Hillary flunks her history lesson by Rusty Humphries

Source: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52237

Posted: October 2, 2006

Hillary Rodham Clinton took to the Senate floor last week to voice her opposition to what is being called the "detainee treatment bill." The junior senator from New York used that occasion to explain today's military should take a lesson from the father of our country when he served as our commander-in-chief during the Revolutionary War.

I will say right at the top, this faux scholarly speech was as defamatory toward our military as anything ever said by Senators Kerry, Durbin or Kennedy. But, unlike her Senate colleagues, Hillary took pains to disguise her slanders. Her purpose was to pretend to take the high ground in the debate about this bill, and as far as I can tell, that fraud has gone largely unnoticed.

Hillary, reaching back into American history, spoke of the Battle of Trenton. She proceeded to lecture about the lessons we might learn from Gen. Washington, His Excellency. How did he treat his prisoners of war, she queried? To put this all into context, Hillary Rodham Clinton helpfully used David Hackett Fischer's Pulitzer Prize winning book, "Washington's Crossing." She reads on the floor of the Senate:


"This fine book reminds us that there were thousands of American prisoners of war "treated with extreme cruelty by British captors." There are accounts of injured soldiers who surrendered and were murdered instead of quartered. Countless Americans lay dying in prison hulks in New York harbor. Starvation and other acts of inhumanity perpetrated against Americans confined to churches in New York City."


What was Hillary's purpose in mentioning this sordid bit of history? Well, to put this back into the context of today, Democrats have been accusing the Bush administration and our military of torturing terrorists captured on the battlefield.They have equated interrogation with torture – hey, they called the detainee treatment bill the "torture bill." So, Hillary has cleverly equated what our military has been falsely accused of doing today to the British atrocities of yesteryear. I say "cleverly," but what I really mean is this is a sickening smear of professional soldiers, interrogators and our commander-in-chief, (just wanted to clear that up). Anyone who has been to Guantanamo Bay (as I have on three different occasions) knows our treatment of suspected terrorists is spectacular. They are fed inordinately well (4,800 calories daily, as well as Pepsi, Klondike bars and Ben and Jerry's for those who are compliant), their religious customs are respected, (a guard isn't allowed to touch a Quran and in every area where a detainee is, an arrow pointing to Mecca can be found) and they play more volleyball and soccer than any "Soccer Mom" could bear.

Back to Professor Clinton:


"You can imagine the light of our ideals shone dimly in those early dark days, years from an end to the conflict, years before our improbable triumph and the birth of our democracy. General Washington announced a decision unique in human history, sending the following order for handling prisoners: 'Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British Army in their Treatment of our unfortunate brethren.'"


Imagine that. George Washington, who would probably be a conservative Republican today, decided not to shoot his prisoners. Yes, we must learn from this. In this poorly disguised verbal "hit job" (to borrow a phrase from her finger-jabbing husband), Hillary implies President Bush should learn something from Washington's goodwill towards captured prisoners. Bush should stop his torture and his probable killing of prisoners and act more like George Washington, who, if he were alive today, would have nothing to do with this manipulative and deceptive, carpet-bagging, power-hungry, smear artist.

More from the smartest woman on the planet as Hillary continues:


"George Washington understood that how you treat enemy combatants could reverberate around the world. We must convict and punish the guilty in a way that reinforces their guilt before the world and does not undermine our values."


The fact we are doing exactly that is maddening. Mrs. Clinton has taken lying to an Ivory Tower level. So wise, so learned, so steeped in history … and a slander of the worst kind. Our military does not deserve these high-minded distortions and fabrications. They don't deserve this perfume-infused garbage. This slick condescension is meant to go right over our heads. My guess is she wouldn't give this speech to the men and women serving overseas. And she sure wouldn't deliver this speech to those serving in Guantanamo Bay. She's too smart to accuse heroes of war crimes to their faces. Well, we're on to you Mrs. Clinton. We know who you are and what you are trying to do.

Let's continue with Hillary's history class and present day condemnation of our military:


"There is another element to this, I can't go back in history and read General Washington's mind of course but, one purpose of the rule of law is to organize a societies response to violence, allowing corrosive treatment and torturous actions towards prisoners not only violates the fundamental rule of law and the institutionalization of justice but it helps to radicalize those who are tortured."


Prove the "torturous actions towards prisoners," Mrs. Clinton! Prove it! And how dare you accuse our military of "radicalizing those who are tortured" and offer no proof! You're a lawyer, make your case. You have a lot to explain. You have a heavy burden. You have positioned yourself to be the next commander-in-chief of the American military – the military you say tortures its prisoners. But you had more to say about our troops:


"Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's second-in-command, the architect of many of the attacks on our country and throughout Europe and the world, has said, over and over, that torture of innocence is central to the cause of extremism – being tortured is at the root of jihad."


So, America has caused the jihad due to our on-going, constant and consistent torturing of captured terrorists? Why mention Zawahhiri if you are not convinced our military tortures prisoners? And then to add this alleged behavior is the root cause of what we fight today. That is perhaps the most destructive thing I can imagine being uttered by a United States senator during a time of war. My fervent hope is you have forever disqualified yourself from being anything other than a disgraced senator from a very liberal northeastern state.

But, using your logic, Mrs. Clinton, are we to assume you or your husband authorized the torture of Osama bin Laden sometime back in the' 90s and that's why he attacked us on 9/11? Is that why the World Trade Center was first attacked? And the USS Cole?

This is the worst kind of propaganda. Everything Mrs. Clinton has said on the floor of the Senate will be forever remembered and used by Islamo-fascists who look for every reason available to bolster their sick case for killing Americans. Mrs. Clinton has provided them yet more fuel for their bloodthirsty rage. This next statement she makes is a most uncomfortable irony:


"This broken process and the blatant politics behind it will cost our nation dearly. I fear also it will cost our men and women in uniform."

Unfortunately, truer words were never spoken. This manipulative and lying senator from New York may very well have forever endangered our men and women in uniform. She has accused them of torture and worse, she has informed our enemies our military tortures as a matter of standard practice, and has accused our heroes of causing all the terrorism they face today because of said torture. I hope every man and woman in uniform reads this. I hope everyone in America reads this and demands Hillary Clinton explain why she would make these damaging assertions.

In a time of war.

No one could ever serve as our commander-in-chief who says this about those she seeks to lead:

"When our soldiers face an enemy, when our soldiers are in danger will that enemy surrender if he thinks he will be tortured? Will he continue to fight, and how will our men and women be treated?"

Let's bring Hillary's lecture to a close with a Dick Durbin-like accusation that our military is no different from Soviet Gulags:


"I end with a quote from Vladimir Bukovsky, who spent nearly 12 years in Soviet prisons, labor camps, and psychiatric hospitals for nonviolent human rights activities had this to say: 'If Vice President Cheney is right, that some ‘cruel, inhumane, or degrading' treatment of captives is a necessary tool for winning the war on terrorism, then the war is lost already.'"


Case closed. Hillary Clinton has made her reckless, unsubstantiated charges against the military on the floor of the Senate. According to Mrs. Clinton, our interrogators don't just interrogate, they torture. We are no better than the British in their worst moments during the Revolutionary War, and we're no better than the terrorists we fight today. What the American military has done, with the permission and approval of their commander-in-chief, has caused otherwise peaceful Muslims to become Islamo-fascists.

But if I may be so bold, I would like to suggest Professor Clinton add an interesting tidbit to her sage advice that our president and his criminal accomplices in the military act upon the Washingtonian model of conduct during a time of war. It wasn't all peaches and cream, back then. War is hell and our presidents, commanders and generals have used whatever means they thought necessary to lead the troops and win the war. A little something from David McCullough's outstanding biography of John Adams:


"On September 20, 1776, a set of Articles of War was agreed upon. The severity of punishments was increased, as [George] Washington wished. Washington thought the maximum number of lashes allowed hitherto was hardly sufficient. For such crimes as drunkenness or sleeping on duty, Congress increased the punishment from thirty-nine to a hundred lashes, and increased as well the number of crimes for which the penalty was death."


That was a good start, but apparently, Washington did not believe that was enough to whip the troops into shape. Out of his own frustration he tried to persuade the Congressmen to raise it to 500 strokes in 1781, but they declined.

What say ye about this, Mrs. Clinton?

Another punishment Washington favored was "running the gauntlet." The offender was forced to run between two rows of men who struck him with ropes, clubs, switches, or bundles of switches. A subaltern or a sergeant would walk backwards in front of the prisoner with a sword – or an espontoon – pressed against the man's belly to keep him from running, while forcing him forward with a rope tied to the man's wrists. Death was the punishment for a person found guilty of grievous crimes such as: revealing the password, misbehaving during a battle, dealing with the enemy, desertion, striking a superior, sedition, treason, mutiny, surrendering one's post, disobeying a direct order, rape and adultery.

Hmmmm …The death penalty for sedition. Hillary is right, George Washington was one wise man.


MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT OF 2006 -- (Senate - September 28, 2006)

Mrs. CLINTON: Mr. President,

the Senate is currently debating a bill on how we treat detainees in our custody, and, more broadly, on how we treat the principles on which our Nation was founded.

The implications are far reaching for our national security interests abroad; the rights of Americans at home, our reputation in the world; and the safety of our troops.

The threat posed by the evil and nihilistic movement that has spawned terrorist networks is real and gravely serious. We must do all we can to defeat the enemy with all the tools in our arsenal and every resource at our disposal. All of us are dedicated to defeating this enemy.

The challenge before us on this bill, in the final days of session before the November election, is to rise above partisanship and find a solution that serves our national security interests. I fear that there are those who place a strategy for winning elections ahead of a smart strategy for winning the war on terrorism.

Democrats and Republicans alike believe that terrorists must be caught, captured, and sentenced. I believe that there can be no mercy for those who perpetrated 9/11 and other crimes against humanity. But in the process of accomplishing that I believe we must hold on to our values and set an example we can point to with pride, not shame. Those captured are going nowhere--they are in jail now--so we should follow the duty given us by the Supreme Court and carefully craft the right piece of legislation to try them. The President acted without authority and it is our duty now to be careful in handing this President just the right amount of authority to get the job done and no more.

During the Revolutionary War, between the signing of the Declaration of Independence, which set our founding ideals to paper, and the writing of our Constitution, which fortified those ideals under the rule of law, our values--our beliefs as Americans--were already being tested.

We were at war and victory was hardly assured, in fact the situation was closer to the opposite. New York City and Long Island had been captured. General George Washington and the Continental Army retreated across New Jersey to Pennsylvania, suffering tremendous casualties and a body blow to the cause of American independence.

It was at this time, among these soldiers at this moment of defeat and despair, that Thomas Paine would write, "These are the times that try men's souls." Soon afterward, Washington lead his soldiers across the Delaware River and onto victory in the Battle of Trenton. There he captured nearly 1,000 foreign mercenaries and he faced a crucial choice.

How would General Washington treat these men? The British had already committed atrocities against Americans, including torture. As David Hackett Fischer describes in his Pulitzer Prize winning book, "Washington's Crossing," thousands of American prisoners of war were "treated with extreme cruelty by British captors." There are accounts of injured soldiers who surrendered being murdered instead of quartered, countless Americans dying in prison hulks in New York harbor, starvation and other acts of inhumanity perpetrated against Americans confined to churches in New York City.

Can you imagine.

The light of our ideals shone dimly in those early dark days, years from an end to the conflict, years before our improbable triumph and the birth of our democracy.

General Washington wasn't that far from where the Continental Congress had met and signed the Declaration of Independence. But it is easy to imagine how far that must have seemed. General Washington announced a decision unique in human history, sending the following order for handling prisoners: "Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our Copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren."

Therefore, George Washington, our commander-in-chief before he was our President, laid down the indelible marker of our Nation's values even as we were struggling as a Nation--and his courageous act reminds us that America was born out of faith in certain basic principles. In fact, it is these principles that made and still make our country exceptional and allow us to serve as an example. We are not bound together as a nation by bloodlines. We are not bound by ancient history; our Nation is a new nation. Above all, we are bound by our values.

George Washington understood that how you treat enemy combatants can reverberate around the world. We must convict and punish the guilty in a way that reinforces their guilt before the world and does not undermine our constitutional values.

There is another element to this. I can't go back in history and read General Washington's mind, of course, but one purpose of the rule of law is to organize a society's response to violence. Allowing coercion, coercive treatment, and torturous actions toward prisoners not only violates the fundamental rule of law and the institutionalization of justice, but it helps to radicalize those who are tortured.

Zawahiri, bin Laden's second in command, the architect of many of the attacks on our country, throughout Europe and the world, has said repeatedly that it is his experience that torture of innocents is central to radicalization. Zawahiri has said over and over again that being tortured is at the root of jihad; the experience of being tortured has a long history of serving radicalized populations; abusing prisoners is a prime cause of radicalization.

For the safety of our soldiers and the reputation of our Nation, it is far more important to take the time to do this job right than to do it quickly and badly. There is no reason we need to rush to judgment. This broken process and the blatant politics behind it will cost our Nation dearly. I fear also that it will cost our men and women in uniform. The Supreme Court laid out what it expected from us.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD letters and statements from former military leaders, from 9/11 families, from the religious community, retired judges, legal scholars, and law professors. All of them have registered their concerns with this bill and the possible impact on our effort to win the war against terrorism.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:


September 12, 2006.
Hon. JOHN WARNER, Chairman,
Hon. Carl Levin, Ranking Member,
Senate Armed Services Committee,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR CHAIRMAN WARNER AND SENATOR LEVIN: As retired military leaders of the U.S. Armed Forces and former officials of the Department of Defense, we write to express our profound concern about a key provision of S. 3861, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, introduced last week at the behest of the President. We believe that the language that would redefine Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions as equivalent to the standards contained in the Detainee Treatment Act violates the core principles of the Geneva Conventions and poses a grave threat to American service-members, now and in future wars.

