Thursday, November 30, 2006


This morning’s Washington Post reports that Democrats have set a record in breaking a major campaign promise even before they assume control. That’s never happened before, to the best of my recollection.

It was a solemn pledge, repeated by Democratic leaders and candidates over and over: If elected to the majority in Congress, Democrats would implement all of the recommendations of the bipartisan commission that examined the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
But with control of Congress now secured, Democratic leaders have decided for now against implementing the one measure that would affect them most directly: a wholesale reorganization of Congress to improve oversight and funding of the nation’s intelligence agencies. Instead, Democratic leaders may create a panel to look at the issue and produce recommendations, according to congressional aides and lawmakers.

Actually, they’ve broken two campaign promises with one inaction. Democratic candidates promised more vigorous oversight and they promised to implement the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations. I’m guessing that the Democrats are only interested in oversight if it’s able to criticize Halliburton or the Patriot Act and the like. It’s obvious that they aren’t the least bit interested in oversight into truly important matters.

Bill Clinton campaigned on giving a middle class tax cut. He gave up on that fairly quickly, saying “I’ve never worked harder in all my life” on anything but it just isn’t possible with the huge deficits. At least he waited until he was in office a couple weeks before breaking a major campaign promise. Congressional Democrats couldn’t even live up to that modest benchmark.

Why am I not surprised?

“I don’t think that suggestion is going anywhere,” said Rep. C.W. Bill Young (R-FL), the chairman of the Appropriations defense subcommittee and a close ally of the incoming subcommittee chairman, Rep. John P. Murtha, (D-PA). “That is not going to be their party position.”

Color me shocked and surprised that John Murtha isn’t interested in reform. Color me shocked and surprised that Democrats aren’t interested in reform either. Frankly, I don’t know why the American people believed that Democrats are reform-minded. Nothing in their past suggests that they’re interested in reform.

Wednesday, November 29, 2006


The highly anticipated trilateral meeting between President Bush, the Jordanian King and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki in Amman, Jordan, took an odd turn today. The Iraqi PM was a no-show, meeting earlier with the Jordanian King and apparently snubbing the President. The President and Prime Minister will meet tomorrow. The official White House explanation is this:

“Since the King of Jordan and the prime minister had a bilateral themselves earlier today, everyone believed that it negated the purpose of the three of them to meet tonight together in a trilateral setting,” White House adviser Dan Bartlett told reporters traveling with Bush.

However, such a meeting would still have been beneficial, so what really happened?

Earlier today the infamous leakers at the New York Times posted a classified memo by Bush National Security Advisor Stephen J. Hadley which was critical of al-Maliki’s ability to control the sectarian violence in Iraq. (the memo in its entirety can be read HERE) In part, the leaked memo said:

-Do we (U.S.) and Prime Minister Maliki share the same vision for Iraq?

-In my one-on-one meeting with him, he impressed me as a leader who wanted to be strong but was having difficulty figuring out how to do so.

-Despite Maliki’s reassuring words, repeated reports from our commanders on the ground contributed to our concerns about Maliki’s government.

-His intentions seem good when he talks with Americans, and sensitive reporting suggests he is trying to stand up to the Shia hierarchy and force positive change. But the reality on the streets of Baghdad suggests Maliki is either ignorant of what is going on, misrepresenting his intentions, or that his capabilities are not yet sufficient to turn his good intentions into action.

Ouch, that’s gotta hurt. While this memo is a totally legitimate critique of the Prime Minister, it must embarrass and perhaps anger the good PM. This appears to be another attempt in a string of many by the communistic New York Times to purposely thwart the Bush administration. Why leak a private classified memo? Why now? Why at all? The answer is obvious: to continue to chip away at the war effort in Iraq. This time, however, the angle was to divide and conquer by placing the U.S. and Iraq at an awkward and difficult juncture.

Another possibility for the Iraqi Prime Minister’s no-show to the three way meeting could be due to the 30 parliamentarians loyal to radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr who vowed to leave their positions altogether, threatening the stability of the Iraqi government. The original condition was that if al-Maliki, whose constituency has a large portion from al-Sadr followers, met with Bush in Jordan for the summit, they would boycott the government. Now it appears the boycott may not be permanent, but significant nonetheless.

“We are sticking to our position…. The boycott is still valid,” Falih Hassan, a Sadrist legislator, said in an interview with The Associated Press. “Bush is a criminal who killed a lot of Iraqis and we do not want him to interfere in Iraq’s affairs. The Iraqi government should negotiate with the U.N. Security Council, not with the leader of the country that is occupying Iraq.”

This of course puts PM al-Maliki in a difficult position.

My sources in Baghdad, Iraq, who are Christian and therefore neither Shia nor Sunni, believe al-Maliki is a good man, but that he is surrounded by “evil and selfish” people in the parliament, and that they are the problem. “They” are the members of the government who are involved in the boycott.

If al-Maliki indeed skipped the trilateral meeting with President Bush today because he deemed it redundant, so be it. If it is because he is offended by the contents of the memo, damned be the New York Times. If it is because of the parliamentary walkout, this will work itself out. Just as with the first round of elections in Iraq back in 2004-05, the participants who sat it out realized they were more empowered through the political process than by foregoing their representation. If this current parliament needs to be reestablished, that could also be positive.

To be continued…….


There's a story today that Islamic Sharia law is starting to spread in Great Britain. There are unofficial Islamic courts sitting in various parts of London. Here's how it works. Some Muslim commits a crime. The Muslim community tries him before one of their "unofficial" Islamic courts. Punishment is meted out, and the victim of the crime then refuses to file a criminal complaint with the legal British courts. Some British lawyers are even supporting the system, calling it "legal pluralism." Nobody seems concerned. Some officials are suggesting that there will be a formal system of Muslim courts in Britain within ten years.

And so the Islamic invasion of Europe proceeds at a rather brisk pace ... Eurabia is on the way.

Now ... this all leads up to an article by Victor Davis Hanson I really want you to read. You can find it in today's Wall Street Journal or click to read it right here. The title? "Losing the Enlightenment. A civilization that has lost confidence in itself cannot confront the Islamists." Here's one paragraph:

Just imagine in our present year, 2006: plan an opera in today's Germany, and then shut it down. Again, this surrender was not done last month by the Nazis, the Communists, or kings, but by the producers themselves in simple fear of Islamic fanatics who objected to purported bad taste. Or write a novel deemed unflattering to the Prophet Mohammed. That is what did Salman Rushdie did, and for his daring, he faced years of solitude, ostracism, and death threats--and in the heart of Europe no less. Or compose a documentary film, as did the often obnoxious Theo Van Gogh, and you may well have your throat cut in "liberal" Holland. Or better yet, sketch a simple cartoon in postmodern Denmark of legendary easy tolerance, and then go into hiding to save yourself from the gruesome fate of a Van Gogh. Or quote an ancient treatise, as did Pope Benedict, and then learn that all of Christendom may come under assault, and even the magnificent stones of the Vatican may offer no refuge--although their costumed Swiss Guard would prove a better bulwark than the European police. Or write a book critical of Islam, and then go into hiding in fear of your life, as did French philosophy teacher Robert Redeker.

Can you accept the possibility that Europe may be lost to Islam? Spain is surely doomed ... and nobody anywhere else seems willing to take a stand. Look at your children, and wonder just what type of world they're going to grow up in. We in America spend more time condemning ourselves than we do looking at the threat from abroad. A certain recipe for disaster.

Tuesday, November 28, 2006


I noted the NYTimes' attempt this weekend to seek protection from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for two accused blabbermouth reporters, whom the feds believe tipped off two Muslim charities fronting for terror.

Well, wonders never cease. The Times reports this afternoon that the court rebuffed the leak-dependent paper:

The United States Supreme Court refused today to stop a federal prosecutor from reviewing the telephone records of two reporters for The New York Times. The records, the paper said, include information about many of the reporters’ confidential sources.

