Randy Newman's Crazy Liberal Rant

With the release of his 700th album, singer songwriter Randy Newman may be showing some signs of senility.

His latest CD contains this gem, a grandparent-esque rant, in which the respected historian, geo-political expert and the artist who gave us classics such as Short People, informs the world that our American empire is crumbling around us.

Now, we all expect this kind of silliness from the entertainment business, but check out what he says about Supreme Court justices, Alito, Scalia and Thomas near the end of the song.

Whoa!


That's borderline right there Randy.


A Few Words In Defense Of Our Country


I’d like to sayA few wordsIn defense of our country
Whose people aren't bad
Nor are they mean
Now, the leaders we have
While they're the worst that we've had
Are hardly the worst
This poor world has seen
Let's turn history's pages, shall we?


Take the Caesars, for example
Why, with the first few of them
They were sleeping with their sister,
stashing little boys in swimming pools,
and burning down the city
And one of 'em, one of 'em appointed his own horse to be Counsel of the Empire
That's like vice president or something


That's not a very good example right now, is it?


But here's one:Spanish Inquisition
That's a good one
Put people in a terrible positionI don't even like to think about it
Well, sometimes I like to think about it

Just a few words
In defense of our country
Whose time at the top
Could be coming to an end
Now, we don't want their love
And respect at this point's pretty much out of the question
But in times like these
We sure could use a friend

HitlerStalinMen who need no introduction
King Leopold of Belgium, that's right
Everyone thinks he's so great
Well, he owned the CongoHe tore it up too
Took the diamondsTook the silverTook the goldYou know what he left 'em with?

Malaria

You know, a president once said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself"
Now it seems like we're supposed to be afraidIt's patriotic, in factColor-coded
What we supposed to be afraid of?
Why, of being afraidThat's what terror means, doesn't it?
That's what it used to mean

You know, it pisses me off a little that this Supreme Court's gonna outlive me
Couple young Italian fellas and a brother on the Court now too
But I defy you, anywhere in the world, to find me two Italians as tightass as the two Italians we got

And as for the brotherWell, Pluto's not a planet anymore either

The end of an empire Is messy at best
And this empire's ending
Like all the rest
Like the Spanish ArmadaAdrift on the sea
We're adrift in the land of the braveAnd the home of the freeGoodbyeGoodbyeGoodbye

I may be way off here, but is Newman implying that Clarence Thomas isn't really black anymore, becasue of his political views? Did he just say that in his mind, Thomas lost his status as a "brother" in the same way that Pluto lost its status as a planet?

Oh man! You are so lucky that no one takes you seriously anymore Randy or your face would be plastered all over O'Reilly's dart board.

Crazy old Randy. America's ambassador to the world.

Sphere: Related Content

Sensing Danger, Obama Plays The Race Card

Based on recent polling data, it increasingly appears as though Barack Obama’s recent trip overseas was not the success that many in the media made it out to be in its immediate aftermath.

New polls released this week show McCain pulling to a statistical dead heat with Sen. Obama and gaining ground in several key swing states.

Obama must sense the tide turning, because on Wednesday he shamelessly took a page from the Sharpton/Jackson playbook and used his race to attack John McCain and the GOP.

Here’s what Obama said:

“Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face. So what they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, ‘He’s not patriotic enough, he’s got a funny name.’ You know, ‘He doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.”’

Of course, we all know what Obama was implying when he made this statement.

When questioned on the meaning of this statement, Obama’s campaign gave this weak explanation:

“He was describing that he was new to the political scene. He was referring to the fact that he didn’t come into the race with the history of others. It’s not about race.”

Yeah, right. The Obama campaign must think that we’re all pretty stupid.

With the media finally taking the Senator to task on his opposition to the surge and the surprising news that the U.S. did not dip into a recession but rather experienced modest economic growth in the second quarter, it would appear the Obama is adjusting his tactics.

Running as a post-racial candidate who transcends the boundaries of typical racial stereotypes, helped Obama in the primaries. However, abandoning that, in order to call his opponents racist, is a sure sign that the candidate of “change” is really just another typical, Democratic politician.

In addition, this statement flies in the face of yet another foundation of the Obama campaign, this being Obama’s promise to use “hope” rather than “fear” when promoting his agenda. But “fear” seems to be Obama’s weapon of choice, as he tells his supporters that McCain and the evil, racist GOP will attempt to convince the American people to vote against Obama because of his skin color. Of course this is nonsense, and Obama has absolutely no examples with which to back up such a ludicrous theory.

What are you basing this prediction on Senator?

This week Sen. McCain released an ad, which featured Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton, in a effort to show that Sen. Obama is running more as a celebrity, powered by young fans who have an emotional connection with the senator due to his soaring rhetoric, rather than as a serious policy advocate with the experience and knowledge to lead.

Senator Obama was quick to criticize the ad saying that we should be having a debate on the issues, rather than focusing on perpetually intoxicated starlets.

If Obama really believes this, then he should put the money where his mouth is and agree to the joint town hall meetings that Sen. McCain has proposed.

So far the Obama campaign has been almost exclusively style as opposed to the substance that people should expect from candidates running for our nation’s highest office. Then again style may be the way to go, when you’re running a candidate whose energy policy consists of telling people to keep their tires inflated.

Obama’s recent proclivity for race-baiting, suggests that many folks are beginning to realize this and are taking a second look at this unknown political entity.

-Dan Joseph

Sphere: Related Content

'08 Polls Mirror 2004

Remember when John Kerry was arrogantly overconfident about his chances of winning the 2004 election? What a summer it was. Check these out. Compare the numbers from late July. Bush didn't even have a consistent lead until late August.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_hth.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

Just remember. Three months is an eternity in presidential elections.

Sphere: Related Content

Obama Makes Play For Germany's Electoral Votes

Barack Obama essentially apologized to Europeans on behalf of the US today for bringing Democracy to a backwards part of the world.


"I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we've struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We've made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions."

Ironically, it was the German government, in bed with Saddam economically and still unwilling to use their NATO troops in combat situation in Afghanistan who owe the world an apology.

The last thing this nation and the rest of the world needs is for America to adopt European socialism. Do some research and you'll quickly see that the economic fortunes of most Western European nations have lagged well behind those of the United States over the last 30 years.

Like many young people I know in this country, Europe is enamored with Obama for three reasons:

1. He speaks well

2. He's not White

3. He views America less as a force for good in the world and more as a nation that should bow to the demands of the rest of the globe.


Not smart.

These are just words, and Obama's eloquent delivery means no more than that of a talented musician or gifted thespian. Look at his record if you need more proof of this.

We'll see if the polls continue to tighten in the aftermath of the Obama trip. I believe that there will not be a signifigant bump, but I could be wrong.

This isn't a reality show people and the Germans swooning should not give you hope, but should instead give great pause to those who are interested in having the Commander-In-Chief work in the interests of the American people.

Sphere: Related Content

Obama Can't Admit He Was Wrong On The Surge

In his half a term as a United States Senator, Barack Obama has only had to cast one important foreign policy vote. He blew it.

Barack Obama's vote against the president's successful "surge strategy" speaks volumes about how this "different" kind of politician would approach issues of the up most importance while in office. He would approach them like a typical politician.

Had Obama had his way, the war in Iraq would probably be lost. While Obama can't say that this is what he wanted, the primary support on which he relied from his left-wing base, insisted that he oppose any policy that might turn the situation in Iraq around, in favor of immediate withdrawal.

