The House and Senate are moving to choke off public money flowing to entities that would use eminent domain to take an individual's private property that local agencies consider economically beneficial to the community, as allowed by the Supreme Court in last week's KELO decision:

Bills introduced in the House and Senate would yank federal funds from any city or state project that forced people to sell their property to make way for a project like a hotel or strip mall.

The 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision last week has sparked an immediate and visceral backlash among conservatives. The response on Capitol Hill was unusual for its speed and bipartisan support, and for the biting language the lawmakers used to criticize the high court.

The ruling permits the "taking" of a home or neighborhood, with compensation, for such purposes as the construction of a shopping center. Activists said it has struck such a nerve that it will now be a key issue in convincing conservatives and libertarians to join the confirmation battle when one of the justices steps down.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) said he will introduce a Private Property Rights Protection Act that will prohibit any state or municipality from using federal funds for any project in which economic development is used as a justification for exercising eminent domain.

"This decision, in my opinion, has the potential of becoming the Dred Scott decision of the 21st century," Sensenbrenner said. He was referring to the 1857 ruling that affirmed slaves as property without the rights of citizens, and was overturned when the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868.

A committee description said the locality or state would "lose any federal funds that would contribute in any way to the project the property would be taken for." The lead Democratic sponsor is Rep. John Conyers Jr. (Mich.), ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee, and the committee said at least two other Democrats are co-sponsors.

Outstanding! This is one of the rare times that I find myself in agreement with Rep. Conyers.

In the Senate, John Cornyn is taking the lead:

Sensenbrenner said at the news conference that the federal government's money "will not be used to finance taking somebody's property from them to build a strip mall or a hotel or something simply because more tax revenue will come in as a result of an improvement." He said the decision, Kelo v. City of New London, "shows that the majority of the court had an utter disrespect for private property."

It is gratifying to see the House and Senate move so quickly to neutralize this outrageous decision that the Supreme Court issued last week. The Court showed that it had little respect for the property rights of private individuals, and it appears that the House and Senate are now ready to help protect private property from being taken by local communities who may believe it to be "economically beneficial."

However, if you are a private property owner, don't look to Nancy Pelosi or David Obey for relief:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said at an earlier news conference that "very central in that Constitution is the separation of powers."

"When you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court, you are in fact nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court," Pelosi said. "This is in violation of the respect of separation of powers in our Constitution -- church and state as well. Sometimes the Republicans have a problem with that, as well."

In opposing a Republican amendment about the issue today, Rep. David Obey (Wis.), ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said on the floor today that the decision was "nutty" but that the solution is legislation or a constitutional amendment, not punitive measures.

"The idea that this House, every time we don't like a court decision, should decide that we're not going to allow federal money to be used to enforce that court decision is as nutty as the original court decision in the first place," Obey said. "So I would hope that we would recognize that the Founding Fathers created the system of separation of powers. They created three independent branches of government for a purpose."

Perhaps Pelosi might feel differently if a developer convinced her local community that its presence on her property had the potential to be more beneficial to her community than her presence is, and thus convinced the community to exercise eminent domain on her property?

***

Related:

KELO Could Haunt Justice Souter
Disappointing Comment From Congressman Harold Ford
More KELO
KELO Likely To Be A Big Political Issue
Supreme Court: Local Communities Can Seize Property For Private Developers

Democrats are appropriately alarmed by a new poll, which they conducted themselves, that indicates their popularity has taken a significant dive:

A poll on the political mood in the United States conducted by the Democratic Party has alarmed the party at its own loss of popularity. Conducted by the party-affiliated Democracy Corps, the poll indicated 43 percent of voters favored the Republican Party, while 38 percent had positive feelings about Democrats.

"Republicans weakened in this poll ... but it shows Democrats weakening more," said Stanley Greenberg, who served as President Clinton's pollster.

Greenberg told the Christian Science Monitor he attributes the slippage to voters' perceptions that Democrats have "no core set of convictions or point of view."

This really should not be a surprise. After all, this is a party who trots its leaders out to try and make the absurd case that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the events of September 11th. It's hard to take any party that would conduct itself in this manner with a high degree of seriousness.

(HT: Powerline and Michelle Malkin)

President Bush says he, among others, would like some answers about the new Iranian leader's past:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush said on Thursday he wanted answers on whether Iranian President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was a leader in the 1979 U.S. Embassy siege as some former hostages have said.