In a one-sentence order offering no reasoning and noting no dissenting votes, the Supreme Court rejected a request from The Times to stay a lower court’s decision while the paper tried to persuade the high court to review the case.

Today’s order effectively allows the United States attorney in Chicago, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, to begin reviewing the records, which he has already obtained from phone companies, as early as this week.

The Justice Department told the Supreme Court on Friday that Mr. Fitzgerald is under enormous time pressure. “The statute of limitations,” the government said, “will imminently expire on December 3 and 13, 2006, on certain substantive offenses that the grand jury is investigating.”

The grand jury, in Chicago, is looking into who told the two reporters, Judith Miller and Philip Shenon, about actions the government was planning to take in December 2001 against two Islamic charities in Illinois and Texas. The disclosures to the reporters, the government lawyers wrote Friday, may have amounted to obstruction of justice.

Message to blabbermouths: You are not above the law, no matter how ostentatiously you wrap yourselves in the First Amendment.

John Stephenson: "I have to wonder if Ginsburg was sleeping again for this ruling."


Terrorist-tipping NYTimes wants Ruth Ginsburg's help

Monday, November 27, 2006


It's always been puzzling that when Democrats are running for office or when they're explaining their victory, they always have to try and convince people they're not who they say they are. They simply cannot let the public know who they really are or what they really stand for. To do so would be political suicide. The general electorate simply does not swing as far to the left as they do.

At any rate, there was John Dingell, Charlie Rangel and Barney Frank on TV over the weekend saying that they wouldn't pursue a liberal agenda in the next Congress. They want to government from the middle, we were told. They'd like to prove that they can govern. So just what sort of proposals are going to be part of their mainstream agenda?

One of the first thing will be raising the minimum wage. Yeah...that's not a liberal agenda. Then there's the issue of the deficit. Democrats absolutely cannot wait to raise taxes on "the rich" to "pay for" the extra government spending. Any other supposed mainstream ideas they have will be just as liberal.

Perhaps what they're trying to do here is change the terms ... create a new political language where tax increases and government interference in business decisions isn't considered "liberal."

The more likely explanation is that they know they don't have the votes to deliver the true liberal goals of socialized medicine, eliminating the wage cap on Social Security taxes, more power to unions, killing talk radio, and destroying what we have of school choice. So ... lay low until after 2008 when they have even more power! Then stand back!

Democrats have been out of power for a dozen years. They haven't waited on the sidelines all that time just so they could win and then govern just like Republicans. Democrats have a leftist agenda and they intend to pursue it fully. It's all in the timing.

Friday, November 24, 2006


It’s obvious that the Russians wanted former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko silenced. Today, they got their wish:

Mr Litvinenko fell ill after meeting a contact, an Italian journalist, in a sushi restaurant in central London. Dramatic photographs released this week showed him lying in intensive care. His hair had fallen out and his complexion was jaundiced. Last night he suffered a heart attack and doctors said his condition had worsened. Friends and relatives were said to be rushing to his bedside fearing the worst.

Doctors still do not know what caused his illness, although they have said he was poisoned. Initial reports suggested he had been poisoned with thallium, or with a radioactive material, but doctors have now said this was not the case. His friend Oleg Gordievsky, a former high-ranking KGB agent who defected to Britain, said Mr Litvinenko had been killed by two Russian secret agents who poisoned his tea during a meeting at a London hotel. Mr Gordievsky told Sky News: “He was fighting against the evil forces in Russia, against the authorities which are depressing democracy and liberal freedoms in Russia.”

Based on what I’ve read, the Kremlin’s love of control and secrecy played a major role in their poisoning him after they killed Russian reporter Anna Politkovskaya. What’s ironic is that Litvinenko was looking into her murder:

Mr Litvinenko, an outspoken critic of President Vladimir Putin, was probing the murder of Ms Politkovskaya, who had become famous for exposing Russian atrocities in Chechnya. Thirteen journalists have been murdered in Russia since Mr Putin came to power in 2000. None of the cases has been solved.
Two years ago the Russian government denied any part in the poisoning of Viktor Yushchenko, the pro-Western presidential candidate in neighbouring Ukraine. He won the presidency after his pro-Russian rival was accused of trying to rig the elections.

It seems that people that don’t agree with Mr. Putin wind up getting poisoned, which is something that the old Soviet KGB specialized in. Here’s a little glimpse of Ms. Politkovskaya’s view of Putin’s tactics:

She has harsh words for what she sees as the west’s kid-glove treatment of Putin and Russia. “Most of the time they forget the word Chechnya. They only remember it when there’s a terrorist act. And then it’s, ‘Oh!’ And they start their full coverage up again. But virtually nobody reports on what is really going on in that zone, in Chechnya, and the growth of terrorism. The truth is that the methods employed in Putin’s anti-terrorist operation are generating a wave of terrorism the like of which we have never experienced.”
The Bush-Blair “war on terror” has been of enormous help to Putin, Politkovskaya says. Many people in Russia gained perverse comfort from the pictures of US abuses in Abu Ghraib prison. “I’ve heard it many times. In Russia you hear people talking about it with pride: that, ‘We treated the blacks like this before the Americans did, and we were right, because they are international terrorists.’
“Putin’s begun to try to prove on the world stage that he’s also fighting international terrorists, that he’s just a part of this fashionable war. And he’s been successful. He was Blair’s best friend for a while. When, after Beslan, he began to state that we were seeing virtually the hand of Bin Laden, it was appalling. What’s Bin Laden got to do with it? The Russian government created these beasts, brought them up, and they came to Beslan and behaved like beasts.”

Much has been written about President Bush’s consternation at Putin’s attempt to de-democratize Russia and it’s former Soviet bloc countries. This Guardian article simply gives details about how Putin tried exerting his will on neighboring countries. It seems a forgone conclusion that he’d want Ms. Politkovskaya, Mr. Litvinenko dead just like he wanted Viktor Yushchenko dead when Yushchenko chanllenged Putin’s candidate Yanukovych in Ukraine’s elections in 2004.

The Orange Revolution is the first big news event I wrote about when I started blogging. Putin and Ukrainian President Kuchma pronounced Yanukovych the winner even though the voters knew that was utter nonsense. Orange-clad Ukrainians swarmed the Independence Square in Kiev, forcing another election, with Yuschchenko winning handily.

The bottom line to all this information is that Putin’s heavyhandedness is so obvious that it’s impossible not to notice that he deals with adversaries in an old school Soviet KGB way. I don’t know what the solution to his heavyhandedness is but it’s something that must be stopped soon.

Wednesday, November 22, 2006


Beginning January 23, just about everybody is going to be required to have a passport, including those traveling to Mexico and Canada. No more heading over the border with just your driver's license and birth certificate for a lost weekend. Now can we just get a little border enforcement? Because nobody seems to be asking all of the illegals streaming across the border for their passport.

There will be those that protest this policy change, but it going to make that much of a difference in who makes it into this country or out? Those who are smuggling illegal aliens in aren't going to show up at the border crossing with their fancy new passport. No...they're going to come in the same way they always have....right across the border at places were there is no protection. By the way...did you know miles of the U.S-Canadian border is actually unguarded? No passport needed.

We were going to get a fence built along the border with Mexico. No more. Count on the Democrats to kill that idea. The border is 2,000 miles long...and 700 miles that was recently authorized may not even get built. So all this new rule is going to do is result in long lines at the post office and lots of increased revenue for the passport office.

Oh...and will George W. Bush's amnesty program for illegals require a passport? I doubt it.

Tuesday, November 21, 2006


Is George Bush ready to go along with the Democrats on a tax increase? Lawrence Lindsey of The American Enterprise Institute certainly thinks so. In this article entitled "Compromised" Lindsey suggests that Bush may be signalling his willingness to go along with Democrats on a tax increase. A huge tax increase. In fact, the tax increase would bring the tax level on the evil, wicked, wretched, nasty, filthy rich to a level not seen since the Carter Administration .. if then.

