Fred Thompson puts "change" in perspective

Speaking at the National Right to Life Conference:

Instead of a constant search for the new, exciting and different, let’s re-assert the “First Principles” that made this country great.

Has freedom, liberty and the strength which guarantees them become outdated? And just what part of our Constitutional framework requires sprucing up or should be abandoned altogether?

Those changes that are momentarily popular in elite circles, which would expand our government, weaken our ability to defend ourselves, redefine marriage and life itself, sap our sense of personal responsibility and treat our people as if they were merely a collection of appetites to be fed in an election year … they must be rejected.

These are not changes we can believe in. These are changes we should run away from. Because the ideas behind these endeavors, which have long inspired left-wing politicians around the world, have led to consistently disastrous results.

This is possibly the best summary of the Obama "change" bunk I have ever read. via HotAir

The Obama Shift

The WSJ chronicles Obama's rush to the center. It is typical for a primary candidate to shift a bit to become more moderate for the general, but Obama's turn arounds are so extreme that he has ticked off the left to the point where the nutroots king Kos, has said he is refraining from giving money to Obama for now.

One of the big leftwing heresies that Obama committed is now supporting FISA legislation. Last October, Obama responding to FISA and the surveillance of foreign terrorists , vowed to "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies" that assisted in such eavesdropping after 9/11. All that is different now. Obama says now that he will support the bill when it comes to a Senate vote.

The left has gone on ad nauseam about Bush "spying," and the warrantless surveillance program that gave telecommunications corporations legal immunity practically sent them into spasms. They thought they had a candidate that would stand boldly against this, but that turned out to not be the case.

Obama now has this to say about the FISA bill:

"Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program."

The 2nd and perhaps greatest heresy is Obama's change regarding troop withdrawal from Iraq:

Back in Sept of 2007 Obama said this:

"The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year -- now."

Obama called for the pullout of military forces by the end of 2008.

On April 16th at a Presidential debate ABC's Charles Gibson asked this of Obama:

"And, Senator Obama, your campaign manager, David Plouffe, said, 'When he is' -- this is talking about you - 'When he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most. There should be no confusion about that.' So you'd give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order to bring them home?"

Obama: "Because the commander-in-chief sets the mission, Charlie. That's not the role of the generals. And one of the things that's been interesting about the president's approach lately has been to say, 'Well, I'm just taking cues from General Petraeus.' Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission."

Sounds pretty firm, right? He is practically sneering at the thought of taking cues from the Generals. But what a difference a few months can make.

Here is Obama on June 8th on CNN's Situation Room with Candy Crowley:

Crowley: "You have said you want to go back to Iraq."

Obama: "Yeah."

Crowley: "See what the situation is on the ground. Is there nothing that they could show you or that General Petraeus could tell you that would move you from wanting to immediately begin removing U.S. troops?

" Obama: "Well, you know, I never say there's nothing or never or no way in which I'd change my mind. Obviously, I'm open to the facts and to reason. And there's no doubt that we've seen significant improvements in security on the ground in Iraq."

This is what is called CYA.

Recently Powerline wrote about Iraqi foreign minister Hoshay Zebari speaking with Obama about troop withdrawals. According to Zebari, Obama vowed to not do anything reckless, and added that “whatever decision he will reach will be made through close consultation with the Iraqi government and U.S. military commanders in the field.”

Isn't that a bit like "taking cues?" Just asking.

As the WSJ points out:

Look for Mr. Obama to use his forthcoming visit to Iraq as an excuse to drop those withdrawal plans faster than he can say Jeremiah Wright "was not the person that I met 20 years ago."

While the left gnashes their teeth over this, there actually may be a very reasonable explanation for Obama's shift in policy when it comes to this war and security.

And that explanation is President George Bush.

I was listening to talk radio a few weeks ago and a reporter (I missed who it was) was talking about how he had recently interviewed Pres. Bush and that Bush had told him that he spoken to Obama about the troop withdrawal and other security concerns. He basically told him that he might want to scale back on promises that cannot be kept. Bush was telling him that if Obama becomes President he would be privy to security information that would not allow these grandiose plans for our troops and the importance of intelligence through surveillance.

It looks like Obama was listening. Sometimes a flip/flop is just good judgement.

The left may be very angry about these shifts of policy in Obama, but it at least gives me some hope that should Obama become President, he may very well put out nation's security above political posturing. Maybe he will care more about our country and it's security than he does his own popularity. You know, like the President we have now.

We can always hope.

