Right Wing Nut House

One more re-occurring theme of Bush-bashers bites the dust:

“In the first substantial shift of public opinion in the Muslim world since the beginning of the United States’ global war on terrorism, more people in the world’s largest Muslim country now favor American efforts against terrorism than oppose them.

“This is just one of many dramatic findings of a new nationwide poll in Indonesia conducted February 1-6, 2005, and just translated and released…

(Hat Tip: Chrenkoff)

Some of the findings in this poll are remarkable.

“- For the first time ever in a major Muslim nation, more people favor US-led efforts to fight terrorism than oppose them (40% to 36%). Importantly, those who oppose US efforts against terrorism have declined by half, from 72% in 2003 to just 36% today.

“- Indeed, 71% of the people who express confidence in Bin Laden are now more favorable to the United States because of American aid to tsunami victims.”

Clearly, part of the reason for this remarkable turnaround lies in the heroic work of the US military during the relief efforts to aid the Tsunami victims. Amazing what a little humanitarian relief will do to change the hearts and minds of people.

Chrenkoff ticks off the hundreds…er dozens…um several media outlets that have mentioned this poll:

This is a major development, a substantial piece of good news, and a vindication of the Administration’s policies, which means that of all the major media outlets in the world, only ABC , “Boston Globe”, and the “Washington Times” have carried the original Reuters story. No other American outlet, no European news provider, nothing in the Muslim world (except for the “Jakarta Post”), and only one mention in Australia.

If you don’t read Mr. Chrenkoff on a regular basis, you’re missing something important; good news on Iraq, Afghanistan, and other fronts in the War on Terror not covered by the MSM.

The still developing story of what exactly happened to freed Italian communist journalist Giuliana Sgrena got a much needed dose of perspective today as the Washington Post has published parts of an interview with an unnamed military source close to the Pentagon’s investigation of the incident.

One thing’s for sure; we can’t rely on Ms. Sgrena’s version of events. Or should I say “versions.” In an almost comical display of rapid-fire contradictions, Sgrena has changed her story every time she’s given an interivew. (More on this later as I read, digest, and collate the 4 entirely different stories she’s told of the incident to date)

The first problem occurred because of a lack of coordination betwen the US military and Italian intelligence service who was handling the journalist’s extraction from Iraq:

But the circumstances of Friday’s shooting of Italian military intelligence officer Nicola Calipari made it particularly vulnerable to calamity, a military source said as he divulged new details of how the car in which Calipari and a newly freed hostage, Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena, came to be attacked.

The automobile was traversing onto a route — the road to the airport — where soldiers have been killed in shootings and by roadside bombs. U.S. soldiers had established an impromptu evening checkpoint at the entrance to the road about 90 minutes earlier and had stopped other vehicles. They knew a high-level embassy official would be moving to the airport on that road, and their aim was to support this movement.

But no specific coordination occurred between those involved in Sgrena’s rescue and the military unit responsible for the checkpoint, according to the source, who said he cannot be named because the military’s investigation into the incident is continuing.

This lack of coordination was deliberate on the part of the Italians. The reason is given in a Washington Times article:

But La Stampa also quoted diplomatic sources saying vital information was withheld from the Americans.

“Italian intelligence decided to free Sgrena paying a sum to the kidnappers without informing American colleagues in Iraq who, if they had known about this, would have had to oppose it, to have impeded the operation,” sources said.

“If this was the case, it could explain why American intelligence had not informed the American military commands about the operation and thus the patrol did not expect the car with the Italians.”

The American side of the story tells of an on-rushing car going close to 50 MPH on a road where insurgent attacks and suicide bombers have operated in the past:

Soldiers at the checkpoint have told U.S. military officers that they flashed lights, used hand signals and fired warning shots in an effort to stop the car, which they believed was traveling at more than 50 mph, a typical speed for that road. But Sgrena, who had just been released by Iraqi captors, recalled later that the car was not traveling very fast and that soldiers started firing “right after lighting” a spotlight — a decision she said was not justified. Sgrena was wounded by shrapnel in the U.S. barrage.

