter was rather more complicated than one might imagine. He was quite sure he knew where the master terrorist was located, and I think he told us that bin Laden is in Iran. Judge for yourself:

...we have some weak links...until we strengthen all the links, we're probably not going to be able to bring Mr. bin Laden to justice. We are making very good progress on it. But when you go to the very difficult question of dealing with sanctuaries in sovereign states, you're dealing with a problem of our sense of international obligation, fair play...

Is he not saying that bin Laden is in a sanctuary in a sovereign state? And what state could that be? If bin Laden were in Afghanistan or Pakistan, it wouldn’t seem to be such a vexing problem as Goss suggests. But Iran, now that’s a problem. Indeed the biggest problem in the war against terrorism.

I find it hard to believe that the mullahs would risk a serious confrontation with the U.S. and our allies by harboring bin Laden. True, there already is a confrontation of sorts over the Iranian nuclear weapons program, but it has been a drawn out process and one where the regime's survival is not currently threatened by outside forces. However, if it were revealed that bin Laden was being given safe haven in Iran, the U.S. would have a rock solid case for immediate action, and I have to believe that Europe's patience with the regime would quickly erode. But maybe they are just that crazy.

Boy, I don't know about you, but I can't wait for these guys to get nukes!

Lt. Colonel Joseph Repya has a suggestion for the Minneapolis Star Tribune Editorial Staff and Senator Durbin (from Power Line). I anxiously await their reply.