America's Integrity

Nobel Tarnishes

2009-10-09T09:56:00.000-04:00

January 20th: President Obama takes office.

February 1st: Nobel nominations close.

......Must have been a busy 10 days. I'd bet the application was filled out before he even took office. What a shame for the Nobel Prize to tarnish after so many qualified recipients.

The Low-Key Life

2009-09-18T09:13:00.001-04:00

By Dana Milbank
Friday, September 18, 2009

Let's say you're preparing dinner and you realize with dismay that you don't have any certified organic Tuscan kale. What to do?

Here's how Michelle Obama handled this very predicament Thursday afternoon:

The Secret Service and the D.C. police brought in three dozen vehicles and shut down H Street, Vermont Avenue, two lanes of I Street and an entrance to the McPherson Square Metro station. They swept the area, in front of the Department of Veterans Affairs, with bomb-sniffing dogs and installed magnetometers in the middle of the street, put up barricades to keep pedestrians out, and took positions with binoculars atop trucks. Though the produce stand was only a block or so from the White House, the first lady hopped into her armored limousine and pulled into the market amid the wail of sirens.

Then, and only then, could Obama purchase her leafy greens. "Now it's time to buy some food," she told several hundred people who came to watch. "Let's shop!"

Cowbells were rung. Somebody put a lei of marigolds around Obama's neck. The first lady picked up a straw basket and headed for the "Farm at Sunnyside" tent, where she loaded up with organic Asian pears, cherry tomatoes, multicolored potatoes, free-range eggs and, yes, two bunches of Tuscan kale. She left the produce with an aide, who paid the cashier as Obama made her way back to the limousine.

There's nothing like the simple pleasures of a farm stand to return us to our agrarian roots.

The first lady had encouraged Freshfarm Markets, the group that runs popular farmers markets in Dupont Circle and elsewhere, to set up near the White House, and she helped get the approvals to shut down Vermont Avenue during rush hour on Thursdays. But the result was quite the opposite of a quaint farmers market. Considering all the logistics, each tomato she purchased had a carbon footprint of several tons.

The promotion of organic and locally grown food, though an admirable cause, is a risky one for the Obamas, because there's a fine line between promoting healthful eating and sounding like a snob. The president, when he was a candidate in 2007, got in trouble in Iowa when he asked a crowd, "Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?" Iowans didn't have a Whole Foods.

For that reason, it's probably just as well that the first lady didn't stop by the Endless Summer Harvest tent yesterday. The Virginia farm had a sign offering "tender baby arugula" -- hydroponically grown, pesticide free -- and $5 for four ounces, which is $20 a pound.

Obama, in her brief speech to the vendors and patrons, handled the affordability issue by pointing out that people who pay with food stamps would get double the coupon value at the market. Even then, though, it's hard to imagine somebody using food stamps to buy what the market offered: $19 bison steak from Gunpowder Bison, organic dandelion greens for $12 per pound from Blueberry Hill Vegetables, the Piedmont Reserve cheese from Everson Dairy at $29 a pound. Rounding out the potential shopping cart: $4 for a piece of "walnut dacquoise" from the Praline Bakery, $9 for a jumbo crab cake at Chris's Marketplace, $8 for a loaf of cranberry-walnut bread and $32 for a bolt of yarn.

The first lady said the market would particularly appeal to federal employees in nearby buildings to "pick up some good stuff for dinner." Yet even they might think twice about spending $3 for a pint of potatoes when potatoes are on sale for 40 cents a pound at Giant. They could get nearly five dozen eggs at Giant for the $5 Obama spent for her dozen.

But whatever the socioeconomics, there can be no doubt that Obama brought some serious attention to her cause. Hundreds of people crowded the market entrance on I Street as police directed pedestrians to alternative subway entrances. Hundreds braved a light rain and gave a hearty cheer when Obama and her entourage took the stage. "I can't imagine there's been a day in the history of our country when people have been more excited about farmers markets," Mayor Adrian Fenty, Obama's warm-up act, told the crowd.

The first lady, in gray slacks and blue sweater, marveled that the people were "so pumped up" despite the rain. "I have never seen so many people so excited about fruits and vegetables!" she said. (Must be the tender baby arugula.)

She spoke of the global reach of her cause: "The first thing world leaders, prime ministers, kings, queens ask me about is the White House garden. And then they ask about Bo."

She spoke of the fuel fed to the world's most powerful man: "I've learned that when my family eats fresh food, healthy food, that it really affects how we feel, how we get through the day . . . whether there's a Cabinet meeting or whether we're just walking the dog."

And she spoke of her own culinary efforts: "There are times when putting together a healthy meal is harder than you might imagine."

Particularly when it involves a soundstage, an interpreter for the deaf, three TV satellite trucks and the closing of part of downtown Washington.

Mark Steyn [NRO, Dependence Day]

2009-07-26T17:46:00.001-04:00

Mark Steyn [NRO, Dependence Day] - Health care is a game-changer. The permanent game-changer. The pendulum will swing, and one day, despite their best efforts, the Republicans will return to power, and, in the right circumstances, the bailouts and cap-and-trade and Government Motors and much of the rest can be reversed. But the government annexation of health care will prove impossible to roll back. It alters the relationship between the citizen and the state and, once that transformation is effected, you can click your ruby slippers all you want but you'll never get back to Kansas.

Why's that? Well, first, the "health care" debate is not primarily about health, which chugs along regardless of how the debate goes: Life expectancy in the European Union, 78.7 years; life expectancy in the United States, 78.06 years; life expectancy in Albania, 77.6 years; life expectancy in Libya, 76.88 years; life expectancy in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 78.17 years. Once you get on top of childhood mortality and basic hygiene, everything else is peripheral — margin-of-error territory. Maybe we could get another six months by adopting EU-style socialized health care. Or we could get another six weeks by reducing the Lower 48 to rubble in an orgy of bloodletting, which seems to have done wonders for Bosnian longevity. Or we could lop a year off geriatric institutionalization costs by installing some kook in a pillbox hat as Islamic dictator and surrounding him with a palace guard of Austin Powers fembots. It's as likely to work as anything Congress will pass.

What explains the yawning chasm of these six-month variations? Lack of funding? The United Kingdom spends three times as much money on "health" as Poland and their cancer survival rates are more or less identical. Okay, forget the cash and consider the treatment: Even within the United States, even within the Medicare system, there are regions that offer twice as much "health care" per patient — twice as many check-ups, pills, tests, operations — for no discernible variation in outcome. To one degree or another, any health-care "system" is a giant placebo. Right now, in a fit of mass hypochondria, large numbers of Americans have convinced themselves that they — or, at any rate, their uninsured neighbors — urgently need the magic Euro-cure-all. If they get it, it will improve their health not a whit.

But it will make a lot of other things worse. Government-directed health care is a profound assault on the concept of citizenship. It deforms national politics very quickly, and ensures that henceforth elections will always be fought on the Left's terms. I find it hard to believe President Obama and his chums haven't looked at Canada and Europe and concluded that health care is the fastest way to a permanent left-of-center political culture. He doesn't say that, of course. He says his objective is to "control costs." Which is the one thing that won't happen. Even now, health-care costs rise far faster under Medicare than in the private sector.

By the way, to accept that argument is to concede a lot of the turf: Why is the cost of my health care Barack Obama's business? When he mused recently about whether his dying grandmother had really needed her hip replacement, he gave the game away: Right now, if Gran'ma decides she doesn't need the hip, that's her business. Under a government system, it's the state's business — and they have to "allocate" "resources," and frankly at your age your body's not worth allocating to. Why give you a new hip when you're getting up there and you're gonna be kicking the bucket in a year or two or five or twenty?

There have been two trends in U.S. health care over the last decade. On one hand, a lot of Americans have become, by any rational standard, overinsured: They get tested for things they'll never get. On the other, there has been an abandonment of health insurance by the rich. If you peel the Census Bureau and DHHS figures, of those alleged "45 million uninsured Americans," one-fifth aren't Americans; another fifth aren't uninsured but are covered by Medicare; another two-fifths are the young and mobile (they don't have health insurance, but they don't have life insurance or home insurance, either — they're 22 and immortal and life's a party); and the remaining fifth are wealthier than the insured population. Really. According to a 2006 Census Bureau report, 19 percent of the uninsured have household income of over $75,000. Since the last round of government "reform" in the Nineties, wealthy Americans have been fleeing insurance and opting to bring health care back to being a normal market transaction. And if you look at the "uninsured discount" offered by doctors, one can appreciate that, for everything but chronic disability, it's not an irrational decision to say I'll get a better deal on my broken leg or my colonoscopy or my heavy cold if I just write a check for it.

And if you disagree, so what? In a free society, Mr. Smith should be free to be excessively prudent and overpay to be overinsured, and Mr. Jones should be free to conclude that he wants to pay cash down and get the best price for his broken leg. But a government system usurps both Smith's and Jones's right to calculate his own best interests. Whenever I cite some particularly lurid tale from the front lines of Euro-Canadian health care in National Review Online's "Corner," I get a flurry of e-mails from American readers offering horror stories from U.S. hospitals. And yes, it's true, bad things happen in American hospitals. But the Euro-Canadian stories are not really about the procedure, the operation, the emergency room, the doctor, the nurse. They're about impotence — not in the "Will Obama pay for my Viagra?" sense but in terms of civic dignity and individual liberty. I think of a young man called Gerald Augustin, of Rivière-des-Prairies, Quebec, who went to the St. André medical clinic complaining of stomach pain. He'd forgotten to bring his government medical card, so they turned him away. He was a Quebecker born and bred, and he was in their computer. But no card, no service: That's just the way it is. So he went back home to get it and collapsed of acute appendicitis, and by the time the ambulance arrived he was dead. He was 21 years old, and he didn't make it to 22 because he was forced to accept the right of a government bureaucrat to refuse him medical treatment for which he and his family have been confiscatorily taxed all their lives. "I don't see what we did wrong," said the administrator. "We just followed the rules." No big deal, M. Augustin wasn't anything special; no one in the clinic even remembered giving him the brush.

Roy Romanow, the Canadian politician who headed the most recent of the innumerable inquiries into problems with the system, defends the state's monopoly on the grounds that "Canadians view medicare [as their system is called] as a moral enterprise, not a business venture." If the St. André clinic were a business venture, they'd have greeted M. Augustin with: "You've got stomach pains? Boy, have we hit the jackpot! Let's get you some big-ticket pills and sign you up for surgery!" But because it's a moral enterprise they sent him away with a flea in his ear. If you have a bad experience in a private system, there's always another doctor, another clinic, another hospital five miles up the road. But when the government monopoly denies you health care, that's it: Go home and wait — or, like M. Augustin, die.

"Morality" is always the justification. Inaugurating Britain's National Health Service on July 5, 1948, the health minister, Nye Bevan, crowed: "We now have the moral leadership of the world." That's how Obamacare is being sold: Even the New York Times reports (in paragraph 38) that 77 percent of Americans are content with their health care. But they feel bad about all those poor uninsured waifs earning 75 grand a year. So it will make us all feel better if the government "does something." Not literally "feel better": We'll be feeling sicker, longer, in dirtier waiting rooms. But our disease-ridden bodies will be warmed by the glow of knowing we did the right thing.

What's so moral about relieving the citizen of responsibility for his own health care? If free citizens of the wealthiest societies in human history are not prepared to make provision for their own health, what other core responsibilities of functioning adulthood are they likely to forgo? Oh, Smith and Jones can still be entrusted to make their own choices about which movie to rent from Netflix, or which breakfast cereal to eat. For the moment. But you'd be surprised how quickly the "right" to health care elides into the government's right to tell you how to live in order to access that health care. A government-directed medical system can be used to justify almost any restraint on freedom: After all, if the state undertakes to cure you, it surely has an interest in preventing your needing treatment in the first place — or declining to treat you if you persist in your deviancy: Smokers in Manchester, England, have been refused treatment for heart disease, and the obese in Suffolk have been told they're ineligible for hip and knee replacements. With a staff of 1.4 million, England's National Health Service is supposedly the third-biggest employer on the planet, after the Chinese army (2.3 million) and Indian National Railways (1.5 million). And those couple of million Chinese and Indians are mere drops in oceans each over a billion strong, not a significant chunk of the adult population of a tiny strip of land in the North Atlantic. But the NHS still has to ration treatment. Patricia Hewitt, the former health secretary, says there's nothing wrong with the state forbidding treatment on the basis of "lifestyle choices." And apparently the "pro-choice" types who jump up and down in the street demanding that you keep your rosaries off their ovaries are entirely relaxed about the government getting its bureaucratics all over your lymphatics.

Ultimately, it's not the nationalization of health care but the nationalization of your body. Right now, if you want an MRI, it's between you and your doctors. In a government-run system, if you want an MRI and you can't get one, it's the government's fault. And the government should do something about it. Not give you the MRI, of course (that's too obvious, as well as too expensive), but at least introduce a new Patient's Bill of Rights, as Gordon Brown's just done, promising every Briton the "right" to hospital treatment within 18 weeks. Or your (tax) money back? Ah, well, no, but the prime minister's charter will also give you "guaranteed access to cancer treatments," as well as "the right to die at home," which sounds a bit as if Mr. Brown were covering himself. Scotland's cancer survival rate is 40 percent, compared with America's 63 percent. So if the other 60 percent of Scots all exercise their right to die at home, that might free up some "guaranteed access" for the remainder. And if it doesn't, the prime minister will perhaps introduce a new helpline — 1-800-PATIENT — in which all you have to do is punch in your postal code and some bureaucrat will come on the line to explain that the new cancer survival targets for your area will be introduced circa 2012 and please call back then if you're not dead.

So elections dwindle down to a sterile argument over how to "improve" the system: The left-of-center party usually pledges to throw money at it. The right-of-center party is less enthusiastic about that, which generally makes it suspect on the issue, so it settles on some formulation to the effect that it can "deliver" better "services" more "efficiently." In other words, the only viable rationale for the Right becomes its claim to be able to run the leftist state more smoothly than the Left. Every footling reform with any whiff of the private sector about it has the ranks of the great and the good lining up on TV to drone the indestructible cliché that "the NHS is the envy of the world." Years ago, in the Daily Telegraph, I wrote that I'd seen a fair bit of the world and had never met anybody who envied the NHS, although presumably there must be a Bhutanese yak herdsman up-country somewhere who'd be impressed by it. A couple of days later, Mr. Sonam Chhoki, a Bhutanese gentleman, wrote to the paper to say that, while not a yak herdsman himself, he came from good yak-herding stock and, after a bit of grumbling about my outmoded ethnic stereotyping, declared that he certainly didn't envy the NHS. His British parents-in-law "have had to wait more than two years for operations, after being turned away several times for lack of hospital beds. However basic the Bhutanese health service is, it has not yet come to this sorry state."

Yet Mrs. Thatcher, one of the great fearless conservative figures of the age, could do no more than insist to a skeptical public that "the NHS is safe in our hands." In the 2000 Canadian election, Stockwell Day, leader of the allegedly right-wing Alliance party, found himself forced to make similar prostrations in response to entirely unfounded rumors that the party was thinking of "permitting" private health care back into the country. In a televised debate, he wanted to be certain that, whatever questions he was asked, the public got the message that he had no plans to monkey with the government monopoly. So he brought in a little handmade sign and propped it up in front of the microphone to advertise his fealty: "NO TWO-TIER HEALTH CARE." While he was distracted by a question on some inconsequential topic like foreign policy, Joe Clark, leader of the Progressive Conservative party (think RINO squishes with bells on), swiped the little placard and gleefully scored through the "NO" to let viewers in on Mr. Day's hidden agenda: "TWO-TIER HEALTH CARE." This is what it's come to: the leaders of the two soi-disant right-of-center parties competing to see who can grovel most abjectly before the state monopoly. That's the Republicans' future if they collude in the governmentalization of health care — as Democrats well understand.

When health care is the government's responsibility, it becomes its principal responsibility. Because the minute you make government the provider of health care, you ensure that, come election time, the electorate will identify "health" as its number-one concern. Thus, in a democracy, the very fact of socialized medicine seduces the citizenry away from citizenship. Buying health care is no more onerous than buying a car or buying a house — which, pre-Barney Frank, most Americans seemed able to manage. Indeed, most of the complications are caused by existing government interventions. If you were attempting to devise a "system" from scratch, you might opt for insurance for catastrophic scenarios and, for PAP smears and colonoscopies and whatnot, something similar to the tax breaks for a Simplified Employee Pension: C'mon, how difficult can it be? Back in the day, your grampa managed to go to the doctor without routing the admin through Washington. Matter of fact, the doctor came to your grampa. That's how crazy it was.

