Crossposted from Flopping Aces

Charles Krauthammer wrote a good piece yesterday about the way our MSM has handled Obama with kid gloves, and most likely will continue to do so:

Normally, flip-flopping presidential candidates have to worry about the press. Not Obama. After all, this is a press corps that heard his grandiloquent Philadelphia speech — designed to rationalize why “I can no more disown [Jeremiah Wright] than I can disown my white grandmother” — then wiped away a tear and hailed him as the second coming of Abraham Lincoln. Three months later, with Wright disowned, grandma embraced and the great “race speech” now inoperative, not a word of reconsideration is heard from his media acolytes.

Worry about the press? His FISA flip-flop elicited a few grumbles from lefty bloggers, but hardly a murmur from the mainstream press. Remember his pledge to stick to public financing? Now flush with cash, he is the first general-election candidate since Watergate to opt out. Some goo-goo clean-government types chided him, but the mainstream editorialists who for years had been railing against private financing as hopelessly corrupt and corrupting evinced only the mildest of disappointment.

Indeed, the New York Times expressed a sympathetic understanding of Obama’s about-face by buying his preposterous claim that it was a preemptive attack on McCain’s 527 independent expenditure groups — notwithstanding the fact that (a) as Politico’s Jonathan Martin notes, “there are no serious anti-Obama 527s in existence nor are there any immediate plans to create such a group” and (b) the only independent ad of any consequence now running in the entire country is an AFSCME-MoveOn.org co-production savaging McCain.

I may have to disagree a bit with Charles here seeing that more then a few newspapers were a bit upset at Obama for his waffling on FISA such as the WaPo:

Pardon the sarcasm. But given Mr. Obama’s earlier pledge to “aggressively pursue” an agreement with the Republican nominee to accept public financing, his effort to cloak his broken promise in the smug mantle of selfless dedication to the public good is a little hard to take.

The New York Times:

The excitement underpinning Senator Barack Obama’s campaign rests considerably on his evocative vows to depart from self-interested politics. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama has come up short of that standard with his decision to reject public spending limitations and opt instead for unlimited private financing in the general election.

The AP:

the first-term Illinois senator tarnished his carefully honed image as a different kind of politician — one who means what he says and says what he means — while undercutting his call for “a new kind of politics.”

And many on the left derided Obama for his typical politician behavior. But I get what Charles is alluding to here. While they may have raked him over the coals a bit, it won’t last. They will be back to calling him the next coming of Abraham Lincoln in no time.

But there is no disputing the luster has faded. This movement of a “different kind of politician” has come and gone with Obama’s flip-flopping. McClatchy, of all news organizations, can even see this:

From the beginning, Barack Obama’s special appeal was his vow to remain an idealistic outsider, courageous and optimistic, and never to shift his positions for political expediency, or become captive of the Inside-the-Beltway intelligentsia, or kiss up to special interests and big money donors.

In recent weeks, though, Obama has done all those things.

He abandoned public campaign financing after years of championing it. Backed a compromise on wiretap legislation that gives telecom companies retroactive immunity for helping the government conduct spying without warrants. Dumped his controversial pastor of two decades — then his church — after saying he could no more abandon the pastor than abandon his own grandmother.

I think Ed Morrissey put it best:

He has to get the centrists, independents, and conservative Democrats on board, and right now John McCain is making inroads in these groups instead. Obama has shifted his positions explicitly to convince these voters to support him, but he has made himself into the antithesis of what his campaign supposedly represents: the same, old, dishonest politics. Instead of representing Hope and Change, he has broken trust with voters on issue after issue in a naked grab for power.

Its faded, but the true believers will never leave the flock and the MSM, while a bit pissed at the moment, will come back into the fold in no time.

Hell, a few days after the FISA vote most of the MSM just shrugged their shoulders on Obama’s flip-flopping on gun control. Howard Kurtz’s article in the WaPo pointes to various MSM outfits that pretty much ignored Obama’s earlier statements:

And here’s what ABC reported yesterday: ” ‘That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator’s consistent position,’ Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News.”

Inartful indeed.

But even though the earlier Obama quote and the “inartful” comment have been bouncing around the Net for 24 hours, I’m not seeing any reference to them in the morning papers. Most do what the New York Times did: “Mr. Obama, who like Mr. McCain has been on record as supporting the individual-rights view, said the ruling would ‘provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.’ “

Supporting the individual-rights view? Not in November.

Even the Tribune–the very paper that the Obama camp told he supported the gun ban–makes no reference to the November interview. Instead: “Democrat Barack Obama offered a guarded response Thursday to the Supreme Court ruling striking down the District of Columbia’s prohibition on handguns and sidestepped providing a view on the 32-year-old local gun ban. Republican rival John McCain’s campaign accused him of an ‘incredible flip-flop’ on gun control.”

So McCain accuses Obama of a flip-flop, and the Trib can’t check the clips to tell readers whether there’s some basis in fact for the charge?

USA Today takes the same tack:

“In a conference call put together by McCain’s campaign, Republican Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas said . . . that Obama has been changing his position on the gun issue and said the Democratic senator has done some ‘incredible flip-flopping’ on key issue.”

And? And? That’s all we get? He said/he said journalism?

I can’t leave out the part where Kurtz linked to Flopping Aces alongside Hot Air and Redstate:

The conservative blogosphere, however, brings out the heavy guns. Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey points out that Obama is, after all, a lawyer:

“Barack Obama has been spinning like a top, and watching his positions on, well, just about everything is like watching table-tennis matches on TiVo triple fast forward. FISA, public financing, and NAFTA have all been reversed in the last couple of weeks, and Obama’s not through yet . . .

“Suddenly, with the general election looming, Obama discovers that his campaign’s statement was inartful. This seems rather puzzling, because before he ran for public office, Barack Obama was supposed to be a Constitutional law expert. One might expect the ‘inartful’ excuse on wetlands reclamation or some other esoteric matter of public policy, but the Constitution is what he supposedly studied at Columbia and Harvard.”

Red State: “May I suggest that Senator Obama start putting a ‘Freshest if used by’ date on all his speeches? It’d be a help, really.”

Flopping Aces says the timing is a bit coincidental:

“Every flippin day we get more evidence that Obama is the worst flip-flopper to have come along in sometime . . .

“Puhlease. ‘Inartful?’ Either you believe the ban was constitutional or not. Simple question. His spokesperson said he did believe it was constitutional and he never corrected this statement until the day of the decision.”

Kinda cool being put into the same category as those guys, thanks Howard!

But back to the subject at hand. The fact of the matter is that while the MSM was pissed for a bit, within hours of the SCOTUS decision they were already back to spinning and ignoring the messiahs earlier statements that clearly show he flipped and flopped.

So, in the end, Charles is dead on right. The MSM is all in for Obama….not surprising, but disappointing.

also:

The MSM Backs Obama When He Flips & Flops

Charles Krauthammer wrote a good piece yesterday about the way our MSM has handled Obama with kid gloves, and most likely will continue to do so:

Normally, flip-flopping presidential candidates have to worry about the press. Not Obama. After all, this is a press corps that heard his grandiloquent Philadelphia speech — designed to rationalize why “I can no more disown [Jeremiah Wright] than I can disown my white grandmother” — then wiped away a tear and hailed him as the second coming of Abraham Lincoln. Three months later, with Wright disowned, grandma embraced and the great “race speech” now inoperative, not a word of reconsideration is heard from his media acolytes.