Yep, gas prices are this bad.....

via GOC

The Black Panthers, then and now

I saw this video over at Blogs of War. This is the neighborhood of Joe Horn where he shot two criminals robbing his neighbor's house (see links in posts below). If you live in Houston then you are familiar with Quanell X (you know,like Malcolm X..get it? *snort*). He is the head of The New Black Panther Party and he brought his posse with him to protest in the neighborhood. Well, the neighbors of Joe Horn in this nice suburban area outside Houston weren't too happy about Quanell X coming in to get his face on camera.

When I was growing up in Mississippi the Black Panthers were one scary group. They walked around with rifles and military type attire (ironic when you think about this incident here, huh?)I just find it amusing that these white suburbanites chase off the Black Panthers. I imagine a woman looking out her kitchen window and saying, "Honey, that Black Panther group is here, go put on some dockers and chase them out of here!"

There has to be a SNL skit in there somewhere.

Learning something new everyday

Did you know that there is a "Negro National Anthem?" Well there is, and recently in Denver a woman who was supposed to sing the National Anthem at the Mayor's "State of The City Speech" decided to sing the other one instead:

Mayor John Hickenlooper’s annual State of the City address may get more attention for what wasn’t included than what was.

At the start of the event Tuesday morning, City Council President Michael Hancock introduced singer Rene Marie to perform the national anthem.
Instead, she performed the song “Lift Ev’ry Voice and Sing,” which is also known as the “black national anthem.”

When she finished, the audience responded with mild applause. The national anthem was never performed.

She didn't tell anyone she was going to do that, so one can't blame the city officials, but where is our backbone in this country? If I was at an event and they said over the speakers"and now the National Anthem," and some woman sang something else, then I would start singing the National Anthem right there and then by myself until others joined me. But no, we just let these narcissistic self involved people do what they wish and we stand there and "politely" clap.

Ugh. You just know the Democratic convention will be awash with displays like this, except they will be sanctioned.

Update: Not related to that fiasco exactly, but if you are ticked at reading that, then you will love reading this. I got from a Mom blogger (Mama Drama) at the Chron:

***This is the text of a letter written a US Navy chaplain that was passed to my friend Bill by MA1 Michael S. Hainline, Patrolman US Navy Law and Order Det. For photos, look here.***

I recently attended a showing of feature film here at LSA Anaconda. We have a large auditorium we use for movies, as well as memorial services and other large gatherings. As is the custom back in the States, we stood and snapped to attention when the National Anthem began before the main feature. All was going as planned until about three-quarters of the way through The National Anthem the music stopped.

Now, what would happen if this occurred with 1,000 18-22 year-olds back in the States? I imagine there would be hoots, catcalls, laughter, a few rude comments; and everyone would sit down and call for a movie.Of course, that is, if they had stood for the National Anthem in the first place. Here, the 1,000 Soldiers continued to stand at attention, eyes fixed forward. The music started again. The Soldiers continued to quietly stand at attention. And again, at the same point, the music stopped. What would you expect to happen?

Even here I would imagine laughter, as everyone finally sat down and expected the movie to start. But here, you could have heard a pin drop. Every Soldier continued to stand at attention. Suddenly there was a lone voice, then a dozen, and quickly the room was filled with the voices of a thousand soldiers, finishing where the recording left off:

'And the rockets red glare, The bombs bursting in air, Gave proofthrough the night That our flag was still there. Oh, say does thatstar-spangled banner yet wave, O'er the land of the free, And the homeof the brave.'
It was the most inspiring moment I have had here in Iraq. I wanted you to know what kind of Soldiers are serving you here. Remember them as they fight for you! Pass this along as a reminder to others to be ever in prayer for all our soldiers serving us here at home and abroad. For many have already paid the ultimate price.

Written by Chaplain Jim HigginsLSA Anaconda is at the Ballad Airport in Iraq, north of Baghdad

"30 Days"

I watched FX's "30 Days" hosted by Morgan Spurlock last night. It was about a woman who is a gun control activist who moves in with a family of sharp shooters and gun rights enthusiasts.

It was very well done and by the end she admitted that she understood why people hold the 2nd Amendment close to their heart.

At one point the gun control activist takes the gun rights guy to meet women who have lost loved ones through gun violence. He feels for them, but he doesn't change his mind about the fact that law abiding citizens didn't harm their loved ones, bad guys did. And he makes the simple point that bad guys will always be able to get guns no matter what the law.

The thing that finally changed her mind a bit was listening to a man who had killed a stalker who invaded his home with a gun while his wife and four kids were in the kitchen. He shot the man (who incidentally didn't die, because he was wearing a gun vest). The stalker had already murdered four people that evening, including a baby. The woman said it was the first time she had heard about someone protecting their home with a firearm. We don't hear about those incidents, but they happen all the time. Usually without violence, because once the criminal realizes a gun is on him, he decides that maybe robbing this person isn't such a good idea.