Now, I don't believe that Barack Obama wants to lose a war. He's a smart guy, and I'm sure that in his heart he knows that American success in Iraq is essential and that a stable democracy in the center of the Middle-East would be a huge help to the United States in fighting the War on Terror. However the Senator has been painted into a corner by his strongest supporters, for whom the only acceptable position on Iraq is one in which American soldiers are all brought home immediately regardless of the consequences.

Once again, Obama is smart enough to know that the path in Iraq that is most beneficial to American interests in one in which there is some kind of long term American presence in that nation.

Obama has made it so that if he fulfills his promise of complete withdrawal and then tensions once again flare up in the region, US forces would have to return to Iraq for a third gulf war. No one wants that.

In opposing the surge, Obama put his own interests ahead of those of the nation he hopes to lead. In refusing to admit that he was wrong in his assertion that the surge would fail, we see the Democratic standard bearer doing the exact same thing that the current president was mercilessly criticized for by Democrats.

The Democrats were so gung-ho in their effort to get George W. Bush to admit that he made mistakes in his prosecution of the Iraq war. Where are they now?

Barack Obama will counter such criticism by pointing out that he opposed the war in the first place, which is meaningless considering that no one cared what a backbencher Illinois State Senator thought about such matters in the wake of 9/11 and that there is no way to tell whether his opposition to the war was based on strategic knowledge of the region or was simply a knee-jerk anti-war reaction, which was common in the area that he represented.

Once again however, Democrats seem to want to debate the reasons that we went in to Iraq, reasons that have been repeatedly analyzed, rather than talking about how to win.

As we see the candidate of change is only interested in it if it's change that helps him become president. The change brought about by the surge doesn't do that.

-Dan Joseph

Sphere: Related Content

The Greatest Liberal Lie Ever Told

By Doug MacEachern

Poor, pitiable Henry Waxman.

The end of the Bush (Hitler) administration is coming to a close, and still the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has not accomplished the defining mission of his life, which is to see Vice President Dick Cheney frog-marched in chains from the White House.

The Beverly Hills Democrat is still trying. Waxman has demanded White House records involving meetings between Cheney and his former chief of staff, Scooter Libby in which they discussed former CIA employee and Vanity Fair cover girl Valerie Plame and her implausibly famous husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.
And he wants to see any notes President Bush might have written down as he prepared the 2003 State of the Union address that included the famous 16 words: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Unfortunately for Waxman, nobody really cares anymore.

The White House and the Justice Department really don't care. Bush has claimed executive privilege regarding any Cheney interviews, and Attorney General Michael Mukasey has "cooperated" by turning over a few redacted transcripts collected by former special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.

Waxman is fuming over Bush's refusal. But executive privilege as a tool of presidents has a lengthy history that rarely gets overturned by courts unless the matter involves a criminal investigation (see: Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton). Long after George W. Bush is gone, psychiatrists still will have the nation on a couch trying to figure out the "Plame Affair." My analysis is that it constitutes the best example available of the nation's search, once the Iraq war went bad, for an answer to the question, "How did the Dope dupe us?"

The hard answer, the one Henry Waxman, et al, will never accept, was that he didn't.

The invasion of Iraq didn't happen because New York Times reporters failed to ask tough questions of Bush in 2002 and 2003. But if you follow their coverage of Democratic demigod Barack Obama, you will notice that Times reporters still have tough-question issues.

It didn't happen because Bush characterized Saddam Hussein as "an imminent threat" - a phrase that (if you look really hard) you can track to obscure references by Condoleezza Rice and Cheney, perhaps once each. But not only did Bush not use such a phrase, he argued that the nation should not wait until a threat was imminent before it acted.

But the invasion did happen, in significant part, because the U.S. - and every intelligence service in the world that spied on Iraq - believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. We subsequently learned he did not have WMD . . . except for the 550 tons of yellowcake uranium recently shipped from Iraq to Canada, where it will be concentrated for use in nuclear reactors.

The uranium had been in Iraq since prior to 1991. It appears that the International Atomic Energy Agency knew about the uranium stash prior to the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. And, in fact, a few reporters here and there have written about its existence since 2003. It wasn't really a secret (although, clearly, the Bush administration never used it as a response to its war critics). Rather, it was just a part of the WMD story that no one seemed interested in.

It didn't fit the template of a prewar Iraq that had completely dismantled its nuclear-weapons program since, with a bit of enrichment, the 550-ton yellowcake stash could provide Saddam enough material for dozens of nuclear weapons.

Where did it come from?

Do you suppose it came from . . . Niger?

That would be the country in Africa to which Bush almost certainly alluded in his 2003 speech.

It also is the country that Wilson visited, at the urging of his wife, Val Plame, who is on record dropping his name to fellow CIA officials as someone who might help knock down rumors that Saddam had sought yellowcake there.

So Wilson went to Niger and sipped sweet mint tea with former Nigerien officials he knew there.

Wilson came back and made competing claims about what he learned. In his infamous New York Times op-ed piece, he claimed his trip knocked down Bush's contentions about Saddam's interest in Nigerien yellowcake. But according to the Senate Intelligence Committee report, Wilson reported to the CIA that an Iraqi delegation had tried to buy 400 tons of yellowcake in 1998 and that another delegation had come knocking a year later. The Intelligence committee report identifies the leader of a 1998 delegation to Niger, as it happens. It was Wissam al-Zahawie, Saddam Hussein's top expert in negotiations with the International Atomic Energy Agency regarding his nuclear program.

But, alas, no one is really interested in yellowcake much anymore. No one but poor, ignored Henry Waxman.

Sphere: Related Content

Pelosi’s Failed First Term

As the end of Nancy Pelosi’s first term as House Speaker approaches, there is little doubt that her peers will reelect her to that position when the 111th Congress convenes in 2009. Pelosi is incredibly fortunate that it’s her fellow Democrats and not the American people who decide whether she deserves another term, because at this point she has failed to deliver on any of the major promises that her party made to the voters who put her in power.

Incredibly, Pelosi has not only failed to deliver on her promises to independent swing voters, but also to her far-left base. One would expect that the nation’s first female Speaker, hailing from San Francisco, would be on the fast track to sainthood with the far-left at this point. Alas, these finicky voters, who make up roughly 15% of the American electorate, are as upset with Pelosi as the Republicans are.

Demagoguery is nothing new when it comes to politicians trying to get elected, but Pelosi took a real chance when she promised voters that the Democrats had "...a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices” when campaigning in 2006.

Since then gas prices have gone up nearly two dollars a gallon.

We are still waiting to hear the Democrat’s plan.

The truth is that since she took office, Pelosi has done everything she possibly could to keep gas prices high.

Most recently, in what seems to be little more than a knee-jerk reaction to the President, she stubbornly continues to oppose drilling in ANWR and in coastal regions.

Over the last week, we’ve seen that even symbolic gestures by the federal government suggesting that it is open to increased domestic exploration can lower the price of oil.

It is becoming increasingly difficult for Nancy Pelosi to come up with an explanation, especially one palatable to independent voters, as to why she is opposed to such action.

