I didn’t cover the first few because North Korea launching a couple of missiles isn’t really major news anymore. But we’re already on our fifth — yes, fifth — missile launch of the night. Clearly these are developments out of the ordinary.

Each and every one of the middle-range missile tests violate United Nations resolutions and international law. So we can basically expect the response from the international community to be UN resolutions and condemnations. In other words, the cycle of stupidity continues unabated.

Update: BNO News confirms a sixth missile launch from the DPRK. Gee, if I didn’t know any better, I’d say that Kim Jong-Il simply doesn’t take the international community and the United States that seriously anymore. It’s almost as if he knows he can do what he wants and they’ll do nothing other than send an angry letter in respose.

Governor Sarah Palin has announced that she will resign the office she occupies, and Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell will be inaugurated on July 25th.

More: Hot Air, Michelle Malkin.

Update: I honestly don’t know what to say about this. As far as political imagery goes, it doesn’t get much worse than this for a presidential run. She abandoned her first term, incomplete, three years before the next presidential election? She’s not even a one-term governor — she’s a part-term governor.

She will be absolutely slammed from all sides during any run for failing to fulfill her obligation to the citizens of Alaska. She abandons her elected post once something better opens up for her personal advancement? Like I said, not the best imagery.

Update X2: Even Ace, a defender and relative supporter of Palin’s, says it’s all over for her career:

And that is that.

It’s over. You can’t resign from a governorship and then run for higher office. Barring some strong reason, like needing treatment for cancer.

Indeed.

Update X3: Far too much of press conference was consumed with whining about the treatment she’s received. If she thinks what she’s had to deal with is bad, how will she deal with being a Republican president?

We better hope she has a great VP, because he might have to take over if someone mocks her or her children.

Update X4: MSNBC has sources saying that Palin is out of politics for good. Wouldn’t surprise me in the least at this point.

According to Fox News, CNN, BNO News, and other outets.

Why is she limiting herself to one term? Many, including myself, believe it has something to do with her presidential aspirations. She’s likely taking the next three years off to raise money, read-up on policy stances, and build a national apparatus. Judging by her performance over the 2008 campaign, she has quite a bit to read-up on.

Another potential factor in her decision is that her re-election was no longer a guarantee. She still has a respectable amount of support in the state, but her approval rating has fallen quite a bit since the days when her favorables were famous.

Recent polls put Governor Palin’s in-state approval rating in the low or mid-50s, respectable but a far cry from one-time ratings near 90 percent. Some tie the drop to what they say is her newfound proclivity for “red meat” conservative issues over pragmatic Alaskan interests. Others cringe at the family melodramas that have become tabloid fodder. Either way, the loss of support for “Sarah-dise” – the nickname used for Palin’s smooth-running early tenure – includes some notable figures.

Anyway, the decision can turn out to be a big gamble. It can either help to build her support and provide time to become a more viable candidate, or it can lead her to drop out of the public spotlight and become that also-ran from the last election. Only time will tell.

One thing is sure: The timing of this announcement is odd. The Friday before the Fourth of July? Most Americans outside the political class won’t be paying attention. As I said over at Hot Air, Barack Obama could climb the Empire State Building with a Stratocaster and it would largely be buried this weekend

Via Hot Air.

MAJOR UPDATE: She’s not just going to be a one-term governor. She’s going to be a part-term governor. According to MSNBC, BNO, and other outlets, Palin has confirmed that she’s resigning within weeks.

Update X2: Alaskan television station KTUU is also reporting that she announced her resignation during the press conference. Supposedly she’ll be out by the end of July.

I’m hearing from a few friends in the immigration community that Congressional Democrats are looking at a push for amnesty. While you should probably take that for a grain of salt, it would seem to match-up with rhetoric from the administration and earlier reports that high-ranking Democrats sought an immigration bill by the end of this year.

Typically the argument has been that the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens in this nation are doing the jobs Americans won’t do. Well, that argument doesn’t fly as well during a period approaching double-digit unemployment, when millions of Americans are looking for jobs to pay their bills. Americans simply aren’t going to buy that Joe Smith, unemployed and trying to pay his mortgage, wouldn’t work in a factory.

President Obama, when addressing the issue earlier this year, mentioned the taxes the the millions of illegal aliens fail to generate by being categorized as illegal. That seems to be the argument that proponents of amnesty will look towards this time: That, considering we’re in a recession and spending has gotten out of control, we need their tax dollars to help cover the nation’s tab. How to acquire those tax dollars? Why, legalize them all immediately, you see. It’s a matter of the nation’s economy and helping to fix the massive national debt Americans are concerned about, in other words.

In which the boy king once again exposes his complete naivete when it comes to foreign policy. There was a time when Russia and China were the biggest roadblocks to pushing Iran into submission; now it appears to be the administration in Washington.

The United States is opposed to enacting a new set of financial sanctions against Iran that are due to be discussed in the G8 summit next week, diplomatic officials in New York reported Friday.

According to officials, sanctions against Iran are expected to top the G8’s agenda. Sources are also predicting a pointed debate between the heads of the industrialized nations over an appropriate response to Iranian authorities’ suppression of reformist demonstrations in Iran led by Mir Hossein Mousavi and other Iranian opposition leaders.

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi hinted in a newspaper interview earlier in the week that the G8 is due to decide on new financial sanctions against the Islamic Republic. Berlusconi disclosed that he had spoken with the heads of the G8 nations and has discussed such steps with them.

According to the Italian prime minister, “the general leaning [among G8 leaders] is toward sanctions.”

However, diplomatic sources in New York reported that American officials are working behind the scenes to prevent new sanctions from being imposed against Iran.

Why would President Obama oppose sanctions against an illegitimate government that sponsors terrorism and seeks the nuclear bomb? The administration is telling other members of G-8 that the sanctions could “backfire”, driving Iran away from the negotiating table it has repeatedly stressed it will never join.

In other words, Obama and his allies are still living their fantasy world where a repetitive and unambiguous “no” means “yes”. They’re still testing out their college campus theories that the Mullahs and civilian leadership in Iran have already rejected time and time again. The Islamic Republic has stressed that it won’t negotiate on its nuclear program, yet here’s the Obama Administration thinking that the way to get the country to the table is by rewarding it.

