Maybe it could be one of those annoying, hard plastic "Clamshell" packs that are really hard to open........

Obama Team Said to Explore 'Prepack' Auto Bankruptcy

Nov. 21 (Bloomberg) -- President-Elect Barack Obama's transition team is exploring a swift, prepackaged bankruptcy for automakers as a possible solution to the industry's financial crisis, according to a person familiar with the matter.

A representative of Obama's team has already contacted at least one bankruptcy-law firm to say that Daniel Tarullo, a professor at Georgetown University's law school who heads Obama's economic policy working group, would call to discuss the workings of a so-called prepack, according to this person.

U.S. lawmakers yesterday delayed until December a vote on whether to give General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC a $25 billion bailout. GM today said it would idle production at four plants an extra week and return some corporate jets to conserve cash.

Automakers could use a judge-supervised bankruptcy to reduce debt and reject expensive contracts. "It creates the environment to deal with GM's problems but limits government financial commitment,'' said bankruptcy lawyer Mark Bane of Ropes & Gray in New York.

Bankruptcy is just one option being examined. Obama told CBS News's "60 Minutes'' on Nov. 16 that government aid to automakers might come in the form of a "bridge loan,'' advanced if the industry could draw up plan to make itself "sustainable.'' The president-elect earlier urged Congress to approve as much as $50 billion to save automakers, using the model of Chrysler's bailout in 1979.

Oh my! They're going to have to "return some corporate jets to conserve cash"! What unabashed arrogance, particularly given that they actually had the temerity to fly to Washington in those very jets to fly to Washington to beg for financial help .

Actually, a provisional "bridge loan" based upon an actual plan provided by the industry is more palatable than bailing them out; the Chrysler loan in 1979 actually did work - for a while.

I'm still adopting a "wait and see"attitude because even though the Chrysler plan worked nearly 30 years ago, Chrysler is trouble again and again they are looking to the government for help; this time, they're joined by GM and Ford.

Propping up a corpse doesn't make it any less dead and this this whole thing has a very peculiar smell. It seems that everyone feels we should "do something" when maybe "doing nothing" may be the best long-term solution - for everyone.

Chrysler, GM and Ford: Should They Be Saved?

They should have saved themselves long ago and, since they didn't, they certainly don't deserve to be bailed out at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer. There are two villains in this sad tale and they are equally responsible: the UAW and the companies in question.

The Magic Pinata. For decades, the UAW has treated their employers like a "magic pinata" that they whack during every contract negotiation for the purpose of extracting goodies. The pinata, in hopes of not breaking entirely, releases some goodies in exchange for the UAW's cessation of the whacking. The "goodies" have been increased wages and benefits and, over time, more job security. The periodic whacking has been enormously successful as employees at all of these companies have become the highest paid and most secure automobile manufacturing employees in the world, far out stripping the Japanese and the Germans (whose companies, incidentally are actually making money). Now, we find that those whackings have, over time, left the collective pinata empty. The unions, just as any other Socialist entity, had no foresight and no conception of the source of their largess and now they have to face the fact that there never was a "magic pinata" after all. Pardon me if I cannot muster any empathy for them or their plight.

The Profit Motive. The companies in question seemingly have lost touch with THE basic premise of business; the profit motive. They continued to sell cars at a loss, thinking, apparently, that they could "make it up on volume". This is insanity, squared. The graph below, from a "Corner" post by Jim Manzi, sums up very clearly the automakers' current situation (click on graph to enlarge).







The sad truth is that even if these automakers were intending to invest the profits from the millions of SUVs they have been foisting upon the American public for the past few years into into research and development, there never were any profits to invest!

Both the UAW and The Automakers have lived in a fantasy world for far too long. Each has forgotten the basic rules of the game and each has operated under the notion that they are "too big to fail". They are not.

It's time for both of these dinosaurs to either develop into viable and productive inhabitants of the 21st Century, or sink into the tar pit of history. They have the option of taking Chapter 11 bankruptcy which will force both the UAW and The Automakers to either embrace a workable business model and cooperate in the interest of their common survival, or die.

If they reorganize into a viable and profitable enterprise, they will be a shining example of what can be accomplished with common sense, common purpose and the true miracle of capitalism. If they choose death, let them be a cautionary tale about the pitfalls of excess. Either way we, as Americans, win.

UPDATE: While not in the same words, it appears that Mitt Romney has a similar stance.

New STAR TREK Movie Trailer

Enough with the politics for the time being - there's more to life than Barack Obama.

Actually, it looks like it could be pretty good. Here's an article from the UK on the movie that will be opening in May.

Did "The Surge" Work?

From everything that I'm seeing these days, it did. In fact, Iraq is looking more like a complete success than "the quagmire" that we have been led to believe.

Will Obama seize defeat from the jaws of victory in order to keep his promise to The Left to immediately end the war, or will he put his country's interests ahead of his own? If he stays to see this thing won, will he give credit to Gerge W. Bush for his fortitude? I think we will be learning much about the character of Barack Obama very early.

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

The 44th President of the United States

In the interest of fair play, I will begin this new chapter in our collective history with a healthy dose of magnanimity; a quality that has been in short supply among the Left, particularly the media, during the nearly 8 years of the Bush Administration. I would also add that the degree of hatred toward President Bush was tawdry, shameful and wholly undeserved. This was a good man who put his country's best interests ahead of his personal popularity and paid a terrible price. He has kept us safe for 7 years and changed the face if the Middle East for the better - a feat that even the most optimistic among us doubted was even possible. I believe that history will judge him well, providing that history is not written by the small -minded and short sighted verbal snipers that have come to define "journalism" in contemporary America.

First, I want to say that I think that it's a positive development that Americans have elected a black man, African-American (or whatever is the currently acceptable description) as President of the United States. I think that it proves that America as "an inherently racist society" is a not only a myth, but a destructive slur against our great country.

Speaking of slurs, the title of this post is Mr. Obama's full name. If you consider it a slur, you should get over it - it's his legal name. From the beginning, Obama has overtly used his ethnicity and somewhat exotic Kenyan roots as a selling point. He has been surrounded by a mystique and, in my opinion, that mystique has been central to his appeal in the eyes of his supporters. Had he been "Jerome Wilson" from Cleveland, would he be where he is today? My guess would be no. In short, if you want the mystique, it's all or nothing.

On the subject of mystique, I also have to say that the weird imagery and messianic overtones that have been a large part of the Obama campaign, still creep me out, even more so now that he's been elected. I believe the site that I just linked to is satire, and it's a good source for all things "ObamaMessiah". Explore it, it will scare the crap out of you.

At any rate, Americans have buried an ugly chapter in our history and that fact, alone, should be a source of pride for all of us - the weirdness not withstanding.

That said, I wish that the subject of this historic milestone had been someone other that an crypto-socialist product of the famously corrupt Chicago Political Machine. I wish our selection had not not been someone who believes that dialogue with monsters will curb their monstrous deeds - that's dangerous naivete'. I wish our selection had been someone who had a passion for capitalism as a centerpiece of American exceptionalism, rather than a just a necessary means to finance The State. I wish that we had elected someone who sees Iraq as a worthy mission to be completed rather than a mistake to be corrected. I wish that it had been someone that projected strength and continuity, rather than weakness and seemingly yet-to-be-defined "change". I wish that our new President would have been elected based upon "the content of his character rather than the color of his skin". I wish that the new Leader of the Free World would have been someone who sees "hope" as the very definition of America, rather than a vague (and may I add, vacuous) political slogan.