But the acceptance of the principle that individual health is so complex its management can only be outsourced to the state is a concession no conservative should make. More than any other factor, it dramatically advances the statist logic for remorseless encroachments on self-determination. It's incompatible with a republic of self-governing citizens. The state cannot guarantee against every adversity and, if it attempts to, it can do so only at an enormous cost to liberty. A society in which you're free to choose your cable package, your iTunes downloads, and who ululates the best on American Idol but in which the government takes care of peripheral stuff like your body is a society no longer truly free.

In a nanny state, big government becomes a kind of religion: the church as state. Tommy Douglas, the driving force behind Canadian health care, tops polls of all-time greatest Canadians. In Britain, after the Tube bombings, Gordon Brown began mulling over the creation of what he called a "British equivalent of the U.S. Fourth of July," a new national holiday to bolster British identity. The Labour party think-tank, the Fabian Society, proposed that the new "British Day" be July 5, the day the National Health Service was created. Because the essence of contemporary British identity is waiting two years for a hip operation.

They can call it Dependence Day.

America's Getting Sick

2009-07-16T10:46:00.002-04:00

With the newly proposed health care reform bill, I'm frightened, as a free market system loving American, to know what lurks in the new bill. Quotes from all over the media are beginning to paint a striking picture of the socialization of American health care.

The Washington Post notes, "it targets those most able to pay" and IBDeditorials points out that the bill explicitly states, "Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

I'm not one to flip out over usual policy decisions-after all, politics never go the way you want all the time, but this bill is, as Obama would put it, "a game changer".

Marines Are Terrorists?

2009-04-16T09:29:00.003-04:00

According to the DHS report, since I have military service and support the second amendment as well as the the life of unborn babies, I am a "right-wing terrorist". Imagine that--the men and women who take an oath to protect and defend this country from all enemies foreign and domestic are terrorists. So maybe, in the Obama administration's estimate, the Osama Bin Ladens of the world are true patriots? Who knows, maybe Bill Ayers will be the next Commandant of the Marine Corps!

What a disgrace. Anyone who's ever served this country in the fight to protect freedom and democracy should be praised and celebrated, not villified. What a sad benchmark for this country--I weep for the clear denigration of honor.

Punctuation

2009-03-31T01:25:00.003-04:00

This is different than my usual posting topics, but I still think I'm going to post it anyway.

Anyone ever have trouble with finding the right sentence punctuation--particularly when deciding between an exclamation mark and a period? Sometime the period comes off as condescending but other times the exclamation mark sounds much too enthusiastic or as if you're nearly shouting. I find this is largely the case in online writing like blogs, emails, or even texting.

Example:

I hope her hair looks better this time.

I hope her hair looks better this time!

There almost needs to be something between that would connote a strong statement, but not quite to the point of exclaiming it--just purporting it. A purportion point would suffice I should say.

Losing Focus

2009-03-30T13:36:00.003-04:00

Johnathan Chait, senior editor at the New Republic, made an interesting--not entirely genius, but interesting--in the recent online publication noting that,

Obama has come into office having won the popular vote by seven percentage points, along with a 79-seat edge in the House, a 17-seat edge in the Senate, and massive public demand for change. But it's already clear he is receiving less, not more, deference from his own party. Democrats have treated Obama with studied diffidence, both in their support for the substance of his agenda and (more importantly) their willingness to support it procedurally.

It really makes one wonder where the President's focus really is.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=07bd4a20-60a7-44a9-ab92-115eeb62bd92

North Korean Missiles

2009-03-26T09:30:00.001-04:00

It appears as though North Korea is preparing for a missile launch--to the backlash of South Korea, and the rest of the free world. They just can't seem to figure it out can they?

http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-03-26-voa6.cfm

Global Currency

2009-03-25T16:43:00.001-04:00

Geithner 'open' to China proposal
By: Ben Smith
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0309/Geithner_open_to_China_proposal.html?showall

Geithner, at the Council on Foreign Relations, said the U.S. is "open" to a headline-grabbing proposal by the governor of the China's central bank, which was widely reported as being a call for a new global currency to replace the dollar, but which Geithner described as more modest and "evolutionary."

"I haven’t read the governor’s proposal. He’s a very thoughtful, very careful distinguished central banker. I generally find him sensible on every issue," Geithner said, saying that however his interpretation of the proposal was to increase the use of International Monetary Fund's special drawing rights -- shares in the body held by its members -- not creating a new currency in the literal sense.

"We’re actually quite open to that suggestion – you should see it as rather evolutionary rather building on the current architecture rather than moving us to global monetary union," he said.

"The only thing concrete I saw was expanding the use of the [special drawing rights]," Geithner said. "Anything he’s thinking about deserves some consideration."

The continued use of the dollar as a reserve currency, he added, "depends..on how effective we are in the United States...at getting our fiscal system back to the point where people judge it as sustainable over time."

President Obama flatly rejected the notion of a new global currency at last night's press conference.

UPDATE: Evidently sensing a gaffe, moderator Roger Altman told Geithner that it would be "useful" to return to the question, and asked if he foresaw a change in the dollar's centrality.

"I do not," Geithner said, adding several forceful promises, including, "We will do what's necessary to say we're sustaining confidence in our financial markets."

Every Single Day

2009-03-11T12:14:00.001-04:00

A Governor's Entitlement Disorder

2009-02-11T23:40:00.001-05:00

With a 114-1 vote on what would have been Richard Nixon’s 95th birthday, Governor Rod Blagojevich was impeached by the Illinois House. Among other charges, the ousted governor faced what the house described as an, “abuse of power by engaging in a plot to obtain a personal benefit.” The impeachment came as no great to surprise to Illinoisans, and the former governor claimed no surprise in his own press conference, to which he inexplicably showed up twenty-four minutes late.

Several generations of corrupt governors have plagued Illinois’ history with scandal; nearly, “20% of the state's chief executives [have been] indicted or convicted of felonies in the past century.” With a century of foul politics, Blagojevich couldn’t avoid joining in on the fun. Nonetheless, the former governor touts his innocence, and he’s repeatedly refused to accept any guilt or wrong-doing.

Blagojevich—a man no taller than 5’8”—is easily recognizable by his boyish face and mop of floppy 1970’s news anchor hair. He always carries a black hairbrush. He likes long morning jogs. He’s the son of a Serbian immigrant. He’s led the state of Illinois since 2003 after taking office on the promise to clean out the state’s corrupt bowels.

Blagojevich wanted to help the people of his state; the people received help; therefore, the people were helped by him. Unfortunately for the former governor, evidence suggests he only wanted to help himself. Mentioning things like, “We should have been more selfish, not selfless,” does not seem to bolster his case. The former governor was referencing the trips Lt. Governor Pat Quinn has taken in the past for trade meetings—Blagojevich felt he should have gone further to abuse his position’s power. Beyond disinterest in helping the state, he instead harmed the citizens he claimed he’d try to support. In a practical sense, he wasted taxpayer funds like a child throwing pennies into a pond—except the pond was a tollway along the lakefront and the pennies were thousands of dollars.

Nearly a half-million dollars were spent on signs over the Illinois tolls; the governor had his name on the 32 large blue signs across the state as a testament to himself and his power. Illinois owes Blagojevich something, or so he felt. In the wiretap recordings discussing the sale of the senate seat, he displays his boldness stating, “I’ve got this thing and it’s [sic] golden, and, uh, uh, I’m just not giving it up for [sic] nothing.” It’s a miracle the man could even fit through a doorway with the ego he carries and an even greater miracle that anyone could stand to live with him.

His displaced entitlement devoured his relationships and as with all thoroughly corrupt politicians, he managed to anger the relatives of his wife in the process. It would seem that the family would be a last-bastion of support and defense but naturally, Blagojevich managed to lose his final supporters. Chicago Alderman Dick Mell is the father of Blagojevich’s wife, Patti. Several years back, he went public, “claiming Blagojevich was trading positions for money—a charge that surely caught the attention of prosecutors.” While the Alderman recanted his statement, the relationship between the governor and the ‘governor-in-law’ had been forever changed.

To consider Blagojevich’s case, there are a few potential explanations for his claims of innocence. The first is the simplest: he’s so sure he did everything with the best of intentions that he’s convinced himself he’s innocent. He ought to consider applying this option on the senate jury—could prove useful. The second alternative is less likely, but perhaps more believable: he meant there to be money in the state budget that didn’t exist when he used fiat for every program imaginable, and therefore, wouldn’t have wrecked the state’s finances. While that still has nothing to do with the sale of President Obama’s previous senate seat, it couldn’t hurt in the courtroom.

The final possibility is a stretch, but not altogether impossible: “Potty Mouth Patti” has been the one in control the whole time and is letting Rod take the fall for her plan after hearing rumors of his sexual indiscretions. Ultimately, none of these scenarios would be able to change the fact that he was voted America’s ‘least favorite governor’—even before the recent investigation began. That’s the kind of title you engrave on your headstone with pride, The Best at Being the Worst.

With the many rumors of corruption, Illinois residents were quickly convinced the former governor would soon be caught, and yet 6 years passed with his name on the tolls. Then, residents were certain that United States Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation would quickly cause Blagojevich to resign. Once again, the investigation went on for months while Blagojevich continued to govern. Residents were assured that the senate would never accept an appointment by Blagojevich to the vacant seat, and then Roland Burris happened.

In the final gasps of power, Blagojevich managed to wield his remaining power to appoint his man to the seat. Fatefully, the Secretary of State Jesse White rejected Burris, despite court rulings that the appointment was legal. If there’s any pattern that can be interpolated from this mess, it becomes clear that Illinois is one screwy place for politics.

The argument could be taken further that maybe Blagojevich is actually a really great politician. He’s recognized that the usual rules of politics do not apply in Illinois and went full steam ahead with the hope that his innocence plea could actually work. All possibilities considered, he incredulously sticks to his claims of innocence. Maybe he really is.

Perhaps the Illinois house is on the wrong side of the issue; 65% of Illinoisans are on the wrong side; everyone in the media and blogosphere are on the wrong side. When the impeached governor can finally get past the facts, his name will surely be restored to its previous dull luster—befit of recent Illinois governors. Realizing the impeachment stripping his right to government vehicles, he muttered, “I wonder if we’ll have to hitchhike home. Maybe we could take the bus.”

ByeBye Blago!

2009-01-30T00:03:00.004-05:00

So tonight, when hosting two former White House press secretaries, I learned of Blago's official impeachment. Wasn't much of a surprise frankly, but learning the news from Ari Fleischer made it that much better. Dee Dee Meyers, who lives just down the road was gracious, albeit she never missed a chance to joke about Republican shortfalls. The two of them were terriffic to speak with and both have clearly done a lot for the United States.

I digress. Blago's gone! Though his departure was bittersweet with his successful maneuvering of his guy into the Senate seat, worse could've happened and at least he's finally OUT. AWESOME!

The Real Point of Gitmo

2009-01-24T02:28:00.002-05:00

Deterrence and the threat of, not the actual use of, torture--seemed to be a useful thing; guess terrorists will just tell us everything we need to know because since we're being nice, maybe they will be too. Really?

Rove's Must-Read

2009-01-22T23:06:00.002-05:00

Bush Was Right When It Mattered Most'

By Karl Rove

Its call sign has always been Air Force One. But on Tuesday, it was Special Air Mission 28000, as former President George W. Bush and his wife Laura returned home to Texas on a plane full of family, friends, former staff and memories of eight years in the White House.

The former president and his wife thanked each passenger, showing the thoughtfulness and grace so characteristic of this wonderful American family.

A video tribute produced warm laughter and inevitable tears. There was no bitterness, but rather a sense of gratitude -- gratitude for the opportunity to serve, for able and loyal colleagues, and above all for our country and its people.

Yet, as Mr. Bush left Washington, in a last angry frenzy his critics again distorted his record, maligned his character and repeated untruths about his years in the Oval Office. Nothing they wrote or said changes the essential facts.

To start with, Mr. Bush was right about Iraq. The world is safer without Saddam Hussein in power. And the former president was right to change strategy and surge more U.S. troops.

A legion of critics (including President Barack Obama) claimed it couldn't work. They were wrong. Iraq is now on the mend, the war is on the path to victory, al Qaeda has been dealt a humiliating defeat, and a democracy in the heart of the Arab world is emerging. The success of Mr. Bush's surge made it possible for President Obama to warn terrorists on Tuesday "you cannot outlast us."

Mr. Bush was right to establish a doctrine that holds those who harbor, train and support terrorists as responsible as the terrorists themselves. He was right to take the war on terror abroad instead of waiting until dangers fully materialize here at home. He was right to strengthen the military and intelligence and to create the new tools to monitor the communications of terrorists, freeze their assets, foil their plots, and kill and capture their operators.

These tough decisions -- which became unpopular in certain quarters only when memories of 9/11 began to fade -- kept America safe for seven years and made it possible for Mr. Obama to tell the terrorists on Tuesday "we will defeat you."

Mr. Bush was right to be a unilateralist when it came to combating AIDS in Africa. While world leaders dithered, his President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief initiative brought lifesaving antiretroviral drugs to millions of Africans.

At home, Mr. Bush cut income taxes for every American who pays taxes. He also cut taxes on capital, investment and savings. The result was 52 months of growth and the strongest economy of any developed country.

Mr. Bush was right to match tax cuts with spending restraint. This is a source of dispute, especially among conservatives, but the record is there to see. Bill Clinton's last budget increased domestic nonsecurity discretionary spending by 16%. Mr. Bush cut that to 6.2% growth in his first budget, 5.5% in his second, 4.3% in his third, 2.2% in his fourth, and then below inflation, on average, since. That isn't the sum total of the fiscal record, of course -- but it's a key part of it.

He was right to have modernized Medicare with prescription drug benefits provided through competition, not delivered by government. The program is costing 40% less than projected because market forces dominate and people -- not government -- are making the decisions.

Mr. Bush was right to pass No Child Left Behind (NCLB), requiring states to set up tough accountability systems that measure every child's progress at school. As a result, reading and math scores have risen more in the last five years since NCLB than in the prior 28 years.

He was right to stand for a culture of life. And he was right to appoint conservative judges who strictly interpret the Constitution.

And Mr. Bush, a man of core decency and integrity, was right not to reply in kind when Democratic leaders called him a liar and a loser. The price of trying to change the tone in Washington was to be often pummeled by lesser men.

Few presidents had as many challenges arise during their eight years, had as many tough calls to make in such a partisan-charged environment, or had to act in the face of such hostile media and elite opinion.

On board Special Air Mission 28000, I remembered the picture I carried in my pocket on my first Air Force One flight eight years ago. It was an old black-and-white snapshot with scalloped edges. It showed Lyndon Johnson in the Cabinet Room, head in hand, weeping over a Vietnam casualty report. George Christian, LBJ's press secretary, gave it to me as a reminder that the job could break anyone, no matter how big and tough.

But despite facing challenges and crises few others have, the job did not break George W. Bush. Though older and grayer, his brows more furrowed, he is the same man he was, a person of integrity who did what he believed was right. And he exits knowing he summoned all of his energy and talents to defend America and advance its ideals at home and abroad. He didn't get everything right -- no president does -- but he got the most important things right. And that is enough.

Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

The Innaugural Parade

2009-01-21T17:06:00.004-05:00

Monday
0630: The Marines chosen to participate as representatives of the United States Marine Corps Reserve arrive at the unit stationed at Washington's Naval District. They have been selected from the Distribution Liaison Company, 4th Supply Battalion, 4th MLG and the 4th Civil Affairs Group, Marine Force Reserve.

0730: As Marines, preparation is everything--whether readiness for war or the celebration and honoring of a new president. This day will be spent preparing and practicing the drill movements to be used in the parade march. The primary drill movements include bringing the rifles to the left shoulder, the right shoulder, and port arms where the rifle is held in front of the Marines.

The formation is actually split into 3 platoons in columns of 3--each with their own platoon sergeants and platoon commanders, but to the viewer, it appears as a solid block of a 9-by-9, 81 Marine formation.

0930: The drilling continues throughout the morning and the ceremonial 8th and I Marines show up to practice with us. The 8th and I Marines appear in state ceremonies, Marine Corps Advertisements, and many other faces of the Corps but are perhaps best known for being responsible for the Silent Drill Platoon that performs all across the country.

1300: The preparation culminates in final practicing that lasts several hours on the parade deck. Having a chance to talk to the 8th and I Marines, we all joke around about and share our experiences in the Corps.

