HOME ABOUT US BLOGS BYLAWS CLUB MEETINGS GOP EVENTS ISSUES LINKS OFFICERS TO CONTACT US TO JOIN

ISSUES

Quotes from Ronald Reagan

'Here's my strategy on the Cold War:
We win, they lose.'- Ronald Reagan & lt; BR>


'The most terrifying words in the English langu age are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' - Ronald Reagan


'The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.' - Ronald Reagan


'Of the four wars in my l ifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong.'
- Ronald Reagan


'I have wondered at times about what the Ten Comma ndments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress.' - Ronald Reagan


'The taxpayer: That's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination.'
- Ronald Reagan


'Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.'
- Ronald Reagan
'The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on thi s earth is a government program.' - Ronald Reagan


'It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.' - Ronald Reagan


'Government's view of the ec onomy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it' - Ronald Reagan


'Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed, there are many rewards; if you disgrace yourself, you can always write a book.' - Ronald Reagan

< /S P AN>
'No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'< /FONT>- Ronald Reagan



'If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.'

- Ronald Reagan

 

TAXES

Taxes under Clinton 1999                           Taxes under Bush 2008

Single making 30K – tax $8,400                     Single making 30K tax $4,500
Single making 50K – tax $14,000                   Single making 50K – tax $12,500
Single making 75K – tax $23,250                   Single making 75K – tax $18,750
Marr ied making 60K – tax $16,800              Married making 60K – tax $9,000
Married making 75K – tax $21,000                Married making 75K – tax $18,750
Married making 125K – tax $38,750             Married making 125K – tax $31,250

If you want to know just how effective the mainstream media is, it is amazing how many people
that fall into the categories above think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest
President ever. If any democrat is elected, ALL of them say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts
and a good portion of the people that fall into the categories above can’t wait for it to happen.
This is like the movie the Sting with Paul Newman, you scam somebody out of some money and
they don’t even know what happened. Now this is effective (maybe not honest) marketing or
maybe a better word is brain washing.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
Check the figures yourself!

HOW A BILL BECOMES LAW 

Once again the legislature is in session here in Maryland.  Just as a reminder, or for those who may not know, below is how a bill becomes law.


 

HOW A BILL BECOMES LAW
 

One hundred and eighty-eight men and women are elected every four years to serve in the State's legislative branch, the Maryland General Assembly, to pass laws that protect the interests of Marylanders. These legislators convene in an annual regular session on the second Wednesday in January and adjourn 90 calendar days later.
 

The legislative process, or "how a bill becomes a law," is dynamic and complex. The idea or concept contained in a bill passes through many steps before it becomes law. Ideas or concepts for bills come from many sources--constituents and other private citizens, interest groups, and legislative study groups, for example. While the ideas come from many places, only a legislator may actually sponsor and introduce a bill in the General Assembly.
 

If a legislator agrees to sponsor legislation, the bill is drafted by legislative staff for the legislator's approval. Bills or resolutions are introduced according to deadlines and guidelines established by the Maryland Constitution, the rules of the Senate and the House of Delegates, and the Laws of Maryland. With some restrictions, most bills may be introduced in either chamber during the first 55 days of a session. After that, bills may be introduced only with the consent of two-thirds of the membership of the House or Senate.

 


First Reading (First Chamber or House of Origin)

The Maryland Constitution requires that a bill be "read" and voted favorable three times in each chamber or "house." The first reading occurs when the bill is introduced for the first time. The reading entails the announcement of the title of the bill, its sponsor, and, as determined by the presiding officer of the original chamber, its assignment to one of the principal standing committees of the chamber.

Second Reading and Floor Consideration

Committee Action

The members of each committee meet to consider the proposed legislation at a hearing. The legislature provides notice of the time and place of the committee hearings through the Notice of Committee Meetings and Hearing Schedule. Anyone who wants to testify on a bill may do so by signing a witness list just prior to the beginning of the hearing. Citizens are encouraged to present their views by personal and written testimony, telephone, correspondence, or e-mail.
 