Worry about the press? His FISA flip-flop elicited a few grumbles from lefty bloggers, but hardly a murmur from the mainstream press. Remember his pledge to stick to public financing? Now flush with cash, he is the first general-election candidate since Watergate to opt out. Some goo-goo clean-government types chided him, but the mainstream editorialists who for years had been railing against private financing as hopelessly corrupt and corrupting evinced only the mildest of disappointment. (more…)

Crossposted from Red Maryland

There’s nothing quite as frustrating as carefully culling the campaign contributions of developers such as Doracon Contracting President Ronald H. Lipscomb online, linking them to articles so others can review them, only to have the pages disappear in a day or two.

This is not the first time I have had this happen to me since I began blogging, but now other bloggers I know are reporting the same problem.

So far, it’s an unsolved mystery.

When I contacted the Maryland Board of Elections, and after I called three different numbers before I could get someone in IT, I was then promptly handed off to the University of Baltimore County, which maintains the campaign contribution portion of the site.

Of course, I was unsuccessful at reaching anyone there. So I sent an email to the Webmaster asking why the pages of campaign contributions I linked to were disappearing, or wrong? If and when I get an answer, I’ll let you know. But for now, the disappearing pages are a mystery. And if I had a conspiratorial inclination, I might even think that somebody in high places didn’t want citizens to scrutinize the contributions.

After all, Maryland is one of the few states that requires anyone reviewing these public records in person to provide an ID and telephone number. And did you know that in Maryland that the clerk can then contact the elected official and report to them who is searching their records? It’s the law, passed by state legislators.
(more…)

By Dick Morris

John McCain has drawn first blood in the political debate following Barack Obama’s victory in the primaries. His call yesterday for offshore oil drilling — and Bush’s decision to press the issue in Congress – puts the Democrats in the position of advocating the wear-your-sweater policies that made Jimmy Carter unpopular.

With gas prices nearing $5, all of the previous shibboleths need to be discarded. Where once voters in swing states like Florida opposed offshore drilling, the high gas prices are prompting them to reconsider. McCain’s argument that even hurricane Katrina did not cause any oil spills from the offshore rigs in the Gulf of Mexico certainly will go far to allay the fears of the average voter.

For decades, Americans have dragged their feet when it comes to switching their cars, leaving their SUVs at home, and backing alternative energy development and new oil drilling. But the recent shock of a massive surge in oil and gasoline prices has awakened the nation from its complaisance. The soaring prices are the equivalent of Pearl Harbor in jolting us out of our trance when it comes to energy.

Suddenly, everything is on the table. Offshore drilling, Alaska drilling, nuclear power, wind, solar, flex-fuel cars, plug-in cars are all increasingly attractive options and John McCain seems alive to the need to go there while Obama is strangely passive. During the Democratic primary, he opposed a gas tax holiday and continues to be against offshore and Alaska drilling and squishy on nuclear power. That leaves turning down your thermostat and walking to work as the Democratic policies.

McCain has also been ratcheting up his attacks on oil speculators. With the total value of trades in oil futures soaring from $13 billion in 2003 to $260 billion today, it is increasingly clear that it is not the supply and demand for oil which is, alone, driving up the price, but it is the supply and demand for oil futures which is stoking the upward movement.
(more…)

by Regina Sztajer

Where is John Mc Cain? Has anyone heard from him? Are you completely fed up with hearing only about Barack Obama and the drama of the ego-maniacs of the Democratic party? If not you must be living on another planet. Give me a break….. Hillary Clinton kissing and making up with Obama was one big vaudeville show. How can John McCain get any media coverage when the Democrats are on center stage. I was appalled when Obama made himself a new presidential seal and had the nerve to have it put on the podium. It of course was received withe ridicule and came down. The next you’ll thing you’ll hear is”Hail to the Chief ” when he struts into the room. This man is so arrogant and self-centered he has himself elected as president already.

McCain is a known commodity but Obama seems to be constantly emerging and discovered as someone who is hot, and a rock star!! He’s considered to be fun and a lightening rod of controversy thanks to his Reverend Jeremiah Wright. It is really obvious that the Democratic party and Obama’s campaign is nothing more than an incompetent manipulation of the mass media. Once he finally can get rid of Hillary around his neck he’ll breath a sigh of relief. Some polls, if you believe them show him ahead. What can John Mc Cain do to overcome the fascination the American people have with the Barack Obama?

It’s still early and McCain should take advantage of the situation by being himself and revamping his image to show America he is interesting and can and will protect America. His wife Cindy has so much to offer and she should join him with her charm and finesse. Get some of those other Republicans with a strong voice and powerful message to stump for him also. McCain has to stop being so formal and constrained and instead be himself, the maverick who can be entertaining and fascinating. The party should work at getting his name in the papers , Television and the Internet. It will give him the confidence to take himself seriously when he talks policy. McCain has candor and wit which he should demonstrate more often! He should stop taking himself so seriously because it’s deadly. In short, he should stop playing it safe and be assertive because he is battling a novice and nobody who is playing the part in a comic operetta.
(more…)

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

The United Nations, providing yet another reason why it is an utterly execrable institution that serves the interests of undemocratic, retrograde forces has banned criticism of Islam during debates in the UN Human Rights Council.

GENEVA: Muslim countries have won a battle to prevent Islam from being criticised during debates by the UN Human Rights Council. Religions deserve special protection because any debate about faith is bound to be “very complex, very sensitive and very intense”, council President Doru-Romulus Costea said Wednesday.

Scholars: Only religious scholars should be allowed to discuss matters of faith, he told journalists in Geneva.

While Costea’s ban applies to all religions, it was prompted by Muslim countries complaining about references to Islam.

Costea issued his “presidential ruling” on Monday during the eighth meeting of the council’s 47 members, which do not include the United States. The ruling will not affect findings by the council’s experts, just its chamber debates.

Muslims have found a very effective method in which to prevent criticism: Since many Muslim countries are, to one degree or another guided by Sharia law, any criticism of such a nation’s human rights violations allowed by their laws would be a criticism of Muslim based Sharia – therefore any criticism of their violations would be a criticism of Islam. Since Islam isn’t just a religion but a legal system as well it is very easy to conflate Islam and Islamic nations .

The ban came after a heated session on Monday, when the representative of the Association for World Education (AWE), in a joint statement with the International Humanist and Ethical Union, denounced female genital mutilation, the penalty of stoning for adultery and child marriage as sanctioned by Islamic law. Egypt, Pakistan and Iran angrily protested, interrupting the AWE speaker, David Littman, with no less than 16 points of order, and succeeding in getting the Council’s proceedings suspended for over half an hour. In the course of this contentious discussion, the representatives from the Islamic countries made numerous revealing statements – statements that are well worth examining as Islamic nations and organizations call with increasing insistence for restrictions on free speech in the West.