1800: Practice for the day is completed and square-away time is given to allow us the chance to inspect and fine-tune our uniforms for the following day.

Tuesday--Inauguration Day
0430: We awake early to eat some quick morning chow of eggs, sausage, and pancake squares (not quite as appealing as it sounds, trust me) then get dressed in our uniforms.

0630: We load the buses and head out with our rifles to the "dirty" site where our buses will be inspected and we will pass through Secret Service security checkpoints equipped with magnometers and K-9 units. Following security and on our way to the "clean" staging area, crowds cheered as the Marines went by and I was astounded by the hundreds of thousands of people that made a lawn over the mall--each person a mere blade of grass it seemed.

1000: We finally arrive at the tents where we will wait until our group is called to line up. As Division 2, 5th element, we will be at the front portion of the parade which carries 6 divisions with many elements in each.

1300: We line up outside where we quickly find that the cold is pervasive and ceaseless in its attempts to wear us down but we're reassured by our commanders that Marines have been through worse many times in the past and come through victoriously nonetheless.

Finally, several hours later, we make the start of the parade route after having marched several blocks already and stood in the cold much longer than anyone anticipated. I thought my feet might never thaw--fortunately they warmed up after we began marching and were saved from being frostbitten.

After marching for block after block, I could see the Presidential Viewing Stand approaching. What a rush to know that the President, Vice President, their families, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and many other would watch us as we smartly marched past. Being on the direct close edge of the formation to the President, I glanced from the corner of my eye and there they were, not 20 feet away, looking on proudly to those that they would command. It was humbling to know the power that that man wields and also gave me a lot of pride to know that we would make history together in the coming years--the new President and an ever-ready Marine Corps.

This is a timeline of what it took a single group to prepare and enter the parade route. Many groups from all over the country were on-site including bands from Delaware who followed us in the line-up. I don't doubt all groups that proudly marched in the parade practiced and prepared for many hours and equally felt the impact of the cold January day in Washington.

As a Marine, I was greatly honored to be able to participate in the celebration of our nation's 44th president. It is a rare opportunity and but as a Marine, I know the value of freedom and peaceful transitions of power which many countries around the world do not enjoy as readily as ours.

"The Rod"

2009-01-07T22:59:00.003-05:00

FRESH BLAGO BLURB:

I've just gotten word that sketchy Illinois Governor, Rod Blagojevich, was caught up in infidelity with the riding instructor of his older daughter. His wife and Chicago Alderman Dick Mell's oldest daughter, Patti "Pottymouth" Blagojevich, is notorious for being caught ranting on the wiretaps. Silly Blago lost the Alderman as a friend when he cheated on his daughter--I guess they don't call him 'The Rod' for nothin!

(Look at that slimy grin)

Moral Clarity

2009-01-07T00:03:00.003-05:00

By: Charles Krauthammer

Late Saturday, thousands of Gazans received Arabic-language cell-phone messages from the Israeli military, urging them to leave homes where militants might have stashed weapons.
-- Associated Press, Dec. 27

WASHINGTON -- Some geopolitical conflicts are morally complicated. The Israel-Gaza war is not. It possesses a moral clarity not only rare but excruciating.

Israel is so scrupulous about civilian life that, risking the element of surprise, it contacts enemy noncombatants in advance to warn them of approaching danger. Hamas, which started this conflict with unrelenting rocket and mortar attacks on unarmed Israelis -- 6,464 launched from Gaza in the last three years -- deliberately places its weapons in and near the homes of its own people.

This has two purposes. First, counting on the moral scrupulousness of Israel, Hamas figures civilian proximity might help protect at least part of its arsenal. Second, knowing that Israelis have new precision weapons that may allow them to attack nonetheless, Hamas hopes that inevitable collateral damage -- or, if it is really fortunate, an errant Israeli bomb -- will kill large numbers of its own people for which, of course, the world will blame Israel.

For Hamas the only thing more prized than dead Jews are dead Palestinians. The religion of Jew-murder and self-martyrdom is ubiquitous. And deeply perverse, such as the Hamas TV children's program in which an adorable live-action Palestinian Mickey Mouse is beaten to death by an Israeli (then replaced by his more militant cousin, Nahoul the Bee, who vows to continue on Mickey's path to martyrdom).

At war today in Gaza, one combatant is committed to causing the most civilian pain and suffering on both sides. The other combatant is committed to saving as many lives as possible -- also on both sides. It's a recurring theme. Israel gave similar warnings to Southern Lebanese villagers before attacking Hezbollah in the Lebanon war of 2006. The Israelis did this knowing it would lose for them the element of surprise and cost the lives of their own soldiers.

A Just War

2009-01-05T12:01:00.003-05:00

With the conflict in Gaza continuing on, many are calling the Israeli response endemic of the West or more specifically, the Western doctrine of war. I think David Warren put it very succinctly in RealClearPolitics today:

The Western doctrine of just war, echoed in the articles of international law, moreover demands that the Israelis finish what they've started. It doesn't say "never fight," as the ignorant suppose. On the contrary, it says if you must fight, be sure to win; that victory should be achieved as promptly and humanely as possible, while observing the various formal conventions. To those who refuse to observe the conventions, it offers no quarter. Those who, for instance, fire rockets at civilian targets while themselves masquerading as non-combatants are entitled to no consideration, as prisoners of war or otherwise. Those who use civilian "shields" are responsible for their fate.

Investing in 2009

2009-01-04T15:21:00.002-05:00

Keeping an eye on investing in the coming year, you'd be safe to dump your priorities into:

Farming and Agriculture: Food prices are on the rise and people are still hungry. High demand, low supply.
Raw Building Materials: Despite world economic declines, developing economies are still building at mind-boggling rates and copper, iron, basically all the raw materials, are going up.
The Tech Sector: Never underestimate the tech sector in a world that is the tech sector.

Happy hunting!

Israelity

2009-01-04T15:00:00.003-05:00

As the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues to rage on, theres a few things to keep in mind as noted in a recent LA Times article:

Hamas is attempting to portray the Israeli invasion as a war against the Palestinian people. Television viewers are being presented with heartbreaking images of dead and injured children and supposedly indiscriminate devastation. Palestinian doctors claim that Israel has blocked the supply of vital medicines, and humanitarian organizations warn of imminent starvation. In fact, many of those claims are exaggerated.

Though civilians have, tragically, been hurt, about three-quarters of the 400 Palestinians killed so far have been gunmen -- an impressive achievement given that Hamas fires rockets from apartments, mosques and schools and uses hospitals as hide-outs.

Israel has recently allowed nearly 200 truckloads of food and medicine to enter Gaza, even under shellfire. It is in Israel's urgent interest to minimize civilian suffering and forestall international criticism. For that same reason, Hamas welcomes the suffering of Palestinian civilians. According to a BBC report on Dec. 30, dozens of ambulances were dispatched by Egypt to its border with Gaza, only to remain empty because, according to Egyptian authorities, Hamas wasn't allowing wounded Palestinians to leave.

The reality of Israel's actions and what's being portrayed doesn't always match up. I say look for the true reality with Israel--the Israelity.

VI Day?

2009-01-02T17:16:00.006-05:00

Hear much about Iraq anymore? I certainly haven't. So....when did we win this thing and why hasn't there been news about it? The Washington Post reported today:

For anyone returning to Baghdad after spending time here during its darkest days two years ago, when it was paralyzed by sectarian hatred and overrun by gunmen sowing despair, the conclusion seemed inescapable.

"The war has ended," said Heidar al-Abboudi, a street merchant.
The war in Iraq is indeed over, at least the conflict as it was understood during its first five years: insurgency, communal cleansing, gangland turf battles and an anarchic, often futile quest to survive.

The peace is tentative but the American part in the war is over. Power and control are being handed over and it's in the hands of the Iraqis. Now they live in a country where they're able to vote and not fear being thrown out if a plane for "crimes." Someone did something right it seems.

Why Bush Deserves Praise

2008-12-28T01:40:00.002-05:00

Neil Gardiner spells out the case for honoring the extraordinary achievements of President George W. Bush in the UK Telegraph:

Ten or twenty years from now, historians will view Bush's actions on the world stage in a more favourable light. America's 43rd president did after all directly liberate more people (over 60 million) from tyranny than any leader since Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Widely seen as his biggest foreign policy error, the decision to invade Iraq could ultimately prove to have been a masterstroke. Today the world is witnessing the birth of the first truly democratic state in the Middle East outside of Israel. Over eight million voted in Iraq's parliamentary elections in 2005, and the region's first free Muslim society may become a reality. Iraq might not be Turkey, but it is a powerful demonstration that freedom can flourish in the embers of the most brutal and barbaric of dictatorships.

The success of the surge in Iraq will go down in history as a turning point in the war against al-Qaeda. The stunning defeat of the insurgency was a major blow both militarily and psychologically for the terror network. The West's most feared enemy suffered thousands of losses in Iraq, including many of their most senior commanders, such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Abu Qaswarah. It was the most successful counter-insurgency operation anywhere in the world since the British victory in Malaya in 1960.

The broader war against Islamist terrorism has also been a success. There has not been a single terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11, and for all the global condemnation of pre-emptive strikes, Guantanamo and the use of rendition against terror suspects, the fact remains that Bush's aggressive strategy actually worked.

Significantly, there have been no successful terrorist attacks in Europe since the July 2005 London bombings, in large part due to the cooperation between U.S., British and other Western intelligence agencies. American intelligence has proved vital in helping prevent an array of planned terror attacks in the UK, a striking demonstration of the value to Britain of its close ties to Washington.

President Bush, in contrast to both his father, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton before him, had a crystal clear, instinctive understanding of the importance of the Anglo-American Special Relationship. Tony Blair may well have been labeled Bush's "poodle" over his support for the war in Iraq, but his partnership with George W. Bush marked the high point of the Anglo-American alliance since the heady days of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.

The decision by Bush, with Blair's support, to sweep the Taliban out of Afghanistan was a brilliant move, one that not all U.S. presidents would have taken. A weaker leader would have gone to the United Nations Security Council and sought a negotiated settlement with Kabul. It was a risky gambit that was vindicated by a stunning military victory in the space of a month, with a small number of U.S. ground forces involved.

Bush also made a firm commitment to defending the fledgling Afghan government, and succeeded in building a 41-nation NATO-led coalition. The notion that the resurgence of the Taliban is America's failure is nonsense. The U.S. has more than 30,000 troops in the country under U.S. or NATO command, making up over half of all Allied forces there. Continental European allies have simply failed to step up to the plate with more troops, with almost the entire war-fighting burden placed on the U.S., UK and other English-speaking countries. Afghanistan is not a failure of American leadership, it is a damning indictment of an increasingly pacifist Europe that simply will not fight.

President Bush also recognized the importance of re-shaping the NATO alliance for the 21st Century, backing an ambitious program of NATO expansion, culminating in the addition of seven new members in 2004. He also had the foresight to support the development of a missile defence system in Europe, successfully negotiating deals with both Poland and the Czech Republic. Bush was right to back the eventual inclusion of Georgia and Ukraine in NATO, and both would be well on their way to membership today were it not for the feckless decision of France and Germany to side with Russia in blocking their path to entry.

Bush began his presidency primarily as a domestic leader. He ends it as a war leader who has left a huge imprint internationally. His greatest legacy, the global war against Islamist terror, has left the world a safer place, and his decision to project global power and military might against America's enemies has made it harder for Islamist terrorists to strike against London, Paris or Berlin.

Bush's decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power will make it less likely that rogue regimes, Iran and North Korea included, will seek to militarily challenge American power. The memory of the invasion of Iraq and the unequivocal message that sent is by far the most effective deterrent to Tehran developing a nuclear weapon.

US Atty Patrick Fitzgerald: Stud

2008-12-18T13:28:00.001-05:00

Illinois Governors, heh

2008-12-18T13:26:00.001-05:00

Caroline

2008-12-16T12:04:00.003-05:00

A little late to be getting in the game after leading a life in the shadows don't ya think? Although, since writing a book and doing very little seems to be a qualification for office nowadays--cough, Obama--, I guess why not, right?

The Shoe of Freedom

2008-12-16T11:56:00.003-05:00

Amazing how much uproar the 'Bush Shoeing' has caused in Iraq, several reasons:

1. President Bush is clearly "The One", just look at his Neo-like Matrix moves.

2. The two leaders of countries once "at war with eachother" are now pictured side by side in unity. Note that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki sought to deflect the second shoe from President Bush, a move you can be gaurenteed extremist leaders like Iran's Ahmadinejad would not have pulled.

3. Most importantly, the incident highlights the change and freedom that has been brought to the country. Unlike Saddam's Iraq where being "held for questioning" would've meant beating, torture, then death of the reporter and his family, in the new Iraq questioning actually means what it says.

4. Seriously, President Bush is quick. Like, really quick. That shoe was moving FAST!

Did You Know...

2008-12-15T23:33:00.001-05:00

Obamessiah Reformer?

2008-12-13T15:53:00.006-05:00

'Change' used to mean something. Similarly, 'Hope' used to mean something.

To my liking, Obama has appointed many, if not conservative, centrist figures. Probably not the change most dems wanted, but that's what they get for voting for some who rarely voted while in office.

What's more curious is how Obama managed to run on a 'change-crusade-like platform' with no political reform to show for it, and even more curiously, that nobody in the media noticed.

If there's anything that the Gov. Blago scandal highlights, it's the scumminess of Chicago politics.

Famed Lieutenant General Lewis "Chesty" Puller once said, " We're surrounded. That simplifies the problem! ... Now we can fire in any direction, those bastards won't get away this time!"

Why, with so much corruption, did Obama, "the politics reformer," sit idle? He literally could've fought in any direction and would've been fighting some type of corruption with such rampant dirtiness in all directions.

Mark Kirk??

2008-12-10T15:53:00.002-05:00

With so much up in the air in Illinois politics, the only voice of reason nowadays seems to be IL-10 Congressman Mark Steven Kirk.

With endorsements from just about every side of politics, this guy is a straight shooter. It looks like he may be in position to become the next elected Governor or be appointed to the open Senate seat in the U.S. Senate.

Depending on how things turn out, it's clear that Congressman Kirk will be taking on Illinois corruption the same way he took on the sewage in Lake Michigan.

Big Surprise Blago

2008-12-09T12:28:00.004-05:00

Big surprise, Gov. Rod Balgojevich was finally caught for something.

As the Politico noted, Blago was quoted saying “Unless I get something real good [for Senate candidate 1], s***, I’ll just send myself, you know what I’m saying,” Blagojevich was taped saying on November 3rd, the day before Election Day.

Blagojevich, a Democrat, added that the Senate seat “is a f***ing valuable thing, you just don’t give it away for nothing.”

The complaint does not mention her name, but the description makes clear that Blagojevich is referring to Valerie Jarrett, a senior campaign adviser to Obama who has been tapped as a top White House aide.

And on November 7th, three days after the election, Blagojevich made clear what he wanted in exchange for appointing the Obama adviser to the Senate: the Department of Health and Human Services."

Shocking.

Honor the Lives Lost at Pearl Harbor

2008-12-07T18:48:00.005-05:00

The USS Arizona sinks after the attack.

In the attack, the Japanese sank or damaged three cruisers, three destroyers, and one minelayer, destroyed 188 aircraft, and caused personnel losses of 2,402 killed and 1,282 wounded.

I write today to say one simple thing: fighting for freedom is a fight that will never end. We win the fight by continuing the fight on a daily basis and remembering those that came before us.

She Doesn't Look Thirsty

2008-12-05T18:58:00.004-05:00

(Note the Obama Staff shirt...cute)

As noted in the Washington Post today, "Question No. 58 in the transition team vetting document for the Obama White House asks that applicants: "Please provide the URL address of any websites that feature you in either a personal or professional capacity (e.g. Facebook, My Space, etc.)"

Question No. 63 asks that applicants "please provide any other information ... that could ... be a possible source of embarrassment to you, your family, or the President-Elect."

For a while there this afternoon, President-elect Barack Obama's immensely talented chief speechwriter, 27-year-old Jon Favreau, might have been pondering how to address that question.

That's when some interesting photos of a recent party he attended -- including one where he's dancing with a life-sized cardboard cut-out of secretary of state-designate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, and another where he's placed his hand on the cardboard former first lady's chest while a friend is offering her lips a beer -- popped up on Facebook for about two hours. The photos were quickly taken down -- along with every other photo Favreau had of himself on the popular social networking site, save for one profile headshot."

