Crossposted from Flopping Aces

Not a good quality in a President!

Whether you like President Bush or not, he always knows exactly what he wants and explains it all very directly. There is no mistaking his intentions.

You can’t say that about Obama and the saddest part is many Americans are only now discovering that fact. Throughout the long nominating process with it’s nearly endless debates and speeches there have been glimmers of a confused and confusing foreign policy focus in the Obama campaign. Just as the Democrat nominating process is about to close, the pieces of that scary puzzle are starting to come together.

By now, everyone remembers the question and the reply:
At A July 2007 Debate, Obama Announced He Would Personally Meet With Leaders Of Iran, North Korea, Syria And Other Hostile Nations “Without Precondition.” Question: “[W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?”… Obama: “I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration – is ridiculous.” video here (CNN/YouTube Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Charleston, SC, 7/23/07)

But the odd thing is that Obama keeps getting asked about that question and the answers keep changing. Is this the kind of “change” voters want?

Jake Tapper points out that In the latest round of confusing and tortured explanations for what Obama really meant, he told the Orlando Sentinel in Florida on May 22, that he would “initiate” talks with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez and raise the issue of his support for FARC terrorists in Columbia.

Recently, the international police organization, INTERPOL, confirmed that the documents found on the computer of a FARC terrorist leader documenting the strong support of Hugo Chavez for FARC’s reign of murder, kidnapping and drug running in Colombia were authentic.

Speaking to the Cuban American National Foundation in Miami on May 23, Obama said:

“We will shine a light on any support for the FARC that comes from neighboring governments…This behavior must be exposed to international condemnation, regional isolation, and — if need be — strong sanctions. It must not stand.”

Just how are you going to isolate Venezuela while initiating meetings at the presidential level?

Jake Tapper asked that question of an Obama advisor and the response is odd to say the least:

“if we are going to isolate the Venezuelans, it may be that we have to engage in a full-on diplomatic strategy with them,” the adviser says. Obama was not saying he, himself, would propose such a meeting, nor that he would necessarily participate in that meeting. When Obama referred to “my talks with President Hugo Chavez,” he did not mean “my talks,” literally (necessarily) — he meant his administration’s talks — “though it could be him engaging in this diplomacy directly and personally,” the adviser says. The point is, all the tools need to be in the diplomacy kit — isolation, willingness to hold presidential meetings, and everything in between.

So now, the idea of initiating and personally meeting without preconditions has taken on a confused and twisted meaning in Obama land. Is this the right kind of change?

Obama’s Iran Policy Just As Confused

Multiple times in 2007 (last item here)and as late as May 4, 2008 Obama insisted he would meet with Iranian President Ahmadinejad.

But as Curt points out, all that changed a few weeks later when Obama advisor Susan Rice said: “Well, first of all, he said he’d meet with the appropriate Iranian leaders. He hasn’t named who that leader will be.”

Really?

But let’s take him at his word (the current word, not the previous ones) and say he would meet with Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khameni. Amir Taheri reminds us how Khameni views negotiations with the United States:

“You have nothing to say to us. We object. We do not agree to a relationship with you! We are not prepared to establish relations with powerful world devourers like you! The Iranian nation has no need of the United States, nor is the Iranian nation afraid of the United States. We . . . do not accept your behavior, your oppression and intervention in various parts of the world.”

Taheri also notes that “Last month, Tehran hosted an international conference titled ‘A World Without America.’”

And if any delusional do-gooder thinks that it’s just the current U.S. Administration that Iran objects to, Taheri points out that Iran has turned a deaf ear to approaches by U.S. Administrations representing both political parties going back nearly 30 years. And no other European or Middle Eastern government has had any luck negotiating a range of critical issues with Iran.

So just what would Obama negotiate? It’s clear that the meeting would be a tremendous flop with predictable negative results for the U.S. around the world.

As a further reminder of how dangerous a confused and confusing foreign policy outlook can be, David Reinhard, writing in the Oregonian had this to say:

In trying to talk his way out of his position, Obama’s only made matters worse for himself. It began last week when he cited John F. Kennedy’s sit-down with Nikita Khrushchev as a precedent: “When Kennedy met with Khrushchev,” he said, “we were on the brink of nuclear war.”

Uh, no, Senator, the brink of nuclear war came in the Cuban missile crisis more than a year later. In fact, Kennedy’s weak performance in Vienna prompted the Soviet decision to put missiles in Cuba, which brought us to the brink of nuclear war.

In Portland on Sunday, Obama said Iran, Cuba and Venezuela “don’t pose a serious threat to us” since they spend but one-one-hundredth of what we spend on our military. They’re not like the Soviets. “If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us,” he said, “they wouldn’t stand a chance.”

Never mind that the threat posed by terror-sponsoring nations like Iran or terrorist groups isn’t their conventional military strength, but their ability and inclination to use unconventional weapons against stronger nations in this age of asymmetrical warfare. The next day in Montana, Obama said Iran posed “a grave threat.” Grave? Not serious? Whatever.

It may not matter much to the Obamatons that their candidate spins faster than a Maytag washer stuck on the spin cycle. But when it comes to actually governing, as opposed to campaigning, a clearly expressed policy is the first key to advancing towards objectives. Obama continues to express a desire to bring “change” to foreign policy and national security issues. But consider this: that may not be change for the better. In fact it could be much, MUCH worse.

also:

Is the Islamic world rejecting al-Qaeda theology, thanks to the War in Iraq?

We’ve often heard critics of the war in Iraq assert that we’ve diverted attention away from the real war on terror, and need to focus attention on al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan (as if we aren’t engaged against al-Qaeda operatives all over the world). Even Presidential candidates think it’s a winning statement, to push forth the belief that Iraq is still a disaster, and that we’ve only succeeded in “emboldening our enemies” and “We are seeing al-Qaeda stronger now than at any time since 2001.” The other criticism is to dismiss the level of influence of al Qaeda in Iraq, because foreign fighters make up a low percentage number of the insurgents.

Yet developments in Iraq have seen not only the success of the Surge, but also a rejection of al-Qaeda by all Iraqis including (and especially by) Sunnis; as well as a growing rejection of al-Qaeda theology in the Muslim world, in general. Iraq damaged al Qaeda’s image and any prestige they might have commanded, at one point. Al Qaeda knows this. Why doesn’t Senator Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Ariana Huffington?

(more…)

Crossposted from Red Maryland

The following op-ed comes from Herb McMillan, a former Delegate from Maryland’s 30th legislative district.

O’Malley Math The public relations blitz to revive Democrat Governor Martin O’Malley’s 37% approval rating is in full swing. Last week, posturing as fiscal conservatives, Governor O’Malley and liberal legislators claimed to have slashed Maryland’s budget by $1.1 billion since July 2007. It’s undisputed that they’ve raised sales, income, and other taxes by $1.4 billion. But if O’Malley actually made $1.1 billion in real cuts in conjunction with his $1.4 billion tax increase, wouldn’t Maryland have eradicated its $1.7 billion deficit and project an $800 million surplus, even without slots? Yet unless slots pass, Maryland projects a $600 million structural deficit just five months after the biggest tax increase in Maryland history. How is that possible?