On her left, Pelosi is struggling to explain why she was thwarted in her attempts to ensure failure in Iraq. Had she rallied Democrats in favor of the President’s surge strategy, she would at least be able to say that she helped bring about needed change in the Iraq policy. But the left was always invested in defeat and surrender, cleverly disguised as a Democratic desire for a “new direction”.

Now, not only is the far-left enraged that she could not achieve a full withdrawal from Iraq, but her opposition to the surge has allowed the right to label her as yet another Democrat who never had any interest in winning the conflict in the first place. In the long term, this adds yet more evidence to the increasingly widespread view that Democrats are weak when faced with adversity in the foreign policy arena. As we have seen since the end of the Vietnam War, this label has a tendency to stick.
Pelosi is either delusional or is yet to realize that the pendulum is swinging towards the GOP on both the Iraq issue and on the steps need to be taken to lower prices at the pump.

Pelosi is essentially immune from any political consequences this time around since the GOP has little chance of regaining control of the House of Representatives this cycle. However, Pelosi’s refusal to work towards solutions to our nation’s biggest problems, and instead spend her capital on repeated attempts to make political gains at the expense of an unpopular administration, could very well hurt Barack Obama in the fall.

Either way, it is nearly impossible for anyone, on either side, to spin Pelosi’s first two years wielding the gavel, as anything other than an abject failure.

-Dan Joseph

Sphere: Related Content

Nah. Drilling Will Never Work.

Bush Says Drill, Drill, Drill — and Oil Drops $9!
By Larry Kudlow


In a dramatic move yesterday President Bush removed the executive-branch moratorium on offshore drilling. Today, at a news conference, Bush repeated his new position, and slammed the Democratic Congress for not removing the congressional moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf and elsewhere. Crude-oil futures for August delivery plunged $9.26, or 6.3 percent, almost immediately as Bush was speaking, bringing the barrel price down to $136.

Now isn’t this interesting?

Democrats keep saying that it will take 10 years or longer to produce oil from the offshore areas. And they say that oil prices won’t decline for at least that long. And they, along with Obama and McCain, bash so-called oil speculators. And today we had a real-world example as to why they are wrong. All of them. Reid, Pelosi, Obama, McCain — all of them.

Traders took a look at a feisty and aggressive George Bush and started selling the market well before a single new drop of oil has been lifted. What does this tell us? Well, if Congress moves to seal the deal, oil prices will probably keep on falling. That’s the way traders work. They discount the future. Psychology and expectations can turn on a dime.

The congressional ban on offshore drilling expires September 30, so that becomes a key date. A new report from Wall Street research house Sanford C. Bernstein says that California actually could start producing new oil within one year if the moratorium were lifted. The California oil is under shallow water and already has been explored. Drilling platforms have been in place since before the moratorium. They’re talking about 10 billion barrels worth off the coast of California.

There’s also a “gang of 10” in the Senate, five Republicans and five Democrats, that is trying to work a compromise deal on lifting the moratorium. So it’s possible a lot of action on this front could occur much sooner than people seem to think.

So I repeat: Drill, drill, drill. Deregulate, decontrol, and unleash the American energy industry. Those hated traders will then keep selling oil as the laws of supply and demand and free markets keep working.

Bravo for Bush. Bravo for the traders.

Sphere: Related Content

Robbing Peter To Pay Rev. Wright

With the political climate the way it is, if George Bush said the sky is blue and Barack Obama insisted that it was Orange, more people would agree with Obama. So when Sen. Obama tries to steal Evangelical Christians away from the GOP by essentially supporting Bush's Faith Based initiative, he's making a smart political calculation.

Support for the Bush policy is good politics on the surface, but when you look at the minor tweaks that Obama wants to make to the policy, the shallow and deceptive trademarks of Obama's campaign shine through.

First he wants to change the name. The program would now be called "The Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships."

This meaningless new nomenclature is typical of the senator whose entire campaign is about words and posing himself as being different from Bush even when the policy is essentially the same. Again, the sky isn't really orange, but from now on we're going to refer to the color "blue" as "orange", because we need change so badly.

Next, he wants to divert more of the federal money to "inner city" religious organizations. Of course no-one should be fooled by this clever name change. "Inner-city" is politically correct code for "black churches." The left-wing, America hating, black liberation theology, associated with these churches is not limited to Trinity United and Rev. Pfleger. It is widespread and unapologetic.


Whether Obama realizes it or not, this change would pour money into churches such as Trinity United, allowing them to help the poor and downtrodden but resulting in an increase in their congregation's strength and numbers, allowing them more opportunity to spread their ignorant ideology.

Obama also says that churches that discriminate against certain people because their lifestyle does not fit in with the religion's laws and theology, should not receive government money, however he seems to have no problem with churches that preach racism and spout divisive political rhetoric directly from the pulpit, getting taxpayer dollars.

The Faith Based Initiative is a terrific idea. Churches and religious groups around the nation are far better equipped to help our nation's poorest citizens than the federal government has ever been.

This play by Senator Obama is a smart one, but once again it should remind everyone, especially Evangelical Christians, that Barack Obama's view of religion is far different than that of your typical pious American.

Finally, to cap off his political posturing, Obama once again repeated the Democratic mantra that "Change comes not from the top down, but from the bottom up" In the long run, it's this concept which poses the greatest threat to all aspects of our nation's prosperity and innovative nature.

-Dan Joseph

Sphere: Related Content

The Ever-Malleable Mr. Obama

Once agian "The Hammer" nails it. I've said before, I don't believe that "flip-flopping" is going to be a salient attack this fall, due to the terms over use as of late. However it is stunning that a guy with hardly any record at all could get awy with this much waffling, in such a short time.

The Ever-Malleable Mr. Obama
By Charles Krauthammer

"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

-- Obama spokesman Bill Burton, Oct. 24, 2007

That was then: Democratic primaries to be won, netroot lefties to be seduced. With all that (and Hillary Clinton) out of the way, Obama now says he'll vote in favor of the new FISA bill that gives the telecom companies blanket immunity for post-Sept. 11 eavesdropping.

Back then, in the yesteryear of primary season, he thoroughly trashed the North American Free Trade Agreement, pledging to force a renegotiation, take "the hammer" to Canada and Mexico and threaten unilateral abrogation.

Today the hammer is holstered. Obama calls his previous NAFTA rhetoric "overheated" and essentially endorses what one of his senior economic advisers privately told the Canadians: The anti-trade stuff was nothing more than populist posturing.

Nor is there much left of his primary season pledge to meet "without preconditions" with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. There will be "preparations," you see, which are being spun by his aides into the functional equivalent of preconditions.

Obama's long march to the center has begun.

And why not? What's the downside? He won't lose the left, or even mainstream Democrats. They won't stay home on Nov. 4. The anti-Bush, anti-Republican sentiment is simply too strong. Election Day is their day of revenge -- for the Florida recount, for Swift-boating, for all the injuries, real and imagined, dealt out by Republicans over the past eight years.

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

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

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

True, Obama's U-turn on public financing was not done for ideological reasons, it was done for Willie Sutton reasons: That's where the money is. It nonetheless betrayed a principle that so many in the press claimed to hold dear.

As public financing is not a principle dear to me, I am hardly dismayed by Obama's abandonment of it. Nor am I disappointed in the least by his other calculated and cynical repositionings. I have never had any illusions about Obama. I merely note with amazement that his media swooners seem to accept his every policy reversal with an equanimity unseen since the Daily Worker would change the party line overnight -- switching sides in World War II, for example -- whenever the wind from Moscow changed direction.