Bill Ayers the Puppy

2008-11-21T23:35:00.005-05:00

Finally out of exile (just like the good ol' days eh Billy?), Bill Ayers is opening his gab, and gab he has. Speaking here in DC, he gave a speech reminiscent of an old man telling of his eventful youth in college. The difference? His youth involved planting bombs at federal buildings.

He generally came out of the gate with the attitude of, "hey, it was the sixties, everyone was doing it." Well, guess what champ, if by everyone you meant terrorists, then maybe you're right. He's been saying things like, "FOX News is trying to coin me as 'crazy' or 'extreme' is outrageous." ...I mean, I'd say trying to destroy federal buildings by force of explosion pretty much qualifies in my book.

Terrorism is defined by the U.S. Department of Defense as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives." I'd say that right up his alley, and if he doesn't classify as a terrorist, then we mid as well take a look at whether or not anything does. Maybe suicide bombers are just having a bad day?

Election Retrospect--RE Liberal University

2008-11-21T17:45:00.006-05:00

Several things became blatantly apparent this recent election season--the first of which is the difficulty being in the minority on a predominantly liberal campus. I'm all in favor of zealously supporting your candidate, but I have to believe no candidate is worth fainting for. It's been said before and it's worth noting again, the truly best candidate for office isn't running.

It's unfortunate that Senator McCain didn't make it to the top office, but frankly I'm still in shock at how tight of a race he managed to pull off. I recall meeting Rick David, McCain's man-in-charge at the time, and the atmosphere of the event--we have a long trek ahead of us. And a long trek it was, but considering the political climate of the country, why did Senator McCain even stand a chance?

As a Democrat or liberal, I'd personally be both ashamed and befuddled at how, with every major issue favoring the left, the party managed to squeak by in an election that should have been a slam dunk from day one.

To recap election night in short, however, you'd have thought Jesus had returned to the world in a second coming and the sky was falling with honey and beer. As a matter of fact I recall a lot of beer being sprayed, albeit none from the sky, and certainly no honey as I recall no stickiness.

For all the conservative and Republican students out there, I felt your pain and it hurt. Fortunately for us, we don't pay taxes yet, for the most part anyway. Unfortunately for us, we will soon, and it will hurt all over again.

I'm Back

2008-11-21T17:45:00.001-05:00

Get ready, new fire in the belly

Zeitgeist and Futures

2008-11-16T13:47:00.004-05:00

Fallout

2008-11-05T12:24:00.003-05:00

Not an easy day for me, but have faith. I don't know how or why, but have faith. It's the last true weapon of conservatives in America and no number of liberals can take that away.

Messy

2008-11-04T13:05:00.002-05:00

All I'm going to predict for this election is a messy outcome, whichever way it goes. The court's are almost guaranteed to be involved and I won't be shocked if some violence occurs.

WAIT!

2008-10-18T17:50:00.003-04:00

Three words for Colin Powell:

Don't do it!

EDIT: Didn't heed my call : (

Yippee! I'm "Rich"

2008-10-18T00:00:00.003-04:00

The Rest of the Meltdown Story

2008-09-30T01:55:00.005-04:00

By Neal Boortz

What in the world is going on here?

You've seen the headlines, and you heard of the failures and buyouts. Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, AIG; all big names and all in big trouble. Then those mysterious quasi-government agencies with names like Freddie and Fannie become wards of the state and you learn that you and your fellow taxpayers are potentially on the hook for tens of billions of dollars. At the end of the week Washington Mutual is looking for a buyer, and you start to wonder about the security of your own bank and your own savings account. Let's change that ad copy to WaMu -- boo hoo.

Somewhere in the back of your mind you understand that this is all tied somehow to bad mortgages. If you start reading a bit further to enhance your understanding you run into terms like Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) and credit-default swaps, whatever in the world those are. Read further and you find out that a combination of falling home prices and mortgage defaults have put many investment banks and other financial institutions in deep puddin'. All this reading, all this watching the talking heads on TV, and you still don't really know what in the world is going on here.

Fear not. I'm here to help. I know ... I'm just another talk show host; but the fact is that when the stage was being set for the problems we're seeing today I was making most of my money as a real estate lawyer .. closing loans for some of the very institutions that are the tank today. This rather unique combination - closing lawyer and radio talk show host - gave me a front row seat to the politicization of mortgage loans that led us to today's headlines.

OK .. so we all know that a lot of really bad real estate loans were made. The political class would sure love for us to believe that the blame here rests squarely on "greedy" (try to define that word) mortgage brokers and lenders. The truth is that most of the blame rests on political meddling in the credit decisions of these mortgage lenders.

Twenty years ago the buzz-word in the media was "redlining." Newspapers across the country were filled with hard-hitting investigative reports about evil and racist mortgage lenders refusing to make real estate loans to various minorities and to applicants who lived in lower-income neighborhoods. There I was closing these loans in the afternoons, and in the mornings offering a counter-argument on the radio to these absurd "redlining" claims. Frankly, the claims that evil mortgage lenders were systematically denying loans to blacks and other minorities were a lot sexier on the radio than my claims that when credit histories, job stability, loan-to-value ratios and income levels were considered there was no evident racial discrimination.

Political correctness won the day. Washington made it clear to banks and other lending institutions that if they did not do something .. and fast .. to bring more minorities and low-income Americans into the world of home ownership there would be a heavy price to pay. Congress set up processes (Research the Community Redevelopment Act) whereby community activist groups and organizers could effectively stop a bank's efforts to grow if that bank didn't make loans to unqualified borrowers. Enter, stage left, the "subprime" mortgage. These lenders knew that a very high percentage of these loans would turn to garbage - but it was a price that had to be paid if the bank was to expand and grow. We should note that among the community groups browbeating banks into making these bad loans was an outfit called ACORN. There is one certain presidential candidate that did a lot of community organizing for ACORN. I won't mention his name so as to avoid politicizing this column.

These garbage loans to unqualified borrowers were then bundled up and sold. The expectation was that the loans would be eventually paid off when rising home values led some borrowers to access their equity through re-financing and others to sell and move on up the ladder. Oops.

Right now this crisis is being sold to the American public by the left as evidence the failure of the free market and capitalism. Not so. What we're seeing is the inevitable result of political interference in free market economics. Acme bank didn't want to loan money to Joe Homebuyer because Joe had a spotty job history, owed too much money on his credit cards, and wasn't all that good at making payments on time. The politicians told Acme Bank to figure out a way to make that loan, because, after all, Joe is a bona-fide minority-American, or forget about opening that new branch office on the Southside. The loan was made under politicial pressure; the loan, with millions like it, failed - and now we are left to enjoy today's headlines.

So ... why aren't you reading the whole story in the mainstream media? Come on, are you kidding me? Do you really expect the media to blame this mess on deadbeat borrowers and political interference in the free market when it is so easy to put the blame on greedy lenders and evil capitalists? Remember ... there's an election going on. One candidate is decidedly anti-capitalist. Do the math.

Neal Boortz is a nationally syndicated talk show host and co-author of The FairTax Book.

Presidential Debate 1

2008-09-27T14:18:00.006-04:00

The first debate goes to Senator John McCain. 3 reasons:

1. Readiness: Senator McCain came out of the gate a little shaky but soon took control and put Senator Obama on the defensive where he stayed the rest of the debate. Senator McCain knew his facts, cited them frequently, and spoke in concrete terms that American's could appreciate. Senator Obama just harped on about fairness, and socializing the country.

2. "John's absolutely right...": Senator Obama conceded with Senator McCain at just about every opportunity. Over eight times he conceded that Senator McCain was right including on issues like: government waste, taxes, Iraq, and Iran.

3. Arrogance: Calling a sitting U.S. Senator "John" was a sad display of sheer arrogance. Senator McCain was serving the United States before Senator Obama could walk, talk, and much less debate. Senator Obama stood there all night long treating Senator McCain like a moron while flashing his silly grin and shaking his head. In the end he made himself look like a pompous goon.

Economics 101

2008-09-25T20:26:00.001-04:00

WWOD?

2008-09-22T15:03:00.001-04:00

Dear Mr. Obama...

2008-09-11T08:00:00.000-04:00

McCain-Palin Farifax, VA Rally

2008-09-10T22:57:00.013-04:00

Day One

2008-09-08T00:45:00.001-04:00

Obama the Socialist

2008-09-07T19:45:00.003-04:00

I'm reposting part of article from Investors Business Daily that highlights some of the Obama Socialist Agenda (OSA).

Obama is too smart to try to smuggle such hoary collectivist garbage through the front door. He's disguising the wealth transfers as "investments" — "to make America more competitive," he says, or "that give us a fighting chance," whatever that means.
Among his proposed "investments":

• "Universal," "guaranteed" health care.

• "Free" college tuition.

• "Universal national service" (a la Havana).

• "Universal 401(k)s" (in which the government would match contributions made by "low- and moderate-income families").

• "Free" job training (even for criminals).

• "Wage insurance" (to supplement dislocated union workers' old income levels).

• "Free" child care and "universal" preschool.

• More subsidized public housing.

• A fatter earned income tax credit for "working poor."

• And even a Global Poverty Act that amounts to a Marshall Plan for the Third World, first and foremost Africa.

His new New Deal also guarantees a "living wage," with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation; and "fair trade" and "fair labor practices," with breaks for "patriot employers" who cow-tow to unions, and sticks for "nonpatriot" companies that don't.

That's just for starters — first-term stuff.

Obama doesn't stop with socialized health care. He wants to socialize your entire human resources department — from payrolls to pensions. His social-microengineering even extends to mandating all employers provide seven paid sick days per year to salary and hourly workers alike.

You can see why Obama was ranked, hands-down, the most liberal member of the Senate by the National Journal. Some, including colleague and presidential challenger John McCain, think he's the most liberal member in Congress.

Election Watch

2008-09-07T18:43:00.006-04:00

The following is a list of title about the most read articles on RealClearPolitics (NOTE: they're all linked):

Last 24 Hours:

Last 7 Days:

Notice any trend? Looks like Gov. Palin might have been a brilliant move by McCain.

McCain Acceptance

2008-09-05T01:06:00.005-04:00

The McCain speech was exceptional. Well-delivered, and humble (note the lack of Greek columns). The American University Students for McCain and College Republicans celebrated the evening with an energetic viewing party.

My favorite part of his speech: the conclusion. It was so well done and on-spot. Speaking through the crowds cheer, Senator McCain's message metaphorically and literally came through bold and strong.

Climate Change

2008-09-02T15:06:00.000-04:00

Palin v. Obama

2008-09-01T14:44:00.002-04:00

Here's an article called, "Sarah Palin vs. Barack Obama", that does a head-to-head of Gov. Palin and the Obaminator. It's written by Gerargd baker, US editor for the Times of London.

Political experience

Obama: Worked his way to the top by cultivating, pandering to and stroking the most powerful interest groups in the all-pervasive Chicago political machine, ensuring his views were aligned with the power brokers there.

Palin: Worked her way to the top by challenging, attacking and actively undermining the Republican party establishment in her native Alaska. She ran against incumbent Republicans as a candidate willing and able to clean the Augean Stables of her state's government.

Political Biography

Obama: A classic, if unusually talented, greasy-pole climber. Held a succession of jobs that constitute the standard route to the top in his party's internal politics: "community organizer", law professor, state senator.

Palin:A woman with a wide range of interests in a well-variegated life. Held a succession of jobs - sports journalist, commercial fisherwoman, state oil and gas commissioner, before entering local politics. A resume that suggests something other than burning political ambition from the cradle but rather the sort of experience that enables her to understand the concerns of most Americans..

Political history

Obama: Elected to statewide office only after a disastrous first run for a congressional seat and after his Republican opponent was exposed in a sexual scandal. Won seat eventually in contest against a candidate who didn't even live in the state.

Palin: Elected to statewide office by challenging a long-serving Republican incumbent governor despite intense opposition from the party.

Appeal

Obama: A very attractive speaker whose celebrity has been compared to that of Britney Spears and who sends thrills up Chris Matthews' leg

Palin: A very attractive woman, much better-looking than Britney Spears who speaks rather well too. She sends thrills up the leg of Rush Limbaugh (and me).

Executive experience

Obama: Makes executive decisions every day that affect the lives of his campaign staff and a vast crowd of traveling journalists

Palin:Makes executive decisions every day that affect the lives of 500,000 people in her state, and that impact crucial issues of national economic interest such as the supply and cost of energy to the United States.

Religious influences

Obama: Regards people who "cling" to religion and guns as "bitter" . Spent 20 years being mentored and led spiritually by a man who proclaimed "God damn America" from his pulpit. Mysteriously, this mentor completely disappeared from public sight about four months ago.

Palin: Head of her high school Fellowship of Christian Athletes and for many years a member of the Assemblies of God congregation whose preachers have never been known to accuse the United States of deliberately spreading the AIDS virus. They remain in full public sight and can be seen every Sunday in churches across Alaska. A proud gun owner who has been known to cling only to the carcasses of dead caribou felled by her own aim.

Record of bipartisan achievement

Obama: Speaks movingly of the bipartisanship needed to end the destructive politics of "Red America" and "Blue America", but votes in the Senate as a down-the-line Democrat, with one of the most liberal voting records in congress.

Palin: Ridiculed by liberals such as John Kerry as a crazed, barely human, Dick Cheney-type conservative but worked wit Democrats in the state legislature to secure landmark anti-corruption legislation.

Former state Rep. Ethan Berkowitz - a Democrat - said. "Gov. Palin has made her name fighting corruption within her own party, and I was honored when she stepped across party lines and asked me to co-author her ethics white paper."

On Human Life

Obama: Devoutly pro-choice. Voted against a bill in the Illinois state senate that would have required doctors to save the lives of babies who survived abortion procedures. The implication of this position is that babies born prematurely during abortions would be left alone, unnourished and unmedicated, until they died.

Palin: Devoutly pro-life. Exercised the choice proclaimed by liberals to bring to full term a baby that had been diagnosed in utero with Down Syndrome.

Now it's true there are other crucial differences. Sen Obama has appeared on Meet The Press every other week for the last four years. He has been the subject of hundreds of adoring articles in papers and newsweeklies and TV shows and has written two Emmy-award winning books.

Gov Palin has never appeared on Meet the Press, never been on the cover of Newsweek. She presumably feels that, as a mother of five children married to a snowmobile champion, who also happens to be the first woman and the youngest person ever to be elected governor of her state, she has not really done enough yet to merit an autobiography.

Then again, I'm willing to bet that if she had authored The Grapes of Wrath, sung like Edith Piaf and composed La Traviata , she still wouldn't have won an Emmy.

Fortunately, it will be up to the American people and not their self-appointed leaders in Hollywood and New York to determine who really has the better experience to be president.

Forget Obama, Palin Is News

2008-08-29T11:38:00.003-04:00

Everybody saw the Obama acceptance, big damn deal. I don't know a single lib who didn't wet themselves. Smart move of McCain to announce Gov. Palin as VP this morning to pull in some of the dominated news cycle. Who's excited? *Raises hand*

ObamEmperor

2008-08-28T02:26:00.002-04:00

AU for McCain

2008-08-28T01:27:00.002-04:00

The American University chapter of Students for McCain is beginning to kick it into high gear. Here's the group's logo I created.

The Biden Mistake

2008-08-23T10:19:00.004-04:00

Choosing Senator Joe Biden as his VP running mate, Obama made a serious mistake.

The McCain campaign highlighted the mistake quickly noting that,

“There has been no harsher critic of Barack Obama’s lack of experience than Joe Biden. Biden has denounced Barack Obama’s poor foreign policy judgment and has strongly argued in his own words what Americans are quickly realizing — that Barack Obama is not ready to be President,” said Ben Porritt, a spokesman for Mr. McCain.

That's just a little preview of what's sure to come as the election begins to enter full swing. Obama has essentially taken one of his largest critics on as hat is supposed to be a hugely supporting role. All I can say is good luck to Senator Biden retracting hundreds of statements....step aside John Kerry, Obama-Biden is about to become the newest flip-flop central.

Here are a few examples the National Review pointed out recently:

On McCain:
>Biden, on a post-debate appearance on MSNBC, October 30, 2007: “The only guy on the other side who’s qualified is John McCain.”

>Biden appearing on The Daily Show, August 2, 2005: “John McCain is a personal friend, a great friend, and I would be honored to run with or against John McCain, because I think the country would be better off, be well off no matter who...”

>On Meet the Press, November 27, 2005: “I’ve been calling for more troops for over two years, along with John McCain and others subsequent to my saying that.”

