We don’t normally read much by Time blogger Andrew Sullivan; his narcissistic hysterics just aren’t particularly interesting or useful. But via Memorandum, we came across Sullivan’s reaction to Mel Gibson’s recent run-in with the law. There’s no excuse or justification for Mel Gibson’s drunken tirade of course. But who is Andrew Sullivan to judge?

Mel Gibson said some terrible, anti-Semitic things while he was drunk one night, which he has now owned up to and apologized for. As long as he doesn’t now make a habit of such behavior, end of issue. To err is human and all that.

Sullivan (presumably sober, we have no way of knowing) posts anti-Christian comments on the Internet every day (just read a few of his posts, change “Christianist” to “Jew” and see how they sound), and apologizes for none of them.

Sullivan’s lack of self-awarenes and hypocrisy is staggering, but by now completely unsurprising. We wish both men well in overcoming their problems.

From the AP (via Yahoo News):

OLYMPIA, Wash. – The state Supreme Court upheld Washington’s ban on gay marriage Wednesday, saying lawmakers have the power to restrict marriage to unions between a man and woman.

We’d quibble with the “ban on gay marriage” spin there. Defining marriage as “one man, one woman” is not a ban on other forms of relationships, any more than calling a particular type of fruit “apples” is a ban on oranges.

But a win is a win. Good for the Washington Supreme Court for showing the appropriate judicial restraint and getting one right.

More on the Iraq-Niger-yellowcake connection from Christopher Hitchens in Slate:

Case Closed
The truth about the Iraqi-Niger “yellowcake” nexus

Now that Joseph and Valerie Wilson’s fantasies of having been persecuted by high officials in the administration have been so thoroughly dispelled by Robert Novak (and now that it seems the prosecutor has determined that there was no breach of the relevant laws to begin with), we may return to the more important original question. Was there good reason to suppose that Iraqi envoys visited Niger in search of “yellowcake” uranium ore?

In a series of columns, I have argued that the answer to this is “yes,” and that British intelligence was right to inform Washington to that effect.

….

This means that both pillars of the biggest scandal-mongering effort yet mounted by the “anti-war” movement””the twin allegations of a false story exposed by Wilson and then of a state-run vendetta undertaken against him and the lady wife who dispatched him on the mission””are in irretrievable ruins.

….

Read it all HERE

Via the Thomas More Law Center, another update on the fight to save the Mt. Soledad cross in San Diego, California:

President Bush Supports Cross: House Passes Bill To Preserve It; Senate Bill Introduced-ACLU Continues Its Campaign to Stop It

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Bill to protect the Mt. Soledad memorial cross, H. R. 5863, overwhelmingly passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 349-74. The Bill transfers possession of the veterans memorial in San Diego, California to the federal government. The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, worked closely with Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA), the main sponsor of the Bill, on the language of the legislation.

….

President Bush, on the day of the vote, issued a “Statement of Administration Policy” that “strongly” supported H.R. 5683. The Statement read, in part, “In the face of legal action threatening the continued existence of the current Memorial, the people of San Diego have clearly expressed their desire to keep the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in its present form. Judicial activism should not stand in the way of the people, and the Administration commends Rep. Hunter for his efforts in introducing this bill.”

Previous posts on the effort to save the cross

From Betsy Newmark (via The Anchoress), well put:

I wish that the next time some leader comes out and starts talking about Israel’s “disproportionate response” that the journalists would ask them what their definition of a proportionate response would be if some terrorists were sending rockets into their own cities. Perhaps their own citizens might be interested in knowning how these intrepid leaders would respond if they were being attacked. I bet they wouldn’t be concerned about no stinkin’ proportionality then.

Exactly. In fact, didn’t Jacques Chirac threaten a nuclear response just a few months ago?

PARIS, Jan. 19 — President Jacques Chirac said Thursday that France was prepared to launch a nuclear strike against any country that sponsors a terrorist attack against French interests. He said his country’s nuclear arsenal had been reconfigured to include the ability to make a tactical strike in retaliation for terrorism.

But of course the rules are always different for Israel. In response to ongoing rocket attacks and kidnappings, they should issue a very stern warning and negotiate.

The NY Times says:

In Big Shift, U.S. to Follow Geneva Treaty for Detainees

In a sweeping change of policy, the Pentagon has decided that it will treat all detainees in compliance with the minimum standards spelled out in the Geneva conventions, a senior defense official said today.

