Brutally Honest

Dealing with the inevitable

You knew this was coming:

In a post early this morning, Andrew Sullivan concludes with this:

My only fear at this point is that by pointing this out, we may goad the Bushies and neocons into finding some kind of military escalation that would bring in the US. The US has no rational basis to be as committed to Georgia as Russia is; and has very little moral standing to protest an invasion of a sovereign country. [emphasis added]

This highlighted statement is an astonishing one. The clear implication is that what America did in going to war with Iraq is the moral equivalent of what Russia has done to Georgia. If this is Sullivan's point--and I'm not sure what other point he could be making--then it is, I think, an indefensible one.

In the situation in Georgia, a lawful, self-governing nation which respects human rights (and happens to be an ally of the United States) is under attack. In Iraq, we deposed one of the most wicked and cruel regimes of modern times. Saddam Hussein committed genocide against his own people; President Mikheil Saakashvili has not. As for the nature of the "invading" nations: one (the U.S.) was performing an act of liberation; the other (Russia) is attempting to crush a newly-liberated nation. As for the legal justification for the war: Russia has none; the United States, on the other hand, won unanimous approval in the United Nations for Resolution 1441, which stated that Iraq was in material breach of its obligations and warned Iraq of "serious consequences" (which all parties understood to mean war) for its continued violations. In addition, Iraq, unlike Georgia, had violated 16 U.N. Security Council Resolutions in the course of a dozen years.

The moral equivalence card will be flashed time and again by the left in the wake of the Russia-Georgia conflict (which is far from over) and when it is, you might just want to bookmark Peter Wehner's piece. 

It's masterful and there's much more to ponder.

If you have a brain.

Nope... nothing yet

Nothing from Sojourners or those on my Religious Left blogroll or The Desperate Preacher Site about a superpower acting unilaterally, illegally invading a sovereign country, occupying the same, suspending civil rights and shedding blood for oil.

But... I'm sure it's coming soon.

Aren't you?

I mean wouldn't this be THE WAY to counter the Bush Derangement Syndrome charge?

Hmm?

Jim Inhofe's message to Harry Reid

Posted by guest blogger Mommynator.

I received this email today from Rep. Jim Inhofe:

Dear Friend,

I don't need to tell you that gas prices are high, but there is someone I do need to tell...

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

...and I need your help to do it.

Please mail me your gas receipts and a short note about what your family has had to sacrifice because of out-of-control prices at the pump. I'll bundle together all the receipts and stories I receive and send them to Senator Reid. Together, we will send a message to Washington and show Harry Reid that high gas prices are hurting Oklahomans.

Please mail your gas receipts by August 21 to:

Jim Inhofe
PO Box 13300
Oklahoma City, OK 73113

Harry Reid won't even allow debate on a single solution I've proposed with my colleagues. And now Congress is on a five week recess! I don't think he understands just how serious this is, but together we can show him.

In recent weeks, I have worked with other Congressional Republicans to bring down gas prices by expanding exploration of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), opening ANWR, developing America's oil shales, and expanding refining capacity.

Last month, I introduced the American Affordable Fuels Act of 2008 that includes these measures as well as the Drive America on Natural Gas Act, which would promote the use of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) vehicles.

And just last week, I teamed up with Representative Dan Boren to introduce the Marginal Well Production Preservation and Enhancement Act, which ensures the nation's policies recognize and reflect the economic importance of marginal well production.

But none of these ideas are even being considered because the Democrat Senate leadership is standing in the way. Let's send them a message by sending in our gas receipts.

So, please, mail your gas receipts by August 21 to me at:

Jim Inhofe
PO Box 13300
Oklahoma City, OK 73113

Thank you,

Jim Inhofe

Maybe we should think of doing this.

George Stephanopoulos pummels Nancy Pelosi

I was waiting for her to begin crying.

It was hard not to be distracted by the Speaker's looks. That face could be used as a snare drum. Sheez... I expected a cheek bone to cut through at any moment.

With thanks to Cassy Fiano.