Alas, in judging Barack Obama by his own words, we have not done any of the above. I believe that we have elected the wrong man and, in the interest of my country, my fondest wish is that I will be proven wrong. Heretofore, I have judged Barack Obama on his words. Henceforth, I will judge him on his deeds. I'll not indulge in the naked hatred that the left has heaped upon George W. Bush for the past 8 years; we, as conservatives, are better than that. I'll not utter the words "he's not MY President" as I have so often heard of George W. Bush. Barack Obama, for better or worse, was elected by the American people and therefore he IS my President. He is NOT my messiah.

The Office of President of the United States, and history, have a way of bestowing greatness upon seemingly mediocre men. I hope that will be the case with Mr. Obama. In a dangerous world, his fate is inexorably tied to all of our fates, so I, as should we all, wish him well.

Make no mistake though, I consider myself a member of the "loyal opposition", though my opposition will not be reflexive as has been the case for the past 8 years - "Obama Derangement Syndrome" should not be a response to "Bush Derangement Syndrome". If I believe his decisions are sound, I will note them. If I believe him to be in error, I will shout it from the rooftops because the margin for error in this job is slim. This is the Big Leagues; it's not "community organizing" or being 1% of the Senate.

As for what the future holds, we shall see. Let the games begin. I might also admonish Mr. Obama that God is jealous and I think He may not take kindly to Messianic pretenders.

Obama as the Messiah

"We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek."- Obama, Super Tuesday

The more I see and hear of Barack Hussein Obama, the more he creeps me out. The adulation and the unabashed worship of and gushing about this somewhat unaccomplished first term Senator make the hairs stand up on the back of my neck. I will be writing more on the Obama phenomenon, but I just read an interesting stream of consciousness from Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism blog on Obama that I would like to bring to your attention.

Here is another website called "Is Barack Obama the Messiah?". There is serious weirdness afoot.

Like I said, much more will follow on this subject. Much more.

Retired Teacher Reveals He Was Illiterate Until Age 48

Well, I guess this explains a lot.

Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules'

(via Corner)

As still another piece of evidence that Islam is incompatible, by its own choice, with modernity comes this:

Muslim medical students are refusing to obey hygiene rules brought in to stop the spread of deadly superbugs, because they say it is against their religion.

Universities and NHS trusts fear many more will refuse to co-operate with new Department of Health guidance, introduced this month, which stipulates that all doctors must be "bare below the elbow".

The measure is deemed necessary to stop the spread of infections such as MRSA and Clostridium difficile, which have killed hundreds.

Minutes of a clinical academics' meeting at Liverpool University revealed that female Muslim students at Alder Hey children's hospital had objected to rolling up their sleeves to wear gowns.

Similar concerns have been raised at Leicester University. Minutes from a medical school committee said that "a number of Muslim females had difficulty in complying with the procedures to roll up sleeves to the elbow for appropriate
handwashing".

Sheffield University also reported a case of a Muslim medic who refused to "scrub" as this left her forearms exposed.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


But the Islamic Medical Association insisted that covering all the body in public, except the face and hands, was a basic tenet of Islam.

"No practising Muslim woman - doctor, medical student, nurse or patient - should be forced to bare her arms below the elbow," it said.

Dr Majid Katme, the association spokesman, said: "Exposed arms can pick up germs and there is a lot of evidence to suggest skin is safer to the patient if covered. One idea might be to produce long, sterile, disposable gloves which go up to the elbows."

Tolerance of this type of foolishness must simply come to an end. If Muslims cannot function in the modern world then they should leave it and go back to the medieval hellholes from which they came. There is a reason that Muslim countries are socially, technologically and culturally stunted; Islam is a retarding agent and will continue to be as long as its backward precepts are left unchallenged.

Pelosi calls Iraq a 'failure'

(HT Roger Simon)

If the Democrats are not completely embarassed by Nancy Pelosi by this point, I can only assume that they are beyond shame. Roger Simon indicates that she's stupid, but I think he may be too kind. I think she's simply lost all sight of "duty to country"; now it's all about "duty to party".

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said twice Sunday that Iraq “is a failure,” adding that President Bush’s troop surge has “not produced the desired effect.”

"The purpose of the surge was to create a secure time for the government of Iraq to make the political change to bring reconciliation to Iraq,” Pelosi said on CNN’s “Late Edition.” “They have not done that.”

The speaker hastened to add: “The troops have succeeded, God bless them.”

I like the way she threw a bone to the troops, as an obvious afterthought. She's an absolute disgrace to her country and to her office. Along with far too many members of her party, she has chosen to put electoral politics above the good of her nation. There are any number of terms that can be applied to that type of action, many would be considered overwrought and inflammatory. Instead, I'll just say that she is beneath contempt and wholly unfit to be Speaker of the House.

Holy Toledo! Mayor Asks Marines to Leave

In a display of anti-military sentiment and sheer political tone-deafness Toledo Mayor Carty Finkbeiner asked the Marines, who were scheduled for exercises days in advance, to leave immediately.

A company of Marine Corps Reservists received a cold send-off from downtown Toledo yesterday by order of Mayor Carty Finkbeiner.

The 200 members of Company A, 1st Battalion, 24th Marines, based in Grand Rapids, Mich., planned to spend their weekend engaged in urban patrol exercises on the streets of downtown as well as inside the mostly vacant Madison Building, 607 Madison Ave.

Toledo police knew days in advance about their plans for a three-day exercise. Yet somehow the memo never made it to Mayor Finkbeiner, who ordered the Marines out yesterday afternoon just minutes before their buses were to arrive.

"The mayor asked them to leave because they frighten people," said Brian Schwartz, the mayor's spokesman.

"He did not want them practicing and drilling in a highly visible area."

I have no doubt that the repercussions from this incredible act of stupidity will be swift and sure. The Blogosphere is awash in this story and Carty Finkbeiner's name is, even as we speak, becoming mud. As Toledo is not Berkeley, I am sure that the good citizens will make this putz pay dearly.

Fractured

I am proud that Republicans are a party of principle; a diverse group to which ideology is paramount. I wonder though, if this is harmful helpful to the cause.

At some point, we will have to come together and do what's best for America. At some point, we have to concentrate on what unites us, rather than ewhat divides us. The sooner we get to that point, the better chance we will have.

Fred Thompson Backs McCain

While this is not necessarily earth-shattering news (who else would he support?), the fact that he's doing so publically shows he's doing his part to heal the GOP - a party in dire need of healing:

Fred Thompson, the one-time Republican presidential candidate, endorsed Sen. John McCain Friday, calling on the party to "close ranks" behind the presumed nominee.

"This is no longer about past preferences or differences. It is about what is best for our country and for me that means that Republican should close ranks behind John McCain," Thompson said in a statement reported by the Associated Press.

Thompson's endorsement was expected. The two men were colleagues for years in the Senate and shared what associates called a friendship. But while he was in the race, Thompson had bristled at the idea that he was going to drop out and endorse McCain.

The endorsement now may help McCain to coalesce the factions of the party
around him. Thompson, who represented Tennessee in the Senate for eight years,
is thought of well in the South, an area that McCain has not done well in.

Thompson as VP? Could be; it would certainly go a long way in mollifying conservatives. At the very least, I would like to see Fred in a highly visable position in a McCain administration (as I would Giuliani) - should that come about.

I also think that McCain needs to reach out to Romney in order to show some magnanimity and show that he is also willing to do what it takes for the good of his party. This personal enmity he has for Romney hinders his cause and validates the concerns as to his temperament.