Christ. It’s like we’ve elected a 20-something philosophy student who lives in an alternative universe. France, Germany, Italy, and other major nations that have held discussions with Iran even agree that now is the time for tougher sanctions. But the Boy King at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue doesn’t live in the world of reality; he’s still residing in a textbook of theories.

Democrats in Washington have discussed the removal of President Ronald Reagan’s name from Reagan National Airport, the Washington Examiner reports. Apparently they wish to return the airport to its previous name, National Airport.

At Wednesday’s Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Board meeting, chairman H.R. Crawford – a former District Council member and Marion Barry confidante – told fellow Board members that he has heard talk on Capitol Hill about yanking former President Ronald Reagan’s name off the local airport and returning it to its previous generic moniker: National Airport.

“It was just a discussion. We’re not aware of anything specific,” MWAA spokeswoman Tara Hamilton later told The Examiner.

It’s clear that the current crop of congressional leaders want no part of Reagan’s grand conservative vision for America, but erasing all trace of his memory from an airport that’s already been named in his honor is about as petty as you can get.

Why would anybody on Capitol Hill even consider such a patently partisan move, which is guaranteed to make Democrats look small and ridiculous? Do they so fear the inevitable comparisons between the Great Communicator and his teleprompted successor in the White House?

Sure they would. Nothing from the Democratic Party would surprise me anymore, including a push to rename the airport after Barack Obama. Many in the party would love nothing more than to wipe away the successful two terms of the small government, strong-defense president.

H/t Hot Air Headlines.

If President Obama’s response to the Honduran coup is any indication of his future foreign policy goals, we should all be very concerned. According to Bloomberg, Washington has suspended some of its aide to Honduras following the recent removal of leftist thug Manuel Zelaya from power.

Deposed Honduran President Manuel Zelaya said he’s plotting his return to the Central American nation and called for “strong” action from the U.S. to help restore him to power.

“Their words are strong,” Zelaya said today during an interview in the lobby of the Sheraton hotel in Panama. “We’re going to see now if their actions are strong.”…

The U.S. has suspended some aid to Honduras while it evaluates whether the removal of Zelaya meets the definition of a military coup under American law.

“We’ve taken some actions to hit the pause button on assistance programs which we would be legally required to terminate” if it is found to have been a military coup, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters today in Washington…

Supreme Court Justice Rosalinda Cruz said in an interview yesterday that the military acted under judicial orders when it deposed Zelaya, rejecting the view of President Barack Obama and other leaders that he was toppled in a coup.

Just to be clear, Zelaya was violating his nation’s constitution at the time of his removal. As the report notes, the military only acted on court order after Zelaya moved forward with an illegal referendum and ignored his nation’s system of checks-and-balances. He was attempting to utilize the military to become president for life, ala his friend Hugo Chavez, at the time.

And yet here we are supporting his return and suspending aide to punish the Honduran officials who dared to protect their nation’s constitution and rule of law. We’re actually punishing Honduras for following its constitution and legally removing Zelaya for breaking the law. Unbelievable.

Remember the days when Congressional Democrats were promising that putting them in power would bring about a new era of honest, open, and ethical government? Yeah, you can pretty much forget about all of that.

Spending by lawmakers on taxpayer-financed trips abroad has risen sharply in recent years, a Wall Street Journal analysis of travel records shows, involving everything from war-zone visits to trips to exotic spots such as the Galápagos Islands.

The spending on overseas travel is up almost tenfold since 1995, and has nearly tripled since 2001, according to the Journal analysis of 60,000 travel records. Hundreds of lawmakers traveled overseas in 2008 at a cost of about $13 million. That’s a 50% jump since Democrats took control of Congress two years ago.

The cost of so-called congressional delegations, known among lawmakers as “codels,” has risen nearly 70% since 2005, when an influence-peddling scandal led to a ban on travel funded by lobbyists, according to the data.

Look, trips to nations such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and other hotspots can be justified. But that’s not where our Congressional leaders went:

Although complete travel records aren’t yet available for 2009, it appears that such costs continue to rise. The Journal analysis shows that the government has picked up the tab for travel to destinations such as Jamaica, the Virgin Islands and Australia’s Great Barrier Reef.

Lawmakers frequently bring along spouses on congressional trips. If they take commercial flights, they have to buy tickets for spouses. If they fly on government planes — as they usually do — their spouses can fly free…

In mid-June, Sen. Daniel Inouye (D., Hawaii) led a group of a half-dozen senators and their spouses on a four-day trip to France for the biennial Paris Air Show. An itinerary for the event shows that lawmakers flew on the Air Force’s version of the Boeing 737, which costs $5,700 an hour to operate. They stayed at the Intercontinental Paris Le Grand Hotel, which advertises rooms from $460 a night.

The lawmakers were invited to a dinner party at the U.S. Embassy and had cocktails at a private party at the Eiffel Tower. Mr. Inouye attended a dinner sponsored by the Aerospace Industries Association, a U.S. trade group. Another senator on the trip, Alabama Republican Sen. Richard Shelby, took a cruise on the River Seine with defense-industry executives and elected officials from Alabama, Mississippi and Florida.

So while Americans are losing their jobs, trying to pay their bills, and worry about the massive spending from Washington, our Congressional leaders are taking taxpayer-funded vacations to exotic locales. Craptastic.

Thanks to Ed Morrissey.

Thank God for that Obama stimulus package, huh? We were warned that unemployment could hit 9% if we didn’t pass it immediately and without reading the contents. Now the national unemployment is only, er, 9.5% and growing. *launch confetti cannons*

WASHINGTON – Employers cut a larger-than-expected 467,000 jobs in June and the unemployment rate climbed to a 26-year high of 9.5 percent. Workers also saw weekly wages fall, suggesting Americans will have little appetite to spend and the economy’s road to recovery will be bumpy.

The Labor Department report, released Thursday, showed that even as the recession flashes signs of easing, companies likely will want to keep a lid on costs and be wary of hiring until they feel certain the economy is on solid ground.

