Mayor Barry is known as "mayor for life," but he can't contend with Neculai Ivascu.

This from today's Washington Post (actually, the Post's KidsPost -- yes, I check out the KidsPost . . . mostly to watch for propaganda):

The residents of a Romanian village knowingly voted in a dead man as their mayor, preferring him to his living opponent.

Neculai Ivascu, 57, who ran the village for almost two decades, died from liver disease just after voting began but still won the election by 23 votes.

"I know he died, but I don't want change," one villager said.

Election officials gave the post to the runner-up, but some villagers have called for a new vote.

The airlines in this country are driving people crazy with all the new fees, rude employees, dirty planes, whatever. The Washington Post has an editorial today addressing this concern and the ever-increasing misery of air travel.

Skyrocketing fuel prices have pushed the financially challenged aviation industry to come up with novel and annoying ways to shake more change out of the pockets of cash-strapped and stressed-out passengers. Want some water? Pay extra. Want headphones? Pay extra. Want some peanuts? Pay extra. The latest nickel-and-diming is the announcement by United Airlines, US Airways and American Airlines that they will start charging fees for a first checked bag. This is on top of hitting air travelers with higher fees for second pieces of checked luggage. Why not look under the seat cushions for loose change?

It's a common gripe among average American travelers, but it's also a cost that must be carried by someone -- and the answer is not that the business should eat the costs. Of course they must be passed on to customers, that's how all businesses operate. But that doesn't make the net misery of air travel easier to bear -- regardless of how much sense it makes. The Post sums it up nicely:

The baggage-check fee is bound to add to the unpleasantness of air travel. Passengers have to practically strip to get to the gate.  [Not to mention awful TSA employees.] They are crammed onto crowded planes that arrive late and don't leave on time. They wait at the luggage carousels for bags that have been lost or damaged. And now those travelers, desperate to get on or off a plane, will have to stand by with diminishing patience as someone down the aisle attempts to save $15 by stuffing a washing machine into the overhead bin.

But the increased fees and higher prices do prompt questions in my mind. How is it that Southwest airlines has been, as far as I can tell, one of the few -- if not the only -- airlines to file for government protection in bankruptcy? They keep their prices low, their flights are on time, their employees are a joy to be around, they refuse to surprise you with fees (see below), they still give you free drinks, they have lots of flight options, yet the seem to be doing well on the business end -- do you suppose there's any correlation here?

Here's Southwest's non-fees from their website:

• NO 1st OR 2nd CHECKED BAG FEES
• NO CHANGE FEES
• NO FUEL SURCHARGES
• NO SNACK FEES
• NO AISLE OR WINDOW SEAT FEES
• NO CURBSIDE CHECK-IN FEES
• NO PHONE RESERVATION FEES

In case you missed it, Townhall National Political Reporter Amanda Carpenter has been doing some brilliant work on the Chris Dodd/Kent Conrad Countrywide story.

Today she reveals just how involved Conrad was in making sure Dodd's bailout bill could make it through the Senate. From the report:

The role that Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D.-N.D.) played in greasing the skids for Sen. Chris Dodd’s multibillion mortgage bailout is being overlooked.

Both Democratic senators are being fiercely criticized after Portfolio magazine published a story stating they had received “VIP” discounts from Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo on their home loans-- which has not been refuted by either Dodd or Conrad. Although Dodd is bearing the brunt of those criticisms, both senators had major roles in crafting legislation to benefit Countrywide to the tune of billions of taxpayer dollars. [...]

During the regular process of creating legislation,the chairman of the relevant committee is required to send a "Views and Estimates" letter to the Budget chairman outlining budget requirements for the bill. In this case, Banking Chairman Dodd needed to send a letter to Budget Chairman Conrad. Then, to advance the bill, Conrad must attach needed budget provisions to the bill make sure it can be funded later.

While signing off on this particular bill, Conrad added something called a “reserve fund” to Dodd’s bill which would prevent the bill from later being subjected to a “Budget Act point of order.”

Also, Amanda was on Fox and Friends yesterday talking about the Countrywide brouhaha. She nails it.