Music cannot change the world, says Neil Young

You mean nobody listens to the political rantings of drug-addled rock stars any more? Maybe things aren't as bleak as I though they were!

It's funny though, he says it like it's a bad thing....

Global COOLING?

In news that is sure to stun Nobel Prize winning climatologist Al Gore (he's not really a climatologist, but he does stay at Holiday Inn Express), the earth may well be headed for a period of global cooling:

Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.

To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.

And they're worried about global cooling, not warming.

Oh well, Al Gore is in good company; the guy who developed lobotomies won a Nobel Prize as well. While I'm not a climatologist, the sun having an enormous impact on the Earth's weather patterns seems like a no-brainer to me. Then again, I've been staying at Wingate Inn quite a bit lately.

An American First, a Conservative Second

John McCain is not the likely Republican nominee; he is the Republican nominee. The time is now for the supporters of all of the previous candidates to get behind McCain and start thinking about your country rather than your ideological purity. In short, get over it.

The howling from conservative ranks has been deafening. Many are indicating that they will “never vote for McCain” and will sit out the election. I am sure that the Democrat nominee is counting on them doing just that and will be deeply grateful for their support – even if the support is passive. Make no mistake, regardless of intention that will be the outcome of such an electoral boycott. Go ahead, make their day.

To those who will take this course I ask: is your ideology so important to you that you would sacrifice your country on its behalf? I would expect this from a liberal, I would not expect it from a conservative.

McCain wasn’t my first choice, in fact, he wasn’t even close. I have serious problems with any number of his positions over the years, his temperament and his propensity to poke his fellow Republicans in the eye and the particular (and peculiar) glee that he seemed to take in doing it.

I have long noted that, for me, the winning of Iraq and the larger war was the main issue and I must say that my position on that has not changed. Well, as they say, be careful what you wish for. I believe that John McCain is right on that issue and I have no reason to believe that he will not deliver as president. He was a vocal critic of Rumsfeld and the previous strategy in Iraq, but our current level of success may well indicate that he was correct in doing so. While I still have enormous respect for Don Rumsfeld, he would be the first to admit that he is not infallible. The point is that we are now winning and McCain, for all of his faults, was a major proponent of our current successful strategy.

Again, on any number of other issues, I have enormous apprehension as to a McCain presidency. He does have an 82.3% rating from the American Conservative Union, which should dispel the charges that he’s a liberal. Unfortunately, those issues on which he has strayed from conservatism have been very high profile and sensitive, particularly immigration and campaign finance. As it is a key component of our national security, I am deeply concerned about his position on immigration, but I am concerned about Bush’s as well. Still, without a vigorous prosecution of the war in Iraq and the wider war on Islamic fundamentalism, many of these issues become rather moot.

The fact is, the next president will be John McCain, Clinton v2.0 or (shudder) Barack Hussein Obama. The gulf between McCain and either of the Democrat candidates is enormous, regardless of what his critics might say. If you feel that your principles are so sacrosanct that you feel forced to hand the White House over to Hillary or Obama, it’s your right to do so.

As for me, I will support McCain with all of his faults. I will set my philosophical differences aside and do so for the good of my country. I will do so secure in the knowledge that I am doing the best I can do, given the choices available.

Should you be of the mind to “sit this one out”, I only ask that you consider the consequences of your inaction. I ask you to put your country first.

Three (3!) Terrorists Were Waterboarded

Unbelievable. All of this hand-wringing and national soul searching was over this technique being used on a grand total of 3 terrorists?

At the same hearing, CIA Director Michael Hayden publicly confirmed for the first time the names of three suspected al-Qaida terrorists who were subjected to a particularly harsh interrogation technique known as waterboarding, and why.

“We used it against these three detainees because of the circumstances at the time,” Hayden said. “There was the belief that additional catastrophic attacks against the homeland were inevitable. And we had limited knowledge about al-Qaida and its workings. Those two realities have changed.”

Hayden said that Khalid Sheik Mohammed — the purported mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States — and Abu Zubayda and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri were subject to the harsh interrogations in 2002 and 2003. Waterboarding is an interrogation technique that critics call torture.

Waterboarding induces a feeling of imminent drowning with the restrained subject’s mouth covered and water poured over his face.

“Waterboarding taken to its extreme, could be death, you could drown someone,” McConnell acknowledged. He said waterboarding remains a technique in the CIA’s arsenal, but it would require the consent of the president and legal approval of the attorney general.

From the coverage this has received, you would think that it was something that was being used as a general rule, on at least hundreds.......but 3?

If we don't have the stomach for something as reletively benign as this, we simply do not have a chance against the barbarians.

Chelsea Clinton: "You're not voting for the Clintons. You're voting for my mother"

Oh yeah, that eases my mind. Thanks for clearing that up for me, Chelsea.

"She makes the best applesauce. She reads to me still when I don't feel well. I've never doubted that I'm the most important person in the world to her."

Well there you have it! What more do we need in a President?

Is the GOP the REAL Party of Diversity?

What is a political party about, if not about political philosophy? It's not about gender, it's not about race, as neither of these factors is relevant, nor should they be. Since I can remember, the Democrats have talked about their "big tent" where all were welcome as they portayed themselves as the "party of diversity", but I find that portayal increasingly suspect, and their tent becomes smaller by the day. If you want to talk about ideological diversity in the Democrat party, talk to Joe Leiberman.

From where we find ourselves at this point, it would appear that the "big tent" that the Republican Party has sought for so long has indeed been pitched and diversity abounds. One need only to look at the Republican hopefuls in the 2008 Presidential race to see a wildly divergent field of candidates in terms of philosophy:

John McCain: A foreign policy hawk whose commitment to the military is unquestioned. On the flip-side however, he also has a history of pandering to the left on domestic and social issues which has infuriated conservative purists. His commitment to fiscal conservatism seems questionable as do many of his stands on domestic issues. Lack of executive experience is a minus.

Mitt Romney: The clear candidate of fiscal conservatives, whose business acumen is unquestioned. While there has been some questions regarding his stance on some social issues in the past, his foreign policy stands have seemed well in line with those who see foreign policy as a paramount concern. Domestically, he seems to be, at the very least, center-right. Good executive experience in both the private and public sector is a big plus.

Mike Huckabee: The social conservative candidate who is a favorite among the evangelical crowd , who seem to be his main constituency. He's a foreign policy neophyte, and his domestic policy seems questionable, at best. While being governor of Arkansas does qualify as executive experience, the fact that it was Arkansas is a mitigating factor.

Ron Paul who is technically still in the race is little more than a curiosity, whose main contribution to the debate has been comic relief.

Fred Thompson, who was probably the clear all-around conservative in the race, has, unfortunately dropped out. His mature and common sense views will be sorely missed as the selection process moves forward, but he and his campaign never seemed very determined and that was unfortunate.

Rudy Giuliani, who has also dropped out, was an interesting contradiction: a foreign policy hawk, a fiscal conservative with centrist domestic views and rather liberal social views. I liked Rudy and I think that he may well have been able to unite manyof the main factions of the Republican Party and would have have had pretty broad appeal in the general election.

This is a pretty varied field of individuals, philosophically speaking, with no one candidate being the embodiment of all the needs of all Republicans. The debate has been vibrant, indeed even hostile at times, but such is the nature of intra-party politics. Most importantly, the debate has been centered on policy and political philosophy, which is, and should be, the nature of politics in general.