On Obama:
>Reacting to an Obama speech on counterterrorism, August 1, 2007: “‘Look, the truth is the four major things he called for, well, hell that’s what I called for,’ Biden said today on MSNBC’s Hardball, echoing comments he made earlier in the day at an event promoting his book at the National Press Club. Biden added, ‘I’m glad he’s talking about these things.’”

>Also that day, the Biden campaign issued a release that began, “The Biden for President Campaign today congratulated Sen. Barack Obama for arriving at a number of Sen. Biden’s long-held views on combating al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” That release mocked Obama for asking about the “stunning level of mercury in fish” and asked about a proposal for the U.S. adopt a ban on mercury sales abroad at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.

>Around that time, Biden in an interview with the Huffington Post, he assessed Obama and Hillary Clinton: “The more people learn about them (Obama and Hillary) and how they handle the pressure, the more their support will evaporate.”

>December 11, 2007: “If Iowans believe campaign funds and celebrity will fix the debacle in Iraq, put the economy on track, and provide health care and education for America’s children, they should support another candidate,” said Biden for President Campaign Manager Luis Navarro. “But I’m confident that Iowans know what I know: our problems will require experience and leadership from Day One. Empty slogans will be no match for proven action on caucus night.”

>Also that night, Biden said in a campaign ad, “When this campaign is over, political slogans like ‘experience’ and ‘change’ will mean absolutely nothing. The next president has to act.”

>September 26, 2007: Biden for President Campaign Manager Luis Navarro said, “Sen. Obama said he would do everything possible to end the war in Iraq and emphasized the need for a political solution yet he failed to show up to vote for Sen. Biden’s critical amendment to provide a political solution in Iraq.

Behind the Ayers-Obama Relationship

2008-08-21T17:34:00.002-04:00

This is something that is being ignored.

I am reposting a post by Steve Diamond called, "Guy Who Lives In My Neighborhood". This is one of those things that goes down in history...

The key points of this (long!) blog post:

1) Obama education advisor Linda Darling-Hammond responds to Global Labor blog posts on Bill Ayers and Reparations

2) Review of Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) documents shows that Ayers and Obama each chaired the two CAC operating bodies from 1995 to 2000

3) CAC was at heart of Chicago school “wars” in 90s

4) CAC handed out more than $100 million in Chicago school system

5) CAC failed to improve student achievement but Ayers and Obama’s political goals were tackled

UPDATED June 23d to include information on role of Bill Ayers' ally Mike Klonsky in Obama campaign.

A. Introduction

As my readers are aware I have pointed to the joint participation of Senator Obama and Professor Bill Ayers in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, an education reform project, as evidence of an older and deeper relationship between Ayers and Obama than the Senator has acknowledged. Because the political views, as well as the past criminal behavior, of Professor Ayers represent, in my view, an authoritarian approach to education and society as a whole, I believe that it is important for the public to have as complete an understanding of the Ayers-Obama relationship as possible.

Of course, many well-intentioned supporters of the Obama campaign who, for example, share my opposition to the war in Iraq and perhaps share my views on many other issues, will argue that this kind of discussion can only help the McCain campaign. It may indeed be true that the McCain campaign will benefit because of the relationship between Obama and Ayers.

But if that is the case then I think the left has to take responsibility for attempting to build its opposition to the war in Iraq and other policies of the Bush Administration on the basis of the objectionable political tactics used by, and the political views of, those who lead the Democratic Party. Thus, my hope is that by confronting the truth about that Party we can build an independent progressive movement that is transparent and accountable to its members.

It so happens that on a crucial political issue – education policy – I think there is a potential problem with the views of Bill Ayers and others in the Obama camp and potentially with the views of the candidate himself. Thus, I think it is important to pay careful attention to those views.

B. Enter the Obama Campaign

As evidence of the lengths to which the Obama campaign is willing to go to discourage an open and forthright exploration of the Obama-Ayers relationship, this week I received an unsolicited email from Professor Linda Darling-Hammond, of the Stanford University School of Education. Professor Darling-Hammond is an education advisor to the Obama campaign. In the email, she said she was writing to me about my blog which she found “completely mysterious” because I “tie [her] in” with Bill Ayers. She states “while I know Bill Ayers, I have never talked to him about policy in the Obama campaign or about whatever you mean by ‘reparations.’”

Now, as it turns out, I have no evidence that Professor Darling-Hammond has ever talked to Ayers about policy in the Obama campaign or reparations. I have, in fact, never said that on my blog. I have only said that Bill Ayers endorsed the proposal for the repayment of the centuries of “educational debt” that some allege is owed to people of color. This is a proposal that Professor Darling-Hammond has also endorsed. Both Ayers and Darling-Hammond support the idea of replacing the widely used concept of an “achievement gap” between different groups of students with the idea of an “educational debt” that has accumulated over centuries and that is responsible for poor academic outcomes for black and some other minority students.

Professor Gloria Ladson-Billings first proposed the “repayment of centuries of educational debt” idea in her Presidential Address to the American Education Research Association (AERA) in April 2006. AERA is the leading professional body for faculty in schools of education. Bill Ayers is currently a Vice President of AERA.

Ladson-Billings based her argument for the “educational debt” idea, in part, on the work of Randall Robinson in his book arguing for reparations for slavery. She quoted Robinson to support her approach as follows:

“What is it that we might owe to citizens who historically have been excluded from social benefits and opportunities? Randall Robinson (2000) states: ‘No nation can enslave a race of people for hundreds of years, set them free bedraggled and penniless, pit them, without assistance in a hostile environment, against privileged victimizers, and then reasonably expect the gap between the heirs of the two groups to narrow. Lines, begun parallel and left alone, can never touch. (p. 74)’”

The title of Robinson’s book is: The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks.

Professor Darling-Hammond endorsed the same proposal in an article she wrote for The Nation magazine in early 2007. Professor Darling-Hammond then released a report for the Forum on Education and Democracy (“FED”) earlier this year in which she stated that the #1 priority of the federal government should be to repay the “educational debt.” A co-convener of the FED is Gloria Ladson-Billings.

So I wrote back to Professor Darling-Hammond and pointed out that I had never said what she was now denying but asked her to correct any inaccuracies or mischaracterizations that might have appeared on my blog.

She wrote back and while she did not point out any inaccuracies or mischaracterizations, she did deny, once more, something that I had never said:

“Bill Ayers has no connection to the Obama campaign or to Obama’s policy proposals in education or any other area. I would appreciate your not attributing his views to me – or to the Senator.”

Of course, I think the Senator can speak for himself. Certainly Professor Darling-Hammond can. But I have never said that Ayers spoke for them.

However, it must be pointed out that a notorious ally of Bill Ayers for many years, Mike Klonsky, is an open member of the Obama campaign. Klonsky runs a blog on the official Obama website here where he claims to be a "professor of education" (the website of the Small Schools Workshop that he directs says only that he teaches some graduate courses, though it appears he was a visiting professor for one year at Nova Southeastern University in Florida in 2006-07) and says he blogs for Obama on "education politics and teaching for social justice."

Who is Mike Klonsky? Well, on one level, he might just appear to be a protege of Bill Ayers in the education world. He received, as I detail below, a $175,000 grant from the Ayers/Obama-led Annenberg Challenge to run the Small Schools Workshop that he and Ayers started in Chicago to push their school reform agenda.

But that is only half the story. Klonsky was one of the most destructive hardline maoists in the SDS in the late 60's who emerged from SDS to form a pro-Chinese sect called the October League that later became the Beijing-recognized Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist). As chairman of the party, Klonsky travelled to Beijing itself in 1977 and, literally, toasted the Chinese stalinist leadership who, in turn, "hailed the formation of the CP(ML) as 'reflecting the aspirations of the proletariat and working people,' effectively recognizing the group as the all-but-official US Maoist party." (Elbaum, Revolution in the Air, 228).

I know of no indications that Klonsky has ever expressed any regrets about that activity. Perhaps like his SDS comrade, Ayers, he, too, thinks he did not do enough back then. In my view they did more than enough.

An excellent profile of that maoist milieu is available in a book called Revolution in the Air by Max Elbaum, a first hand participant whose sympathy for the maoism of the period does not get in the way of an excellent account of these idiot savants of the left.

How is it possible that someone of Klonsky's ilk would now be playing a visible role in the Obama campaign itself on such an important issue as education policy - apparently with free reign to push his authoritarian "social justice" agenda?

The answer to that question escapes Darling-Hammond.

In any case, it is clear that Ayers and Darling-Hammond both hold the same opinion on a key education policy issue: support for repayment of centuries of “educational debt” to people of color.

C. The Competing New Education Agenda from EPI

Professor Darling-Hammond, interestingly, also signed another educational policy document recently. This one, called the Bold Approach, was prepared by a task forced convened by the Economic Policy Institute. While the Bold Approach document that resulted from this effort mentions race as one issue in education it does not mention anything about repayment of educational debt.

In her first email Professor Darling-Hammond stated, “Indeed, I am a signer of the EPI document that you applaud.” Of course, this is true, but it was not news to me – I had in fact already stated this on my blog.

Why?

The EPI-led “Bold Approach” represents a comprehensive, progressive multi-factor assessment of the education crisis and the responses necessary to confront it. Unlike the proposal by FED or the views of Bill Ayers, it does not put a racial perspective on the top of the list of things to do about education.

Ayers has put a racialist stamp on his politics for several decades. He was part of the leadership of the Weather Underground group in the late 1960’s that broke apart the Students for a Democratic Society, or SDS. He argued then, as he does now, that “white supremacy” is the original sin of American life.

White racism represents for him the same kind of “oppression” that the maoist movement he was influenced by then said was responsible for the plight of poor countries. Just as rich countries (like the United States or Germany) exploited poor countries (like China or Cuba) on an international scale, the Weather Underground argued, white people in the United States exploited black people. Thus, the role of the “revolutionary vanguard” of students was to support black revolutionary groups at whatever cost, including armed robbery and bombings. While Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn no longer engage in violence their political views have not changed.

While I do not think Professor Darling-Hammond, much less Senator Obama, endorses these particular views of Bill Ayers, she, too, emphasizes race when it comes to her assessment of the American school system. Recently, she wrote of

“the growing number of ‘apartheid’ schools that serve racial/ethnic minority students exclusively – schools that have little political clout and are extraordinarily impoverished.”

While there is no doubt that there is a resource disparity between many (but not all) schools with predominantly minority students and those with predominantly white students, it seems more than a stretch to compare this to apartheid, a system of government-imposed racial separation, fifty years after the Supreme Court held “separate but equal” to be unconstitutional.

In fact, government spending is actually weighted to favor low-income and underperforming school systems. The differences occur because of the private resources that some (by no means all) white dominated school systems are able to raise. But it is not altogether clear that additional resources would result in improved outcomes – at some point additional resources are not likely to overcome other deficits such as those linked to parental involvement, cultural support for learning or the health of young students.

So in my answer to the first email from Professor Darling-Hammond I wrote:

“I was certainly happy to see that you signed the EPI Bold Approach document, but it seems to me that the FED blue print that you co-authored takes a completely different approach, placing ‘repayment of education debt’ at the top of your list. As I assume you are aware, Gloria Ladson-Billings roots that concept, which I believe she originated (in her 2006 AERA speech), in the reparations work of Randall Robinson. I do not understand how repaying the ‘education debt’ can be reconciled with the multi-factor assessment of education of the Bold Approach; in any case, clearly that is not a road the EPI group went down, as far as I can tell.”

In her reply, Professor Darling-Hammond suggests that the two blueprints are, in fact, closer than might be apparent to the naked, or untrained, eye:

“The FED approach is very much aligned with the EPI approach and most of us work together. You will see there are a number of co-signers in common. FED’s policy proposals overlap substantially with the EPI proposals. The phrase ‘repaying the education debt” is used in the FED report to mean closing the opportunity gap that has accrued over a long period of time by investing in pre-school education (also in the EPI proposal) reducing inequalities in state and local spending on schools and boosting the federal investment in high-need schools (also in the EPI proposal). I’m not sure what the ‘reparations’ idea you are referring to would mean in education but I’d like to learn more about what you think about this when we have a chance to talk. I suspect you are interpreting the phrase we used in a way that is different than the way we meant it.”

Of course, this only seems to beg the obvious question: if the two blueprints are the same, then why are there, well, two of them? And why do they use different terms to mean, well, one and the same educational policy?

Professor Darling-Hammond says she is not sure what “reparations” idea I am referring to. If not, then perhaps there is another “educational debt” idea floating around out there proposed by Professor Darling-Hammond’s FED colleague, Professor Ladson-Billings, that is not rooted in the reparations argument of Randall Robinson. But if there are, in fact, two versions of what Ladson-Billings means by “educational debt” I have not been able to find the evidence for it.

Professor Darling-Hammond has generously offered to speak with me directly about these issues and I look forward to that conversation, the results of which I will be happy to share with my readers.

But for now I am left with the conclusion that the purpose of Professor Darling-Hammond’s unsolicited communications about my blog was an attempt to discourage anyone from thinking that she, Senator Obama or the Obama campaign’s views on education have anything to do with reparations or Bill Ayers.

I can certainly understand why the Obama campaign would see the tactical political advantage of doing so now – but it seems to me that should have been thought of long ago, when Senator Obama first began to work with Bill Ayers or when Professor Darling-Hammond first encountered the idea of repayment of the “educational debt.”

While I take her at her word that while she “knows” Bill Ayers she has not talked with him about the policies of the Obama campaign, I am not entirely convinced that Professor Darling-Hammond, much less the wider electorate, understands the close relationship that has existed, at least in the past, between Bill Ayers and Senator Obama when it comes to education policy.

D. Back to the Annenberg Challenge for a Closer Look

So let’s turn, then, to the other leg of this important conversation: the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (“CAC”).

The CAC was established in 1995 as a result of a $49.2 million grant from Walter Annenberg to support education reform in Chicago. Bill Ayers and Anne C. Hallett co-signed a letter submitting the grant proposal to Brown University President Vartan Gregorian on November 8, 1994 where the national Challenge office would be headquartered. The letter was on the letterhead of the University of Illinois at Chicago (“UIC”). Ayers identified himself as representing the UIC and the “Chicago Forum for School Change.” Ms. Hallett is identified as the Executive Director of the Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform. At the bottom of the letter, a parenthetical states: “On behalf of the Chicago School Reform Collaborative.”

The letter and the attached detailed proposal grew out of a process that began in December 1993 when a small group led by Ayers, Hallett and Warren Chapman of the Joyce Foundation “met to discuss a proposal to the Annenberg Challenge for support of this city’s public school reform efforts.” This group became the nucleus of the larger Chicago School Reform Collaborative, one of the two operational arms of the CAC, which Ayers would co-chair and on which Hallett and Chapman would serve. (Program Report, CAC, Jan. 1, 1995 through Mar. 31, 1996 at 1).

The letter makes the goal of the grant proposal explicit:

“Chicago is six years into the most radical systemwide urban school reform effort in the country. The Annenberg Challenge provides an unprecedented opportunity to concentrate the energy of this reform into an educational renaissance in the classroom.”

The attached proposal is titled: “Smart Schools/Smart Kids: A proposal to the Annenberg Challenge to Create the Chicago School Reform Collaborative.”

The six year old “radical reform effort” that Ayers/Hallett refer to, of course, was the establishment of local school councils (“LSC”) as a new center of power in the Chicago Public Schools (“CPS”) in 1988, in the wake of a 1987 teachers’ strike that proved unpopular to parents and reform activists in both community groups and business groups.

The Alliance for Better Chicago Schools (“ABCs”) was formed then to push for the LSC idea in the Illinois state legislature. Active in the ABCs was Bill Ayers, Barack Obama’s Developing Communities Project, and Chicago United, a group of businessmen concerned about race and education issues founded by Bill Ayers’ father, Tom Ayers, once CEO of the large Chicago utility, Commonwealth Edison (now Exelon).

By the early 1990s there was controversy about the LSC idea from many directions. At one point the 1988 law was actually declared unconstitutional and it had to be restructured. Another effort was underway to re-centralize control over the schools in the hands of the mayor’s office when the possibility of the Annenberg grant arose. This counter-reform effort, if you will, partially succeeded in new laws passed in 1995 and 1999.

But in 1993 the CAC grant proposal was seen by Ayers as an attempt, in part, to rescue the LSC’s. The grant proposal states,

“We envision a process to unleash at the school site the initiative and courage of LSC’s….” Later, it states “[t]he Local Schools Councils…are important both for guiding educational improvement and as a means of strengthening America’s democratic traditions.”