You’ll be comforted to know that President Obama is “deeply concerned” that he won’t get re-elected that the unemployment percentage isn’t going down anytime soon, with many economists predicting a double-digit figure by the end of summer. We’ll add this to the other events Obama is “deeply concerned” about, including but not limited to the Iranian election violence, the ongoing missile tests in North Korea, and the coup in Honduras.

June’s payroll reductions were deeper than the 363,000 that economists expected and average weekly earnings dropped to the lowest level in nearly a year.

However, the rise in the unemployment rate from 9.4 percent in May wasn’t as sharp as the expected 9.6 percent. Still, many economists predict the jobless rate will hit 10 percent this year, and keep rising into next year, before falling back.

All told, 14.7 million people were unemployed in June.

The good news is that the chance of amnesty passing this year dwindles as the unemployment figure rises. It’s kind of hard to sell Americans on the idea that million of illegal aliens are doing the jobs Americans won’t when, you know, millions of Americans are looking for jobs.

If laid-off workers who have given up looking for new jobs or have settled for part-time work are included, the unemployment rate would have been 16.5 percent in June, the highest on records dating to 1994.

“We were on the road of things getting less bad in the jobs market, and that has been temporarily waylaid,” said economist Ken Mayland, president of ClearView Economics. “But this doesn’t change my view that the recession will end later this year. We’re probably two months away.”

The Dow Jones is down 177 points as I post this.

The Washington Post has cancelled a service it planned on providing to offer lobbyists face time with Obama Administration officials for a fee. Here’s what the legendary paper would’ve done for the price:

For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post is offering lobbyists and association executives off the record, non-confrontational access to “those powerful few” — Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and the paper’s own reporters and editors.

The astonishing offer is detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health-care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he feels it’s a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its “health care reporting and editorial staff.”

The offer—which essentially turns a news organization into a facilitator for private lobbyist-official encounters—is a new sign of the lengths to which news organizations will go to find revenue at a time when most newspapers are struggling for survival.

Just how brazen was this flier in offering the paper’s pimping services?

“Underwriting Opportunity: An evening with the right people can alter the debate,” says the one-page flier. “Underwrite and participate in this intimate and exclusive Washington Post Salon, an off-the-record dinner and discussion at the home of CEO and Publisher Katharine Weymouth … Bring your organization’s CEO or executive director literally to the table. Interact with key Obama Administration and Congressional leaders …

“Spirited? Yes. Confrontational? No. The relaxed setting in the home of Katharine Weymouth assures it.["]

Wow. Spirited and relaxed bought time with high-ranking government officials. Lovely.

Following public and even media pressure, the paper has decided not to go ahead with the program. Apparently the response wasn’t as pleasant as the publisher had hoped, as Weymouth is distancing herself from the flier and idea altogether.

Washington Post Publisher Katharine Weymouth today canceled plans for a series of policy dinners at her home after learning that marketing fliers offered lobbyists access to Obama administration officials, members of Congress and Post journalists in exchange for payments as high as $250,000.

“Absolutely, I’m disappointed,” Weymouth, the chief executive of Washington Post Media, said in an interview. “This should never have happened. The fliers got out and weren’t vetted. They didn’t represent at all what we were attempting to do. We’re not going to do any dinners that would impugn the integrity of the newsroom.”

Moments earlier, Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli said in a separate interview that he was “appalled” by the plan and had insisted before the cancellation that the newsroom would not participate.

“It suggests that access to Washington Post journalists was available for purchase,” Brauchli said. The proposal “promises we would suspend our usual skeptical questioning because it appears to offer, in exchange for sponsorships, the good name of The Washington Post.”

“suggests”? No, it basically comes out and shouts that WaPo journalists were available for purchase.

Via Hot Air.

The Obama Administration continues its reckless policy of supporting a deposed leftist leader with dictatorial visions this evening, suspending military relations with Honduras after the government there removed Manuel Zelaya from power by court order.

WASHINGTON (AP) – The Obama administration said Wednesday it has suspended joint military operations with Honduras to protest a coup that forced President Manuel Zelaya into exile. The U.S. withheld stronger action in hopes of negotiating a peaceful return of the country’s elected leader.

Let’s review the type of man that the Obama Administration seeks to return to power in Honduras, shall we?

Manuel Zelaya is a crony of Venezuelan thug Hugo Chavez, has a radical far-left agenda, and has been accused of permitting the flow of tons of cocaine into his nation illegally. He attempted to hold a referendum removing the term limit for his presidency in the first step towards a Chavez-like scenario which permits a presidency for life. The Supreme Court ruled it illegal, but he pushed forward with it anyway, ordering the military to hand out the ballots. When the armed forces refused to be complicit in the crime, he replaced their chief.

Zelaya was moving forward with an illegal referendum to keep himself in power, ignored his nation’s laws, and wiped his posterior with the Honduran constitution. The Supreme Court ordered him removed from power, the military peacefully carried out the order, and he was replaced with the next civilian constitutionally in line for the presidency.

And yet here President Obama is demanding the return of Zelaya to power, apparently so that he can continue trampling on the constitution, ignoring the system of laws, and holding an illegal referendum. All while the president claims to be standing up for democratic values. Fantastic.

Well, this year certainly hasn’t turned out the way Arlen Specter expected. Today came the latest bad news for the senator, as a prominent Democrat in Pennsylvania jumped into the party’s primary:

A congressman from the Philadelphia suburbs will challenge U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter in the Democratic Senate primary.

In an interview with The Wayne Independent Wednesday morning, U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa.,confirmed his intention to run against Specter, a long-time Republican who switched to the Democratic party earlier this year.

“I am going to get into the race against Arlen Specter … for senator,” said Sestak[.]

Pennsylvania Democrats haven’t forgotten that Specter proudly called himself a Republican and friend of George Bush until it became clear that he would lose his former party’s primary. He still holds several right-wing positions unpopular in the Keystone State, not the least of which is opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act.

Sestak, on the other hand, is a career-long Democrat who opposed the war in Iraq, criticized the Bush Administration, and supported Senator Obama’s run for the presidency. He’s a very active member of Congress and a favorite of high-ranking Congressional Democrats.