It isn’t the economy. That resulted in a $300 million reduction of revenue estimates, so we should still have a $500 million surplus, even without slots. It isn’t that we don’t tax enough. Maryland had the 9th highest total tax burden per person before O’Malley’s tax hike.

It’s O’Malley’s spending. O’Malley hasn’t cut the budget, or used the $1.4 billion tax increase to cover the deficit. Last year’s budget spent $30 billion. This year’s budget spends $31.2 billion. That’s a $1.2 billion (4%) increase. A budget that increases spending by $1.2 billion hasn’t been cut. If state spending increases 4% per year for the remainder of O’Malley’s term, it will grow 13%. How many of us have paychecks that will grow that fast?

When tax and spenders like O’Malley say they’ve “cut the budget” it means “we’re spending more, but not as much as we want.” Maryland’s General Fund budget is driven by formulas that mandate automatic annual spending increases, regardless of need or results. Liberals spin legislation reducing mandated increases into “ budget cuts”, even when they still result in higher spending. This year, state education funding increased by 4%, but not by as much as the Thornton formula required. Using O’Malley Math, the education budget was cut even though education spending increased by $185 million.

That’s just part of the O’Malley Math equation. (more…)

Editorial: Washington Times

In November, Maryland voters will decide on Gov. Martin O’Malley’s proposal to legalize slot machines in the state. The current debate on the issue is completely different from the one that took place under Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich, who lost his bid for re-election in 2006. Mr. Ehrlich regarded slots as a means to save the state’s horse-racing industry, and he preferred raising revenue from legalized gambling to increasing taxes. But Mr. O’Malley, Senate President Mike Miller and House Speaker Michael Busch have different agendas in mind with the slots referendum, which include massively increasing the size of government, and possibly the creation of some form of a state-run health care system in Maryland.

In pushing for slots, the governor will have the support of Big Labor and Big Business, in the form of the Maryland State Teachers Association (the state affiliate of the National Education Association), the Maryland-District of Columbia chapter of the AFL-CIO and the Maryland Chamber of Commerce. During Mr. Ehrlich’s tenure as governor, Republicans put aside their own reservations about slots to support his position. But as the fiscal implications of Mr. O’Malley’s referendum become clear, look for Republicans to get as far away as possible from the governor’s position on slots.

Until recently, Maryland Democrats were deeply divided over the issue. During the Ehrlich administration, Mr. Miller, Calvert Democrat, a long-time advocate of slots, joined the governor in trying to get legislation through the Maryland General Assembly. But Mr. Busch, an Anne Arundel Democrat, was hostile to the idea and mobilized an anti-slots coalition, comprised mainly of liberal legislators from Montgomery County, Prince George’s County and Baltimore who favor increased taxes and pastors who view gambling as a sin. In 2003, 2004 and 2005, Mr. Ehrlich’s slots proposals died, due largely to opposition from Mr. Busch and the overwhelmingly liberal House of Delegates. The issue lay dormant until after Mr. O’Malley was elected governor. During last fall’s special session, which was supposed to alleviate Maryland’s fiscal problems, the General Assembly took one very big step to worsen them. The Democrats (with the help of some in the Republican minority) voted in favor of Mr. O’Malley’s plan (O’Malley-Care) to substantially expand Medicaid to cover an additional 100,000 Marylanders.

The nonpartisan Maryland Department of Legislative Services projected that O’Malley-Care would cost $185 million in fiscal 2009, soaring to $800 million by 2013 – and that was a very conservative estimate. (Moreover, as this editorial page was first to point out, beneficiaries of this generous new program included thousands of households headed by illegal aliens.) But Maryland law requires that the state budget be balanced. Legislators, realizing that they could not possibly increase taxes enough to pay for the program, approved legislation to allow Marylanders to vote this year on whether to permit slot machines. Mr. Miller and Mr. O’Malley have been warning that if Marylanders fail to approve slots, draconian cuts in public education and other services are certain to follow.

But the reality is that the governor is in political trouble. (more…)

By Dick Morris

One of the major misconceptions about the White House press secretary’s role is to assume that he has more power than he really does. Because he is always the president’s public face, we assume that he is our window into the White House and is a top level policy official or, at least, the one who knows what is doing on. Nothing could be further from the truth.

McClellan’s book is neither right nor wrong. It is just ill-informed. In the Clinton White House, for example, Mike McCurry, perhaps the best press secretary of our generation, never attended white house political strategy meetings. At first, he wasn’t invited. And then, he said he didn’t want to know what he couldn’t talk about. Finally, Clinton insisted that he attend.

In the Bush White House, where policy on defense and national security issues is likely more divorced from political strategizing than it was in the Clinton Administration, the press secretary is two steps removed. The political types are kept out of national security issues and the press secretary isn’t privy to either the national security process or the political strategy.

To grasp the limitations on the role of the White House Press Secretary, think of him as the media’s ambassador to the White House, rather than as the president’s ambassador to the media. Thinking of the job this way reveals how much of an outsider the typical press secretary usually is. (more…)

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

With the DNC bent on taking over all branches of US government, fulling overdue promises of “tough love” by yanking the US troops out of Iraq, ignoring Lebanon, and Pakistan’s peace deals further inflaming Afghanistan under NATO’s command, it can be said that Middle East allies for the US might be getting to be an endangered species.

Quietly behind the scenes, and out of the western media spotlight, Pakistan is steadily traveling the yellow brick road to rogue and defiant ally-in-name-and-money-only status… content just to silence bombs in their back yard while allowing Taliban/AQ and fellow ilk militants to ping pong back and forth across the Afghanistan border at will.

Two deals were cemented over the past month, involving exchanging of prisoners and, in theory, either exiling or handing over foreign militants. However S. Waziristan Taliban leaders have made it abundantly clear that they have no intentions of halting their jihad battles on Afghan soil.

“First, we will not accept such a ban. But we hope the peace deal will be inked without a clause that puts restrictions on mujahideen to cross the border (into Afghanistan),” Abu Zakwan, Taliban commander in the Kotkai area of South Waziristan, told Daily Times on Saturday. Using the alias of Abu Zakwan, the commander said that government negotiators are asking for a pledge to stop cross-border attacks, but the Taliban were not committing to such an agreement.

Jihad centre: He said Waziristan was serving the region as “centre for jihad” and people from across the country were being trained for holy war “against the United States”.

To date, the peace deals have not resulted in any militants of note being either expelled or turned over to the Pakistan govt. Indeed, all they’ve done is add to the terrorists in the region, using their get-out-of-jail-free cards as an exchange for Pakistan Army hostages. As predicted, the militants deny knowing of any foreign fighters’ whereabouts. Mehsud claims they are not harboring Zawahiri, OBL or ilk. Indeed, he insists Bin Laden is dead. I’ve seen this story on quite a few blogs, however not one link to the original story works. Take away what you wish from that note.

Meanship Nawaz Sharif continues his pressure on PPP’s Zardari to not only oust Musharraf, but calls for trials for sedition. In today’s Khaleej Times, he suggests that Zardari’s party has agreed to expel Musharraf from the Presidency. Thus far, there has been no comment or confirmation from the PPP representative, nor PM Gilani.