The absence of advance communication between the Italians and the U.S. soldiers at the checkpoint appears to have put the occupants of the car in grave jeopardy, given what many U.S. officials describe as the military’s standard practice of firing at onrushing cars from their checkpoints in Iraq.

“In my view, the main contributing factor was a lack of prior coordination with the ground unit,” the source said. “If requested, we would have resourced and supported this mission very differently.”

Sgrena’s contention that the car was not travelling very fast is one of her earlier statements. She’s since changed her story on the speed of the car, whether the attack occurred at a checkpoint or whether it was an American patrol, whether or not their were armoured cars or “tanks” firing on them, when her Italian driver identified himself to the Americans, how many shots were fired, whether or not the attack was deliberate, and a host of other inconsistencies in the story of her abduction and captivity that call into question her veracity.

There’s also been some speculation about the nature of Sgrena’s “kidnapping” and whether or not it was staged or if it may have turned into a plan to embarass the Americans after her abduction. I wouldn’t go that far, especially since there’s no evidence to buttress such a fantastic charge. But did Sgrena’s sympathetic attitude toward the Islamic fascists have anything to do with the fact that she wasn’t murdered a month ago after the release of a video in which she was seen pleading desperately for her life? Others haven’t been so lucky.

The story about the Italian journalist who was recently released by her captors in Iraq only to be involved in an incident at a checkpoint with US soldiers is getting curiouser and curiouser. The military says that the vehicle was travelling “at speed” and “failed to stop at the checkpoint despite warning shots from soldiers.” Here’s this from the left wing Guardian:

Italian reconstruction of the incident is significantly different. Sgrena told colleagues the vehicle was not travelling fast and had already passed several checkpoints on its way to the airport. The Americans shone a flashlight at the car and then fired between 300 and 400 bullets at if from an armoured vehicle. Rather than calling immediately for assistance for the wounded Italians, the soldiers’ first move was to confiscate their weapons and mobile phones and they were prevented from resuming contact with Rome for more than an hour.

An armoured car? Fired 300-400 rounds? That car must be totalled, right? This is a picture of the journalists car after an armoured car fired 300-400 rounds into it (probably .50 cal which would be standard on a Bradley):

Please note the bullet proof windshield. Either that, or we’ve got to send these guys back to basic and teach them how to shoot for God’s sake!

Aside from invisible bulletts, there was always something a little stinky about this “kidnapping.” We saw a tape a month ago of this poor woman pleading for her life. In the past, that usually meant curtains as a few days later a headless body would be found. Instead, a month later, the woman is released (or rescued depending on who and what you read).

Sound a little off to you?

Obviously, someone (an anti-war commie journalist?) is not telling the truth here. I wonder when the truth comes out if anyone will ever report it?

UPDATE: ASSOCIATED PRESS PHOTO IN ERROR. THAT’S NOT THE CAR

The car pictured above is not the car that was mistakenly fired on by American soldiers at a checkpoint. The Associated Press who released the photo with the story now says that the photo is of stock footage of another car stopped at an American checkpoint.

Begs the question; what possessed the AP to release a photo that had nothing to do with the story it accompanied?

While the photo is inaccurate, these questions still exist:

1. Does anyone really believe that 300-400 .50 cal rounds were fired at the journalists car? If this were the case, no one would be alive to tell the story.

2. Was the journalist released or did she escape?

3. Was this entire kidnapping incident a set up to make the Americans look bad?

Can’t wait to see a real picture of the car.

While thousands demonstrate in the streets of Beirut for Syria to withdraw its forces, action behind the scenes reveal a political crisis that pits the Lebanese opposition forces, united for the first time in decades, against a pro-Syrian President and his key ministers.

This from the Lebanon Daily Star:

BEIRUT: Lebanon sank deeper into political paralysis Friday with President Emile Lahoud giving no indication that he was willing to set up consultation appointments for the formation of a new government before hearing the Syrian president’s expected announcement regarding the withdrawal of his troops. The opposition’s hardened position had muted Lahoud, forcing him to follow the rhythm of the international community.

