Why is it that there is always a couple of Democrats willing to say or do something so incredibly stupid? I say Karl Rove is getting his moneys worth with moonbats like Kerry and Rengel.

Reuters notes that Rengel would like to reinstate the draft as a way of boosting troop levels in Iraq. I though they where pulling out?

An influential Democratic lawmaker on Sunday called for reinstatement of the draft as a way to boost U.S. troop levels and draw a broader section of the population into the military or public service.

U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel, the incoming chairman of the House of Representatives’ tax-writing committee, said he would introduce legislation to reinstate the draft as soon as the new, Democratic-controlled Congress convenes in January.

To bad we couldn’t get him to take such an enlightened stand before the election. Rangel goes on to share his thoughts:

Asked on CBS’ “Face the Nation” if he was still serious about the proposal for a universal draft he raised a couple of years ago, he said, “You bet your life. Underscore serious.”

“If we’re going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can’t do that without a draft,” he said.

[…]

“I don’t see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft. I think to do so is hypocritical,” he said.

First off, if we ever start talking seriously about a draft, I hope the need is first addressed by the Pentagon with a statement that the all-volunteer military is no longer meeting our nations needs - something I do not see happening soon. Having congress move to enact a draft without a clearly stated military need is at best reckless.

Rangel is good at harping on his belief that the our military is made up of a disproportionate number of soldiers from lower income or minority groups. Frankly, this speaks to a disdain for honorable service and partisan politics more than anything else.

Service in the military is an honored tradition, and needs to be kept as such. A draft weakens the very mindset that makes a great military thrive: pride of service.

Wizbang sums it up nicely with one little picture:

Also Reporting:
Hot Air
Wizbang
Wake Up America

Cross Posted from Revealing The ACLU.

From the ACLU website:

Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, three library users and a nonprofit organization today brought a lawsuit to ensure that patrons of a library system in Eastern Washington have access to useful and lawful information on the Internet.

The lawsuit challenges the library system’s policy of using a restrictive Internet filter to bar access by adults to information on its computers and of refusing to honor requests by adult patrons to temporarily disable the filter for sessions of uncensored reading and research.

No surprise here – the ACLU has been a regular proponent of unfettered access to Internet computers in public libraries. The contention is that the very fact that libraries are tax funded, they have an obligation to provide access to all information without passing judgment upon the appropriateness of the information. The only major case I can find on this topic is United States v American Library Association which left the filtering question mostly open – stating only that the congress can force public libraries to install blocking software.

Lets remember that the ACLU has fought hard against Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA), which requires schools and libraries to block obscene content which are pornographic or otherwise harmful to miners.

This case is somewhat different, in that it is not specifically with regards to obscene internet content.

From the ACLU ComplaintText:

NCRL has configured its SmartFilter software to block Web sites in the following categories, or in categories equivalent to the following categories: Alcohol, Anonymizers, Chat, Criminal Skills, Dating/Social, Drugs, Extreme, Gambling, Game/Cartoon Violence, Gruesome Content, Hacking, Hate Speech, Malicious Sites, Nudity, P2P/File Sharing, Personal Pages, Phishing, Pornography, Profanity, School Cheating Information, Sexual Materials, Spyware, Tobacco, Violence, Visual Search Engine and Weapons.

Some of these items, such as the Nudity, Violence, Gruesom Content, Pornography, Profanity, and Sexual Materials would be areas covered by CIPA. However, to get around this, the ACLU focuses in on other areas in there suit.

Plaintiff Sarah Bradburn has attempted to use computers maintained by the NCRL to conduct Internet research -– particularly regarding alcohol and drug-addiction topics -– in connection with academic assignments.

[…]

Plaintiff Pearl Cherrington is a professional photographer, her work consisting mostly of landscapes and outdoor scenes. She has attempted to use computers maintained by the NCRL to conduct Internet research and obtain information regarding art topics – including art galleries that might be interested in displaying her work. She has also attempted to use NCRL computers to conduct Internet research and obtain information about health topics.

[…]

Plaintiff Charles Heinlen has attempted to use computers maintained by the NCRL to conduct Internet research and obtain information on topics relating to firearms. His ability to conduct research and access information related to firearms has been restricted by the Internet filters that the NCRL has installed on its computers.

So what is the ACLU trying to do here? I believe that the ACLU is trying to set up a chain of precedent which it can use to erode CIPA, or at least loosen the general restrictions upon internet access in American’s libraries. Note the broad categories in the first quote, some of which are directly address by CIPA, and then the examples in the second quote which are areas outside of CIPA and which can be argued as unfair blocking of information.

This matter can be quickly addressed by the FCC and American Library Association providing some very specific guidance for the implementation for CIPA. This will have the simultaneous effect of removing these libraries as targets for the ACLU, and to removing ambiguity on what should or should not be blocked.

We can expect the ACLU to push back on CIPA and similar legislation in any way they can. They are possessed of a mistaken belief that free speech covers obscenity – or perhaps that obscenity itself is a concept open to wide interpretation.