In contrast, among the Democrats we have the following field of contenders:

Hillary Clinton: Could become the first woman to be nominated by a major party for the office of President who is a foreign policy dove, but has dabbled in periods of hawkish platitudes when it suited her ends. She's fiscally, domestically and socially liberal. She's an unreconstructed 60s-type leftist who believes in the power of the state in all matters and whose basic views have not changed in more than 40 years. Her role while her husband was president was to pull him to the left, while his better instincts (to his credit) pulled him to the right. During that time, her claim to fame was the design of a top-down government takover of the nation's health care system which, thankfully, failed miserably. She was elected to the US Senate as her first elective office, almost exclusively due to her last name. Save the health care debacle, she has no executive experience and her claim to the highest office in this country seems to rest upon the fact that she's a woman, and her husband was president for 8 years.

Barack Obama: Could become the first black to be nominated by a major party as a candidate for President of the United States. He's been a US Senator for 3 years and previously was an Illinois State Senator. Obama is, admittedly a great speaker who has chosen "change' as is campaign slogan, but offers few clues as to what that change might be. He speaks in flowery oratory which is rooted in little substance. He was recently named the most liberal member of the US Senate for 2007 by the National Journal. He has been a consistent opponent of the Iraq war and favors withdrawl - a position that he has consistently maintained. Obama has no executive experience, few concrete ideas but has garnered the support of such bastions of liberalism as Ted Kennedy. He has captured the imagination of many on the left, presumably because imagination is a key component in understanding why he is a candidate in the first place. Oh, did I mention he was black?

Yes, there was also John Edwards who has recently pulled out of the race. Edwards was always a bit of an empty suit who was never a serious contender.

The Democrats seem intent on 2008 being the year of identity politics as they pin their hopes on either the leftist woman, or the leftist black man. Where does a moderate or conservative Democrat go? There is actually a place for liberal Republicans, such as Giuliani, in the Republican Party, is there a place for conservative Democrats in the Democrat party? If so, where are they in the field of contenders? The Left rejoices in the idea of diversity, as long as the diverse identities are philosphically monolithic. While the Republicans are debating a variety of policies and ideas, the Democrats seem to be mired in gender and race.

From my perspective, the party of "diversity" is, and continues to be the Republicans - for better or worse.

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR......

At the time of this writing, John McCain seems to be the clear frontrunner for the Republican nomination. While the race is far from over, it's clear that the nominee will be either McCain or Romney and McCain does seem to be in the driver's seat.

I've often said that the narrow war (Iraq) as well as the broader war (the war on Islamism in general) is the defining issue of our time and is, quite simply, the single most important issue in this race. I believe that John McCain will prosecute the war on both fronts and will do so admirably.

Alas, I disagree with him on practically every other issue.

Like I said, be careful what you wish for.

THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE

Who Do You Want in The Big Chair When The Unthinkable Happens?

That's really the only question that you have to ask yourself. It's not about abortion or healthcare or any of the other ancillary issues that we currently face, though these are all important. It's about the ongoing war that is being waged on our civilization. It's about Iran obtaining nukes, it's about the security of Pakistani nukes. It's about radical Islam and its commitment to the destruction of western civilization. It's about our survival and who you trust with that survival. All else is secondary.

Remember how your priorities were reordered on 9/11, and how what was truly important achieved a clarity heretofore unknown to you? In the past 6 1/2 years, much of that clarity has been replaced with a murky preoccupation with the narcissistic navel-gazing to which successful and prosperous societies such as ours are subject. Many of us want to tell ourselves that such a thing simply cannot happen again and have chosen to throw that day and the painful feelings that accompanied it down the memory hole. Do so at your own risk.

Call me a panic monger if you wish, but if the unthinkable does happen I hope that you will have chosen an individual who has the capacity and the will to do what it takes to defend and save our civilization. I hope that on your personal list of issues that "survival" has a prominent place, for without survival all else is worthless fantasy. Think carefully and choose wisely.

WHAT? BILL CLINTON IS NOT A SLAVE TO THE TRUTH?

From Drudge: EXCLUSIVE: OBAMA RIPS INTO BILL CLINTON MONDAY DURING ABC INTERVIEW WITH 'GOOD MORNING AMERICA' HOST ROBIN ROBERTS... SAYS HE FEELS LIKE HE RUNNING AGAINST BOTH CLINTONS... Bill 'has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a level that I think is pretty troubling. He continues to make statements that are not supported by the facts. Whether it's about my record of opposition to the war in Iraq or our approach to organizing in Las Vegas. This has become a habit and one of the things that we're gonnna have to do is to directly confront Bill Clinton when he's making statements that are not factually accurate'

So where's Obama been for the last 16 years? If he thinks it's bad now, he ain't seen nothing yet. Oh, as far as directly confronting Bill Clinton on his inaccuracy, good luck with that one.

CHECK MATE

Bobby Fischer is dead at 64. What can one say about Fischer? He may have been the greatest chess master who ever lived. Aside from that, he was just another hateful loser and a thoroughly miserable human being.

UPDATE: John at Powerline has a more comprehensive obituary, that comes to pretty much the same conclusion.

ANIMAL-HUMAN EMBRYO RESEARCH IS APPROVED

I haven't posted much (if at all) on the the cloning/embryo research issue, but this is an idea who's time should not come. While I'm sure that the purpose, as the article states, is research into disease and to make the world a better place and all of that, it's creepy in the extreme.

Cytoplasmic hybrids, they call them. The name itself make the hairs stand up on the back of my neck

That they say that "they will not be used in therapy" and of course, "It's illegal to implant them in the womb". Oh sure, that makes me feel better.

GOOD LORD, WHAT HAS BECOME OF US?

Has everyone in this country gone lost their minds? There was a time when the garbage that is spewed at DailyKos would have been reviled by ANY decent person, Democrat or Republican (feel free to peruse the comments to see the true face of the left; it’s not pretty). The filth that is allowed to be written on that digital rag is enough to make any reasonable person ill. Freedom of speech is one thing, sedition is another. Yes, I know that sedition is a bit of an antique term, but it seems to be a very modern practice these days, alas.

There was a time when a freak like Ron Paul would have been standing on the corner handing out poorly mimeographed copies of his drivel and promptly dismissed - now he stands on stage as though he's legitimate presidential candidate. The sad part is that in some polls he drawing 5% and that's far too much for the madness he's peddling.

There was a time when a State Senator like Barack Obama would never have been elected to the US Senate, much less be a serious presidential candidate scarcely 3 years later. And that's just speaking of his profound dearth of experience...don't get me started on his far left fantasy politics. No one seems to care whether he has the timber to sit in the Big Chair, he speaks well and he's black and that seems to be good enough. Voting FOR someone because of their race is just as racist as voting AGAINST someone because of their race.

As for Hillary Clinton, if sleeping with the president qualifies you for the job by some sort of weird osmosis, then there should be a number of female candidates in the field. That's aside from the fact that she's another dyed-in-the-wool, unrepentant leftist who's never really done anything, despite her sanctimonious claims to the contrary.

There was a time when George "Darth/Blofeld" Soros would have been seen for the real threat that he is. My God, the man had made billions screwing around with the values of world currency and he's financing the very subversion of the United States. He's like a villain out of a James Bond movie.

There was a time when a group of terrorist thugs like Hamas called the President of the United States "the Anti-Christ", there would be outrage expressed from the Left as well as the Right - now, I fully expect many on the left to publicly agree, and probably vote to increase their stipend. Hugo Chavez called our president "Satan" on the floor of the UN and a steady stream of celebrities rushed to Venezuela to break bread with him. I guess they figured that if the Speaker of the House could go to Syria to suck up to the "chinless one", then any type of loyalty to the US was well out of fashion. There was a time when that was called treason.