However, in the light of increasing domestic and international pressure for Syria to quit Lebanon, the opposition expects Lahoud to make concessions if he wants to avoid an imminent political stalemate.

However, a stalemate seems imminent nevertheless.

The concessions are doozies.

(Walid) Jumblatt reiterated that the opposition is seeking a probe to find former Premier rafik Hariri’s killers, the sacking of the heads of security agencies and the announcement of a Syrian pullout before accepting the formation of any new government.

Jumblatt, the grizzled old Druze warlord, knows that when you have an advantage over your opponent, you go for the jugular. In this case, the opposition will refuse to cooperate in the formation of a new goverment until Lebanese sovereignty is restored.

Why sack the head of the security services? This from (bless ‘em) Al Jazeera on pro-Syrian demonstrations orchestrated by the terrorist group Hizbollah:

Others who came out in support of Syria was the outgoing Environment Minister Wiam Wahhab who warned in remarks published Sunday that “the streets are not for the opposition.”

Meanwhile, Labor Minister Assem Kanso, head of the Lebanese branch of the Baath party ruling in Syria, led a demonstration to the Syrian intelligence headquarters in Beirut.

“We will not allow those traitors to be at the forefront of the scene, we will cut their heads whether they like it or not. We will not allow the withdrawal of the Syrian army unless it is done with dignity,” he said

If your Labor Minister and Environment Minister are both saying that the opposition should stay off the streets or heads will roll, what do you think the heads of the police and military are thinking? Jumblatt knows that in order to win, he’s going to need the army and police to, at the very least, be neutral towards the “people power” that has already transformed the political situation and caused enormous pressure to be placed on Baby Assad to pull his troops out.

Meanwhile, back in Damascus, Assad may have bought himself some time with his “partial pullout” from Lebanon but at what cost to his hold on the regime? Here’s an interesting blurb from Britain’s “The Independent:”

“Syria suffers from a serious PR dilemma,” said Ayman Abdul Nour, a former adviser to the Syrian President. “There is no co-ordination. There is no serious committee established to manage the current crisis. Each minister, if they do speak, does so only out of their own initiative and about their own opinion. There has been no meeting to co-ordinate the government’s position. They are just playing for time.”

This doesn’t sound like a Saddam style iron grip on government and it certainly doesn’t bode well for the relatively inexperienced Syrian President.

Cabinet Ministers with independent thoughts and no fear of expressing them may one day come up with the thought that it may be time for a change at the top. This usually works to the detriment of the fellow who occupies that position.

Cross-Posted at Blogger News Network

There are those who believe that the current controversy over potential FEC regulation of political internet sites that’s roiling the blogosphere is nothing more than a puff of talcum powder blowing through the cable modems of overreactive pajamahadeen, a will-o-the-wisp rumpus that will disappear once cooler heads prevail and it becomes clear that the FEC is our friend and would never seek to regulate us anklebiters.

Oh yeah?

WASHINGTON, March 5 - Federal election commissioners are preparing to consider how revamped campaign finance laws apply to political activity on the Internet, including online advertising, fund-raising e-mail messages and Web logs.

But it is unclear how much appetite the F.E.C., criticized in the past by advocates for election reform as being dysfunctional and ineffective, really has for trying to govern Internet activity. In interviews on Thursday, several commissioners warned about the complexities of trying to assign a dollar value to online campaign activity and said they hoped any new regulations would not stifle personal political involvement.

(Courtesy New York Times 3/5/05)

I want you to go back and read that last sentence very carefully. Let me try and translate for you: “It’s going to be difficult to try and assign a dollar value to your advocacy, but by gum, we’re going to give it our best shot and oh, by the way, we hope that any solution we come up with won’t be too onerous.”

Every time the Commissioners open their mouths to reassure us, they give more cause for alarm. Here’s Democratic Commissioner Ellen Weintraub telling us not to worry:

“Given the impact of the Internet,” Ms. Weintraub said, “I think we have to take a look at whether there are aspects of that that ought to be subject to the regulations. But again, I don’t want this issue to get overblown. Because I really don’t think, at the end of the day, this commission is going to do anything that affects what somebody sitting at home, on their home computer, does.”