Several of the Americans who were held said they recognized the ultraconservative Tehran mayor -- who was elected president in a landslide on Friday -- as a ringleader in the hostage-taking.

However, two leading figures in the embassy seizure said he did not take part.

"I have no information," Bush told reporters during a briefing on the upcoming G8 summit in Scotland. "But obviously his involvement raises many questions, and knowing how active people are at finding answers to questions, I'm confident they will be found."

Bush also issued a warning to Ahmadinejad, 48, that he and European leaders would send a "strong message" to him about their concerns over Iran's nuclear ambitions.

In the 1979-1981 hostage crisis that led Washington to break ties with Tehran, 52 Americans were held for 444 days.

Bush has branded Iran as part of an "axis of evil" for allegedly pursuing nuclear arms and sponsoring terrorism. Iran denies the charges.

In interviews with U.S. television networks, retired Navy Capt. Donald Sharer and Bill Daugherty said they were convinced Ahmadinejad was one of their Iranian captors.

***

Others posting:

Bill Hobbs: "Twenty six years after, the mass-murdering thug is now the president-elect of Iran, and soon his government will have nukes, and the civilized world will face the worst possible nightmare scenario: a nuclear-armed terrorism-exporting Islamofacist regime...It's a good thing America has a major military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, two countries that border Iran. Because the Iranian hostage crisis isn't over yet."

Pejmanesque: "If this is true, then Iran is in for an even worse time than I thought--especially given the international community's disgust at the possibility of having to deal with a hostage-taker as Iran's president. And by the way, shouldn't this have been an issue during the actual campaign? Shouldn't Iranians have known that a man who perhaps was a hostage-taker was running for president? Shouldn't they have had the chance to consider what this might do to Iran's already tattered international reputation?"

The Jawa Report: "Some are questioning the authenticity of the photos, saying that they are photoshopped. However, given the fact that they are from multiple sources and that multiple biographies of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad all claim he was a leader in the group that masterminded the hostage takings, these gainsayers' objections should be dismissed."

Ace of Spades: "Eh. Not too surprising coming from Iran."

Interested-Participant: "It would be hard to dispute the contention that Iran is a terrorist nation when the "population" just elected a known terrorist as president. By any reasonable measure of justice, Ahmadinejad should be in prison, not the presidential palace."

Regime Change Iran (with pictures)
Gateway Pundit
Little Green Footballs
Polipundit
Iran News Blog
Iran Focus
Emergent Chaos
All Things Conservative
Jimgoism
Slant Point

Note to Democrats: There goes another of your talking points. The Army has exceeded its recruiting goal for June.

In honor of the Democratic party's decision to take us down the path of the "9/11 and Iraq are unrelated" road again, SoCalPundit is building a list of refutations and appropriate facts for the clueless Democrats and their allies in Old Media, who have today gone into full blown schizophrenia over President Bush's speech of lastnight.

The Democrats and the ultra-left that runs their party may not understand it, but the war that we are fighting in Iraq today IS indeed all about 9/11, as Andrew McCarthy writes in a masterful piece today:

On September 12, 2001, no one in America cared about whether there would be enough Sunni participation in a fledgling Iraqi democracy if Saddam were ever toppled. No one in lower Manhattan cared whether the electricity would work in Baghdad, or whether Muqtada al-Sadr’s Shiite militia could be coaxed into a political process. They cared about smashing terrorists and the states that supported them for the purpose of promoting American national security.

Saddam Hussein’s regime was a crucial part of that response because it was a safety net for al Qaeda. A place where terror attacks against the United States and the West were planned. A place where Saddam’s intelligence service aided and abetted al Qaeda terrorists planning operations. A place where terrorists could hide safely between attacks. A place where terrorists could lick their wounds. A place where committed terrorists could receive vital training in weapons construction and paramilitary tactics. In short, a platform of precisely the type without which an international terror network cannot succeed.

The president should know he hit the sweet spot during his Fort Bragg speech because all the right people are angry. The New York Times, with predictable disingenuousness, is railing this morning that the 9/11 references in the speech are out of bounds because Iraq had “nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks.” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and the tedious David Gergen, among others, are in Gergen’s words “offended” about use of the 9/11 “trump card.”