Imran Ahmed Siddiqui, the representative from Pakistan, echoed the ever-echoing refrain of all Islamic apologists in the West, when he complained that Littman’s initiative on genital mutilation, stoning and child marriage amounted to an “out-of-context, selective discussion on the Sharia law.” He asked that Littman not be allowed to speak: “I would therefore request the president to exercise his judgment and authority and request the speaker not to touch issues which have already been debarred from discussion in this Council.” The representative from Slovenia then protested mildly against this attempt to silence Littman: “Any NGO representative,” he reminded Siddiqui, “has the right to make a statement within the merits of the agenda item under discussion. We see the statement being made pertaining within the purview of the agenda item and we don’t see grounds for any restricting censorship in that respect.”

The representative from Egypt thereupon responded: “I would humbly and kindly ask my colleague from Slovenia to reconsider.” He warned: “We will not take this lightly….This is not about NGOs and their participation in the Council. This is about the Sharia law.” Pakistan’s Siddiqui added: “I would like to state again that this is not the forum to discuss religious sensitivity.” Why not? Again sounding notes that are increasingly familiar in any discussion of the elements of Islam that jihadists and Sharia supremacists use to justify oppression, Siddiqui explained: “It will amount to spreading hatred against certain members of the Council. I mean, it has happened before also that selective discussions were raised in the Council to demonize a particular group.” He addressed Costea: “So we would again request you to please use your authority to bar any such discussion again, at the Council.”

After more discussion, a recess, and another warning from the representative from Egypt, Littman was finally allowed to proceed. After noting that “almost 90% of the female population in the north of Sudan undergo FGM which, in many cases, is practiced in its most extreme form known as infibulation,” Littman declared: “We believe that only a fatwa from Al-Azhar Grand Sheikh Sayyed Tantawi – replacing the ambiguous fatwas of 1949, 1951 and 1981 – will change this barbaric, criminal practice, which is now growing even in Europe.”

At this point Egypt interrupted, complaining that “this is an attempt to raise a bad traditional practice to Islam. Sheikh Al-Azhar [Sayyed Tantawi] is the president of the largest and the biggest and the oldest Islamic university in the world.” He exclaimed: “My point is that Islam will not be crucified in this Council. That’s why we are challenging this ruling” – that is, Costea’s decision to allow Littman to deliver his address.

Instead of standing up for human rights, which this being the Human Rights Council one would think he might Costea caved, thereby removing from discussion many of the horrors committed by Muslims against woman (as well as assorted other atrocities) from even being discussed.

It is time to leave the useless and noxious UN.

Cross-Posted at Because I’m Right

also:

Paving The Road To The New Fascism: Pelosi Plots To Implement The Hush-Rush Law

In anticipation of ushering in a new age of Liberal Fascism House Speaker Nancy Pelosi let it be known recently that she plans to re-institute the defunct Fairness Doctrine, or as it is known to those of us who value free speech, the Hush-Rush bill. Human Events columnist John Grizzi reports here on a recent encounter with Pelosi.

At a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor yesterday, I asked Pelosi if Pence failed to get the required signatures on a discharge petition to get his anti-Fairness Doctrine bill out of committee, would she permit the Pence measure to get a floor vote this year.

“No,” the Speaker replied, without hesitation. She added that “the interest in my caucus is the reverse” and that New York Democratic Rep. “Louise Slaughter has been active behind this [revival of the Fairness Doctrine] for a while now.”

The reason for Pelosi’s excitement has nothing to do with “fairness” and everything to do with squelching opinion critical of her and her party. Her goal: the removal of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Glen Beck and the entire conservative talk radio industry from the airwaves.

Charles Sykes, a Senior Fellow of the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute has written a terrific history of the Fairness Doctine and review of what is at stake should Pelosi and her fellow brown-shirts get their way.

The original Fairness Doctrine was written in 1949, when the Federal Communications Commission issued a rule that required broadcasters to devote a certain amount of time to discussions of public affairs “of interest to the community served by the particular station.”

In 1949 there was (for most Americans) no TV, certainly no hundreds of cable and satellite TV stations and no real computers from which an Internet could spring with its multiplicity of sites of every variety. Returning to a broadcast rule that was created in an era in which most Americans could only get their news from newspapers, newsreel footage in movie theaters and radio broadcasts is akin to fighting today’s wars with Revolutionary war muskets. What made sense in a long-along era does not make sense today.

Well, let me revise that: it does make sense if your real motives are less than pure as Pelosi’s certainly aren’t.

If the goal was to foster a more vigorous debate, the Fairness Doctrine failed miserably; if it was to chill the expression of inconvenient opinion, it was demonstrably successful. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, broadcasters, who were fearful of the time and the cost of compliance, simply opted to shut down controversial debate, avoiding whenever possible the discussion of issues that might trigger the regulatory nightmare. As a result, rarely did politicians have to worry about being pilloried or even criticized by radio hosts or even by on-air editorialists, whose weak and insipid commentary became monuments to the chilling effect of the Fairness Doctrine.

Under the reign of the Fairness Doctrine radio went silent on controversial issues and the AM band in particular remained a vast and neglected wasteland until 1987, when the rule was lifted.

Since 1987 radio has seen an explosion of opinion flourish, especially since the advent of the Rush Limbaugh Show as a growing national presence in 1988. One has to wonder how eager the Left would be to bring back the Fairness Doctrine if it had been say, Jim Hightower, Mario Cuomo, Al Franken or any one of the host of failed liberal talk show hosts who had spawned a whole new industry rather than Rush revolutionizing radio by making it the watering hole for conservative voices. Try as they might to succeed in it, talk radio is just not liberals’ medium. You might think they wouldn’t care so much, having a virtual monopoly in newspapers magazines, movies, network TV, etc. but then you would be underestimating their lack of respect for freedom of speech and their hunger for unfettered power.

The end of “fairness” :

In abolishing the Fairness Doctrine, the FCC acknowledged all of these logical and constitutional flaws. In August 1987, by a 4-0 vote, the FCC decided that:

[T]he intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters . . . [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists.[x]

Commissioners took note of both recent court decisions and the flood of new technologies: “[T]he extraordinary technological advances that have been made in the electronic media since the 1969 Red Lion decision,” the FCC declared, “together with a consideration of fundamental capital First Amendment principles provides an ample basis for the Supreme Court to reconsider the premise or approach of its decision in Red Lion.”

Most important of all, the FCC declared that “the constitutional principles applicable to the printed press should be equally applicable to the electronic press.”

Twenty years later that principle remains unchallenged, except by politicians anxious to use their clout to bring back the speech police with their tape recorders and stop watches.

A reliable measure of the actual impact of the Doctrine was what happened when it was repealed: a veritable explosion of outlets—radio, television, cable, wireless, and satellite —and the spread of over-the-air debate and exchange of ideas that would have been unimaginable under the smothering influence of the Fairness Doctrine.

But what would happen if Democrats do, in fact, succeed in restoring the Fairness Doctrine?

By the left’s own account, the regulators will be quite busy: the liberal Center for American Progress estimates that more than 1,700 radio stations around the country have some form of talk show, with 50 million listeners a week. Each weekday, they figure, more than 2,824 hours of political talk (most of it conservative) are broadcast on those stations.[xi]

On an annual basis that comes to 146,848 hours of regulated speech, requiring mountains of tape machines and stop watches—and an almost unimaginable explosion in the number of speech policeman needed to maintain “fairness.”