The truth about Obama is uncomplicated. He is just a politician (though of unusual skill and ambition). The man who dared say it plainly is the man who knows Obama all too well. "He does what politicians do," explained Jeremiah Wright.

When it's time to throw campaign finance reform, telecom accountability, NAFTA renegotiation or Jeremiah Wright overboard, Obama is not sentimental. He does not hesitate. He tosses lustily.

Why, the man even tossed his own grandmother overboard back in Philadelphia -- only to haul her back on deck now that her services are needed. Yesterday, granny was the moral equivalent of the raving Reverend Wright. Today, she is a featured prop in Obama's fuzzy-wuzzy get-to-know-me national TV ad.

Not a flinch. Not a flicker. Not a hint of shame. By the time he's finished, Obama will have made the Clintons look scrupulous.

Sphere: Related Content

A Response to MoveOn's "Baby Alex" Ad

Sphere: Related Content

What Obama Would Do.

Here's a short list provided by former Clinton Aide Dick Morris.

• In effect, he would legislate a 60 percent tax bracket for upper-income Americans, killing all initiative and innovation. He'd raise the top bracket to 40 percent. He'd apply FICA taxes to all income, not just that under $100,000 as at present. So add 40 percent plus FICA's 12.5 percent plus Medicare's 2 percent plus state and local taxes averaging, after deduction, at 5-6 percent, and you have a 60 percent bracket.

• He would double the capital gains tax, saddling the 50 percent of Americans who own stock with dramatically higher taxes.

• He'd double the dividend tax, hitting elderly coupon-clippers now retired and depending on fixed incomes.

• He wants to cover 12 million illegal immigrants with federally subsidized health insurance, dramatically driving up costs and forcing federal rationing of healthcare. As in the U.K. and Canada, you will not be permitted certain medical procedures if the bureaucrats decide you are not worth it.

• He proposes requiring Homeland Security operatives to notify terror suspects that they are under investigation within seven days of starting the investigation.

• He says that unless they can establish that there is "probable cause to believe that a certain individual is linked to a specific terrorist group," Homeland Security cannot seize his documents and search his business. The current standard is only that the search be "relevant" to a terror investigation.


He does not oppose $5-per-gallon gasoline but only says that he wishes there had been a more "gradual adjustment" to the higher prices

Sphere: Related Content

A Great Article

You need to go to this site and read this article. Check out the comments as well and notice the difference in the rational responses from those who support the authors arguments and the emotionally charged and poorly thought out responses from those who do not. Let me know what you think.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/22/do2201.xml&posted=true&_requestid=301012

Sphere: Related Content

McCain Should "Flip-Flop" On ANWR

The term “flip-flop” became part of the American political lexicon, when it was used to define Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry in the 2004 election.

The label was so effective that since then candidates from both parties, showing the lack of creativity that we’ve come to expect from our politicians, have attempted to use the term repeatedly to hammer anyone who has ever changed their stance on an issue.

While this strategy beat John Kerry, it hasn’t stuck to anyone else since then, which leads one to believe that the term has been overused and has lost most of its punch among the American electorate.

Due to recent events and the state of the American economy, John McCain is now faced with a unique opportunity, where a “flip-flop” may very well help him overtake Senator Obama in the polls. This is in regard to the newly resurrected debate over drilling in The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or ANWR.

Eight years ago John McCain opposed drilling on the airport sized piece of land in Alaska, which sits on top of what some estimate to be enough oil to produce a million barrels a day for 30 years. He reasoned that the land was a pristine, environmental treasure, that shouldn’t be disturbed. Of course this was when gas prices were around $1.70 a gallon.

Excruciating pain at the pump has taken its toll and polls now show that a sizable majority of the American people favor increased energy exploration in the United States. Porcupine Caribou be damned.

Barack Obama and the Democrats oppose any new oil exploration for two reasons. First, Democrats essentially favor high gas prices, seeing them as a way to wean people off of fossil fuels, and to boost the use of public transportation. They also have strong ties to the environmental lobby, and we all know how much trouble hippies can cause at national conventions.

John McCain would be forgiven for changing his mind. All he would have to do when the Democrats inevitably try to label him as a “flip-flopper” is to explain that his opposition to drilling in ANWR came at a time when gas prices were not an issue. We are now faced with a crisis that shows no signs of receding and action needs to be taken.

The American people would understand McCain’s change of heart, especially given their anger over gas prices. He would simply have to tout the benefits of drilling in ANWR to both our economy and our national security, which is an easy case to make. McCain’s switch would also force ANWR to become a prominent issue in the ongoing debate with Senator Obama. He would have to counter McCain on the issue in order to satisfy his liberal base. This gives the GOP a key economic issue on which they poll far better than the Democrats.

If McCain is to take advantage of this however he must do it now. He was presented with a window of opportunity to blunt any “flip-flop’ criticism put forward by Obama and the Democrats on Thursday, when Sen. Obama went back on his promise to run his campaign using public funds. This instance of Obama going back on his word would be a far more egregious example of hypocrisy than that of Senator McCain changing his mind after eight years of rising oil prices. All McCain would have to do is point it out every time Sen. Obama plays the “flip-flop” card on ANWR.

Drilling in ANWR is also an issue that is extremely popular among conservative Republicans, many of whom have not yet warmed up to McCain. Coming over to their side on this issue would solidify the GOP base for the senator more effectively than any other issue currently on the table.

The American people rejected John Kerry’s inability to take a firm position on a foreign policy issue during a time of war. Kerry was unable to balance his political needs with his need to exhibit leadership abilities during dangerous times and it cost him the election. “I voted for the $87 Billion, before I voted against it” became the equivalent of a political blooper reel at a time when people really didn’t know the candidate.

Americans know Senator McCain. He has taken unpopular stances his whole career and has been unapologetic about it. He supported the war in Iraq and fought for the surge strategy despite the fact that it almost cost him his bid for the presidency. Because of his history of independence and his tendency to do what he believes is right rather than what is politically expedient, the American people will most likely give him a pass on ANWR.

- Dan Joseph

Sphere: Related Content

Criminals For Obama

As a proud Virginia resident, I find the following, as reported in today's Washington Post, very troubling:

"Civic and social organizations are teaming with Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine to try to add thousands of nonviolent offenders to the voting rolls in time for the November election, a move that has angered Republicans who say the effort is designed to help Democratic Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign."


Now if I thought that some of these ex-cons might vote Republican, I may have a different view on this subject, but let's face it, criminals are not one of our constituencies.

The ACLU and the NAACP are helping Kaine in this effort. There's a shocker.

Sphere: Related Content

Stunningly Naive

Earlier this week, Barack Obama made this stunning remark when asked about the United States policy towards fighting terrorism:

"....the example of Guantanamo. What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks -- for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center -- we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated."

If ever the term "pre-9/11 mentality" applied, it's right here.

The proof that the anti-terror tactics which we used in the Clinton era, were a complete failure, should have been obvious to all, Democrats and Republicans ,on the morning of 9/11, when Islamic terrorists, successfully knocked down both WTC towers.

This was in stark contrast to the Jihadists first attempt in 1993 when they were only able to take a chunk out of one of the buildings.

Seriously Senator? I mean come on!!

And as if Obama wanted Americans to question his judgment even further, who does he put on the conference call as a point man in regard to the War On Terror? The hapless John Kerry.