We supported your efforts last year to clarify that all detainees in U.S. custody must be treated humanely. That was particularly important, because the Administration determined that it was not bound by the basic humane treatment standards contained in Geneva Common Article 3. Now that the Supreme Court has made clear that treatment of al Qaeda prisoners is governed by the Geneva Convention standards, the Administration is seeking to redefine Common Article 3, so as to downgrade those standards. We urge you to reject this effort.

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions provides the minimum standards for humane treatment and fair justice that apply to anyone captured in armed conflict. These standards were specifically designed to ensure that those who fall outside the other, more extensive, protections of the Conventions are treated in accordance with the values of civilized nations. The framers of the Conventions, including the American representatives, in particular wanted to ensure that Common Article 3 would apply in situations where a state party to the treaty, like the United States, fights an adversary that is not a party, including irregular forces like al Qaeda. The United States military has abided by the basic requirements of Common Article 3 in every conflict since the Conventions were adopted. In each case, we applied the Geneva Conventions--including, at a minimum, Common Article 3--even to enemies that systematically violated the Conventions themselves.

We have abided by this standard in our own conduct for a simple reason: the same standard serves to protect American servicemen and women when they engage in conflicts covered by Common Article 3. Preserving the integrity of this standard has become increasingly important in recent years when our adversaries often are not nation-states. Congress acted in 1997 to further this goal by criminalizing violations of Common Article 3 in the War Crimes Act, enabling us to hold accountable those who abuse our captured personnel, no matter the nature of the armed conflict.

If any agency of the U.S. government is excused from compliance with these standards, or if we seek to redefine what Common Article 3 requires, we should not imagine that our enemies will take notice of the technical distinctions when they hold U.S. prisoners captive. If degradation, humiliation, physical and mental brutalization of prisoners is decriminalized or considered permissible under a restrictive interpretation of Common Article 3, we will forfeit all credible objections should such barbaric practices be inflicted upon American prisoners.

This is not just a theoretical concern. We have people deployed right now in theaters where Common Article 3 is the only source of legal protection should they be captured. If we allow that standard to be eroded, we put their safety at greater risk.

Last week, the Department of Defense issued a Directive reaffirming that the military will uphold the requirements of Common Article 3 with respect to all prisoners in its custody. We welcome this new policy. Our servicemen and women have operated for too long with unclear and unlawful guidance on detainee treatment, and some have been left to take the blame when things went wrong. The guidance is now clear.

But that clarity will be short-lived if the approach taken by Administration's bill prevails. In contrast to the Pentagon's new rules on detainee treatment, the bill would limit our definition of Common Article 3's terms by introducing a flexible, sliding scale that might allow certain coercive interrogation techniques under some circumstances, while forbidding them under others. This would replace an absolute standard--Common Article 3--with a relative one. To do so will only create further confusion.

Moreover, were we to take this step, we would be viewed by the rest of the world as having formally renounced the clear strictures of the Geneva Conventions. Our enemies would be encouraged to interpret the Conventions in their own way as well, placing our troops in jeopardy in future conflicts. And American moral authority in the war would be further damaged.

All of this is unnecessary. As the senior serving Judge Advocates General recently testified, our armed forces have trained to Common Article 3 and can live within its requirements while waging the war on terror effectively.

As the United States has greater exposure militarily than any other nation, we have long emphasized the reciprocal nature of the Geneva Conventions. That is why we believe--and the United States has always asserted--that a broad interpretation of Common Article 3 is vital to the safety of U.S. personnel. But the Administration's bill would put us on the opposite side of that argument. We urge you to consider the impact that redefining Common Article 3 would have on Americans who put their lives at risk in defense of our Nation. We believe their interests, and their safety and protection should they become prisoners, should be your highest priority as you address this issue.

With respect,
General John Shalikashvili, USA (Ret.); General Joseph Hoar, USMC (Ret.); Admiral Gregory G. Johnson, USN (Ret.); Admiral Jay L. Johnson, USN (Ret.); General Paul J. Kern, USA (Ret.); General Merrill A. McPeak, USAF (Ret.); Admiral Stansfield Turner, USN (Ret.); General William G.T. Tuttle, Jr., USA (Ret.); Lieutenant General Daniel W. Christman, USA (Ret.); Lieutenant General Paul E. Funk, USA (Ret.); Lieutenant General Robert G. Gard Jr., USA (Ret.); Lieutenant General Jay M. Garner, USA (Ret.); Vice Admiral Lee F. Gunn, USN (Ret.); Lieutenant General Arlen D. Jameson, USAF (Ret.); Lieutenant General Claudia J. Kennedy, USA (Ret.).
Lieutenant General Donald L. Kerrick, USA (Ret.); Vice Admiral Albert H. Konetzni Jr., USN (Ret.); Lieutenant General Charles Otstott, USA (Ret.); Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, USN (Ret.); Lieutenant General Harry E. Soyster, USA (Ret.); Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper, USMC (Ret.); Major General John Batiste, USA (Ret.); Major General Eugene Fox, USA (Ret.); Major General John L. Fugh, USA (Ret.); Rear Admiral Don Guter, USN (Ret.); Major General Fred E. Haynes, USMC (Ret.); Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, USN (Ret.); Major General Melvyn Montano, ANG (Ret.); Major General Gerald T. Sajer, USA (Ret.); Major General Michael J. Scotti, Jr., USA (Ret.).
Brigadier General David M. Brahms, USMC (Ret.); Brigadier General James P. Cullen, USA (Ret.); Brigadier General Evelyn P. Foote, USA (Ret.); Brigadier General David R. Irvine, USA (Ret.); Brigadier General John H. Johns, USA (Ret.); Brigadier General Richard O'Meara, USA (Ret.); Brigadier General Murray G. Sagsveen, USA (Ret.); Brigadier General John K. Schmitt, USA (Ret.); Brigadier General Anthony Verrengia, USAF (Ret.); Brigadier General Stephen N. Xenakis, USA (Ret.); Ambassador Pete Peterson, USAF (Ret.); Colonel Lawrence B. Wilkerson, USA (Ret.); Honorable Richard Danzig; Honorable William H. Taft IV; Frank Kendall III, Esq.

--

THE AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE,

New York, NY, September 27, 2006.

DEAR SENATOR: We write on behalf of the American Jewish Committee, a national human relations organization with over 150,000 members and supporters represented by 32 regional chapters, to urge you to oppose the compromise Military Commissions Act of 2006, S. 3930, and to vote against attaching the bill to H.R. 6061, absent correcting amendments.

To be sure, the compromise that produced the current bill resulted in the welcome addition of provisions making clear that the humane treatment standards of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions provide a floor for the treatment of detainees as well as specifying that serious violations are war crimes. Nevertheless, S. 3930 is unacceptable in its present form for the following reasons:

The bill arguably opens the door to the use of interrogation techniques prohibited by the Geneva Conventions.

It opens the door to the admission of evidence in military commissions obtained by coercive techniques in contravention of constitutional standards and international treaty.

It permits the prosecution to introduce evidence that has not been provided to a defendant in a form sufficient to allow him or her to participate in the preparation of his or her defense.

It unduly restricts defendants' access to exculpatory evidence available to the government.

It unduly restricts access to the courts by habeas corpus and appeal.

It interprets the definition of Common Article 3 violations to exclude sexual assaults such as those that occurred at Abu Ghraib.

There is no doubt that the authorities entrusted with our defense must be afforded the resources and tools necessary to protect us from the serious threat that terrorists continue to pose to all Americans, and, indeed, the civilized world. But the homeland can be secured in a fashion consistent with the values of due process and fair treatment for which Americans have fought and for which they continue to fight. We urge you to revisit and revise this legislation so that it accords with our highest principles.

Respectfully,


E. Robert Goodkind,

President.


Richard T. Poltin,

Legislative Director and Counsel.
--

THE ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR

OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK,

New York, NY, September 27, 2006.
Re Military Commission Act of 2006.


Hon. BILL FRIST,
U.S. Senate Majority Leader,
Washington, DC.

DEAR MAJORITY LEADER FRIST: I am writing on behalf of the New York City Bar Association to urge you to oppose the Administration's proposed Military Commissions Act of 2006 (the "Act"). The Association is an independent non-governmental organization of more than 22,000 lawyers, judges, law professors and government officials. Founded in 1870, the Association has a long history of dedication to human rights and the rule of law, and a particularly deep historical engagement with the law of armed conflict and military justice.

The Association has now reviewed the amended version of this legislation introduced on September 22, 2006, following the compromise agreement between Senators WARNER, MCCAIN and GRAHAM, on one side, and the Administration on the other. The compromise addresses two distinct aspects of the Administration's proposal: first, the operation of the military commissions which have been envisioned, and second, aspects of United States enforcement of its treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions. We will address our concerns in this order, keeping in mind particularly the position of our members who may be called upon to serve as defense counsel, prosecutors and judges in the commissions process, and the interests of our members who presently or may in the future serve their nation in the uniformed services or in the intelligence services.

The compromise clarifies many of the most important failings of the prior draft by bringing the military commissions process far closer to the standards established by the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Manual on Courts-Martial. The Association shares the view presented by the service judge advocates general that the existing court-martial system, which in many respects is exemplary, provides an appropriate process for trial of traditional battlefield detainees as well as the command and control structures of terrorist organizations engaged in combat with the United States, and that the commissions should closely follow that model. The changes produced here in that regard are therefore welcome.

However, the bill gives the military judge discretion to admit coerced testimony if, as will presumably be the case, the coercion occurred before the enactment of the Detainee Treatment Act on December 31, 2005. Hearsay can also be admitted into evidence unless the accused carries a burden (traditionally accorded to the party offering the evidence, i.e., the prosecution) to show that the hearsay is not probative or reliable. This shift of burden is inconsistent with historical practice and would probably taint the proceedings themselves, particularly if the accused is not given access to the facts underlying the evidence. Admission of evidence in this circumstance would discredit the proceedings, undermine the appearance of fairness, and might, if it was critical to a conviction, constitute a grave breach of Common Article 3. These provisions do not serve the interests of the United States in demonstrating the heinous nature of terrorist acts, if such can be established in the military commissions.

The enforcement provisions raise far more troubling issues. In particular, we are concerned by the definition of "cruel treatment" which does not correspond to the existing law interpreting and enforcing Common Article 3's notion of "cruel treatment." The definition incorporates a category of "serious physical pain or suffering," but defines that category in a way that does not encompass many types of serious physical suffering that can be and are commonly the result of "cruel treatment" prohibited by Common Article 3. The Common Article 3 offense of "cruel treatment" will remain prohibited, even if not specifically criminalized by this provision. There is really no basis to doubt that Common Article 3 prohibits techniques such as waterboarding, long-time standing, and hypothermia or cold cell if indeed they are not precluded as outright torture. However, the language of the current draft would create a crime defined in terms different from the accepted Geneva meanings, thereby introducing ambiguity where none previously existed.

This ambiguity produces risks for United States personnel since it suggests that those who employ techniques such as waterboarding, long-time standing and hypothermia on Americans cannot be charged for war crimes. Moreover, Common Article 3 contains important protections for United States personnel who do not qualify for prisoner of war treatment under the Third Geneva Convention. This may include reconnaissance personnel, special forces operatives, private military contractors and intelligence service paramilitary professionals. Erosion of Common Article 3 standards thus directly imperils the safety of United States personnel in future conflicts. We strongly share the perspective of five former chairs of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in their appeal to Congress to avoid any erosion of these protections.

The draft also seeks to strike the ability of hundreds of detainees held as "enemy combatants" to seek review of their cases through petitions of habeas corpus. The Great Writ has long been viewed as one of the most fundamental rights under our legal system. It is an essential guarantor of justice in difficult cases, particularly in a conflict which the Administration suggests is of indefinite duration, possibly for generations. Holding individuals without according them any right to seek review of their status or conditions of detention raises fundamental questions of justice. This concern is compounded by the draft's provision that the Geneva Convention is unenforceable, thus leaving detainees with no recourse should they receive cruel and inhuman treatment.

On July 19, 2006, Michael Mernin, the chair of our Committee on Military Affairs and Justice, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee concerning this legislative initiative. He appealed at that time for caution and proper deliberation in the legislative process and urged that a commission of military law experts be convened to advise Congress on the weighty issues presented. The current legislative project continues to show severe flaws which are likely to prove embarrassing to the United States if it is enacted. We therefore strongly urge that the matter receive further careful consideration before it is acted upon and that the advice of prominent military justice and international humanitarian law experts be secured and followed in the bill's finalization.

Very truly yours,

BARRY KAMINS,
President.

-- September 14, 2006.

DEAR SENATOR: As members of families who lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks, we are writing to express our deep concern over the provisions of the Administration's proposed Military Commissions Act of 2006.

There are those who would like to portray the legislation as a choice between supporting the rights of terrorists and keeping the United States safe. We reject this argument. We believe that adopting policies against terrorism which honor our values and our international commitments makes us safer and is the smarter strategy.

We do not believe that the United States should decriminalize cruel and inhuman interrogations. The Geneva Convention rules against brutal interrogations have long had the strong support of the U.S. because they protect our citizens. We should not be sending a message to the world that we now believe that torture and cruel treatment is sometimes acceptable. Moreover, the Administration's own representatives at the Pentagon have strongly affirmed in just the last few days that torture and abuse do not produce reliable information. No legislation should have your support if it is at all ambiguous on this issue.