At a later time, also noted in the Hearing Schedule, committees hold voting sessions at which the bills and any proposed amendments are considered and voted upon. The committee may vote favorable, favorable with amendments, or unfavorable on a bill. The committee may also refer the bill to interim study. Unfavorable committee action usually means that a bill is dead for the legislative session. Referring a bill to interim study terminates any further action on the bill during the session, and favorable committee action sends the bill to the floor for second reading and floor consideration.

Second reading entails placing the bill before the full body as part of a report of the committee that considered the bill. This part of the process is called "reporting the bill to the floor." It means that the bill and any amendments attached by the committee are explained to the full body. This is the first opportunity for the full body to ask questions and to debate the bill. A vote on second reading, usually a voice vote, is taken on the amendments, if any, and on the bill. This is also the only time that amendments from the floor may be offered to the bill in its "house of origin." If the legislation passes the second reading vote, the bill is then ordered by the presiding officer to be "printed for third reading." At this point, any approved committee or floor amendments are inserted into the text of the original bill.


Third Reading

Generally, the third reading is the "final" vote on a bill by the full body. This vote usually occurs one or two days after the bill has passed second reading. No amendments may be offered during the third reading deliberations, which must conclude with a recorded roll call vote. Most bills require only a simple majority, one more than half the membership of the body, for passage. Constitutional amendments and emergency legislation require approval by three-fifths of the membership. Third reading passage sends the bill to the opposite chamber for consideration.

 


 Second (Opposite) Chamber Consideration

The procedure in the second chamber follows a pattern very similar to that of the original chamber. The third reader bill is read in the second chamber for the first time (first reading) and assigned to a committee.
 

At the committee hearing in the second chamber, testimony may be limited in duration and, in some cases, testimony is presented by the bill's sponsor only. At the voting session, the committee may vote to report the bill to the floor with a favorable, favorable with amendment(s), or unfavorable vote. If the committee report is favorable, the bill and any committee or floor amendments are considered by the full body and a second reading voice vote is taken. In the second chamber, the bill is not ordered "printed for third reading." Rather, the presiding officer orders the bill "passed" to third reading.

On third reading, the bill is again considered by the second chamber and at this time, unlike in its chamber of origin, a bill may be amended on third reading. On third reading, the bill must receive a favorable vote from the majority of the membership to pass. If the second chamber does not amend a bill, a message is sent to the bill's chamber of origin, declaring the bill passed by "yeas and nays." The bill is then sent to the Governor for his consideration.

 

 


Consideration of Bills Originating in One Chamber and Amended in the Second Chamber


 Concurrence/Non-Concurrence

If a bill is amended in the second chamber, the bill is returned to the chamber of origin where a vote must be taken on whether the chamber of origin should concur in or reject the amendment(s) attached to the bill by the second chamber. If concurrence is voted, a final vote is then taken on the bill as amended by the second chamber, and action on the bill by the legislature is complete. The bill is reprinted or "enrolled" to include the opposite chamber amendment(s) and then presented to the Governor for his consideration.

If the original chamber rejects the amendment(s) or refuses to "concur" in the opposite chamber's amendments, at least three courses of action are possible: 1) the second chamber may be asked to withdraw its amendment(s); 2) if the second chamber refuses to withdraw its amendment(s), either chamber may request a conference committee to resolve the differences between the two versions of the bill; or 3) the second chamber may "recede" or agree to withdraw its amendments.
 

Conference Committees

Each chamber's presiding officer may appoint three members to a conference committee to try to reach a settlement on the proposed legislation. For the conference committee to deliver a report, at least four of the six members must agree on the new, proposed version of the bill. If agreement cannot be reached, then the bill dies. If no conference committee is appointed, or if the conference committee fails to meet, the bill dies.
 

If the conference committee reaches an agreement on the amendment(s), the conference committee issues a report, called "the conference committee report," containing the compromise language. The report is sent to both chambers and must be adopted by both chambers for the bill to be considered passed. Conference committee reports may not be amended.
 

If the conference committee report is adopted, the bill is voted again for final passage by each chamber. At this point, another copy of the bill called an "enrolled bill" is printed. The enrolled bill reflects any changes made by the conference committee report adopted by both chambers.
 

