INDEPENDENCE DAY

President Bush devoted his weekly radio address on this 4th of July weekend to the men and women of the U.S. military. He asked each of us to remember them in some way.

Click on the "America Supports You" button on my sidebar for ideas.

"The Fourth of July is a day to be proud of our heritage as freedom's home and defender. It is a day to be confident in the future, because the spirit of our founders still shapes the conscience of our country. Above all, it is a day to give thanks to God for His many blessings on America, and for the privilege to call ourselves citizens of this special land."

Text

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Laura and I wish all Americans a happy Fourth of July weekend. I look forward to celebrating Independence Day with the people of Morgantown, West Virginia.

On the Fourth of July, we remember the vision and conviction of America's Founders. We remember the ideals of liberty that led men from 13 colonies to gather in Philadelphia and pen a declaration of self-evident truths. And we remember the extraordinary personal courage that made their efforts a success. Doctor Benjamin Rush said that signing the Declaration of Independence was "like signing your own death warrant." He signed it anyway -- right above his fellow Pennsylvania delegate, Benjamin Franklin.

On Independence Day, we are also mindful that the promises of the Declaration have been secured by the service and sacrifice of every generation. America's first defenders were mostly farmers, artisans, and shopkeepers who waged a desperate fight for independence. Our Union was preserved through the costly battles of the Civil War -- including one at Vicksburg that ended on Independence Day, 1863. And we live in freedom because Americans prevailed in the hard-fought struggles of the 20th century, from the Marne and Normandy to Iwo Jima and Inchon Bay. America is home to 25 million military veterans -- and we will always be grateful for their unselfish courage.

Today, a new generation of Americans is defending our freedom against determined enemies. At posts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and around the world, our men and women in uniform are taking the fight to the terrorists overseas, so that we do not have to face the terrorists here at home. And by freeing millions from oppression, our Armed Forces are redeeming a universal principle of the Declaration that all are created equal, and all are meant to be free. Those who serve today are taking their rightful place among the greatest generations that have worn our nation's uniform.

The burden of war falls especially hard on military families, and I thank them for the support they give our troops in their vital work. Some of America's finest men and women have given their lives in the war on terror, and we remember them on Independence Day. We pray for the families who have lost a loved one in freedom's cause. And we know that the best way to honor the lives that have been given in this struggle is to complete the mission, so we will stay in the fight until the fight is won.

In this time of testing, all our troops and their families can know that the American people are behind them. On this Fourth of July weekend, I ask every American to find a way to thank men and women defending our freedom -- by flying the flag, sending letters to our troops in the field, and helping the military family down the street. The Department of Defense has set up a website - AmericaSupportsYou.mil. You can go there to learn about private efforts in your own community. At this time when we celebrate our freedom, we will stand with the men and women who defend us all.

In the summer of 1776, John Adams called the American Revolution "the most complete, unexpected, and remarkable of any in the history of nations." And 229 years later, history has proved him right. The Fourth of July is a day to be proud of our heritage as freedom's home and defender. It is a day to be confident in the future, because the spirit of our founders still shapes the conscience of our country. Above all, it is a day to give thanks to God for His many blessings on America, and for the privilege to call ourselves citizens of this special land.

I hope all Americans enjoy a memorable and safe Independence Day celebration. Thank you for listening.

It is truly a blessing to be an American.

Hypocritical Live 8 Performers

The Philadelphia Inquirer reported on Thursday that the celebrities appearing at the Philadelphia Live 8 concert would be treated to expensive gift bags as an expression of thanks for offering their time to participate in the event.

Performers at Saturday's Live 8 concert will appear for free, but they'll go home with pricey thank-you gifts.

Organizers of the concert, designed to raise awareness of crushing poverty in Africa, will show their gratitude to dozens of celebrities with a Hugo Boss duffel bag chock-full of high-fashion trinkets and designer drinks, valued at roughly $3,000.

In addition, the performers giving 15 minutes of stage time will be able to personalize their bags with big-ticket items including: Hugo Boss suits, valued between $800 and $1,000 each; XM satellite radios and subscriptions, $500; Seven jeans, $180 for men, $150 for women; Gibson guitars, $2,000; Borgata terry-cloth robes, $100; Boyd's ties, $125; 76ers garment bags and T-shirts, $330; Mitchell & Ness sweat suits, $330; and Bertolucci watches, valued between $1,500 and $6,000.