Bet you hadn't heard this one

From James. H. Warner at The Herald-Mail:

In the Texas Air National Guard George Bush flew the F-102 Delta Dagger. This was a dangerous aircraft. The U.S. purchased a total of 875 Daggers, of which 259 crashed, killing 70 pilots - all peace-time accidents. The number of pilots killed constitutes approximately 1.4 percent of all the pilots who ever flew the F-102. In other words, George Bush "sat out" the Vietnam War by exposing himself to a risk of death that was approximately 40 percent higher than he would have been exposed to had he gone to Vietnam. It is fair to ask liberals, "Precisely what risk was Bush avoiding by flying the F-102?"

In addition to the risk of death, fighter pilots face a very high risk of long-term disability resulting from injuries sustained in high-speed ejections. As one who has, himself, ejected from an F-4 Phantom fighter plane at over 600 knots (which is nearly 700 mph), I can attest that it is not as much fun as it sounds. With the old-style ejection seat used in Vietnam, the ejection in itself subjects the crewmen to about 20 to 24 times the force of gravity, or "G's."

Nearly everyone I know who has ejected using one of these seats has some degree of physical disability as a result of injuries sustained by the force of the ejection. The seats are designed to save lives, first, and then to prevent injury, if possible. With the old-style ejection seats, it was rarely possible. If 70 pilots were killed, most of the other 189 were injured, sometimes severely.

In other words, the assertion that Bush went into the Texas Air National Guard to avoid danger is based upon an erroneous premise. When dealing with Vietnam, regardless of the story, just as is the case when dealing with President Bush, liberals frequently start with faulty premises, and just as frequently, in the words of Josiah Royce, they "willfully misplace their ontological predicates." (If you are a liberal and don't know what those big words mean, sue your alma mater for educational malpractice. If you are a conservative, I have every confidence that you will consult a dictionary.)

The judgment of perpetually indignant liberals is so skewed by anger and hatred that they cannot perceive objective reality.

There is a psychological phenomenon known as "projection" in which one who is unwilling to confront and acknowledge his own shortcomings finds those same shortcomings in someone else.

It is difficult not to believe that liberals are projecting their own fears onto the president. As for me, I would have been proud to have George Bush as my wingman in combat. In the Marine Corps, that is the highest compliment one can give.

It's not just projection Mr. Warner.  It's Bush Derangement Syndrome and there's no known cure. 

With a tip of the fedora toward Don Surber

President Bush: Congress has failed to act

And it's true:

It appears that the leaders of the Democratically-controlled Congress will let the entire summer pass without voting on any of these vital steps to help reduce pressure on gas prices.  This failure to act is unacceptable to me and unacceptable to the American people.  So when they return from their summer break, Democratic leaders should show that they've heard the frustration of the American people by allowing a vote on offshore exploration.  If Congress does not act, they will owe families across America an explanation for why they're ignoring their concerns.

I know that high energy prices are making this a difficult time for many of our citizens, but it is important to remember that these high prices were not inevitable.  They are partially the result of policy choices that have been made over the years by the United States Congress.  Now Congress has an opportunity to begin reversing that damage. By opening up new resources at home we can help bring energy costs down.  And that will help ensure that our economy remains the strongest, most vibrant, and most hopeful in the world.

I frankly think he should call them back into session.  Do it President Bush. 

Do it now.

 

The Pelosi Premium

Via Larwyn, Free Republic:

Pass it on.

Pelosi turns out lights...

... yet the the GOP party's not over:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the Democrats adjourned the House, turned off the lights and killed the microphones, but Republicans are still on the floor talking gas prices.

Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and other GOP leaders opposed the motion to adjourn the House, arguing that Pelosi's refusal to schedule a vote allowing offshore drilling is hurting the American economy. They have refused to leave the floor after the adjournment motion passed at 11:23 a.m., and they are busy bashing Pelosi and her fellow Democrats for leaving town for the August recess.

At one point, the lights went off in the House and the microphones were turned off in the chamber, meaning Republicans were talking in the dark. But as Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz..) was speaking, the lights went back on and the microphones were turned on shortly afterward.

But C-SPAN, which has no control over the cameras in the chamber, has stopped broadcasting the House floor, meaning no one was witnessing this except the assembled Republicans, their aides, and one Democrat, Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio), who has now left.