John Kerry. Change We Can Believe In.

Sphere: Related Content

5-4 = Dead Americans

For the benefit of Actor John Cusack who appears to be the most recent Hollywood celebrity/College Dropout to fall off the far-left, BDS , turnip truck, here's an article that sums up last weeks terrible Supreme Court decision in Boumediene v. Bush.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121366596327979497.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Read it, get outraged and under no circumstances should you go see War Inc. If you do that, then the terrorists win.

Sphere: Related Content

Last Gasps Of Vietnam II?

Here's the latest in the effort by the MSM to help Barack Obama and the Democrats lose the war in Iraq from http://newsbusters.org/:


NBC anchor Brian Williams on Monday evening rued that Afghanistan “is too often called the other war or perhaps even the forgotten war” when “in the month of May, for the first time ever, American and allied combat deaths were higher in Afghanistan than the monthly loss in Iraq.” But that's as much because of good news from Iraq, which Williams ignored, as bad news from Afghanistan. The number of U.S. service personnel killed in Iraq in May was the fewest in any month since the war began in 2003 -- a positive trend Williams, unlike his colleagues at ABC and CBS, failed to share with his viewers two weeks ago.
Back on Monday, June 2, the other networks noted how 19 died in May as a result of combat in Iraq. In the same month, total U.S. (15) and allied troop deaths in Afghanistan rose to 23, according to the Washington Post.

Now fortunately, despite the efforts of practically everyone on the left, those in the know are increasingly confident that Iraq is well on its way to becoming completely pacified and we will achieve victory in that conflict, despite the defeatist rhetoric of many Congressional leaders and presidential candidates over the past five plus years.

The stunning turnaround in that nation, due in large part to the "troop surge" is mostly ignored by the media, but especially by NBC and MSNBC who have made no real effort to hide their preference towards Senator Obama, in their news coverage.

Think about that for a second. If they aren't going to get their first preference which would be an embarrassing Saigon style withdrawal from Iraq, followed by history's judgement of the conflict as a defeat for the United States, the next best scenario for them is if no one notices the victory, at least until after Nov. 4th.

Fortunately, like Sen. McCain says, it is far better to lose an election than lose a war and if Sen. Obama wins in November, one can only hope that his rhetoric promising a speedy and full withdrawal from that nation is more lip-service to his far-left base than future U.S. policy.

History remembers The Lincoln Admin for winning the Civil War, not for the years in which Union armies were being devastated by the Confederacy. The tide turned in that conflict once President Lincoln fired general McClellan (no relation to Scott)and hired U.S. Grant.

It's the result that get the spotlight in the history books, and while the struggle is always important, it is often a footnote.

One wonders if the folks at NBC and the rest of our nations anti-war forces will ever understand that and accept defeat in their misguided cause, or if they will go to their graves insisting that we never won the Iraq war.

Sphere: Related Content

Jeanne Sahadi Shows CNN Bias

Today CNNMoney.com senior writer Jeanne Sahadi gave what on the surface appears to be a fair and balanced analysis of the competing tax plans being floated by Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain. You can view it here:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/index.htm?cnn=yes

However, whether she knows it or not, Sahadi gives the reader a slanted view of the two proposals and of economic theory in general, by citing quotes and findings from The Tax Policy Center as pad for her article.

Two minutes of research is all that is required to discover that The Tax Policy Institute is little more than an arm of the Brookings Institution, a left of center think tank in Washington DC.

Now I'm not sure if Ms. Sahadi has the number of The Heritage Foundation in her Rolodex, but I'm guessing that someone from that think tank would have made a decent counterweight to what comes across as a fairly one-sided view of the effects of taxation and tax cuts, including quotes from Tax Policy Center director, Clinton appointee and tax increase advocate Len Burman.

As a young journalist, struggling to find work it's upsetting to me that someone who is employed by such a high profile news organization can get away with this kind of biased reporting.

This stuff isn't obvious upon reading the article, but it's exactly this type of sneaky journalism that has given much of the media its liberal reputation over the last 30 years.

Sahadi needs to learn that just because an organization is billed as "non-partisan" doesn't mean that it's not pushing a political agenda.

Sphere: Related Content

Arthur Herman Serves Up Some Crow

Herman has always been excellent at exposing liberal myth. Check out his book on Joe McCarthy for another example.

Here he offers up a reality check for those who are still under the impression that the Iraq war is unwinable and was a pointless endeavor in the first place.


By ARTHUR HERMAN
Petraeus: Dealt lethal blow to Iraqi jihadists.
June 9, 2008 -- AMERICA has won, or is about to win, the Iraq war.

The latest proof came last month, as the Iraqi army - just a few months ago the target of scorn and abuse from Democratic politicians and journalists - forcefully reoccupied three cities that had served as key insurgency bases (Basra, Sadr City and Mosul).

Sunnis and Shias alike applauded as their nation's army compelled insurgent militias to lay down their arms. The country's leading opposition newspaper, Azzaman, led the applause for the move into Mosul - a sign that national reconciliation in Iraq is under way and probably irreversible.

US combat deaths in May also were down to 20, the lowest monthly total since February 2004. The toll for May 2007 was 121.

In a Washington Post interview, CIA Director Michael Hayden said we're witnessing the "near strategic defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq."

The Bush administration has taken heaps of abuse for its Iraq policy, including its decision to launch the "surge" last December. Now the strategy, which our nation's "best and brightest" regularly dismissed as a failure, has cleared the way for the establishment of a secure democracy in Iraq and a lasting peace.

It would be foolish to pop open the victory champagne yet. The truce between the Shia and Sunni in Iraq remains fragile; al Qaeda may well launch one more last-ditch offensive there (a la Tet 1968), in order to discourage the US and/or Iraq publics on the eve of the elections.

Meanwhile, we're still fighting a vicious insurgency in Afghanistan, and have yet to root out the al Qaeda remnants of along the Afghan-Pakistan border. And the continued threat of home-grown terror cells keeps European governments nervous.

In wars, however, trends have their own momentum. And the trend is running away from al Qaeda and its jihadist allies - not only in Iraq but also across the Middle East.

According to Hayden, al Qaeda faces a similar strategic debacle in Saudi Arabia.

And al Qaeda's fugitive leadership is learning that its former safe haven along the Afghan-Pakistan border is no longer so safe. Thanks to cooperation with Pakistan's new government, unmanned US Predator drones recently killed two top al Qaeda leaders there.

Once Gen. David Petraeus is confirmed as commander of US forces in the Middle East in July, he'll be able to apply the same strategy for victory learned in the Iraq surge to the war in Afghanistan.

In short, the larger War on Terror may be reaching a tipping point similar to that of the Iraq war.

The US public and policymakers need to recognize how this happened - and draw lessons from this success.

1) We need to acknowledge that the Iraq war wasn't a "distraction" from the War on Terror, as critics still complain, but its centerpiece.

It's not mere coincidence that our success against al Qaeda globally comes along with success in Iraq. For all its setbacks and frustrations, the Iraq war drew jihadists into a battle they thought they could win, because it would be fought on their home turf - but which they're now losing disastrously.

2) The US decision to "stay the course" in the Iraq war, which was also widely mocked and criticized, served to thoroughly demoralize the jihadist movement.