During this Jerry Horn incident here in Houston, they interviewed a guy here in Houston on TV that killed a man attempting to get into his home through a window. His wife and baby were in the next room. Who can say that isn't right?? That criminal could and probably would have killed his family. How can anyone deny a law abiding citizen the right to defend himself and his family?

By the end of 30 days the gun control activist understood our side, and she thought she made progress by the gun rights's activist saying that if Congress can come up with a way to make it harder for criminals to get a hold of guns without infringing on his right to gun ownership, then fine. I don't think that was much of a change for him.

Bartender Song

My son turned me on to this song. I have no idea why I like it. The radio version doesn't have the cuss words. It's got a Jimmy Buffet vibe going on. I think when you hear it once, you gotta hear it again.

It's a perfect bar song.

This is OUTRAGEOUS!

That's right. How DARE the Scottish police use this image to promote a new phone number. What were they thinking?????! I don't know how you feel about it, but I'm just SICK.

Yeah. Sarcasm off now. But I am sick, not from the adorable image, but because the wussies of the Wayside Police Department are playing right into the ridiculous notions of some far out Muslims.

via LGF

Message Sent

If you are a thief, don't burglarize homes in Texas.

That is all.

via LST

I'm back!

All was magical.

I haven't even looked at a TV for four days. It's true. Ignorance is bliss.

But who needs bliss when one can blog?

I haven't linked La Shawn Barber is a while. She stopped blogging on politics and started blogging mostly on her faith. She is a wonderful spiritual filled person and doesn't back away from the controversial subjects. This post, Fatherlessness as Child Abuse? is brutal, but honest and true.

Related, kinda.

Oh, a quick note on "The Hall of Presidents" at Disney World. At the end they have those robotron like things that look like all our Presidents across the stage and each President was represented and introduced. I noticed that that other than Kennedy, none of the Democrats got much applause. Reagan got the most. Bill Clinton got NONE. Not even a single hand clap from a bored 2 yr old. George Bush got the most, but that was probably because he was last, but maybe not. Just an observation.

CNS News reports:

Obama spoke in Albuquerque, N.M. last week about his commitment to the issue and his support of a Senate bill to make it easier to sue an employer for pay discrimination. "Mr. McCain is an honorable man, we respect his service. But when you look at our records and our plans on issues that matter to working women, the choice could not be clearer," Obama told the audience in New Mexico, a voter-swing state. "It starts with equal pay. Sixty-two percent of working women in America earn half or more than of their family's income. But women still earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by men in 2008. You'd think that Washington would be united it its determination to fight for equal pay."

Which makes this funny and not surprising:

Democratic Sen. Barack Obama pays women staffers 87¢ for every $1 he pays his men.

Compare and contrast:

That is in contrast to Republican presidential candidate John McCain's Senate office, where women, for the most part, out-rank and are paid more than men.

Obama is becoming the consummate politician. Say one thing, but do another. via Dr. Melissa Clouthier

I still can't believe that Gen. Wesley Clark dismissed McCain's service and sacrifice as any sort of qualification to become President. Obama, of course, refuted it and he continues to let others say the dirty mean stuff, while he stays above the fray being the saint that he is.

That's all for now. I must unpack and restore order.

I have a funny pic from Disney I will post later.

Things Iranian

I have no solution for the the issues we have with Iran. Clearly, they are provoking us, their acts have given us enough case for war. Their own population hates their tyrannical government which commits appalling crimes.

However, their propaganda is a hoot.

"Iran is to dig 320,000 graves in border districts to allow for the burial of enemy soldiers in the event of any attack on its territory, a top commander said on Sunday."

Obviosuly, they are referring to American casualties. They even mention Vietnam. (sigh) We are STILL paying for the cowardice and dishonor of Democrats in abandoning the South Vietnamese.

Also, Ahmadinejad's wife is a real looker.

**URL and joke shamelessly lifted from Fark

Energy Fetish

Who is it that is blocking alternative energy? Evil Oil companies? Evil Republicans? Nope.

Environmentalists


"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it." - H.L. Mencken

On the Con Side

Opinions and pontification from the SCOTUS ruling on the Second Amendment is still precipitating. I thought a sample of these opposing opinions wouldn't' be amiss.

This opinion has the advantage of at least being honest about true intentions.
Repeal the Second Amendment

"The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is evidence that, while the founding fathers were brilliant men, they could have used an editor."

Agreed. They were being too poetical. Save us from lawyers and Orwellian perversion of speech by redefining words.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"If the founders had limited themselves to the final 14 words, the amendment would have been an unambiguous declaration of the right to possess firearms. But they didn't, and it isn't. The amendment was intended to protect the authority of the states to organize militias. The inartful wording has left the amendment open to public debate for more than 200 years."