If Arlen Specter loses the Democratic primary, his long political career will be over. Pennsylvania electoral law prevents a candidate from losing a party’s primary and then running as an independent. If Sestak is as strong as many expect him to be, Specter is (frankly) screwed.

Via Hot Air.

The Supreme Court’s overturning of lower court judges, including Sonia Sotomayor, has hurt the nominee’s support for confirmation amongst the general public. That’s what a new poll from Rasmussen Reports released today shows.

A heavily publicized U.S. Supreme Court reversal of an appeals court ruling by Judge Sonia Sotomayor has at least temporarily diminished public support for President Obama’s first Supreme Court nominee.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, conducted on the two nights following the Supreme Court decision, finds that 37% now believe Sotomayor should be confirmed while 39% disagree.

Two weeks ago, the numbers were much brighter for the nominee. At that time, 42% favored confirmation, and 34% were opposed.

Sotomayor has a poor image with both men and women, with both demographics having more people disapproving of her than approving. Even most income brackets find majorities disapproving of her as a court nominee.

Will this hurt her chance of confirmation? I doubt it. Democrats are more interested in appeasing their special interests and repaying victim groups than putting up someone the American public approves of. She’ll still get confirmed, but it may hurt both the Obama Administation and Congressional Democrats politically.

The American private sector alone shed 473,000 jobs during the month of June despite projections of 395,000 jobs by most economists. It was fewer new job loss filings than the month of May, but obviously worse than economists predicted.

While the ADP report for June was not as dire as the initial headlines indicated when taking the May revision into account, “it isn’t good news,” said Briefing.com’s Patrick O’Hare.

“It is a sobering reminder that the labor market is weak and that there is a heightened risk of disappointment in the nonfarm payrolls number that will be reported Thursday,” he said.

The national unemployment rate is now over 9.4% and climbing, with even President Obama predicting double-digit unemployment by the end of the year. Thank God for that stimulus package, huh? Democrats warned us that without it we would’ve seen unemployment approaching 9%. And now, $800 billion later, we’re looking at 10%. Whew.

Glenn Garvin on The Miami Herald has an interesting question for all of these new defenders of democracy in Honduras: Where were you last week when Manuel Zelaya was holding an illegal election and ignoring his country’s constitution?

As has been said on this blog a half-dozen times, Zelaya wasn’t removed by the military because some power-hungry general decided to ditch the democratically-elected leader of the country. The military removed Zelaya on a court order after the deposed leader went ahead with plans for a referendum in violation of a ruling by the Supreme Court. He ignored his country’s laws and democratic system, so he was removed peacefully and the next civilian in line — a member of his own political party — took his place.

And yet we didn’t hear from the White House and its colleagues in the World of Outrage until Honduras actually attempted to defend its democracy and people from a man acting like a dictator. They’ve been outraged by his court-ordered removal and replacement by a citizen, but had nothing to say regarding his blatant violation of the law and system of checks-and-balances.

Garvin writes:

For weeks, Zelaya — an erratic leftist who styles himself after his good pal Hugo Chávez of Venezuela — has been engaged in a naked and illegal power grab, trying to rewrite the Honduran constitution to allow him to run for reelection in November.

First Zelaya scheduled a national vote on a constitutional convention. After the Honduran supreme court ruled that only the country’s congress could call such an election, Zelaya ordered the army to help him stage it anyway. (It would be ”non-binding,” he said.) When the head of the armed forces, acting on orders from the supreme court, refused, Zelaya fired him, then led a mob to break into a military base where the ballots were stored.

His actions have been repudiated by the country’s supreme court, its congress, its attorney-general, its chief human-rights advocate, all its major churches, its main business association, his own political party (which recently began debating an inquiry into Zelaya’s sanity) and most Hondurans: Recent polls have shown his approval rating down below 30 percent.

In fact, about the only people who didn’t condemn Zelaya’s political gangsterism were the foreign leaders and diplomats who now primly lecture Hondurans about the importance of constitutional law. They’re also strangely silent about the vicious stream of threats against Honduras spewing from Chávez since Zelaya was deposed…

The Honduran army clearly did not act on its own when it arrested Zelaya and sent him packing. The supreme court says the generals acted on its orders, and almost every Honduran politician of any note — regardless of party — has voiced approval.

Somehow every flagrant violation of law, not to mention undemocratic move, by Zelaya has been largely ignored by the same international community condemning Honduran officials for protecting their constitution and system of government. They only became interested in defending democracy in the democratic republic when the leftist leader was deposed.

Meanwhile, Venezuelan thug Hugo Chavez is threatening all-out war to place Zelaya back in control of Honduras. As far as I can tell, the United States remains silent about the threat. To be clear: Expressing support for a man acting as a dictator is okay with the Obama Administration, but don’t dare say something too supportive of the protesters seeking fair elections in Iran. That would be seen as meddling.

I couldn’t really give a crap about his political career at this point or whether he even remains in office, but when is enough heart-ache for the wife and kids enough? Now Sanford is talking about other women with which he’s had run-ins and how Maria is his soul-mate.

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford said Tuesday that he “crossed lines” with a handful of women other than his mistress – but never had sex with them.

The governor said he “never crossed the ultimate line” with anyone but Maria Belen Chapur, the Argentine at the center of a scandal that has derailed his once-promising political career.

“This was a whole lot more than a simple affair, this was a love story,” Sanford said. “A forbidden one, a tragic one, but a love story at the end of the day.”

During an emotional interview at his Statehouse office with The Associated Press on Tuesday, Sanford said Chapur is his soul mate but he’s trying to fall back in love with his wife.

He really needs to learn how to shut up. As Allah says, we’re not far from learning what positions the two tried during their escapades. Hasn’t he put his family, and especially his wife, through enough grief?

And speaking of his wife, does this indicate that their marriage is doomed? Exactly how you repair a relationship after one partner has admitted that someone else is his soul-mate isn’t clear to me.

Look on the bright side: He appears to have plenty of experience in foreign affairs.

Despite insisting that reacting strongly to the stolen Iranian election would be seen as meddling, the White House is making sure the world knows exactly where it stands on the Honduran coup.

