Friday, June 13, 2008

Rest In Peace

Tim Russert

What is up with the Che Guevara/Obama connection with lefties?

ELYRIA, Ohio (AP) — A judge in Ohio says the state's method of putting prisoners to death is unconstitutional because two of three drugs used in the lethal injection process can cause pain.

I mean, they do get that Che Guevara was an anti-capitalism Marxist revolutionary, right? Is that how they see Obama?

Just to give you a sense of Che, here he writes to his family on his way to Guatemala in 1953:

"Along the way, I had the opportunity to pass through the dominions of the United Fruit, convincing me once again of just how terrible these capitalist octopuses are. I have sworn before a picture of the old and mourned comrade Stalin that I won’t rest until I see these capitalist octopuses annihilated. In Guatemala, I will perfect myself and achieve what I need to be an authentic revolutionary."

Oh, and since this Che loving judge is so concerned with the pain that convicted murderers go through, maybe he would like to comment on notes Che wrote in his travel diaries:

"I, the eclectic dissector of doctrines and psychoanalyst of dogmas, howling like one possessed, will assault the barricades or trenches, will bathe my weapon in blood and, mad with fury, will slit the throat of any enemy who falls into my hands."

I'm thinking that slitting of throat is pretty painful. But you can always go the quick route like Che did here:

He was not afraid to take responsibility for enforcing harsh discipline. Within a few days of the campaign the rebels seized a traitor, the first of the war to be executed. In what was a "closely guarded secret for 40 years" Che’s private diaries reveal that, "the situation was uncomfortable for the people and for E, so I ended the problem giving him a shot with a .32 pistol in the right side of the brain…"

It's very telling who our heros are, don't you think?

h/t BigDog

Enemy Combatants and the Freedom to Kill Again

Even for those of us who pay attention to these kinds of thing, we miss important stuff. I was taken aback today as I listened to John McCain at another Town Hall meeting say that 30 former Guantanamo detainees had been released and had gone on to commit acts of terror.

The most recent being Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi. He was part of a suicide attack in Mosul on April 26 that targeted an Iraqi police patrol and left six people dead, including two police officers.

al-Ajmi was picked up in Afghanistan as he tried to enter Pakistan after the 2001 U.S. invasion. He claimed to have fought for the Taliban. And this is the interesting part. He was never charged with any crime and he was held at Guantanamo through 2005. Once at gitmo he claimed that his statements about fighting for the Taliban were made after he was threatened while in U.S. custody. He asserted that he was in Afghanistan to study the Quran. Poor guy. Just a misunderstood Quran wanna be scholar. Just the kind of guy certain leftwing lawyers want to defend.

Al-Ajmi was transferred to the custody of Kuwaiti authorities in November 2005 and was released after a trial there.

This reminded me of a study done in 2006 that the leftwing bloggers went nuts over. The study was done by Seton Hall Law Professor Mark Denbeaux and attorney Joshua Denbeaux, who also happened to be attorneys for two detainees at Guantanamo. Here in part is what the report said (via Talkleft):

1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.

2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.


4. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody.

Let me summarize the left's feelings here. We were holding enemy combatants that really didn't deserve to be there. They hadn't been charged with a crime and claimed no affiliation with our enemies. How awful is the United States to hold these men!

Everything in that summary of the report at Talkleft describes Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi. The one who just committed suicide killing innocents in Mosul in April.

This is how Talkleft (and this is the most rational and thoughtful of the leftwing blogs) ends this piece:

The President continues to tell us that those held at Guantanamo are the "worst of the worst." This report tells a different story.
We got the small fry. And we put them in a black hole.

The report may have told a different story, but reality tells us the President did the right thing. Because it is the "small fry" that the Islamic fanatic leaders use to commit these acts of horror.

Today John McCain condemned the Supreme Court ruling yesterday that gave rights to non-citizens.. reminding us that these are enemy combatants, not citizens.