The president should talk about 9/11 MORE:

If the president is guilty of anything, it's not that he's dwelling on 9/11 enough. It's that the administration has not done a good enough job of probing and underscoring the nexus between the Saddam regime and al Qaeda. It is absolutely appropriate, it is vital, for him to stress that connection. This is still the war on terror, and Iraq, where the terrorists are still arrayed against us, remains a big part of that equation.

And not just because every jihadist with an AK-47 and a prayer rug has made his way there since we invaded. No, it’s because Saddam made Iraq their cozy place to land long before that. They are fighting effectively there because they’ve been invited to dig in for years.

The president needs to be talking about Saddam and terror because that’s what will get their attention in Damascus and Teheran. It’s not about the great experiment in democratization — as helpful as it would be to establish a healthy political culture in that part of the world. It’s about making our enemies know we are coming for them if they abet and harbor and promote and plan with the people who are trying to kill us.

McCarthy argues that those who ludicrously maintain that Iraq bears no relation whatsoever to 9/11 need to consider the following:

Ahmed Hikmat Shakir — the Iraqi Intelligence operative who facilitated a 9/11 hijacker into Malaysia and was in attendance at the Kuala Lampur meeting with two of the hijackers, and other conspirators, at what is roundly acknowledged to be the initial 9/11 planning session in January 2000? Who was arrested after the 9/11 attacks in possession of contact information for several known terrorists? Who managed to make his way out of Jordanian custody over our objections after the 9/11 attacks because of special pleading by Saddam’s regime?

-Saddam's intelligence agency's efforts to recruit jihadists to bomb Radio Free Europe in Prague in the late 1990's?

-Mohammed Atta's unexplained visits to Prague in 2000, and his alleged visit there in April 2001 which — notwithstanding the 9/11 Commission's dismissal of it (based on interviewing exactly zero relevant witnesses) — the Czechs have not retracted?

-The Clinton Justice Department's allegation in a 1998 indictment (two months before the embassy bombings) against bin Laden, to wit: In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

-Seized Iraq Intelligence Service records indicating that Saddam's henchmen regarded bin Laden as an asset as early as 1992?

-Saddam's hosting of al Qaeda No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri beginning in the early 1990’s, and reports of a large payment of money to Zawahiri in 1998?

-Saddam’s ten years of harboring of 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin?

-Iraqi Intelligence Service operatives being dispatched to meet with bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998 (the year of bin Laden’s fatwa demanding the killing of all Americans, as well as the embassy bombings)?

-Saddam’s official press lionizing bin Laden as “an Arab and Islamic hero” following the 1998 embassy bombing attacks?

-The continued insistence of high-ranking Clinton administration officials to the 9/11 Commission that the 1998 retaliatory strikes (after the embassy bombings) against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory were justified because the factory was a chemical weapons hub tied to Iraq and bin Laden?

-Top Clinton administration counterterrorism official Richard Clarke’s assertions, based on intelligence reports in 1999, that Saddam had offered bin Laden asylum after the embassy bombings, and Clarke’s memo to then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, advising him not to fly U-2 missions against bin Laden in Afghanistan because he might be tipped off by Pakistani Intelligence, and “[a]rmed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad”? (See 9/11 Commission Final Report, p. 134 & n.135.)

-Terror master Abu Musab Zarqawi's choice to boogie to Baghdad of all places when he needed surgery after fighting American forces in Afghanistan in 2001?

-Saddam's Intelligence Service running a training camp at Salman Pak, were terrorists were instructed in tactics for assassination, kidnapping and hijacking?

-Former CIA Director George Tenet’s October 7, 2002 letter to Congress, which asserted:

-Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.

-We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.

-Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.

-Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

-We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

-Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.

McCarthy concludes:

There's more. Stephen Hayes’s book, The Connection, remains required reading. But these are just the questions; the answers — if someone will just investigate the questions rather than pretending there’s “nothing whatsoever” there — will provide more still.

So Gergen, Reid, the Times, and the rest are “offended” at the president's reminding us of 9/11? The rest of us should be offended, too. Offended at the “nothing whatsoever” crowd’s inexplicable lack of curiosity about these ties, and about the answers to these questions.

Just tell us one thing: Do you have any good answer to what Ahmed Hikmat Shakir was doing with the 9/11 hijackers in Kuala Lampur? Can you explain it?

It is amusing, if somewhat depressing, although not really surprising to see leading Democrats running around today like chickens with their heads cut off in fury at the president's daring to mention 9/11 in conjunction with the war in Iraq.