Receding in Amendments

Occasionally, the second chamber may agree to withdraw any amendments it has placed on a bill. When this happens, the second chamber must agree to recede in its amendments, usually through a voice vote. In effect, any amendments that were placed on the bill at second or third reading are stripped from the bill, and the body must consider the bill for final action again in the form in which it was received at introduction into the second chamber. (This, in effect, is the third reader version of the bill printed in its house of origin.) Once this happens, the bill may be sent to the Governor for his consideration.

 

Presentation of Bills to Governor

The Governor has a limited number of days to sign or veto a bill after it is presented. The time limit differs depending on when presentment is made. If presentment is made during the first 83 days of a regular session, the Governor has only six days to act on the bill. Any bill presented during the last seven days of a regular session or after adjournment must be acted upon by the Governor within 30 days of presentment. All bills passed at regular or special sessions must be presented to the Governor no later than 20 days after adjournment. If the Governor does not act on a bill within the time period relative to its presentment, the bill automatically becomes law. Although there is no pocket veto in Maryland, it is very rare for a bill to take effect without the Governor's signature.

Bills passed by the General Assembly are signed by the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Delegates. Each bill is assigned a chapter number (in the order in which it is signed), and the bill becomes a part of the Laws of Maryland.

 


Effective Dates

Bills become effective on specific dates in the future. Other than emergency bills, June 1 is the earliest date for bills to take effect. Emergency bills may take effect immediately upon approval by the Governor or at a specified date prior to June 1. The usual effective date for new laws is October 1. Fiscal bills that affect the State budget may have July 1 or earlier effective dates.

 


Legislative Power to Override Veto

A three-fifths vote of the elected membership of each chamber is necessary to override a veto. If a bill is vetoed during a regular session, the veto is considered immediately. If a bill presented during or after the last six days of session is vetoed, the veto must be considered at the start of the next regular or special session of the legislature; however, during the first year of a new term the legislature may not override a veto.

 


Legislation the Governor May Not Veto

The budget bill, as presented by the Governor to the General Assembly, and constitutional amendments may not be vetoed. The Governor is responsible for presenting a balanced budget to the General Assembly with supporting data and recommendations. The legislature, with certain limitations, has the power to reduce the Governor's budget proposals, but it cannot increase them.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
 

A proposed constitutional amendment passed by the General Assembly is submitted to the voters for approval or rejection at the next general election. If a majority of the votes are cast in favor of the amendment, then the Governor issues a proclamation declaring that the amendment is part of the constitution. If a constitutional amendment affects only one county or only Baltimore City, it must receive a majority of votes cast in that jurisdiction as well as statewide.

GLOBAL WARMING

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=092707B

 

EARLY VOTING POSITION PAPER

   For Republican Lawmakers

    by Dick Cheney—301-865-5817

 

Enactment of the “Early Voting Law” originally crafted by Maryland Democrats had a dubious purpose right from the onset and backers of the legislation were primed to rush the bill through the General Assembly even as” emergency legislation.”  Accordingly to Delegate Don Dwyer, who went to a fall convention for “Maryland Administration of Elected Officials” in Ocean City, Senator Dyson essentially told election board officials from all jurisdictions that “…they’d get early voting whether they wanted it or not.”  However, senior election officials in most of the 24 jurisdictions did not favor this legislation.  Democrats nonetheless voted “early voting” into law as an override of the Governor’s veto last year as HB 1368 (Voter Bill Of Rights) and SB 478 (Early Voting).  So, why did Democrat bosses ignore sage advice from election board officials and Republicans only to hastily enact flawed procedures that created greater election board workloads, more taxpayer expense and flawed procedures?  What makes Democrat lawmakers currently so intent on pushing enabling legislation this year?  Is it their goal to write a very nebulous referendum item on early voting so that average voters will unwittingly “vote yes”?  We can almost bet that an early voting referendum item at value will appear to have flawless merit? 