I think our own Senator from Texas, John Cornyn puts it well:

Upon initial review, the Supreme Court’s ruling is both troubling and disappointing. A slim, 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court ignored the informed wartime policy choices of both elected branches of the federal government. In 2006, 65 Senators—Democrats and Republicans alike—approved a carefully crafted law that provided these detainees a fair process consistent with America’s critical national security needs.
But, today the Supreme Court ignored this law and the informed expertise of the President and Congress in matters of national security—and gave itself a blank check to assume control of wartime detainee policy. This is unacceptable and unprecedented.

The history of this debate and litigation concerning the rights of suspected terrorists is instructive. The Supreme Court previously said that unilateral executive decision-making was not appropriate when it came to determinations of who is and is not an alien enemy combatant—even in wartime. Pursuant to the Court’s directive, Congress debated and crafted a detention review process that included review in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals—a court many call “the second highest court in the land.” This law, crafted specifically to meet the Court’s previously stated requirements, was invalidated today. The Supreme Court has moved the goalposts once again.

But leftwing lawyers rejoice.

Let me add this to the fire:

In January of this year, 80 attorneys for terrorists being held at the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay made a mass-endorsement of Obama's presidential campaign. The Boston Globe reported that the terrorists' lawyers endorsed Obama because he was "the best choice to roll back the Bush-Cheney administration's detention policies in the war on terrorism."

So even the terrorists' lawyers admit a vote for Obama is a vote for letting terrorists go free.

That last line may be a bit harsh. But sometimes we are judged by the company we keep.

McCain's Town Hall

I watched McCain last night on Fox News at his live town hall right before I left for a blogger party downtown for hosted after a day at the Texas GOP convention. I really enjoyed meeting so many like minded people.

We also stopped by for free ice cream at a Ron Paul rally. As a friend with me put it, they are just Republican hippies. Ron Paul was on speaker phone because he missed his plane or something, but it was interesting being around the Ronbots.

Anyway, this is the forum where McCain does best. He is personable and charming. The audience was clearly filled more with people who admire him than with those who are not sure, but it was a good way for him to get his message across after Obama and Hillary took up so much TV time for so long.

As usual McCain started off reminding many conservatives why they are angry with him. He touted McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy as proof that he is much more bi-partisan than Obama ever thought about being. While that is certainly true and may bring sunshine into the hearts of middle of the roaders, it just ticks conservatives off.

McCain is what he is. I happen to like the fact that he does what he thinks is right and doesn't back down just to be liked more by one particular group. Do some of his beliefs drive me crazy as well? Of course. But a leader leads. That's what he does. He doesn't take polls and he doesn't change with the wind.

But I truly wish he could at least downplay the things that he knows his base disagrees with. It's time to get the base fired up and ready to work for him and that isn't going to happen if he keeps bringing up legislation that just makes us scream.

This is what a porn freak looks like...

Just in case your wondering. This is a picture of the sickest among us.

This is the Chief Justice of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (surprise!), Judge Alex Kozinski, a long time advocate of free speech. But not just any free speech. He has presided over many an obscenity case. And why shouldn't he? Being as obscene as he is.

If you want to read about his...sickness, then click the link. There you will find even more links to the depths of depravity that is the Chief Justice.

For God's sake, this man and anyone else who views these things, needs to see a priest, a preacher, a rabbi, or a psychiatrist. Someone. Anything to help you out of the hell you reside in.

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Obama Drama

You might be wondering why I haven't posted on Obama's ongoing drama.
From his VP selection committee chair, Jim Johnson to his gas price stance to rumors about his birth and name. Why? Because it doesn't seem important to me. It's just nitpicking. The left is doing the same with everything McCain says.

Enough already.

I got an e-mail from several people recently with picturess of Obama's family in Kenya. It has pictures of he and his dad and his mom. It seemed to question his loyalty. It reminded us of his Muslim ties with his step dad and half brothers.

The e-mail never says anything implicit about Obama being Muslim himself, but the overtones are there.

This is a lot like the left who keep repeating that McCain left his loyal crippled wife when he came back from being a POW. Ignoring the fact that his ex-wife Carol has said the divorce was her idea and they she fully supports him (which is pretty amazing for an ex I think).

My point is that the past is the past and McCain and Obama both have one. Just as you and I do. People don't care what McCain's personal life was like 30 yrs ago and they really don't care what Obama's family in Kenya looks like.