That the Democratic party, and the liberals who are in complete control of it, cannot see that 9/11 and our efforts in Iraq are inexorably linked, is the clearest reason why Democrats cannot be allowed anytime soon to come close to being trusted with our nation's security.

***

Related:

David Gergen Irritated By President's Speech
Outcome In Iraq Crucial To Overall Fight Against Terrorism
Key Line Of The President's Speech

Tom Shales obsesses over the applause and non-applause of the president's speech last night before finally moving on to a laughable review of it.

What Shales does not mention, but he most certainly is well aware of, is that the members of the military that were present were actively discouraged from engaging in applause. All Mr. Shales can muster up is that they "were standing at attention."

Shales is surprised that the major networks covered the president's speech:

Bush's speech aired on all the major broadcast networks, something of a surprise since as of mid-afternoon yesterday, neither NBC nor CBS had plans to cover it. They felt, correctly, that the speech contained nothing new or newsy and that it didn't merit a half-hour or more of prime time. But something changed as the day wore on, and Bush showed up on NBC and CBS as well as on ABC and the various cable news networks that previously had announced they would cover the speech.

Perhaps the networks rightly figured that they might actually offend a sizable percentage of television viewers if they had not aired a major prime-time address by the president. Just because Tom Shales doesn't like him doesn't mean that a public address by Mr. Bush is not news.

Shales meanders on:

Refusing to air the speech probably would have led to unpleasantness -- or at the least given the new subculture of bellicose bloggers another alleged media conspiracy to shriek about.

You mean things like that RaTHerGate scandal, Mr. Shales? Shales is probably one of the few that still believes that those memos were the real thing, or that if they weren't authentic then the crux of the story was still true, therefore justifying it.

It goes without saying that Shales does not like bloggers, because they make him look like the media dinosaur that he has become.

This was not a major speech by Bush, nor was it particularly well delivered until the end, when he seemed to be straining to hold back his emotions as he spoke of the U.S. troops fighting and dying in Iraq. He referred several times to violent insurgents who stage daily sneak attacks -- calling them "ruthless killers," among other things -- but at the end of the speech said, "They are no match for the men and women of the United States military."

Wrong. It was a major speech, it was very well delivered, and it was received even better, unless you were viewing the speech through the stultifying and myopic prism that Mr. Shales obviously was.

Having made the decision to carry the speech, NBC and CBS could hardly then come on the air and say it wasn't important.

Perhaps those two networks actually thought that the speech was important, which would evidence an infinitely greater display of judgment about what is news than Mr. Shales has displayed.

(Article via Hugh Hewitt)

Let Freedom Ring wasn't too impressed with Mr. Shales, either.

John Hawkins over at Right Wing News has an interview with Mark Steyn.

An excerpt, pertaining to why Steyn does not appear widely in American newspapers:

"...The reason they're not exactly beating the door down is because I'm not a good fit for American monopoly dailies. In London, the most competitive newspaper market in the world, papers thrive by encouraging distinctive controversial voices. In America, the average Gannett or other monodaily prefers a tone of self-regarding dullness. As my friend John O'Sullivan put it, "They neither offend nor delight" - as a matter of policy. Yes, they're broadly “liberal,” but not in a lively virtuoso engaging way, only in a dreary J-school way. I think they're missing the point here. They don't realize that they do have competitors now, in new media. In 1978, having driven your print competitors out of business, you could afford to be a dull city newspaper. I don't believe you can now."

An excerpt from Michelle Malkin's latest column, based on this:

White House senior adviser Karl Rove caused a firestorm last week after observing that liberals favor "therapy and understanding" to fight terrorism in a post-Sept. 11 world.

Rove spoke the truth. But he barely scratched the surface.

The left-wing Kumbaya crowd is quietly grooming a generation of pushovers in the public schools. At a time of war, when young Americans should be educated about this nation's resilience and steely resolve, educators are indoctrinating students with saccharine-sticky lessons on "non-violent conflict resolution" and "promoting constructive dialogues."

Peaceniks are covering our kids from head to toe in emotional bubble wrap. They are creating a nation of namby-pambys..."

Go read the whole thing.

If the president irritates David Gergen then you can generally take it to the bank that a very good thing has happened for America.

The president irritated David Gergen lastnight with his speech:

“Because he’s played the 9/11 trump card.”