One can safely say that Pakistan’s efforts to curb jihad violence may offer temporary benefits for them… however making deals while they continue to foster jihad against the US doesn’t benefit us, or the war on Islamic jihad movements, one bit. This would be the same US/Uncle Sam who’s shelled out incentive cash, hand over fist, to Pakistan. And now, to add insult to injury, we’re about to lose the rare military general ballsy enough to give a silent nod to US operations over Pakistan soil, and incur/endure the wrath of his country.

Pakistan, however, sees Obama with his incentive packages and “talk nice” coming. They have their hands already outstretched, whining that their anti-terror efforts on the behalf of the US costs twice what the US pays in the Coalition Support Fund.

A US Government Accountability Office report issued last week said that of $5.8 billion in US support for anti-terrorism efforts in the Fata between 2002 and 2007, about 96 per cent had gone towards reimbursing the Pakistani military, three per cent on border security and one per cent on development aid projects.

Talking to Dawn, sources said the $5.8 billion Pakistan received from the CSF was reimbursement of what the country had already spent.

“It is not easy to deploy 100,000 troops in a troubled area,” said one diplomatic source. “Look, how the Americans are spending billions of dollars on maintaining troops in Iraq. If the Americans feel that the Iraq war is draining their resources, imagine how it affects Pakistan.”

I have to ask… just how many times has Pakistan has deployed troops, especially in that number? Last year was filled with western media, accusing Musharraf of not doing anything. Yet now we are to believe that they’re in the red, deploying troops on our behalf at every turn? Apparently the Pakistanis believe the US should carry the financial load of maintaining peace in their own tribal regions.

There is a smidgen of validity in that argument, of which they will have no problems in convincing a naive POTUS Obama that smidgen is much larger in US dollars. Tho many tribal elders may not seek war against the US or the west, they do harbor and benefit from those who do. However Pakistan’s internal battles did not begin with America’s more prominent presence in the Middle East. Nor will they end when we withdraw and come home. Jihad was there before we came, and will always be there.

Come the era of a possible President Obama in the WH, there are very different positions on the ME political chess board now. NATO falters in Afghanistan, and NATO alliance countries refuse to pony up the needed troops. Iraqis and US forces in Iraq are making headway, but live under the threat of having their progress reversed the moment a DNC leader takes the oath of office. Lebanon is morphing before our very eyes, with the Hezbollah shadow puppet government becoming more powerful with their legislative veto powers just acquired. Last year, Iran has no nuke program via an NIE – a report Obama buys hook, line and sinker. But today even the IAEA is concerned. Still the int’l community that makes up the corrupt and anti-semite UN, dances around significant action. And Obama will make sure US actions are blessed by the corrupt before implementing.

Pakistan, already proving the appeasement path benefits only their own backyard, and that terrorists will not budge on the bigger battle of training jihad, will be perhaps the next President’s biggest problem. A President Obama will make nice, pass over more cash, and terrorists and dictators will continue to smile.

Fasten your seat belts, because we’re in for a bumpy ride…

also:

United Nations to Investigate United States for Institutionalized Racism

Who authorized this nonsense? From Reuters.