Only about a half-dozen Republicans were on the floor when this began, but the crowd has grown to about 20, according to Patrick O'Connor.

"This is the people's House," said Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.). "This is not Pelosi's politiburo."

"This is not Pelosi's politburo."

Heh.

Yo Republicans... nice to see you're awake.

Finally.

I love Updates 6 & 7:

Rep Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) just pretended to be a Democrat. He stood on the other side  of the chamber and listed all of the GOP bills that the Dems killed.

He then said, "I am a Democrat, and here is my energy plan" and he held up a picture of an old VW Bug with a sail attached to it. He paraded around the House floor with the sign while the crowd cheered.

UPDATE 7: It's over.

Right at the stroke of five Georgia Rep. Tom Price announced that House Republicans were ending their impromptu protest on the floor of the chamber, ending a five-plus hour rebellion with a round of "God Bless America."

The assembled tourists, aides and members in the chamber gave Price and his compatriots a standing ovation. They left the chamber to shouts of "USA! USA! USA!"

Why Bin Laden still lives

Back in June of this year, Barack Obama blamed the Bush Administration for Bin Laden's continued freedom:

On his campaign plane, Obama told reporters that Osama bin Laden is still at large in part because President Bush's strategy toward fighting terror has not succeeded.

At issue were comments Obama made in an interview with ABC News Monday in which he spoke approvingly of the successful prosecution and imprisonment of those responsible for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Obama was asked how he could be sure the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies are not crucial to protecting U.S. citizens.

Obama said the government can crack down on terrorists "within the constraints of our Constitution." He mentioned the indefinite detention of Guantanamo Bay detainees, contrasting their treatment with the prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.

These words are especially relevant in light of news breaking this morning:

In his seventh of month of U.S. captivity, Osama bin Laden's driver told a pair of FBI agents that it was America's fault that the al Qaida leader was alive.

The message was, ''You had these opportunities, America. You didn't do anything,'' FBI agent George Crouch Jr. testified Friday at Salim Hamdan's war crimes trial.

The United States could have killed bin Laden in Khartoum, Sudan, before he moved to Afghanistan in 1996, Hamdan told his interrogators. They could have killed him after al Qaida's 1998 twin bombings at the U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. Or after the October 2000 suicide bombing of the USS Cole, at the port of Aden in Yemen, which left 17 U.S. sailors dead.

Instead, ''Bin Laden was emboldened.'' So he struck with the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, leaving nearly 3,000 dead.

Crouch was paraphrasing a portion of a nearly two-week interrogation he conducted here at the U.S. Navy base at Guantánamo Bay, in June 2002, around the time that an Arabic-speaking FBI agent, Ali Soufan, arranged Hamdan's first call home.

To which Steve Schippert, of Threatswatch.Org, in an e-mail to me and a small group of other like-minded bloggers, reacted:

It is bitter irony that lawyers are conveying such through a trial.  Remote controlled Tomahawks, the illusion of safety beyond the sanctuary of oceans, and the hot pursuit via attorneys and law both remote and unrecognized by murderous men who seek our death.  This was how we convinced ourselves of our certain and active defense.

We were offered bin Laden in transit from Sudan to Afghanistan.  But we did not want him. Our lawyers had no battle, our leaders no mettle.

Most of us, though not all, have learned nothing.  After thousands smote and seven years of war, we are back to our superior ways, demanding Habeas Corpus and noting in the very first trial that bin Laden's deputy was read no Miranda rights upon his capture - or was it arrest?

They say History repeats itself.  Never before has it applied so swiftly, within the same generation and within the same conflict.

A selfish society incapable of sacrifice is equally incapable of self-defense.  Our greatest concern is not the pursuit of madmen or the states which feed them.  It is not even the cost of oil and its affect on our economy and future.  It is the cost of the gasoline that cycles through our tanks and its affect on our personal checking account balances.

Cowardice, cloaked in arrogance and concealed behind self-assured brilliance, charts a troubled path; one which appears circular, where constant motion deceptively passes for progress.  Progress towards what, we disagree,  though our enemies do not, as they laugh.