At voting time it can only be hoped that taxpayers will consider reality.  Voters should be mindful that recruitment of Democrat and Republican poll judges to work to polls on Election Day in most jurisdictions has nearly always been a problem.  Yet under “early voting” even more people will be needed to work as paid poll judges for an extra five days.  And then there’s the expense of security guards to watch over voting machines for the extra five days between poll closures and re-openings to ensure that end-of-day machine tallies are protected from compromise.  The extra operating expenses will be incurred at all 24 voting jurisdictions, and in particular at the 21 early voting locations that will be open for an additional five days.  As crafted, the legislation would have subjected the 24 jurisdictions to a procedurally flawed, poorly timed and costly workload.  After last year’s legislative fiasco, nearly a third of the county election department chiefs in Maryland resigned or retired in protest because of major objections to implementation of the law (pushed by Messrs Miller and Busch).  In the end their legislative folly left taxpayers picking up the tab for the legal challenges.  Fortunately, Maryland courts overturned the bills; otherwise the laws would have been an open invitation to fraud and, even more important, ignored Constitutional “due process” and “equal voting opportunity” for everyone. (As Explained below.)

The potential for fraud in Maryland elections under “early voting” was chronicled in an article written by John Fund in a February 9, 2006 Wall Street Journal article; he pointed out the absence of anti-fraud procedures that would have allowed unscrupulous individuals to cast multiple votes -- individually or as an organized effort.  The concurrent relaxation of absentee voting rules and provisional ballots enacted into law last year by Democrat bosses also made a fragile voting system even more fragile.  Now that any voter can obtain an absentee ballot for just about any reason prior to Election Day, logic makes one wonder why there’s a push for early voting this year. 

In terms of the fragile nature of our voting system an April 24, 2006 article in the Metropolitan Section of the Washington Times probably best accentuated the point.  In that article Mr. Ross Goldstein, deputy administrator for the State Board of Elections confirmed that it is possible that a person could get around electronic safeguards and vote more than once at early polling places but in the same article he also “…questioned whether anyone would try it.”  What he failed to mention, however, is that even when someone is caught red handed in fraudulent voting the penalty for multiple voting is far from harsh in Maryland.  Historically it’s been a slap on the wrist for those caught---if they are punished at all.  So why wouldn’t some one attempt fraudulent voting? 

Mr. Goldstein evidently forgot that each county election board has thousands of (inactive) voting records for individuals who voted in years past.  Election boards at one time routinely purged such records after eight years but now “inactive” records are kept “indefinitely” in accord with a legal opinion rendered by Mr. Joseph Curran, Maryland’s ex-Attorney General.  These files represent a fertile repository for would-be cheaters-- since they contain names, dates of birth, and other pertinent information that a cheater could use to impersonate someone who may have died, moved out of state, now residing in a nursing home, etc. Armed with the right data elements any vote cheater needs only a good memory but the casting of that fraudulent vote resultantly cancels out someone else’s honest vote.  One fraudulent vote is one too many!  Another important point to consider is that NO ONE verifies the citizenship status of individuals who submit voting registration forms to election boards.

Democrat lawmakers insist that early voting legislation is essential to increase voter turnout.  But can they prove that claim?  No!  Even in states where early voting is already in place there has been no appreciable increase in voter totals.  An Annapolis Capital editorial summed it up best:  “If Maryland Democrats think this will cause turnout to explode…they’re deluding themselves.” Consider, too, that Democrat lawmakers -- not election board experts -- selected only 6 counties out of 24 voting jurisdictions for special locations for early voting.  And these specially picked locations would have to be staffed at considerable taxpayer expense from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. for an additional five days prior to Election Day.  Of the 21 special statewide locations designated by lawmakers, Anne Arundel County alone would have had three special precincts for early voting.  Guess what?  Democrats heavily populate these areas!  Other early voting precincts would have been located in Baltimore City, and in Harford, Howard, Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties. The dubious nature of the legislation should be evident, but as crafted voting equality and due process are being denied to people who live in other Maryland areas.  These citizens would be limited to only one early voting location (under the terms of the law).  It can only be concluded that Democrat lawmakers did not want to increase voting turnout in the remaining 18 election jurisdictions in Maryland not designated as early voting polling places.