Obama's voting record is what we should be focusing on. If he is saying one thing now, but voted differently. Then we should talk about it. But Republicans aren't going to win going after his family.

Attacks are a part of politics on both sides. I wish that weren't true. It's partly the media's fault because they won't pursue a story sometimes unless it comes from an attack.

Now, the Johnson and gas price thing with Obama is a story, but I won't be focusing on every drama that comes along. Just the ones I think people care about.

Let's leave the personal rumors to the tabloids.

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Congressmen's computer hacked by Chinese

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Multiple congressional computers have been hacked by people working from inside China, lawmakers said Wednesday, suggesting the Chinese were seeking lists of dissidents.

Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., said four of his computers were compromised beginning in 2006. New Jersey Rep. Chris Smith, a senior Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said two of the computers at his global human rights subcommittee were attacked in December 2006 and March 2007.


I'm not like most women

And here is another article that proves it.

via HotAir

It's hard out here for a terrorist

Oh yeah......

Hillary's Ghost

This ABC report is about show of unity with party's leaders Tuesday in Washington. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid praised Hillary. But the interesting part?

Read the comments. Oh boy.

This kind of anger toward Obama shown on an ABC news site sends a thrill up my leg.


Also, have you guys seen this site? Sweet.

When Mayors lose their mind

via Fox News

Jewish Democrats...

.....Come on over!!!!!!!

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is attracting elite Jewish Democratic donors who backed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and are concerned about Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) stance toward Israel, say McCain backers who are organizing the effort to court Democrats.

Stephen Muss, the Florida developer, is the biggest Democratic donor and fundraiser to pledge his support for McCain and the Republican National Committee, said a GOP official. Muss has given tens of thousands of dollars to help Democratic candidates in recent years, including $80,000 to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in 2000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics and CQ MoneyLine

Jewish Democrats are concerned about Obama for several reasons. While stumping in Iowa last year, Obama told Democratic activists, “Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people.”
Some Jewish voters interpreted the statement as a sign that Obama would be overly sympathetic to the Palestinian side in future peace negotiations with Israel. And some are concerned about a senior Obama adviser’s comments regarding the influence of American Jews on foreign policy. Merrill “Tony” McPeak, the former Air Force chief of staff, told the Portland Oregonian newspaper in 2003 that the political influence of the Jewish community had hampered efforts to negotiate peace in the Middle East.
Obama has also caused some alarm among Jewish Democrats by pledging to negotiate with leaders of nations that have taken hostile stances against Israel, such as Syria and Iran.

The growing sympathy of Jewish Democrats toward McCain is epitomized by Lieberman, a self-described independent Democrat from Connecticut.

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

History Lesson

From Grand Old Partisan:
On this day in 1964, Everett Dirksen (R-IL), the Republican Leader in the U.S. Senate, condemned the Democrats' 57-day filibuster against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Leading the Democrats in their opposition to civil rights for African-Americans was Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV). Byrd, who got into politics as a recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan, spoke against the bill for fourteen straight hours. Democrats still call Robert Byrd "the conscience of the Senate." In his speech, Senator Dirksen called on the Democrats to end their filibuster and accept racial equality.

Sadr City and Victory

Does the average American know this story? I don't think so.

From the Stars and Stripes:

When Task Force 1-6 took control of the area in early May, they entered a cesspool of violence. For the Baumholder, Germany-based infantrymen, much of the fighting centered around the construction of a three mile security wall that separates Jamilla from Sadr City’s main residential areas to the north.

The wall was constructed in response to the fighting that erupted in March in Sadr City, which functioned as a launching point for mortar assaults on the nearby Green Zone.

The soldiers of 1-6, who were continuing work started by other units assigned to the 3rd Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, faced contact with the enemy within 24 hours of being on the job. Encounters with rocket-propelled grenades, sniper fire and mortars were a daily occurrence, commanders said.

But since the wall project was completed more than two weeks ago, firefights has been replaced with intelligence gathering, civic engagement and reconstruction.

Regarding victory, The New York Post has this:

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.