Nor do we believe that it is in the interest of the United States to create a system of military courts that violate basic notions of due process and lack truly independent judicial oversight. Not only does this violate our most cherished values and send the wrong message to the world, it also runs the risk that the system will again be struck down resulting in even more delay.

We believe that we must have policies that reflect what is best in the United States rather than compromising our values out of fear. As John McCain has said, "This is not-about who the terrorists are, this is about who we are." We urge you to reject the Administration's ill-conceived proposals which will make us both less safe and less proud as a nation.

Sincerely,
Marilynn Rosenthal, Nicholas H. Ruth, Adele Welty, Nissa Youngren, Terry Greene, John LeBlanc, Andrea LeBlanc, Ryan Amundson, Barry Amundson, Colleen Kelly, Terry Kay Rockefeller, John William Harris.
David Potorti, Donna Marsh O'Connor, Kjell Youngren, Blake Allison, Tia Kminek, Jennifer Glick, Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg, Anthony Aversano, Paula Shapiro, Valerie Lucznikowska, Lloyd Glick.
James and Patricia Perry, Anne M. Mulderry, Marion Kminek, Alissa Rosenberg-Torres, Kelly Campbell, Bruce Wallace, John M. Leinung, Kristen Breitweiser, Patricia Casazza, Michael A. Casazza, Loretta J. Filipov, Joan Glick.

-- September 20, 2006.
Re Evangelical religious leaders speak out on cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment.


DEAR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS: The Congress faces a defining question of morality in the coming hours: whether it is ever right for Americans to inflict cruel and degrading treatment on suspected terrorist detainees. We are writing to express our strong support for the approach taken on this issue by Senators McCain, Warner and Graham and a strong, bipartisan majority of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

We read credible reports--some from FBI agents--that prisoners have been stripped naked, sexually humiliated, chained to the floor, and left to defecate on themselves. These and other practices like ``waterboarding'' (in which a detainee is made to feel as if he is being drowned) may or may not meet the technical definition of torture, but no one denies that these practices are cruel, inhuman, and degrading.

Today, the question before the Congress is whether it will support Sen. McCain's efforts to make it clear to the world that the U.S. has outlawed such abuse or support an Administration proposal which creates grave ambiguity about whether prisoners can legally be abused in secret prisons without Red Cross access.

Evangelicals have often supported the Administration on public policy questions because they believe that no practical expediency, however compelling, should determine fundamental moral issues of marriage, abortion, or bioethics. Instead, these questions should be resolved with principles of revealed moral absolutes, granted by a righteous and loving Creator.

As applied to issues of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, the practical application of this moral outlook is clear: even if it is expedient to inflict cruelty and degradation on a prisoner during interrogation (and experts seem very much divided on this question), the moral teachings of Christ, the Torah and the Prophets do not permit it for those who bear the Imago Dei.

It will not do to say that the President's policy on the treatment of detainees already rules out torture because serious ambiguities still remain--ambiguities that carry heavy moral implications and that are intended to preserve options that some would rather not publicly defend.

The terrorist attacks of September 11 were one of the most heinous acts ever visited upon this nation. The Commander in Chief must provide U.S. authorities with the practical tools and policies to fight a committed, well-resourced, and immoral terrorist threat. At the same time, the President must also defend the deepest and best values of our moral tradition.

As Christians from the evangelical tradition, we support Senator McCain and his colleagues in their effort to defend the perennial moral values of this nation which are embodied in international law and our domestic statutes. The United States Congress must send an unequivocal message that cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment has no place in our society and violates our most cherished moral convictions.

Sincerely,

Rev. Dr. David Gushee, Union University, Jackson, TN.

Gary Haugen, president, International Justice Mission.

Rev. Dr. Roberta Hestenes, teaching pastor, Community Presbyterian Church, Danville, CA.

Frederica Mathewes-Green, author and commentator.

Dr. Brian D. McLaren, founder, Cedar Ridge Community Church, Spencerville, MD.

Rev. Dr. Richard Mouw, president, Fuller Theological Seminary.

Dr. Glen Stassen, professor of Christian Ethics, Fuller Theological Seminary.

Dr. Nicholas Wolterstorff, professor of Philosophical Theology, Yale University.


Mrs. CLINTON: Now these values--George Washington's values, the values of our founding--are at stake. We are debating far-reaching legislation that would fundamentally alter our Nation's conduct in the world and the rights of Americans here at home. And we are debating it too hastily in a debate too steeped in electoral politics.

The Senate, under the authority of the Republican majority and with the blessing and encouragement of the Bush-Cheney administration, is doing a great disservice to our history, our principles, our citizens, and our soldiers.

The deliberative process is being broken under the pressure of partisanship and the policy that results is a travesty.

Fellow Senators, the process for drafting this legislation to correct the administration's missteps has not befitted the "world's greatest deliberative body." Legitimate, serious concerns raised by our senior military and intelligence community have been marginalized, difficult issues glossed over, and debates we should have had have been shut off in order to pass a misconceived bill before Senators return home to campaign for reelection.

For the safety of our soldiers and the reputation of our Nation, it is far more important to take the time to do the job right than to do it quickly and badly. There is no reason other than partisanship for not continuing deliberation to find a solution that works to achieve a true consensus based on American values.

In the last several days, the bill has undergone countless changes--all for the worse--and differs significantly from the compromise brokered between the Bush administration and a few Senate Republicans last week.

We cannot have a serious debate over a bill that has been hastily written with little opportunity for serious review. To vote on a proposal that evolved by the hour, on an issue that is so important, is an insult to the American people, to the Senate, to our troops, and to our Nation.

Fellow Senators, we all know we are holding this hugely important debate in the backdrop of November's elections. There are some in this body more focused on holding on to their jobs than doing their jobs right. Some in this chamber plan to use our honest and serious concerns for protecting our country and our troops as a political wedge issue to divide us for electoral gain.

How can we in the Senate find a proper answer and reach a consensus when any matter that does not serve the majority's partisan advantage is mocked as weakness, and any true concern for our troops and values dismissed demagogically as coddling the enemy?

This broken process and its blatant politics will cost our Nation dearly. It allows a discredited policy ruled by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional to largely continue and to be made worse. This spectacle ill-serves our national security interests.

The rule of law cannot be compromised. We must stand for the rule of law before the world, especially when we are under stress and under threat. We must show that we uphold our most profound values.

We need a set of rules that will stand up to judicial scrutiny. We in this Chamber know that a hastily written bill driven by partisanship will not withstand the scrutiny of judicial oversight.

We need a set of rules that will protect our values, protect our security, and protect our troops. We need a set of rules that recognizes how serious and dangerous the threat is, and enhances, not undermines, our chances to deter and defeat our enemies.

Our Supreme Court in its Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decision ruled that the Bush administration's previous military

commission system had failed to follow the Constitution and the law in its treatment of detainees.

As the Supreme Court noted, the Bush administration has been operating under a system that undermines our Nation's commitment to the rule of law.

The question before us is whether this Congress will follow the decision of the Supreme Court and create a better system that withstands judicial examination--or attempt to confound that decision, a strategy destined to fail again.

The bill before us allows the admission into evidence of statements derived through cruel, inhuman and degrading interrogation. That sets a dangerous precedent that will endanger our own men and women in uniform overseas. Will our enemies be less likely to surrender? Will informants be less likely to come forward? Will our soldiers be more likely to face torture if captured? Will the information we obtain be less reliable? These are the questions we should be asking. And based on what we know about warfare from listening to those who have fought for our country, the answers do not support this bill. As Lieutenant John F. Kimmons, the Army's Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence said, "No good intelligence is going to come from abusive interrogation practices."

The bill also makes significant changes to the War Crimes Act. As it is now written, the War Crimes Act makes it a federal crime for any soldier or national of the U.S. to violate, among other things, Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions in an armed conflict not of an international character. The administration has voiced concern that Common Article--which prohibits "cruel treatment or torture," "outrages against human dignity," and "humiliating and degrading treatment"--sets out an intolerably vague standard on which to base criminal

liability, and may expose CIA agents to jail sentences for rough interrogation tactics used in questioning detainees.

But the current bill's changes to the War Crimes Act haven't done much to clarify the rules for our interrogators. What we are doing with this bill is passing on an opportunity to clearly state what it is we stand for and what we will not permit.

This bill undermines the Geneva Conventions by allowing the President to issue Executive orders to redefine what permissible interrogation techniques happen to be. Have we fallen so low as to debate how much torture we are willing to stomach? By allowing this administration to further stretch the definition of what is and is not torture, we lower our moral standards to those whom we despise, undermine the values of our flag wherever it flies, put our troops in danger, and jeopardize our moral strength in a conflict that cannot be won simply with military might.

Once again, there are those who are willing to stay a course that is not working, giving the Bush-Cheney administration a blank check--a blank check to torture, to create secret courts using secret evidence, to detain people, including Americans, to be free of judicial oversight and accountability, to put our troops in greater danger.

The bill has several other flaws as well.

This bill would not only deny detainees habeas corpus rights--a process that would allow them to challenge the very validity of their confinement--it would also deny these rights to lawful immigrants living in the United States. If enacted, this law would give license to this Administration to pick people up off the streets of the United States and hold them indefinitely without charges and without legal recourse.

Americans believe strongly that defendants, no matter who they are, should be able to hear the evidence against them. The bill we are considering does away with this right, instead providing the accused with only the right to respond to the evidence admitted against him. How can someone respond to evidence they have not seen?

At the very least, this is worth a debate on the merits, not on the politics. This is worth putting aside our differences--it is too important.

Our values are central. Our national security interests in the world are vital. And nothing should be of greater concern to those of us in this chamber than the young men and women who are, right now, wearing our Nation's uniform, serving in dangerous territory.

After all, our standing, our morality, our beliefs are tested in this Chamber and their impact and their consequences are tested under fire, they are tested when American lives are on the line, they are tested when our strength and ideals are questioned by our friends and by our enemies.

When our soldiers face an enemy, when our soldiers are in danger, that is when our decisions in this Chamber will be felt. Will that enemy surrender? Or will he continue to fight, with fear for how he might be treated and with hate directed not at us, but at the patriot wearing our uniform whose life is on the line?

When our Nation seeks to lead the world in service to our interests and our values, will we still be able to lead by example?

Our values, our history, our interests, and our military and intelligence experts all point to one answer. Vladimir Bukovsky, who spent nearly 12 years in Soviet prisons, labor camps, and psychiatric hospitals for nonviolent human rights activities had this to say. "If Vice President Cheney is right, that some `cruel, inhumane, or degrading' treatment of captives is a necessary tool for winning the war on terrorism, then the war is lost already."

Let's pass a bill that's been honestly and openly debated, not hastily cobbled together.

Let's pass a bill that unites us, not divides us.

Let's pass a bill that strengthens our moral standing in the world, that declares clearly that we will not retreat from our values before the terrorists. We will not give up who we are. We will not be shaken by fear and intimidation. We will not give one inch to the evil and nihilistic extremists who have set their sights on our way of life.

I say with confidence and without fear that we are the United States of America, and that we stand now and forever for our enduring values to people around the world, to our friends, to our enemies, to anyone and everyone.

Before George Washington crossed the Delaware, before he could achieve that long-needed victory, before the tide would turn, before he ordered that prisoners be treated humanely, he ordered that his soldiers read Thomas Paine's writing. He ordered that they read about the ideals for which they would fight, the principles at stake, the importance of this American project.

Now we find ourselves at a moment when we feel threatened, when the world seems to have grown more dangerous, when our Nation needs to ready itself for a long and difficult struggle against a new and dangerous enemy that means us great harm.

Just as Washington faced a hard choice, so do we. It's up to us to decide how we wage this struggle and not up to the fear fostered by terrorists. We decide.

This is a moment where we need to remind ourselves of the confidence, fearlessness, and bravery of George Washington--then we will know that we cannot, we must not, subvert our ideals--we can and must use them to win.

Finally, we have a choice before us. I hope we make the right choice. I fear that we will not; that we will be once again back in the Supreme Court, and we will be once again held up to the world as failing our own high standards.

When our soldiers face an enemy, when our soldiers are in danger, will that enemy surrender if he thinks he will be tortured? Will he continue to fight? How will our men and women be treated?

I hope we both pass the right kind of legislation and understand that it may very well determine whether we win this war against terror and protect or troops who are valiantly fighting for us.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Winning the Future for October 16, 2006

Winning the Future for October 16, 2006

by Newt Gingrich

In a Free Society, Campaigns Matter: The GOP Must Give Voters a Clear Choice

The elite media are giddy with anti-Republican euphoria. Their coverage has not been this biased against Republicans in three decades.

The Democrats are excited and convinced they will win a big victory.

Republicans are worried, demoralized and confused. I have been in eight states recently and the mood is similar everywhere.

Yet, an election is a choice between two futures. By simply comparing the positions of each party based upon historic facts, the choice of the desired future will become clear to the majority of the American people. And that choice is neither one in which Democrats celebrate nor Republicans concede.

Here is the choice for 2006.

A Vital Moment for America: Who Is Historically Right, and Who Is Historically Wrong?

Republicans should enter these closing weeks of the election with clarity, conviction and confidence. The GOP owes it to the American people to give them an inspiring choice. When you are right, you have confidence.

The theme is simple: We can't go back to the failed policies of the past.

Republicans are right on defeating terrorism, and the left is wrong in wanting to run and hide from danger and take up the disastrous policies of appeasement and weakness that defined the Carter Administration. Americans should never again face a 444-day hostage crisis in Iran or an energy policy which leads to gasoline rationing. If every American understood the consequences of losing to the terrorists, the Democrats would lose seats this November.