I must say that I was greatly heartened to read David Limbaugh's column today praising Ravi Zacharias' book "Beyond Opinion." Having been a long-time Ravi fan and someone who regularly listens to his lectures/sermons (audio archives available here), it was nice to read praise of his work in the conservative, political realm.

Zacharias' work is vital for the Christian community that needs to understand what it believes and why. Listening to one of his lectures or reading one of his essays is not something you do one time -- you have to read and re-read in order to really start to "get" it.

On the need to understand what Zacharias offers, Limbaugh writes:

I love apologetics because it helped me overcome certain intellectual hurdles that I believed, rightly or wrongly, were obstructing my faith. As I delved into the subject, I was immensely gratified to learn that most of my doubts and questions had been asked and answered by biblical scholars who embraced, rather than dismissed, such challenges.

If, for example, you can't reconcile the notion that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God could permit evil and suffering in the world, you might be surprised to discover that your concerns are hardly new. Such questions have troubled people for millennia. Brilliant and scholarly works exist addressing such questions, as well as seemingly problematic scriptural passages.

Many mistakenly believe that Christian belief, because it involves faith, is unsupported by reason and evidence and that becoming a Christian requires checking your intellect at the door and accepting Christian truth claims unquestioningly. But anyone who has truly studied Christian theology and apologetics -- I hadn't during my skeptical days -- understands that Christianity rests on a powerful body of evidence and that reason and intellect are its allies, not its enemies.

Before you cavalierly assume that there are unanswerable contradictions or unfathomable paradoxes, before you reject Christian theology out of hand because you witness Christian hypocrisy, before you dismiss the Bible as merely a wonderful piece of literature with some instructive moral stories, do yourself the favor of reading it for yourself. And read what other believing, conservative scholars and theologians have written on the subject.

You will come away enriched beyond your greatest expectations and no longer able to say that Christianity is for dummies -- or ducks the tough questions. Debunking the stereotype of the Christian as a nonthinker and that Christianity discourages intellectual examination, Ravi says, "We are fashioned by God to be thinking and emotional creatures. The emotions should follow reason, and not the other way around."

Conservatives rightly complain about the lack of coverage of positive news coming from Iraq. Most of us believe, based on reports outside the liberal media, there is significant progress being made there (see Michael Yon's brilliant report in the June issue of Townhall), but we want the rest of America to understand it, too.

Today, an Associated Press report from Robert Reid actually gives a report on the good news from Iraq.

BAGHDAD (AP) - Signs are emerging that Iraq has reached a turning point. Violence is down, armed extremists are in disarray, government confidence is rising and sectarian communities are gearing up for a battle at the polls rather than slaughter in the streets.

Those positive signs are attracting little attention in the United States, where the war-weary public is focused on the American presidential contest and skeptical of talk of success after so many years of unfounded optimism by the war's supporters.

But he doesn't stop there. Reid actually gives us some real information to back up his reporting (though much of it is couched in things-could-still-turn-awful language), giving evidence of progress that conservatives already knew was happening and that honest reporters had been chronicling for some time.  For example:

Iraq is by almost any measure safer today than at any time in the past three years. Fears that the country will disintegrate have receded—though they have not disappeared.

The wave of sectarian massacres that pushed the country to the brink of all-out civil war in 2006 has calmed.

Shiite-Sunni reprisal killings still occur. But gangs of Sunni and Shiite death squads no longer roam the streets at night with impunity, seeking out victims from the rival religious community.

Last month, at least 532 Iraqi civilians and security troopers were killed, according to figures compiled by The Associated Press from Iraqi police and military reports.

Although the number remains high, May's total was down sharply from April's figure of 1,080 and was the lowest monthly figure this year, according to the AP count. By comparison, the AP count showed at least 1,920 Iraqis died in January 2007.

American deaths last month—19 including four non-combat fatalities—were the lowest monthly tally of the war. In May 2007, 126 American service members died.

Many Sunni insurgents have stopped fighting and turned against al- Qaida in Iraq, which U.S. commanders say still remains a threat.