As I have argued elsewhere on this blog, I do not think that the link made here between the LSC’s and “democracy” is, in fact, accurate. I think that such “councils” look eerily similar to efforts by regimes like those in Nicaragua under the Sandinistas and Venezuela under Chavez to impose control over teachers and their independent unions by an authoritarian regime. Thus, it is not a surprise to me that Bill Ayers has traveled several times in recent years to Venezuela where he has spoken in front of Hugo Chavez and has enthusiastically applauded that regime’s efforts to link education policy to the Chavez “revolution.”

As Ayers stated in a speech there in November 2006 “La educacion es Revolucion!” He applauded “the profound educational reforms underway here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chavez” and he said he “share[d] the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution.”

Thus, in the midst of an intense political battle in Chicago over the LSC role in the schools, securing the CAC money was very important to the LSC reform effort backed by Ayers and Obama from the late 1980s. The Ayers/Hallett proposal stated that the money would provide

“a powerful catalyst for Chicago educators and parents to build on this base toward a sustained and serious advance….This is the critical step, that must be taken now, and the time is now.”

Indeed, the CAC proposal effort led by Ayers and Hallett was a critical part of what the Project Director of the CAC, Ken Rolling, described as the “political wars” being waged over schools in Chicago at that time. Ken Rolling was a veteran of those wars because in his previous role he had been a program officer of the Woods Fund, which supported the school reform effort through its grants, including grants to Barack Obama’s Developing Communities Project.

Other groups in other cities were competing for the same pool of funds (a total of $500 million made available by philanthropist Walter Annenberg) and, perhaps even more importantly, other groups in the city of Chicago with different policy views were applying to receive funds.

However, the Ayers/Hallett proposal was successful in the end with the decision made in late 1994. In January of 1995 the formal announcement of a grant of $49.2 million was made. That money would have to be matched by contributions from the private and public sector 2:1 for a total amount over the life of the project of approximately $150 million dollars to be disbursed in Chicago. (Apparently the actual amount raised was an additional $60 million for a total of $110 million.) The CAC set up an office in rent-free space at the University of Illinois at Chicago, where Bill Ayers taught.

E. The CAC Structure: The Board and the Collaborative work hand in glove

The Ayers/Hallett proposal described a three-piece structure established to carry out the CAC. The three “over-lapping entities each of which has clear tasks and responsibilities” included:

“The Chicago Annenberg Challenge Board (the Board); the Chicago School Reform Collaborative (the Collaborative); and the Consortium of Chicago Schools Research (CCSR).”

The Board would handle “all fiscal matters” including raising the required 2:1 matching funds (nearly $100 million required in a five year period) and “creating a grant-making system to disperse monies to schools and networks.” The Board would hire the Project Director, a full time professional staff position.

The first chairman of the CAC Board was Barack Obama, at that point, 33 years old and a third year associate at Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a small Chicago law firm.

He began the Board position in early 1995 and stepped down from the chairmanship in late 1999, though he remained on the Board until the CAC phased itself out of existence and handed off its remaining assets to a permanent new institution, the Chicago Public Education Fund, in 2001. The Board began to meet in March of 1995 and formally incorporated the CAC as a non-profit entity in April 1995.

Other board members included numerous already prominent Chicagoans: Susan Crown, Vice President of the Henry Crown Company; Patricia A. Graham, President of The Spencer Foundation; Stanley Ikenberry, President-emeritus of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Handy Lindsey, Executive Director of the Field Foundation; Arnold Weber, former President of Northwestern University and then President of the Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago; and Wanda White, Executive Director of the Community Workshop on Economic Development. Some of these individuals would resign and be replaced by other equally prominent Chicagoans.

The second operating entity of the CAC would be the Collaborative that would represent various constituencies in the Chicago schools and wider community. It would be:

“A clearing-house for ideas, for resources, for information – the place where strategies are created, successes and failures analyzed, and plans made and shared. The Collaborative under the leadership of the [Project] Director will publicize the Challenge, develop the RFP [Requests for Proposals] and application criteria, host seminars to inform and assist schools through the process, select participating schools, establish working groups, oversee program evaluation, develop the metropolitan strategy, broker waivers and resources, and provide services for networks. In other words, the Collaborative is the place where the Challenge digs its deepest roots into the community and the schools – and it is the heart of the operational work.”

The co-chair of the CAC’s Collaborative from 1995 until 2000 was Bill Ayers. In 1997 Ayers was named Chicago's "Citizen of the Year" for his work on the CAC.

Thus, the leaders of the two operative arms of the CAC from its inception until 2000 were Bill Ayers and Barack Obama.

F. What Happened: The political battle that CAC put itself in

A review of the annual reports submitted to the Annenberg Foundation indicates the close working relationship between the Board and the Collaborative throughout its entire five-year life.

I. 1995

Some examples from the 1995-96 Program Report (prepared in May 1996) include the following:

1) The Collaborative developed the first RFP form for the CAC “which was widely circulated and they held a series of informational meetings throughout the city to acquaint public school staff, school reformers and potential ‘external partners’ with the mission and goals of the CAC."

2) In the first year, the Collaborative “read each of the letters-of-intent” at least three times and rated them and then made recommendations to the CAC board on the disposition of the applications.

3) The Collaborative and the Board worked together on a job description for CAC staff.

4) The Collaborative and the Board worked together on a “process for reviewing planning and implementation networks” which had received grants.

One critical project of the Collaborative and Board in 1996 demonstrates the closely aligned political views of the two operational arms of the CAC:

5) The Collaborative and the Board became direct players in the Chicago LSC elections held in 1996. According to the CAC Report:

“In 1996 the Chicago Public Schools were scheduled to hold the fourth election of Local School Council (LSC) representatives since the school reform of act [sic] of 1988 was passed. As in the past two elections support from the central office of the Chicago Public Schools appeared to be minimal.

"Until, that is, members of the Collaborative coalesced with school reform groups around the city and began to put pressure on the Chicago Public Schools’ central office to promote the elections both by recruiting enough candidates for the open seats so that contested elections would be held and by urging parents and community members to vote. Members of the CAC Collaborative began their work on the LSC elections in late Fall 1995.

"Part of their effort was to seek funding to support efforts at the school level to locate and elect active LSC members. The CAC board was asked in early 1996 to approve funds for a citywide coalition of local organizations who agreed to work on both candidate and voter turnout for the 1996 elections.”

The Board approved a grant of $125,000 for this effort.

6) One of the first grants awarded in 1995 was a $175,000 Implementation Grant to the Small Schools Workshop. The Workshop had been founded by Bill Ayers in 1992 and was headed up by his former Weather Underground comrade and hardcore Maoist, Mike Klonsky. Klonsky actually visited China and met with its stalinist leaders in the early 1970s. Klonsky still heads up the Small Schools Workshop and now hosts a blog on "social justice" and education issues on the official Barack Obama Presidential campaign website.

II. 1996

A second Program Report was filed for the period ending 12/31/1996. Among its relevant comments were the following that indicate the inherently political nature of the CAC Board and Collaborative’s activities:

The Collaborative (still co-chaired by Bill Ayers) and the CAC Staff (now headed by Ken Rolling) prepared an RFP for potential grantees for $2 million allocated by the Board (still chaired by Barack Obama) for “Leadership Development.” Its aim was “to make clear the connection between organizing a base of supporters for school reform with local schools, and a training program on educational issues to assist parents and community members participate in their schools.”

At the May 1996 Board meeting a proposed $2 million Leadership Development Initiative RFP was discussed. This program was a centerpiece of the CAC's early efforts aimed at supporting the recruitment and training of candidates and members of the controversial Local School Councils in Chicago. Barack Obama chaired the meeting. The minutes state:

“After some expression of concern for how the RFP and the Initiative itself would directly support the criteria used by the Challenge in its general grant program Chairman Obama volunteered to meet with representatives of the Collaborative to clarify the purpose of the RFP and to request another draft which would be more carefully tailored to meet the criteria and program of the Challenge.”

At the December 1996 Board meeting former Northwestern University president and business community representative Arnold Weber asked for clarification on a number of issues related to the Leadership Development Initiative RFP for $2 million. According to the Board minutes he was concerned about the relationship of this planned effort to recruit and train new leaders to the existing LSC structure. He also was concerned about the relationship between groups organized with CAC money to school principals. The minutes state: “Principals may view their presence as a political threat.” Barack Obama was absent from this meeting

III. 1997

Following the Board level discussion and then the Barack Obama-led discussion with the Collaborative, according to an Interim Report filed by Ken Rolling in October 1997:

“a new RFP [for Leadership Development] was issued in June 1997 to address the Challenge’s interest in organizing an informed constituency of parents and community residents who will actively support and participate in educational changes in their local schools. The RFP went through a number of revisions as both the Board and Collaborative discussed its goals and implementation….[The Initiative] is a critical aspect of the work of the Challenge as it seeks to increase not only numbers of parents and community residents who are actively engaged in changing their schools but also participants who are knowledgeable of promising and successful educational/academic practices in schools.”

Presumably this represented a compromise that Board Chair Obama was able to work out with the Bill Ayers-led Collaborative in the wake of the concerns raised by business community representative Arnold Weber about the CAC backed leaders becoming a “political threat.”

The annual report for 1997 made special mention of the surrounding political context of the CAC’s work. Director Ken Rolling noted that a goal of the CAC was “seeking a changed policy environment” but that this “has been the most elusive to date with no major progress to report at this time." He explained further:

“The Challenge began its work in 1995 at the same time a dramatic change in the leadership and management of the Chicago Public Schools took place. The Illinois state legislature awarded complete control of the…Schools to the Mayor of Chicago in 1995. A new management team and Reform Board of Trustees was installed and a major emphasis began on administration, financial stability and accountability measures that are tied to specific test scores. The Challenge began its program at the time the central administration of the public schools took off in a different direction.”

Indeed, the 1995 law gave the Mayor and the Board the power to dissolve LSC’s – the very bodies that the CAC was trying to bolster.

IV. 1998

The 1998 Annual Report notes that the Collaborative (still co-chaired by Ayers) “continued to meet throughout 1998 and provided advice and outreach” while its members “regularly participated in site visits and proposal reviews, assisted schools and their networks in developing leadership programs, and assisted in raising funds for the 1998 Local School Council elections to support a wide range of community organizations who worked to recruit both candidates and voters for the Spring 1998 elections.”

V. 1999

According to the Mid-Year Report for 1999 the $2 million for the Leadership Development Initiative was “now fully committed.” The funds “supported efforts to recruit candidates and build turnout for the [LSC] elections in both 1996 and 1998 and provide support” for efforts to improve the “academic life of local schools.”

By the end of this year Board member Arnold Weber would resign and Barack Obama would step down from the role of Board Chair as he anticipated an upcoming run for Congress.

VI. 2000

The CAC Interim Report for 2000 noted that the CAC was “completing funding of seven Leadership Development Initiative projects by June 30, 2001…focused on organizing parents and Local School Councils into more effective relationships with school personnel to affect curriculum and other academic changes in schools.”

Anticipating the end of the CAC the following year, the CAC was “also in the midst of creating a special fund to support future work of the [LSC’s] including ongoing training and development of [LSC] members as well as to assist in recruiting and electing members for the Councils in future years.”

G. The matching money: big corporations and foundations pitch in

A report on the matching funds raised by the CAC indicates that by the end of 1999 approximately $60 million had been raised from a wide range of corporations and foundations. Among the largest contributors were:

Bank of America $1.6 million
DeWitt Wallace-Reader’s Digest Fund $3 million
IBM $2.3 million
Polk Bros. Foundation $6.8 million
Prince Charitable Trusts $1.1 million
Pritzker Foundation $100,000.00
MacArthur Foundation $17.1 million
Joyce Foundation $11 million
Woods Fund $1 million

H. What about the “bottom line”?

The CAC also funded a third arm, the Consortium of Chicago School Research (CCSR), in parallel with the two operational arms, the Board and the Collaborative. This arm was to conduct research on the impact of the CAC’s funding.

In 2003 the final technical report of the CCSR on the CAC was published. The results were not pretty. The “bottom line” according to the report was that the CAC did not achieve its goal of improvement in student academic achievement and nonacademic outcomes. While student test scores improved in the so-called Annenberg Schools that received some of the $150 million disbursed in the six years from 1995 to 2001,

“This was similar to improvement across the system….There were no statistically significant differences in student achievement between Annenberg schools and demographically similar non-Annenberg schools. This indicates that there was no Annenberg effect on achievement.”

The report identified the political conflict between the Local School Council promotion efforts of the CAC – such as the $2 million Leadership Development Initiative - as a possible factor hindering a positive impact on student achievement.

I. Conclusion: an academic failure but political success?

The Challenge allowed Barack Obama and Bill Ayers to work together, no doubt closely, in the heat of political battle to help disburse more than $100 million to allies, particularly in the LSCs, in the Chicago School system. Under the circumstances, it seems more than a bit disingenuous of Senator Obama to dismiss Bill Ayers as “some guy who lives in my neighborhood.”

Not Ready

2008-08-20T22:54:00.003-04:00

Here's a little joke I came up with. Enjoy.

Perhaps said best by, Michael Graham at the Boston Herald, "With all due respect, Sen. Obama, being president is above your pay grade. And the voters are starting to figure that out."

War Works

2008-08-20T22:37:00.002-04:00

In an article by Ralph Peters published in the New York Post, "The Peace-At-Any-Price Peril", he notes:

We're all - right and left - getting an in-your-face lesson about how the world really works. Passive resistance only has a chance when your opponent believes in the rule of law and respect for human rights. Gandhi was effective against law-abiding Britain, but he would've frozen to death in the Soviet gulag - if he'd lived long enough to reach the camps.

I'd love it if we lived in a world where war truly didn't work. But war does work. That doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue other means of resolving international crises - but effective idealism has to be grounded in a practical grasp of present reality.

To make the world a better place, we have to begin with a clear-eyed assessment of what kind of place the world is.

Amazing. Somebody gets it.

Really? I Mean, Really?

2008-08-19T06:40:00.001-04:00

Russian Surprise...Unsurprising

2008-08-17T18:18:00.004-04:00

Hey American's, I'm finally back!

A lot has happened so I will jump right in. For starters, Russia is back to they're same old games. In July, I noted in my Russia Today post that, "Keep an eye on Russia, they're coming back from the cold and it's going to be big"

So it turn out that so far it's just been a turf-war with Georgia, but more is to come. As I noted before, they're nuclear and Putin wants to create a 'grand re-opening' of the old Russian empire in my estimation.

Away At Combat Training

2008-07-21T13:55:00.004-04:00

I will be doing active duty training until late August at Camp Pendleton. I will be in the field and unable to respond until I return.

Keep fighting the good fight!

Kirk Outlook Optimistic

2008-07-18T20:23:00.002-04:00

By Reid Wilson

July 18, 2008

There are fewer incumbents who better fit the description of a paranoid incumbent than Illinois Rep. Mark Kirk. The moderate whose district sits just north of Chicago won his first term with just 51%, and after two easier elections won a fourth term in 2006 with just 53% of the vote. This year, a new poll for his campaign shows, Kirk leads his 2006 opponent by a much wider margin.

The poll, conducted by McLaughlin & Associates for Kirk's campaign, surveyed 300 likely voters on 6/9 for a margin of error of +/- 5.6%. Kirk and advertising executive Dan Seals were tested among a sample that included 35% Democratic respondents, 33% Republican respondents and 32% independents or others.

General Election Matchup
Kirk...........53 (+3 from last, 3/08)
Seals........32 (+3)

A one-day poll is not a standard survey length, and Democrats will make an issue out of the numbers. Most pollsters will conduct their surveys over multiple days to ensure that one news story or event doesn't weigh too heavily on the sample's mind. Too, the sample size is relatively small.

But Kirk's lead is easily outside the margin of error, and his favorable rating is a strong 67% to 16%. Seals' approval rating is 39% compared with 16% who see him unfavorably, a good ratio for a challenger, though he will have to bring up his name identification before he closes the gap with Kirk.

A moderate, Kirk is not likely to be cast as in lock step with Congressional Republicans or President Bush. And though John Kerry and Al Gore won the district in both 2000 and 2004, Kirk has been on the ballot with hometown favorite Barack Obama before, winning 64% of the vote when Kerry beat Bush by a 53%-47% margin in the district.