First of all, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters that the only acceptable outcome is the return of Zelaya to the presidency of Honduras. The deposed leader would meet with State Department officials if he visits the United States.

Second, Gibbs insists that the United States reacted quickly to Honduras because Obama wanted to dispel rumors that the United States was involved in the coup. So just to be clear, we need to be silent on Iran in order to dispel rumors of meddling, but we need to be loud on Honduras to dispel rumors of meddling. Okey dokey.

Meanwhile, Zelaya is traveling back to Honduras with friends:

Flanked by Latin American leaders who have vowed to help him regain power, Manuel Zelaya said late Monday that Organization of American States Secretary-General Jose Miguel Insulza had agreed to accompany him back to Honduras.

But the man named by Honduras’ Congress as interim president, Roberto Micheletti, indicated Tuesday that Zelaya would risk arrest if he returns because “the courts of my country have issued arrest orders” against him.

Still being largely ignored by the White House, European Union, and most of the world is the very reason why Zelaya was thrown out of office. The Honduran Supreme Court ruled the referendum pushed by Zelaya was illegal, but the former leader pushed forward with the plan anyway. When the military refused to hand out the ballots illegally, Zelaya ditched the head of the armed forces. He was acting as a dictator, ignoring his nation’s laws and balance of powers. He wasn’t some shining light of democracy. So, he was peacefully removed from office by court order and replaced by the next civilian in line.

Why is it that we can always count on Barack Obama to be on the wrong side of foreign affairs? He seeks to punish Israel to suck up to Iran, refuses to strongly back the Iranian protesters to improve ties with the nation’s illegitimate government, and now insists on the return of a man ignoring his nation’s laws and acting like a dictator. Pathetic.

Via Ace.

The Minnesotan Supreme Court has ruled that Al Franken is the new junior senator from Minnesota, essentially ending a challenge by former Senator Norm Coleman. It’s official: The crude clown is a senator.

It is U.S. Sen. Al Franken.

The Minnesota Supreme Court today decided that Franken, a Democrat, won the highest number of votes in last year’s U.S. Senate race and deserves a signed election certificate.

The court said that Republican Norm Coleman didn’t prove that a lower court made mistakes requiring a rehearing of the case. Coleman had asked the court to order thousands of rejected absentee ballots counted. He had hoped the counting would allow him to overcome Franken’s 312-vote lead.

The ruling for Franken didn’t come as much of a surprise to anyone, though what Coleman does next is anyone’s guess. He could simply concede the election to the clown, or he could push his case into the federal courts and all the way up the ladder. Ed Morrissey believes that Coleman’s equal-protection argument would fare better there, and I agree.

By the way, the Minnesota Post is reporting that the court didn’t order the certification of the results. That would give Governor Tim Pawlenty an opportunity to hold off until Coleman challenges in the decision in the federal courts.

More: Michelle Malkin, Sister Toldjah.

The setting is Albany, where Democrats have forcefully attempted to take back the Senate chamber despite losing a democratic leadership vote there not long ago. They don’t like the fact that they lost the vote in the chamber, so they’re attempting to grab back the leadership seat by locking themselves in and not letting the bipartisan coalition rightfully take over. Imagine if Republicans refused to give up control of Congress in 2006, so they locked themselves in the chamber and refused to let Dems take over leadership roles.

Anyway, that’s the setting. Here’s what happened:

Note how one Democrat attempts to stand up, apparently confused as to why his fellow lefties won’t pledge allegiance to their country. He’s immediately pulled back down by the cry-babies on either side of his desk. Ed Morrissey notes the childishness the Democrats have displayed:

In this case, the refusal to stand comes as the culmination of a series of childish gestures. One member plays exies no erasies with the podium, while her colleagues try to make the chamber into the Democratic Club playhouse (no Republican cooties allowed!). When Republicans try to start the session on their own terms, the Democrats refuse to acknowledge their authority to do so — which is why they remained seated, except for one Democrat, who got pulled back down by his desk partner.

Democrats are so intent on holding onto their power unjustly that they’ll refuse to stand for the pledge of allegiance? Pathetic.

There’s a new poll from the World Public Opinion firm in Washington, D.C. that shows Barack Obama as the most trusted world leader. Here’s the heart of it:

An average of 61 percent express a lot or some confidence in Obama to do the right thing in world affairs, across the nineteen nations polled (excluding the US). Thirty-one percent say they have not too much or no confidence at all. In 13 nations, a majority or plurality has confidence in Obama; in five nations they do not; one nation is divided. A majority of the American public (70%) also expresses confidence in Obama in world affairs.

No other leader has the confidence of more than an average of 40 percent across the publics polled. For most leaders, more express a lack of confidence than express confidence.

“At this moment Obama occupies a unique position in the eyes of the world” observes Stephen J. Weber of WorldPublicOpinion.org. “His communication skills and the change he represents create an open door for him to engage people around the world.”

Just a slight warning about the firm. Clearly listed on its “Partners” page is the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. A quick Google search of that organization shows that First Lady Michelle Obama served on its board until her husband picked up steam in last year’s election. The current chairman is Lester Crown, a vocal supporter of Barack Obama. He also donated the maximum allowed to the campaign.

The Director of Research for the polling firm itself, Clay Ramsay, has appeared on Antiwar Radio. By the way, the polling firm’s supporters apparently include the: Rockefeller Foundation, Tides Foundation, Ben and Jerry’s Foundation, Oak Foundation, and the United States Institute of Peace.

Via HA.

Karen Bass isn’t some far-left loon in the activist community. No, she’s the California Speaker of the Assembly and third-term Assemblyman from the 47th district. So you can imagine the shock when someone in her position would compare free speech — on of the tenants of our republic — to terrorism.

How do you think conservative talk radio has affected the Legislature’s work?

The Republicans were essentially threatened and terrorized against voting for revenue. Now [some] are facing recalls. They operate under a terrorist threat: “You vote for revenue and your career is over.” I don’t know why we allow that kind of terrorism to exist. I guess it’s about free speech, but it’s extremely unfair.