Here's the rumor: Bush is going to go along with a Democrat plan to eliminate the earnings cap on Social Security taxes. This would only affect people who make over $100,000 a year. The greatest impact would be on those who's income is measured in seven figures. Lindsey writes that the new effective tax rate for entrepreneurs would go up by more than 10 percent. Then, in 2011, it would go up another 4.3%. That's almost a 15% tax increase over five years.

More on this later .. but I just though I would fire a shot across your bow now. Better read the article and grab your wallets.

Monday, November 20, 2006


The jihadis are rolling out the welcome mat in Indonesia. (Hat tip: Shawn Wasson, who has more Bush-deranged photos)




AP reports:

Thousands wound through the streets of Indonesia's capital and gathered at a grand mosque Sunday to protest President Bush's upcoming visit to the world's most populous Muslim nation, some chanting "War criminal" and "You are a terrorist!"

Cindy Sheehan approves. Assassination chic--it's everywhere. And, of course, we never hear a peep of condemnation from the Left about these violence-endorsing demonstrations.

The AP tries to play down the jihadist rage in Indonesia:

Indonesia is the fourth most populous nation and has more Muslims than any other in the world, with some 190 million mostly moderate believers.

Yeah, right, no worries. There are only 19 million of them who support violent jihad. Remember?

Around one in 10 Indonesian Muslims support jihad and justify bomb attacks on Indonesia's tourist island of Bali as defending the faith...

..."Jihad that has been understood partially and practiced with violence is justified by around one in 10 Indonesian Muslims," the Indonesian Survey Institute said in a statement.

"They approved the bombings conducted ... in Bali with the excuse of defending Islam," it added, saying the percentage of such support "is very significant."


Security is tight and President Bush's visit is expected to last six hours tomorrow. I will be praying for his safety.


Related: Pamela at Atlas Shrugs has an uncensored post on Islamic Jihad in Indonesia. Warning - photos are extremely graphic.

(Update: Read all the comments in the thread. Some of the photos apparently depict violence between indigeneous Dayak tribes against the immigrant Madurese tribes on Borneo island circa 2000 - 2001; other linked photos are indeed of Muslim/Christian conflict in Poso and other areas of Indonesia)



19 million Muslims for jihad...and that's just in Indonesia
Muslims will execute Christians
Jihadi bombings in New Dehli; beheadings in Indonesia
More Islamist butchery in Indonesia
Targeting Miss Indonesia
Islamist butchery in Indonesia
Christian persecution in Indonesia
"With our blood, we will redeem our Prophet"
Free Teguh Santosa; Mo cartoon-inspired bomb plot

The Muslim beheaders
Indonesian terrorists with machetes

Saturday, November 18, 2006


Parents, you better check your children's homework and make sure they aren't doing assignments like this (via WRAL with a hat tip to reader Paul):


WRAL reports:

A Spanish teacher at Smithfield-Selma Senior High School resigned this week after handing out an assignment that some students and parents said teaches hate.

Khalid Chahhou, who was in his first year of teaching in Johnston County, gave students a worksheet in which they were to translate words and find them within a word-search puzzle.

Some students started uncovering strange words in the process.

"There were words like 'kill,' then I saw it said 'destroy America,'" Eric Herrera said.

As they read on, students found the puzzle contained a paragraph that contained the following phrases:

*"Sharon killed a lot of innocent people," a possible reference to former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

*"Palestine is not a terrorist group."

*"Allah help destroy this body of evil making humanity miserable."

You'll love the teacher's defense:

Chahhou, who also teaches Arabic at a religious school affiliated with the Islamic Association of Cary, told WRAL in a telephone interview that students got the wrong message from the assignment.

"When I made the assignment, I was upset and angry about a story I recently saw on the news. If any message appears, it is more of a message to myself, not to my students.

How many other teachers are out there writing mental "Destroy America" messages to themselves while they educate America's children?

Friday, November 17, 2006


With George W. Bush visiting Vietnam, the media is loving comparing the war in Iraq to the Vietnam War. But the mainstream media seems to have left their history books at home...because once again, the Vietnam War has nothing in common with the war in Iraq. Let's break down their reasoning.

The Vietnam War lasted for decades...with its beginnings going all the way back to the 1940's and the 1950's. We've been in Iraq just under 4 years. The enemy in Vietnam was being supplied by a superpower...the Soviet Union. The enemy in Iraq is being supplied by Iran and Syria and assorted Islamic thugs from various terrorist organizations.

It's just not the same. Comparing Iraq to Vietnam would be like comparing World War II to the invasion of Panama. There is no comparison. But don't tell that to the media and the Democrats. They know Vietnam is considered our greatest military failure of the 20th century. And just like with the Vietnam War, Democrats want to cut off the funding for Iraq too.

Oh..and it goes without saying: we lost the Vietnam War, but we won in Iraq. The only problem in Iraq right now is getting things to the point where they are stable enough that we can leave. However, such is the mainstream media's hatred of George Bush and the United States Military...they can't help but live out their Vietnam fantasy as much as possible. The fact that Bush is in Vietnam itself this week only serves to feed the flames.

Thursday, November 16, 2006


We haven’t had enough of your blood yet,” taunted terror chieftain Abu Hamza al-Muhajir.

. . .

Al-Muhajir praised the American people for handing victory to the Democrats, saying: “They voted for something reasonable in the last elections.”
. . .

Democrats appear to be “reasonable” to terrorists. What does this bode for improving national security?

“We call on the lame duck not to hurry his escape the way the defense secretary did,” al-Muhajir said in reference to Rumsfeld’s resignation as Pentagon chief on Wednesday.

. . .

“Remain steadfast on the battlefield, you coward,” said al-Muhajir, who took over leadership of al-Qaida in Iraq after Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed in a U.S. airstrike in June.

“We will not rest from our jihad (holy war) until we are under the olive trees of Rumieh and we have blown up the filthiest house — which is called the White House,” al-Muhajir said.

In other news, Nancy Pelosi supports Jack “Accuse Marines of Killing Civilians” Murtha as House Majority Leader.

The rewards of treason.

It’s a new direction

Wednesday, November 15, 2006



We learn today that now that the Democrats are in control of the Congress they may just decide not to build that 700-mile fence along portions of the U.S. Border with Mexico. Word is that the law that mandates the fence, the law that was signed with much ceremony just a few weeks ago at the White House, will be reviewed by the new, more-powerful Democrats, and may be scrapped.

Please .. I hope you're not surprised. Democrats look at every single Mexican who comes across that border as a potential future vote. With the new showing of Democrat strength you can expect to see efforts to allow non-citizens to vote in local elections intensified in heavily Latino population centers. First will be school board elections. After all, we have to educate their children, don't we? So why shouldn't they vote in school board elections? Next will be elections for city councils, county commissions ... and onward.

The Democrats have an advantage here. The president is on their side. Right now we're hearing much more talk in Washington about amnesty than we are about controlling our borders. Amnesty for 12 million illegals next year .. then how many more do you think will stream into this country by the time we're voting in the 2008 presidential election?

Oh ... Some Vatican hot-shot is chiming in here too. Cardinal Renato Martino, a senior Vatican cardinal, is saying that the fence is part of an "inhuman program." He makes a connection to the Berlin Wall. Hint to anyone who wants to do that. The Berlin Wall was built to keep people from leaving, not arriving. Huge difference there.

How long before Spanish becomes the default language in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California?

Bill N. sends us this timely piece with the suggested caption "Shall I carve?"

Tuesday, November 14, 2006


Hillary can smell the Oval Office. With the Democrat control of the congress, and a president who seems well-suited to the role of a lame duck, Hillary is feeling her oats. She thinks the Democrat nomination is hers ... and its off to the races.

Yesterday The Liar made an interesting statement to reporters in Washington yesterday. She said that "health care is coming back" and "it may be a bad dream for some."

Now just what does she mean by that? Bad dream? What kind of bad dream?

Does Hillary mean that after our government takes control of the delivery of medical services in this country that Americans will have to wait for months, even years, for elective surgery as people do in Canada and other countries with socialized medicine? Well .. .if that's the case, Hillary is right. That would be a bad dream.