Now the question is whether the "big media" will use this reporting.

Call me a liar.

I'll let George Will make the compelling case for Americans to actually be optimistic about the U.S. economy. I'm not sure which part of the video is more interesting -- Will's case for economic optimism or his smack-down of Robert Reich.

Townhall contributor Fred Thompson spoke with ABC's George Stephanopoulos on "This Week" about the Supreme Court's horrendous Boumediene decision issued last week.

Few newspaper editorial boards have the guts to really call out Democratic senators. Thankfully, the editorial board at the Wall Street Journal does not suffer such a lack.

If you've not yet heard about this story or if you have but have not had your daily dose of outrage, you really must read this lead editorial from today's Journal.

The Countrywide Financial sweetheart loan scandal continues to grow, spreading to Senators and other Beltway potentates. We are about to find out if Congress's passion for investigating business ethics extends to conflicts of interest and cash that involve fellow Members.

Take Senator Kent Conrad, the North Dakota Democrat whose office issued a Friday statement saying that "I never met Angelo Mozilo." What he did not say then but admitted under later questioning by a Journal reporter is that, although he may not have had a face-to-face meeting with the Countrywide CEO, Mr. Conrad had called Mr. Mozilo and asked for a loan. The result was a discounted loan on his million-dollar beach house and a separate commercial loan of a type that residential lender Countrywide did not even offer to other customers, regardless of the rate.

So after calling the CEO of a company with various matters before the Senate, asking for a loan and then receiving at least two sweetheart deals, Mr. Conrad now says: "I did not think for one moment – and no one ever suggested to me – that I was getting preferential treatment." Lawyers will immediately wonder if this isn't a version of the "ostrich defense," which judges describe during jury instruction as willful blindness or deliberate ignorance. For what other reason, besides preferential treatment, would one call the CEO of the mortgage company? Does Mr. Conrad call August Busch IV when he wants to buy a six-pack?

Raise your hand if you believe Sen. Conrad. Anyone? Anyone? Hmmmm.

What about Dodd?

The same goes for Senator Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), who chairs the very Banking Committee responsible for drafting the laws that govern Countrywide's market. Mr. Dodd is still in denial mode, but so far no one has knocked down the Portfolio.com story that he received discounted loans as part of Countrywide's "Friends of Angelo" program.

Interesting. Any chance either of this "typical politicians" will be held to account? Doubt it.

The July issue of Townhall is now at the printers, and we're pretty excited about it. We have done something quite rare in U.S. publications today -- we dedicated the entire issue to celebrating America.

And it's about time.

From the letter from the executive editor (that's me):

Conservatives believe America is still great and worth celebrating. We don’t believe there’s anything to the condemnations of America by evil dictators who want us wiped off the map or members of the United Nations who see America’s successes as an unfair, unearned advantage hurting the rest of the world. Conservatives hold that no country in the history of the world has done more for mankind than the United States—from the protection of human rights to the creation and expansion of wealth to the innovation that has helped feed and save people around the world.

Is the Right foolish enough to believe that the United States is perfect? Of course not. But we do believe America is the best there is—by a long shot. We believe that America not only deserves to be celebrated but also ought to be celebrated. If people forget what America is and why it’s strong, then the Leftist mindset will ultimately prevail.

Our many exclusive pieces for July include:

• Oliver North reminds us of the true American heroes who make up the U.S. military;
• Former Sen. Fred Thompson discusses the importance of strong U.S. intelligence system for protecting our freedoms;
  
• Amanda Carpenter reports on this Land of Plenty where we have the world's richest poor;
• Michael Tanner reveals the truth about America's exceptional health care system and why foreigners are escaping their universal health care systems to come here for treatment;
• Robert Bluey explains how the United States' unique 1st Amendment has been made even more powerful with our online innovations;
• Dr. Lee Edwards makes the case that our extreme peaceful, though highly partisan, political system should be a model for the rest of the world;
• Tony Perkins hightlights the role of faith in America; and
• Much, much more.

It is a compelling and inspiring issue, reminding our fellow Americans that the United States is still the shining city on a hill and the best example of how to do it right, from economics to human rights to security.