But the actual DoD memo that is the subject of the story says:

The Supreme Court has determined that Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 applies as a matter of law to the conflict with Al Qaeda. The Court found that the military commissions as constituted by the Department of Defense are not consistent with Common Article 3.

It is my understanding that, aside from the military commission procedures, existing DoD orders, policies, directives, execute orders, and doctrine comply with the standards of Common Article 3 and, therefore, actions by DoD personnel that comply with such issuances would comply with Common Article 3.

So where in the memo is the “sweeping change in policy”? It looks like the Times reporters wrote their story based on reports about the policy change before they actually read the memo. Then they tossed some of their over-excited editorial commentary into the “news” story.

The Washington Post also jumped on the “big shift” bandwagon:

The Bush administration, in an apparent policy reversal sparked by a recent Supreme Court ruling, said today it will extend to detainees in the war-on-terror the guarantees of humane treatment specified by the Geneva Conventions.

But in related news, our terrorist enemies still refuse to comply with the Geneva Conventions:

BAGHDAD, Iraq, July 10 “” Insurgents posted an Internet video on Monday showing the mutilated bodies of two American soldiers abducted in June and found murdered days later during a search by American and Iraqi forces south of Baghdad. A message with the video says the soldiers were killed out of revenge for the rape and murder of an Iraqi girl in March, a crime in which at least six American soldiers are suspects.

Others:
Outside the Beltway
Captain’s Quarters
The Corner
Bench Conference

Via The NY Times:

An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief.

….

The main reason is a big spike in corporate tax receipts, which have nearly tripled since 2003, as well as what appears to be a big rise in individual taxes on stock market profits and executive bonuses.

….

Corporate tax payments are expected to exceed $300 billion, up from $131 billion three years ago.

Remember these facts the next time you hear Nancy Pelosi or some other Democrat spouting off (i.e. lying) about “Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy.” Across the board rate reductions are not “cuts for the wealthy” and do not equate to lower total revenue.

Now, we wish they did. We favor lower revenues to and lower spending by the federal government. But contrary to the false claims made routinely by the Democrats, that’s not what the president’s rate reductions did.

In related news:

Did you know that just over the past 11 quarters, dating back to the June 2003 Bush tax cuts, America has increased the size of its entire economy by 20 percent? In less than three years, the U.S. economic pie has expanded by $2.2 trillion, an output add-on that is roughly the same size as the total Chinese economy, and much larger than the total economic size of nations like India, Mexico, Ireland, and Belgium.

Others:
Captain’s Quarters has a quibble with Kudlow

Howard Dean (file photo)

Howard Dean reacts to the refusal of the New York Court of Appeals to call apples oranges and redefine marriage by judical fiat:

“…Today’s decision by the New York Court of Appeals, which relies on outdated and bigoted notions about families…”

“As that essential process moves forward, it is up to the State legislature to act to protect the equal rights of every New Yorker and for the debate on how to ensure those rights to proceed without the rancor and divisiveness that too often surrounds this issue.”

Yeah, Howard, you wouldn’t want to say anything divisive, would you? So many on the left seem to lack even the most basic self awareness. Does he really believe that it is bigoted simply to define marriage as it has always been defined, and to acknowledge basic biological reality? Or is he just demagoguing for effect?

Some enterprising reporter ought to take a few minutes off from giving away national security secrets and ask Dean if he thinks all the Democrats who voted for the Defense Of Marriage Act, and the president who signed it into law, are bigots.

Here’s an interesting peek into the minds of liberals based on some of their reactions to the recent Supreme Court decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld:

“The Good Guys” Won?!
Why Americans don’t trust liberals on national-security issues.

On the last day of the Supreme Court’s term, Tom Goldstein, the prominent D.C. appellate lawyer who served as second chair representing Al Gore in Bush v. Gore, participated in a panel hosted by the liberal American Constitution Society at the National Press Club. In the middle of the symposium, Goldstein received word concerning the result of one of the final cases of the term, and raised his hands as if to signal a touchdown. When the moderator asked whom the “touchdown” was for, Goldstein declared: “The Good Guys.” The case was Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and the victorious party was Osama bin Laden’s purported personal driver and bodyguard, Salim Ahmed Hamdan. Goldstein was not alone: From legal academia, to Capitol Hill, to the mainstream media, to the blogosphere, liberals have expressed undue exuberance concerning the outcome of Hamdan, and thereby reaffirmed why many Americans are reluctant to trust liberals on questions of national security.