From its start in spring 2003, the Iraqi insurgency has been entirely built on the premise that it could use suicide and roadside bombings, sectarian slaughter and the torture and murder of hostages to force America out of the Middle East.

If Democrats had won the White House in 2004, the jihadists might have succeeded.

Instead, America doggedly refused to give in to terror, despite 4,000 combat deaths and massive antiwar sentiment, and unwaveringly supported an Iraqi government that was at times feeble and confused - and proceeded to break the jihadist movement's back.

In that interview, the CIA's Hayden also that al Qaeda is no longer able to use the Iraq war as a way to draw in new recruits. The reason is clear: If you go to Iraq to fight the American infidel you will die, and die for nothing.

3) Finally, the Bush administration's success in Iraq, and growing success in the War on Terror, offers a powerful object lesson in how to deal with the continuing threat from Iran.

Iran remains the most lethal state sponsor of terrorism, fomenting proxy wars in Lebanon and Gaza, and in Iraq itself. Its nuclear-weapons program proceeds despite minor sanctions and endless international efforts at engagement.

Now the Bush administration has shown the way for the next president. Instead of trying to "understand" the enemy, disrupt and defeat his plans. Instead of listening to domestic critics, act in the nation's best interests. Instead of relying on multilateral support to decide what to do, go it alone if necessary.

Instead of worrying about an exit strategy, realize that there's no substitute for winning.

Arthur Herman is the author of "Gandhi and Churchill: The Epic Rivalry That Destroyed an Empire and Forged Our Age," just published by Bantam.

Sphere: Related Content

Mike Huckabee New Spokesman For Campbell's Soup

Mmmmm, Mmmmmm, Good!

Sphere: Related Content

How to Become A Major Party Nominee Without Ever Saying Anything Of Substance

I'm listening to Barack Obama give the same speech that he has given after every primary since January and wondering when he's going to start saying something.
Tonight John McCain laid out a platform for reform and change. He gave specifics, yet his speech was without the rhetorical flourish which has carried his opponent to the Democratic nomination.

His opponent gave a speech in which he used words like, "change" and "reform" yet was completely empty when it came to details. If anyone out there would like to dispute that, I'm listening. Good luck.

While the general election is just heating up, Americans should give a collective sigh of relief, when they realize what a bullet they dodged by denying Senator Clinton the Oval Office.

Her speech this evening represents at least a temporary end to the possibility that one of the most dishonest individuals whom I've ever seen perform on the American political stage, will ascend to our nation's highest office.

One down. One to go.

William Bennett sums it up well .



My Old Party [William J. Bennett]
First the Good News:

"This is an astounding moment in American politics. You cannot credibly say the Clintons are a political dynasty the way, say, the Kennedys or Bushs are. But I think one has to say the Clinton rule of the Democratic party has been dynastic. Bill Clinton is the only Democrat to have served two terms as president in two generations, the only Democrat to twice beat Republican nominees for president and his wife is a two term U.S. senator who will likely be in the Senate for years to come. Bill Clinton has been rated one of — if not THE — most popular person in the world, and yet Clinton rule in American politics ends tonight. Whatever it was the Republicans and so many independents did not like about the Clintons, we’ve learned the Democrats have had enough as well."


"And thus the Democratic party is about to nominate a far left candidate in the tradition of George McGovern, albeit without McGovern’s military and political record. The Democratic party is about to nominate a far-left candidate in the tradition of Michael Dukakis, albeit without Dukakis’s executive experience as governor. The Democratic party is about to nominate a far left candidate in the tradition of John Kerry, albeit without Kerry’s record of years of service in the Senate. The Democratic party is about to nominate an unvetted candidate in the tradition of Jimmy Carter, albeit without Jimmy Carter’s religious integrity as he spoke about it in 1976. Questions about all these attributes (from foreign policy expertise to executive experience to senatorial experience to judgment about foreign leaders to the instructors he has had in his cultural values) surround Barack Obama. And the Democratic party has chosen him."

I guess that's good news too.

Sphere: Related Content

Yeah Barack. Let's Sit Down and Talk With This Guy!

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad predicted on Monday that Muslims would uproot "satanic powers" and repeated his controversial belief that Israel will soon disappear, the Mehr news agency reported.

"I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene," he said.

"Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started."

Since taking the presidency in August 2005, Ahmadinejad has repeatedly provoked international outrage by predicting Israel is doomed to disappear.

"I tell you that with the unity and awareness of all the Islamic countries all the satanic powers will soon be destroyed," he said to a group of foreign visitors ahead of the 19th anniversary of the death of revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Ahmadinejad also again expressed his apocalyptic vision that tyranny in the world be abolished by the return to earth of the Mahdi, the 12th imam of Shiite Islam, alongside great religious figures including Jesus Christ.

"With the appearance of the promised saviour... and his companions such as Jesus Christ, tyranny will be soon be eradicated in the world."

Ahmadinejad has always been a devotee of the Mahdi, who Shiites believe disappeared more than a thousand years ago and who will return one day to usher in a new era of peace and harmony.

His emphasis on the Mahdi has been a cause of controversy inside Iran with critics saying he would be better solving bread-and-butter domestic problems rather than talking about Iran's divine responsibility.

The truth is that the only safe strategy with Iran is some sort of targeted military strike. It needs to be done soon, because if Obama is elected he is too weak and is far too indebted to the anti-war/anti-military wing of his party . He will not have 20 years to come to a decision on the right course of action to take with Iran as he did with Trinity United.

This guy is in way over his head.

I'm referring not only to Obama, but also to Ahmadinejad.

Dick Morris had a very interesting point tonight on FNC. Obama is a candidate who is tied with John McCain in a year when Democrats are likely to make huge gains in the House and Senate and are far ahead on the generic ballot. He should be up by 20-points right now.

This can only lead one to believe that either he is a seriously flawed candidate whom the Democrats prematurely put their faith in, due large part to his oratory skills, or that when they are forced to have a substantive debate on the issues, the Democrats lose.

Think about that.

John McCain is bashing Obama over his weaknesses in regards to the Iraq issue. This issue is the reason that the GOP is so unpopular in the first place and McCain is using to keep Obama on the defensive and has been doing so for two weeks.

Here's another interesting tid-bit.

Three different polls released this week put John McCain ahead in the State of Michigan. The Democrats cannot win the White House without that state.

Those white collar voters don't seem to be coming home to the Democrats just yet.

Sphere: Related Content

Another Crazy Obama Buddy

At least the Obama campaign has turned Americans on to the hatred and racism which thrives in the nation's black churches.

I think it's opened the eyes of many, to one of the root causes of the perpetual victimhood and bigotry present in many of this country's black communities.

Seriously. How are Rev. Wright and this nut bar any different from stand-up comedians? I mean, besides all of the political and spiritual influence they wield in their communities? Oops, I think I just answered my own question.

Why don't we just make Chris Rock the Mayor of Chicago?

Sphere: Related Content

Dems Need to Get On The Right Side In The Iraq Debate

How wrong can a party be and still win an election?

Change That Matters
Iraq has changed. Why can't the Democrats?
by Matthew Continetti
06/02/2008, Volume 013, Issue 36

General David Petraeus was back in Washington last week. President Bush has promoted him to chief of Central Command (CENTCOM), which requires Senate confirmation. Under Petraeus's leadership, Iraq has changed dramatically. Why can't the Democrats change with it?