Republicans are right on cutting taxes and growing a better economy, and the left is wrong in their desire to raise taxes, enlarge command-and-control bureaucracies and return to their failed economic policies, which during the Carter Administration pushed America into the deepest recession since the Great Depression. It was a Democrat Congress and a Democrat administration that presided over interest rates of 22 percent and inflation at 13 percent, and it was a Democrat President who gave a speech in which he lectured the American people to expect less and to lower their standards. If every American knew that Congressman Charlie Rangel (N.Y.), the Democrat choice to head the Ways and Means Committee, had promised to raise their taxes, the Democrats would lose seats this fall.

Republicans are right to favor traditional American conservative social values, and the left is completely wrong to put San Francisco left-wing values third in line to be President by electing Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) to speaker of the House. If every American knew the Pelosi voting record, the Democrats would lose seats this fall.

Republicans can turn this around, but they must make the case.

That is what campaigns are for.

In an Election, Three Weeks Is a Long Time

I learned this lesson in 1978 in my third campaign for Congress. In mid-September, my Democrat opponent was ahead 51 to 37. Like most liberals, in the district she pretended she was a conservative, but two key votes in Congress gave her away. One on welfare reform and the other on taxes, in each case she voted her values as a liberal.

We believed we could win the campaign based on one big truth -- she was a liberal -- versus one big lie -- her pretending she was a conservative.

Every element of our campaign kept coming back to this simple theme: "She knows her record, she hopes you don't." This was our consistent way of saying: "She knows she is a liberal, and she is afraid to tell the truth about it, because she knows you will vote against her if you learn the truth."

We won 54 to 46. That meant that in five weeks of campaigning we had moved from a 14-point deficit to an eight-point majority. I gained 17 percentage points and my liberal opponent, once exposed, lost 5 percentage points.

The Democrat, Left-Wing Activist, News Media, Big Lie Campaign

When Republicans tell the truth, Republicans win. When Republicans allow the left to hide their record, fudge their values and distort the facts, Republicans lose. When Republicans passively accept smearing, Republicans lose. When Republicans can't explain or define the choice, Republicans lose.

This year's campaign has been one-sidedly defined by the best-financed left-wing activist system in history. From George Soros on, the amount of money spent attacking Republicans dwarfs anything ever tried before.

The Democrats have spent their time in a disciplined assault on Republicans while hiding everything they stand for.

The elite media now sense a chance to beat Republicans and are shamelessly one-sided in their effort to defame and defeat the GOP.

If they are allowed to get away with this one-sided campaign, they will win.

If that happens, Republicans will deserve the left-wing Congress that will then try to impose its post-election liberal values.

The Big Truth as a Disciplined Answer to the Big Lie

When you are a conservative, you have to assume the news media will be against you. That is a given. The question is how you design a campaign to win despite that fact.

The answer is straightforward.

You have to find facts that are so powerful they cut through the media clutter and your opponent's distortions and ring true with the American people.

These facts have to matter personally, historically and politically.

They have to be "big truths" that clear away the 'big smear" and defeat the "big lie."

Slowing Down the Campaign

When you are behind and you face a combined onslaught of Democrats, left-wing activists and elite news media, every instinct is to speed up, do something harsh and try to answer every attack.

This reactionary instinct is exactly wrong.

The key to winning the kind of campaign Republicans are in is to slow down, focus on a few very big truths and then insist on bringing everything in the campaign back to these core truths and the choice between the Republican future and the Democrat future.

In 1978, if I had not stayed very tightly focused on two issues -- welfare reform and taxes -- which proved my opponent was a liberal -- I would have lost the election.

In 1980, if President Reagan had not focused on defining the Carter failures and drawing an accurate picture of his own beliefs, he too would have lost.

In 1994, if Republicans had not focused on the positive message of the Contract with America, Republicans would have gained seats but would not have won the majority.

If Republicans are to win, they need to take a deep breath, slow down and focus on winning the handful of arguments which matter personally, historically and politically to the American people.

Republicans Have Three Big Truths for the Closing Weeks of the 2006 Campaign

I believe there are three big truths on which the Republicans could win the 2006 campaign, despite every effort of the news media and the left.

I believe these three truths resonate with people in their personal lives and fit into their sense of America's historic context and within their political views.

I believe that by driving each of these three truths home, Republicans can win the argument if they insist on slowing down and focusing in order to build a resonating echo effect across the country.

Three Big Thematic Truths

1. Promoting a proven economic prosperity agenda of lower taxes and pro-growth policies vs. the failed policies of higher taxes, more regulation and bloated bureaucratic structures of the past.


2. Left-wing San Francisco radical ideas vs. the values held by the rest of America


3. Defeating terrorism and the dictatorships who threaten America vs. appeasing and being defeated by them

If Republicans calmly and clearly communicate these choice and their consequences and, in particular, are able to win the argument on the three big truths, Republicans will have a much better election day than people expect.

Let me explain each one.

The First Big Truth: America Can't Go Back to Tax Increases, Big Bureaucracy, Slow Economy, Rising Unemployment and Liberal Policies

It should be easy for Republicans to make the case that your wallet, your job and your country's economy are at stake in this election.

If you think you have too much money in your family budget, then you have a party to vote for, because Democrats will gladly raise your taxes shifting your money from your family to Washington bureaucrats.

On the other hand, if you think you can spend your own money better than a Washington bureaucrat, then you, too, have a party to vote for, because Republicans will stop Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Rangel from raising your taxes.

The future with a Speaker Pelosi based upon the historic record...

The Democrats' record is clear.

Nancy Pelosi voted against every Republican tax cut. She voted for the largest tax increase in history.

Nancy Pelosi voted 19 times against eliminating the death tax.

Nancy Pelosi voted five times for raising gasoline taxes.

Nancy Pelosi is so pro-high taxes she was one of only 27 members to vote against tax relief for poor neighborhoods in the inner city (presumably including her constituents in San Francisco).

The Future with Charlie Rangel as chairman of Ways and Means based upon the historic record...

Charlie Rangel is the perfect Ways and Means chairman for a Nancy-Pelosi-San-Francisco-values majority. Rangel recently said he "cannot think of one" of President George W. Bush's first-term tax cuts that deserve to be continued.

As the Washington Times noted: "Mr. Rangel, of course, voted against the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, he voted against the 2006 measure that extended the 2003 cuts from the end of 2008 to the end of 2010, and he has vociferously opposed making the 2001 and 2003 cuts permanent."

Failure to sustain the tax cuts would have real impact on people's lives. As the Heritage Foundation reported, the Rangel position would have the following results:

- Tax rates will rise substantially in each tax bracket, some by 450 basis points;
- Low-income taxpayers will see the 10-percent tax bracket disappear, and they will have to pay taxes at the 15-percent rate;
- Married taxpayers will see the marriage penalty return;
- Taxpayers with children will lose 50 percent of their child tax credits;
- Taxes on dividends will increase beginning on Jan. 1, 2009;
- Taxes on capital gains will increase, also beginning on Jan. 1, 2009; and
- Federal death taxes will come back to life in 2011, after fading down to nothing in 2010.

Heritage estimated that these tax increases would lead to the loss of "more than one million lost jobs each year between 2011 and 2014; more than $100 billion less in economic output per year; slower wage and salary growth; and slower savings growth."

So Which Future Will It Be?

The choice presented by the first big truth is very clear and very simple:

If you want to go back to high taxes, high interest rates, high inflation, slower economic growth, more unemployment, fewer savings, shorter vacations and more bureaucracy, then you have a party in the Democrats -- because the Democrat record proves that Democratic policies will produce these results.

On the other hand if you want more take-home pay, more jobs, more economic growth, more time with your family and more savings with lower taxes and smaller bureaucracy, then you have a party in the Republicans.

It really is that simple and direct. Republicans just have to focus on, make the case for, and then win the argument with the historic record.

The Second Big Truth: San Francisco, Left-wing Values are Rejected by Most Americans and Should Not be Third in Line to be President

Any conservative who is considering staying home this fall has to consider the consequence of their not voting.

The Democrats are set to put as third in line to be President the most liberal leader they have ever had.

These positions are so unpopular that virtually any Republican candidate, even in a very moderate district, ought to be able to sharply draw the contrast.

If you go back to my newsletter of September 5 on the American Eleven, you will see the kind of solutions that are supported by the vast majority of the American people.

Contrast that newsletter with Nancy Pelosi's voting record.

Nancy Pelosi legitimately represents the values of her liberal San Francisco district.

They are simply not values most Americans can support or feel comfortable with in the powerful position her party is willing to give her.

America vs. the Pelosi Record at Home

Consider the following votes (all opposed by the vast majority of Americans):

- On July 31, 1996, Pelosi voted against the historic Welfare Reform Bill and later voted against its reauthorization;


- On July 19, 2006, Pelosi voted against protecting the right to say "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance;


- On Sept. 20, 2006, Pelosi voted against requiring that voters be identified so we could ensure only legal citizens are voting;


- On July 13, 2006, Pelosi voted against requiring English on ballots;


- On June 30, 2005, Pelosi refused to side with homeowners against the Kelo decision that allows cities to seize private property for profitable ventures, even though 365 members voted to stop cities from taking private property.


- Pelosi has voted at least 12 times against the death penalty;


- Pelosi was one of only 67 House members to vote against the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA);


- Pelosi has voted at least eight times against banning partial-birth abortion, at least three times against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (Laci's law), and scored a perfect 100 percent rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America;


- Pelosi voted against a bill that would "[b]ar the transportation of a minor girl across state lines to obtain an abortion without the consent of a parent, guardian or judge;"


- Pelosi voted at least 31 times for using local or federal taxpayer dollars to fund abortions; and


- Pelosi received an "F" rating from the National Rifle Association.

The Third Big Truth: Terrorists and Dictators are a Real Threat to Our Lives, Our Country and Our Children, and We Need a Strategy for Securing and Winning. We Cannot Go Back to a Strategy for Appeasing the Losing.

The North Korean nuclear test was a powerful warning about how dangerous the world is becoming.

The United Nations' speeches of Iran's Ahmadinejad and Venezuela's Chavez are reminders of how much they hate us and how much they are determined to defeat us.

The continuing brutality and violence in Iraq is more evidence that we have real enemies who want to kill us.
The London bombing plot to destroy 10 airliners included a husband and wife who the London Telegraph reports "allegedly planned to take their six-month-old baby on a mid-air suicide mission." Imagine an enemy willing to kill their own six-month-old baby if that would help them kill us (the opposite of the story of King Solomon and the two mothers who argued over the baby and the real mother proved her love by being willing to give up the baby to save its life).

In the face of these dangers and this hatred, the Democrats would make the person third in line to be Commander-in-Chief an authentic representative of the policies of weakness and appeasement, which Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick described in 1984 as "the San Francisco Democrats." Ironically, this new potential Commander-in-Chief really is a San Francisco Democrat.

America vs. the Pelosi Record Abroad

Consider the following national security votes by a would-be Speaker Nancy Pelosi:

- On Sept. 14, 2006, Pelosi voted against building a fence on the border to protect America from terrorists;


- Before 9/11, Pelosi repeatedly voted to cut intelligence (in 1993 by $500 million) and after 9/11 she has still voted to cut intelligence (in 2004 she voted to withhold 25 percent of intelligence funds);


- When you ask why we were not more prepared for 9/11, remember that six months before Sept. 11, 2001, Pelosi voted to decrease proposed defense spending by $65 billion;


- The next time you think about North Korean nuclear tests and North Korean efforts to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile to reach the United States, remember that in 2002, Pelosi voted for an amendment to the FY 2003 Defense authorization that would block FY 2003 funding for space-based missile defense programs;


- Pelosi led a faction of 124 House Democrats who voted against final passage of the Patriot Act's reauthorization;


- Pelosi voted against the $87-billion Iraq/Afghanistan supplemental that included extra money for body armor for our soldiers;


- Pelosi voted against creation of Homeland Security Department;


- Pelosi was one of only 33 members to vote against prohibiting U.S. citizens and companies from conducting any financial transaction with countries that have been identified by the State Department as active sponsors of terrorism; and


- In 2004, Pelosi voted against House passage of the intelligence overhaul bill, which reorganized 15 intelligence agencies under one Director of National Intelligence.

Pelosi also supports immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq, saying that "[I] myself support the course of action that Mr. Murtha has put forth." And let's be clear about exactly what Mr. Murtha is for: withdrawing from Iraq and leaving it to the terrorists.

The future with Alcee L. Hastings as chairman of the Intelligence Committee based upon the historic record...

If all of this were not extraordinary enough, Nancy Pelosi has made clear her intention, if the Democrats gain the majority, to force ranking Democrat Jane Harman (Calif.) to step down and replace her with Alcee L. Hastings of Florida as the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Hastings is a former federal judge who was indicted in 1981 for influence peddling, then impeached by a vote of 413-3 in the House and removed from his judgeship by subsequent conviction in the Senate on eight articles of impeachment. Hastings' conviction was only the sixth time that the Senate has removed a judge from office in an impeachment trial. It is not clear why Pelosi would place her trust in an impeached former judge to lead the oversight of our nation's intelligence agencies.

Never in American history has a person with such consistent an anti-defense, anti-intelligence and anti-security record been allowed to be third in line to be Commander-in-Chief. Every Democrat running for Congress should be required to defend their decision to vote for a person who believes in such weakness, appeasement and withdrawal policies to run the House.