All told, a celebrity could walk away with a bag of gifts worth as much as $12,000.

The booty will be available for performers in a "celebrity gifting lounge" that the local public-relations firm Cashman & Associates will set up to look like a boutique.

Inside, celebrities will relax on ottomans and plush couches. Between acts, they will be treated to soft pretzels, Lee's Gourmet ice cream, Michelob beer, Perrier water, and Liquid Ice, rapper-actor Ice-T's new energy drink.

"We want this to be a thank-you to the celebrities who are giving up their time and energies," said Nicole Cashman, whose firm was tagged by Larry Magid's Electric Factory Concerts to put the bags together.

The 53 products offered for the goodie bags were donated by the manufacturers, Cashman said. (The bags themselves are worth $50 each.) Her firm is doing the work pro bono.

Celebrity gifting is considered a brilliant business strategy, because of its high product-placement potential.

But does an event such as Live 8 raise a different set of arguments? That the companies supplying the goodies are glomming onto a charity event to make a buck? And that organizers of a concert intended to help an impoverished continent are handing rich celebs gifts whose cash value might change an African family's circumstances overnight?

Some ethicists say they see a disconnect.

"It's not unethical, but it falls into the middle gray zone. Because on one hand the motivation is to help other people, while on the other hand the motivation is to help yourself, and that doesn't seem to go hand in hand," said Thomas White, a professor of business and ethics at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles who is an observer of the entertainment industry.

Obviously, the Live 8 celebrities don't need the bounty about to come their way. But offering entertainers tokens in return for showing up at events, or aiming the spotlight at a business or product, has become standard Hollywood procedure.

This is disgusting.

Last night, I wrote:

"Are the extremely well paid performers rethinking how they spend their money? Maybe having just one home instead of three or four, and then donating the funds to charities in Africa might be a good first step for them. Maybe living in a modest home, and driving less expensive cars, and forgoing the plastic surgery and spa treatments would be other good ideas. One more--if they all flew coach instead of on private jets, how much medicine could be purchased with those savings? I could go on and on."

Now, I hear that some of the Live 8 participants accepted gift bags with thousands of dollars of goodies.

How much food and medicine would $12,000 buy for the starving and sick people in Africa?

Any celebrity who took a gift bag home is a hypocritical jerk.

Unbelievable!

Bush an Activist for Africa

Keep this in mind the next time Dr. Dean or other assorted liberal nutjobs call President Bush "Hitler" or say he doesn't care about the poor.

WASHINGTON - Africa has received intermittent U.S. attention over the decades, with periods of neglect interspersed with spasms of activity. To the surprise of many, President Bush has been very much in the latter camp.

As he heads into the Group of Eight summit meeting this week in Scotland, Bush seems almost to have a fixation with getting the troubled continent on the right track.

..."Helping those who suffer and preventing the senseless death of millions of people in Africa is a central commitment of my administration's foreign policy," Bush said recently, with British Prime Minister Tony Blair at his side.

...Bush's own Africa aid targets are far higher than any previous administration's.

...Bush has sought $15 billion over five years to combat AIDS, mostly in Africa. On Thursday, Bush called for spending $1.2 billion to cut malaria deaths in half by 2010 in Africa.

Africa also is prospectively the largest beneficiary of a Bush foreign assistance initiative that rewards countries that are led by effective governments.

BUSH HAS DONE MORE FOR AFRICA THAN ANY OTHER PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION.

Constructionist v. Consensus

Not surprisingly, the Sunday morning shows focused on Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement and the ugly fight that will ensue in the process to replace her.

I think it is the height of hypocrisy for liberals to be blubbering about Bush's responsibility to unite the country by nominating a "consensus candidate." That term is lib-speak for a nominee that will legislate from the bench, rather than interpret the law.

On the one hand, the libs are saying that the "radical right" is trying to push their extremist political agenda down the throats of the American people by way of judicial nominees. They say that is inappropriate. On the other hand, the libs are promoting their own political agenda. They are transparent in their hypocrisy.