And this is a prominent attorney, not some fringe crank at the Daily Kos or some other nut-left website. Are there any liberals left who aren’t so morally and legally confused? Sometimes it unfortunately seems not.

The U.S. Supreme Court has intervened to stop the Mt. Soledad war memorial cross from being torn down.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday put on hold an order to remove a monumental cross that sits on public land, giving hope to supporters just weeks before it was to be taken down.

A lower court judge had ordered the city of San Diego to remove the cross or be fined $5,000 a day.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, acting for the high court, issued a stay while supporters of the cross continue their legal fight.

Lawyers for San Diegans for the Mount Soledad National War Memorial said in an appeal that they wanted to avoid the “destruction of this national treasure.” And attorneys for the city said the cross was part of a broader memorial that was important to the community.

Of course this stay is only temporary, but at least it gives another chance to those fighting to save the monument from those who want to airbrush away America’s history and heritage.

More:
Stop the ACLU
Captain’s Quarters

In a continuing series, yet another liberal has taken boilerplate left-wing political positions and slapped on a thin veneer of religion to proclaim conservatives verboten, issuing a virtual fatwa against conservative Christian Republicans:

“Do not be misled,” St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians. “Bad company corrupts good character.” Jesus himself asked: “What good would it be for you to gain the whole world, yet forfeit your soul?” The coalition with the Republican Party is blasphemy, pure and simple.

Once again, liberals aren’t against religion in politics, or politics in religion, they’re against conservatives in politics or religion. They want to impose their values on all Americans, and will use any tools available to do so.

The Evangelical Outpost has a good take-down of the author of the above quote. Read the whole thing.

The Thomas More Law Center has filed a request in the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency stay of the order requiring removal of the war memorial cross at Mt. Soledad in San Diego, CA.

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, this morning [June 29th], filed an emergency application in the U.S. Supreme Court asking Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy to stay a lower federal court decision that orders the City of San Diego to remove the Mt. Soledad Cross by August 1st or face fines of $5,000 a day thereafter. The City has indicated that unless the legal situation changes, it will comply with the lower court order to remove the cross and will begin plans to implement that order beginning in the first week of July.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed the emergency application for stay on behalf of San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial, the organization that spearheaded the highly successful referendary petition drive that resulted in the City Council repealing its March 8, 2005 vote not to transfer the memorial property to the federal government.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center commented, “The legislative actions of area Congressmen and the grass roots efforts of San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial have kept the cross atop Mt. Soledad. We are now, however, at a critical stage, and time is running out.”

The Law Center’s emergency application explained that this case presents a serious question regarding the place of religious symbols in the public life of our nation.

The Law Center argued, “Removing the memorial cross, which has been displayed continuously in its present location since 1954, would destroy the integrity of the Veterans Memorial, undermine the state court proceeding, and cause irreparable harm to Applicant, the citizens of San Diego, and the many family members, friends, and comrades of the nearly two thousand veterans who are honored by this memorial for their sacrificial service to this country. It would be a national tragedy to tear down the memorial cross, which is scheduled to occur on or before August 1, 2006, absent a stay.”

Charles LiMandri, the West Coast Regional Director for the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “The Mt. Soledad Cross and Memorial represents the sacrifices our veterans and their families have made and the gratitude that we, as a community and a nation, have for them. They fought hard for our freedoms. We will fight hard to preserve them.”

In addition to the emergency application to the Supreme Court, the Law Center is also involved in appeals to the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the California Court of Appeals, to save the cross.

On Monday evening U.S. Congressman Duncan Hunter introduced House Bill 5683, which mandates the federal government take over the memorial and transfer it to the Defense department. Representative Darrell Issa and newly elected Representative Brian Bilbray are co-sponsors of that legislation. However, it will be a difficult undertaking to move the bill through both the House of Representatives and the Senate for signature of the President before the August 1st deadline.

In addition to the numerous legal steps the Law Center is taking to prevent removal of the memorial cross by August 1st, the Law Center is also asking all Americans to join in the effort to urge President Bush to immediately use the federal powers of eminent domain to take the land on which the cross and memorial sit by signing a petition to the President contained on its website at: www.thomasmore.org.

Explained Thompson, “Our legal team is pursuing every possible legal option to save the Mt. Soledad Cross, including an appeal to President Bush and Congress to take the land under the federal powers of eminent domain. Our veterans deserve it.”