The Election's Not Over Until It's Over

The 2006 elections are a long way from over. Republicans can still make a compelling case for victory.

The San Francisco left is unacceptable to the American people. Their policies are too expensive for our wallets and our family budgets, and too weak to trust in a world of terrorists and dictators who want to kill us.

Republicans owe it to the country to make the next three weeks count. Republicans can win if they have the confidence to know what's right and to say what's right. Republicans owe it to the country to make the choice clear.

Your friend,

Newt Gingrich


P.S. - The heart of the next two weeks for Republicans should be focusing on and making the case for the big three truths outlined above. Nonetheless, there will be two topics on which every conservative candidate will have to have an adequate answer. They are the Foley mess and the energy situation. Republicans have two clear answers.

The Foley Mess

Mark Foley resigned from Congress within two hours of a reporter's showing him his sexually explicit instant messages to a former page.

He had no choice except to resign, because the Republican leadership would have expelled him.

What has amazed me is the one-sided anti-Republican news media smear and lynch mob which then ensued.

After a few days of the one-sided anti-Republican coverage, I began to speak out because I was witness to the last two Democratic efforts to deal with sex scandals in the House -- the page scandal of 1983 and the Barney Frank male prostitute/parking ticket fixing scandal of 1990.

In both cases the Democrat Party wanted the mildest possible punishment.

In both cases the Republicans insisted on tougher penalties. The 1983 page case involved one Democrat and one Republican, so it was a bipartisan problem.

At that time, I insisted that the sanction on those congressmen be raised from reprimand (which had no impact on their careers) to censure (which blocked them from a committee or subcommittee chairmanship). I threatened to move expulsion if the penalty was not increased.

Against substantial Democratic opposition, the penalty was increased from reprimand to censure. The Republican was contrite and ashamed. The Democrat was militant and unapologetic.

Even though Gerry Studds (Mass.), the Democrat, was convicted by the Ethics Committee of having sex with one page over a long period of time (beginning when the page was 16) and making advances to two other pages, he received three rounds of applause from the Democratic side of the aisle when he adamantly defended his actions.

After his censure, Nancy Pelosi voted three times to make Gerry Studds chairman of a committee, even though he was convicted of sex with an under-age page. It makes her current promises to be tougher than Republicans dishonest and hypocritical.

The Barney Frank case involved fixing 33 parking tickets for a male prostitute who was running a prostitution ring out of Frank's apartment (without the congressman's knowledge, according to his testimony, even though he had fixed 33 tickets for him). The Democrats voted 252-2 against a motion to censure Frank for abusing his office by fixing the tickets for his prostitute roommate.

I offered that motion to censure, and Nancy Pelosi voted against it.

Republicans should be firm about setting a higher standard on protecting pages than the Democrats did. Republicans should be firm about insisting on a higher standard of enforcing the rules than the Democrats did.

Republicans should not passively allow themselves to be lectured by hypocritical Democrats or the news media about their record compared to the Democrats when they were in charge.

An Energy Strategy for National Security, the Economy and the Environment

The American people want a better strategy for energy security.

They understand instinctively that the current reliance on imported oil is bad for our national security, for our environment and for our economy.

Even though gasoline and natural gas prices have gone down dramatically, Americans have a deep sense that something needs to be fixed, and they want more long-term leadership on this issue than they are getting.

Republicans should advocate an energy strategy to include renewable fuels, bio-fuels, new approaches to clean coal, and safe nuclear energy consistent with scientifically sound conservation principles.

All of these approaches are doable in a time of dramatic scientific change. Iowa Congressman Jim Nussle's IOWA Act (Independence from Oil With Agriculture) would dramatically expand the use of renewable fuels. The American people would rather support America's farmers than pay dictators in Iran or Venezuela for their fuel.

By contrast, with a Republican desire to pass legislation to improve energy production, energy efficiency, and the use of renewable fuels, Nancy Pelosi voted against the Energy Act of 2005, which moved America in the right direction on these issues.

Decision Time For Americans By Henry Lamb

Source: http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/guest/2006/hl_10161.shtml

The nation is less than a month away from deciding whether to stay the course, or cut and run. Democrats are giddy about retaking the House of Representatives, and, some predict, even the Senate. National polls support the Democrats' optimism and deliver a sobering slap-in-the-face to Republicans.

The possibility that the Democrats could reclaim the majority in Congress should be a sobering reality for every American. The consequences will be dramatic, not only in foreign policy, but for the economy, and for domestic policy as well.

In the absence of a coherent alternative, the Democrats seem to fall in line behind John Murtha's idea of pulling U.S. troops back "over the horizon" and letting the Iraqis fight their own battles - unless they begin to fail - in which case, the U.S. troops would be sent in to save the day. A Democratic Congress could not force the Commander-in-Chief to employ this tactic, but the Democrats could make it even harder for the President to conduct the war by demanding hearings and conducting endless "investigations."


The same Democrat leadership that condemned the President for his unilateral "cowboy" approach to foreign policy, now condemns him for refusing unilateral talks with Iran and North Korea. Instead, he's relying on the international community to exert collective influence on these two rogue nations, in an effort to give diplomacy every opportunity to prevent conflict.

The question is, should the Democrats be in control when push comes to shove, what will America do? Push will come to shove, sooner or later. Iran will not give up its quest to join the nuclear club, and North Korea will not relent from its national idiocy.

Today's Democrats are not the Democrats of the Harry Truman era. They are the Democrats of George Soros, of Michael Moore, of Howard Dean, of Nancy Pelosi, of John Kerry, of Ted Kennedy, and of Hillary Clinton. These are the Democrat leaders who championed Bill Clinton's cut-and-run from Somalia, when warlords shot down a Blackhawk helicopter and dragged American soldiers through the streets. These are the Democrat leaders who applauded the appeasement of Kim Jong-il when Clinton's envoy, Jimmy Carter, gave nuclear reactors to North Korea. These are the Democrat leaders who prefer to look the other way, and pretend that things are getting better - rather than making the hard decisions required to make things better.

These are the same Democrat leaders who continually complain about the horrible economic situation caused by Bush's "tax cuts for the rich." They vow to "undo" the economic structure that has produced a record stock market, near-record employment rates, near-record federal revenues, and faster than expected deficit reductions. These gains have been made in the face of unprecedented demand for funding to recover from 9-11, a three-year war, and catastrophic disaster relief from Katrina.

These are the same Democrat leaders who are staunch believers in the Karl Marx idea that government must take ""From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." Every chance they get, Democrats systematically penalize success, and reward failure through their tax redistribution policies. Democrats have already announced that every Bush tax cut will be on the table when they take control of Congress. Every new redistribution program brings with it a new federal bureaucracy, that requires excessive administrative cost and swells government even more.


These are the same Democrat leaders who prefer to control human behavior through regulations, rather than to allow individuals to freely explore their own potential. The idea of private property is obsolete, and carries no weight against the need for government to protect a yellow-bellied beetle - if an environmental group says it is endangered. A man's home is his castle - unless government decides his castle would produce more revenue if given to another private - sustainable - developer.

These are the same Democrat leaders who implemented Bill Clinton's Sustainable Development policies which abolish the idea that a person may use his private property as he wishes. All land use must fit into a government-approved comprehensive land use plan. Communities can no longer grow as determined by local markets, conditions and officials. Communities must be "sustainable," as determined by government.

Life in America under the control of the new Democrat leadership is, indeed, a sobering thought. The super-hyped flap about Mark Foley's perversions is inconsequential, compared to the deluge of perversions a Democrat majority is eager to impose on this nation.

The Democrat party is driven by people who do not remember Harry Truman. Those who do - Democrats, Republicans, and everyone in between - know that there comes a time when decisive action is required. That time is November 7, 2006.

----------

Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO), and chairman of Sovereignty International.

How Dare You Not Vote! By Doug Patton

Source: http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/dpatton/2006/dp_1016p.shtml

So, you are a conservative who has faithfully voted for Republicans ever since 9/11. Or possibly your eyes were opened back in 1994, when Democrats were routed in the GOP "revolution." Maybe you recognized the vacuous nature of Democrat fiscal, social and foreign policies when you first listened to Ronald Reagan take on Jimmy Carter in 1980. Perhaps you are a hard-core Goldwater conservative who has simply become fed up with the profligate spending and irresponsible border policies of the current Republican leadership.

We're hearing a lot of talk about conservative voters -- especially social conservatives -- staying home this election. Most of it is coming from those in the so-called mainstream media, many of whom want to see their heroes on the Left reinstated to what they think are their rightful places of power. They hope that Mark Foley or some other silly, isolated scandal will keep you from going to the polls.

I don't believe everyone should vote. If you are not motivated to inform yourself on the issues, I don't want you even having a voice in who will represent me. But if you are a disgruntled conservative Republican who knows the issues and understands what is at stake in this election, I have one message for you in this crucial mid-term election: don't you dare fail to vote next month!

From taxes to judges, from social policy to national security issues, it matters who is in charge, and Democrats cannot be trusted to do the right thing. Don't get me wrong; many Republicans can't be trusted either, having let us down in several key areas. But at least the GOP grassroots still holds fast to a solid conservative platform, and the constituencies to which the party leaders must appeal have a chance to keep them in check when they are struck with their annual case of Potomac Fever. Democrats, on the other hand, are unapproachable on the issues about which we care so deeply. In fact, many of their policies are so radical that they could get us all killed.

I remember the way many anti-war liberals treated those of us who served in the military during the Vietnam War. They hated us and called us baby killers, and they defaced their own country every time they spat on one of our uniforms. They are at it again today. They pay lip service to "supporting the troops while opposing the war," but their call for retreat from the primary front in the war on terror demeans the brave men and women whose valor has motivated them to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country. Add to that the ridiculous left-wing contention that terrorism is a law enforcement problem rather than a declaration of war and it becomes clear why they cannot be allowed to regain power.

From the American Revolution to the current war on Islamic extremism, the United States has produced some of the most valiant warriors ever to wear a uniform. Most of them didn't want to fight. Most would have preferred to stay home with their families and enjoy the liberty afforded by the great nation in which they were born while allowing someone else to serve in their place. But that is not the American way. That is not a part of the culture in which they were raised. Those who serve recognize that each generation that went before them paid a price for their liberty, and they are willing to do their part.

In the face of such love of freedom, how would you explain to those who gave their lives for your right to vote that you can't be bothered to go to the polls and exercise it because you're angry at the party in power? As you contemplate how to express your frustration with Republican leaders who may have mishandled the power we have entrusted to them, consider how you would explain your apathy to the 1.2 million brave men who have given their lives in America's wars over the last 230 years.

Then get yourself to the polls and exercise your precious right to vote.

----------

Doug Patton is a freelance columnist who has served as a political speechwriter and public policy advisor. His weekly columns are published in newspapers across the country and on selected Internet web sites, including Human Events Online, TheConservativeVoice.com and GOPUSA.com, where he is a senior writer and state editor. Readers may e-mail him at dougpatton@cox.net.

Winning the Future for October 9, 2006

Winning the Future for October 9, 2006

by Newt Gingrich

The Reagan Library and Lessons for America in 2006

Callista and I had a wonderful visit to the Reagan Library on Friday. Mrs. Reagan was a wonderful hostess, and more than 700 people came to a talk I gave on President Reagan's lessons in leadership and how they applied to our current problems.

Walking through this beautiful library with its stirring pictures and videos of President and Mrs. Reagan and with all the reminders of President Reagan's great achievements, I couldn't help but reflect on the gap between what he did and what we are doing in Washington today.

Let me share a few of the lessons that leaped out at me on Friday.

Lesson #1: How Reagan would have handled North Korea in the short run.

There is an F-14 just outside the Reagan Library. It is a memorial to the Reagan commitment to standing up to dictators. After four years of Jimmy Carter's weakness, the world no longer believed America had the strength to stand up for its values and its interests.

Twenty-five years ago, in the Gulf of Sidra, American naval aircraft (F-14 fighters) crossed what Qaddafi had called "the line of death." The Libyans challenged us, and we shot down two Libyan fighter planes. We had reasserted freedom of the seas and given the world proof that a new leader was bringing new strength.

There is also a display about the 1981 PATCO (Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization) strike, when Reagan fired all the controllers engaged in an illegal strike -- reminding the nation that breaking the law has consequences. They thought their importance to the air traffic control system gave them the power to blackmail America. President Reagan knew that if he caved in to the air traffic controllers, there would be an even bigger test two months later when the postal workers' contract expired. He stood firm.

Gorbachev said, years later, that it was the mental toughness Reagan displayed in firing the air traffic controllers that convinced him Reagan meant what he said and would fight if necessary.

Compare that experience with the fact that the entire civilized world said in July that it would be "unacceptable" for North Korea to fire missiles. In response, North Korea chose our Independence Day to fire seven missiles. They tested the "unacceptable." It turned out to be acceptable. Is it any wonder that North Korea has now tested a nuclear weapon?

Reagan would have found a variety of steps to make it extremely expensive for the North Koreans to display contempt for the entire civilized world (remember, in 1986, Reagan ordered an American air strike on Libya for killing two American servicemen in a Berlin nightclub).

For President Reagan, "unacceptable" would have meant "unacceptable."

Lesson #2: How Reagan would have handled North Korea in the long run.

President Reagan entered office in 1981 with a clear vision of allying with Prime Minister Thatcher of Great Britain and Pope John Paul II to defeat the Soviet Empire. Without firing a shot, they worked to strengthen the Solidarity trade union in Poland, increase the resources available to the Polish people and undermine the effectiveness of the Communist dictatorship. Within 11 years of Reagan's inauguration, the Soviet Union disappeared. The Cold War was over. We had won.