So she actually acknowledges that talk radio hosts are guaranteed free speech, yet compares what they do to terrorism anyway. Charming,

And what’s this complaining about, “You vote for revenue and your career is over.” Hello? You’re an elected politician accountable to the people. If you don’t perform as they expect or fail to represent their values, you get thrown out of office. That’s kind of the whole point about democracy. Their promise of voting against you if you approve things they don’t want is now terrorism?

Clearly Ms. Bass doesn’t have a clear understanding what real terrorism is, or she wouldn’t be equating it with Americans exercising their rights to free speech. I like Ed Morrissey’s suggestion: Perhaps she should embed with our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan to gain a clear picture of what real terrorism entails. It’s certainly not citizens promising to utilize their constitutionally-protected rights.

I always got a kick out of the libertarians and even moderates who supported Barack Obama because they were tired of Republicans bringing religion-based morals into public policy. I never understood how they could possibly imagine that a President Obama would interject his morals, often based in junk science, any less into their lives. Surprise:

WASHINGTON — Aiming to keep the focus on climate change legislation, President Barack Obama put a plug in for administration efforts to make lamps and lighting equipment use less energy.

“I know light bulbs may not seem sexy, but this simple action holds enormous promise because 7 percent of all the energy consumed in America is used to light our homes and businesses,” the president said, standing alongside Energy Secretary Steven Chu at the White House.

Seven percent of energy consumed in America is used for lighting? You mean so that Americans can see after the sun goes down, do homework, and generally live their lives? A travesty!

Obama said the new efficiency standards he was announcing for lamps would result in substantial savings between 2012 and 2042, saving consumers up to $4 billion annually, conserving enough energy to power every U.S. home for 10 months, reducing emissions equal to the amount produced by 166 million cars a year, and eliminating the need for as many as 14 coal-fired power plants.

The president also said he was speeding the delivery of $346 million in economic stimulus money to help improve energy efficiency in new and existing commercial buildings.

Wow, he sped the delivery of $346 million of his stimulus package…out of over $700 billion in appropriated funds. The overwhelming majority of the package, intended to create jobs in a timely manner, remains unspent. Meanwhile, national unemployment is climbing into the double-digits.

Senator McConnell points out a flaw in the energy plan:

“Conservation is only half the equation. Even as we use less energy, we need to produce more of our own,” said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. “We have to admit there’s a gap between the clean, renewable fuel we want and the reliable energy we need.”

As the Associated Press points out, the passage of Obama’s lightbulb regulation plan is less-than-certain in the Senate. There are a few Democrats, especially those in more moderate or conservative states, not eager to jump on the far-left envirowacko bandwagon. Hopefully they’ll keep their senses and sustain a filibuster of such a plan.

I’m sure there are members of the media and left (but I repeat myself) who will attempt to credit this to Obama’s plan for Iraq, but the military is actually meeting a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) negotiated and approved back in 2008.

It’s quite remarkable, really. As James Joyner says, the headline for the handover itself would’ve seemed like a dream not too long ago. But the surge and stabilization we’ve witnessed in the past 2 years has made the hand-over possible.

A countdown clock broadcast on Iraqi TV ticked to zero as the midnight deadline passed for U.S. combat troops to finish their pullback to bases outside cities.

“The withdrawal of American troops is completed now from all cities after everything they sacrificed for the sake of security,” said Sadiq al-Rikabi, a senior adviser to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. “We are now celebrating the restoration of sovereignty.”

As they should. Even the craziest aspects of the world can now see that the United States’ goal was never the permanent occupation of the Republic of Iraq, but rather the establishment of a stable, democratic government that would be beholden to its citizens.

Fireworks, not bombings, colored the Baghdad skyline late Monday, and thousands attended a party in a park where singers performed patriotic songs. Loudspeakers at police stations and military checkpoints played recordings of similar tunes throughout the day, as Iraqi military vehicles decorated with flowers and national flags patrolled the capital.

“All of us are happy — Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds on this day,” Waleed al-Bahadili said as he celebrated at the park. “The Americans harmed and insulted us too much.”

Of course, there are still those who hold onto anti-American feelings, people on whom irony is lost. al-Bahadili is able to stand there, speaking his mind freely because of the actions of American troops. And he uses that opportunity to complain about the Americans. Oy vey.

In a ceremony rich with symbolism, the top U.S. military commander in Baghdad, Maj. Gen. Daniel Bolger, gave his Iraqi counterpart the keys to the former defense ministry building, which had served as a joint base.

“On the eve of the 30th of June 2009 in accord with a security agreement between Iraq and America, Iraqis take the lead in Baghdad,” Bolger said.

The withdrawal, required under a U.S.-Iraqi security pact, marks the first major step toward withdrawing all American forces from the country by Dec. 31, 2011. Obama has said all combat troops will be gone by the end of August 2010.

How the president intends to accomplish that isn’t clear, of course. More than 130,000 American troops remain in the country with about 14 months left until Obama’s deadline. Military planners have already declared a 16-month withdrawal period an impossible deadline to meet.

Anyway, this is a great sign for the future of Iraq. Now is the time to pray that the relative peace holds.

Funny thing is, the Honduran Supreme Court believes otherwise. In fact, the military was acting on a court order in response to Zelaya violating the constitution and the high court’s ruling.

And how exactly did this move not adhere to democratic values? Zelaya was the one acting undemocratically, holding an illegal referendum and ignoring the systematic checks-and-balances. The military acted on a court order, removed the man acting like a dictator peacefully, and handed power over to the next civilian in line under the nation’s constitution.

Just to be clear, Barack Obama favors speaking up and intervening when a leftist dictatorial leader is removed from office by force and replaced by the next civilian constitutionally in line. But he doesn’t want to get too involved when the Islamic regime in Iran is murdering its citizens in the streets when they attempt to speak their minds and demand a free election. We’re beginning to get a clearer image of his foreign policy and, quite frankly, it’s disturbing.

Via Hot Air.