A special U.N. human rights investigator will visit the United States this month to probe racism, an issue that has forced its way into the race to secure the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.

~~~

His three-week visit, at U.S. government invitation, will cover eight cities — Washington D.C., New York, Chicago, Omaha, Los Angeles, New Orleans, Miami and San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Race has become a central issue in the U.S. election cycle because Sen. Barack Obama, the frontrunner in the battle for the Democratic nomination battle, stands to become the country’s first African American president.

Note Reuters helpfully points out that racism has “forced its way” into the race, and that it has become a “central issue.” Was it Obama’s reference to “typical white people?” Or perhaps it was his racist preacher railing against “rich, white people.” That is how race “forces its way” into becoming a “central issue.” (more…)

by Regina Sztajer

A Tennessee Republican Party video featured Nashville residents on their website talking about the pride they felt about America. A man, who is a Vanderbuilt graduate, spoke of his pride of Ronald Reagan when he told Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall. A professional women extols the job and academic opportunities for women in America. While a police officer said he is proud of having immigrated to America, learned English and had become a citizen of the greatest country in the world. The upbeat comments were alternated with the comments of a clip of Michelle Obama telling two different audiences in February,” for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country.” (www.boston.com 5/25/08.”)

Her husband Barak Obama took offense and reacted as if his wife had been slimed by slurs like that if Andrew Jackson’s wife and mother during his 1828, presidential campaign. Supporters of John Quincy Adams insulted his mother calling her a “common prostitute.” Obama growled that the Republican’s “should lay off my wife” and described the Tennessee video as “detestable,” “low class” and “reflected a lack of decency.” If Republicans “think that they’re going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign,” he added ominously, ” they should be careful.” (WWW.boston.com.)

Does Obama think he is going to pull a (Jackson) Old Hickory? To defend his wife’s honor Jackson once killed a man fighting in a duel. If Obama keeps sending his wife on the campaign trail she is fair game!!! What has happened to his sunny politics of hope and change? His wife portrays America with grim regularity as a bleak, scary and hopeless place.

For example in Wisconsin she said, “Life for regular folks has gotten worse over the course of my lifetime, through Republican and Democratic administrations. It hasn’t gotten much better.” In South Carolina she said, ” America is a downright mean and guided by fear.” We have become by nature struggling folk who are barely making it every day. According to her people are so busy struggling that they don’t get to know their neighbors and are alone in their struggles. They feel its their fault that their struggling and are afraid. Who and what is she talking about?

In California she came up with this creepy authoritarian vision of life under an Obama administration:
” Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism, That you put down your division. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone. Barack will never allow you to go back to your life as usual-uninvolved, uninformed. Scary—- it sounds like a dictatorship, Communism or he is the new Messiah!!! (www.boston.com.) She will have a great deal of influence on Obama and therefore, she is fair game and a legitimate target in his campaign.
(more…)

Crossposted from Red Maryland

For better or for worse, Britain once again is taking the lead on completely insane policymaking:

Every adult should be forced to use a ‘carbon ration card’ when they pay for petrol, airline tickets or household energy, MPs say.

The influential Environmental Audit Committee says a personal carbon trading scheme is the best and fairest way of cutting Britain’s CO2 emissions without penalising the poor.

Under the scheme, everyone would be given an annual carbon allowance to use when buying oil, gas, electricity and flights.

And how would this cockamamie idea work?

Every adult in the UK would be given an annual carbon dioxide allowance in kgs and a special carbon card.

The scheme would cover road fuel, flights and energy bills.

Every time someone paid for road fuel, flights or energy, their carbon account would be docked.

A litre of petrol would use up 2.3kg in carbon, while every 1.3 miles of airline flight would use another 1kg.

When paying for petrol, the card would need to swiped at the till. It would be a legal offence to buy petrol without using a card.

When paying online, or by direct debit, the carbon account would be debited directly.

Anyone who doesn’t use up their credits in a year can sell them to someone who wants more credits. Trading would be done through specialist companies.

Leave it to the British to institutionalize bad policies under a Gordon Brown’s stewardship (which, if there is anything fortunate about it, is making Tony Blair look like a Thatcherite and helps give ascendancy to the Conservatives, such as happened in London). (more…)

Read the rest here.

Brisbane Times – Police in Amsterdam will get half the purchase price back if they buy the Koran to deepen their knowledge of Islam, a spokesman said today. A new translation had just appeared in Dutch and officers on the beat were being encouraged [MK - I think we all know when they say ‘encourage’, it really means do it or else!] to read this and a biography of the Prophet Mohammed, Ebe van der Land said. “These two books will make for a better understanding and knowledge of the Koran and the life of the prophet,” van der Land said.

Here in the west, we have a lot of people from a lot of places around the world, people we are told will westernize when they come to live here in the west, so there is nothing to fear. This is true for a lot of them, however if there is nothing to fear because the immigrants will westernize and adapt, why are the Dutch police encouraged to ‘deepen their knowledge of Islam’, why are Korans being subsidized for them? Judging by the waning of Christianity in Europe, why aren’t they encouraged to deepen their knowledge of Christianity? Why aren’t they encouraged to deepen their knowledge of the Bhagawat Geeta, the Tanakh? Are there only Muslims and ex-Christians over in Europe now? Sounds like dhimmitude to me folks and it sure sounds like we’re being deceived, lied to and sold out by those who purport to lead us.

(more…)

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

Obama often spoke about his uncle, who was part of the American brigade that helped to liberate Auschwitz. He said the family legend is that, upon returning from war, his uncle spent six months in an attic. “Now obviously, something had really affected him deeply, but at that time there just weren’t the kinds of facilities to help somebody work through that kind of pain,” Obama said. “That’s why this idea of making sure that every single veteran, when they are discharged, are screened for post-traumatic stress disorder and given the mental health services that they need – that’s why it’s so important

Video:

Baldilocks in the Hot Air comments found that his great uncle and grandfather were in the service around that time so maybe he meant his great uncle PLUS a different camp since Auschwitz was not liberated by the US. But either way, its another gaffe to go along with whole smorgasbord of gaffes:

• Claimed Selma was what moved his parents to fall in love and have a child named Barack Obama. Problem is he was born four years prior to the Selma movement.
• Claimed translators were missing in Afghanistan because of the Iraq war. Problem is they speak two different languages.
• Claimed 10,000 people died during a tornado when the real number was….12
• Claimed he sees dead people
• Claimed to have visited 57 states during this election campaign. Problem is we don’t have 57 states.

Lots of gaffes with little front page news on them. Hillary’s sniper story gets splashed everywhere. But not Obama’s gaffes. No way can the messiah be blasphemed in such a way. Jim Geraghty:

Dan Quayle gets defined by one foolish moment where his misspells “potato,” and George W. Bush is forever mocked as a dunce for his (admittedly classic) “Too many OB-GYNs aren’t able to practice their love with women all across this country.”

If the MSM would either A) be more forgiving of Republican officials who they don’t like or B) be a little tougher on Democratic officials they do like, the world would be a better place. In this case, I don’t think Barack Obama is deliberately lying, or trying to pull a fast one. It sounds like a family “legend” in which the specific horrors of war witnessed by his uncle are mistaken as the years go by. It happens, and Obama only deserves the lightest of metaphorical slaps on the wrist for it. But it would help if his fans in the press actually paid attention to what he says.

Pay attention? Come on…they are too busy fawning over his every “charisma” to actual care what he says.

More here and here.

UPDATE

It was Buchenwald, not Auschwitz.

And the WaPo takes him to task…..about freakin time:

Granted, it is getting late in the campaign. The candidates are tired, and prone to making silly mistakes. Many Americans might have problems distinguishing Buchenwald and Ohrdruf from Auschwitz. But should we not expect more from a Harvard-educated presidential candidate? Is it too much to ask that an aspiring commander-in-chief knows (1) that Auschwitz (like many of the other Nazi death camps) is in Poland, and (2) that the eastern advance of the U.S. Army in World War II stopped on the river Elbe? Let me know what you think.

also:

San Francisco/San FranSicko a Decaying American City

The city of San Francisco, once one of America’s finest cities around, has become most perverted, socially ill and decayed. It’s simply amazing to what lengths that city and some of its inhabitants will go to, to publicize, act, and pervert that city and themselves in public.

This is what the rest of America sees about San Francisco and there is no end in sight.

That’s why the rest of America has real apathy for that city and its inhabitants. It’s abnormal and sick behaviors that the rest of the country sees about the sickos in that city. (more…)

by Serge Trifkovic

Vienna, May 10, 2008

“Europe today is a powder keg,” Otto von Bismarck remarked , “and the leaders are like men smoking in an arsenal.”

I am not going to waste your time tonight with yet another treatise on why Islam is not the Religion of Peace, Tolerance, Compassion, etc, etc. We are beyond that. Had America agonized, in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, whether Shinto was actually OK but only Bushido was bad, the Greater Asian Co-prosperity Sphere would be going strong to this day. Among reasonable people, unblinkered by the dicta of political correctitude, the real score on Muhammad and his followers is well known. It has been known for centuries. That score, however, no matter how calmly stated and comprehensively supported, invariably elicits the howls of “Islamophobia” from the neoliberal elite class.

AN EMINENTLY POSTMODERN LITTLE PHOBIA

In the way of an introduction, let us therefore look at the formal, legally tested definition of that word, the latest addition to the arsenal of postmodern “phobias.” It is provided by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) based here in Vienna. (“Orwellian” is a worn-out adjective, but it simply has to be used in connection with this particular institution.) The EUMC diligently tracks the instances of “Islamophobia” all over the Old Continent, which it defines by eight red flags:

1.

Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.

2.

Islam is seen as separate and “Other.”

3.

Islam is seen as inferior to the West, barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist.

4.

Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, linked to terrorism, engaged in a clash of civilizations.

5.

Islam is seen as a political ideology.

6.

Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand.

7.

Discriminatory practices and Muslims’ exclusion from mainstream society are advocated.

8.

Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural or normal.

This definition is obviously intended to preclude any possibility of meaningful discussion of Islam. As it happens,

1.

That Islam is static and unresponsive to change is evident from the absence of an internal, orthodox critique of jihad, sharia, jizya, etc. As Clement Huart pointed out back in 1907, “Until the newer conceptions, as to what the Koran teaches as to the duty of the believer towards non-believers, have spread further and have more generally leavened the mass of Moslem belief and opinion, it is the older and orthodox standpoint on this question which must be regarded by non-Moslems as representing Mohammedan teaching and as guiding Mohammedan action.” A century later his diagnosis still stands: it is not the jihadists who are “distorting” Islam; the would-be reformers are.

2.

That Islam is separate from our Western, Christian, European culture and civilization, and “other” than our culture and civilization, is a fact that will not change even if Europe eventually succumbs to the ongoing jihadist demographic onslaught.

3.

Whether Islam is “inferior to the West” is a matter of opinion, of course. That Islam cannot create a prosperous, harmonious, stable, creative, and attractive human society is not. Whether Islam is “barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist” is at least debatable; but that many of its tangible fruits are so, is all too painfully visible.

4.

Islam is seen by so many as “violent, aggressive, supportive of terrorism” not because of some irrational “phobia” in the feverish mind of the beholder, but because (a) of the clear mandate of its scripture; (b) of the record of its 14 centuries of historical practice; and above all (c) of the timeless example of its founder.

5.

“Islam is seen as a political ideology,” and it should be seen as one, because its key trait is a political program to improve man and create a new society; to impose complete control over that society; and to train cadres ready and eager to spill blood. This makes Islam closer to Bolshevism and to National Socialism than to any other religion. It breeds a gnostic paradigm within which the standard response to the challenge presented by “the Other,” i.e. non-Muslim societies and cultures, is implacable hostility and violence, or violent intent.

6.

Criticisms made of the West by Islam should not be rejected out of hand; they should be understood. Its chief “criticism” of the West-and of every other non-Islamic culture or tradition-is that it is infidel, and therefore undeserving of existence.

7.

A priori hostility towards Islam should not be “used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims.” Quite the contrary, an education campaign about the teaching and practice of Islam should result in legislative action that would exclude Islam from the societies it is targeting – not because it is an intolerant “religion,” but because it is an inherently seditious totalitarian ideology incompatible with the values of the West.

8.

And finally, while anti-Muslim hostility is not a priori “natural or normal,” the desire of non-Muslims to defend their lands, families, cultures and faith against Islamic aggression is “natural and normal”; but the elite class is actively trying to neutralize it.

As the demand for Sharia-based communal self-rule is made with increasing frequency in the banlieus of Paris and the grim West Midlands council estates, Europe’s elite class is ready to throw in the towel. Dutch Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner-a Christian Democrat!-sees the demand as perfectly legitimate and argues that sharia could be introduced “by democratic means.” Muslims have a right to follow the commands of their religion, even if that included some “dissenting rules of behavior”: “Could you block this legally? It would also be a scandal to say ‘this isn’t allowed’! The majority counts. That is the essence of democracy…”

GUILT-RIDDEN FELLOW-TRAVELLERS

Such inanities are light years away from Winston Churchill’s warning, over a century ago, that “no stronger retrograde force exists in the world” than Islam:

Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science-the science against which it had vainly struggled-the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.

Even Churchill’s prescience could not envisage the possibility that the invader would find his fellow-travellers at No. 10, Downing Street, at the European Union headquarters in Brussels, and in dozens of chancelleries and palaces across the Old Continent. Their joint efforts are helping change the face of Europe. The cumulative effect is not in doubt: by 2050, Muslims will account for over one-third of “Old Europe’s” young residents. Millions of them already live in a parallel universe that has very little to do with the host country, toward which they have a disdainful and hostile attitude.

The elite class responds to such hostility with calls for ever-greater inclusiveness. Giuseppe Pisanu, Berlusconi’s former minister of the interior, responsible for controlling the country’s borders, thus declared five years ago that the high fatality rate of North African illegals on the high seas en route to Sicily was “a dreadful tragedy that weighs on the conscience of Europe.” His view was paradigmatic of the utopian liberal mind-set. If “Europe” should feel shame and guilt that people who have no right to come to its shores are risking their lives while trying to do so illegally, then only the establishment of a free passenger-ferry service between Tripoli and Palermo-with no passport or customs formalities required upon arrival, and a free shuttle to Rome or Milan-would offer some relief to that burdened conscience. And Sr Pisanu is supposedly a man of the “Right”!

The tangible results of the leaders’ moral decrepitude are devastating. A century ago, Sr. Pisanu and his class shared social commonalities that could be observed in Monte Carlo, Carlsbad, Biaritz or Paris, depending on the season. Englishmen, Russians, and Austrians shared the same outlook and sense of propriety, they all spoke French, but they nevertheless remained rooted in their national traditions, the permanent vessels in which Weltanschauung could be translated into Kultur. Today’s “United Europe,” by contrast, does not create social and civilizational commonalities except on the basis of wholesale denial of old mores, disdain for inherited values, and an overt rejection of “traditional” culture. It creates the dreary sameness of “antidiscriminationism” and “tolerance.”

Such weakness breeds contempt and haughty arrogance on the other side. Take Tariq Ramadan, who calmly insists that Muslims in the West should conduct themselves as though they were already living in a Muslim-majority society and were exempt on that account from having to make concessions to the faith of the host-society. Muslims in Europe should feel entitled to live on their own terms, Ramadan says, while, “under the terms of Western liberal tolerance,” society as a whole should be “obliged to respect that choice.”

If such “respect” continues to be extended by the elite class, by the end of this century there will be no “Europeans” as members of ethnic groups that share the same language, culture, history, and ancestors, and inhabit lands associated with their names. The shrinking native populations will be indoctrinated into believing-or else simply forced into accepting-that the demographic shift in favor of unassimilable and hostile aliens is actually a blessing that enriches their culturally deprived and morally unsustainable societies. The “liberal tolerance” and the accompanying “societal obligation” that Tariq Ramadan invokes thus become the tools of Western suicide. “No other race subscribes to these moral principles,” Jean Raspail wrote a generation ago, “because they are weapons of self-annihilation.” The weapons need to be discarded, and the upholders of those deadly “principles” removed from all positions of power and influence, if Europe is to survive.

THE PATHOLOGY OF THE ELITE CLASS

It is in the inability and unwillingness of the neoliberal elite class to confront the grave threat to our civilization that Western Europe and North America most tellingly certify that they share the same cultural chromosomes. In 1938 Hilaire Belloc wondered, “Will not perhaps the temporal power of Islam return and with it the menace of an armed Muhammadan world which will shake the dominion of Europeans-still nominally Christian-and reappear again as the prime enemy of our civilization?”

Seven decades later, the same traits of decrepitude are present in Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Scandinavia, Canada, and the United States, including both the primary cause, which is the loss of religious faith, and several secondary ones. Topping the list is elite hostility to all forms of solidarity of the majority population based on shared historical memories, ancestors, and common culture; the consequences are predictable: (more…)

Crossposted from Red Maryland

As many of you know myself, Greg Kline, and others have spent a significant amount of time talking about GOP branding and how the Republican Party needs to right the ship in order to achieve electoral sustainability in 2008 and beyond. And nowhere has the argument for such a necessary rededication to principles has been found than today’s Wall Street Journal piece penned by Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn:

Many Republicans are waiting for a consultant or party elder to come down from the mountain and, in Moses-like fashion, deliver an agenda and talking points on stone tablets. But the burning bush, so to speak, is delivering a blindingly simple message: Behave like Republicans.

Unfortunately, too many in our party are not yet ready to return to the path of limited government. Instead, we are being told our message must be deficient because, after all, we should be winning in certain areas just by being Republicans. Yet being a Republican isn’t good enough anymore. Voters are tired of buying a GOP package and finding a big-government liberal agenda inside. What we need is not new advertising, but truth in advertising.

And if that doesn’t cut to the teeth of the argument, nothing will. Make sure to read the whole thing.

One of the points that Coburn mentions time and again is the need for Republicans to start acting like Republicans again. And that is something that all Republicans need to embrace. Furthermore, this is not a problem just at the Federal level, either. We have seen time and time and time again where Republican elected officials even here at the state and local level have gone to unprecedented lengths to aid and abet Democratic efforts to raise taxes, increase the size of government, or support Democratic programs for pet issues.

Unfortunately, friends, this is where the rubber is meeting the road for our Republican future. Our “farm team” both here and across the nation are being weaned on “compassionate conservatism” and running and governing on ideals that are anathema to the conservatism that endeared our party and our leaders to the electorate. These candidates and elected officials are being sold a bill of goods that puts greater importance on the next election than the next generation.

Connecticut GOP Executive Director Heath Fahle also makes solid points on The Everyday Republican and on his blog at The Next Right:

It falls on us to not be distracted by talk of a ‘new and improved brand’, and instead focus on promoting our values, especially those that we forgot about when Republicans were in power – a smaller government that cuts up the national ‘credit card’ and starts reducing the national debt, a simpler government that requires less red tape and agita to get things done, and a more fair government that does not favor one set of lobbyists over another – rather favoring sensible policy over foolish ones.