Fascism operates by using the power of the state to remove all opposition to the state. There could hardly be a more compelling example of this than Congress bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. It is an action only a fascist could love. By returning to it as soon as she can, Nancy Pelosi, with an almost certainly expanded Democratic presence in Congress would make a possible President Barack Obama very happy very early in his reign.

Let the new era begin. And watch what you say.

Cross Posted at Because I’m Right

Finally:

Supreme Court Shoots Down D.C. Gun Ban

Read the opinion here – and a big H/T to
Buffoon at Democrat=Socialist for finding it so quickly!

**********************************

Breaking news from ABC – SCOTUS got something right… in the usual 5-4 vote.

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the District of Columbia cannot ban a citizen from keeping a handgun at home, throwing out one of the nation’s strictest gun control laws.

The Supreme Court has overturned Washington, D.C.’s strict gun ban.The 5-4 decision marks first time the court has ever definitively addressed the issue, which had been one of the great unresolved constitutional questions as experts debated whether the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and carry a gun, or only a state’s right to arm a militia.

While statistics show that overall violent crime numbers are down in most big cities around the country, there has been an increase in crime in Washington DC, Cleveland and Baltimore. In the nation’s capital there were 181 murders in 2007.

The Brady gun control movement is less than thrilled. (more…)

by James H. Lilley

Mr. Imus,

On April 15, 2007, I wrote an article for the Baltimore Reporter, titled “Don Imus and the Double Standard” in which I stated, rather clearly, that I believed you were the victim of a double standard, after your “Nappy Headed Hos” remark. Recently you made another comment about Adam “Pacman” Jones, which you are suddenly defending by saying it was a sarcastic attempt to make a point. Jones was arrested for the sixth time and your question was, “What color is he?” Warner Wolf’s response, “He’s African-American.” You answered, “There you go. Now we know.” And, you say the point you were trying to make is that police arrest Blacks for no reason. Then, you began spouting things such as; you can understand somebody being arrested once, because everybody does something one time. But six times? Your rapid-fire rhetoric was nothing more than a hurried attempt to cover your ass for another half-witted racial comment. And your solution is why not blame the police for your ignorance?

Well, Mr. Imus, in case you’ve been so uninformed in your sheltered little world, people of all races have been multiple offenders. Since you probably don’t understand that, I’ll translate. It means they can, and do, commit more than one crime for which they can be arrested and prosecuted. To take this a step farther, it also translates to different dates and oftentimes other states. And, I assure you some of these people have rap sheets that show 30 or more arrests and prosecutions. So, don’t try and defend your stupidity, and insult the intelligence of people of all races, by crying that anyone arrested on more than one occasion is being targeted by the police.

Don’t even get on the racial profiling bandwagon. The cry of “racial profiling” is
as lame as it old. No law enforcement training classes teach recruits or seasoned law enforcement officials “the art of targeting a particular race.” Profiling is a fact of life in policing, but it teaches patterns of behavior that indicate a crime is about to be, or is being committed, and this is especially true in drug use and trafficking. Furthermore, patterns of behavior are non-discriminatory, as they apply to all races.
(more…)

Crossposted from Red Maryland

Obviously, everybody has heard by now the fantastic news about the Supreme Court upholding the lower court decision in D.C. v. Heller. Here is the best part of the Opinion of the Court, on Page 67 of the decision:

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

Once and for all, the Supreme Court has affirmed while most people knew all along: that the United States Constitution unquestionable affirms the right of individuals the opportunity to bear arms. Of course, this decision should not have been a surprise seeing that the founders considered the right to bear arms a pre-existing right dating back to English Common Law and the Assize of Arms of 1189. Something that Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog points out the Court included in their decision:

The individual right interpretation, the Court said, “is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment,” going back to 17th Century England, as well as by gun rights laws in the states before and immediately after the Amendment was put into the U.S. Constitution.

What Congress did in drafting the Amendment, the Court said, was “to codify a pre-existing right, rather than to fashion a new one.”

Nor is it a surprise when one considers that all of the other Amendments within the Bill of Rights are affirming individual rights, but hey….

But supporters of the Constitution should not sit back and rest on our laurels. Yes, the Heller decision does affirm the the individual right of the citizen. However, Dave Kopel notes that there are many areas of law that are not addressed by Heller:

As for the constitutionality of other gun controls: “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” The word “commercial” in the last sentence could suggest that there might be constitutional problems on some laws which applied to non-commercial arms transfers. (However, there are few federal laws on non-commercial transfers, other than criminal penalties for transferring guns to prohibited persons.)

The majority opinion also affirmed the validity of bans on gun carrying in “sensitive” locations such as schools and government buildings. The language may imply that a total ban on gun carrying in ordinary public places is unconstitutional. But Heller does not attempt to answer the question of whether the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment enforceable against state and local governments, and most carrying restrictions in public places are created by state and local governments. For now, Heller limits only the federal government — and entities such as the D.C. City Council, whose powers are granted by the federal government.

Which means that while the individual right has been affirmed, Heller does not universally cast aside any and all gun controls laws. Nor does the decision cast aside provisions that prohibit the purchase of firearms by criminals or those with mental issues. The rights of gun ownership and possession in Maryland have been left, realistically, unchanged by the facts of the decision. Since the Heller decision only the D.C. law, that means many issues are still living in a Constitutional shade of gray.
(more…)

By Dick Morris

Have you noticed a change in Barack Obama’s campaign? Instead of avoiding controversies over values, religion and race, he seems to welcome them and wade into the debates with an increasing enthusiasm.

Characterizing how the Republicans will attack him, he predicted that they would criticize his “funny name” and add “and by the way, did you notice that he’s black?”

Obama used to go out of his way to avoid this kind of reference, but now he brings it on. Deliberately.

Why?

Obama and the conservative right are mutually trying to keep the debate about his candidacy on the existential level — is he the hope for America’s future or a Manchurian Candidate, a kind of sleeper agent sent to destroy our democracy? That debate, which pits Obama’s rhetoric against the Rev. Wright’s rantings, is a contest that could go on all day, and Obama would win it. It is simply a bridge too far to believe that Obama is that evil and that invidious.

But the more the debate covers such fundamental questions, the more it ignores the details — details which could bring Obama down.

Quite simply, Obama would rather address his religious views and his optimism about America and his embrace of diversity than talk about his plans to raise taxes, let gasoline prices soar and socialize healthcare.
(more…)

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

Don’t expect to hear about it on the “news!”

Here’s a link to the entire report.

Full size image here or see page 20 of the report (PDF page 28).

Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq
Dept. of Defense
June 2008

This report to Congress, Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq, is submitted pursuant to Section 9010 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act 2007, Public Law 109-289 as amended by Section 1308 of Public Law 110-28 and Section 1224 of Public Law 110-181.1 The report includes specific performance indicators and measures of progress toward political, economic and security stability in Iraq, as directed in that legislation. This is the twelfth in a series of quarterly reports on this subject.

The strategic goal of the United States in Iraq remains a unified, democratic and federal Iraq that can govern, defend and sustain itself and is an ally in the war on terror. The United States is pursuing this goal along political, security, economic and diplomatic lines of operation. This report measures progress toward achieving this goal during the reporting period (March through May 2008) and highlights challenges to Iraqi and Coalition efforts to achieve their mutual objectives.