Maybe Hillary is talking about what awaits any American who tries to use his or her own money to hire a doctor outside of the government medical scheme. Well, under the Hillarycare proposal she concocted in 1993, if a private individual used private funds to hire a doctor to perform a medical service outside of Hillarycare, then both the doctor and the patient could be arrested and jailed. Being jailed because you dared to hire your own doctor? Again, Hillary is right. That indeed would be a bad dream; not just for some, but for many.

There are many free market reforms that could be made to our health care system that would increase competition, expand availability and decrease costs ... but the problem is that they are free market reforms. Returning free market economics to our system of medical care doesn't enhance the power of politicians, and thus it is a non-starter. The political goal here is to make people dependent on the Imperial Federal Government for their medical care. Once that is accomplished you can almost write the Democrat campaign commercials for them. "Vote for Joe Republican and you're going to have to pay for your own medical care."

I've been saying that socialized medicine in the United States is inevitable. There are two basic reasons: One, politicians want the power. Two, individual Americans don't want the responsibility. The great American love of freedom is now pretty much limited to freedoms not coupled to responsibility. Americans have been taught by the political class to believe that a person's health care is the primary responsibility of either the government or that person's employer.

Hillary also had some comments about other subjects of interest, such as trimming the federal deficit. Whenever you hear a Democrat talk about cutting the deficit, they never mean cutting spending. They mean raising taxes to cover the "shortfall." This is where you find out that there's no difference between modern-day Democrats and Republicans. One taxes and spends, the other borrows and spends.

The Hildabeast also mentioned reducing dependence on foreign oil. When a Democrat tells you this, it does not mean actually drilling for more oil here at home. It means raising the gas tax so as to make buying as much prohibitively expensive and it means pouring government money into programs for electric cars and hydrogen fuel cells. Those may be good ideas, but it's for the free market to decide, not the government.

Then she mentioned improving the image of the United States abroad. This is an easy one...this means appeasing Islamic terrorists and Euro-wimps. After all, where is our image tarnished abroad? In third-world Islamic countries where hatred of the United States is preached daily out of the loudspeakers of mosques. If you want to improve our image with these people, appeasement is the key.

Hillary's on the way, folks. You don't think the Republiwimps can stop her, do you?

Monday, November 13, 2006


(Photoshop: Kathy Y.)

They can't be serious, can they? Oh, yes they are.

The Hill newspaper reports. You deride:

Speaker-in-waiting Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) threw her support behind Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) for majority leader Sunday, giving a significant boost to Murtha in his race against Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.).

"Your strong voice for national security, the war on terror and Iraq provides genuine leadership for our party, and I count on you to continue to lead on these vital issues," Pelosi wrote Murtha Sunday in a letter obtained by The Hill. "For this and for all you have done for Democrats in the past and especially this last year, I am pleased to support your candidacy for majority leader for the 110th Congress."

As the House Democrats’ unchallenged leader, Pelosi has considerable sway over her colleagues. She and Murtha have long been close allies, but until now, she had not interfered in the majority leader race.

Her endorsement has the potential to turn the race,especially if she chooses to campaign on Murtha’s behalf. Pelosi’s decision to back Murtha is the most significant move she has made since Democrats scored a historic victory on Election Day.

And more from Roll Call, which notes that Hoyer's gonna put up a fight:

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), in line to become Speaker in January, is throwing her support to Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) in the race for Majority Leader, a move that will be an early test of her influence and will weigh heavily on Murtha's contest with Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) for the post.

Pelosi, in a letter distributed Sunday to newly elected House Democrats, wrote that Murtha's outspoken opposition to the war in Iraq helped change the electoral campaign for the House this fall. Murtha began calling for a U.S. pullout from Iraq a year ago, and his open opposition to the war made him a focus of intense criticism from Republicans and the White House...Hoyer released his own letter on Friday signed by 21 of the 41 incoming Democrats, and his backers claimed that at least another five new Members would support his candidacy for Majority Leader, giving Hoyer claim to a huge block of votes...

Allah: "What better way to assuage fears about Democrats being too dovish and anti-military than to back America’s foremost spokesman for cut and run..."

Flashback: Murtha's Okinawa strategery

Flashback: A veteran tells off Murtha/Moran; Another vet tells off Murtha/Moran

Sunday, November 12, 2006


Where would they get that crazy idea?

Baghdad Nancy

AP reports: Al-Qaida in Iraq claimed in a new audio tape Friday to be winning the war faster than expected in Iraq and said it had mobilized 12,000 fighters who had “vowed to die for God’s sake.”

On the audio tape made available on militant Web sites, the al-Qaida in Iraq leader also welcomed the Republican electoral defeat that led to the departure of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He added that the group’s fighters would not rest until they had blown up the White House.
. . .

“We will not rest from our Jihad until we are under the olive trees of Rumieh and we have blown up the filthiest house — which is called the White House,” al-Muhajir said. It was not clear what Rumieh was referring to.
. . .

“The American people have put their feet on the right path by … realizing their president’s betrayal in supporting
the terror leader said. “So they voted for something reasonable in the last elections.”

Describing President Bush as “the most stupid president” in U.S. history, al-Masri reached out to the Muslim world and said his group was winning the war in Iraq faster than expected due to U.S. policies.

DNC Chairman Howard Dean, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Michael Moore, all concurred with al-Muhajir sentiments, which echoes their own oft-repeated remarks about the President and the war.

Saturday, November 11, 2006


Yesterday, I laid out the first 3 points in moving forward: (1) that we’re ok with a big tent as long as the RINO’s are with us on the big things; (2) that we have a coherent appealing agenda and (3) that we need to pick some ideological fights.

My 4th point is related to the third point:

We must get back to our idealist roots. That means talking proudly of the effects of the tax cuts. That means talking about the necessity of missile defense. That means talking about the attacks that the Patriot Act and the SWIFT and NSA intercept programs thwarted. That means talking about closing down the Mexican border before any immigration reform legislation moves an inch. That means talking about confirming judges that aren’t squishy moderates or make up the Constitution on the fly.

I’d frame missile defense in the context of North Korea developing ICBM’s. I’d frame the Patriot Act, the SWIFT and NSA programs as tools that we’ve used to prevent real terrorist attacks, specifically citing the terrorist plots they’ve prevented. Let Democrats defend their actions. Put them in position where they either abandon their positions or they’re forced to say ‘Yes, we want to prevent terrorist attacks but we’re more worried about American’s civil liberties.’ Filibuster the immigration reform legislation. Let them defend the position of granting illegal immigrants citizenship so illegal immigrants ruin municipal and state budgets.

5. We must be a team again. That means relegating John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Chuck Hagel to the back bench. If you aren’t with us on the important stuff, you’re out of there. Yes, there’ll be headlines about how they’ve been shunned by ‘far right ideologues’ but we don’t have time to worry what the Agenda Media says.

Another thing that we’ve got to do is take our message on the road, explaining what our agenda is, why we believe in it and how we’ll implement that agenda if given another majority opportunity.

6. We must reject timid, status quo policies. That doesn’t mean that everything on the agenda must be big sweeping reforms. It does require that conservatives confront liberals when they advocate the wrong policies.

Missile defense is something that I’d challenge Democrats on. It’s guaranteed that they’ll say that (a) it’s too expensive and (b) it doesn’t work. Our first response should include this question: What amount is too much for defending ourselves from North Korea’s, and eventually Iran’s, nuclear weapons? Another question I’d ask is this: We put a man on the moon. We’re creating life-lengthening perscription drugs and medical treatments daily. We’re building high tech things all the time. Why should we believe that we aren’t capable of building an effective missile defense system in the next 5 years if we commit to a robust research and development program?

Friday, November 10, 2006


Now there are some people out there who will tell you that since I never served in the military, I have no right to talk of our military and the men and women who served. Well, you can just imagine what impact their bleatings have on me ...