Despite Barack Obama insisting that the United States shouldn’t be involved as the Iranian regime was killing its own citizens in the streets, the White House hasn’t hesitated to come out strongly against the military coup in Honduras this past weekend. The president is jumping right into the fray:

In an unusual concurrence of views, the Obama administration and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said they still recognized Mr. Zelaya as Honduras’ president. The State Department called the events an “attempted coup” and urged Mr. Zelaya’s “return and restoration of democratic order.”

U.S. officials said they were engaged in multinational efforts to resolve the crisis, through the Organization of American States and European allies. At the same time, Washington wants a resolution “free from external influence and interference,” a senior official told reporters during a conference call organized by the State Department.

The official, who spoke on the condition that he not be named, said the U.S. Embassy in Honduras was “consistently and almost constantly engaged in the last several weeks working with partners” and that U.S. officials were “in contact with all Honduran institutions, including the military.” However, the military stopped taking the embassy’s calls since the coup attempt, the official said.

Suddenly the Obama Administration isn’t too concerned with the appearance that the United States is interfering with the internal matters of Honduras. The Wall Street Journal notes that President Obama is actually eager to interfere with the overthrow of the leftist leader:

The Obama administration and members of the Organization of American States had worked for weeks to try to avert any moves to overthrow President Zelaya, said senior U.S. officials. Washington’s ambassador to Honduras, Hugo Llorens, sought to facilitate a dialogue between the president’s office, the Honduran parliament and the military.

The efforts accelerated over the weekend, as Washington grew increasingly alarmed. “The players decided, in the end, not to listen to our message,” said one U.S. official involved in the diplomacy. On Sunday, the U.S. embassy here tried repeatedly to contact the Honduran military directly, but was rebuffed. Washington called the removal of President Zelaya a coup and said it wouldn’t recognize any other leader.

The U.S. stand was unpopular with Honduran deputies. One congressman, Toribio Aguilera, got prolonged applause from his colleagues when he urged the U.S. ambassador to reconsider. Mr. Aguilera said the U.S. didn’t understand the danger that Mr. Zelaya and his friendships with Mr. Chavez and Cuba’s Fidel Castro posed.

What was Zelaya doing at the time the military detained him and threw him out of the country? Blatantly violating his nation’s constitution. This wasn’t some crazy plan hatched by the military for no reason. The Honduran Supreme Court had ruled the referendum illegal, but Zelaya decided to go through with it anyway. The military then refused to distribute the ballots for the illegal referendum, so Zelaya replaced the head of the armed forces. Zelaya was then replaced with the civilian leader next in line constitutionally.

Democracies shouldn’t permit coups whenever the leader is unpopular. But Zelaya wasn’t just an unpopular leader — he was ignoring the constitution and Supreme Court, and sought to carry out an illegal referendum. He then ditched the head of the military when he refused to be complicit in the illegality. So, the military threw out Zelaya and handed power over to the next civilian in line.

Frankly, the coup was justified. You can’t tolerate a leader ignoring the constitution and his nation’s checks-and-balances. Zelaya was acting as a dictator and was duly removed, as it turned out, by force. President Obama shouldn’t be intervening on behalf of Zelaya.

It’s a sad truth, but Obama is suddenly okey dokey with interference because Zelaya is a leftist who was removed for ignoring the constitution.

Via Hot Air. Fausta has more, too.

Discover the Networks has a great briefing on the Cloward-Piven Strategy, a plan set forth by leftists in 1966 to hasten the collapse of capitalism and bring about the age of socialism in America. The strategy was to overload the governmental bureaucracy with demands impossible to meet, thus forcing it into crisis and eventual collapse.

In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when “the rest of society is afraid of them,” Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would “the rest of society” accept their demands.

The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven’s early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. “Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1972 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one.

The authors noted that the number of Americans subsisting on welfare — about 8 million, at the time — probably represented less than half the number who were technically eligible for full benefits. They proposed a “massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls.” Cloward and Piven calculated that persuading even a fraction of potential welfare recipients to demand their entitlements would bankrupt the system. The result, they predicted, would be “a profound financial and political crisis” that would unleash “powerful forces … for major economic reform at the national level.”

How would this all be brought about? It would require the complicity of an adoring left-wing media selling the national programs set forth by the planners.

Their article called for “cadres of aggressive organizers” to use “demonstrations to create a climate of militancy.” Intimidated by threats of black violence, politicians would appeal to the federal government for help. Carefully orchestrated media campaigns, carried out by friendly, leftwing journalists, would float the idea of “a federal program of income redistribution,” in the form of a guaranteed living income for all — working and non-working people alike. Local officials would clutch at this idea like drowning men to a lifeline. They would apply pressure on Washington to implement it. With every major city erupting into chaos, Washington would have to act.

Cloward and Piven aren’t some fringe whack-jobs who nobody outside the furthest reaches of left-wing polics follow. In 1996, President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. Both Cloward and Piven were at the signing, being personal guests of President Clinton.

During the 1990s, New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani attempted to expose the strategy.

As his drive for welfare reform gained momentum, Giuliani accused the militant scholars by name, citing their 1966 manifesto as evidence that they had engaged in deliberate economic sabotage. “This wasn’t an accident,” Giuliani charged in a 1997 speech. “It wasn’t an atmospheric thing, it wasn’t supernatural. This is the result of policies and programs designed to have the maximum number of people get on welfare.”

Read the whole thing.

Mark McKinnon floats the idea in his column over at The Daily Beast today. McKinnon predicts that Obama would be re-elected if things remain the way they are now, but notes that a continued recession or foreign policy crisis can send voters looking, once again, for change. And when voters seek change following an unpopular presidency, they don’t seek moderate change — they seek the polar opposite of the incumbent. Haley Barbour would be one option.

Barbour has had an impressive career. He was political director in the Reagan White House, headed the Republican National Committee while the GOP gained control of both houses of Congress for the first time since 1954, and is a two-term governor of Mississippi. In the latter position, he has been praised for his leadership through disasters, cut the state’s deficit without raising taxes, implemented tort reform, enacted tough anti-abortion laws, and sought overall fiscal responsibility.

McKinnon also notes Barbour’s political expertise:

And Barbour is a consummate campaigner. He has a finely tuned understanding of American politics. A big talent. Highly literate. Raised by a single mom. And never failed at anything he’s tried.