There was a time when neither political party would brazenly favor snatching defeat from the jaws of victory as the Democrats STILL favor doing. Their hatred of Bush far outweighs the success of their very nation - for them defeat is victory and victory is defeat. There was a time when that was called being an enemy of the United States.

There was a time when love of country superseded Democrat and Republican, because in the end we were all Americans. It would appear that time has passed.

I read the Gingrich's dissertation that was part of the course that he taught before he became Speaker of the House. One of the points that he made is that a nation can lose it's culture in a single generation. That has stuck in my mind ever since. We carry much of our culture and our history inside of us, building on what came before and expecting our children to build on that. Respect for the past and accepting the knowledge that has been gained from that past, both good and bad, is part of that culture. We write our history on a slate, and expect future generations to add their chapters and the whole of that slate is our culture.

We don't seem to be doing that anymore.

We live in an age when much of what many people believe is fantasy. Schools seem to be more intent on teaching the history that suits their political bias that what actually happened. Too many people get their information about the Kennedy assassination from Oliver Stone movies and their information about 9/11 from crackpot websites and they believe all of this to be true. They know little or nothing about World War II, or even what happened 30 years ago. The gulf that used to exist between fact and fantasy is becoming far too narrow and many of us are simply forgetting our history and this is why we may well be losing our culture.

We are choosing to forget many of the struggles, the victories and the defeats that brought us to this point. I have a feeling that the slate is being wiped clean and our culture is being erased with it, all in the name of “peace”. There is no peace as long as evil exists in this world, and it always will exist. Our only hope is to counterbalance it and to rrender it impotent. Years ago, some very smart men determined that maintaining enormous power in the hands of good men and denying that power to evil men was as close as we could come to lasting peace, at least in terms of the United States. It has worked pretty well in that within the confines of the U.S., life has been placid because no one dared attack us for fear of the consequences.

It seems that we have no taste, in many quarters, for maintaining the enormous power that has protected us for so long and incidentally has protected the world for so long. In certain quarters, within our own country, there are those who feel that relinquishing power is the way toward world peace and some of them are running for president. I believe that to be a mistake of epic proportions and one that cannot easily be corrected once made.

A scant 6 1/2 years after 3,000 innocent American citizens were murdered in the most heinous act of war in our history, it appears that a majority of this country is satisfied to let bygones be bygones, even as new plots are drawn against us. There was a time when that was called capitulation.

An ill wind is already blowing against us and the isolationists and the pacifists-at-any-cost are poised to assume power just as the thick of the storm arrives at our shores.

May God help us.

ANTI-WAR SOROS FUNDED IRAQ STUDY

January 13, 2008
Brendan Montague

A STUDY that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros.

Soros, 77, provided almost half the £50,000 cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet, the medical journal. Its claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates of the number of war dead. (Emphasis mine)

Typical strategy of the far left; control the conversation and if the facts don't support your argument, then manufacture facts that do. The sad truth is that, even today, that 650,000 figure is still bantered about and taken gospel by a good number of people and when it's refuted, the fall back position is that the refutation itself is an attempt to suppress the truth.

Facts and truth seem to hold decreasing value in an environment where whatever shallow beliefs people still hold can be backed up on fringe websites that produce "theories" on everything from the Kennedy assassination to 9/11 based completely on fantasized "facts" designed specifically to support the so-called theories. If one tries to interject the voice of reason, they are shouted down as "tools" or "fools" because of their acceptance of the obvious and their rejection of the ever-complex web being woven by the paranoid conspiracy "theorists".

As for Soros, he understands all of this and plays these poor, ignorant souls as a puppet master would marionettes. He well understands that the lie will stay out there forever and no matter how many times it is proven false, it gains currency because people believe it and as long as that is the case, in some perverse way, it becomes "truth".

Soros like to use his personal story as a Hungarian refugee from Nazi oppression to lend credence to his obsession with left-wing causes. In practice though, he seems to have learned well from his former masters - Joseph Goebbels would be proud.

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

6 1/2 years after the most devastating attack on American civilians in the history of our nation and an equal amount of time since the "The War on (Islamic) Terrorism" was launched in defense of our country, we could well be on the threshold of electing Barack Hussein Obama as President of the United States.

What, exactly, does this say about us, as a nation?

Is it an example of our enormous capacity for inclusion and fair play? Or, is it another illustration of our enormous propensity toward gullibility?

A PARTY LIKE IT'S 1996

In the corporate world, when a person has devoted their life to the business, has made their mark and is ready to retire, they are thanked for their years of service, given a nice party and some token of esteem by their peers.

It seems that in the GOP, they are given a presidential campaign that's doomed to failure.

In 1996, the Republicans offered up Bob Dole. Bob was a good man, a legitimate war hero and a loyal Republican who had tried the presidential run on other occasions and had not secured the nomination. In 1996, he got the gold ring and was trounced by an incumbent Bill Clinton. Dole never really had a chance against a much younger Clinton.

At the time, I got the impression that Dole got the nomination as some sort of Republican "Lifetime Achievement Award", similar to those directors and actors who are given token awards at the Oscars to make up for the fact that, even though they had a great career, never won the big prize.

Now we have John McCain; a loyal Republican on some issues, but much less so on others. McCain is a larger-that-life figure and a great American, to whom the country owes a debt of gratitude we simply cannot repay. He is a brave man who has the courage of his convictions, even though many of those convictions have been an irritant to many Republicans for years. He, too, has run for president on several occasions and has fallen short of the nomination.

It would appear that McCain may well be on his way to winning the GOP's "Lifetime Achievement Award", and I have to question the sanity of risking a resounding defeat at the hands of a liberal Democrat at this important juncture in our nation's history.

Does anyone really think that McCain matches up well with either of the Democrats' potential candidates? With Hillary, we're looking at the "history-making" woman candidate, and with Obama, the "history-making" black candidate. Either way, I think that we're looking at a major uphill battle in presenting John McCain as a viable alternative to either of these Democrat nominees-in-waiting. If Hillary gets the nod, McCain may have a shot. If it's Obama, I think McCain's toast. There are certain realities in the modern political arena that have to be considered here.

I would encourage my Republican brethren to think carefully in the months ahead. For better, or worse, history will be made on November 4th and we will commence living it on November 5th.

LAST NIGHT'S DEBATE

Having watched the debate last night, I have tried to categorize the candidates as to the major philosophical classifications thus far:

GIULIANI
Social: Moderate
Fiscal: Conservative
Defense: Conservative
Iraq: Will prosecute the war until victory is achieved.

THOMPSON
Social: Conservative
Fiscal: Conservative
Defense: Conservative
Iraq: Will prosecute the war until victory is achieved.

HUCKABEE
Social: Conservative
Fiscal: Moderate with liberal overtones.
Defense: Conservative with moderate overtones.
Iraq: Claims he wants victory, but I have doubts about his sincerity.

ROMNEY
Social: Conservative
Fiscal: Conservative
Defense: Conservative
Iraq: Will prosecute the war until victory is achieved

MCCAIN
Social: Liberal
Fiscal: Moderate
Defense: Conservative
Iraq: Will prosecute the war until victory is achieved.

PAUL
Social: Insane
Fiscal: Insane
Defense: Insane
Iraq: Immediate withdrawal, followed by an apology to Muslim world for having annoyed them.