What has me worried, what truly frightens me is that the Commissioners don’t have a clue as to what bloggers do or what a blog is! This is obvious from Commissioner Weintraub’s statement that this won’t affect what somebody “sitting at home” in front of their computer does.

Newsflash for the FEC: Any regulations that include covering any activities that limit the free flow of information from campaigns, to websites, to other web sites, to readers, will not only be “onerous” it will also restrict political speech-speech that the first amendment guarantees absolutely and without qualifications.

As I mentioned in my post from Friday just because some regulation may or may not be “constitutional” won’t stop an agency from issuing the rule in the first place. Sometimes their rationale is “If they want to fight it, they can take it to court.” Sometimes it’s just sheer bullying; the rules are promulgated because the entity being targeted can’t or won’t fight back.

In this case, it’s apparent that the Commissioners feel that McCain-Feingold gives them broad leeway to regulate political speech. This includes any kind of advocacy that can be construed as assisting a campaign in getting it’s message out. Speaking for myself, I never paid much attention to the emails coming from the Bush campaign during the last election cycle. I usually deleted it without even glancing at it. But let’s do a little “just supposin’” here:

Suppose I wanted to reproduce a blurb from that campaign release on my blog? As an advocate for the candidate, the FEC wants to “look into the possibility” that my blog would be a covered entity under McCain-Feingold-an adjunct to the Bush campaign-and subject to regulation.

Suppose I wanted to quote from the press release using a newspaper as the source? While newspapers and periodicals are specifically exempted from the law, blogs could be prevented from reproducing and/or linking to an article that contained excerpts from the press release.

Suppose (and this is my favorite “what if” scenario) a blogger wants to go to the other guys site and do a satire on some ridiculous bit of nonsense the opposing candidate came up with for that day? To do that, I’d have to reproduce some of the material on the opposition’s web site. According to the FEC, that too would be considered covered activity for pruposes of the law. In effect, I’d be considered contributing to the campaign of the oppositon!

I’ve tried to look at this situation and not be spooked. Our friends at Uncorrelated have been warning about a blogosphere overreaction since the controversy started. They point to an excellent publication by the Brookings Institution “Election Law and the Internet” as proof that there’s nothing to worry about.

I will say to my friends at Uncorrelated that I would be much more sanguine about this situation if that publication hadn’t been written by Trevor Potter. Mr. Potter, former campaign General Counsel for Senator McCain and current head of the McCain-Feingold advocacy group Campaign Legal Center, has just recently called Commissioner Brad Smith a liar in a press release for comments Mr. Smith made in an interview with C-Net. The problem, as referenced above, is that the other Commissioners, while trying to be reassuring, are in fact saying that they’ll be looking into the possibility of regulating blogs thus validating some of what Mr. Smith was saying in the interview.

This issue needs the guys at Uncorrelated and others like them to keep us from going over the precipice and into the fever swamps of conspiracy mongering and paranoia.

It also needs people like me who are going to keep a keen eye fixed squarely on everything the FEC and their advocates say and do. Because mark me, ye whalers: Once the FEC starts discussing rules to regulate blogs in public session, it won’t be a question of whether or not they will regulate blogs but rather a question of how much regulation they’ll end up stuffing down our throats.

By then, it will be too late.

Cross-Posted at Blogger News Network

UPDATE:

Michelle Malkin has been all over this issue since it broke. Today, she links to the Captain’s excellent analysis as well as several other blogs commenting on the NY Times story.

I’ve posted precious little on Ward Churchill except to defend his free speech rights and the concept of academic freedom. This changes today. His appearance last night on Bill Maher’s HBO show was painful to watch. Not for his laughable anti-American rants, his twisting of history, his ignorance of science and language, or his mumbling incoherence. But because it was exactly like viewing a traffic accident in slow motion; a tumbling jumble of conflicting ideas, non sequitors, double negatives, and logical fallacies that taken together added up to a totally wrecked reputation already suffering due to discoveries of academic fraud.

Ward Churchill, squashed Pinto.