And the best thing he’d have going for him is that his opposition would not take him seriously.

They’d do so at their own peril. Barbour is politically bright, a fiscal and social conservative, successful governor, noted leader through dark times, and could win support from the Republican primary voters in addition to general election voters.

The only stumbling block is that he was once a registered lobbyist. But hey, if a man who spent years in an anti-American, antisemitic church can get elected during a year of “change”, why not a former lobbyist? It’s not like Barbour’s firm was printing Hamas terror manifestos.

The United States Supreme Court has overturned a decision made by Obama nominee Sonia Sotomayor during her time as an appeals court judge.

The Supreme Court has ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.

The majority opinion was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, with Antonin Scalia writing a concurrence. Kennedy finds that the failure to establish that the defendents met the requirements to discard the test amounts to a violation of  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and that the lower court — including Sotomayor — improperly applied the Equal Protection Clause.

We conclude that race-based action like the City’s in thiscase is impermissible under Title VII unless the employer can demonstrate a strong basis in evidence that, had it not taken the action, it would have been liable under the disparate-impact statute. The respondents, we further determine, cannot meet that threshold standard. As a result, the City’s action in discarding the tests was a violation of Title VII. In light of our ruling under thestatutes, we need not reach the question whether respon-dents’ actions may have violated the Equal Protection Clause. …

In other words, there is no evidence —let alone the required strong basis in evidence—that the tests were flawed because they were not job-related or because other, equally valid and less discriminatory tests were available to the City. Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions. The City’s discarding the test results was impermissible under Title VII, and summary judgment is appropriate for petitioners on their disparate-treatment claim.

Justice Samuel Alito also wrote a concurrence, noting that the dissenters forgot to mention something:

I join the Court’s opinion in full. I write separately only because the dissent, while claiming that “[t]he Court’srecitation of the facts leaves out important parts of the story,” post, at 2 (opinion of GINSBURG, J.), provides an incomplete description of the events that led to New Haven’s decision to reject the results of its exam. The dissent’s omissions are important because, when all of the evidence in the record is taken into account, it is clear that, even if the legal analysis in Parts II and III–A of the dissent were accepted, affirmance of the decision below is untenable.

The overturn is really bad imagery for Congressional Democrats and the Obama White House. Up to this point they’ve been selling Sotomayor as one of the brightest minds in our nation. Now the very court she’s been appointed to is overruling her previous decisions, finding she inappropriately applied the Equal Protection Clause? Not the best press you can get.

Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was arrested by soldiers shortly before a vote was set to begin on a constitutional referendum that the Honduran Supreme Court had ruled illegal and his own party’s members had opposed.

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras -More than a dozen soldiers arrested President Manuel Zelaya and disarmed his security guards after surrounding his residence before dawn Sunday, his private secretary said. Protesters called it a coup and flocked to the presidential palace as local news media reported that Zelaya was sent into exile…

Zelaya was taken into military custody at his house outside the capital, Tegucigalpa, and whisked away to an air force base on the outskirts of the city, his private secretary, Carlos Enrique Reina told The Associated Press.

Tanks rolled through the streets and Army trucks carrying hundreds of soldiers equipped with metal riot shields surrounded the presidential palace in the capital’s center. About 100 Zelaya supporters, many wearing “Yes,” T-shirts for the referendum, blocked the main street outside the gates to the palace, throwing rocks and insults at soldiers and shouting “Traitors! Traitors!”

It was not immediately clear who was running the government. Soldiers appeared to be in control, but the constitution mandates that the head of Congress is next in line to the presidency, followed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court.
Neither military nor presidential officials have said who’s in charge.

Despite the many opportunities for hostility thus far, it appears that the arrest and detention have been bloodless. His private guards were reportedly disarmed without violence.

Also, there are now conflicting reports regarding the location that Zelaya has been flown to, one saying Venzuela and other saying Costa Rica. I’ll see if I can get confirmation on that.

Update: Well, that took an interesting turn. Venezuelan television reports that Zelaya has been flown to Costa Rica and is now seeking asylum.

Meanwhile, our own mouth-breather president is once again “deeply concerned”. Just like he was “deeply concerned” about Iranians being murdered in the streets. Oh, and he’s calling for a democratic resolution to the dispute. Considering Zelaya has already been arrested, flown to Costa Rica, and is now seeking asylum, it might just be too late for that.

“I am deeply concerned by reports coming out of Honduras regarding the detention and expulsion of President Mel Zelaya,” Obama said in a written statement.

“As the Organization of American States did on Friday, I call on all political and social actors in Honduras to respect democratic norms, the rule of law and the tenets of the Inter-American Democratic Charter. Any existing tensions and disputes must be resolved peacefully through dialogue free from any outside interference,” Obama said.

Translation: Don’t make me take a stance on this outside of “deep concern” and some ambiguous rhetoric about democracy. I’m voting present.

Cap-and-tax passed the House of Representatives today by a margin of 219-212. How did they get that number? Fourty-four Democrats decided not to sell out the United States, while eight Repubicans decided to join the majority of Democrats in supporting the horrific legislation.

The following eight Republicans understood how harmful this legislation will be to our economy and regular Americans. They new that it was based on junk science and is being used by the far-left to pay back special interests for their support in the election. And yet these eight Republicans voted for the crap sandwich anyway, most likely getting something in return. Perhaps 40 pieces of silver.

Make sure to call them and congratulate them on drawing the ire of countless conservative activists who will now actively work for their defeat next November. Information via MM.

Bono Mack (CA) (202) 225-5330
Castle (DE) (202) 225-4165
Kirk (IL) (202) 225-4385 (And he’s seriously considering running for Senate!)
Lance (NJ) (202) 225-5361
LoBiondo (NJ) (202) 225-6572
McHugh (NY) (202) 225-4611
Reichert (WA) (202) 225-7761
Smith (NJ) (202) 225-3765

All of them should be retired as quickly as possible, and, yes, even at the expense of filling their seats with Democratic replacements. What’s the point of having someone with an “R” after their name if they vote with Democrats? If you’re going to sell out your ideals, who cares who wins the election?