In a Nutshell: I think Fred Thompson was the most impressive last night, particularly when he slapped down Huckabee on the subject of his "conservative credentials". As I recall, during the last debate Fred slapped down Huckabee about his stand on Gitmo. Fred always seems prepared, with his arguments well conceived and presented. Giuliani, Romney and McCain passed muster and performed as expected, but no better. Huckabee seemed, as he always does, a bit out of his league.

Ron Paul acted like the lunatic he is.

THE "MARTYRDOM" OF ST. HILLARY
When all else fails, turn on the tears


She has so many opportunities for this country?! Who in the hell does she think she is?

Scott at Powerline compares her to Evita Peron which is eerily fitting. He concludes with "Marx to the contrary notwithstanding, history repeats itself, first as farce, second as farce."

Indeed. This woman has an ego that is only equalled by her unquenchable thirst for power.

MY PERCEPTIONS FROM LAST NIGHT’S DEBATE

Rudy Giuliani: Competent and confident. I like Rudy and think he would make a fine president and nothing he said or did last night changed that. He has an enormous capacity for leadership and knows how to make the tough decisions.

Fred Thompson: Fred is not afraid to call things exactly as he sees them and will lose no sleep if he doesn’t get the nomination and I find that refreshing. He’s like the slightly grumpy grandfather from whom wisdom flows like water from a faucet. Last night, he seemed in command of his facts, yet it seemed he was not given much of a chance to speak, unfortunately.

Mike Huckabee: He seemed out of his league. He was evasive on the subject of taxes and was thoroughly destroyed on the subject of Gitmo by Fred. I didn’t like him going in and liked him even less after his performance last night. He would be a disastrous nominee.

Mitt Romney: While Mitt has not been on my “A” list, last night I found him very impressive. He was in control of himself and his positions. He looked very “presidential” and I came away with a much better impression of him than I had going in. He still looks like a presidential candidate from central casting, but he’s also a very smart guy and it shows.

John McCain: He looked old, particularly sitting next to Romney. He seemed to have toned down his arrogant attitude a bit last night and he probably had some teeth marks on his tongue this morning as a result. I think that he has temperament issues that presidents simply should not have. My problems with McCain are legion and can be summed up by saying he’s just not reliably Republican, much less conservative. McCain-Feingold will, and should haunt him for the rest of his career; limitations on free speech should not be taken lightly.

A GOOD AD FROM RUDY....



It speaks to me.

THE "FRONT RUNNERS"
Thankfully, we have a long way to go

Huckabee: I cannot determine what people see in this man. His resume is essentially that he is Governor of Arkansas...haven't we already had one of those? OK, so he lost a lot of weight, quickly. Perhaps he would make a good diet buddy or a personal trainer, but I hardly see where this qualifies him to be president. Oh yes, he's a Christian, and he seems to talk about that far too much and in terms that make me more than a little wary. We get quite enough of that kind of talk from the Middle East, thank you.

Speaking of the middle East, while he says he wants to win, his method is breathtakingly obtuse:

"I support a regional summit so that Iraq's neighbors become financially and militarily committed to stabilizing Iraq now rather than financially and militarily committed to widening the war later. This summit will add more voices, Muslim voices, to the pressure to perform we're already applying to the Maliki government."

Ah yes, the old "regional summit" solution. Let's see, Iraq is bordered mainly by Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia and Mike thinks that these are countries that want to participate in promoting a liberal democratic state in the center of the Middle East?

Obama: It's pretty clear to me that liberal pinheads and people who know absolutely nothing about anything (yes, may be redundant) are the main constituency in the Obama "groundswell" because, well, he's black and they figure it's time to have a black president. It doesn't matter that he's grossly inexperienced (a former state senator and a US Senator for 3 years) and if he were of any the race that he would not even be considered. The rationale behind his support seems to be "he's black, and it's time we had a black president". As a bonus, he has Muslim heritage and his middle name is Hussein - a bonus on the "feel-good-about-how-open-minded-I-am" scale.

As for Iraq, Obama is clearly in the "cut and run" wing of the Democrat party (yes, more redundancy):

Now, as a U.S. Senator, Senator Obama has continued to critique the administration's mishandling of this war, and believes that while our troops have done an outstanding job in Iraq, there can be no military solution to what is inherently a political conflict between Iraq's warring factions. The only hope to end this burgeoning civil war is for Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds to come together and resolve their differences. That's why Senator Obama agrees with the Iraq Study Group's conclusion that we must begin a phased redeployment of American troops to signal to the government and people of Iraq that ours is not an open-ended commitment.

To set a new course for U.S. policy that can bring a responsible end to the war, Senator Obama introduced the Iraq War De-escalation Act in January 2007. The legislation begins redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007, with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date that is consistent with the expectation of the Iraq Study Group.

Since this is still up on his website, I can only assume that he is unaware of, or uninterested in the enormous progress that we have made in the past few months in Iraq and that we are, in fact winning. Can we still assume that he favors a complete withdrawal of all combat brigades by March 31st? This gives new meaning to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, does it not?

Perhaps he has been to busy campaigning to formulate his "new" plan for our defeat and it will appear on his website at a later date........

IT'S HUCKABEE AND OBAMA IN IOWA

One question comes to mind...what the hell's wrong with Iowa?

IOWA CAUCUSES! NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY! WHO CARES!?!

Really, I have no animus toward the good people of Iowa or New Hampshire, but I have to say that the breathless anticipation of their selection process is beginning to peg the annoyance meter.

All of the candidates spend enormous amounts of money, descend upon these states like Apache helicopters on a al Qaeda keg party and the media reads the results as though it were the Dead Sea Scrolls.

These are two small states population-wise (IA #30 and NH #41) and neither is particularly representative of the nation as a whole. In fact there really isn't ANY state that could accurately be called representative of the nation.

The point seems to be to win these (too) early states and build some sort of air of inevitability, but how often does that really happen? There have been losers to win in Iowa and/or New Hampshire and former presidents who have lost one or both.

I know that someone has to be first and these two states are kicking off the primary season, but a little perspective may be in order. I also know that this little kabuki dance in Iowa and New Hampshire is a political tradition in presidential election years, but I think that it's overwrought in the extreme.

FRED'S STARTING TO LOOK PRETTY GOOD...........

You know, Fred's really starting to grow on me. Sensible, well measured and like I said before, he doesn't seem to be as interested in being president as much as he is in public service. He seems to be a man that I could trust with the job and never have a second thought about it. I could see the guy as president and I could see myself supporting his candidacy.

The very first point he makes is that we approach "dangerous years" ahead and that the terrorists won't rest "until a mushroom cloud hangs over one of our cities". This tells me he knows what our priorities are and where they should remain. Needless to say I share those priorities.

JOHN EDWARDS: POSTER BOY FOR ALL THAT'S WRONG WITH AMERICA

Powerline has an very interesting story about a John Edwards ad, where an layed off employee recounts how St. John tells his young son how he will "fight for his father's job". As it turns out, there's more to the story....as there always is with these Democrat-inspired victimization melodramas. As it turns out, the guy is just another Democrat party hack turning on the tears to drum up votes.

The fact is, I am an individual who has lost a job, after decades of service. Not once did I ever think of petitioning some hack politician to "fight for my job". Shit happens, and it happened to me, I dealt with it and moved on.

These are the type of people who are removing the backbone of America. They should be shouted down as the users they are. Edwards has made a fortune attacking the very people who supply American jobs, and he has the unmitigated gaul to call himself a champion of "working people"?

Farewell 2007...