Egged on masterfully by host Maher, Churchill made a gigantic ass of himself. Here’s some flavor supplied by Jeff Jarvis who live blogged the event:

Maher then leads the apparently inarticulate Churchill down his path. He asks Churchill to talk about “the blood that America has on its hands.” Churchill can’t get a paragraph out. Maher keeps leading: “Just tell the folks what you think…” Churchill mutters how the attack on the World Trade Center was not senseless because “anything that was that well-planned wasn’t senseless.” Anything this poorly expressed in senseless. Even Maher can’t take it…. because Churchill isn’t making the point Maher wants him to make: the blood-on-our-hands point.

So Maher says, “Let me do it for you… There was the bringing over of the slaves… Then we’re talking about the Indians in America, your people, you’re part Indian…” Churchill nods. And they add up numbers. Maher continues: “So we have a lot of blood on our hands… So then you talk about the first Iraq war. How many died there?…. And then the sanctions… I know we don’t want to hear this but the country of America has blood on its hands…. Not to mention in Germany and Japan when we were close to winning the war we obliterated Dresden….”

Jeez…I’m glad he didn’t bring up Hiroshoma or Nagasaki. That may have been germane to the point he was trying to make. Instead, Maher brings up Dresden and said we “were close to winning the war” when we firebombed the city.

The destruction of Dresden took place on February 13, 1945. Allied forces didn’t even cross the Rhine into Germany until the following month. Both Eisenhower and Field Marshall Montgomery believed at the time that Dresden was bombed that it would be April at the earliest before an attempt could be made to cross the river. Only a fortuitous circumstance-finding an intact railroad bridge at Remagen-allowed the allies to cross in March.

And the Germans were fighting desperately. Allied casualties from March 7 until the last week in April were 10% more per week than during the bitter fighting in the Ardennes during the Battle of the Bulge. To say that “we were near the end of the war” is preposterous unless you use 20/20 hindsight. I’m sure for the soldiers fighting house to house in the now forgotten small towns and villages in Germany it seemed as if the war would go on forever.

When the Third Reich collapsed, it happened very quickly. Russian and American troops finally linked up at the Elbe River on April 27th, 1945. Hitler killed himself 4 days later and the Germans formally surrendered on May 8th. Up until Hitler’s death, the allies believed that he would flee Berlin and set up a “National Redoubt” in the mountains of Bavaria.

What this proves is that Bill Maher is an ignoramous. When Dresden was bombed in February, most war planners’ estimates had the war in Germany ending sometime in the late summer or early fall of 1945.

And the interview (more like a mutual admiration society between Maher and Churchill) is replete with such examples of stupidity, ignorance, and out-and-out falsehoods. Here’s another gem from Jarvis:

And the torture continues. Maher brings out a 9/11 family member, Michael Faughnan, who lost his brother at Cantor Fitzgerald. He says the brother disagrees with Churchill but supports him.

Churchill says that by displacing profits and “moving labor to sweatshops in Maylasia you’re doing things comparable to what Eichmann did.”

It’s really not worth the intellectual effort to fisk such nonsense. But the above brings up a problem similar to a scientiest trying to debunk astrology or some other psuedo-scientific notions that have captured the imaginations of the weak minded.

In his book “Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark” Carl Sagan points out the monumental effort involved in scientifically debunking most of the major psuedo-scientific ideas that permeate the culture. A working scientiest would have to devote many hours to “proving ” that astrology is bunkum or that pyramids have no special mystical properties. The scientific disciplines necessary for the debunking run the gamut from mathematics to particle physics.

Sagan points out the dangers:

I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudoscience and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive. Where have we heard it before? Whenever our ethnic or national prejudices are aroused, in times of scarcity, during challenges to national self-esteem or nerve, when we agonize about our diminished cosmic place and purpose, or when fanaticism is bubbling up around us-then, habits of thought familiar from ages past reach for the controls. The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir.

Similarly with Churchill, one needs a scorecard to keep track of his idiocy. And it takes time (and for mainstream print media, space) to thoroughly discredit this mountebank of a man. No one is willing to do it. And that’s the danger of Churchill.