I grew up in the military. My father was a career Air Force. I firmly believe that there is no better group of men and women anywhere, in any walk of life in this country than those who serve in our armed forces and their families. You will find a higher degree of integrity and care in any base housing complex, enlisted or officers, than you will find in any other neighborhood in America ... except, perhaps, for the Amish --- and I'm not all that sure about them!

Tomorrow perhaps you could take the time to participate in some ceremony in your city or town honoring these men and women. A political party led by men who have referred to our men and women in uniform as rapists, terrorists, murders and just plain stupid, a political party that has compared these fine men and women to Hitler's storm troopers has just taken control in Washington DC. I'm sure this must weigh heavily on the hearts and minds of those serving now and the millions of veterans who served in the past. Go out of you way to let them know you care, and you appreciate the sacrifice they have made.

Thursday, November 09, 2006


Last night, I vented. Tonight, I offer a plan to move conservatism forward. I’ve been up and down the blogosphere today and I’ve seen alot of posts using the term first principles. That’s a good place to start but I’ll attempt to put some meat on that framework.

1. We can’t move forward until ‘We The Activists’ tell RINO’s that we’re fine with a big tentbut we won’t tolerate their compromising away the most important issues of the conservative movement, specifically judges, national security, taxes, fiscal sanity and reform.

When John McCain and John Warner ‘negotiated’ (gave away is more accurate) away the hammer of the Constitutional Option with Robert Byrd’s band of liberals, they essentially told those of us who’ve fought the good fight for originalist judges that we weren’t important. McCain’s main considerations were the media’s adoration. Of course, he officially said that senatorial comity was the reason. Instead of victory, McCain ‘delivered’ a single day’s positive press from the Fossilized Media. Big deal.

Unlike showboats like McCain and Graham, we don’t live for the media’s adoration. We’d rather do what’s right than compromise our core principles. By contrast, McCain and Graham treat true conservatism like it’s the plague. Certainly, they’re free to make that choice. That said, it’s our choice to end McCain’s and Graham’s careers before they ruin the GOP further. Their actions sent the message that they weren’t interested in a famous Reaganism, that “It’s amazing what can be accomplished if we don’t care who gets the credit.” These showboats’ actions said that it was every man for themselves.

McCain threw the Constitution under the proverbial bus when he pushed BCRA through. That’s unforgiveable and unpardonable by itself. It got worse when he put together the Gang of 14. Again, he said that the Constitution didn’t mean what it said. (Keep that in mind when McCain announces his presidential bid. Does anyone think that he’d nominate true conservatives like Alito and Roberts? Don’t bet on it.) Instead, McCain’s actions essentially said that the minority party had the right to do the unconstitutional.

Another RINO that needs to ‘get religion’ immediately is Chuck Hagel. He’s acted like the Democrats’ foreign policy pronouncements were words from God’s mouth. By voting with them on the Phase II Intelligence report’s headlines, he gave the Democrats all the ammo they needed in terms of political cover. The headlines, you’ll recall, said one thing; the key findings another thing entirely.

2. It’s vital that we regain a sense of teamwork based on a coherent, appealing vision of where America needs to go next. An important part of that means a House and Senate leadership team that are unabashed conservatives who will fight for the things that made our movement the dominant force in American politics. Another important part to the leadership puzzle must be installing people who can clearly communicate why we believe what we believe. It isn’t good enough to say “I’m for this” or “I’m against that.” If someone vying for a Senate or House leadership position can’t clearly answer the why questions that the media will throw at them, then they aren’t leadership material.

One person that I’d strongly recommend for a leadership position is Michele Bachmann. She’s a great communicator and she’s unapologetically conservative. She also has the rare gift of answering questions on point, not in some roundabout, evasive way. That’s why she’s got such a strong connection with voters.

3. We need to pick some fights on the most important issues of the day.

The first fight I’d pick is on national security. I’m hearing that the Democrats are thinking of ways of gutting the Patriot Act. It’s important that President Bush knows that ‘We the Activists’ will fight with him if the Pelosi puppets attempt to gut the Patriot Act. It’s important that conservatives everywhere bone up on who’s behind the gutting of this crucial anti-terrorism tool. It’s time that we exposed CAIR’s and like-minded terrorist-supporting groups’ agendas. Most conservatives know what CAIR and UFPJ, the Tides Center and other far left groups are about. When that debate starts, conservatives everywhere must get the facts out to everyone.

That means calling into radio talk shows. That means writing letters to the editor. That means telling friends and co-workers what CAIR and other subversive groups don’t want the public to know. That means using every means possible, not just the blogosphere, to get the information out.


I notice that the newspaper and broadcast pundits are telling us who the winners and losers are in Tuesday's startling elections. Well ... I might as well get in the game here with everyone else.

The envelope please.

And the winners in this year's midterm elections are:

Islamic Fascists

(Accepting the award for the Islamic Fascists will be Osama bin Laden)

The focal point of the war against Islamic fascism was Iraq. The jihadists were sending their fighters to Iraq, there to be killed in gratifying numbers by American and coalition troops. What was once American resolve is now American weakness. The people have listened to the politicians -- one group that wanted to finish the job, another that didn't -- and gave the nod to the quitters. Today America is weaker in the eyes of those who would destroy us. Not a cause for celebration.


(Accepting the award will be Shirley Sternfaulter, a young mother of three who wants the government to pay for her child care.)

A huge percentage of the people who went to the polls on Tuesday went there to vote for a living. They feel that the purpose of government is to make sure that the basic necessities of their lives are paid for, while they spend their own money on the newest technology in flat-screen televisions, gadget-filled cell phones and subscriptions to People Magazine.

Illegal Aliens

(Putting down his leaf blower to accept the award is Pedro Lopez-Garcia-Menendez-Gonzalez, who pays no taxes in the U.S., and sends 80% of each paycheck back to Vera Cruz to take care of his wife and children.)

Yesterday President Bush as much as said that amnesty would be the order of the day. Now that those pesky Republicans have been kicked out of the majority in the House of Representatives, the president and the Senate will have clear sailing on their plan for amnesty for the 20 million plus illegal aliens now residing in this country. Oh .. and the border? Nothing will be done to stop the Mexican invasion, so as soon as Pedro has his paperwork Maria and the kids will be on a bus.

Those who want a weaker America

(Accepting the award will be Dominique Marie François René Galouzeau de Villepin, sometimes known as Dominique de Villepin, the Prime Minister of France. Dominique was the leader of the Axis of Weasels before he became Prime Minister.)

A poll earlier this year said that something like 58% of Europeans wanted a weaker America. They got their wish on Tuesday. Who is going to be there to pull their candied asses out of the oven when they finally wake up and realize the great strides that have been made in the Islamification of Europe? Hello Eurabia.

The first blow to be struck in the weakening of America will be for the Democrats to get rid of John Bolton as the Ambassador to the United Nations. They'll replace him with someone who will not stand up to UN corruption and the forces who want to weaken us.

The Libertarian Party?

(I would be happy to accept this reward, but the don't like me all that much because I believe that we need to defend this country from both the Islamic fascists and the Mexican invasion.)

Tuesday's vote showed that a lot of conservatives and libertarians in this country are completely fed up with the Republican Party. If ever there was a time for the emergence of a third party that would adhere to conservative and libertarian values -- without an obsessive allegiance to religious fundamentalists -- now is the time. The Libertarian Party could be just that party. We'll see if they're up to the task.

The leftist media.

(Accepting the award for The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, The Boston Globe, Time Magazine, Newsweek Magazine and too many more to mention will be Dan Rather)

Ninety percent or more of these people vote Democrat. They engaged in a six-year campaign of demonization of George Bush. It worked.

Washington Lawyers

(Accepting the Award will be the President of the D.C. Bar Association)

Get ready for two years of investigations, subpoenas, name it. Everything will be investigated, then investigated again. But the Republicans did it to themselves...every last bit of it.