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

I think we are all going to get what we want sooner, rather than end to this war. But we on the right (and America) get the icing on the cake.


via Mudville

Hillary's Out

via Allah

The Press and Race

I watched Howard Kurtz Sunday on CNN talk about the role of the press during this fight between Hillary and Obama. He was asking his guests if the press showed favoritism toward Obama during the primary fight.

It would be disingenuous to say that the press did not give much more favorable coverage to Obama. The question that should be asked is why? Did they do it because they were caught up in the Obama/first black president thing? Or did they do it because they can't stand Hillary or were tired of the Clinton political machine? Even this were true, it isn't the media's job to decide who they like the best and give the best coverage to that person. It's unethical in my opinion. It's time for the press to cover a Presidential campaign with the fairness and scrutiny they learned in journalism school.

Remember when an advisor in the McCain campaign, Mark McKinnon stepped down because he didn't want to create ads against Obama in the general election? He said, "I would simply be uncomfortable being in a campaign that would be inevitably attacking Barack Obama. I think it would be uncomfortable for me, and I think it would be bad for the McCain campaign."

Why? Because Obama is the first black to win his party's nomination for President??? I don't think Obama himself wants to be judged by that. As Kurtz pointed out on his show, if we really have moved beyond race in this country, then the press will treat Obama just as they would a white candidate.

So one would like to ask McKinnon why he would have felt comfortable running ads against Hillary, but not Obama?

The fact that Obama is the first African American to win his party's nomination is a historic and proud moment for America and for blacks, but the last thing we should do is treat Obama differently because of it. It is exactly that that we have tried to rise above all these years.

The Media should treat Obama the exact same way they treat McCain. Ask the same questions, reveal the flaws that emerge, emphasize the issues that each candidate believes in, and let's judge these candidates by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

Someone very wise said that one time long ago. I hope the press pays attention. Because otherwise, it's just wrong.

Jimmy Carter's 2nd term

McCain has found a perfect way to combat this ridiculous mantra of Obama's that McCain would be a Bush third term:

In an interview to air later tonight on Nightly News, McCain tells NBC's Brian Williams that while Obama might criticize him for representing a third Bush term, Obama seems to be running for a second Carter term. Part of the transcript...
Williams: Is it going to be tough to run with an incumbent party for the White House, given this economic backdrop?
McCain: I-- I think it's-- it's tough. But I think the American didn't, people didn't get to know me yesterday. They know me. They know that I have fought for restraining spending, which Senator Obama has been a big part of, with earmarking (UNINTEL) projects. They know that I have been a strong fiscal conservative, and they know I understand the challenges that they face.

They need a little break from-- from their gasoline taxes, and they -- and they know that -- we've got to get spending under control. And we've got to become independent of foreign oil. Sen. Obama says that I'm running for a Bush's third terms. It seems to me he's running for Jimmy Carter's second.

Monday, June 09, 2008

When you can't tell spoof from rhetoric

"..this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal"

I read these words of Obama's on another blog and honestly thought it was a spoof. I didn't realize that he actually said them in his speech in St. Paul, Minn until I read the George Will column that BigDog sent me:

"Journalists consider themselves crusty, unsentimental creatures who, their battered fedoras shoved back on their heads, have slouched out of Ben Hecht's 1928 play "The Front Page," oozing skepticism from every pore. Actually, they are round-heeled romantics, such pushovers for a new swain that they did not laugh until their ribs squeaked when Barack Obama concluded his triumphal St. Paul, Minn., speech..."

When I thought it was a spoof, I laughed. But now it just makes me want to throw up. Could Obama be any more full of himself? Does he really see himself as "healing the planet?" You know what? I believe he does. That's the thing. He is one of these left wing "visionaries" who sees all things possible through government programs and soaring rhetoric.

Read his whole speech. It's the promise of rainbows and fairies. All we have to do is chant "We believe" over and over and the impossible becomes possible.

Give me a freakin break.

Obama could have been a case study for Thomas Sowell's book. "The Vision of The Anointed." A book that reviews the smug know it all attitude of the left, who think they are "anointed" to take care of the rest of us. But first they need to be in power.

Obama is the elite liberal intelligentsia that Sowell writes about. He feels he is morally and intellectually superior to the general population and only wishes to "help' them live their lives in a manner that he sees as better. Because, you see, they don't know any better and need leaders such as himself to show them the way.