Many say it will take another catastrophic attack to bring us to our collective senses.  But it will likely not come.  For, if al-Qaeda (et al) is smart - and they are - they will leave us alone on our own soil while we rip ourselves apart.  No explosives, no bombs, no weapons of war required.  We are, after all, suddenly and finally waging their centuries-long war upon ourselves. Brilliantly.

We allow ourselves to be told that we are what is wrong with the world; torturous, greedy, destructive, with disregard for the poorest and bitter intolerance for anyone not like us. We Balkanize our society and point fingers at each other, laying these same charges against one domestic group or another with the venom and aggression once reserved for distant, oppressive enemies.

Can we awaken from our own self-destructive slumber?  The decisive war is not in Iraq, nor Afghanistan, nor Pakistan or any other distant place where we perceive our enemies to be.  The decisive battle is right here, from Maine to San Diego, from St. Louis to Atlanta.

If we are incapable of rediscovering that which Constitutes us and what distinguishes America form every other nation on this planet, and acknowledging that America, her people, our liberty and our unequaled charity are indeed good and our values just, then what does Iraq or Afghanistan matter?

Can we truly identify that which we are defending?  For if we cannot, we are not.  We are simply preserving soil and borders, protecting cities and people - that which can be found anywhere else on this planet.

What will America be, what will she look like when our children are thrust at the helm?  Will they write that we defended her, or will they write that we devoured and discarded her?  This, not al-Qaeda or the War on Terror, keeps me up at night.

For we can defeat al-Qaeda and yet have defended nothing at all in the long, painful process.  And our children will be compelled to write of us, ''You had these opportunities, America. You didn't do anything."

Steve's response, and the context within which we read them (ie. Obama's words and the prevailing mindset they represent), should be passed along to every one of your friends, every one of their friends, your family and your family's families, until the knowledge being revealed is known by all.

Pass it along.  Please.            

Bush as The Dark Knight

Via Rush Limbaugh and The WallStreetJournalOnline, a piece to think critically about.  I think it brilliant:

A cry for help goes out from a city beleaguered by violence and fear: A beam of light flashed into the night sky, the dark symbol of a bat projected onto the surface of the racing clouds . . .

Oh, wait a minute. That's not a bat, actually. In fact, when you trace the outline with your finger, it looks kind of like . . . a "W."

There seems to me no question that the Batman film "The Dark Knight," currently breaking every box office record in history, is at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war. Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past.

And like W, Batman understands that there is no moral equivalence between a free society -- in which people sometimes make the wrong choices -- and a criminal sect bent on destruction. The former must be cherished even in its moments of folly; the latter must be hounded to the gates of Hell.

"The Dark Knight," then, is a conservative movie about the war on terror. And like another such film, last year's "300," "The Dark Knight" is making a fortune depicting the values and necessities that the Bush administration cannot seem to articulate for beans.

All of it should be read and inwardly digested.  And if you really want to piss off a liberal, send it their way and watch their teeth gnash.

Consider it Mr. McCain (UPDATED) (AGAIN)

The historical record, for some, can be a real bitch:

• Democrat Joe Biden, Jan. 2007: "If he surges another 20, 30 [thousand], or whatever number he's going to, into Baghdad, it'll be a tragic mistake."
• Democrat Barack Obama, Jan. 2007: "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraqis going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse."
• Democrat Hillary Clinton, Jan. 2007: "I cannot support [the] proposed escalation of the war in Iraq."
• Democrat Barack Obama, Jan 2007: "I don't think the president's [surge] strategy is going to work."
• Democrat John Kerry, Feb. 2007: "The simple fact is that sending in over 20,000 additional troops isn't the answer--in fact, it's a tragic mistake. It won't end the violence; it won't provide security; ...it won't turn back the clock and avoid the civil war that is already underway; it won't deter terrorists, who have a completely different agenda; it won't rein in the militias."
• Democrat Dennis Kucinich, Feb. 2007: "It has been proven time and time again that troop surges don't work."
• Democrat Harry Reid, Apr. 2007: "The war is lost... This surge is not accomplishing anything."
• Democrat Christopher Dodd, Apr. 2007: "We don't need a surge of troops in Iraq... there is no military solution in Iraq. To insist upon a surge is wrong."
• Democrat Barack Obama, Jul. 2007: "My assessment is that the surge has not worked."
• Democrat Dick Durbin, Aug. 2007: "By carefully manipulating the statistics, the Bush-Petraeus report will try to persuade us that violence in Iraq is decreasing and thus the surge is working. Even if the figures were right, the conclusion is wrong."
• Democrat Jan Schakowsky, Aug. 2007: "I believe overall the surge is a failure. ...It’s clear to me we cannot win..."
• Democrat Joe Biden, Sep. 2007: "We should stop the surge and start bringing our troops home... [When asked whether Iraq closer to political reconciliation than before the surge began, and would continuing the operation stop the killing between Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds?] ...The answer to both those questions is no."
• Democrat John Kerry, Sep. 2007: ""The president's escalation ... has failed to achieve its goal of bringing about a resolution of the fundamental conflict between Sunni and Shi'ite."
• Democrat Chris Dodd, Sep. 2007: "It pains me to say that ... the surge tactic is a failure — and that failure is reconfirmed everyday by unfolding events in Iraq."
• Democrat Barack Obama, Oct. 2007: "[The surge is a] complete failure... Iraq’s leaders are not reconciling. They are not achieving political benchmarks."
• Democrat Harry Reid, Nov. 2007: "It is indisputable that the goals of the surge have failed."
• Democrat Joe Biden, Nov. 2007: "This whole notion that the surge is working is fantasy."
• Democrat Nancy Pelosi, Feb. 2008: "There haven't been gains [in Iraq]... The gains have not produced the desired effect, which is the reconciliation of Iraq. This is a failure. This is a failure."
• Democrat Carl Levin, Apr. 2008: "...the purpose of the surge as announced by President Bush last year... has not been achieved"
• Democrat Joe Biden, Apr. 2008: "The purpose of the surge was to bring violence in Iraq down so that its leaders could come together politically. Violence has come down, but the Iraqis have not come together... We Democrats understand that this war must end..."
• Democrat Bill Richardson, Jun. 2008: "[when asked if he was ready to concede that John McCain had been right in proposing the surge, said] "Absolutely not."

Mr. McCain, kind sir, though I realize with much angst and frankly more anger, that you'd rather not engage in what you deem to be negative campaigning, it would behoove you sir to put this in an ad and to play it over and over and over again.

Consider it. 

Hell, if you were to do so, I might just contribute to your campaign to help defray the cost.

I'm willing to bet many would.

Consider it Mr. McCain.

H/T to Larwyn.

UPDATE: This is a good start but not hardly enough:

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told "Good Morning America" that he was glad Obama was in Iraq and insisted the trip will give his Democratic rival an opportunity to see the success of the surge strategy.

"He'll be able to have the opportunity to see the success of the surge. It is a success. This is the same strategy that he voted against, railed against," McCain told ABC News' Diane Sawyer.

"He should admit he was wrong about the surge," McCain later added.

UPDATED AGAIN:  Bob Owens has a related must read:

If we had listened to Barack Obama in 2002, Saddam Hussein (or his murderous son Qusay) would still be brutally repressing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Shittes and Kurds, and some of the world's most accomplished terrorists (such as Abu Abbas, 1993 WTC bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi) would still be calling Iraq home. I doubt he's be flying to Baghdad.

If we had listened to him in 2005-2006 when things were at their worst, then the nightmare scenario of an open Iraqi civil war fought with the backing of Saudi Arabia and Iran and verging on a wider regional war. I doubt he'd be flying to Baghdad.

So by all means, let the journalists of the New York Times paint his visit as an accomplishment of some sort.

Just keep in mind that if we had followed the starter Senator's judgment at any point during his political career, Iraq could have been too dangerous a place for his flight to even consider touching down.

Read it all.

Liberalism defined...

... articulately, deftly, accurately and as only Morgan can:

In 2008 we find ourselves grappling with an ideological flesh-eating parasite in modern liberalism. It champions determination, drive, resourcefulness, grit and plain old-fashioned ballz — only in promulgating itself, and for no other purpose. In that singular endeavor of self-reproduction, it never wanes, fumbles or retreats. Holding high the banner of itself, it shows all the “patriotism” for which it shows theatrical horror elsewhere, including the resolve to seek out, interrogate and punish the desultory and apathetic.