Just yesterday, there was a hastily organized march by NOW to promote their call for a Supreme Court nominee that will maintain their agenda.

NASHVILLE, Tenn.(AP)-- Chanting "Not the church, not the state; women must choose their fate," hundreds of members of the National Organization for Women rallied for abortion rights Saturday as President Bush prepares to select a new U.S. Supreme Court justice.

NOW shifted the agenda for its three-day annual convention after the announcement Friday that Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was retiring.

What a lame chant!

"Not the state," "choose their fate"?

Do these people have a clue about how abortion came to be legal in the U.S.? Clearly, they don't.

It's funny that their march is about demanding that the state listen to them while they chant that the state should have nothing to do with a women deteriming her fate. (Of course, to them "fate" refers to women having the right to end a life, something the state granted.)

I digress. Back to judicial nominees and the Sunday morning shows.

The debates centered on what Bush should do in choosing a replacement for O'Connor. The discussions revolved around constructionist v. consensus nominees. (To be clear, it should be noted that Justice Scalia prefers to call himself an "orginalist," rather than a "constructionist.")

On FOX New Sunday, Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice, said Bush must follow in the footsteps of his Republican presidential predecessors. She kept insisting that Bush should act like President Reagan when he chose a nominee to replace O'Connor.

That sounds good to me. I'm on board with Bush acting like Reagan.

"On June 17, 1986, President Reagan nominated Scalia to the Supreme Court, to fill the seat left vacant by the elevation of William Rehnquist to chief justice. In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Scalia said that he considered the most important part of the Constitution to be the system of "checks and balances among the three branches....so that no one of them is able to 'run roughshod' over the liberties of the people." Scalia was confirmed unanimously (98-0) by the Senate September 17."

I would love to see the Senate unanimously confirm a nominee like Scalia.

On ABC's This Week, Ted Kennedy was bloviating like only he is capable of bloviating. He demanded that Bush consult with Dems and pick a nominee that will make them happy.

I think Bush made his stance on Supreme Court nominees very clear prior to his reelection. He said that he would nominate someone that would strictly interpret the Constitution, not legislate from the bench. Bush stated on numerous occasions, like during every stump speech and on the televised debates, that his favorite justices were Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Just in case Kennedy and the leftist special interest groups haven't noticed:

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ELECTED BUSH TO A SECOND TERM. HE WON.

Don't the American people have a right to have their voices heard? Or, are Kennedy and the liberals trying, in effect, to overturn his election? Are the Dems attempting to disenfranchise all of the Americans that voted Bush back into office so that he could make good on his campaign promises?

Kennedy is leading the Dems in saying it would be an abuse of power for the president to choose a nominee that is not to the left's liking.

First off, I'd like to know where in the Constitution it states that a president abuses his power by choosing a judicial nominee to be confirmed by the Senate. A president can nominate anyone he wants. There is no abuse of power there. NONE. Kennedy is misleading Americans when he suggests that Bush can't nominate whomever he believes is fit to serve on the Court.

I, like Bush, believe it's an abuse of power for judges to legislate from the bench.

The fact is there is a disturbing trend of activist judges abusing their power by writing law through their rulings, out of thin air creating new laws and doing the work of legislators.

The U.S. Constitution delineates the duties of the branches of government, and establishes checks and balances. The legislative branch writes the law. The judicial branch interprets the law.

It's time to restore the workings of the U.S. government according to the Constitutional foundation laid out by the founding framers.

On January 20, 2005, George W. Bush put his hand on the Bible and pledged:

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

I expect him to do precisely that, by choosing a Supreme Court nominee that will uphold the Constitution, not rewrite it.

U.S. Pressures Aruba

Aruba's Attorney General Karin Janssen

ORANJESTAD, Aruba (AP)-- Holland will send three F-16 warplanes rigged with search equipment to find Natalee Holloway, Aruban authorities said Saturday, as U.S. lawmakers increased pressure on the Aruban government to do more to find the Alabama teenager nearly five weeks since she disappeared.

The three planes, equipped with infrared and sonar-scanning capacity, were expected to arrive Sunday afternoon, said Aruban government spokesman Ruben Trapenberg.

Trapenberg said the planes were being sent after Aruban Justice Minister Rudy Croes requested more help from Holland, the Dutch Caribbean island's former colonizer.