The security environment in Iraq continues to improve, with all major violence indicators reduced between 40 to 80% from pre-surge levels. Total security incidents have fallen to their lowest level in over four years. Coalition and Iraqi forces’ operations against al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) have degraded its ability to attack and terrorize the population. Although AQI remains a major threat and is still capable of high-profile attacks, the lack of violence linked to AQI in recent weeks demonstrates the effect these operations have had on its network.

Equally important, the government’s success in Basrah and Baghdad’s Sadr City against militias, particularly Jaysh al-Mahdi (JAM) and the Iranian-supported Special Groups, has reinforced a greater public rejection of militias. This rejection, while still developing, is potentially as significant for Iraq as the Sunni rejection of AQI’s indiscriminate violence and extremist ideology. Overall, the communal struggle for power and resources is becoming less violent. Many Iraqis are now settling their differences through debate and the political process rather than open conflict. Other factors that have contributed to a reduction in violence include the revitalization of sectors of the Iraqi economy and local reconciliation measures.

Although the number of civilian deaths in April 2008 increased slightly from February and March 2008, in May 2008 civilian deaths declined to levels not seen since January 2006, when the Coalition began tracking this data. Both Iraqi and Coalition forces reported that civilian deaths are 75% lower than July 2007 levels and 82% lower than the peak number of monthly deaths that occurred in November of 2006 at the height of sectarian violence. Periodic high-profile car and suicide vest bombings continued throughout the period and were largely responsible for the increased civilian deaths in April 2008. However, the trends of decreasing violence suggest the failure of these high-profile attacks to rekindle the self-reinforcing cycle of ethno-sectarian violence that began in 2006.

The emergence of Sons of Iraq (SoIs) to help secure local communities has been one of the most significant developments in the past 18 months in Iraq. These volunteers help protect their neighborhoods, secure key infrastructure and roads and locate extremists among the population. What began primarily as a Sunni effort, now appears to have taken hold in several Shi’a and mixed communities. Today there are 103,000 SoIs contributing to local security in partnership with Coalition and Iraqi forces. AQI’s continued targeting of SoIs demonstrates AQI’s recognition of the importance and effectiveness of SoI initiatives.

The Good News in Graphic Form:

Is the above what you would expect if Iraq was mired in a “civil war?” Have any of the media or defeatists who used that phrase issued a correction?

Notice the huge upward trend in discovery of weapons caches used by terrorists. Much of this improvement relies on tips from Iraqi citizens who are now confident enough to turn in the bad guys.

More:

• The majority of the remaining violence occurs in just a handful of provinces. These are the areas that the Iraqi forces are now concentrating their efforts and meeting with considerable success.
• Progress in building Iraqi security forces is clearly evident. But, the graph also shows that much work needs to be done before U.S. combat forces can leave.

Is it time to say it?

also:

Desperately seeking blame for oil prices
an a’political look at a universal problem

1: questionable speculators activity
2: decreasing supply and increasing demand – and peak oil theories
3: Iraq or Middle East conflicts and terrorism
4: falling value of US dollar

I’m neither an accomplished economist, nor an oil expert. But I’m one curious individual, so I set out to see if I could shed some light how just what to believe. There’s considerable amount of data here (meaning long! a week’s worth!) but I’ll share my research on the four issues mentioned above… and my attempt to put it all into perspective…. sans politics. (the “gasps” abound, no doubt…)

To agree on a solution, we need to know the cause of the problem.

The article that sparked my increased motivation and quest came from Australia’s Herald Sun yesterday, Speculators to blame, says OPEC”.

The monarch, who said Saudi Arabia would give $US1.5 billion ($1.57bn) to efforts to ease energy shortages in poor nations, told the 36-nation summit his country was “very concerned” about consumers worldwide.

He blamed increased oil consumption and taxes on fuel, but said: “Among other factors behind this unjust increase in oil prices is the abhorrent act of speculators acting for their own selfish interests”.

The most common thought on the speculators is that the buying frenzy is creating a positive feedback look, driving the prices artificially high and creating an economic bubble – much as was done with the housing prices in both the UK and USA. Along that line of thought, Congress is busy crafting legislation aimed at regulating speculators, while McCain has called for “thorough and complete investigation of speculators” to see if they’ve driven up oil prices.

Alan Reynolds termed this knee jerk reaction as a “witch hunt that’s clearly about oil” in an article that ran in the NY Sun June 20th, titled “Scapegoating the Speculators”, and was reproduced on the Cato Institute site.Reynold’s debates OPEC’s accusation. Speculators, purchase the contracts and sell those before their expiration date, in the hopes of making profits. Sometimes this entails betting the prices goes down instead of up. Or as he puts it, Guess wrong on the direction, and you lose money. (more…)

Crossposted from Red Maryland

Sadly, as I predicted and knew would happen, a state investigation against Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon and a federal investigation against Prince George’s County state Sen. Ulysses Currie are being reduced to the common denominator of race.

Just listen to any talk show in town, read any newspaper, talk to politicians or people in the street, and you’ll see that already they are divided along racial lines. Most white people say that the Dixon and Currie investigations are fair and long overdue, while most black people say they are witch hunts designed by the white power structure to bring down black politicians, who are only following in the footsteps of their corrupt, white predecessors. Why begrudge them when it’s their turn to taste the spoils of political power?
(more…)

by James H. Lilley

There seems to be a question as to whether or not Barack Obama can legally be elected to the office of President of the United States. Issues regarding his citizenship have been lingering in the background, and the following information was provided to further question his legal right to the presidency. “Barack Obama is not legally a U. S. natural-born citizen, according to the law on the books at the time of his birth, which falls between December 24, 1951 and November 13, 1986. Presidential office requires a natural-born citizen, if the child was not born to two U. S. citizen parents, which of course is what exempts John McCain, though he was born in the Panama Canal.

U. S. Law clearly stipulates: ‘If only one parent was a U. S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.’ Barack Hussein Obama’s father was not a U. S. citizen and Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born, which means though she had been a U. S. Citizen for 10 years, (a citizen perhaps because of Hawaii being a territory) the mother fails the test for being so for at least five years prior to Barack Hussein Obama’s birth, but after age 16. It doesn’t matter after.

In essence she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic United States
Citizenship. At most, there were only two years elapsed since his mother turned 16, at the time of Barack Obama’s birth when she was 18 in Hawaii. His mother would have needed to be 16+5 equaling 21 years of age at the time of his birth, for him to have been a natural-born citizen.As aforementioned, she was a young college student at the time and was not. Barack Obama was already three years old at that time, and his mother would have needed to wait to have him as the only U. S. Citizen parent. Obama instead, should have been naturalized, but even then, that would disqualify him from holding the office. (more…)

From the Washington Times

Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and Baltimore County Executive Jim Smith have a huge, self-made ethical mess on their hands — new revelations that a $28 million road project in Owings Mills, Md. would benefit a developer who is a top campaign donor to both Democrats. Tom LoBianco of The Washington Times reported Thursday that Mr. O’Malley and Mr. Smith, who are close political allies, committed money several months ago to build the interchange from Interstate 795 in Owings Mills to a road running past a $79 million business development owned by Edward St. John.