As we bid adieu to 2007, we must now look forward to 2008. I use the word "must" for I do so with no small degree of trepidation. The challenges are many as are the pitfalls and we, as Americans must have the courage to learn from the past in order to make the choice as to who will lead us into a most uncertain future.

Our history has indicated that we always have an individual imbued with greatness at the helm just when we need them the most. Whether that person is delivered by the hand of providence, or the times instill greatness in the person at hand is something about which I am uncertain. What I am certain of is that now is a time that demands no less than a great leader to continue our struggle, the results of which will determine the survival or the demise of our very culture. The stakes could not be higher.

The war in Iraq will be a focal point during the coming election, as it should be. It is the seminal issue of our time. It's outcome will determine whether we have the fortitude to truly change the world, or if we are destined to lose our civilization by default. The world is far too small a place to allow a monsterous ideology such as Islamofascism to continue. Iraq is the tipping point and it is up to us to decide which direction we shall take. 2007 has seen enormous progress in Iraq, but certain factions would still have us snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

As I have stated on many occasions, these security issues are central to my selection of a presidential candidate. Unless we can defeat the barbarians that are already at our gates, all else is meaningless. I wrote a little more than 3 years ago in defense of our actions in Iraq; I think that I made are as valid today as they were then.

That piece can be found here.

Happy New Year to all. May God continue to bless us.

Huckabee stands by 'Christ' comment

DES MOINES, Iowa - Mike Huckabee, a Republican relying on support from religious conservatives in Thursday's hard-fought presidential caucuses, on Sunday stood by a decade-old comment in which he said, "I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ."

In a television interview, the ordained Southern Baptist minister and former Arkansas governor made no apologies for the 1998 comment made at a Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Salt Lake City.

"It was a speech made to a Christian gathering, and, and certainly that would be appropriate to be said to a gathering of Southern Baptists," Huckabee said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

He gave the speech the same year he endorsed the Baptist convention's statement of beliefs on marriage that "a wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ." Huckabee and his wife, Janet, signed a full-page ad in USA Today in support of the statement with 129 other evangelical leaders.

I think that this is the type of rhetoric that gives "evangelical leaders" a bad name as it has the same "subservient woman" theme that is found in the Islamic world. As for "taking the nation back for Christ"; ditto. While we are a nation that was founded on Christian principles, we are not, nor have we ever been a theocracy. This nation was founded specifically NOT to be a theocracy.

He claims that his speech was "appropriate" to a gathering of Southern Baptists, though at the time he was the Governor of Arkansas. He sounds like the punchline for every joke that we've ever heard about states like Arkansas.

Remove "Christ" and insert "Allah" and tell me this isn't the exact type of statements we hear coming from the mouths of the Islamofacists.

This guy should definitely not be president...in fact, he should never have been governor of Arkansas.

Thompson: 'Not particularly interested in running'

Hmm...I rather like his attitude:

WASHINGTON, Iowa (AP) -- Fred Thompson acknowledged Saturday he's not especially fond of running for president, but he thinks he'd be a good choice for the White House.

Asked at a town hall meeting in Burlington whether he had the desire to be president, Thompson said it wasn't his idea to seek the office, and he wasn't enamored with campaigning.

"I am not consumed by personal ambition. I will not be devastated if I don't do it," he said. "I'm not particularly interested in running for president."

I've always found people like Bill Clinton, who seems like he has been running for president since he was 12, a little off putting. The presidency should be a weight you carry, not something to which you aspire. It's about sacrificing for your country, not appetite for position.

"Nowadays, it's all about fire in the belly. I'm not sure in the world we live in today it's a terribly good thing that a president has too much fire in his belly," he said.

Thompson said that unlike his opponents, he's honest about why he's running.

"I like to say that I'm only consumed by very, very few things and politics is not one of them. The welfare of my country and my kids and grandkids are one of them," he said. "But if people really want in their president a super type-A personality, someone who has gotten up every morning and gone to bed every night thinking about for years how they could achieve presidency of the United States, someone who could look you straight in the eye and say they enjoy every minute of campaigning -- I ain't that guy."

He seems like he has the concept of "public service", which is what the presidency is all about, pretty well down pat.

THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE
The Best and the Brightest? I don't think so.

Color me unimpressed and more than a little concerned. I feel that I'm in a bad "B" movie that I'm watching while saying to myself "this couldn't really happen", but it is happening. Is this the best we can do?

John McCain: I honor him as a war hero, but I'm not ready to put him in the White House. I've just got some bad vibes there.

Mitt Romney: Doesn't inspire my imagination, he looks too much like a presidential candidate from Central Casting. I'm still thinking about the Morman thing, but I'm willing to listen.

Rudy Giuliani: May well be my own front runner, he's a tough son of a bitch that wants to kill Muslim terrorists and that's my main issue.

Barack Obama: He's black, so what?

Ron Paul: He's creepy and scary and his supporters are even more so.

Fred Thompson: Yeah, he's running...or is he just strolling? Pick up the pace Fred!

Hillary: Yeah, right.

Huckabee: One Arkansas governor as president was already way too much for me, besides he's a populist asshole. I don't like populist assholes and as far as this one goes, the more I think of him, the less I thik of him.

If I've missed anyone, they probably deserved it. We're in a battle for our very civilization and this is the best we can do?

The New York Times: "As Democrats See Security Gains in Iraq, Tone Shifts"

Translation: Having been totally vested in defeat, Democrats struggle with the disturbing possibility of victory.

US is ‘worst’ imperialist

(But the Archbishop of Canterbury has the weirdest eybrows)

Feel free to read the whole thing, if you have the stomach.

THE Archbishop of Canterbury has said that the United States wields its power in a way that is worse than Britain during its imperial heyday.

Rowan Williams claimed that America’s attempt to intervene overseas by "clearing the decks” with a “quick burst of violent action” had led to “the
worst of all worlds”.

In a wide-ranging interview with a British Muslim magazine, the Anglican leader linked criticism of the United States to one of his most pessimistic declarations about the state of western civilisation.

He said the crisis was caused not just by America’s actions but also by its misguided sense of its own mission. He poured scorn on the “chosen nation myth of America, meaning that what happens in America is very much at the heart of God’s purpose for humanity”.

Williams went beyond his previous critique of the conduct of the war on terror, saying the United States had lost the moral high ground since September 11. He urged it to launch a “generous and intelligent programme of aid directed to the societies that have been ravaged; a check on the economic exploitation of defeated territories; a demilitarisation of their presence”.

He went on to suggest that the West was fundamentally adrift: “Our modern western definition of humanity is clearly not working very well. There is something about western modernity which really does eat away at the soul.”

Even discounting the bizarre eyebrows, which are distracting in the extreme, the Archbishop should know that one cannot make a deal with the devil, which he is clearly doing. Either that or he's a complete and total buffoon - you make the call.

It's unbearably annoying that mainstream clerics bash western civilization while ignoring the clear and present evils of Islam. Were he to make similar comments about the Islamo-Facists, he may well be murdered while the 'soul eating' western modernity allows him to babble with impunity.

As for the tiresome charge of "imperialism"; search as I may, I have failed to find any oppressed American colonies, or any American colonies whatsoever. What I have found is a long list of defeated foes who were rebuilt as a result of American benevolence.

UPDATE: Victor Davis Hanson offers the Archbishop some wisdom - something of which VDH has a plethora and the Archbishop, obviously, has a dearth.