Wednesday, November 08, 2006


Democratic Senator from NY Chuck Schumer urged Republican Senator George Allen from VA to concede to Democratic opponent Jim Webb despite the razor sharp margin that separates the votes: .03%

“I am urging, with all due respect, the president today to urge Mr. Allen to forego this futile recount and contestation policy, which will simply delay the inevitable, which is that Jim Webb is going to be the next senator from Virginia. Mr. Allen should do the right and gentlemanly thing and forgo this futile recount.”

What?? Democrats preaching about how to “do the the right and gentlemanly thing” and concede? Two of the most embarrassing examples of Democrats refusing to concede an election, in quite ungentlemanly fashion, are here:

-Nation waits as Kerry refuses to concede Ohio November 3, 2004

-DNC Chairman Urges Gore to Concede; He Refuses Tuesday, Dec. 12, 2000


Why Republicans got shellacked in the midterms.
by Fred Barnes

THIS ONE IS PRETTY EASY TO EXPLAIN. Republicans lost the House and probably the Senate because of Iraq, corruption, and a record of taking up big issues and then doing nothing on them. Of these, the war was by far the biggest factor. Unpopular wars trump good economies and everything else. President Truman learned this in 1952, as did President Johnson in 1968. Now, it was President Bush's turn, and since his name wasn't on the ballot, his party took the hit.

The defeat for Republicans was short of devastating--but only a little short. The House seats the party lost in New York and Connecticut and Pennsylvania will be hard to win back. Just as Republicans have locked in their gains in the South over the past two decades, Democrats should be able to solidify their hold on seats in the Northeast, as the nation continues to split sharply along North-South lines.

What should worry Republicans most, however, is erosion of its strength in the West and in two states in particular: Colorado and Arizona. Fours years ago, Colorado was solidly Republican. Since then, Democrats have won a Senate seat, two House seats, the governorship, and both houses of the state legislature. At the state level, that's realignment.

In Arizona, Republicans dropped two House seats and Republican Senator John Kyl got a mild scare. Kyl, by the way, may be finest and most able senator in Washington. He's certainly in the top five. Meanwhile, Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano cruised to victory.

The bottom line is this: Colorado and Arizona may not be there for Republicans in the 2008 presidential race. Of course, everything depends on the actual candidates, but these two states start out as presidential swing states. This is a new development.

Virginia is now worrisome for Republicans, even if Senator George Allen wins reelection via recount. It has become more a middle Atlantic than a Southern state, as University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato notes. (Sabato, by the way, picked the outcome in the House and Senate almost perfectly.) Republicans have lost the Washington suburbs of northern Virginia, which have grown into a third of the state's vote. And Representative Thelma Drake almost lost her House seat in the Norfolk-Virginia Beach area, a Republican stronghold heavily populated with active duty and retired military.

Already the wails of the immigration restrictionists are rising, insisting Republicans lost because they weren't tough on keeping illegal border-crossers out. Not true. The test was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats. Graf lost in a seat along the Mexican border, where illegal immigrants flock.

What Americans want is a full-blown solution to the immigration crisis. And that will come only when Republicans come together on a "comprehensive" measure that not only secures the border but also provides a way for illegals in the United States to work their way to citizenship and establishes a temporary worker program. If Republicans don't grab this issue, Democrats will.

Immigration was a big failure of Republicans over the past two years, but hardly the only one. Republicans cast themselves as the party of reform, but they didn't reform anything. And heaven knows, the public is eager for a lot to be reformed, starting with Congress itself and moving on to taxes and entitlements.

Congressional Republicans left President Bush hanging when he courageously proposed and campaigned for Social Security reform in 2005. They passed a last-minute, totally inadequate immigration bill (700 miles of fence) this fall. They toyed with doing something serious about earmarks (spending measures tossed into appropriation bills by individual members of Congress), then did too little.

With a serious record of reform to boast about, Republicans surely would have done better. They would have minimized the tendency of voters, in the sixth year of the Bush presidency, to shy away from any candidate with a "R" by his or her name. Sure, they'd have lost the House. But I suspect the margin would have been considerably smaller. Perhaps Nancy Pelosi would have a numerical majority but not a working, governing majority.

What happens in a bad Republican year is that good Republican candidates lose. There were many of them: House challengers David McSweeney in Illinois and Van Taylor in Texas, lieutenant governor candidate Luther Strange in Alabama and Tom McClintock in California, and House incumbents Melissa Hart of Pennsylvania, Jim Ryun of Kansas, and Clay Shaw of Florida.

But you have to give Rahm Emanuel, the House Democratic campaign chief, credit for recruiting an impressive group of candidates, including a few non-liberals like Brad Ellsworth in Indiana and Heath Shuler in North Carolina. The media, however, is exaggerating the number of these unconventional Democrats. They are a handful, and the pattern of moderate and conservative Democrats when they get to Washington is to pipe down. Or, as losing Republican Congressman Chris Chocola said of his victorious opponent Joe Donnelly, they become "Nancy Pelosi."

Conservatives won't want to hear this, but the Republican who maneuvered his way into the most impressive victory of the election was California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Okay, he's sui generis. But he won a landslide victory after moving to the center, while holding onto conservatives by not hiking taxes. Just think if he were eligible for the White House in 2008. Even (some) conservatives would be clamoring for him to run.

Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.

Tuesday, November 07, 2006


Is this really the dawn of a new day for the left?


In their 2004 book, "The Right Nation," John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge chronicle America's rightward tilt. "If American politics is a seesaw, it is an unevenly balanced one. Imagine Dennis Hastert at one end of the seesaw and Nancy Pelosi on the other end, and you have some idea about which party is sitting with its legs dangling in the air. In the war between two Americas, Hastertland has been winning."

Until today, that is. This midterm election, in the view of many optimistic liberals, will be a forceful repudiation of the inevitability of American conservatism. A victory after so many years of losses will mark the beginning of the end to the country's nightmarish reactionary drift. According to Howard Dean, "The American people are fed up and want to change course. Democrats are offering the American people a new direction." But will it really be the dawn of a new day for the American left? After a cold look at the evidence, liberals might decide to take the champagne off the ice. The victory, assuming there is one, will hardly be glorious, and long-term trends are still distinctly right wing.

Some doomsday scenarios envision a 45-seat shift in the House of Representatives and a substantial Democratic majority in the Senate. These predictions, when looking at the actual data, are probably unrealistic. My colleague Danny Hayes, a political scientist who studies polling, says that the most reasonable picture has the Democrats winning 20-30 seats and taking narrow control of the House, while failing to win the Senate. This assessment is consistent with what most mainstream pollsters are predicting.

No bloodbath--but still major progress for the left, right? Not really. We are in the midst of a deeply unpopular war, and an electorate in a foul mood. A Washington Post-ABC News poll last week found that more than 30% of likely voters planned to cast their ballots on Nov. 7 for Democrats specifically as a sign of opposition to George Bush. Congressional Republicans are hardly helping their own cause, between corruption and sexual misconduct. And the Republican Congress has so alienated authentic conservative voters with its porky profligacy that lots of Republicans will probably stay home.

By all rights, the Republicans left in Congress after this election should be able to pool to work in one minivan. Instead, they are probably facing a 10% setback in House seats--hardly a disaster by midterm election standards. What's more, many of the Democrats at the vanguard of today's political "revolution" are not exactly left-wing zealots. Robert Casey, who leads incumbent Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, opposes abortion rights. On issues of gun control and immigration, Senate candidate Harold Ford of Tennessee sounds like a Republican. James Webb, who seeks to unseat Virginia Sen. George Allen, actually used to be a Republican. The lesson is that Democrats can win modestly if the Republicans implode, and preferably if they look more or less like Republicans. This is hardly a mythic victory for the American left; indeed, the larger cultural picture--in which the election is but a minor political datum--remains strikingly bleak for American liberalism.

Consider the effect of religious faith, which endures as the most important cultural fault line. On the whole, America is fundamentally religious, with 85% of people expressing allegiance to an organized faith and a third attending a house of worship weekly. Secularism is an exotic taste--except on the political left. According to the General Social Survey, liberals are a third less likely than the rest of the population to worship regularly, and less than half as likely as conservatives. The percentage of self-described liberals who say they have "no religion" has more than doubled since the early '70s.