“I was troubled and at times offended by the regularity of coming back to 9/11”

Those comments, made by Gergen to Paula Zahn, in and of themselves tell you that the speech was a highly effective one.

Server issues were preventing access to the front page, but not the individual archive pages, for the last eight hours or so. Looks like it is resolved. If it happens again I'll publish over at the backup site.

My apologies for the inconvenience.

The Washington Post states it well in this morning's editorial:

"...Even if Saddam Hussein was not a collaborator of al Qaeda: Clearly Iraq is now a prime battlefield for Islamic extremists, and success or failure there will do much to determine the outcome of the larger struggle against them."

The president, as I suspect he will, needs to regularly and forcefully remind Americans, as he did lastnight, that our success in Iraq is not an option. Success there is imperative to our overall effort to triumph over Islamic jihadist terrorism.

It struck me that this was the key part of the president's speech tonight:

"We fight today because Iraq now carries the hope of freedom in a vital region of the world, and the rise of democracy will be the ultimate triumph over radicalism and terror.

And we fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens, and Iraq is where they are making their stand. So we will fight them there, we will fight them across the world, and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won."

That is what it's all about. Terrorists are streaming into Iraq and we are killing them. I know that Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic Party think that Iraq as a "magnet" for terrorists is a bad thing, but that is why the American people as a whole do not take that party seriously on national security matters anymore.

I'd rather have the terrorists streaming into Iraq to meet armed U.S. military personnel, then across our own borders to meet unarmed American citizens.

***

The Associated Press reported on the president's speech before he gave it. How knowledgeable and "clairvoyant" of them.

There is a lot of talk on the Net today about "Zombie Dogs." This is a scientific effort to develop a procedure that would help save the lives of humans who have suffered a lot of blood loss.

From yesterday's News.com.au:

SCIENTISTS have created eerie zombie dogs, reanimating the canines after several hours of clinical death in attempts to develop suspended animation for humans.

US scientists have succeeded in reviving the dogs after three hours of clinical death, paving the way for trials on humans within years.
Pittsburgh's Safar Centre for Resuscitation Research has developed a technique in which subject's veins are drained of blood and filled with an ice-cold salt solution.

The animals are considered scientifically dead, as they stop breathing and have no heartbeat or brain activity.

But three hours later, their blood is replaced and the zombie dogs are brought back to life with an electric shock.

Plans to test the technique on humans should be realised within a year, according to the Safar Centre.

However rather than sending people to sleep for years, then bringing them back to life to benefit from medical advances, the boffins would be happy to keep people in this state for just a few hours.

But even this should be enough to save lives such as battlefield casualties and victims of stabbings or gunshot wounds, who have suffered huge blood loss.

During the procedure blood is replaced with saline solution at a few degrees above zero. The dogs' body temperature drops to only 7C, compared with the usual 37C, inducing a state of hypothermia before death.

Although the animals are clinically dead, their tissues and organs are perfectly preserved.

Damaged blood vessels and tissues can then be repaired via surgery. The dogs are brought back to life by returning the blood to their bodies,giving them 100 per cent oxygen and applying electric shocks to restart their hearts.

Tests show they are perfectly normal, with no brain damage.

"The results are stunning. I think in 10 years we will be able to prevent death in a certain segment of those using this technology," said one US battlefield doctor. (Via Slashdot)

A flashback article on cryonics from the National Review here.

Neurosurgeons have been experimenting with something similar to this for years, such that they can reduce a person's blood pressure safely enough to undertake delicate aneurysm clipping operations, and other types of surgeries that have a high risk for heavy blood loss.

Kathryn Jean Lopez links the Zombie Dogs story to the Supreme Court:

"Actually, the zombie dogs story links to the politics of the court wonderfully. What if we place justices like Thomas (when he's ready to retire) into suspended animation to bring out during Supreme Court Constitutional crises? He could be on display (hopefully he can go in there clothed) in the entry area of the SCOTUS building, with a big sign that says "In Case of Constitutional Crisis, Break Glass."

Heh.

Wouldn't it be fitting if the KELO decision came back to haunt Supreme Court Justice David Souter, in the aftermath of his support for allowing eminent domain to be invoked for economic development?

If Logan Darrow Clements has his way, Souter's support for KELO just may come back to bite him:

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.

I doubt that it will happen, since the developer has so clearly indicated that part of the motivation for the application is revenge against Souter for his support of KELO.

But wouldn't it be lovely, as well as fitting, if it did?