KEEP TELLING YOURSELF THAT HEALTHCARE IS OUR BIGGEST PROBLEM

"Al-Qaeda proclaimed a religious rationale to justify the WMD attacks it was planning. In June 2002, a Kuwaiti-born cleric named Suleiman Abu Ghaith posted a statement on the Internet saying that "al-Qaeda has the right to kill 4 million Americans" in retaliation for U.S. attacks against Muslims. And in May 2003, at the same time Saudi operatives of al-Qaeda were trying to buy three Russian nuclear bombs, a cleric named Nasir al-Fahd issued a fatwa titled "A Treatise on the Legal Status of Using Weapons of Mass Destruction Against Infidels." Interrogations of al-Qaeda operatives confirmed that the planning was serious. Al-Qaeda didn't yet have the materials for a WMD attack, but it wanted them.

Most chilling of all was Zawahiri's decision in March 2003 to cancel a cyanide attack in the New York subway system. He told the plotters to stand down because "we have something better in mind." What did that mean? More than four years later, we still don't know.

After 2004, the WMD trail went cold, according to Mowatt-Larssen. Many intelligence analysts have concluded that al-Qaeda doesn't have nuclear capability today. Mowatt-Larssen argues that a more honest answer is: We don't know."

Do read the whole thing. All of the signs have pointed to this and as time goes by, the signs become more pronounced - those with the means are making alliances with those with the motive and this country is in the cross-hairs.

You need to ask yourself who you want in charge as we approach the dark days ahead. I'll vote for the candidate who will kill Muslim terrorists - as many and as quickly as possible.

I keep hearing "And your little dog, too............" followed by that hideous Hillary laugh.

Man arrested for airport al-Qaida joke

BOSTON, Oct. 1 (UPI) -- A Washington taxi driver faces a criminal charge because he joked about being a member of al-Qaida to an airline worker in Boston.

Ermiyaf A. Asfaw, an Ethiopian national, was returning to Washington from a visit to his girlfriend Saturday when an Air-Tran check-in employee asked him about stickers on his luggage from Dubai. He told her he had been in the United Arab Emirates.

"No. I'm al-Qaida. I'm with them, and I'm here to blow things up," he said when she asked if it had been a trip for business or pleasure.

Asfaw has been charged with making a false bomb threat. A judge set bail Monday at $1,500.

"This airport is not going to tolerate this type of behavior," said Phil Orlandella, a spokesman for the Massachusetts Port Authority. "This type of action is completely dumb."

Well, I guess the authorities didn't find the joke very funny. Frankly, neither do I. I think that a good punishment would be to permanantly deport his humorous Ethiopian ass.

We already have enough people in this country already that think that 9-11 was a joke.

Burma: Thousands dead in massacre of the monks dumped in the jungle

Where is the international outrage? When is the worthless UN going to do something other than issue worthless platitudes.....and have they even done that?

There's a lot of talk of peace these days on the part of the left, but when Buddhist monks, some of the most peaceful people on Earth, are being slaughtered by the hundreds and citizens by the thousands there's nothing but silence. There's a lot of talk about the "global village", but when there's an opportunity to really DO something to save innocent lives, there is nothing but paralysis.

It's still another clear example of hypocrisy in its most pathetic form.

Iraq violent death rates 'plunge'

Isn't his good news and why is it not being heralded as such? Oh yeah, the template is that we've already lost......

Poll: Most Israelis support using nukes

Approximately 72 percent of Israelis support the use of nuclear weapons in certain circumstances, according to a Canadian survey released recently.

The survey - conducted jointly at the end of July by the Simons Foundation and Angus Reid Strategies - was answered by adults in six countries and showed that 37% of Israelis believed the use of nuclear weapons to prevent a war would be justified, while 35% believed the weapons could be justifiably used during a war.

In addition, the survey found that Israel had the lowest public support for
destroying nuclear weapons out of all the countries questioned.

Israel also had the highest percentage in favor of the country using its "power and influence in a way that serves its own interests" - approximately 55% - as opposed to "coordinat[ing] with other countries to do what's best for the world as a whole."

Nearly 72% also agreed that "nuclear weapons place Israel in a unique position, so it is not in our interest to participate in treaties that would reduce or eliminate our purported nuclear arsenal."

About three-quarters of Israelis also said they would feel safer if they knew for certain that Israel had nuclear weapons. Israel has thus far maintained its policy of nuclear ambiguity.

The organizers of the study suggested that Israel accorded greater importance to the nuclear form of defense due to the Iranian threat, Army Radio reported.

The study spanned a sample of 1,000 adults in Britain, France, Italy, Germany and the US along with
Israel.

A refeshing moment of clarity from the Israelis, while in this country we invite the Iranian madman to speak at a major university and many on the American left laud him and dine with him. I fear a great price will be paid for our refusal to see the obvious and to call evil by its name.

IMAGINE WHIRLED PEAS

While I was sitting on the plane the other day, I saw this kid in his early 20s boarding. You know the type; rumpled clothes, long hair going in a multitude of directions, little glasses and a look on his face that clearly said "I'm an intellectual, and I don't give a rat's ass what knuckle-draggers such as you think of me". In another words, not unlike me in my early 20s, and that's the whole point.

He had a guitar case (of course) and on it were stickers that seemed to commemorate every thought or belief he ever had, original or not. The one that caught my eye was one that said END WAR. Actually, I see these types and their stickers and buttons all of the time, and I find them increasingly annoying. The fact that the people who sport them maintain an air of intellectual superiority while being spectacularly clueless is maddening.

The fact is, more that 3 decades ago people of my generation wanted the war to end in Southeast Asia. Hell, "End The War" seemed to be the most effective animator of my generation and it was central to our culture. Unfortunately, we were just as clueless as this young man on the airplane as to the consequences of our actions

Proponents of the war warned us that a pull-out would result in a bloodbath and the entire region would fall to the Communists. The intellectuals of the day were highly critical of our "illegal" actions in Cambodia. Well, the young people of the day, the press and the intellectuals got their way and we left Southeast Asia to their own devices. After our departure, North and South Vietnam were reunited as a Communist country and those who were fighting with us for their freedom, if they were not fortunate enough to escape, were killed. It's estimated that 2 million people were exterminated in Cambodia. 2 million people. Was this the "peace" we sought? Even now, many of my generation are quite self-congratulatory about the way "we" ended the war in Vietnam. As for the millions who were killed as a result of our quest for "peace"....well, we just don't talk about that.

From that time until the present, Vietnam has provided the enemies of this country with a blueprint of how to defeat the most powerful nation on Earth in asymmetrical conflict; keep drawing blood, even in small quantities and wait for us to accept defeat in the name of "peace.

As for the bohemian intellectual sticker people and button wearers, they have their blueprint too; oppose ANY war, regardless of the cause, and pressure the government to accept defeat in the name of "peace".

Our enemies, from within and without have learned well while we have learned nothing.

Ah, the Religion of PEACE and HARMONY.....

We do use books that call Jews 'apes' admits head of Islamic school

The principal of an Islamic school has admitted that it uses textbooks which describe Jews as "apes" and Christians as "pigs" and has refused to withdraw them.

Dr Sumaya Alyusuf confirmed that the offending books exist after former teacher Colin Cook, 57, alleged that children as young as five are taught from racist materials at the King Fahd Academy in Acton.

And the school in question is not in Saudi Arabia....it's in London (or Londonistan, if you will).

So when are we going to admit that Islam is less a religion and more a facist political cult? They continue to use the western concepts of freedom and liberty in order to inflict their repressive and racist ideologies upon their benevolent hosts. All the while, we delude ourselves into believing that we are "embracing diversity" when, in fact, we are writing the final chapter in the history of western culture.