This cultural trend represents a growing political liability for the left. Only about one in four Americans currently say they believe that the Democratic Party is friendly toward religion, according to the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The practical impact of this belief is nicely described by author Stephen Carter in his book, "The Dissent of the Governed." He describes two black evangelical women who change their affiliations from liberal political groups to conservative Christian organizations, explaining that "they preferred a place that honored their faith and disdained their politics over a place that honored their politics and disdained their faith." These women are part of a real trend among religious Americans: According to the National Election Surveys, religious Democrats are more likely than any other group to change their party affiliation. Between 2000 and 2002, they were nearly four times more likely to do so than secular Republicans.

There's certainly more to ideology than faith, of course. Another major cultural force is immigration, which--as liberals hope and conservatives fear --has the power to counteract the conservatizing effects of religion. "Today we march, tomorrow we vote," was the slogan chanted earlier this year by Latinos demonstrating in the streets against Republican-led immigration crackdowns. The warning made the blood of many conservatives run cold. It shouldn't have; the political mobilization of Latinos may actually expand the cultural dominance of the American right. According to the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey in 2000, while American Latinos are about as likely as non-Latinos to say they are politically conservative, those not (yet) registered to vote are significantly more conservative than both voting Latinos and the population at large. In other words, a growing, more politically active Latino U.S. probably means a more conservative U.S. as well.

This counterintuitive fact is good news for the cultural right. But can Republicans capitalize politically on this pattern? Some doubt it, given the party's perceived hostility to immigration and apparent willingness to overlook the racial insensitivity of Sen. George Allen's "macaca" remark about an Indian-American man at a recent campaign event.

So much for religious folks and immigrants. What about young people? Maybe the left can, like it always has, look to the culture of youth to jumpstart the progressive movement. But even here, things are going conservatives' way. The left's traditional edge among young adults shrank from 1974 to 2004, as the percentage of adults 18-25 who labeled themselves political liberals fell by 12%, and the percentage saying they were conservative rose by 143%.

Waning youth support for the left may be partly due to the adroitness of conservative causes. But it probably also has to do with liberal inability or unwillingness to build an authentic youth grass-roots movement. A new and hotly debated book by Columbia University sociologist Dana Fisher documents the fact that most liberal political groups have dismantled their grassroots operations since the mid-'90s and subcontracted their activism to a small group of for-profit and nonprofit companies. In other words, the Republican canvasser at your door is a volunteer and true believer. But the kid asking for your signature and contribution for the local Democratic Party is probably a paid employee. This may be evidence that the left can no longer build grass-roots support to maintain itself, or that it has cut corners and sent its support-building mechanisms ideologically offshore. Either way, it bodes ill for progressive causes.

These are just three examples of the cultural patterns that continue to strengthen the right in America. Many more can be found in fertility patterns, the effects of education, and elsewhere. They tell us that conservatives have much to smile about, no matter what happens today at the polls. Reasonable people will disagree as to whether this is grounds for celebration or a call to fight. Either way, however, it is undeniable that the true ideological battle in America goes far deeper than a midterm election.

Mr. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Public Affairs, is the author of "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism," to be published this month by Basic Books.


If there is going to be one slow day this week, today will be it. Gone are the campaign ads (we hope) and a pathetically small percentage of cogent Americans will make their ways to the polls to punish, to reward or, in many cases, to vote for their livelihood.

I'm going to try to cast my votes when the polls open, so there will be paltry notes this morning. I have a feeling we'll make it up tomorrow.

My Congressman is a Democrat. John Lewis. There is no way in hell that the voters are going to turn him away. Our U.S. Senators are safe this time around .. neither is up for reelection. There's really nothing for me to do at the polls except vote against any constitutional amendments that give government more power, and vote for Libertarians.


Unless something earthshaking happens, tomorrow Democrats will be celebrating a return to control of the House of Representatives. If things go worse than expected they'll also be celebrating control of the Senate. Celebrating right along with the Democrats will be those who have declared war on our culture; those who have vowed to see our society placed under their control ... the Islamic fascists.

If the people of this country truly understood that we are involved in a war to preserve our very way of life, this wouldn't be happening. There is no way in hell the Democrats can make any valid claim that they stand ready to protect this country from Islamic terrorism. For them to prevail the voters must believe that the threat doesn't exist.

What happens at America's polling places today will be seen as nothing less than a sign of weakness by those who want to destroy us. While spokesbeards for the Islamists talk of cooperation and negotiations with their newfound "friends" in Washington, behind the scenes they'll be plotting ways to take advantage of our softness in a relentless drive to destroy America and make Islam the world's dominant power. In the end I still believe that Western culture will prevail and the terrorists will be defeated, but the cost that will be paid will be increased by the weakness Americans will show at the polls today.

There will be other celebrations tomorrow, celebrations by people who profess a love for this country rather than hatred. Those who have squandered their American birthright and have, instead, become nothing more than adult government dependents will be quite happy. What's not for a loser to celebrate when the party of wealth redistribution shows strength? Those who vote for a living will have their day today.

Tomorrow those who work for a living, and those who have managed to figure out that our country is at war, will wonder why they couldn't make time to vote.

Monday, November 06, 2006


A Friend Of Mine Sent Me This And I Wanted To Pass It On:

Probably by now you've seen the Democrats' latest campaign slogan:
"A New Direction For America -- Vote DEMOCRATIC!"*

Perhaps we should analyze this promise.

The stock market is at a new all-time high and America's 401K's are back.
A new direction from there means what?

Unemployment is at 25 year lows.
A new direction from there means what?

Oil prices are plummeting.
A new direction from there means what?

Taxes are at 20 year lows.
A new direction from there means what?

Federal tax revenues are at all-time highs.
A new direction from there means what?

The Federal deficit is down almost 50%, just as predicted over last year.
A new direction from there means what?

Home valuations are up 200% over the past 3.5 years.
A new direction from there means what?

Inflation is in check, hovering at 20 year lows.
A new direction from there means what?

Not a single terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11/01.
A new direction from there means what?

Osama bin Laden is living under a rock in a dark cave, having not
surfaced in years, if he's alive at all, while 95% of Al Queda's top dogs
are either dead or in custody, cooperating with US Intel.
A new direction from there means what?

Several major terrorist attacks already thwarted by US and British Intel,
including the recent planned attack involving 10 Jumbo Jets being
exploded in mid-air over major US cities in order to celebrate the
anniversary of the 9/11/01 attacks.
A new direction from there means what?

Just as President Bush foretold on a number of occasions, Iraq was
to be made "ground zero" for the war on terrorism -- and just as
President Bush said they would, terrorist cells from all over the region are
arriving from the shadows of their hiding places and flooding into Iraq in order to
get their faces blown off by US Marines rather than boarding planes and
heading to the United States to wage war on us here.
A new direction from there means what?

Moreover, bear in mind that all of the above occurred in the face of the
1999 tech crash, the epidemic of corporate scandals throughout the 90's,
and the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks on NYC years in the planning , which
collectively sucked 24 trillions dollars and 7.8 million jobs out of the
US economy even before G. W. Bush had time to unpack his suitcases in the
White House. It's easy to attempt to discredit, disgrace and defame our
commander in-chief, George W. Bush; what's not so easy to do is to refute irrefutable
facts, no matter how they might try.

Do yourself and this country of ours a favor and don't be bent on hate and blame-shifting simply in the name of hate and blame-shifting. Take heed of reality, use your head and cast your vote
wisely in the upcoming elections.

The stakes are far too high today, as America's very future,
and yes, even its very survival is now at stake!

Yes, I said even our very survival is at stake


Well this puts Democrats in a bit of a bind, doesn't it? Here we are, the day before the mid-term elections....a day in which their party is expected to at least take over the House of Representatives....and they have a problem. The popularity of the Democrats right now hinges almost exclusively on the unpopularity of the war in Iraq. The idea that the Butcher of Baghdad might hang for his crimes could justify the war in Iraq in enough people's minds to cause them to pull the GOP lever tomorrow.