Who is Mr. St. John? He’s someone who was recently fined $55,000 by the state prosecutors office for donating more than $25,000 to Mr. O’Malley and Mr. Smith during the 2006 election. Under Maryland law, individuals are prohibited from donating more than $4,000 to a candidate and $10,000 overall during an election cycle. Large contributors sometimes try to get around the limits by bundling donations from family members, co-workers or financing campaigns through limited liability corporations (LLCs) registered in their name. Prosecutors said Mr. St. John did both. In all, he made more than $300,000 in campaign donations through LLCs and his company’s vice presidents – almost half of which went to Republicans. Mr. St. John also reimbursed the vice presidents for their donations through pay bonuses.

Even with the fines, Mr. St. John appears to have come out ahead: He spent approximately $355,000 in campaign contributions and fines. In March, Mr. O’Malley and Mr. Smith committed $28 million in taxpayer money to build the highway interchange leading to the Dolfield Business Park – a 36-acre center that the St. Johns Properties began developing in 2005. The project is less than one-tenth of a mile from Interstate 795. “This new interchange project is a perfect example of how Maryland benefits when local and state government work together as partners,” Mr. O’Malley said in announcing the project in March. Of course, he conveniently omitted to mention that Mr. St. John, a major financial contributor of his, is also a “partner” in the project.

Thus far, Mr. O’Malley and Mr. Smith have refused to give back the $25,000 they received from Mr. St. John. Their intransigence is disgraceful: Mr. St. John has blatantly flouted the law, which public officials like the governor and the county executive are sworn to uphold. We have our doubts that the overwhelmingly Democratic General Assembly will do much to investigate the Owings Mills project. That’s why state prosecutor Robert Rohrbaugh needs to look closely at the decision to build the interchange to see whether there is any evidence of a quid pro quo involving campaign contributions and tax dollars.

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

Positive test for terror toxins in Iraq
Evidence of ricin, botulinum at Islamic militants’ camp
By EXCLUSIVE By Preston Mendenhall
MSNBC

Now, let’s face it…Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews aren’t gonna change their minds and suddenly face the reality that Saddam’s regime was willing to work with AQ groups, did work with AQ groups and leaders, and the threat of the so-called “Nexus of Evil” connection even existed.

Captured members of Al Queda groups from this same camp claim that they were assisted, trained, supplied, and funded by Saddam’s IIS as well as taking orders from Saddam’s IIS.

Captured documents confirm their claims.

Captured regime members confirm their claims.

Now even highly anti-war/pro-Democrat MSNBC confirms the claim itself.

Al Queda leaders confirm the claims (Zawahiri and Zarqawi specifically).

Why believe “Bush Lied”? Because it’s easier to believe that the solution to today’s problems can be solved by changing a circle to a dot on a ballot than it is to face the real and scary threat as well as own up to the failures of the past.

also:

Media Reports That Pres Bush did NOT Lie About Threat From Saddam

…Another investigation finds that the Bush Administration didn’t lie, fabricate, or deliberately mislead people about the threat posed from Saddam Hussein’s regime. STILL, the average Joe seems to believe that President Bush is an evil mastermind capable of fooling 535 members of Congress, all the national and international media, and successfully cover up a myriad of lies about “Saddam’s wmd” in almost a dozen independent, bi-partisan, often international investigations. Amazing.

New York Times 6/5/08

The report on the prewar statements about Iraq found that on some key issues — most notably Iraq’s purported nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs — the public statements from Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and other senior officials were generally “substantiated” by the best estimates at the time from American intelligence agencies.

Washington Post

Why does it matter, at this late date? The Rockefeller report will not cause a spike in “Bush Lied” mug sales, and the Bond dissent will not lead anyone to scrape the “Bush Lied” bumper sticker off his or her car. But the phony “Bush lied” story line distracts from the biggest prewar failure: the fact that so much of the intelligence upon which Bush and Rockefeller and everyone else relied turned out to be tragically, catastrophically wrong.

Los Angeles Times

Rockefeller’s highly partisan report does not substantiate its most explosive claims. Rockefeller, for instance, charges that “top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11.” Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were “substantiated by intelligence information.” The same goes for claims about Hussein’s possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program. Four years on from the first Senate Intelligence Committee report, war critics, old and newfangled, still don’t get that a lie is an act of deliberate, not unwitting, deception. If Democrats wish to contend they were “misled” into war, they should vent their spleen at the CIA.

New York Sun

Quoth Senator Rockefeller: “Sadly, the Bush administration led the nation into war under false pretenses.” Well not exactly. On many key judgments before the war, the report itself found that statements on Iraq’s biological weapons capacity, its nuclear and chemical weapons programs, the president and his cabinet secretaries generally followed the intelligence assessments of the spy services.

Associated Press

The Senate report, however, found that intelligence supported most of the administration’s statements about Iraq before the war.

No doubt Congressional Democrats want us all to believe that they’re idiots who were duped by a brilliant mastermind like George W Bush, or that somehow or another “they didn’t see the same intelligence” (let’s ignore that people like Sen Kerry, Edwards, Rockefeller, and others all had dozens of closed door meetings w intel agency leaders for 5 months before the invasion) Certainly they don’t want us to remember how even President Clinton was promoting the invasion of Iraq.
(more…)

Crossposted from Red Maryland

Doracon Contracting Inc., the development company whose principle, Ronald H. Lipscomb, had a personal relationship with Mayor Sheila Dixon, has made more than $265,000 in political contributions to various Maryland politicians and the Democratic Party, according to records at the Maryland Board of Elections.

Dixon admitted today in a statement to the Sun that she had a personal relationship with the developer and exchanged gifts with him. She issued the statement after documents presented by prosecutors to the Baltimore County District Court gave a more detailed account of its two-year investigation of Dixon, which includes prosecutors scrutinizing thousands of dollars in gifts including fur coats and trips.

Meanwhile, records show that Lipscomb’s company gave $50,000 to the Democratic State Central Committee, $2,750 to Sen. Ulysses Currie, who is currently being investigated by the FBI — and $5,500 to Dixon.
(more…)

By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann

It’s been a rough two weeks for Barack Obama, but his poll numbers remain strong and unchanged. Is he a Teflon candidate?

Consider what’s happened since he clinched the Democratic nomination and Hillary “suspended” her campaign:

• Obama flip flopped on his pledge to spurn private contributions and finance his campaign publicly – as long as his opponent did likewise. McCain said he’s willing and Obama flipped and said he’s not.

• The Democratic candidate was caught flat footed by the sudden spike in oil prices and even defended their high level, lamenting only that we had not been given a period of time to make a “gradual adjustment” to the higher price.

• McCain urged off-shore drilling, which Americans support, according to Rasmussen’s polling, by 70-19, while Obama said no.

• Obama urged that we give foreign terror suspects constitutional rights, including habeas corpus, and even implied that if we caught bin Laden, that’s how he should be treated.

• The head of the commission Obama set up to vet Vice Presidential candidates, Jim Johnson, had to resign after he was found to have gotten millions in sweetheart loans from Countrywide, the mortgage giant that is at the heart of the subprime scandal.