Now that Democrats in the General Assembly have resurrected early voting once again, and their efforts to place the issue as a referendum item has already passed the House of Delegates, Republicans should be working on a plan to reduce the possibility of a flawed and unfair system that will result in a sizable taxpayer bill.  Our voting privilege is too priceless to be handicapped by weaknesses in the election process.  Questions GOP lawmakers should get answers for include:

1)      Is there, or was there, an abundance of examples of voter disenfranchisement for the last two elections and, if so, is this documented by respective election offices?  (See # 6)

2)       What is the logic underlying the placement of voting machines in the specially designated 21 locations?  Out of the 21 statewide locations why should Anne Arundel County end up with three early voting locations? 

3)      Of the approximately 190 precincts in Anne Arundel County, why were only 3 locations picked for early voting?  Are the voting privileges and conveniences of citizens in the non-designated precincts any less important than the 3 precincts specially tagged?

4)      Despite the square mile size of some of the larger counties (Charles, Frederick, etc) the overturned legislation would have limited these particular counties to only one location for early voting.  So how can that be fair to the voters situated in more distant geographical points within a county?

5)      Why didn’t bill sponsors opt to locate the voting machines for early voting in the Election Office of each of the 24 election jurisdictions where machine security would be considerably greater? 

6)      Did voting totals for the two prior elections show any evidence of under voting by citizens registered in all parties in any of the specially picked 21 locations for early voting? 

7)      In terms of taxpayer funding for early voting, how can the placement of machines in only select voting areas be fair and equitable to all statewide taxpayers?

8)      Will future early voting rules dictate that voting machine security will be maintained for a 24-hour period wherever these machines are placed in early voting precincts and that both Republican and Democrat election judges will share in the responsibility of providing daily tallies? 

9)  To guard against voting by imposters, will Democrat bosses finally allow a bill to proceed that will require all Maryland voters to provide a photo-identification as a condition of voting?

Answers to the foregoing questions are crucial to the design and implementation of a fair and less costly voting system.  As concocted, though,” early voting laws” will utilize millions of tax dollars to underwrite an unfairly designed voting process that will deprive some citizens of their Constitutional right to” due process” and “equal protection” because they will not have the same accessibility and convenience to early voting machines.   Pathetically, a vaguely written referendum item will probably take advantage of many citizens.  And early voting laws will be approved as wanted and currently designed by the Democrat majority.

 

Democrats and Our Enemies



By JOSEPH LIEBERMAN
May 21, 2008; Page A19

How did the Democratic Party get here? How did the party of Franklin
Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy drift so far from the foreign
policy and national security principles and policies that were at the core
of its identity and its purpose?
Beginning in the 1940s, the Democratic Party was forced to confront two of
the most dangerous enemies our nation has ever faced: Nazi Germany and the
Soviet Union. In response, Democrats under Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy
forged and conducted a foreign policy that was principled,
internationalist, strong and successful.