North Korea is a vicious dictatorship in the middle of a famine. Its policies have shrunk the height of the average North Korean by more than three inches over the last generation through malnutrition. There are more than 200,000 North Koreans imprisoned in concentration camps. It is an evil regime grinding down the lives of its people.

A Reaganite strategy would funnel every penny of help and every bit of food aid through a system of private activity consciously designed to undermine the dictatorship.

A Reaganite strategy would isolate the government while helping the people. It would seek every angle to get humanitarian aid to the people. Food might be parachuted into the country, delivered from submarines and small boats by clandestine services, shipped in from China and Russia through anti-regime middlemen and delivered in every way possible to divert energy and authority away from the government and toward an alternative organizing system of individuals dedicated to a better, more prosperous life. Just as in Eastern Europe, we would rapidly discover a lot of people willing to subvert the regime for better lives for their families, and we would find the regime beginning to splinter and fragment in the face of opportunities for food, goods and prosperity.

Lesson #3: How President Reagan would have dealt with economic success.

We are in the midst of declining unemployment, relatively stable prices, declining gasoline prices and near-record stock markets. Yet the elite media is doing everything it can to avoid telling people the good news that Republican policies have worked.

President Reagan understood this. He once said, "I knew the economy was improving when the news media quit calling it Reagonomics."

Republicans should adopt the Reagan principles of clarity, optimism, cheerfulness and repetition and keep reminding people that cutting taxes to encourage entrepreneurs has worked and that Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel's promise to raise every tax cut if his party takes over the House (he would become the chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee) would be a disaster that would lead to slower growth, less take-home pay and more unemployment. If we do not make the argument, we can hardly expect to win it.

Lesson #4: How President Reagan would have dealt with the aftermath of Foley's resignation and the Democrat claim to have moral legitimacy on corruption and sexual behavior.

In 1980, then-candidate Reagan used the phrase "there you go again" to communicate to the American people that President Jimmy Carter was lying in attacking the Reagan record. It was devastatingly simple and effective.

Nancy Pelosi (see below), Teddy Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Barney Frank and other Democrats have no standing to attack Republicans over cleaning up Congress. However, Republicans have to have the nerve to stand up and set the record straight. The 1980 Reagan campaign was a model of insisting on the truth and one that we should use to be crystal clear about who has been tough in stopping sexual predators and who has promoted and protected sexual predators. That is not a debate the San Francisco Democrats can win if we are direct, candid and firm on the facts.

Lesson #5: How President Reagan would have convinced the American people that we truly have to worry about weapons of mass destruction and weapons of mass death.

President Reagan understood that educating the American people and convincing them that a problem was real and a solution was necessary was at the heart of his job.

He knew that, if he could not convince the American people, he could not sustain the support he needed in the Congress. He also knew that Joseph Napolitan was right when he said "you should never underestimate the intelligence of the American people nor overestimate the amount of information they have."

When you visit the Reagan Library and look at the actual text of his radio commentaries from the 1970s or the texts of his talks with the American people during his presidency, it is amazing how fact filled and compelling they are.

President Reagan was a great educator far more than he was a great communicator.

He knew that historic challenges required historic actions and that those actions could only be undertaken by an aroused, informed and mobilized American people.

Faced with the current threat of terrorists and dictators who seek nuclear weapons of mass destruction and biological weapons of mass murder, I believe President Reagan would have concluded that the level of education needed was beyond any speech or even set of speeches.

I think that, faced with this threat, President Reagan would have called on the Congress to authorize three exercises a year by the Department of Homeland Security. Two of the exercises would involve a simulated nuclear attack on an American city. The third would involve an engineered biological attack on a region.

President Reagan would have understood that the experience of a simulated nuclear or biological attack would educate the American people and the American news media in ways that no Presidential speech could rival.

Because of his faith in the innate intelligence and wisdom of the American people, President Reagan would have been confident that the annual practice of responding to disasters on this scale would rapidly produce the commitment needed to ensure that America had a robust national security system and an effective homeland security system.

The Reagan Principles: Leadership, Education and Implementation

President Reagan was the second most effective President of the 20th Century (surpassed only by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who served 12 years and carried America through both the Great Depression and the Second World War).

President Reagan was successful because he understood principles of leadership, education and implementation, which are seldom studied or understood by most Washington politicians. They would all do well to visit the Reagan Library and consider how much they could learn about serving our times as well as President Reagan served his.

Your friend,

Newt Gingrich


P.S. - As you listen to Nancy Pelosi promise to clean up what she calls a "swamp" of congressional problems, remember the following facts from her record:

1. Pelosi voted three times to make a convicted page sexual predator, former Congressman Gerry Studds (D-Mass.), chair of a congressional committee.


2. In 1990, Pelosi voted against censuring Barney Frank for having his live-in boyfriend run a prostitution ring from Frank's apartment.


3. Pelosi raised no objections when Clinton pardoned Democrat Congressman Mel Reynolds (Ill.) who had been convicted of felonies for having had sex with a 16-year-old campaign worker.

The historic Nancy Pelosi is an authentic representative of San Francisco liberal values and hardly has the record to lecture anyone on cleaning up the Congress.

Ask Newt

Each week, this newsletter features questions from its readers. Have a question? Send an email to Newt at asknewt@newt.org.

Q. I am a Georgetown Law student who heard Mr. Gingrich speak at Justice O'Connor's and Justice Breyer's Judicial Independence Conference.

During the conference, Mr. Gingrich made the argument that when courts make decisions that are out of line with public opinion, they should be sanctioned in some way (including the distant possibility of jurisdiction stripping). I wonder what Mr. Gingrich would say to the counterargument that the framers intended precisely to create a branch of government that could counter the "terror of the majority" -- that precisely because the framers feared majority rule, they imbued the judiciary with essentially life-time appointments.

Sometimes the public reacts immediately in an overemotional way, and -- as the framers foresaw -- someone who will not be immediately elected needs to step in. Should the public opinion be so fundamentally contrary to the opinions of the judiciary, the framers provided a framework for appropriate inter-branch dialogue to remedy the situation, rather than bully the judiciary out of existence. Isn't there something fundamentally important that should be preserved, as intended by the framers, of having a branch not immediately responsive to majority public opinion?


Elizabeth
Georgetown Law School

A. Thank you, Elizabeth, for the thoughtful question. Indeed, an entire book could be written addressing it alone, so I admit up front that this limited space will be inadequate to answer it fully.

The framers did not fear majority rule as you suggest. Rather, they explicitly created -- in substantial part -- a system of majoritarian rule. Nevertheless, the framers were careful to make this majority subject to several inherent limitations designed to maximize individual liberty and minimize the chances of a coercive majority. First, the government would only be able to act under the enumerated powers in the Constitution. Second, the framers were careful to define in the Bill of Rights several fundamental liberties that no majority could ever abridge. Third, the framers created three co-equal branches of government, each with its own powers to check and balance the other two branches of government.

In Federalist No. 10, James Madison warned of the danger of rule by "factions," by which he meant a group of people, whether a minority or majority united by a "common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."

What Madison meant by "faction" is very similar to what I think you mean by your phrase "terror of the majority." Madison was aware that corruption by factions could overtake our representatives and betray the interests of the people. Nevertheless, he concluded that eliminating the causes of factions is impossible, so the solution is to build a system of governance that mitigates their effects. And a key defense against this danger was the large size of the American republic: A national legislature with representatives from different states has a greater variety of parties. The competition between them prevents any one faction from gaining control.

Also, the bicameral federal Congress was constructed, in part, to find a balance between both representation for the will of the people and stability against fleeting passions. Therefore, every member of the House of Representatives is up for election every two years while senators are elected for six years terms so only one-third of the body is up for election in any election cycle. The Senate is constitutionally designed as a buffer against fleeting expressions of popular will.

I think it is relevant to your question that nowhere in Federalist No. 10 does Madison contemplate that the judiciary would play a role in controlling factions. Consistent with Madison's omission of any mention of the judiciary in Federalist No. 10 to guard against the dangers of factions is Alexander Hamilton observation in Federalist No. 78 that the judiciary "will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them."

In short, our framers were very deliberate about constructing a constitutional system whose various sources of popular legitimacy and internal checks and balances would ensure that the majority that passed laws reflected a broad-based and durable national will. The elected branches, not the judiciary, were intended to be the chief protectors of the Constitution. The framers most certainly did not intend, as you suggest in your counterargument, that the federal judiciary alone would be supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson said it best:

To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is ... good justice is broad jurisdiction, and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.

Finally, I make no argument for disregarding any decisions of the Supreme Court, whether such court decisions are popular or not. I merely draw attention to the clear constitutional powers of the elected branches of government to check and balance decisions of the judicial branch. I believe such a constitutional exercise of checks and balances with respect to the judicial branch would likely occur in only rare and narrow circumstances.

If you wish to understand one historical example of this exercise, read Abraham Lincoln's First Inaugural Address in which he explains his careful and narrow approach to the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision. Nevertheless, should the federal judiciary fail to exercise judicial restraint and instead make future rulings wildly at odds with the overwhelming national will expressed in the rule of law, then a response from the elected branches of government is surely inevitable.

Here a clear example is any future Supreme Court decision on the 1954 federal law that added the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance. In 2002, the Ninth Circuit found the 1954 addition of the words "under God" unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court reversed on technical grounds. A new case before the Ninth Circuit is once again arguing that the words "under God" in the Pledge are unconstitutional. Ninety-one percent of the American people support the words "under God" in the Pledge. In the wake of the 2002 Ninth Circuit decision, the Congress explicitly reaffirmed the words "under God" in the Pledge -- and the 1954 law that inserted them -- by a vote of 99-0 in the Senate and 401-5 in the House. This reflects an overwhelming _expression of the national will expressed in the rule of law. The federal judiciary would be wise to take note.

Winning the Future for September 25, 2006

Winning the Future for September 25, 2006

by Newt Gingrich

The Words of Dictators Preparing for War

You may be wondering what the vicious, anti-American rhetoric in the United Nations last week really means -- not to mention the troubling silence that followed from our leaders. Let me give you my analysis of what it could mean if we allow our enemies to occupy the moral high ground:

One day Americans may watch North Korean-designed, Iranian-built missiles being installed in Venezuela. We would be left wondering if these missiles are carrying Iranian or North Korean nuclear warheads. We will then better understand the meaning of last week's speeches.


For those of you who are unconvinced, here are three statements that every American should know and think about. They are from the three men -- three very dangerous men -- who spoke to us last week.

"The devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the devil came here. Right here. And it smells of sulfur still today."


-- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, referring to President Bush,
on the floor of the United Nations General Assembly
"To those who doubt, to those who ask is it possible, or those who do not believe, I say accomplishment of a world without America and Israel is both possible and feasible."


-- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
"No army in the world is strong enough to disarm us."


-- Hezbollah terrorist leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, last week to
a "victory rally" of thousands of Hezbollah supporters.
So my question to you is this: If these aren't the words of dictators preparing for war, how can you explain them?

Loud Applause at the UN -- Silence in America

Here is how the New York Times described the response in the UN General Assembly to Hugo Chavez's venomous speech: "The gasps. The horrified giggles. The loud applause that lasted so long that the organization's officials had to tell the cheering group to cut it out."

But at least as troubling as the response of the so-called diplomats at the UN (most of whom are recipients of U.S. aid, by the way) was the lack of response by American leaders.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal about Chavez's speech, Peggy Noonan hit the nail on the head: "His remarks were startling. No one wants to dignify them with a response. But that's a mistake. Because the world heard them."

America's lack of response to the vitriolic anti-American speech at the United Nations and elsewhere this week was a fundamental mistake. It projects a message of weakness to the world, and our politics and attitudes of weakness only feed our enemies' sense of confidence.

In fact, in the Washington Post, columnist David Ignatius wrote that the "overriding theme" of Iranian dictator Ahmadinejad's visit to America was "confidence." We've seen this confidence before. It reminded Ignatius of Ahmadinejad's predecessor, Ayatollah Khomeini, when he led Iran's decent into tyranny in the late 1970s fed by an anti-American ideology. The message of both Iranian dictators, writes Ignatius, was this: "America cannot do a damn thing."

Three Strategies to Change the United Nations

The spectacle of hate and anti-Americanism being vigorously applauded by those sustained by our aid and contributions to international organizations does more than just discredit the participants -- it calls the whole UN process into question. The recent, modest efforts at reform there have clearly failed. The United States needs to immediately undertake three strategies to transform the UN from the anti-American, anti-freedom forum it now is into an effective champion for the spread of democracy and human rights.

1. Hold Dictators and Demagogues Accountable: Following Chavez's tirade of lies and personal insults to our President, the United States should have taken him on, not ignored him. We should have demanded that he personally apologize and that the General Assembly censure him. We owe it to ourselves and to an effective UN to confront head-on every lie about America and freedom uttered there.

2. Demand Our Money's Worth: America contributes 22 percent of the United Nation's budget, but what do we get for our money? We need to begin to use all our resources -- our diplomacy and our economic muscle -- to organize the votes worldwide to profoundly reform the UN. All of our ambassadors must be tasked with using whatever carrots and sticks are available in our relations with other countries to see that the UN is reorganized. Because if the United Nations isn't organized in support of democracies and against dictatorships, what are we and our money doing there?

3. Put the Burden of Proof on Them: America should begin to seek out and create alternative forums for dealing with other nations until the United Nations has proved to us it is reformed. The burden of proof should be on the United Nations to show us that it can be something more than a soapbox for tyrants and a megaphone for hate.

Are Things Looking Up for November?