But you’d never know it from the polls. Rasmussen has Obama ahead by four, pretty much where he’s been for two weeks, and Newsweek showed him ahead by fifteen points. (more…)

by Regina Sztajer

In order to be considered the first lady of the United States you have to be married to the president and you have to earn the title by public acclamation. You can’t soften a hard demeanor to fit into a mold of acceptability. You either have it or you don’t!!!! Michelle Obama has a hard no nonsense look of only truly believing in whom she deems deserving. Public relations people are working overtime to soften her appeal. Not so with Cindy McCain!!! She needs no improvement in looks and style because she is every bit a lady and would make a wonderful first lady for America. I personally met her and spoke to her a number of months ago in Washington, D.C., at a breakfast for the women’s division of the RJC ( Republican Jewish Coalition.) She had spoken to about 300 women from all over the United States on a rooftop of a hotel across from the White House. After the breakfast we both descended to the floor below and we struck up a conversation. She was on crutches because she was having knee problems. We stood in a narrow hallway a chatted together and I was so impressed with her beauty, demeanor, elegance and sincere warmth. She is an absolutely lovely, intelligent women. This great nation of ours would be proud to call her the first lady of the land. I hope she will become much more audible as the campaign continues because the American people must get to know her. She is 18 years younger than her husband, a military wife and mother. Two of their sons have followed the McCain family tradition by serving in the military. One in fact has served in Iraq. As a military wife and mother she has an opportunity and responsibility to increase America’s awareness and appreciation for those who serve ion the military. She is certainly ready to accept that opportunity and duty wholeheartedly.

Last month she told Kathryn Jean Lopez of Townhall.com, ” I’m not any different than any other mother, father, or family member around the country with children in the service. I feel the same way, I know how they feel, and so in that respect I’m absolutely no different. Each day, I am so deeply proud of their service and deeply honored that our children would do this, that they’d commit a part of their lives to serving their country. So I’m like everybody else. We’re all in this together and we feel exactly the same way.” (www.townhall.com 6/21/08.) While Michelle Obama got the red carpet treatment when she recently co- hosted “The View,” and talked about very little of substance. Mrs.McCain has demonstrated she understand’s what is at stake during this election years when she was interviewed by Kate Snow for “Good Morning America,” filmed in Vietnam where her husband was tortured as a prisoner of war for five years. She was on a medical mission with a non-profit “Operation Smile” that helps impoverished children with facial deformities. The children she meets remind her of her adoptive daughter, born in Bangladesh with a severe cleft plate.Mrs.McCain brought Bridget home as a baby form one of Mother Teresa’s orphanages in 1993. She doesn’t let the newly softened and designer dressed Michelle Obama faze here. When asked why people should vote for her husband she said,” “Supporting our troops the way he does, supporting our young men and women right now who are serving so gallantly is very pro-woman because every mother, every wife, sister, aunt, feels the way I have felt.” She continued,” “These things that he does doesn’t make him any more pro-woman, pro-man, pro-anything. He is about America, making America strong.” Mrs. McCain’s response to Michelle Obama’s infamous remarks at a Wisconsin rally earlier this year that, “For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country, and not because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.” Mrs. McCain responded with, “I’ have always been very proud of my country.”
(more…)

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

Even the NY Times gets the good news from Iraq. But Would Obama throw it all away?

Baghdad residents in Abu Niwas Street park on the Tigris River. Violence in all of Iraq is the lowest since March 2004, but the improvements are fragile

Big Gains for Iraq Security, but Questions Linger
By STEPHEN FARRELL and RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
NY Times
June 21, 2008

BAGHDAD — What’s going right? And can it last?

Violence in all of Iraq is the lowest since March 2004. The two largest cities, Baghdad and Basra, are calmer than they have been for years. The third largest, Mosul, is in the midst of a major security operation. On Thursday, Iraqi forces swept unopposed through the southern city of Amara, which has been controlled by Shiite militias. There is a sense that Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s government has more political traction than any of its predecessors.

Consider the latest caricatures of Mr. Maliki put up on posters by the followers of Moktada al-Sadr, the fiery cleric who commands deep loyalty among poor Shiites. They show the prime minister’s face split in two — half his own, half Saddam Hussein’s. The comparison is, of course, intended as a searing criticism. But only three months ago the same Sadr City pamphleteers were lampooning Mr. Maliki as half-man, half-parrot, merely echoing the words of his more powerful Shiite and American backers. It is a notable swing from mocking an opponent perceived to be weak to denouncing one feared to be strong.

For Hatem al-Bachary, a Basra businessman, the turnabout has been “a miracle,” the first tentative signs of a normal life.

“I don’t think the militias have disappeared, and maybe there are sleeper cells which will try to revive themselves again,” he said. “But the first time they try to come back they will have to show themselves, and the government, army and police are doing very well.”

While the increase in American troops and their support behind the scenes in the recent operations has helped tamp down the violence, there are signs that both the Iraqi security forces and the Iraqi government are making strides. There are simply more Iraqi troops for the government to deploy, partly because fewer are needed to fight the Sunni insurgents, who have defected to the Sunni Awakening movement. They are paid to keep the peace.

Mr. Maliki’s moves against Shiite militias have built some trust with wary Sunnis, offering the potential for political reconciliation. High oil prices are filling Iraqi government coffers. But even these successes contain the seeds of vulnerability. The government victories in Basra, Sadr City and Amara were essentially negotiated, so the militias are lying low but undefeated and seething with resentment. Mr. Maliki may be raising expectations among Sunnis that he cannot fulfill, and the Sunni Awakening forces in many cases are loyal to their American paymasters, not the Shiite government. Restive Iraqis want to see the government spend money to improve services. Attacks like the bombing that killed 63 people in Baghdad’s Huriya neighborhood on Tuesday showed that opponents can continue to inflict carnage.

Perhaps most worrisome, more than five years after the American invasion, which knocked Mr. Hussein from power but set off great chaos, Iraq still lacks the formal rules to divide the power and spoils of an oil-rich nation among ethnic, religious and tribal groups and unite them under one stable idea of Iraq. The improvements are fragile.

The changes are already affecting Iraq’s complicated relationship with America. In the presidential campaign, a debate is rising about whether the quiet means American soldiers can leave.

Iraqi Officials Gain Confidence

American military commanders are seeing a new confidence among Iraqi leaders. They said they believed that the success of the recent military operations had played a role in the Iraqi government’s firm rebuff of American negotiators over a new long-term security pact to govern the United States military presence after the end of this year.

“They are feeling very strong right now, after Basra, Mosul and Sadr City,” said one senior American official.

The most obvious but often overlooked reason for the recent military success has been an increase in the number of trained Iraqi troops.

The quality of the recruits and leadership has often been poor, even in recent months. In Baghdad’s Sadr City, one Iraqi company abandoned its position in April, forcing American and Iraqi commanders to fill the gap with hastily summoned reinforcements. In Basra, more than 1,000 recently qualified soldiers deserted rather than obey orders to fight against Mr. Sadr’s Mahdi Army. One senior Iraqi government official conceded that the deserters simply “felt that the other side was too strong.”

But sheer numbers have helped to overcome the shortcomings. After the embarrassing setback in Basra, Mr. Maliki was able to pull units from elsewhere to provide reinforcements and saturate the city with checkpoints and patrols, restoring a measure of order after years of domination by Islamist militias and oil-smuggling mafias.