There is no silver bullet that will return Republicans and conservatives to ascendancy. But it will take Republicans from the grassroots level on up to stand up to big government Republicans, stand up to these liberals who wish to lead the party astray, and to reclaim the Republican Party for what it is. As Senator Coburn concludes:

Regaining our brand is not about “messaging.” It’s about action. It’s about courage. It’s about priorities. Most of all, it’s about being willing to give up our political careers so our grandkids don’t have to grow up in a debtor’s prison, or a world in which other nations can tell a weakened and bankrupt America where we can and can’t defend liberty, pursue terrorists, or show compassion.

(more…)

Editorial: The Washington Times

“I wish we would arrive at a point where we would repeal the [death] penalty, but I do not have the luxury in this job or the permission in this job only to enforce laws that I’m in favor of and that I agree with. So sadly, we’ll be moving forward with those protocols.” The governor of Maryland, Martin O’Malley, made those comments Thursday. His concession means that the de facto moratorium on capital punishment will soon end. At least that is the expectation if policy-makers and lawmakers move with all deliberate speed in Annapolis.

Mr. O’Malley, who personally opposes capital punishment, balked at drafting new regulations even after the Supreme Court ruled lethal injections to be constitutional on April 16. Objections to executions are understandable, especially when such objections are rooted in moral clarity. We pointed out in an April 21 editorial: “Mr. O’Malley must understand, too, that the law is the law, and he has sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution and Maryland state law ‘without partiality or prejudice.’ By failing to carry out his gubernatorial obligations, Mr. O’Malley is enabling convicted killers to escape justice.”
(more…)

by Regina Sztajer

I had the opportunity to watch as man landed and walked on the surface of the moon on July 20, 1969. Yesterday I was thrilled to see NASA have the success to be able to land a spacecraft on the surface of Mars the Red Planet. How fitting on the Memorial Weekend that we honor the men and women who have made the sacrifices necessary to keep this great nation of our free from danger. The Phoenix Mars Lander gently put down on the surface in a cold region of Mars going only 5 miles per hour for the touch down. In flight it was flying 12,000 mph, 422-million miles for 10 months to land on Mars. Samples from a reservoir of ice will be taken for the next 90 days in order to discover if life has ever existed on Mars. At least NASA doesn’t have to worry about high gas prices for a 10 month trip to become a tourist on a planet millions of miles away. Information will be relayed via three Mars orbiters to mission control on the ground. The ice is only a few inches or a foot in the ground and it will be analyzed for traces of organic compound and the chemical building blocks of life. If life existed at one time scientists will be able to detect it from the samples preserved in ice. COOL!!!!

The Phoenix can’t detect alien life!!! What no aliens and UFO’s on Mars. The spacecraft is inexpensive compared to the other missions to Mars which cost $820 million for twin Rovers which landed on Mars and lasted four years. This mission had a price-tag of only $420 million but it is not as hardy as the Rovers were. The Rovers were like two Energizer Bunnies which had the ability to keep on going. They found ancient Mars had water that flowed near the surface.
(more…)

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

The Telegraph is reporting today the Mahdi Army used Iranian money to recruit unemployed men and pay them up to $300 (£150) a month to carry out attacks against British soldiers. The leaked report details activities of British troops under the command of Major Christopher Job, of the 2nd Lancashire Regiment, between November 2006 and March 2007.

In the report, Major Job discloses that in the course of five months his base was attacked 350 times. Old State Building, which is in the centre of Basra, is the most-attacked British base in recent history.

In an attempt to discover who was behind the attacks, the officer says he established a network of informers, who supplied him with detailed intelligence on the actions of the insurgents and who was behind their funding.

The officer states that the reports of Iran’s involvement came from a network of 25 sources, which included a former Iraqi army general, prominent businessmen, local sheikhs and council leaders.

He writes: “We learnt from a number of our Key Leadership Engagements [local contacts] that the source of the problem was the level of unemployment in Basra.

The Telegraph is reporting that twenty-seven members of the Armed Forces died and dozens were seriously injured in southern Iraq between November 2006 and May 2007, the period that Major Job covers in his report.

Patrick Mercer, the Tory MP and a former infantry commander said: “This report makes it quite clear that Iran is directly involved in funding the insurgency.” He added: “The Government must confront Tehran over the deaths of British troops – anything else is appeasement.”

Eventually Iran will need to be dealt with. Hopefully our next President will make some ingenious argument that will persuade them they have been wrong all along.

also:

Skye Speaks on Assault by Peacenik

When I named Skye the Mike’s America “Blogger of the Year” for 2007 I knew she had the right stuff. What I didn’t know is that she would quickly become a target for the people who pretend that peace and non-violence are are their highest objectives.

Skye, the first female member of the Flopping Aces posse (article archive here),as well as the author of her eclectic and electric blog Midnight Blue, has been an active participant and organizer of Pro-Victory counterprotests in West Chester, Pennsylvania.

It’s a group of patriots who observe Memorial Day every weekend by showing up on a street corner in this mid size Pennsylvania town to show their support for our troops. The group formed shortly after one man, Rich Davis, began a lonely vigil on the street corner to counter the angry left wing “peace” activists that had been unopposed in that town square for years while trashing our country, besmirching our troops and generally demonstrating the sour and angry disposition that appears to be epidemic among that class of bitter aging hippies.

Kevin Ferris, writing in the Wall Street Journal, published a wonderful account of the Rich’s group, which calls itself the Chester County Victory Movement and blogs as “The American Sheepdogs.”

Often the “peace” protesters cross the street to confront, harass and attempt to intimidate the victory movement people. Mostly, these efforts are directed at the women who participate in the VICTORY demonstration.

Skye often documents these scenes with a video camera. And in this short clip, you’ll see a peacenik getting nowhere attempting to browbeat browbeat one of the women in the VICTORY gathering. In his frustration he violently slapped the camera in Skye’s hand:

After this assault the man went on to assault a police officer who was called to the scene. The man was charged and a prosecution ensued.

Skye was unable to comment on the matter while the legal process unfolded. Now that her role in that has been concluded, she graciously offered to participate in the following Q&A which traces her involvement in the VICTORY movement as well the events surrounding the assault. Perhaps we can get her to answer any questions readers may wish to leave in the comment section as well.

The Audacity of disagreement.
(more…)

Crossposted from Conservative Thoughts.

By kathy

Today I was privileged to participate in a bloggers roundtable with Senator John Cornyn. A variety of issues were discussed including the war supplemental bill, GI Bill, and Ethanol. I intend to provide a quick roundup of these issues in subsequent posts, but would like to focus on an issue of great concern to many American’s today, that is rising gas prices.

Senator Cornyn addressed the current gas price by first addressing Nancy Pelosi’s current plan to provide a “commonsense” plan to reduce gas prices.

(Editor: A quick recap of Nancy Pelosi’s promise from The Hill, via press release dated April 24, 2006 stated) “Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks, and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.”

The Senator’s comment on some of the current actions that Speaker Pelosi has offered to date to reduce gas prices:

“Nancy Pelosi’s only actions thus far are proposing to raise taxes that would decrease production, sue OPEC to open up the spigot to increase production and investigate prices gouging.”

Sue OPEC? This is laughable; does anyone think this would have any effect on OPEC’s current oil production or pricing? In fact, it would probably have the opposite effect and would most likely damage U.S. relations with oil-producing countries. Brilliant! Apparently, this is what Democrats think is a “common sense” energy plan.

I must say at this point that the Senator and I both agree that President Bush’s trip to Saudi Arabia cannot be seen as helpful either and certainly not a sound “energy policy.“

“I don’t agree with the President going to Saudi Arabia and ask the to open the spigot wider.”

He also addressed what he believes is the cause for the current high prices at the pump:

“If Congress wants to see who the real culprit is all it has to do is look in the mirror. The moratorium on oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico, the Continental shelf, and Alaska has been renewed year after year. I do believe that if in fact America is able to develop our own resources we would relieve some of our dependencies on foreign sources. “

My follow-up question in the Q&A section on this subject was “With the Democrats in control of Congress, realistically what are the remedies that Congress could do to provide some relief in the gas prices we see today?”

Senator John Cornyn responded that there are two main problems with the supply of oil.

(more…)

Crossposted from Red Maryland

Barack Obama and his supporters like his advocates at MSNBC, are in high dudgeon (do they know any other kind) over President Bush’s remarks to the Israeli Knesset marking the 60th Anniversary of the birth of Israel.

In the video, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews revel in his dispatching of over matched radio host Kevin James on Hardball. Matthews repeatedly asked James, “What did Chamberlain do wrong” at Munich? Meaning British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain who foolishly thought he had secured “peace for our time” after essentially ceding the whole of Czechoslovakia to Hitler.

James inexplicably did not have an answer. Maddow and Matthews spent the rest of the segment pretentiously self congratulating each other for slaying their fabulous straw man. Of course if you know anything about Munich or even listened to Obama’s foreign policy pronouncements then the story is more complex than Maddow and Matthews’ neat little package suggests.“What did Chamberlain Do?”

Needless to say Chris Matthews did not heed his own advice, and his analysis leaves a great deal to be desired.
Initially, Hitler only wanted the Sudetenland area of Czechoslovakia, which contained many German-speaking peoples. Oskar Schindler was a Sudeten German. Hitler however, grabbed the rest of Czechoslovakia anyway because all Chamberlain wanted to do was talk in order to avoid war at all costs. The mountainous terrain of the Sudetenland was a far better defensible position against the Wehrmacht, than say the open plains of the Polish frontier. The full annexation of Czechoslovakia also exposed Poland’s southern flank to attack. Poland fell the next year. (more…)

by Haider Ajina

The following is my translation of an article in Iraq ’s Almada newspaper of 5-22-08

Iraqi President Talabani says Iraq will witness a very substantial increase in security into next year and security operations against terrorist are very successful while observing human rights.