Despite the bad news coming from the United Nations this week, there was good news on the home front.

First, an update on the American Eleven: On Wednesday, by a vote of 228 to 196, the House passed legislation to require every individual who wants to vote in the 2008 federal elections to have a photo ID (American Eleven Action Item #4).

Also on Wednesday, following a Winning the Future Special Alert urging you to call your senators, the Senate voted to prevent a Democratic filibuster on the Secure Fence Act (American Eleven Action Item #2). Once again, your phone calls, letters and emails are proving that real change starts with the American people, not the Washington elite.

And not coincidentally, the polls are showing brighter prospects for Republicans in the November elections. In the USA Today/Gallup poll, when American are asked whether they will vote for Republicans or Democrats in the fall, the Democrats' advantage has dropped from 11 points in late July to dead even with Republicans. The Fox News poll shows the Democrats' lead shrinking from 16 points in late August to three points today.

Will We Win the Future?

Could we be seeing a reversal of electoral fortune? Only time will tell.

And what about that imagined future scenario of North Korean-designed, Iranian-built missiles being installed in Venezuela? Here, again, only time -- and American will -- will tell. But there is one thing we can know now, and it's not so different from what we're seeing with the November elections: When we do what's right, and when we listen to the American people, we come closer to winning the future. So let's keep winning.

Your friend,

Newt Gingrich


P.S. - I noticed some other polling data that may also mean better news for Republicans in the fall. When Iowa voters are asked who they prefer in hypothetical 2008 presidential match-ups, they show a continued drift away from liberal Democrats and toward independent Republicans. For example, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani beats Sen. Hillary Clinton by 19 points - Sen. John McCain beats Clinton by 17 points. They both also beat Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry by double digits. This doesn't really sound like the stuff of an anti-Republican tide about to sweep the nation, now does it?


Ask Newt

Each week, this newsletter features questions from its readers. Have a question? Send an email to Newt at asknewt@newt.org.

Q. I like some of your ideas on stopping illegal immigration into this country. I would like to know your opinion on the only real way to stop it and to deal with the 12 million already here, and that is to penalize the companies that hire them.


Phillip B
Princeton, W.Va.

A. Thank you for the question, Phillip. I couldn't agree more. Your question gets to the fundamental dishonesty of our current immigration system. I wrote about this dishonesty in a white paper and in an oped for National Review Online earlier this year, and I spoke about it in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute (links can be found below). My view is that the enforcement of our immigration laws must be focused on holding American employers accountable.

After all, the root cause of our country's illegal immigration challenge is not the willingness of non-citizens to break our immigration laws -- it is the willingness of U.S. citizens who own businesses to break the law because of the unwillingness of the U.S. government to enforce them. Our government's failure to enforce sanctions on employers who break the law sends a signal to everyone in the world that we are simply not serious about our immigration laws. We are actually encouraging them to be broken. So why shouldn't a Guatemalan earning 30 cents an hour come to the United States to make 20 or 30 times more?

A simple first step our government can take to create an honest immigration system would be to verify Social Security numbers to determine who is employing people illegally. In 2004, the U.S government collected more than $6 billion from employers for workers who are using non-existing Social Security numbers. But the government did not take the next logical step of contacting those companies. Moreover, in that same year, not a single employer was fined for employing workers illegally. Canada has a much smaller illegal immigration problem because they are able to quickly crack down on employers who do not follow the law.


There is always the temptation to not file payroll taxes in order to avoid detection. To deal with that, the government should make so severe the fines on any company that is caught knowingly employing people illegally or failing to pay taxes on employees that being caught would not be worth the risk.

People keep coming to the United States illegally because they are finding companies willing to hire them illegally. If we put an end to illegal jobs, then only people who come legally will find jobs.

Winning the Future for September 18, 2006

Winning the Future for September 18, 2006

by Newt Gingrich

The American Eleven:
Two Down, Nine to Go

Two weeks ago in "Winning the Future," I announced an 11-point plan for victory in the November elections. I called it "The American Eleven," and the reception it has received has been gratifying and encouraging.

The key to the American Eleven is this: Republican victory in 2006 depends on a return to the American values -- not Republican values but American values -- that twice elected Ronald Reagan and returned the House to a Republican majority in 1994 with the Contract with America.

This week, I'm happy to announce that the House has listened to the American people and acted on two of the most important action items in the American Eleven and action on a third item is pending this week.

House Passes Border Security -- Now Call Your Senator

The second action item in the American Eleven is as simple as it is urgent: Control the borders. It is impossible to pass "comprehensive" immigration reform before the election, but controlling our border is possible. Last week, the House took a giant leap toward doing just that with passage of the Secure Fence Act.

The bill provides for more than 700 miles of two-layered reinforced fencing along the Southwest border. In other areas, it would create a "virtual fence" through the use of cameras, ground sensors and other surveillance technology.

The passage of the Secure Fence Act was just what the language of the American Eleven called for two weeks ago: "A narrowly focused bill to ensure that the United States can control the border." Now that the House has shown itself on the side of the American people whose first priority on immigration and national security is to control the borders, House members should challenge the Senate -- every day -- to do the same.

Action Item Eight: Control Spending and Balance the Budget

The eighth action item in the American Eleven challenged House Republicans to show Americans which party is really committed to smaller government with lower taxes and which is committed to bigger government with higher taxes.

One of the major sources of out-of-control spending in Congress has been the practice of "earmarking," or carving out chunks of taxpayer dollars for pet projects and special interests. Often, these earmarks are done anonymously, leaving their congressional sponsors unaccountable to the taxpayers who are footing the bill.

The House voted this week to require all members on all bills to own up to this kind of spending. House Majority Leader John Boehner put it best: "Members should be ready and willing to put their name on the projects they request, and if they aren't willing to do that, they shouldn't expect the American people to pay for it."

Action Item Four: Voter ID Card

Last Friday the House Administration Committee passed a bill (H.R. 4844) that will require that every individual who wishes to vote in the 2008 federal elections must present a photo ID to be allowed to cast a ballot. The full House is scheduled to vote on the measure this week. I'll be sure to keep you posted on what happens.

Watch here for future progress reports on the American Eleven.

Minnesota Democrats Nominate Radical Leftist Defender of Cop-Killers for Congress

I am writing you this week from Minneapolis, where the Democrats have nominated a radical left defender of cop killers to be their nominee for Congress.

Keith Ellison, a former member of the radical group the Nation of Islam, is Minnesota Democrats' choice to replace retiring Rep. Martin Sabo (D).

The issue is not Ellison's religion but his support for radical leftwing people and causes. Blogs such as Minnesota Democrats Exposed and Powerlineblog.com have uncovered that Ellison was a longtime local leader and spokesman for the Nation of Islam and its anti-Semitic leader, Louis Farrakhan. He has been a vocal defender of gang members and convicted murderers of police officers, including cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal and a cop-killer named on the FBI's most wanted domestic terrorist list currently being given sanctuary in Castro's Cuba.

The nomination of Keith Ellison by Minnesota Democrats is another step in the Dean-Pelosi-Lamont radicalization of the Democratic Party. A Democratic Party that would nominate a person this far to the left and committed to these radical values may become a big issue in the Minnesota Senate race and may be a further step toward defining the Democrats as a party that is unacceptably radical at home and weak abroad.

Keep Your Eye on Turtle Bay

As President Bush prepares to address the UN General Assembly on America's vision for the Middle East, keep your eye on the goings on at the United Nations. Note especially the Venezuelan effort to get a seat on the UN Security Council. A Venezuelan seat would be a significant setback to America and our democratic allies and would be an enormous victory for the Iranian-Venezuelan alliance (reaffirmed with last week's trip by Iranian dictator Ahmadinejad to Cuba and to Venezuela). Venezuela is a growing danger.

As Gas Prices Go, So Go Republicans?

The declining price of gasoline is a big underlying advantage for Republicans. If gasoline keeps dropping in price, Republicans' chances of keeping the House will get better and better.

The Latest Democratic Party Idea: Taxpayer-Funded Tuition for Illegal Immigrants

When I was campaigning in Wisconsin for Mark Green for governor this weekend, I learned that Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle had proposed in-state tuition for illegal immigrants.

That means Wisconsin would subsidize and reward illegality in the amount of nearly $40,000 over four years of college, courtesy of the Wisconsin taxpayers, and would simply attract even more illegal aliens to move to Wisconsin.

Not a Bad Week for Winning the Future

Two weeks ago in "Winning the Future," I offered my view that House Republicans faced a choice.

They could either continue to ignore the lessons of Ronald Reagan and the Contract with America and forget the fact that real change must begin with the American people, or House Republicans could learn from history. They could listen to the American people and return to the center-right, populist majority that Reagan and the Contract gave them.

Despite the troubling news from places like Minneapolis and the United Nations, the actions of the House this week are promising signs that they've chosen to learn from history. We win when we do what's right. We win when we listen to the American people.

So here's the count on the American Eleven in the House: Two down, nine to go. Not a bad week for winning the future.

Your friend,

Newt Gingrich


P.S. - I spoke last week at the Rinnai Corporation meeting in Dallas, Tex. They have a tankless hot water system which provides all the hot water you want through flash heating. In this system, there is no tank to keep warm all day and no wasted water as you wait for the tap to run hot. The result is a savings of 1,000 gallons of water per home per year and 20% less energy used (the energy savings are even bigger compared to electric hot water tanks). This is a good example of how better science and technology can improve our quality of life while providing conservation for both water and energy. It's the kind of thinking we need in the energy and environmental fields.


Ask Newt

Each week, this newsletter features questions from its readers. Have a question? Send an email to Newt at asknewt@newt.org.

Q. Is it not time the UN be reformed? Or is the body too corrupt and outdated to be effective?


Kayden Reece Taylor

A. Thank you for the question, Kayden. You are correct that, by any reasonable measure, the gap between the ideals of the United Nations Charter and the institution today is unacceptable. As you may know, I co-chaired a congressional task force on UN reform because I believe that a dramatically reformed UN can be an effective instrument in pursuit of a safer America and a freer world. The commission included members from across America's political spectrum but was still able to produce a consensus on a reasonable set of structural and management reforms. [Click here to read the report]

I was optimistic that the start of real reform of the United Nations was possible with the adoption of the task-force recommendations. However, I have grown discouraged with the failure of the United Nations to adopt even these modest improvements. On the 60th anniversary of the UN, I authored an op-ed for the Boston Globe to outline a vision for a fundamentally limited, but honest and effective United Nations.

I reinforced this vision in a testimony to the Congress where I laid out a step-by-step evaluation for reform and the urgency to get it done. I also made suggestions for what the United States should do if the UN failed to reform itself.

Here is a summary:

First, because the United Nations is not democratically accountable, it should be fundamentally limited. Moreover, it must prove itself to be honest with transparency and effective with metrics to measure results.

It should abandon any attempt to create new systems of law and behavior under the guise of "global governance," which are a direct threat to the sovereignty of democratic nations.

To regain credibility, the UN General Assembly must reach agreement on a comprehensive definition of terrorism.

Furthermore, it must deny nations that routinely abuse human rights a seat on the Human Rights Council.

UN dues should be made voluntary. The annual dues for the U.S. should be submitted to Congress annually and subject to the same appropriations and oversight process as all other taxpayer-appropriated monies.

In tandem with this step, the United States should lead a UN reform caucus of like-minded countries that will use a phased withholding of voluntary UN dues until the institution adopts meaningful reform that meets with the satisfaction of Congress and the other members of the coalition.

The United States should also begin to aggressively encourage alternative forums for international activity so as to contrast democratic, transparent and accountable mechanisms with the dysfunction of the United Nations.

In this effort to return the United Nations to an institution that matches its founding ideals, it is important to remember that it is not the burden of the United States to beg the UN to reform itself. The burden should be on the UN member-states to create a United Nations worth supporting.

Winning the Future -- Special 9/11 Edition

Winning the Future -- Special 9/11 Edition

by Newt Gingrich

Five Lessons From the First
Five Years of War

Some days become touchstones for generations and reveal the character of nations. Today we commemorate the fifth anniversary of such a day.

I know that you remember where you were that morning. I was scheduled to meet with two army officers to discuss the importance of land warfare. Army Chief of Staff Jack Keane had recruited me to advise the Army on a difficult peacetime communications problem: People had become so enamored of satellites and airplanes that they had forgotten how much of real warfare is done on the ground.

As I entered my office building in downtown Washington, someone on the elevator told me an airplane had crashed into the World Trade Center. I assumed it was a small plane and an example of wild pilot error or incompetence. But as I walked into the room to meet with the two officers, someone ran in to say a second plane had hit the buildings.

I immediately said, "This is a terrorist attack, and you will not have to worry about explaining the importance of land power for a long time." They left to go back to the Pentagon but had not reached it when an airplane hit the side of the building their offices were in. Their offices were destroyed, but they were safe.

The Courage and Determination of One Man

Just hours ago, I gave a speech at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington titled "Lessons From the First Five Years of War: Where Do We Go From Here?"

I began by asking the audience for two moments of silent prayer: One for the victims of Sept. 11, 2001, and another for all those who have given their lives in defense of freedom since that terrible day.

Five years after 9/11, the thing we have most to be grateful for is the fact that we have not suffered another terrorist attack. This is largely because of the courage and determination of one man, President George W. Bush. Faced with the deliberate and horrific attacks on 9/11, President Bush instinctively understood that this was a war.

He demonstrated his courage by taking that war to al Qaeda to protect the American people. That decision was the decisive break with the terrorism-as-a-criminal-act strategy and in direct contrast to the terrorism-as-a-nuisance mindset held by many.