Bush announced the surge in January 2007. Iraq was a violent place. Al Qaeda in Iraq held large swaths of territory. Shiite death squads roamed much of Baghdad. The Iraqi political class seemed feckless. Hence Bush's decision to send more troops, replace General George Casey with Petraeus, and change the mission from force protection and search-and-destroy to population security. The new strategy's strongest proponent and supporter was Senator John McCain.

Democrats opposed the surge almost without exception. Barack Obama said that the new policy would neither "make a dent" in the violence plaguing Iraq nor "change the dynamics" there. A month after the president's announcement, Obama declared it was time to remove American combat troops from Iraq. In April, as the surge brigades were on their way to the combat zone, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid proclaimed "this war is lost" and that U.S. troops should pack up and come home. In July, as surge operations were underway, the New York Times editorialized that "it is time for the United States to leave Iraq." The Times's editorial writers recognized Iraq "could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave." But that didn't matter. "Keeping troops in Iraq will only make things worse."

Wrong. When Petraeus returned to Washington in September 2007, he reported that the
numbers of violent incidents, civilian deaths, ethnosectarian killings, and car and suicide bombings had declined dramatically from the previous December. Why? The surge--and the broadening "Awakening" movement, which began when the sheikhs in Anbar province rebelled against al Qaeda in late 2006 and accelerated when the tribal leaders understood America would not abandon them in 2007.

How did Democrats respond? MoveOn.org bought a full-page in the Times suggesting Petraeus had betrayed the American people. Senator Hillary Clinton said that to accept Petraeus's report required the "willing suspension of disbelief." Those Democrats who did not question the facts moved the goal posts instead. They said the surge may have reduced violence, but had not led to the real goal: political reconciliation.

Petraeus returned again to Washington in April of this year. Violence had been reduced further. American casualties had declined significantly. Al Qaeda was virtually limited to the northern city of Mosul. There were more Iraqi Security Forces, and those forces were increasingly capable. The Iraqi government had passed a variety of laws promoting sectarian reconciliation. And the prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, was demonstrating that he was a national leader by meeting with Sunnis and launching military operations against Shiite gangs and Iranian-backed "special groups" in the southern port city of Basra.

Democrats responded this time by saying the Basra operation was a failure and that any reduction in violence only meant Americans could come home sooner rather than later. Wrong again, because (a) despite early missteps the Iraqi army had control of Basra within a couple of weeks, and (b) any precipitous, politically calculated American withdrawal would clearly lead to more violence, not less. What is new is that Petraeus's strategy and tactics, his patience and expertise, have succeeded and now allow some of the surge brigades to return home without replacement--and without a spike in killing. There's every reason to continue his strategy, not abandon it and force a withdrawal.

On May 22, Petraeus was able to tell the Senate that "the number of security incidents in Iraq last week was the lowest in over four years, and it appears that the week that ends tomorrow will see an even lower number of incidents." On May 10, Maliki traveled to Mosul to oversee the launch of a campaign against al Qaeda. The number of attacks in Mosul has already been reduced by 85 percent. Acting CENTCOM commander Martin Dempsey says that Al Qaeda in Iraq is at its weakest state since 2003. Also last week, Iraqi soldiers entered radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr's Sadr City stronghold in Baghdad. They met no resistance.

The Iraqi army and government have done exactly what Democrats have asked of it, and the Democrats remain hostile. Their disdain and animosity has not diminished one iota. Nor has their desire to abandon Iraq to a grim fate.

We keep hearing that this year's presidential election will be about judgment. If so: advantage McCain. For when it comes to the surge, not only have Obama and his party been in error; they have been inflexible in error. They have been so committed to a false narrative of American defeat that they cannot acknowledge the progress that has been made on the ground. That isn't judgment. It's inanity.

--Matthew Continetti, for the Editors

Sphere: Related Content

Sphere: Related Content

Quote Of The Year

"If Barack Obama had given a speech on bowling, it might well have been brilliant and inspiring. But instead he actually tried bowling and threw a gutter ball. The contrast between talking and doing could not have been better illustrated."

-Thomas Sowell
From the article "Random Thoughts On The Passing Scene"
May 20, 2008

Sphere: Related Content

In The Tank....

Remember when the MSM used to hide their bias against Republicans? I don't, because it never has in my lifetime.



White House takes swipe at NBC News
By Klaus Marre
Posted: 05/19/08 03:40 PM [ET]
The White House on Monday sent a scathing letter to NBC News, accusing the news network of “deceptively” editing an interview with President Bush on the issue of appeasement and Iran.

At issue were remarks Bush made in front of Israel's parliament earlier this week.


Specifically, White House counselor Ed Gillespie laments that the network edited the interview in a way that “is clearly intended to give viewers the impression that [Bush] agreed with [correspondent Richard Engel's] characterization of his remarks when he explicitly challenged it.

“This deceitful editing to further a media-manufactured storyline is utterly misleading and irresponsible and I hereby request in the interest of fairness and accuracy that the network air the President’s responses to both initial questions in full on the two programs that used the excerpts,” said Gillespie in the letter to NBC News President Steve Capus.

Gillespie used the opportunity to also inquire whether NBC News still believes that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war. In November 2006, the network decided to label the infighting in the country a “civil war.”

“I noticed that around September of 2007, your network quietly stopped referring to conditions in Iraq as a ‘civil war,’ ” Gillespie wrote. “Is it still NBC News’s carefully deliberated opinion that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war? If not, will the network publicly declare that the civil war has ended, or that it was wrong to declare it in the first place?”

Gillespie also hit NBC News on its reporting on the state of the economy.

“I’m sure you don’t want people to conclude that there is really no distinction between the ‘news’ as reported on NBC and the ‘opinion’ as reported on MSNBC, despite the increasing blurring of those lines,” Gillespie concluded. “I welcome your response to this letter, and hope it is one that reassures your broadcast network’s viewers that blatantly partisan talk show hosts like Christopher Matthews and Keith Olbermann at MSNBC don’t hold editorial sway over the NBC network news division.”

Sphere: Related Content

Weak: Carter At The Center Of Obama/McCain Debate

First of all, this debate is a good one for the American people to have and it’s one that John McCain will win.

There is no legitimate reason or benefit to be garnered from talking with Iran, other than to legitimize their tactics and rhetoric, which are exactly the same tactics and rhetoric we have been fighting since 9/11.

What Barack Obama is doing is using the mistakes made on the ground in Iraq and the unpopularity of our failings there to criticize the entire Bush policy and take us back to the foreign policy days of Jimmy Carter.

When Bush made his statement to the Knesset, which led to the current Democratic uproar, I believe that he was specifically referring to Carter, not Obama.

Carter has met with terrorist groups. He loves doing it and there is no evidence that it has had any positive effect, other than to give credibility to the terrorist groups themselves.


It is interesting that Obama immediately took the President’s statements to be a reference to him.

It was Carter who met with Hamas.

It was Carter who met with North Korea and set up the crummy deal which lead to that rogue nation acquiring nuclear technology.

Obama has countered the criticism from the GOP by pointing to the Bush Administration’s willingness to talk to North Korea. This is a bogus comparison.

It was John Kerry not Bush who ran on a platform of two party talks with North Korea. President Bush rightly opposed those talks and instead promoted six-party talks which have been effective in slowing down North Korea's nuclear ambitions.