Still, Democrats are optimistic that they will eventually take the district back. Seals beat out a former Clinton Administration official in the Democratic primary in February, but if he can't knock off Kirk this time around, it may be the last time Seals makes a bid for Congress.

Obama's Iraq

2008-07-17T19:38:00.001-04:00

V-Day Iraq Theatre

2008-07-17T00:16:00.004-04:00

Independent reporter Michael Yon has spent more time in Iraq embedded with combat troops than any other journalist in the world, and a few days ago he boldly declared the war over:

Barring any major and unexpected developments (like an Israeli air strike on Iran and the retaliations that would follow), a fair-minded person could say with reasonable certainty that the war has ended. A new and better nation is growing legs. What's left is messy politics that likely will be punctuated by low-level violence and the occasional spectacular attack. Yet, the will of the Iraqi people has changed, and the Iraqi military has dramatically improved, so those spectacular attacks are diminishing along with the regular violence. Now it's time to rebuild the country, and create a pluralistic, stable and peaceful Iraq. That will be long, hard work. But by my estimation, the Iraq War is over. We won. Which means the Iraqi people won.

As Michael Totten notes,

What most of us still think of as “war” in Iraq is, at this point, a rough and unfinished peacekeeping mission. Whether it is officially over or not, it has certainly been downgraded to something else, and it’s about time more analysts and observers are willing to say so.

Looks like the ol' Commander-in-chief got something right. Listen libs, I hate to say I told you so, but.....yeah, I told you so. On second thought, I actually love telling you I told you so.

Shenanigans

2008-07-16T09:54:00.003-04:00

Here's a list of some of Obama's larger more recent flip-flips as noted by Dick Morris:

• After vowing to eschew private fundraising and take public financing, he has now refused public money.

• Once he threatened to filibuster a bill to protect telephone companies from liability for their cooperation with national security wiretaps; now he has voted for the legislation.

• Turning his back on a lifetime of support for gun control, he now recognizes a Second Amendment right to bear arms in the wake of the Supreme Court decision.

• Formerly, he told the Israeli lobby that he favored an undivided Jerusalem. Now he says he didn't mean it.

• From a 100 percent pro-choice position, he now has migrated to expressing doubts about allowing partial-birth abortions.

• For the first time, he now speaks highly of using church-based institutions to deliver public services to the poor.

• Having based his entire campaign on withdrawal from Iraq, he now pledges to consult with the military first.

• During the primary, he backed merit pay for teachers -- but before the union a few weeks ago, he opposed it.

• After specifically saying in the primaries that he disagreed with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-N.Y.) proposal to impose Social Security taxes on income over $200,000 and wanted to tax all income, he has now adopted the Clinton position.

Obama's breathtaking flips and flops are materially different from McCain's. While McCain had opposed offshore oil drilling and now supports it, the facts have obviously changed. Obama's shifts have nothing to do with altered circumstances, just a change in the political calendar.

McCain Love Ad

2008-07-15T19:56:00.001-04:00

The War Between the Wars

2008-07-15T12:13:00.000-04:00

Who says we can only face our enemies in one place at a time?
By Christopher Hitchens

If there is one element of moral and political certainty that cements the liberal consensus more than any other, it is the complacent view that while Iraq is "a war of choice," it is really and only Afghanistan that is a war of necessity. The ritualistic solidity of this view is impressive. It survives all arguments and all evidence. Just in the last month, as the Iraqi-based jihadists began to beat a retreat and even (according to some reports) to attempt to relocate to Afghanistan and Pakistan, it still seemed to many commentators that this proved that no U.S. forces should have been wasted on Iraq in the first place. This simplistic view ignores, at a minimum, the following points:

1. Many of the al-Qaida forces—most notably the horrific but now deceased Abu Musab al-Zarqawi—made their way to Iraq in the first place only after being forcibly evicted from Afghanistan. Thus, if one did not want to be confronting Bin Laden fans in Mesopotamia, it was surely a mistake to invade Afghanistan rather than Iraq.
2. The American presence in Afghanistan is not at all "unilateral"; it meets every liberal criterion of being formally underwritten and endorsed and armed and reinforced by our NATO and U.N. allies. Indeed, the commander of the anti-Taliban forces is usually not even an American. Yet it is in these circumstances that more American casualties—and not just American ones—are being experienced than are being suffered in Iraq. If this is so, the reason cannot simply be that our resources are being deployed elsewhere.
3. Many of the most successful drives against the Taliban have been conducted by American forces redeployed from Iraq, in particular from Anbar province. But these military victories are the result of counterinsurgent tactics and strategies that were learned in Iraq and that have been applied triumphantly in Afghanistan.

In other words, any attempt to play off the two wars against each other is little more than a small-minded and zero-sum exercise. And consider the implications. Most people appear now to believe that it is quite wrong to mention Saddam Hussein even in the same breath as either a) weapons of mass destruction or b) state-sponsored terrorism. I happen to disagree, but just for an experiment, let us imagine that some regime did exist or did arise that posed such a combination of threats. (Actually, so feverish is my imagination that I can even think of one whose name also begins with I.) Would we be bound to say, in public and in advance, that the Western alliance couldn't get around to confronting such a threat until it had Afghanistan well under control? This would be rather like the equivalent fallacy that nothing can be done in the region until there is a settlement of the Israel-Palestine dispute. Not only does this mean that every rogue in the region can reset his timeline until one of the world's oldest and most intractable quarrels is settled, it also means that every rogue has an incentive to make certain that no such settlement can ever occur. (Which is, of course, why Saddam threw, and now the Iranians throw, their support to the suicide-murderers.)

It would also be very nice to accept another soft-centered corollary of the Iraq vs. Afghanistan trade-off and to believe that the problem of Afghanistan is a problem only of the shortage of troops. Strangely, this is not the view of the Afghan government or of any of the NATO forces on the ground. The continued and, indeed, increasing insolence of the Taliban and its al-Qaida allies is the consequence of one thing and one thing only. These theocratic terrorists know that they have a reliable backer in the higher echelons of the Pakistani state and of its military-intelligence complex and that while this relationship persists, they are assured of a hinterland across the border and a regular supply of arms and recruits.

So, the question for Sen. Barack Obama and his glib supporters is this: Would they solve this problem by removing the American forces from Iraq and putting the thereby-enhanced contingent there to patrol a frontier where one of our main "allies" is continually engaged in stabbing them in the back? (At one point last year, Obama himself appeared to accept the illogic of his own position and spoke hotly of the possibility of following the Taliban onto Pakistani soil. We haven't heard much of that lately. Did he mean to say that, come to think of it, we had enough troops to occupy three countries instead of the stipulated and solitary one? Or would he just exchange Iraq for Pakistan? At least we do know for sure that Pakistan has nuclear weapons acquired mainly by piracy and is the host and patron of the Taliban and al-Qaida.)

Another consideration obtrudes itself. If it is true, as yesterday's three-decker front-page headline in the New York Times had it, that "U.S. Considering Stepping Up Pace of Iraq Pullout/ Fall in Violence Cited/ More Troops Could Be Freed for Operations in Afghanistan," then this can only be because al-Qaida in Iraq has been subjected to a battlefield defeat at our hands—a military defeat accompanied by a political humiliation in which its fanatics have been angrily repudiated by the very people they falsely claimed to be fighting for. If we had left Iraq according to the timetable of the anti-war movement, the situation would be the precise reverse: The Iraqi people would now be excruciatingly tyrannized by the gloating sadists of al-Qaida, who could further boast of having inflicted a battlefield defeat on the United States. I dare say the word of that would have spread to Afghanistan fast enough and, indeed, to other places where the enemy operates. Bear this in mind next time you hear any easy talk about "the hunt for the real enemy" or any loose babble that suggests that we can only confront our foes in one place at a time.

Planning to Ignore the Facts

2008-07-15T12:11:00.000-04:00

By Rich Lowry

At some point, Democrats decided that facts didn't matter anymore in Iraq. And they nominated just the man to reflect the party's new anti-factual consensus on the war, a Barack Obama who has fixedly ignored changing conditions on the ground.

It's gotten harder as the success of the surge has become undeniable, but -- despite some wobbles -- Obama is sticking to his plan for a 16-month timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. He musters dishonesty, evasion and straw-grasping to try to create a patina of respectability around a scandalously unserious position.

Obama spokesmen now say everyone knew that President Bush's troop surge would create more security. This is blatantly false. Obama said in early 2007 that nothing in the surge plan would "make a significant dent in the sectarian violence," and the new strategy would "not prove to be one that changes the dynamics significantly." He referred to the surge derisively as "baby-sit(ting) a civil war."

Now that the civil war has all but ended, he wants to claim retroactive clairvoyance. In a New York Times op-ed laying out his position, Obama credits the heroism of our troops and new tactics with bringing down the violence. Our troops have always been heroic; what made the difference was the surge strategy that Obama lacked the military judgment -- or political courage -- to support.

In his oped, Obama states that "the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true," citing the strain on the military, the deterioration in Afghanistan and the fiscal drain. All of those are important, but pale compared with the achievement in Iraq -- beating back al-Qaida and Iranian-backed militias, and restoring a semblance of order to a country on the verge of a collapse from which only our enemies could have benefited.

Politically, Obama has to notionally support defeating al-Qaeda in Iraq, so even after he's executed his 16-month withdrawal, he says there will be a "residual force" of American troops to take on "remnants of al-Qaida." How can he be so sure there will only be "remnants"? If there are, it will be because the surge Obama opposed has pushed al-Qaeda to the brink. The more precipitously we withdraw our troops, the more likely al-Qaeda is to mount a comeback.

Obama treats as a vindication a recent statement by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki calling for a timeline for withdrawal of U.S. forces. But Maliki, playing to his domestic politic audience, can't be taken at face value. Neither Maliki nor anyone around him talks of an unconditional 16-month timeline for withdrawal as being remotely plausible. His defense minister says Iraqis will be ready to handle internal security on their own in 2012 and external security by 2020.

The Iraqis most enthusiastic about Obama's plan surely are al-Qaeda members, Sadrists, Iranian agents and sectarian killers of every stripe. The prospect of an American president suddenly letting up on them has to be the best cause for hope they've had in months. Obama's withdrawal would immediately embolden every malign actor in Iraq, and increase their sway in Iraqi politics.

In his oped, Obama sticks to the badly dated contention that Iraqis "have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge." In fact, roughly 15 of 18 political benchmarks have been met by the Iraqis -- progress Obama threatens to reverse.

Obama loves to say that we have to withdraw from Iraq "responsibly." There's nothing responsible about his plan. According to U.S. commanders on the ground, it may not even be logistically possible. Does Obama even care? He says that when he's elected he'd give the military a new mission -- to end the war. Conditions in Iraq, let alone winning, are marginalia.

There are two possible interpretations -- either Obama is dangerously sincere, or he's a cynical operator playing duplicitous politics with matters of war and peace. Watch this space.

Silly Barry, Tricks Are For Kids

2008-07-14T21:02:00.002-04:00

Osama, er, Obama is at it again. This week, we saw him begin to unfold is anticipated new Iraq position. After slowly crafting a u-turn on his withdrawl, it seems he's decided his voters aren't bright enough to understand the impossibility of the logistics of his position on the timetable so he'll just stick with it.

In his recent NYT op-ed, he noted,

We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.

Of course he's "long advocated" that. And since he says so, it's naturally true. Somehow Barry thinks that fighting terrorists in Iraq as opposed to in Scranton, PA would be better for our security interests.

He cites the Iraqi government as saying they want the US out as reason to pursue a timetable full-on. But as noted by Reuters,

"I don't think Maliki is very keen to set a timetable for withdrawal," said Joost Hiltermann, an Iraq expert at the International Crisis Group. "They (the govt) still know very well how much U.S. support they need for military operations."

But naturally the American left doesn't actually get their news from any else than Obama's speeches so they're none the wiser.

Here's a fun little video that gives you a better idea of Barry's tricks:

And while we're having some fun, I thought I'd throw in the coming "tasteless" New Yorker cover for kicks. Quite unsurprisingly the American Flag is burning, Michelle's strapped, Obama's Osama, and they're doing that fruity little pound they did when he got on stage in Springfield to accept the party nomination.

Russia Today

2008-07-12T12:26:00.002-04:00

A quick post about Russia:

Why do we not see them in the news at home more frequently??

They're highly unstable, nuclear, and refuse to cooperate with the west on anything.

Ever since Medvedev took power, and Putin stepped aside (not down, he is still effectively in charge), Russia has been doing some crazy stuff. They refuse to allow a missile defense shield which would stand no chance against Russia anyway. They have cooperated very little in the War on Terror, and the country generally operates as a police-state.

Keep an eye on Russia, they're coming back from the cold and it's going to be big.

Adobe Photoshop CSIran

2008-07-11T01:41:00.004-04:00

Iran's doctored photo (bottom image) displays their recent missile launch. Naturally I was shocked when I heard the launch was pulled off without a hitch. Of course Tehran knows that wasn't the case but tried not to embarrass itself.

This one goes right on the shelf for 'crazy-countries-determined-to-look-strong-that-are-actually-weak', sitting right next to North Korea.

Way to be guys. Keep up embarrassments like this long enough, America may just drop some food on your country out of pity someday soon. Either food or ordnance. One of the two.

Pickens Plan

2008-07-09T18:47:00.001-04:00

Silly Iran

2008-07-09T15:04:00.005-04:00

Iran fired medium and long rang test missiles Wednesday. Nice going Iran.

To give you an analogy, Iran is like a small child who sees a pot on the stove and is slowly tugging at it's handle to see how close the pot will get to the edge without spilling. Well, I've got news Iran, the pot is filled with boiling water and you're getting mighty close to being scalded.

The New York Times noted the American and Israeli response.

The Israelis — whose air force last month practiced what American intelligence officials called a rehearsal for a possible strike on Iranian nuclear facilities — said they did not want war with Iran. But Mark Regev, a spokesman for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, said, “The Iranian nuclear program and the Iranian ballistic missile program must be of grave concern to the entire international community.”
The missile tests drew a sharp response from the United States. Gordon D. Johndroe, the deputy White House press secretary, said in a statement at the Group of 8 meeting in Japan that Iran’s development of ballistic missiles was a violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions.
“The Iranian regime only furthers the isolation of the Iranian people from the international community when it engages in this sort of activity,” Mr. Johndroe said.
He urged Iran to “refrain from further missile tests if they truly seek to gain the trust of the world,” and said, “The Iranians should stop the development of ballistic missiles which could be used as a delivery vehicle for a potential nuclear weapon immediately.”

What Change

2008-07-09T02:16:00.003-04:00

I'm sharing this commentary and article from a local fan. Thanks Tim!

As Obama has temporarily shifted to the middle to pick up moderate votes, I am not clear where he stands (or will stand in the future) on many issues. I am not sure where he will land after his campaign shifting has run it's course. At this point "change" is good, but will it be good change or bad change. Change to the middle, change to the far left? Truly, our economy is in shambles and much of it is "broken", but it frightens me to hear talk of forced redistribution of wealth. It runs contrary to capitalist principles. Yes, it would help me to have my taxes cut by taking capitol away from some ridiculously wealthy person, but I will make it somehow, some way without the handout, thank you. I feel the country as a whole is over compensating to the far left (rather than the middle) to get away from the policies of George Bush. I have always valued moderation. I considered myself a moderate Conservative. It is hard for me to comprehend how it makes sense to veer to the far left in order to rid the country of anything George Bush. I found this posting (below) by a Cuban Marine and thought it very though provoking.

Beware Charismatic Men Who Preach 'Change'

Each year I get to celebrate Independence Day twice. On June 30 I celebrate my independence day and on July 4 I celebrate America's. This year is special, because it marks the 40th anniversary of my independence.

On June 30, 1968, I escaped Communist Cuba and a few months later I was in the United States to stay. That I happened to arrive in Richmond on Thanksgiving Day is just part of the story, but I digress.

I've thought a lot about the anniversary this year. The election-year rhetoric has made me think a lot about Cuba and what transpired there. In the late 1950s, most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, and they were right. So when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.

When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said "Praise the Lord." And when the young leader said, "I will be for change and I'll bring you change," everyone yelled, "Viva Fidel!"

But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner's guns went silent the people's guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone received their free education it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him. By the time the change was finally implemented Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status. By the time the change was over more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes. You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world the most fortunate Cubans. And now I'm back to the beginning of my story.

Luckily, we would never fall in America for a young leader who promised change without asking, what change? How will you carry it out? What will it cost America?

Would we?

Manuel Alvarez Jr.