The Second Amendment IS an unambiguous declaration of the individual right to bear arms, and it HASN'T been an open debate until about 30 years ago. The Founders knew what it meant, and everyone else did for 200 years. It wasn't debated, and it wasn't ruled upon all that much because it wasn't controversial.

ALL rights are individual rights, there is no such thing in the American system of collective or group rights, no matter how much Leftists wish to believe it is so, or how often they lie about it.

Imagine if the First Amendment were a group right. A person wouldn't have the right to free speech, but newspapers would. You as an individual wouldn't be able to speak your mind unless you worked for a newspaper or TV station or some other group that was allowed to have free speech. That doesn't make sense, and anyone can see how perverse that would be. Newspapers have First Amendment rights to free speech because its made up of individuals who do have Free Speech rights, not the other way around.

Rights belong to each individual sovereign citizen. Yet, some people advocate the notion that 9 of the 10 Amendments of the Bill of Rights are individual rights but for some reason 1 of them is a 'group' right. How strange, you'd think the Founders would have mentioned that. They didn't, in fact its clear - not arguable, not controversial, not vague or ill-defined - its CLEAR in word, fact, intent, and deed what the Founders meant. Personally, I think that most of the people who push this line know very well that its BS, they are just lying.

You might ask, what is that militia stuff about? Its pretty simple. During the Revolutionary War, Washington and the Continental Army were driven to distraction by the variable and unreliable quality of the American militias. Washington wanted universal military training. "Well regulated" does NOT mean in the modern sense regulated or controlled like for example CAFE standards for cars. "Regulated" as intended by the Founders was in the sense or a regular army - meeting a minimum standard for training, equipment and weapons.

What the Founders wanted was a very well armed citizenry equipped and trained to match a military standard and forming their own militias for mutual defence of their rights and nation.

Before I get comments from silly people, personal arms means rifles pistols and shotguns, not cannons or nukes, so spare me that argumentum ad absurdum.


Speaking of absurd:
Make firearms manufacturers figure out how to reduce the 12,000 shooting deaths each year.

"This year, about 12,000 Americans will be shot to death. It's a staggering figure, and even though lawmakers have continued to pass gun-control laws to try to bring the number down, they have not significantly reduced the murder rate. Indeed, for the last decade, guns have steadily remained the cause of about two-thirds of all homicides."

First: "staggaring figure", not really. Its actually a very small figure in comparison to population. Less staggering yet once the factors such as drugs and criminal background are considered. A man murdering his wife is a horrible crime, drug dealers shooting eachother is less surprising.

Gun manufacturers insist that these deaths are not their fault, preferring to pin the blame on criminals and irresponsible dealers. They have fiercely resisted even minimal restrictions on sales and have simultaneously washed their hands of responsibility for this "collateral damage."

I don't know anyone in the firearms industry who thinks of it as 'collateral damage' I think the author is making that up. Criminals ARE responsible for murders. Duh.

On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court made the problem a little more difficult to solve, ruling in District of Columbia vs. Heller that the individual's right to bear arms is indeed protected by the 2nd Amendment -- and making it clear that some laws banning guns would have a difficult time passing constitutional muster in the future.

"Harder to solve" In what way? WAshington DC's laws were both unconstiutional and they DIDN'T WORK. Whereas states like, for example, South Dakota have very few restrictions on firearms and a very heavily armed citizenry - and few crimes. Harder to solve? Maybe DC and Chicago should adopt our laws to solve their crime peroblem.

What is to be done? The conventional regulatory approaches seem to be failing. A more recent strategy, in which victims or municipalities bring lawsuits against gun manufacturers or retailers, seems legally and politically unpromising since the 2005 passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

What is to be done? Glad you asked. 1) Stop trying to regulate objects. Its silly. It doesn't work. Its insulting to free people. 2) reduce the number of laws and regulations 3) concentrate law enforcement efforts on finding and arresting criminals 4) stop wasting police efforts on regulating non-criminal behavior like seat belt laws and smoking bans. 5) punish criminals 6) don't punish law abiding citizens who defend themselves.

We propose a new way to prod gun makers to reduce gun deaths, one that would be unlikely to put them out of business or to prevent law-abiding citizens from obtaining guns. By using a strategy known as "performance-based regulation," we would deputize private actors -- the gun makers -- to deal with the negative effects of their products in ways that promote the public good.

One wonders what they have in mind. Heckler and Koch squads cleaning out drug houses? Smith and Wesson hired Pinkertons sweeping bad neighborhoods for people with outstanding warrants? Somehow I think this idea is less pragmatic and has more to do with trying to suborn gun manufacturers into some kind of state program. Cap adn Trade. That's a good one.

Doesn't surprise me that these authors are professors.


"Enlightened people seldom or never possess a sense of responsibility." - George Orwell