Obama and his surrogates also compare the candidate’s willingness to meet with Iran to President Reagan’s willingness to meet with Michael Gorbachev. This comparison completely ignores the complexities and differences of the two situations and simply lumps all of our enemies throughout history together as equal in both the threat they pose and the political power which they wield.

The Soviet Union was a superpower with deadly weapons that had been aimed at us for 30 years. We had no choice but to go to the bargaining table with them because they were already big enough and powerful enough to demand respect on the world stage.


Ironically, it was years of Obama-like coddling and appeasement which allowed them to accumulate much of this power, particularly in the late 1970’s under President Carter.

By contrast, Iran does not posses the same gravitas on the world stage as did the USSR. They are engaged in a proxy war with us in Iraq and are killing our troops. We should focus on defeating them because we are capable of victory. We should not seek an easy way out by making a deal with them.

They do not have nuclear weapons but are intent on acquiring them. The entire world has said that this is unacceptable and that they should not be given the gift of credibility that a meeting with an American president bestows until they follow the rules set out by the governing authorities on this matter.

That’s the way you deal with nations like Iran. You rob them of the incentives to kill our soldiers by defeating them militarily; you isolate them by refusing to allow them a place at the table until they follow the rules.

You do not “trust but verify” you make them earn your trust through a process of verification.

The whole point of this struggle is to ensure that the Iranian theocracy does not grow into a world power in the way that the Soviet Union did. If that happens, we will have no choice but to negotiate with them, and no good can come out of that in terms of our overarching goal which is to defeat religious extremism in the region and ensure the survival of Israel.

Get it Barack?


The other thing that strikes me as odd, besides Obama’s apparent willingness to take us back to the days of Carter-style foreign policy, is that he and his aides are all over the news claiming that when they say they will hold negotiations with Iran, they are not necessarily implying that they will meet with Iranian president Mahmud Ahmadinejad.

This can only mean one of two things. That they plan on meeting with the Ayatollahs who control Iran from behind the scenes or with a low-level Ahmadinejad underling.

Could you imagine a sitting U.S. president who is engaged in a war with religious extremists having a friendly sit down with the world’s leading proponent of Islamic theocracy? Why don’t we just skip the middleman a have a friendly chat with Bin Laden, while we're at it?

The other option doesn’t make sense either as it would signal to the world that the Iranian higher–ups are too busy to meet with President Obama, so we have to talk things over with Iran’s Secretary of Transportation, equipped with a fruit basket and a greeting card from Sistani instead.


The trick for McCain is going to be to defend the Bush foreign policy, which should continue, while not sounding like he’s defending Bush.

Obama is defending the Carter foreign policy, but unfortunately most of his supporters weren’t even alive when Carter was president, so linking the two of them is probably not a tactic that will be very effective come November.

Despite this, I encourage Mr. Obama to keep playing on John McCain’s turf.

-Dan Joseph

Sphere: Related Content

Bush Says 'No' To Appeasing Terrorists - Left Outraged

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is –- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

What's so striking is that the Democrats immediately took Bush's comments to be an attack on Obama. Me thinks they protest too much.

Sphere: Related Content

41%

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, just lost a primary by 41-points. Perhaps you Obama folks should rethink this whole "hope" thing.

Sphere: Related Content

Dream Map

I think it's possible:
<p><strong>><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/electoral-college/">Electoral College Prediction Map</a></strong> - Predict the winner of the general election. Use the map to experiment with winning combinations of states. Save your prediction and send it to friends.</p>

Sphere: Related Content

Give 'Em Hell Hanson

Hanson doesn't even bother to ask the most important question when it comes to examining the Bush legacy. If Iraq and Afghanistan are both stable democracies five or ten years from now, is there any way that these military campaigns can be viewed negatively through the scope of history?

May 08, 2008
Presidential Pariah
By Victor Davis Hanson

We are in one of the longest presidential campaigns in modern memory -- and haven't even started focusing on the general election.

It's been enough to drive most of us mad, but if there's one person in particular suffering the most, it may be President Bush.

It's been noted here before that we have not had an election since 1952 in which an incumbent president or vice president was not running in at least partial defense of an existing administration's record.

That means Bush is not just a lame duck but an easy target for all three current candidates -- none of whom have any investment in the president's legacy.


Consider that the last president in a similar position was Harry Truman. He left office with an approval rating in the 20s, and it took years before historians revised the standard negative and mostly unfair view of him.

When there is no incumbent in a long race, almost everything of the last four years becomes fair and uncontested game. In 2004, Bush defended his record for months on the stump; now it has become almost second nature for all three candidates to denounce it daily.

John McCain has distanced himself from Bush as much as he can, even as his Democratic opponents dub him John McBush -- when they are not outdoing each other in their denunciation of the president.

Last week, I asked a fierce Bush critic what he thought were the current unemployment rate, the mortgage default rate, the latest economic growth figures, interest rates and the status of the stock market.

He blurted out the common campaign pessimism: "Recession! Worst since the Depression!"

Then he scoffed when I suggested that the answer was really a 5 percent joblessness rate in April that was lower than the March figure; 95 to 96 percent of mortgages not entering foreclosure in this year's first quarter; .6 percent growth during the quarter (weak, but not recession level); historically low interest rates; and sky-high stock market prices.

There are serious problems -- high fuel costs, rising food prices, staggering foreign debt, unfunded entitlements and annual deficits. Yet a president or vice president running for office (and covered incessantly by the media) would at least make the argument that there is a lot of good news, and that the bad that offsets it could be shared by a lot of culpable parties, from the Congress to the way we, the public, have been doing business for the last 20 years.

Bush, like Truman, will have to leave his final assessment for posterity. But for a variety of historic reasons as well as his own self-interest, Bush should at least take his now-unpopular case to the people, with more press conferences, public addresses, stump speeches and one-on-one interviews.

Bush's own legacy will be affected by who succeeds him. Ronald Reagan received great press after leaving office in part because a Republican followed him for four years -- quite the opposite from the senior George Bush who was thrown out of office in 1992 and blamed for assorted sins the next eight years. Likewise, compare the image of Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton when a president from the opposite party followed each into office.

Second, public perceptions, such as ongoing consumer confidence or support for the war, can dramatically affect policy success or failure. Defending past decisions can sometimes improve their outcomes.

Third, it would elevate the arguments of all three candidates if someone could remind them that energy and food problems, foreign policy crises and economic woes usually involve bad and worse choices.

The American people are more interested in exactly how they are going to improve things, rather than hearing each hour how our collective problems are simply the fault of one man. Searing "Bush did it" into the public conscious won't resolve our energy, economic or foreign policy challenges.

The truth is that America is providing unprecedented amounts of money to address the AIDS epidemic in Africa. Tax cuts brought in greater, not less total revenue. International trade agreements created more, not fewer, jobs. Security measures at home, and losses suffered by terrorists abroad, in part explain the absence of a second 9/11.

And drilling in ANWR and off the coasts and building more nuclear power plants, refineries, and clean coal plants -- if the Congress would only approve -- could provide a short-term mitigation of energy prices until we reach a new generation of clean-burning and renewable fuels.

George Bush could learn from "Give 'em Hell, Harry." A disliked Truman never went silent into the night, but defended his record until the very end -- and was ultimately rewarded for it.

Sphere: Related Content

He's Back, And He's Still An Idiot

Sphere: Related Content