“[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” – James Madison

“It wasn’t Bush, it wasn’t greedy corporations, or free trade, or history’s most over-predicted recession. It was not the oil companies, income inequality, or the excesses of cowboy capitalism. None of these things caused the unemployment rate to jump a half a percentage point in one month. Ask yourself a few questions: Why did unemployment surge at a time when unemployment compensation claims are historically low? More to the point, how could unemployment spike this much without a coinciding spike in corporate lay-offs? The answer to all of these questions is same: because very few people lost jobs last month. This huge jump in the size of the unemployed comes from new entrants to the economy- hundreds of thousands of them. In short, well over 600,000 people who were not job seekers in April became job seekers in May. And who starts looking for work at the end of Spring? That’s right- students. Hundreds of thousands of students are looking for work right now, and they’re not finding it. Congress is to blame. Last year Congressional Democrats (along with some Stockholm-Syndromed Republicans) passed the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, which started a phased hike of the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25. Free market economists warned them that this would increase unemployment- that rapid increases in unemployment compensation hit teens and minorities the hardest. But the class-warriors are running the people’s house now, and they would hear none of that, so they took to the floor, let loose the dogs of demagoguery, and saddled America’s pizza parlors, municipal swimming pools, house painting businesses and lawn mowing services with a huge cost increase. Now, we see the perfectly logical outcome of wage controls- rising unemployment among the most economically vulnerable.” – Jerry Bowyer

“Average life expectancy is very highly correlated with per capita income, and income growth is very highly correlated with economic freedom… When politicians enact anti-economic growth regulations and taxes, even in the name of ‘global warming,’ ‘environmentalism,’ and ‘fairness,’ they are, in fact, shortening the lives of many of their fellow citizens and those in other countries… The political requirements to use corn and other food plants for fuel have driven up the price of food again for billions of people in the world, and those at the bottom of the income ladder are increasingly suffering from malnutrition. In sum, millions, if not billions, of people right now are unnecessarily having their lifespans reduced because of an overreaction to a projected climate change which may or may not have an affect on the lifespans of humans living sometime in the future… Probably many politicians think they are being responsible when they do things like imposing costly environmental taxes, prohibiting new mining for needed metals, and coming up with costly CO2 trading schemes as the Europeans have done, and which are now being debated in the U.S. Congress. Yet, all these actions impede the proper functioning of the market, reduce economic growth and lower life expectancies, in part, by reducing the funds available for medical research and treatments… The fundamental problem is that many politicians do not understand or, perhaps, do not wish to understand tradeoffs. That is, every time they increase a regulation or a tax, or require a government expenditure that reduces economic freedom and does not meet a reasonable cost benefit test, they are not engaged in just some annoyance, but they are costing real human life years.” – Richard Rahn

“We should always remember that our strength still lies in our faith in the good sense of the American people. And that the climate in Washington is still opposed to those enduring values, those ‘permanent things’ that we’ve always believed in… Washington is a place of fads and one-week stories. It’s also a company town, and the company’s name is government, big government… In the discussion of federal spending, the time has come to put to rest the sob sister attempts to portray our desire to get government spending under control as a hard-hearted attack on the poor people of America.” – Ronald Reagan

“In April, the annual report for Planned Parenthood Federation of America revealed that the abortion giant had a total income of $1.02 billion- with reported profits of nearly $115 million. Taxpayers kick in more than $336 million worth of government grants and contracts at both the state and federal levels. That’s a third of Planned Parenthood’s budget. And what market-distorting results do we get for those government incentives? In 2006 alone: 289,750 abortions. Oil execs, tobacco execs, banking execs, pharmaceutical company execs and baseball players have all been hauled up before Congress for highly publicized whippings by crusading lawmakers. But the executives of Planned Parenthood have escaped government scrutiny and public accountability for their predatory behavior, dangerous medical practices, deception and deadly windfall… For whatever reason, Washington has turned a blind bipartisan eye to this bloody, government-funded business- and pro-life, limited-government conservatives in the Beltway have gone along with subsidizing it. ‘Obscene profits,’ indeed.” – Michelle Malkin

‘Bush Lied’? If Only It Were That Simple.

Fred Hiatt – ‘Bush Lied’? If Only It Were That Simple. – washingtonpost.com

On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by intelligence information.”

On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence information.”

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.” Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? “Generally substantiated by available intelligence.” Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.”

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you’ve mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush’s claims about Saddam Hussein’s alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq’s support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda “were substantiated by the intelligence assessments,” and statements regarding Iraq’s contacts with al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” The report is left to complain about “implications” and statements that “left the impression” that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

Now that even the Democrats are admitting that Bush didn’t misrepresent intelligence data or lie to the American people, will we see the Left apologize or show any contrition for their virulent and angry personal attacks on Bush? I don’t think so: that would show a humility and self-awareness we haven’t seen from them so far.