Vets For Freedom Ad

2008-07-08T12:58:00.001-04:00

China Pollute

2008-07-08T12:57:00.005-04:00

As the Chinese ramp up their infrastructure to get ready for the Beijing Olympics, one thing is becoming increasingly clear: China is filthy.

For the past several years, many people have predicted that China will be the future's global dominator; that we'll all speak Chinese. But consider this: China still has a population with more people living under the extreme poverty line than the United States has citizens.

Their cities are filthy with pollution and in fact, the country has begun shutting down factories just to prevent the smog from getting worse before the Olympics. It will be interesting to see how well the athletes can compete in polluted air (I predict few new world records will be set).

The country may have a giant booming economy, but that only affects a small portion of the population.

For China to pose any real threat to U.S. interests (to which the Chinese are actually bound), they will desperately need to overhaul their environment. And that says a lot, coming from me.

They will not be able to continue as the world's #1 polluter and have any shot at being the world's #1 power.

Election 2008 Update

2008-07-06T20:58:00.004-04:00

A quick campaign update:

-Obama is pretending he's a moderate.
-Obama is planning his u-turn on the situation in Iraq (he'll probably claim we're winning because of him).
-John McCain is actually doing his job in the Senate vs. Obama's present-votes/no-votes.
-John McCain is working on realistic policies that will actually address energy issues.

UPDATE: Obama gave a speech about the philosophy of energy policy.

I think it's all summed up best in a Dick Morris and Eileen McGann article,

"John McCain: when you have real experience, you don't need to exaggerate."

Let Me Do Service Because I WANT To

2008-07-06T20:55:00.003-04:00

All I can say is, really? I mean, REALLY??

ps: what a bastard for placing the 5 veterans that support him right behind him for the speech.

Hope Series

2008-07-05T16:49:00.016-04:00

In the Hope series, I convey a more accurate image of Barack Obama and the company he keeps.

His friends:

Reverend Wright "Kill the whitey"

Bernadine Dohrn-Marxist terrorist

William Ayers-Marxist terrorist

Mark Ruddinsky-Marxist terrorist

William Ayers-Present day

Thank You

2008-07-02T21:06:00.001-04:00

Bush's America

2008-07-02T18:10:00.007-04:00

In light of the current election, discussion of the Bush legacy is abundant. Most curious of this legacy is that many seem to utterly loathe him. Speaking with some Democrats, you get the sense that the President is worse than the enemy.

I don't know what left turn this country took that makes the President an idol of evil, but it may not be as bad as some make it out to be.

A recent Mark Davis, columnist for the Dallas Morning News, article noted that, Hillary Clinton's campaign speeches were punctuated with,

"The whole world is going to breathe a sigh of relief," she would proclaim, "when that moving van pulls up to the White House on its way back to Texas.

"She is, of course, largely correct. The sigh of relief will not issue from the whole world exactly, but from large parts of it.

The article goes on to note that the following people will be relieved at the president's exit:

-Hugo Chavez: Venezuela's socialist dictator. Nationalized Citgo Gas

-Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: Iran’s dictator. “Israel must be wiped off the map”

-Kim Jong Il: North Korea's dictator. Oppressor of 23 million people

-Hamas: Terrorist organization. Enough said.

All have endorsed Barack Obama for president.

Ret. Gen. At It Again

2008-06-30T21:38:00.004-04:00

Retired Army General Wesley Clark is at it again. This time it's again one of his very own: John McCain.

Recently, Clark, an Obama adviser, came down critically on Senator McCain's record of service stating,

"I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."

and,

"McCain's service as a prisoner made him 'a hero'."

First, I must say that if serving this country by putting your life on the line doesn't qualify you to be president, then there's no f***** way that serving in the Senate for barely a year and making a speech at the DNC several years back makes you qualified. What the hell planet is Clark living on?

Moreover, pejoratively labeling McCain 'a hero' for the character he showed during his years in a Viet Cong prisoner of war camp make me sick. To give you an idea of what McCain went through for his country, here's a brief history.

In March 1968 (OBAMA WAS 7 AT THE TIME), McCain was put into solitary confinement where he would remain for two year.

In mid-1968, McCain's father was named commander of all U.S. forces in the Vietnam theater, and McCain was offered early release. The North Vietnamese wanted to appear merciful for propaganda purposes, and also wanted to show other POWs that elites like McCain were willing to be treated preferentially. McCain turned down the offer of repatriation; he would only accept the offer if every man taken in before him was released as well.

In August of 1968, a program of severe torture began on McCain. McCain was subjected to repeated beatings and rope bindings, at the same time as he was suffering from dysentery (Obama was still playing on the playground and had not yet begun his cocaine addiction). His injuries left him permanently incapable of raising his arms above his head. He subsequently received two to three beatings per week because of his continued refusal to sign additional statements.

Now I'm not sure what the hell kind of character Obama has shown. To date, he's been friends with convicted terrorists, political machines, went to a church that preached white-hate, and is willing to do anything or bend and break any of his values for political gain.

General Clark, WTF, sir??

McCain v Obama 1972

2008-06-29T23:21:00.001-04:00

Pelosi Strikes Again

2008-06-28T01:53:00.001-04:00

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/fairness_doctrine_limits_free.html

Obama: Washington Politician

2008-06-28T01:52:00.001-04:00

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11384.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/the_evermalleable_mr_obama.html

Guns

2008-06-26T18:10:00.005-04:00

Well, it's about time. Finally the Supreme Court ruled on the Second Amendment and the ownership of guns. Quoted from a New York Times article, Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights,

"Justice Anthony Scalia, writing for the majority in the landmark 5-to-4 decision, said the Constitution does not allow “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.” In so declaring, the majority found that a gun-control law in the nation’s capital went too far by making it nearly impossible to own a handgun."

What took so long anyway?

Unsurprisingly, the GOP was quick to remind the public of Barack Obama's anti-gun stance on the DC gun ban noting last year, "Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional." Way to be, Obama--you're willing to meet with dictators, but you won't let American's use the Second Amendment.

Obamaniac

2008-06-26T17:17:00.005-04:00

It's All About Obama
By KARL ROVE
June 26, 2008

Many candidates have measured the Oval Office drapes prematurely. But Barack Obama is thefirst to redesign the presidential seal before the election.

His seal featured an eagle emblazoned with his logo, and included a Latin version of his campaign slogan. This was an attempt by Sen. Obama to make himself appear more presidential. But most people saw in the seal something else – chutzpah – and he's stopped using it. Such arrogance – even self-centeredness – have featured often in the Obama campaign.

Consider his treatment of Jeremiah Wright. After Rev. Wright repeated his anti-American slurs at the National Press Club, Mr. Obama said their relationship was forever changed – but not because of what he'd said about America. Instead, Mr. Obama complained, "I don't think he showed much concern for me."

Translation: Rev. Wright is an impediment to my ambitions. So, as it turns out, are some of Mr. Obama's previous pledges.

Read the rest at:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121443823260805375.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Climate Change

2008-06-26T16:55:00.006-04:00

I'm going to keep this simple because it could take days if I went into detail.

Climate change. Nobody has conclusive evidence of it. Even if the evidence could be attained, there's no way to prove it anthropogenic. Moreover, if you're still convinced buying a hybrid will make a difference, note that a single volcanic eruption spews out more climate affecting gases in a few day, than the United States produces in a whole year. And there's thousands of explosions every century. So everybody better stop exhaling from now till...forever.

On that note, say I still grant all the previous climate change drivel. China already produces more emissions than America and for us to kill our whole economy by a measure of government policing, we'd be pretty much screwed anyway.

I support clean technology. I support energy independence. I support a clean environment. But guess what, you can't just make all of that happen overnight by a bill. It happens through the free market anyway. Example: gas costs are high, companies come out with hybrid SUV's. As much of an irony that a hybrid SUV is, you get my point.

Haditha and Boumedienne

2008-06-26T16:41:00.006-04:00

As the 7th of the 8 Marines accused of killing innocents in Haditha was cleared recently, something became clear to me.

As the Boumedienne case passed the Supreme Court, giving foreign enemies, captured and held overseas, entitlement to the protections of the United States Constitution, that thing became even more clear.

We now live in a United States where many politicians and other high officials have functionally made legalized the system so that: Terrorists are less suspected of crimes than UNITED STATES MARINES.

What left turn did we make to accomplish that clusterf*** of a decision?

Oorah devildogs, you're the real heroes, even if the Supreme Court says al-Aqbar is the real innocent (after he's blown up a marketplace or two of course).

Wait...When Did We Start Winning?

2008-06-26T16:23:00.002-04:00

Ask any regular Joe about the War in Iraq, and the sentiment seems to be, "We're losing and we should get out." That is of course if the person has been living in a cave for the last two years and claims to be for the candidate for 'change', whilst refusing to recognize inconvenient change.

A recent Michael Barone article, The Facts in Iraq Are Changing, notes a different story. When the troop surge was announced in the Spring of 2007, democrats railed it as the biggest military strategy mistake ever. "Once again, Ol' Bushy managed to outdo himself with another half-wit plan!" they said.

I took a step back from all the punditry and thought for a moment. It appeared as though the new democratic plan of attack was hinged upon America losing the War in Iraq. You see, they were so convinced that we would lose and they would get the chance to play 'I-told-ya-so', that they didn't stop to think about the possibility of us actually winning the war.

For the democrats it was 'lose the war, win the election'. Unfortunately for democrats, the more realistic scenario has become, 'win the war, lose the election'. I'd like to note that when questioned by reporters about his support of the war and it's political fallout last summer, Senator McCain was quoted saying, "I'd rather win the War on Terror than the presidency."

So now democrats are scrambling to find new positions that are less likely to backfire on them and make them look like asses again.

We're Not Alone

2008-06-26T16:16:00.003-04:00

In a 2004 Heritage Foundation article, The Myth of U.S. Isolation: Why America Is Not Alone in the War on Terror, it is clear that the United States has many allies, despite public portrayal of our isolation.

I recognize that this article is a bit dated, however, it still makes a valid point that's quite relevant today.

"The United States retains the political support of many key allies, from Tokyo to Warsaw. In fighting the war on terror, the United States has assembled one of the greatest international coalitions the world has seen. Managing such a huge global coalition is of course an extremely difficult task. It requires skillful leadership, and its strength is limited by a lack of military capability, technology, and manpower on the part of coalition members. By any historical measure, the U.S.-led coalition is an extraordinarily successful alliance."

The United States is not alone and don't let anyone fool you into thinking otherwise.

Defeating Defeatists

2008-06-26T15:10:00.004-04:00

Looking at the War on Terror and the War in Iraq, I can't help but feel proud of the accomplishments of the United States and our Allies (see post "We're Not Alone"). We've made remarkable headway with the country's security and government. Our forces are even doing things like helping to build schools and pass out supplies like Col. John Bivens below.

But more needs to be one in the way of American's waking up. In Iraq and the General War on Terror, many key accomplishments are noted that I have seen the media ignore time and time again.

"How odd (or to be expected) that suddenly intelligence agencies, analysts, journalists, and terrorists themselves are attesting that al-Qaeda is in near ruins, that ideologically radical Islam is losing its appeal, and that terrorist incidents against Americans at home and abroad outside the war zones are at an all-time low—and yet few associate the radical change in fortune in Iraq as a contributory cause to our success.
But surely the US military contributed a great deal to the humiliation of al-Qaedists and the bankruptcy of their cause, since it has (1) killed thousands of generic jihadists, and to such a degree that the former Middle East romance of going to Iraq to fight the weak crusaders is now synonymous with a death sentence and defeat; (2) provided the window of security necessary for the growing confidence of the Maliki government whose success is absolutely destroying the Islamist canard that the U.S. backs only dictatorships. Indeed, al-Qaeda's greatest fear is successful Arab constitutional government; something still caricatured here at home as a neocon pipe dream.

In addition, the grotesque tactics that al-Qaeda in duress developed in Iraq weakened its case throughout the Middle East; while the Americans learned just the opposite lesson under Gen. Petraeus—how to win hearts and mind while mastering the elements of counter-insurgency. In contrast, the terrorists learned how to lose a war while alienating the Muslim population.

I would expect the Maliki government to gain greater respect abroad, and maybe it will cease to be the punching bag here at home, given its recent accomplishments—made possible by the efforts of the U.S. military. There is an odd feeling that the more books come out damning the Iraq war, and the more politicians write it off as a fiasco, the more Iraqis are showing the world that a constitutional government can survive the enormous odds set against it. Final note. I think this May may have been the lowest month for American military fatalities (19) since the war started in March 2003."

It's about time American's figure out how well we're doing isn't it?

The War in Iraq: Yes We Can!

2008-06-26T15:00:00.002-04:00

A recent Weekly Standard article, Win the War? Yes We Can!, noted that success in Iraq is bountiful. Speaking with a Marine Lt. Col. who has served to recent tours with the surge mentioned that good things are happening every day and that there's a disconnect between what's happening on the ground and what's being shown on the news. The article notes:

"evidence of progress in the war on terror is just about everywhere. Last week CIA director Michael Hayden noted some U.S. accomplishments for the Washington Post: "Near strategic defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Near strategic defeat for al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. Significant setbacks for al-Qaeda globally." USA Today: Attacks in Iraq are "down 70 percent since President Bush ordered a U.S. troop increase, or 'surge,' early last year."
The New Yorker's Lawrence Wright devoted a long essay to Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, onetime mentor to Ayman al Zawahiri, who now criticizes his former protégé and Osama bin Laden and suggests they be put on trial. In the New Republic, Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank told the story of Sheikh Salman al-Awdah, author of an open letter attacking bin Laden and violent jihad that has caused shockwaves across the Muslim world. The sheikhs of Anbar Province in Iraq lead a national, transsectarian movement preparing for provincial elections by the end of the year. Polling shows a widespread decline in support among Muslims for suicide bombing and for bin Laden. Fareed Zakaria observed that the number of Islamist attacks worldwide has declined precipitously since 2004."

Props to the President for having the courage (and stubbornness) to see this war through a barrage of liberal cynicism.

Change

2008-06-26T13:26:00.004-04:00

With Obama's tax policies, it'll be better to be poor in America than to try to work hard and get ahead. Welcome to the new era of the Welfare State v.Obama.

Democrats Against Obama

2008-06-26T13:18:00.001-04:00

The Obama Issue

2008-06-26T12:41:00.008-04:00

(click title for National Review's "10 Concerns about Barack Obama")

Over the course of the past few years, Barack Obama has gone from a one term Senator, to a presidential candidate.

Here is what I would like to know:

Does anybody remember history?
When President Kennedy met with Khrushchev, America came off weak and next thing we knew, we had the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Dictators like Iran's Ahmadinejad openly admit they will not compromise with the United States on anything, ever.

Semptember 11, 2001- Our country lost over 2,700 innocent citizens at the hand of terrorists trained in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.

What does Obama offer?
Barely a year in the U.S. Senate before he began campaigning full-time. (Most of that year was also spent prepping for the run.) In that time he also managed to rack up a record making him the most liberal Senator in recent U.S. history.

Naive foreign policy. It's a miracle we won World War II without his grand speeches of reconciliation. Damn good thing we made it through, however. I prefer speaking English over German, Italian, and Japanese.

Friendship with:

William Ayers-a founding member of the Weather Underground terrorist organization that bombed the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon during the 1970s. "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."

Bernardine Dohrn- member of Weather Underground terrorist organization. "Now we are adapting the classic guerrilla strategy of the Viet Cong and the urban guerrilla strategy of the Tupamaros to our own situation here in the most technically advanced country in the world. "

Rev. Jeramiah Wright-Pastor of Trinity Church and preacher of Black Liberation Theology. For short: kill the white oppressor and the white God.

Tony Rezko-Chicago political machine--corrupt in every way and tied to nearly everyone corupt in the city.

Obama refuses to respect the Flag

SNL Obama-Clinton

2008-06-26T12:39:00.001-04:00

Embed Great Saturday Night Live Videos!
Embed Great Saturday Night Live Videos!

Pickup

2008-06-26T00:37:00.008-04:00

Mission

This blog is for me to share my world view as a Marine, a conservative, and a student.

Focuses will include: the War on Terror, election politics, world politics, and the news.

I am biased, but so are you.

Blog Flag

The blog flag is based on the American flag.

The four stars represent President Reagan, Lieutenant General Lewis "Chesty" Puller, Ayn Rand, and Sean Hannity.

The red field is for conservativism.

The blue field represents the oceans that have protected our country.

The single white stripe is to remind us that we are eternally, "One Nation, Under God".