American officials said 50,000 members of Iraqi security forces took part in the Basra campaign, 45,000 in Mosul, and 10,000 in Sadr City — troops that would not have been available to Mr. Maliki’s predecessors. The Iraqis had by far the largest numbers of troops, although American and other coalition troops provided crucial air power, reconnaissance, logistics, medical support and even expertise in psychological operations.
…
Despite their newfound confidence, some senior Iraqi officials close to Mr. Maliki said that without an American military safety net they are vulnerable to threats from outside and inside their borders.

Obama’s Troop Withdrawal Disaster

The progress in Iraq is irrefutable. But so is the danger that it could all be undone by a naive and disastrous policy change on the part of the United States. Even the New York Times gets that basic truth. However, on Barack Obama’s web site, he still touts his desire to bring all U.S. combat troops home within 16 months. And he brags about a plan he introduced in the U.S. Senate in January 2007 that if passed, would have achieved this withdrawal by March of this year.

Here’s a short video (two minutes, twenty eight seconds) that intersperses the testimony of General Petraeus on the danger of premature withdrawal and compares it to the statements of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton demanding immediate withdrawal.

The consequences of Obama’s plan would have meant disaster and death for innocent Iraqis and humiliation for the United States and an emboldened Al Queda revived and ready to take the United States in new areas of conflict.

Instead, under the leadership of President Bush and General Petraeus the opposite has happened. Every American should consider how invested in defeat the Democrats have consistently been and how they have attempted to derail success in Iraq as a political tool to acquire power.

The question voters need to ask is: Would they rather vote for a candidate who will cut and run at the first sign of trouble in the most dangerous and difficult tasks? Is that what a leader would do? And would they consider a candidate who deliberately encourages defeat of his own country to be worthy of their vote? Your chance to hold Democrats at every level who pandered for defeat accountable comes in 134 days.

What will you do?

also:

Supreme Court Tosses Enviro-Kook Attempt To Block Border Fence

Another case of liberals who cannot get want they want via the legislative process trying to get judges to write it for them from the bench.

The Supreme Court on Monday turned down a plea by environmental groups to rein in the Bush administration’s power to waive laws and regulations to speed construction of a fence along the U.S.-Mexican border.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has used authority given to him by Congress in 2005 to ignore environmental and other laws and regulations to move forward with hundreds of miles of fencing in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas. (more…)

Crossposted from Red Maryland

Yesterday, we talked about the fact that Governor O’Malley appointed an unregistered Democratic lobbyist to the Anne Arundel County Board of Education. And I got an email from Ms. Birge this morning confirming that very fact:

I’d like to introduce myself. I’m Teresa Milio Birge, and I’m the new District 32 appointee to the Board of Education. One of my friends recently put me on google alerts, and gave me a call this morning that I was the topic of your most recent blog. I thought I’d help you out and nip this in the bud for you. In 2005, after I gave birth to my second child, I stopped working. But I didn’t want to lose touch with everyone I had known in my 10 years of nonpartisan work for and with the legislature. So, my mother, who at the time was a senior center director, knew that the Association of Senior Centers needed some help with the legislature. And I was bored. It was a perfect fit. We signed a $1500 yearly contract from July 1 2005 to June 30 2006 which we renewed through June 30 2007. I’ve been busier this year with my accounting work and knew that I would not be able to put in as many hours (charging them a ridiculously low rate of $25 an hour), so we agreed to just charge hourly. I haven’t yet billed them for the year, but it will fall in far below the $1500 mark this year.

Would love it if you could clarify on your post. I even made sure when I forwarded my CV to the governor’s office I explained this, because I certainly don’t want anyone mistakenly assuming that I’m not registered when I should be.

If you have any questions, please call me or email me back – I’d be more than happy to answer them! My cell is [redacted].

Teresa Milio Birge

So, to recap, she is an unregistered Democratic Lobbyists, but falling within the guidelines of the ethics laws.

But man, does that message sound like backtracking or what? Between that and the comments made on the original post, the message I get from this is 1) I’m a lobbyist, but it’s OK, an 2) God I don’t want to make Governor O’Malley look bad.
(more…)

By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann 06.23.2008 Published in The New York Post on June 19, 2008.

In an ABC interview on Monday, Sen. Barack Obama urged us to go back to the era of criminal-justice prosecution of terror suspects, citing the successful efforts to imprison those who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993.

It was key to his attack on the Bush administration, which he charged, has “been willing to skirt basic protections that are in our Constitution . . . It is my firm belief that we can crack down on threats against the United States, but we can do so within the constraints of our Constitution. . .

“In previous terrorist attacks – for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in US prisons, incapacitated.”

This is big – because that prosecution, and the ground rules for it, had more to do with our inability to avert 9/11 than any other single factor.

Because we treated the 1993 WTC bombing as simply a crime, our investigation was slow, sluggish and constrained by the need to acquire admissible evidence to convict the terrorists.

As a result, we didn’t know that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were responsible for the attack until 1997 – too late for us to grab Osama when Sudan offered to send him to us in 1996. Clinton and National Security Adviser Sandy Berger turned down the offer, saying we had no grounds on which to hold him or to order his kidnapping or death.

Obama’s embrace of the post-’93 approach shows a blindness to the key distinction that has kept us safe since 9/11 – the difference between prosecution and protection. (more…)

By Blair Lee: The Gazette

The things politicians say sometime make you wonder whether they think we’re stupid or that we’re just not paying attention. For instance:

Hear no evil, see no evil

Maryland law limits political donors from giving more than $4,000 to a candidate in a four-year election cycle. To circumvent this ceiling donors make multiple $4,000 contributions through their spouses and other friends and employees.

Yes, this violates the spirit of the law but not the letter of the law. However, it’s illegal to ask people to donate $4,000 to your favorite candidate and then reimburse them under the table.

And that’s what Anne Arundel County developer Edward St. John got caught doing during the 2006 gubernatorial election. He arranged for his company’s vice presidents to give Martin O’Malley a total of $18,000 and then he reimbursed them under the guise of year-end bonuses. Now St. John is paying $110,000 in fines and penalties. But how about O’Malley? Is he returning the illegal $18,000 contribution?

No, says an O’Malley spokesman, because O’Malley had ‘‘no knowledge” of the illegal scheme. ‘‘There was no wrongdoing on the part of the campaign,” says a spokesman.

Huh? Political candidates, including O’Malley, spend hours and hours on the phone begging for money. Does anyone believe that Ed St. John didn’t tell the O’Malley campaign exactly how much each of his employees was giving so he could take credit for it? And does anyone believe that the O’Malley campaign didn’t count each of those employee contributions to make sure St. John lived up to his pledge?

Big contributors give to politicians in order to curry favor and gain leverage. The more they give, the greater the leverage. It’s impossible that Ed St. John went to all the trouble of funneling third-party contributions to O’Malley but didn’t want O’Malley to know and appreciate his effort.

And did O’Malley’s campaign know or suspect that St. John’s employees were getting reimbursed for their contributions? If you think not, there is a pair of bridges across the Chesapeake Bay I’d like to sell you.

It’s no big deal

(more…)