Liberals won't like this Wall Street Journal article -- it's about a potential positive turnaround for one large sector of the economy during an election year that looks bad for Republicans and a hedge-fund investor.

The Journal reports today:

Billionaire hedge-fund manager Edward S. Lampert is placing new bets on a U.S. housing recovery, buying stakes in beaten-up home builders, mortgage lenders and a home-improvement retailer.

[...] Mr. Lampert's purchases come as some analysts think the housing market's decline may be nearing an end.

In another bet on a housing turnaround, Mr. Lampert this spring increased his stake in Atlanta-based home-improvement retailer Home Depot Inc. ESL now holds about 22.7 million shares valued at $590 million, up from 16.7 million shares last year.

Here's a graphic from the Journal piece:

A disturbing report from CNNMoney this afternoon says McCain's promise to repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) might not be as solid a commitment Republicans have been looking for.

John McCain's pledge to repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax has morphed into a promise to phase it out.

Translation: More than 4 million households would continue to pay the so-called "wealth tax" under his proposal during his term if elected. And the tax likely would remain on the books long after the presumptive Republican nominee left office.

But McCain's amended AMT policy would still end up protecting most of the folks who would be unfairly trapped by the tax, which otherwise would raise a ton of revenue from middle- and upper-middle-income families instead of the wealthy, for whom the tax was initially intended.

"I will also propose ... a phase-out of the Alternative Minimum Tax," McCain said in a speech on June 10.

That's a modification of his promise last fall, when he said, "I am committed to repealing this tax before millions of American families are forced to devote even more of their hard earned money to paying for the spending largesse in Washington."

The Right is continuing to seek reasons to support McCain, and his promises on taxes are a step in the right direction, including his vow to repeal the AMT. But these types of stories don't help his case with conservatives.

Touting the greatness of the Food and Drug Administration, the New York Times' Paul Krugman calls for a return to socialism and increased regulation. He makes his entire argument for the necessity of the FDA without once citing the passage of the Constitution granting the establishment or existence of an FDA.

[T]he same thing can be said of other cases in which the administration stood in the way of effective regulation. Most notably, the administration’s refusal to countenance any restraints on predatory lending helped prepare the ground for the subprime crisis, which has cost the financial industry far more than it ever made on overpriced loans.

The moral of this story is that failure to regulate effectively isn’t just bad for consumers, it’s bad for business.

And in the case of food, what we need to do now — for the sake of both our health and our export markets — is to go back to the way it was after Teddy Roosevelt, when the Socialists took over. It’s time to get back to the business of ensuring that American food is safe.

Notice that he makes the socialist case for the FDA in order to make the point that socialist regulartory policies should be used in our financial markets.

The Supreme Court's Boumediene decision yesterday granting constitutional rights to non-citizens (specifically foreign terrorists) and ignoring the constitutional provision allowing the suspension of habeas corpus is, of course, the subject of many an editorial in today's broadsheets.

Let's take a look at two editorials on the decision that could not be more different.

First, there's the New York Times editorial "Justice 5, Brutality 4," the title of which shows their unserious thought processes that would conclude that 4 Supreme Court justices are pro-brutality -- as though those four would have prescribed that the terrorists caught fighting our forces in the Middle East (note that the were caught, not killed -- what happens now, with this new ruling?) should be placed in an iron maiden, flogged and forced to undergo full-body-cavity searches three times a day. Remember, we're talking about Guantanamo Bay, a place noted for, if anything, treating the prisoners better than the troops guarding them.

Here's the Times' final paragraphs, praising the fact that the liberals on the court had the incredible insight to grant rights to foreign terrorists (the same terrorists who would like to kill our constitutionally protected American rights):

Now, by a 5-to-4 vote, the court has affirmed the detainees’ habeas rights. The majority, in an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, ruled that the Military Commissions Act violates the Suspension Clause, by eliminating habeas corpus although the requirements of the Constitution — invasion or rebellion — do not exist.