It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.

All the energy and heat of an erupting volcano.

All the single-minded determination of any wild, starving predator.

All the stamina of water wearing away on a rock.

The power of a tidal wave.

All these forces of nature reserved for simple reproduction of the idea. And only for that, for the idea is nihilism. We are not good, we don’t belong where we are, and nothing is worth anything, for we are undeserving of whatever it is.

Go now and read it all. 

Morgan is to liberalism what a roofer is to shingles, what a carpenter is to a two by four, in fact, he is the Complete Nail Technician (and had the authors of that tome made him and who he nails their subject, they'd have a best seller on their hands... no lie).

Analyzing the Left

J.R.Dunn, over at American Thinker, with the must read of the day:

The average leftist is not even aware of any of this. If asked about Iraq, he will drone through the standard run of slogans, none of which made much sense in the first place and now come across as sheer raving. But it doesn't matter. It worked with the famine, it worked with the purges, it worked with Nam, and it will work -- so they think -- with Iraq.

How do you debate with such people? You don't. You can't. St. Augustine once said that there's no use wasting your time arguing with someone who won't grant a subject's basic premises. How much more so with people who won't grant a common reality?

Conservatives tend to be exemplars of civility, given to upholding standards of discourse, always giving their opponents the benefit of the doubt. This is a point of pride, and should not simply be thrown away. But after a certain definite point, you simply become an enabler. To cooperate with such behavior is to concur with it. Instead of acquiescing in this form of deceit (or, as is occasionally still seen, acting shocked that it even occurs) we need to find alternatives.

Fortunately, things have changed since the left's heyday. Haditha is not a forgotten name. That twelve-story pile of yellowcake is proving difficult to ignore. At one point, the left controlled virtually the entire national media sphere. This is no longer the case. If the new media is about anything, it is about discovering, highlighting, and promulgating the things that we're not supposed to know, the stories we're not supposed to think about, the events that are supposed to be forgotten. The Holodomor, the Great Purge, the Hue massacre -- all were buried because they could be. They cannot be buried anymore.

...

The impossibility of burying information deprives the left of one of its most hallowed weapons. (Attitudes forever lagging behind technology, they are not yet aware of the fact. Obama, in particular, with his habit of saying one thing on Monday and contradicting himself on Wednesday, as if the fix is in down at the newsroom and he can say anything he damn well pleases.)

Of course, the right has been using the new technology, both the Net and talk radio, to confront the left with facts they'd rather not acknowledge for some time now. But certainly more can be done -- more in the way of strategy, more in the way of coordination. We need greater efforts to discover what sets of facts the left particularly wants to hide -- and why. There are reasons why the left needs certain events to be forgotten. Discover those reasons, and it will shake them more than any other single effort. The left has been playing games with reality almost since its inception - let them see how it feels to live with the record like everybody else.

Orwell revealed that control of the past means control of the future. The left has controlled the past for generations. (Not that it's helped them much.) They don't any longer. That the facts can no longer be buried is a victory in and of itself. We will march on from there.

Do yourself a favor and read the entire thing.  Then pass it on.   It's worthy.  It's more than worthy.

Inarguable

For some time, talk of abortion has been quashed, largely the by-product of the effective tactics of the left and the weakness of those on the right or their unwillingness to take this topic on and confront it for what it is.

Elizabeth Scalia, aka The Anchoress goes a long way toward re-engaging on this much needed debate:

The death penalty is a legal execution of an individual judged guilty of heinous acts against the larger society; convicts are sometimes discovered to have been innocent of the charges made against them only after their lives have been taken. Many consider even the most “humane” means of execution to be cruel and inhuman, and even when the convict is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, it may be well-argued that killing a murderer does not bring back the victim and that “two wrongs do not make a right.”

In an abortion, the fetus is as subject to the death penalty as anyone ever so ordered by a jury; the fetus is always innocent. Even the most “humane” means of abortion — whatever that might be — involves cruel and inhuman measures. And even if the fetus — in its innocence — is the product of a violent and “guilty” conception, it may be well-argued that one merciless violation cannot be healed by a second — equally merciless — violation and that “two wrongs do not make a right.”