"Both the justice minister and the prime minister feel that Holland can help us reach a resolution with this," said Trapenberg.

This week both Sen. Richard Shelby, a Republican from Alabama, and Alabama Gov. Bob Riley, wrote letters to Aruban Prime Minister Nelson Oduber urging the government to do more and let the FBI play a larger role in the investigation.

"With every passing day, I become increasingly concerned that the current investigation has reached a dead end," Shelby wrote in a letter dated July 1. "It's unfathomable that the Aruban government would not take advantage of the full spectrum of resources, personnel and expertise of the FBI."

Thankfully, the Alabama governor and an Alabama senator have expressed their concern to the Aruban PM about the course of the investigation into Natalee's disapperance.

Yesterday, when AG Karin Janssen clearly said Joran van der Sloot, and Satish and Deepak Kalpoe had been charged with Natalee's murder shortly after they were arrested on June 9, and then that statement was retracted, with the confusion blamed on issues of semantics, I COMPLETELY lost any confidence in the Aruban authorities. They were not fit to carry out the investigation. They proceeded in the most unprofessional, incompetent way imaginable.

Trapenberg, the government spokesman, said calls for an increased FBI presence don't make sense. "It's fine to have the FBI here, but if you send in more agents are you saying the ones here are not any good?" he said.

This guy sounds like an idiot. Is it any wonder the investigation has been botched so badly? He brags about the Dutch sending planes to aid in the search, but he has a problem with additional FBI agents.

It seems to me that the Aruban authorities are insecure about their own abilities. It's obvious that Trapenberg is being defensive about Aruban inadequacy and that the government is threatened by U.S. superiority. Pride should not get in the way of solving this case. Naturally, Aruban officials have much less experience in dealing with these sort of cases than the FBI. Accepting help from American agencies is nothing to be ashamed of, especially since the missing girl is an American.

"It has become increasingly difficult to simply wait and see what happens," Holloway Twitty, a 44-year-old speech pathologist, said in an interview Saturday with The Associated Press.

The mother said the family was "graciously pleading" with the FBI and Holland to do more to find her daughter.

"It would be comforting for us if they were more active in this investigation," said Holloway Twitty. "We must demand and expect that Natalee be returned to her country."

Natalee's family has gone through hell. It is inexcusable the way they have been treated by Aruban authorities involved in the case. No information. Inaccurate information. Not being forthcoming about suspicions of murder.

The family has been so caught up in picking up the slack of the Aruban government that they have had little time to pray, and now, grieve.

Inexcusable.

Greatest Concert Ever?

Did Live 8 live up to Bob Geldof's billing as the "greatest concert ever"?

Obviously, when so many different artists are involved, there will be performances that one wouldn't seek out to view under other circumstances.

For me, the Live 8 concert had a bunch of those moments--many performers I didn't care to see. Nonetheless, it was an impressive gathering of talent.

I would guess that for most the significance of Live 8 is about whether or not the musicians and performers delivered. That's fair enough, but the reason for the concert wasn't about providing a day of entertainment for millions around the world. It was to rally support to influence G8 leaders to eradicate poverty in Africa.

I liked that Will Smith referred to the event as a worldwide "declaration of interdependence."

It is unconscionable for wealthy nations to ignore humanitarian crises. I think they have a moral responsibility to alleviate suffering. In that sense, I agree with the purpose of Live 8.

Something that concerns me though is the over-simplification of the issue.

At the Philadelphia venue, Will Smith said, "We are calling on the eight most powerful leaders to do what they can to end this daily tragedy. With the stroke of a pen, eight men can make a world of difference in the lives of billions of people."

I think it's a mistake to put that burden on eight men. There is a lot more involved in ending the tragedy than simply handing over billions of dollars and forgiving debt.

The government corruption and civil war that has plagued Africa won't go away with the stroke of a pen. If only that was the case, it would be so easy to put an end to the suffering and save so many lives. The situation is far more complex than one was led to believe by the comments made at today's concerts.

The fact is the G8 leaders alone do not have the power to eliminate poverty in Africa. They certainly have the power, and I believe moral obligation, to help; but it's unrealistic to depict them as being capable of stopping the suffering. It's unfair to say that they can, because it's not true.