The court ruled that the military tribunals that are hearing the detainees’ cases — the administration’s weak alternative to habeas proceedings in a federal court — are not an adequate substitute. The hearings cut back on basic due process protections, like the right to counsel and the right to present evidence of innocence.

It was disturbing that four justices dissented from this eminently reasonable decision. The lead dissent, by Chief Justice John Roberts, dismisses habeas as “most fundamentally a procedural right.” Chief Justice Roberts thinks the detainees receive such “generous” protections at their hearings that the majority should not have worried about whether they had habeas rights.

There is an enormous gulf between the substance and tone of the majority opinion, with its rich appreciation of the liberties that the founders wrote into the Constitution, and the what-is-all-the-fuss-about dissent. It is sobering to think that habeas hangs by a single vote in the Supreme Court of the United States — a reminder that the composition of the court could depend on the outcome of this year’s presidential election. The ruling is a major victory for civil liberties — but a timely reminder of how fragile they are.

Now, let's take a look at a refreshing, honest, intelligent, reasoned editorial from the Wall Street Journal (don't sound too biased, do I?).

In it's lead editorial today, "President Kennedy," the Journal points out Kennedy's (and the four left-wing SCOTUS justices who sided with him) declaration that the court knows better how to fight a war against radical Islam than the commander in chief or the Congress that has repeated supported his efforts. 

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy isn't known for his judicial modesty. But for sheer willfulness, yesterday's 5-4 majority opinion in Boumediene v. Bush may earn him a historic place among the likes of Harry Blackmun. In a stroke, he and four other unelected Justices have declared their war-making supremacy over both Congress and the White House.

Boumediene concerns habeas corpus – the right of Americans to challenge detention by the government. Justice Kennedy has now extended that right to non-American enemy combatants captured abroad trying to kill Americans in the war on terror. We can say with confident horror that more Americans are likely to die as a result.

The left is thankful that the court has granted this right to foreigners. Which prompts the question: Why didn't the Framers put it in there? The Journal answers:

Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution contains the so-called Suspension Clause, which says: "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Justice Kennedy makes much of the fact that we are not currently under "invasion or rebellion." But he ignores that these exceptions don't include war abroad because the Framers never contemplated that a non-citizen, captured overseas and held outside the U.S., could claim the same right.

But the poor terrorists are on American-controlled territory. But that wasn't the case in WWII.

To reach yesterday's decision, Justice Kennedy also had to dissemble about Justice Robert Jackson's famous 1950 decision in Johnson v. Eisentrager. In that case, German nationals had been tried and convicted by military commissions for providing aid to the Japanese after Germany's surrender in World War II. Justice Jackson ruled that non-Americans held in a prison in the American occupation zone in Germany did not warrant habeas corpus. But rather than overrule Eisentrager, Mr. Kennedy misinterprets it to pretend that it was based on mere "procedural" concerns. This is plainly dishonest.

Aren't you comforted to know that we have 5 Supreme Court justices who can run the country, conduct war, declare policy and rewrite the Constitution for us when we are so totally unaware of our own lacking? I know I'm breathing a sigh of relief.

One of the many recent made up scandals by the Left about the Right is that conservatives created the rumor that there's a tape of Michelle Obama making "Whitey" remarks. The rumor of the tape's existence is not new, but the claims by Obama supporters and surrogates that conservatives started this are.

The truth is that Larry Johnson at No Quarter started the tale of the tape. Johnson is a big-time Hillary Clinton supporter and his blog is "committed to electing Hillary Clinton as President." He's not a right-winger, a disguised McCainiac, a conservative Townhall blogger or a Rush Limbaugh contributor.

But the Obama peeps want Americans to believe that the rumors about Michelle's supposed comments -- and any other rumors about their candidate -- all come from the Right. (See Matt Lewis' posts on this topic, including about TIME's Jay Carney here, here, here.)

So what's a liberal to do when a conservative confronts him with the truth? Say something different and act like you never told the fib in the first place. Check out Townhall Amanda Carpenter's appearance on Larry King last night and note how easily Obama-backer Stephanie Miller shifts the blame back to the Right, in this case, Rush Limbaugh.