Iraqi President Jalal Talebani affirmed security operations against terrorist and out laws are very successful, while observing human rights with out breaching them. He said that he expects Iraqi forces to take full control of security in Iraq by the end of the year. Talebani said this in a meeting with UK Member of Parliament and special envoy for human rights to Iraq Ann Clwyd. He added, we consider the respect of human rights to be one of the foundations of the new Iraq and give them special attention.

The president (during the meeting) shed light on conditions in general in Iraq , and specifically ways the country is dealing with dangers and obstacles and solutions, as well as the development of the political process. He then pointed out the security, law enforcement and political accomplishments thus far. He also expresses his optimism in New Iraq’s ability to rise from its difficulties. Iraq is a strong Middle Eastern country full of all assets needed for progress and prosperity. Iraq has tremendous human, natural and historical resources.

(more…)

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

Memorial Day isn’t just barbecues and 4 day weekends. There’s a reason why we are able to enjoy such things; and it has to do with those who are willing to serve and sacrice; who risk all to preserve the freedoms we often take for granted.

Previously:
Memorial Day Tribute to Fallen Heroes (2007)

also:

Think Hillary Voters Will Rally Around Obama? Think Again

I don’t surf much in Democrat waters; if they ever caught me they’d make remote Pacific island cannibalism look like a state dinner. But I stumbled across this on a Democrat site, and though you have to read between the lines a bit, I think this Hillary supporter is not happy with Obama’s impending nomination. You be the judge.

On behalf of millions of Clinton supporters who have made it very clear that we will vote for a cockroach before we vote for Barack Obama, I would like you pieces of Obama crap to know that you can kiss our asses. We will collectively do everything in our power to see to it that you and that mysogynist, bigoted, race-baiting pig you worship, the fraud who has already set gender and racial relations back thirty years, goes down in flames in a big way. And there are millions of us. Millions. The kind of millions that brought his type down before from the voting booth.

So kindly don’t bother trying the Nicey-Nicey. We are not your wives you can beat the crap out of and later come back and get back together with. You are so vile you give yourselves away by the third comment, so really it’s a waste of time. You don’t even know you are offensive because it’s in your DNA or something. So really, there’s no sense of stressing yourselves trying to hide your disdain for us. It’s not necessary. We hate you even more than you hate us and all of you only serve to solidify our resolve. And when Barry Obama goes down in November, kindly remember why. Or don’t remember why. Nobody cares.

Hey, would you consider putting out a yard sign for the guy?

H/T No Quarter USA via Donna Darko

Denny at New Republican Party Blog has a good roundup of angry Hillary supporters vowing to defeat Obama.

Bill Dupray at The Patriot Room

By Dick Morris

John McCain is America’s favorite kind of candidate. With his record of extraordinary patriotism and his distinctive Senate tenure, McCain is a nominee whom voters from both parties — and independents, too — could easily support.

But he has been dealt a terrible hand: a tanking economy, an unpopular war, a Republican incumbent whose approval ratings are at their all-time low and a gloomy national mood, with 82 percent of Americans saying in a Washington Post-ABC News poll last week that the country is on the wrong track. Political scientists add all that up and predict that the Democrats are destined to win the White House. But I don’t do political science; I do politics, and I’m convinced that McCain can still win — if he’s willing to follow the road map below.

McCain needs to not run as a traditional Republican, which is easy, since he’s not one. After all, how did an anti-torture, anti-tobacco, pro-campaign finance reform, anti-pork, pro-alternative-energy Republican ever emerge from the primaries alive? Simple: The GOP electorate, along with the rest of the country, has moved somewhat to the left. (In Florida, for example, exit polls showed that only 27 percent of Republican primary voters described themselves as “very conservative,” while 28 percent said they were “moderate” and 2 percent said they were “very liberal.”)

Meanwhile, McCain’s likely rival, Barack Obama, has raised such doubts among voters that their concerns momentarily energized even Hillary Rodham Clinton’s sagging campaign. With the help of the incendiary comments of his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., Obama’s negatives have been rising even as he nears the finish line.

Still, voters are tending heavily toward the Democratic Party. Normally, party preferences are about even, but recent national polls give Democrats a decided edge. In last week’s Post-ABC poll, 53 percent of Americans identified themselves as Democrats or leaned toward the party, compared with 39 percent who were Republicans or tilted to the GOP.

To sum it up: A candidate who cannot get elected is being nominated by a party that cannot be defeated, while a candidate who is eminently electable is running as the nominee of a party doomed to defeat.

In this environment, McCain can win by running to the center.

His base will be there for him; indeed, it will turn out in massive numbers. Wright has become the honorary chairman of McCain’s get-out-the-vote efforts. It would be nice to think that race isn’t a factor in American politics anymore, but it is. The growing fear of Obama, who remains something of an unknown, will drag every last white Republican male off the golf course to vote for McCain, and he will need no further laying-on of hands from either evangelical Christians or fiscal conservatives.

So McCain doesn’t have to spend a lot of time wooing his base. What he does need to do is reduce the size of the synapse over which independents and fearful Democrats need to pass in order to back his candidacy. If the synapse is wide, they will stay with Obama. But if they perceive McCain as an acceptable alternative, there is every chance that they will cross over to back him in November.

If the GOP nominee were Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee, independents and Democrats might not vote Republican even if they became convinced that Obama is some kind of sleeper agent sent to charm and conquer our democracy. Even Rudy Giuliani, with his penchant for confrontation, might have elicited sufficient doubts among Democrats to hold them in line for Obama. But McCain doesn’t threaten anyone. Everyone can appreciate the ordeal that tested his courage in Vietnam, and independents and Democrats can celebrate much of his legislative record. Voting for McCain is an easy sell.

Except, of course, for Iraq. This is his biggest problem — the one issue that impales the Arizona senator and hampers his ability to induce liberals to cross the line.

Earlier in the race, Iraq might have been a deal-breaker. But a kinder, gentler war has emerged. U.S. combat deaths are way down, and the de facto U.S. alliance with Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar province against al-Qaeda in Iraq seems to have dramatically improved the security situation. Still, most Americans don’t like the war, and McCain must deal with their opposition if he wants to win.

The solution is to draw Obama out — to ask the untested senator what he would do if al-Qaeda in Iraq took over the country . . . or if Iran did . . . or if the Iraqis who backed the U.S. mission were being slaughtered by the thousands . . . or if Islamist terrorists seized control of the country’s oil wealth.

Obama, not wanting to appear weak, would no doubt rise to the bait and agree that he might need to send troops back in under certain conditions. He would assure us that sufficient forces would be available at nearby bases to get the job done. To avoid coming across as indecisive and timid, he would put on a sufficiently hawkish face to reassure the voters. And in doing so, he would blur the war issue vis-a-vis McCain. It will make little difference to most Americans whether our troops are in Iraq (as McCain wants) or in Kuwait (as Obama can be pushed to suggest), so long as U.S. casualties are dropping. And with the economy in tough shape, Iraq will fade as the election’s be-all and end-all issue.

Which brings us to George W. Bush, the least popular president of modern times. Unlikely as it sounds, the soon-to-be former president needs to get out of the White House, reenter the political arena (much as it will pain him) and go around the country telling us two things: First, we are winning in Iraq; second, the economy is not as bad as most people think. With the Dow at around 12,800 and unemployment at 5 percent, Bush can make a good case that things aren’t really headed for the rocks. And he’ll have to. Republicans cannot win with an incumbent president with rock-bottom ratings. (more…)

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

Rebecca Walker wrote a poignant article in the Daily Mail yesterday about feminism and how it affected her life, and not in a good way:

The truth is that I very nearly missed out on becoming a mother – thanks to being brought up by a rabid feminist who thought motherhood was about the worst thing that could happen to a woman.

You see, my mum taught me that children enslave women. I grew up believing that children are millstones around your neck, and the idea that motherhood can make you blissfully happy is a complete fairytale.

In fact, having a child has been the most rewarding experience of my life. Far from ‘enslaving’ me, three-and-a-half-year-old Tenzin has opened my world. My only regret is that I discovered the joys of motherhood so late – I have been trying for a second child for two years, but so far with no luck.

I was raised to believe that women need men like a fish needs a bicycle. But I strongly feel children need two parents and the thought of raising Tenzin without my partner, Glen, 52, would be terrifying.

As the child of divorced parents, I know only too well the painful consequences of being brought up in those circumstances. Feminism has much to answer for denigrating men and encouraging women to seek independence whatever the cost to their families.

My mother’s feminist principles coloured every aspect of my life. As a little girl, I wasn’t even allowed to play with dolls or stuffed toys in case they brought out a maternal instinct. It was drummed into me that being a mother, raising children and running a home were a form of slavery. Having a career, travelling the world and being independent were what really mattered according to her.

She writes about how her mother believed herself to be a maternal women, but maternal to the worlds women, not her own daughter. In fact Rebecca was her mothers priority after “work, political integrity, self-fulfilment, friendships, spiritual life, fame and travel.”

According to the strident feminist ideology of the Seventies, women were sisters first, and my mother chose to see me as a sister rather than a daughter. From the age of 13, I spent days at a time alone while my mother retreated to her writing studio – some 100 miles away. I was left with money to buy my own meals and lived on a diet of fast food.

After becoming pregnant her mother pretty much disowned her:

It’s been almost four years since I have had any contact with my mother, but it’s for the best – not only for my self-protection but for my son’s well-being. I’ve done all I can to be a loyal, loving daughter, but I can no longer have this poisonous relationship destroy my life.

I know many women are shocked by my views. They expect the daughter of Alice Walker to deliver a very different message. Yes, feminism has undoubtedly given women opportunities. It’s helped open the doors for us at schools, universities and in the workplace. But what about the problems it’s caused for my contemporaries?