Some Democrats are being smart about it. New York Senator Chuck Schumer, for instance, came out and said yesterday that Saddam was a brutal, evil dictator that is getting what he deserves...but he doesn't think the conviction makes much of a difference in the election. This is in stark contrast to Howard Dean's comments that were made right after Saddam was captured 3 years ago. Remember that? Dean said America was not safer after Saddam's capture. He's since changed his tune, calling Saddam Hussein a war criminal who is getting what he deserves.

But this isn't what Democrats really want to say. They probably think that the trial's verdict was timed by the Bush Administration to coincide directly with the mid-term elections. A "November Surprise," if you will. What they really believe is that Iraq was better off under Saddam Hussein...and they're upset at the idea he might be executed. All of this proves one thing: Democrats are invested in American defeat in Iraq. Any positive development...any...they're going to downplay it. It's the only issue they have in this election and when something like this happens, they have nothing.

Will Saddam's verdict be enough to change public opinion about the war over the course of 2 days? Probably not. But you can definitely tell the left is worried.

Thursday, November 02, 2006


Saddam Hussein, the tyrant who gassed and tortured his own people en masse, will be sentenced on Sunday. Instead of seeing the conclusion of the trial as an instrument of justice, Bush critics have put on their tinfoil hats to ply more nutball conspiracy theories:

A verdict in the first criminal case against Saddam Hussein is expected two days before a key US midterm vote that has become a referendum on the Iraq war -- but any benefit for President George W. Bush's Republican Party was unclear.

The verdict is to be presented on Sunday, just ahead of Tuesday's vote in which Bush's Republicans appeared poised to lose control of Congress...

... On the Internet, in US leftist discussion forums and among some bloggers, there is a strong suspicion that the date was chosen on purpose to benefit the Republicans.

"Given the Bush administration's history of timing national security-related actions to the political calendar, has the date for the verdict's release been set to provide maximum political benefit for the administration and congressional Republicans?" asked a blogger on the discussion site.

Tom Engelhardt, writing in the leftist The Nation magazine, notes that the verdict comes "curiously enough, just two days before the midterm elections. It's the sort of the thing that -- you would think -- any reporter with knowledge of the US election cycle ... would at least note in an article. But no, you can search high and low without finding a reference to this in the mainstream media."

US Ambassador in Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad rejects the charges, insisting that the date was set by Iraqi judges and that Washington had no role in the decision.


Just as predicted, John Kerry strode to a microphone yesterday and attempted to apologize for saying those who didn't study hard and get an education would wind up in Iraq. Here is how he said it: "I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member or American who was offended. As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: My poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop." properly understand Kerry's apology, you will need an interpretation. Here is what he really means:

  1. He regrets that his words were misinterpreted. What he really means here is that if anyone thought he was insulting our troops abroad, that means they're an idiot. Remember, no one is as smart as John Kerry...and if you don't know what John Kerry meant, then that means you're just not qualified to pass judgment on The Poodle. Only if and when you become as intelligent as The Kept Man will you ever know what he truly meant. Translation: it's all your fault.
  2. As a combat veteran...his comment was never intended to refer to any troop. Translation: hey...John Kerry served in combat for a few months, milking it for several purple hearts and medals...ribbons? Ok, medals. By saying only dumb people wind up in Iraq, he didn't mean the troops. He meant....well, he's not sure. But it wasn't troops...because, hey...he's been there. Oh .. and his words must have also been "misinterpreted" last year when he talked about our troops "terrorizing women and children" and several years ago when he compared them to the rampaging hoards of Genghis Kahn.

At the end of the day, the basic thrust of Kerry's "apology" is that anyone who thinks he meant what he meant is not as smart as he is. Typical elitist, leftist condescension....and part of the reason he was blown out in the 2004 election.

Wednesday, November 01, 2006


Democratic Senator John Kerry had the courage on Monday to say what he really believes about the US soldier: they are stupid for serving in Iraq.

Here is his controversial statement to a group of Californian students:


“You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

Apparently it runs in the family. Remember the 2004 Presidential debate when Teresa Heinz-Kerry said about Laura Bush:

Well, you know, I don’t know Laura Bush. But she seems to be calm, and she has a sparkle in her eye, which is good. But I don’t know that she’s ever had a real job — I mean, since she’s been grown up. So her experience and her validation comes from important things, but different things. And I’m older, and my validation of what I do and what I believe and my experience is a little bit bigger — because I’m older, and I’ve had different experiences. And it’s not a criticism of her. It’s just, you know, what life is about.

Well! Laura Bush has only been a school teacher and mother. No real job there!

Kerry’s reply? Refusing to apologize to the troops and changing the subject. At his press conference (click on the photo below), he adds insult to injury to all military and their families with his offensive attack and inane ranting.. Must watch video of Kerry imploding and refusing to take responsibility for his comments:


Kerry is now insisting that this is the White House’s fault for taking the “botched joke” out of context. The real joke read, “If you get an education, you won’t wind up in Iraq. Just ask George Bush.” How exactly is that different? Beside the fact that George W. Bush’s GPA (grade point average) at Yale was higher than Kerry’s, he still states that if a student gets an education he can avoid going to Iraq. He can spin this anyway he wishes, but apparently everyone but Kerry knows what he really meant. He really dislikes the military. Period.

Remember these statements?

JOHN KERRY: But there is no excuse three and a half years later for American troops to be driving by IEDs and getting blown up. Are you telling me that they can’t drive a truck?


And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the—of—the historical customs, religious customs. Iraqis should be doing that.

Military bashing aside, the idea that Kerry can so haphazardly insult the sitting Commander in Chief, which he admitted was his intent, is another example of his disrespect for America and the troops. No good soldier ridicules and mocks the Commander in Chief during wartime. But we all know this.

John Kerry is a man who volunteered for service in Vietnam to ensure a short tour, escaping a year or 2 tour that every other draftee or volunteer faced in the 70’s. He served in Vietnam from November 1968 to March of 1969 for a grand total of FOUR MONTHS. This is a man who who injured himself to avoid continuing service in Vietnam. This is a man who, once he returned to the US, bought medals from a military surplus store, which he lobbied laboriously to get, and threw them over the White House wall to show how much he distained his service and those awards.

John Kerry’s ‘Band of Brothers’

John Kerry is a man who claims to be a war hero but who virtually none of his men in Vietnam will support. The men on his swift boat said:

Though we come from different backgrounds and hold varying political opinions, we agree on one thing: John Kerry misrepresented his record and ours in Vietnam and therefore exhibits serious flaws in character and lacks the potential to lead.

We regret the need to do this. Most Swift boat veterans would like nothing better than to support one of our own for America’s highest office, regardless of whether he was running as a Democrat or a Republican. However, Kerry’s phony war crimes charges, his exaggerated claims about his own service in Vietnam, and his deliberate misrepresentation of the nature and effectiveness of Swift boat operations compel us to step forward.

Of course, all this discounts the fact that this is NOT Vietnam and that this all volunteer armed forces have answered the call to serve. All branches of the US military, Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, are consistently exceeding recruitment and re-enlistment (retention) expectations according to the Department of Defense.


Army: 104%
Navy: 100%
Marine Corps: 107%
Air Force: 100%

(Oct. 1, 2005 to August 31, 2006)


Army: 104%
Navy: 100%
Marine Corps: 101%
Air Force: 100%

(Oct. 1, 2005 to August 31, 2006)

This confuses a man like John Kerry, who doesn’t understand patriotism and a sense of honor, duty and country. Yesterday I posted about a young enlisted man whose funeral I attended. He was 21 adn killed in Iraq. Both he and his father served in Iraq, volunteering for service knowing full well a deployment to either Afghanistan or Iraq is imminent. Are CPL or SGM Unger uneducated or stupid, or are they heroic? Apparently John Kerry believes the first.

There’s one Vietnam vet who deserved being spat upon. His name is John Kerry.