Yet despite the President's best efforts, we must confront five big facts on this fifth anniversary.

Fact One: The Threat Is Mortal, Direct and Immediate

In the age of nuclear and biological weapons, even a few hateful people can do more damage than Adolph Hitler in the Second World War. The loss of two or three American cities to nuclear weapons is a real threat. The loss of hundreds of thousands -- or millions -- to a biological attack is a real threat.

This creates a new situation so frightening that most American leaders simply do not want to think through its implications.

Fact Two: The Threat Is Global and Involves Increasing Cooperation Among an Emerging Anti-American Coalition

This is an emerging third world war and any look at the active players and the centers of violence indicates just how worldwide it is. North Korea's missiles and nuclear weapons are potential assets for Iran, which is increasingly an ally of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.

Our enemies have to be seen in this global context.

- It is fundamentally misleading to try to isolate Afghanistan without understanding the role of sanctuaries in Northwest Pakistan.


- It is misleading to try to understand Iraq without understanding the role of resources, sanctuaries and leadership in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria.


- It is impossible to understand the role of Hezbollah in South Lebanon without examining the resources and support from Iran and Syria.


- Hugo Chavez has been in more than a dozen countries in the last few months. He is actively seeking an anti-American seat on the UN Security Council.

There is growing collaboration among our enemies and we have to design global responses to defeat that collaboration.

Fact Three: Our Enemies Are Increasingly Confident and Clear in Their Statements of What They Intend to Do to Defeat Us

Consider this recent statement by the Iranian dictator Ahmadinejad: "To those who doubt, to those who ask is it possible, or those who do not believe, I say accomplishment of a world without America and Israel is both possible and feasible."

What's more, as our enemies have taken stock of what America and her allies will and will not do they have grown bolder. As they watch the divisive politics in America and the anti-American sentiment in Europe, they have grown bolder. As they have watched the pathetic impotence of the United Nations and the degree to which powerful nations hide behind diplomatic negotiations as an excuse to say a lot but do little, they have grown bolder.

Fact Four: Despite These Clear Facts There Is Great Confusion Among our Elites and in the News Media and, Therefore, Among the American People

It is the understanding and support of the American people that is at the heart of whether or not we can undertake the effort needed for our national security.

But the American people do not yet believe their cities and their own lives are at risk. They do not believe that anything truly horrifying could happen.

For the moment, the terrorist threat has become an "over there" problem that impinges on our lives only when we go through security at an airport. The very success of the Bush Administration in stopping further terrorist attacks after 9/11 has made it possible for people to relax and ignore the threat.

There is no campaign more important than the campaign for the understanding and support of the American people and the people of our democratic allies. This has been a woefully inadequate effort over the last five years. We are now paying the cost of that inadequacy.

Fact Five: If the Threat Is Truly This Great, Then We Have to Confront the Fact That Much More Must be Done if We Are to Win

We must confront the reality that we are not where we wanted to be or where we need to be. We have not captured bin Laden. We have not defeated the Taliban in its sanctuaries in Northwest Pakistan. We have not stopped the recruitment of young fanatics into terrorism. We have not stopped either the Iranian or North Korean nuclear programs. We do not have a stable democratic Pakistan capable of securing its own nuclear weapons. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq is stable and secure. The United Nations is unreformed and we have failed to convince the people of America and of our fellow democracies of the correctness and necessity of what we are doing.

Victory Is Possible: What We Need to Do

My speech was more than simply a recitation of the challenges America faces. I included a series of steps we must take -- here at home, and in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and North Korea -- to learn the lessons of September 11 and secure our freedom. You can read them here.

They are the practical and necessary actions. And they must be accompanied by a rededication to communicating our commitment to win.

The statements of hatred and desire for killing by our enemies have to be driven home everyday. Those who would retreat and withdraw must be made to explain and defend the consequences of their proposals. The full burden of undermining our alliances and strengthening our enemies must be placed on those who would seek peace at the cost of defeat and who would advocate weakness in the face of tyranny and hatred.

The news media have to be held accountable for their biases and easy assumptions. We are entering a period when those who manipulate the press on behalf of tyranny must be held accountable and confronted directly.

Another Anniversary: 400 Years of Unfolding Freedom

I ended my speech by noting another anniversary. Four hundred years ago next May, the first people who spoke English and believed their rights came from God landed in Jamestown.

For 400 years, we have been extending their values and concepts across a continent and to people of every background, speaking every language.

We owe it to those who worked and fought for freedom, safety and prosperity in the past and to our parents and grandparents who did so much for our lives.

We owe it to our children and grandchildren who deserve an even safer, freer and more prosperous American future.

We who love life and revere freedom will defeat those who love death and seek dictatorship.

We have done it before.

We will do it again.

Your friend,

Newt Gingrich

Winning the Future -- Special Midterm Election Edition

Winning the Future -- Special Midterm Election Edition

by Newt Gingrich

The American Eleven: A Values-Led Plan for Victory in November

Welcome to a special 2006 election edition of "Winning the Future."

The fall 2006 elections are now just two months away. Although the conventional wisdom is that Republicans will have a tough time this fall, I believe that we can still win -- but not without substantial changes.

In this edition of "Winning the Future," I outline 11 values-led policies that are both morally right and that enjoy (not coincidentally) the overwhelming support of the American people. These are the values and the policies that Republicans should embrace this fall.

Here's the key:

Republican victory in 2006 depends on a return to the American values that twice elected Ronald Reagan and returned the House to a Republican majority with the Contract with America.

Republicans in 2006 must return to the pattern that allowed the center-right majority to win decisive elections for President Reagan in 1980 and 1984 and win with the Contract with America in 1994.

President Ronald Reagan was successful because as governor, as a candidate and as President he spoke for and advocated the values of the overwhelming majority of Americans.

The Contract with America succeeded because its core solutions (standing on President Reagan's shoulders) reflected deeply held American values. It is vital that Republican leaders understand these were American values not Republican values.

- 92% of the American people favored welfare reform.
- 88% of the people on welfare favored welfare reform.
- 83% of the American people favored a balanced budget.

On issue after issue the Contract with America represented the values of the American people. The left was defeated in 1994 because it had lost touch with the American people.

The Reagan-Contract Rule: Change Starts With the People

For the last few years, Republicans in Washington have forgotten the Reagan-Contract rule that successful change starts with the American people. There is a real danger that Republicans will lose the House and the Senate this fall because they have strayed from this core principle of starting first with the concerns and values of the American people and then developing effective policies.

Consultants are working overtime to convince the American people to favor Republican policies. This is exactly backwards.

What really works is what happens when Republicans identify themselves with the American people and against the values of the left-wing establishment that dominates the media, the bureaucracies and the lobbying community.

11 Ways to Say: "We're Not Nancy Pelosi"

Republicans should spend the next two months focused on 11 straightforward, morally grounded issues about which the American people have clearly defined beliefs.

Some of these issues will make Republican elitists uncomfortable, but these were the same elitists who were uncomfortable with President Reagan and who scoffed at the Contract with America and rejected its bold proposals.


A Republican majority in the House that spent the next two months on these eleven issues would go a long way toward clarifying the choice between the San Francisco values of Nancy Pelosi and those of a GOP majority. This refreshing approach would reject the "incumbentitis" of relying on pork-barrel spending for reelection and return to the basic populist conservative values which gave us a majority in the first place.

These 11 issues are all clear and all doable.

1. Make English the Official Language of Government. The House should pass a bill making English the official language of government, abolishing multilingual ballots and reaffirming that new citizens should be required to pass a test on American history in English. The Rasmussen poll reported that support for English as the official language was 85%. The Zogby poll had it at 84%. Why do Republican leaders find it so hard to side with more than four out of every five Americans? How many liberal Democrats who currently assume they are unbeatable would suddenly have a hard time explaining a series of votes against English to their constituents? Remember, at 85%, there are no anti-English congressional districts no matter what the elite media says.

2. Control the Borders. The House should pass a narrowly focused bill to ensure that the United States can control the border. The current Senate bill is a disaster. It is impossible to pass a "comprehensive" immigration bill in the next two months. The American people overwhelmingly want the borders controlled and every act of terrorism reminds us that having the borders uncontrolled makes us more vulnerable to attack. The House should immediately pass a border-control bill and conservative Republican senators should move every day to bring it up in the Senate. Let Democrats and elitist Republicans block controlling the border and make that a referendum test for Election Day.

3. Keep God in the Pledge. Congress should take two steps to preserve the right to say "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, a right which is supported by 91% of all Americans. The American people feel deeply that our Declaration of Independence is correct in saying that each of us is endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights. Beginning with the Supreme Court's 1963 decision outlawing school prayer, the courts have waged a 43-year assault on the core values of American liberty. It is time to return to a balanced Constitutional system. There is no Constitutional case for five lawyers' on the court being a floating majority for a permanent Constitutional Convention.

The American people would rally to the elected branches' taking steps to rebalance the Constitution. First, the House should pass a bill suspending the recent federal district court decision in California outlawing the words "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Second, the House should pass a law blocking the Supreme Court from reviewing the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance (a power of the Congress expressly granted in the Constitution).

4. Require a Voter ID Card. The American people overwhelmingly support (85% in one poll) having a voter id card so we can be sure only legal citizens are voting. Passing a bill to require this in all federal elections would be a big step toward more honest elections.

5. Repeal the Death Tax, for Good. The American people have consistently supported the total repeal of the death tax and the House should simply pass it once a week and attach it to various Senate bills to force the Senate to deal with it again and again. Let liberals explain why they oppose something that more than 70% of the country favors.

6. Restore Property Rights. The American people are deeply opposed to local politicians' being able to seize a citizen's home or business. The Supreme Court's Kelo decision on eminent domain is one of the most unpopular in recent years and is also one of the most dangerous. Anyone who knows the history of local government corruption in America knows it will not be long before some corrupt developers engage some corrupt politicians and this power is exploited at the cost of most Americans. Members of the Black Caucus have been among the most vocal in pointing out that it is poor people who will be the most victimized so rich developers and greedy politicians can make the money off their homes and businesses. The House should pass a powerful bill returning the constitutional law to the pre-Kelo rules and blocking the Supreme Court from reviewing it.

7. Achieve Sustainable Energy Independence. The country is eager for a straightforward new energy strategy for national security, environmental and economic reasons. The combination of $3 gasoline, watching Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Russia get more of our money, and concerns about the environment come together to require real change. The House should meet that need. Starting with Rep. Jim Nussle's (R-Iowa) bill on renewable fuels, adding to it clean nuclear power using new technologies that are safe and produce little waste, developing more clean coal solutions, investing in a conversion to a hydrogen economy, incentivizing conservation, providing tax credits so the auto industry can invest in the new technology and new manufacturing equipment needed to produce revolutionary new vehicles, creating the tax incentives to build the distribution system for biofuels, hybrids, and hydrogen, providing deeper tax incentives for radically better cars (imagine a substantial tax credit for cars exceeding 200 miles to the gallon of petroleum through a combination of E-85 or biodiesel, hybrid use of electricity and hydrogen), and a bill to create state flexibility in exploring off shore with a 50% split in revenue so state legislatures and governors would have an incentive to develop environmentally sound methods of exploration and production.

8. Control Spending and Balance the Budget. The House should pass new budget legislation to control spending, leading to a balanced budget in seven years (the length of time we gave ourselves in the Contract with America and which led to the first four balanced budgets since the 1920s), with special focus on programs liberals will fight to increase spending. Let the country see who is really committed to smaller government with lower taxes and who is committed to bigger government with higher taxes.

9. Tie Education Funding to Teacher Accountability. A major result of the No Child Left Behind legislation has been the clear revelation that a number of schools systems are crippling and destroying children. When the Detroit school system only graduates 21% of entering freshman on time, it is clear the children are being cheated. The American people strongly support reforms designed to save the children. The first step would be to insist that federal funds only go to school systems which require teacher competency and accountability. A clear choice between those who want to save the children and those who want to save the bureaucrats would mobilize the country in favor of dramatic education reform.

10. Defend America From the Irreconcilable Wing of Islam. Terrorism is a real threat. Congress should hold hearings on the recent terrorist activities in Canada, the U.K. and Morocco. The House should move bills that strengthen our security from terrorists with increased powers for surveillance, an overruling of the disastrous Hamdan decision and a series of other steps.

11. Focus on Iran and North Korea. The American people are very prepared to believe we face extraordinary threats from a nuclear North Korea and an Iranian regime actively seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Any actions in Iraq need to be recast in terms of their impact on Iran. A weak America in Iraq will be unable to stop Iran. Stopping Iran is potentially literally a matter of life and death. Congress should hold hearings on the scale of the Iranian and North Korean threat, the statements of their key leaders and the requirements for action to replace these dictatorships before they succeed in killing millions of Americans. The Santorum Iranian democracy bill should be forced out of the Senate in the context of these threats. Everything about Iraq should be debated within this larger and much more dangerous context.

These eleven steps focus on the House because Republicans have practical control of the House and can move legislation in the House in a timely manner.

The Senate is so hard to manage and the confusion in the Senate is so great that it is impossible to imagine a clear message coming from the Senate.

The House of Representatives, however, has the opportunity to set the agenda for the fall and to define the issues in terms which will have overwhelming support from the American people.

House Republicans have two months to change history. They can go one of two ways.

They can continue to ignore the lessons of history, and forget the fact that real change must begin with the American people, not the media or Washington elite.

Or House Republicans can learn from history. They can listen to the American people and return to the center-right populist majority which President Reagan and the Contract with America gave them. The choice is theirs -- and ours.

Your friend,

Newt Gingrich