But this isn't a world of rainbows and fairies and it never will be. It is a world that needs more than fancy words and a heart of hope to keep us strong, protect us, and grow our economy.

You will never hear about rainbows from McCain. He is a reality type guy. He sees the world as it is.

Update: To further the absurdity of all this, Jesse Jackson Jr. had this to say about Obama's nomination:

"the event itself is so extraordinary that another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance." (via Newsbusters)

Look, I can understand the pride of having the first black man nominated for President. No doubt about that, but this kind of over the top gushing only diminishes the significance of it in my opinion.

In case you missed it....

Bush never lied.

Saw this at HotAir and BigDog sent it to me.

This has become such a large part of the left's narrative that I doubt anything will change their minds. But the truth rarely does with them.

Sunday, June 08, 2008

Let me continue to make my point

Or at least I will let Thomas Sowell continue to make it for me. This is for all of you who feel like you will just stay home this election: (emphasis mine)

There is one big difference between now and the 1930s. Although the West’s lack of military preparedness and its political irresolution led to three solid years of devastating losses to Nazi Germany and imperial Japan, nevertheless when all the West’s industrial and military forces were finally mobilized, the democracies were able to turn the tide and win decisively.

But you cannot lose a nuclear war for three years and then come back. You cannot even sustain the will to resist for three years when you are first broken down morally by threats and then devastated by nuclear bombs.

Our one window of opportunity to prevent this will occur within the term of whoever becomes president of the United States next January.

At a time like this, we do not have the luxury of waiting for our ideal candidate or of indulging our emotions by voting for some third party candidate to show our displeasure — at the cost of putting someone in the White House who is not up to the job.

Senator John McCain has been criticized in this column many times. But, when all is said and done, Senator McCain has not spent decades aiding and abetting people who hate America.

On the contrary, he has paid a huge price for resisting our enemies, even when they held him prisoner and tortured him. The choice between him and Barack Obama should be a no-brainer.

via LST

Are we paying attention?

In the spirit of the discussion we are having in the comments section of the previous post, I give you Michael Ledeen of the WSJ as he describes how other evil regimes and leaders throughout history were ignored or played down as not as scary or deadly as they turned out to be. He reminds us that we must learn from history or we are bound to repeat it:

By now, there is very little we do not know about such regimes, and such movements. Some of our greatest scholars have described them, analyzed the reasons for their success, and chronicled the wars we fought to defeat them. Our understanding is considerable, as is the honesty and intensity of our desire that such things must be prevented.

Yet they are with us again, and we are acting as we did in the last century. The world is simmering in the familiar rhetoric and actions of movements and regimes – from Hezbollah and al Qaeda to the Iranian Khomeinists and the Saudi Wahhabis – who swear to destroy us and others like us. Like their 20th-century predecessors, they openly proclaim their intentions, and carry them out whenever and wherever they can. Like our own 20th-century predecessors, we rarely take them seriously or act accordingly. More often than not, we downplay the consequences of their words, as if they were some Islamic or Arab version of "politics," intended for internal consumption, and designed to accomplish domestic objectives.

Clearly, the explanations we gave for our failure to act in the last century were wrong. The rise of messianic mass movements is not new, and there is very little we do not know about them. Nor is there any excuse for us to be surprised at the success of evil leaders, even in countries with long histories and great cultural and political accomplishments. We know all about that. So we need to ask the old questions again. Why are we failing to see the mounting power of evil enemies? Why do we treat them as if they were normal political phenomena, as Western leaders do when they embrace negotiations as the best course of action?

Then, as now, the initiative lies with the enemies of the West. Even today, when we are engaged on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, there is little apparent recognition that we are under attack by a familiar sort of enemy, and great reluctance to act accordingly. This time, ignorance cannot be claimed as an excuse. If we are defeated, it will be because of failure of will, not lack of understanding. As, indeed, was almost the case with our near-defeat in the 1940s.

One of the reasons I am such a strong supporter of McCain is because he does understand all this. He has lived and served our country in the face of an evil enemy. He bears the scars. He understands the price.