AP
Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy, 1961.
This was the Democratic Party that I grew up in – a party that was
unhesitatingly and proudly pro-American, a party that was unafraid to make
moral judgments about the world beyond our borders. It was a party that
understood that either the American people stood united with free nations
and freedom fighters against the forces of totalitarianism, or that we
would fall divided.
This was the Democratic Party of Harry Truman, who pledged that "it must
be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are
resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside
pressures."
And this was the Democratic Party of John F. Kennedy, who promised in his
inaugural address that the United States would "pay any price, bear any
burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure
the survival and the success of freedom."
This worldview began to come apart in the late 1960s, around the war in
Vietnam. In its place, a very different view of the world took root in the
Democratic Party. Rather than seeing the Cold War as an ideological
contest between the free nations of the West and the repressive regimes of
the communist world , this rival political philosophy saw America as the
aggressor – a morally bankrupt, imperialist power whose militarism and
"inordinate fear of communism" represented the real threat to world peace.
It argued that the Soviets and their allies were our enemies not because
they were inspired by a totalitarian ideology fundamentally hostile to our
way of life, or because they nursed ambitions of global conquest. Rather,
the Soviets were our enemy because we had provoked them, because we
threatened them, and because we failed to sit down and accord them the
respect they deserved. In other words, the Cold War was mostly America's
fault.
Of course that leftward lurch by the Democrats did not go unchallenged.
Democratic Cold Warriors like Scoop Jackson fought against the tide. But
despite their principled efforts, the Democratic Party through the 1970s
and 1980s became prisoner to a foreign policy philosophy that was, in most
respects, the antit hesis of what Democrats had stood for under Roosevelt,
Truman and Kennedy.
Then, beginning in the 1980s, a new effort began on the part of some of us
in the Democratic Party to reverse these developments, and reclaim our
party's lost tradition of principle and strength in the world. Our band of
so-called New Democrats was successful sooner than we imagined possible
when, in 1992, Bill Clinton and Al Gore were elected. In the Balkans, for
example, as President Clinton and his advisers slowly but surely came to
recognize that American intervention, and only American intervention,
could stop Slobodan Milosevic and his campaign of ethnic slaughter,
Democratic attitudes about the use of military force in pursuit of our
values and our security began to change.
This happy development continued into the 2000 campaign, when the
Democratic candidate – Vice President Gore – championed a freedom-focused
foreign policy, confident of America's moral responsibilities in the
world, and unafraid to use our military power. He pledged to increase the
defense budget by $50 billion more than his Republican opponent – and, to
the dismay of the Democratic left, made sure that the party's platform
endorsed a national missile defense.
By contrast, in 2000, Gov. George W. Bush promised a "humble foreign
policy" and criticized our peacekeeping operations in the Balkans.
Today, less than a decade later, the parties have completely switched
positions. The reversal began, like so much else in our time, on September
11, 2001. The attack on America by Islamist terrorists shook President
Bush from the foreign policy course he was on. He saw September 11 for
what it was: a direct ideological and military attack on us and our way of
life. If the Democratic Party had stayed where it was in 2000, America
could have confronted the terrorists with unity and strength in the years
after 9/11.
Instead a deba te soon began within the Democratic Party about how to
respond to Mr. Bush. I felt strongly that Democrats should embrace the
basic framework the president had advanced for the war on terror as our
own, because it was our own. But that was not the choice most Democratic
leaders made. When total victory did not come quickly in Iraq, the old
voices of partisanship and peace at any price saw an opportunity to
reassert themselves. By considering centrism to be collaboration with the
enemy – not bin Laden, but Mr. Bush – activists have successfully pulled
the Democratic Party further to the left than it has been at any point in
the last 20 years.
Far too many Democratic leaders have kowtowed to these opinions rather
than challenging them. That unfortunately includes Barack Obama, who,
contrary to his rhetorical invocations of bipartisan change, has not been
willing to stand up to his party's left wing on a single significant
national securit y or international economic issue in this campaign.
In this, Sen. Obama stands in stark contrast to John McCain, who has shown
the political courage throughout his career to do what he thinks is right
– regardless of its popularity in his party or outside it.
John also understands something else that too many Democrats seem to have
become confused about lately – the difference between America's friends
and America's enemies.
There are of course times when it makes sense to engage in tough diplomacy
with hostile governments. Yet what Mr. Obama has proposed is not selective
engagement, but a blanket policy of meeting personally as president,
without preconditions, in his first year in office, with the leaders of
the most vicious, anti-American regimes on the planet.
Mr. Obama has said that in proposing this, he is following in the
footsteps of Reagan and JFK. But Kennedy never met with Castro, and Reagan
never met with Khomeini. And can a nyone imagine Presidents Kennedy or
Reagan sitting down unconditionally with Ahmadinejad or Chavez? I
certainly cannot.
If a president ever embraced our worst enemies in this way, he would
strengthen them and undermine our most steadfast allies.
A great Democratic secretary of state, Dean Acheson, once warned "no
people in history have ever survived, who thought they could protect their
freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies." This is a
lesson that today's Democratic Party leaders need to relearn.
Mr. Lieberman is an Independent Democratic senator from Connecticut. This
article is adapted from a speech he gave May 18 at a dinner hosted by
Commentary magazine.