His ideas are out there. He’s been given enormous exposure to spout his nonsense. And outside of a few bloggers, no-one is calling him out on his scholarship or the accuracy of his references. And because of that, we have the spectacle of people applauding both Maher and Churchill accepting the fraud as fact.

The candle is beginning to sputter. And demons are starting to stir.

You’ve got to feel for FEC Commissioner Bradley Smith.

Called a “First Amendment Hero” by Professor Bainbridge, Smith has been targeted for character assassination by those who seek to control political speech. Bainbridge writes of Smith:

As a law professor before he joined the FEC, Smith wrote many law review articles condemning campaign finance regulation. As a result, when Smith was nominated to the FEC, McCain and Feingold orchestrated a massive smear campaign against him. Since then, even while faithfully enforcing the statutes his Commission oversees, Smith has consistently been on the side of free speech.

So don’t blame the messenger!

The attacks on Commissioner Smith-especially from the Campaign Legal Center-have been both vicious and personal. In effect, they’ve labled the Commissioner a liar for remarks made in a C-Net interview that’s sparked one of biggest blogswarms on both the left and right to date.

Captain Ed has some interesting information on the Campaign Legal Center:

One of the organizations pushing for the BCRA (McCain-Feingold) is the Campaign Legal Center, headed by Trevor Potter and fronted by PR spokesperson Mark Glaze, who ran Al Gore’s recount efforts in Florida.

And Democracy Project has another interesting tidbit on Potter:

The Campaign Legal Center, headed by Trevor Potter, former chairman of the Federal Election Commission and general counsel to Senator McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign, is a non-profit organization which is playing a pivotal role in the political and legal battle over campaign finance. The Center is a member of the legal team defending the future of campaign finance reform in the wake of challenges to the recent campaign reform law passed by Congress.

So here we have a group headed up by McCain’s former campaign lawyer and an Al Gore PR flack asking the blogosphere to “Remain calm…All is well…”

Why do I feel like the canary who just got an invitation to go out to dinner with the cat?

Commissioner Smith has responded to this attack on his character and credibility in an email. His main points:

1. The Campaign Legal Center press release basically argues that only paid ads will be covered for internet regulation. In fact, the FEC has already viewed paid internet ads as subject to regulation under FECA.

2. The court’s opinion that directs the FEC to regulate the internet does not limit the Commission to dealing with online ads.

3. Reps. Shays and Meehan, represented by Potter, also successfully argued that the FEC could not exclude unpaid broadcast ads from the reach of the law.

4. Smith adds that the internet is up for grabs, and there is no reason that republication of campaign emails or posts, or advocacy of candidates on blogs, or links to candidates web sites would be exempt from FEC regulation.

The entire sphere owes Commissioner Smith a debt of gratitude for both his advocacy of the First Amendment and his warnings about this latest McCain-Feingold outrage.

Syrian President Bashar Assad is apparently ready to withdraw his troops from Lebanon…sort of:

Syria President Bashar Assad is expected to announce today a pullback of his troops in Lebanon to positions near the Syrian border - falling short of a demand by President Bush yesterday for a “complete withdrawal, no halfhearted measures.”

Lebanese officials said that Mr. Assad would outline plans in a speech to the Syrian parliament in response to a growing outrage in the West -and in the Arab world -over Syria’s 29-year occupation of its neighbor.

(Washington Times 3/5/05)

Not surprisingly, the pullout would extend as far as the eastern Bekaa Valley on the Lebanese-Syrian border. It is here that the Syrian’s illicit drug operations are thought to be headquartered. Assad uses the drug money to keep key officials in the armed forces and police loyal to him.

He will probably need that loyalty. By going before the Syrian “Parliament,” Assad is bowing to pressure from his Ba’athist allies to quiet the storm surrounding the assassination of Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese Prime Minister, that most of the world is now convinced Syria was involved and which has precipitated numerous calls for Syria to honor its agreements under the UN backed Peace Accords with Lebanon and remove its forces.

Also, by partially withdrawing his forces, Assad buys time. The delay will allow him to further consolidate his position at home. Don’t be surprised if there are a few changes in the Syrian cabinet and in the upper echelons of the armed forces over the next few weeks.