~~~

Feminism has betrayed an entire generation of women into childlessness. It is devastating.

But far from taking responsibility for any of this, the leaders of the women’s movement close ranks against anyone who dares to question them – as I have learned to my cost. I don’t want to hurt my mother, but I cannot stay silent. I believe feminism is an experiment, and all experiments need to be assessed on their results. Then, when you see huge mistakes have been paid, you need to make alterations.

I hope that my mother and I will be reconciled one day. Tenzin deserves to have a grandmother. But I am just so relieved that my viewpoint is no longer so utterly coloured by my mother’s.

I am my own woman and I have discovered what really matters – a happy family.

Its a sad story from beginning to end but should be read in its entirety. Feminism has done some great things for women in the past. But in this day and age and taken to this extreme it obviously can do a lot of damage to a family.

also:

Michelle Obama: Blacks Who Assimilate Into “White Culture” Are Uncle Toms [Reader Post]

Barack Obama is getting a little nervous that his wife’s rants will torpedo the election, so he issued a stern warning yesterday to her would-be critics.

“But I do want to say this to the GOP. If they think that they’re going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful. Because that I find unacceptable,” he said.

Obama praised his wife’s patriotism and said that for Republicans “to try to distort or to play snippets of her remarks in ways that are unflattering to her I think is just low class … and especially for people who purport to be promoters of family values, who claim that they are protectors of the values and ideals and the decency of the American people to start attacking my wife in a political campaign I think is detestable.”

First of all, this is low class. The Dems, having perfected the art, apparently don’t want the Republicans to get that dirty. (more…)