Another thing to consider is personal responsibility.

Are the extremely well paid performers rethinking how they spend their money? Maybe having just one home instead of three or four, and then donating the funds to charities in Africa might be a good first step for them. Maybe living in a modest home, and driving less expensive cars, and forgoing the plastic surgery and spa treatments would be other good ideas. One more--if they all flew coach instead of on private jets, how much medicine could be purchased with those savings? I could go on and on.

I'm not just singling out the lavish lifestyles of the artists who performed today as examples of selfishness and overindulgence. I know there are many comforts I could give up in order to donate more money to help those who are sick and living in horrible conditions.

I think we all need to hold ourselves accountable and examine our consciences. What can we do to make a difference? Frankly, I think we need to do more than sign an online petition.

A suggestion: Donate to Catholic Relief Services. They don't channel contributions through corrupt governments. The organization provides aid to support programs that directly affect the people, and it doesn't spend excessively on administrative costs to prop up its own foundation. A contribution to CRS will make a difference.

In the final analysis, if Live 8 managed to bring attention to the disparity between life in a wealthy nation and life in impoverished areas of Africa, if it prompted individuals to write out a check and to get involved, the concert was a success.

"We ourselves feel that what we are doing is just a drop in the ocean. But the ocean would be less because of that missing drop."

--MOTHER TERESA

THIS IS NOT LIVE AID 2

U2 at Live Aid (Wembley Stadium, London)

On July 13, 1985, musical artists banded together to perform at Live Aid, a concert staged at multiple venues and organized to raise money for famine relief in Ethiopia. It was the largest scale satellite link-up and TV broadcast of all time, with an estimated 1.5 billion viewers in 100 countries watching the live broadcast.



Today, almost twenty years to the day later, Live 8 will be kicking off in a matter of hours. This time, the concert isn't asking for money.

On its website, the message is, "We don't want your money, we want your face!"

"LIVE 8 is calling for people across the world to unite in one call – in 2005 it is your voice we are after, not your money."

Bob Geldof, the man behind the event, writes:

"This is not Live Aid 2.

These concerts are the start point for The Long Walk To Justice, the one way we can all make our voices heard in unison.

This is without doubt a moment in history where ordinary people can grasp the chance to achieve something truly monumental and demand from the 8 world leaders at G8 an end to poverty.

The G8 leaders have it within their power to alter history. They will only have the will to do so if tens of thousands of people show them that enough is enough.

By doubling aid, fully cancelling debt, and delivering trade justice for Africa, the G8 could change the future for millions of men, women and children."

Does a group of performers have the power to rid poverty from Africa?

They think so, declaring, "NOW IS THE TIME, THIS IS THE YEAR - OUR LEADERS HAVE THE POWER TO END POVERTY - BUT WE HAVE THE POWER TO MAKE THEM USE IT."

The plan is to sway the G8 leaders to act to end poverty in Africa.

Although it's a noble effort and I do believe its organizers are sincere in their intentions, I don't think the concert will have much influence on the leaders.

It certainly will introduce the issues of African debt relief and poverty to a new generation. As a result, there could be a long term impact by influencing younger people to care about the suffering of others and teaching them that they have the power to organize and determine the makeup of their governments.

In the short term, however, I think the G8 leaders already know how much they are able to offer in terms of assistance to Africa.

Does anyone really believe that Paul McCartney and U2 merely getting on stage will magically free up billions of dollars for governments to provide additional aid to Africa?

Remember, this gathering is supposedly not about raising money. It's about raising awareness. Frankly, I don't know why they aren't attempting to gather some cash from its audience. Live Aid raised over $100 million. That would go a long way if Live 8 could match that.

Nonetheless, organizers insist, "LIVE 8 is about justice not charity."

I think that's a bit disingenuous. The event is definitely about getting governments to pledge money. I'd call that raising funds, even though the concert's viewers won't be asked to phone in contributions.

Where do the organizers think the governments get the billions of dollars to give? In the U.S., the government's money comes out of the people's pockets.

I do think providing aid is a worthy use of tax dollars; but why pretend it's not charity?

Charity isn't a bad thing. Being generous to alleviate human suffering is the right thing to do.

Live 8 is about charity AND justice.