Thanks to Chris Muir for supporting bloggers today…and everyday.

The blogswarm surrounding the C-Net interview yesterday with FEC Commissioner Bradley Smith may prove to be much ado about nothing. This statement from The Campaign Legal Center courtesy of What Attitude Problem:

Washington, D.C. — In a recent interview with CNET, Federal Election Commissioner Brad Smith claimed that as a result of new campaign laws and and a recent court decision, online news organizations and bloggers may soon wake up to find their activities regulated by government bureaucrats. That would indeed be troubling, if it were true. Fortunately, Mr. Smith - an avowed opponent of most campaign finance regulation - is simply wrong.

Mr. Smith’s comments are obviously designed to instigate a furor in the blogosphere to pressure Congress to reverse the court decision requiring that paid political ads on the Internet should be treated like any other paid advertisements. Mr. Smith has a right to try to win converts to his anti-regulatory philosophy, but he has an obligation to present the issues fairly and forthrightly, and his comments to CNET fail both tests.

I am not a legal expert. I have, however, been a keen observer of American politics and government for nearly 30 years. I can tell you for a fact that whatever the government can do, is capable of doing, it will try to do. It doesn’t matter if it’s “constitutional” or not. Anyone who’s ever seen a copy of the Federal Register knows that there are literally thousands of rules published every year that infringe on private property rights, individual liberty, and constitutional protections. Unless these rules are challenged during the comment period or in court, they eventually wind up having the force of law.

And you wonder why there are so many lobbyists?

The fact that the current controversy over Mr. Smith’s remarks may be a tempest in a teapot is beside the point. Unless people are willing to stand up and protest even the remote possibility that such rules and regulations governing political speech could be promulgated, the chances are that the “remote possibility” will turn into “virtual certainty.”

This is the nature of government. It’s not bad. It’s not evil. It’s not corrupt. It simply exists to govern. It’s the closest thing to a man-made force of nature around.

And there’s nothing inherently bad about the bureaucracy. Government departments are run by people just like you and me. They have families. They have successes and failures. They have dreams and goals. And most of them are sincerely interested in doing what’s right according to their own lights. They are, however, not perfect.

They can be horribly wrong at times. And if we stand by and do nothing, we pay for their mistakes with a loss of freedom. That’s why it’s so important to protest the idea of regulating political blogs. I have no idea whether this “Campaign Legal Center” has its own political axe to grind or not. It sounds like they don’t like Mr. Smith or anyone else who objects to the regulation of political speech very much. That’s fine. But they’re whistling past the graveyard if they don’t believe that government is at least capable of taking this action.

If making a mountain out of a molehill is the price to pay for maintaining vigilance over a rapacious and overweening government, so be it.

UPDATE: FROM THE “NOT SO FAST” DEPARTMENT

Dan Glover of The National Journal has been kind enough to email his article from today which attempts to quiet the uproar over this issue.

It’s not exactly comforting.

Here’s Glover on Democratic Commission member Danny McDonald:

He acknowledged that whether the law should apply to bloggers in any way most likely will be discussed, especially in light of Smith’s comments. But he added, “It’s all going to be aired publicly, and we’ll have a great discussion about what we should and shouldn’t do.”

I’m so happy to hear that if the law will apply to bloggers “in any way” McDonald reassuringly tells us that “it’s all going to be aired publicly and we’ll have a great discussion about what we should and shouldn’t do.”

Am I an idiot or does that sound like regulation to you? To even suggest that there are things “we should do” only proves there are some Commissioners who would seek to regulate blogs.

Another Commission member Ellen Weintraub is a little more comforting. “The notion that the FEC is going to go out there and shut down blogs is preposterous,” she said. Shut down, no. Regulate? She doesn’t say no, does she.

Other Democratic Commission members are pooh-poohing the idea of regulating bloggers. But McDonald’s comments are indicative that vigilance is necessary.

UPDATE II: BRADLEY SMITH RESPONDS

I received an email from Commssioner Smith defending his remarks against the Campaign Legal Center. You can see my post here.