Poverty steals hope, exposes the helpless to political, sexual, and economic exploitation (from friend and foe) and defers dreams. It breaks rather than builds and reduces human beings to the status of mere “votes” or “workers” or “things.”

Abortion destroys a hopeful life, exposes the mother and fetus to political, sexual, and economic exploitation (from friend and foe) and defers dreams. It destroys what is being built and reduces a thriving being, species human, to the status of mere “products of conception” and “blobs of tissue.”

There is more and it's all worthy of your few minutes.

There is much today that seems amazing in it's coarseness toward life.  You see it every day in your local newspapers and news reports on the boob tube.  Life is, it would seem, cheap and more so today than ever before. 

Whether it be driven by environmentalists who see humanity as a virus destroying the planet or religious leftists who champion a virtue de-valuing tolerance of anything (except conservative thought) or political progressives pursuing an egalitarian utopianism that minimizes mankind's ability to achieve and overcome, abortion and specifically the mindset and the thought processes that accepts it, is at the center.  The Anchoress makes the case eloquently:

... abortion is not separate from the evils of war, torture, poverty and the rest, but of a piece with them. In fact, abortion supersedes those issues by dint of its personal nature. Government policy affects war, poverty, and the rest, while abortion is — like the casting of a vote — a personal choice. But it is a personal choice for the physical and intellectual internalization of war, and of torture, and of the death penalty, and of poverty, and of racism, and of capitalistic exploitation.

Thus weighed, the only counterbalance is life.

The Cowboy and The Dandy

Posted by guest blogger Locutisprime and cross posted at The Borg Perspective.

I have said for quite a while now, that Obama doesn't like the unscripted atmosphere of town hall meetings. It is something quite different from having the cardboard cut out backdrop of supporters that he is accustomed to, or the podium and the teleprompter and the media sound bites. And while McCain seems to prefer the atmosphere of the town hall, he continues to perform less than well IMO, in all observations that I have seen of him in those venues to date.

If Barack Obama had only a small modicum of ability to speak off the cuff, then I believe that his oratory skills would so immediately squash John McCain's rigid performances, that it would be a one fight title bout.

But Obama doesn't have that ability. The best that he can do is to limp along toward the debates and hope that he gets a friendly draw of liberal media moderators, who will pitch him softballs in front of the cameras.

In the mean time, John McCain needs to learn how to come across as something beyond a stiff shirt and frequently acerbic mime of his own political talking points and lame attempts at humor. Put a pair of overalls and a straw hat on him? And he would be a fair imitation of Grandpa McCoy (Walter Brennan) of the Real McCoys era of late fifties television. And that image doesn't bode well with the under forty crowd that is looking for real leadership and political persona. Or those of us who actually remember the Real McCoys. If John McCain wants to be perceived as the real McCoy, then he better start acting like one and drop the hokey hand chops and silly grin and go after Obama where he can do the real damage. Which is revealing him for what he truly represents. But that seems to be a tall order for the RINO, who continues to cling to his belief that the republican party has morphed into some population of dumbed down moderates that he can massage into thinking that he is a real conservative.

Barack Obama and those who literally idolize him, like to juxtapose him next to Abraham Lincoln and then attempt to assert all the similarities. And when that fails, they fall back on the comparisons to JFK. Which both fail miserably, once you actually listen to the man. Once you get past the fact that he is a junior senator from Illinois and he is in his middle forties, the comparisons between Obama and Lincoln and JFK become the immediately transparent illusions that they really are. 

Right now, Obama enjoys the friendly ring of the media supported hype fight. When he staggers the media giggles and eggs him on. When McCain staggers, they quickly push him back to the center of the ring, so that the staged battle of light weights can continue. And thus propel the ratings.

The present day media is in the business of entertainment. And the sooner the people turn away from the idiocy that masquerades itself as journalism, then the sooner these supposed journalist will see the light and get back to their original job description. And then? We might actually see some candidates for the office, who truly represent American values and our best hopes and dreams.

He's not the Bernie Mac Obama knew...

... and should now join the host of others found under the bus:

Comedian Bernie Mac endured some heckling and a campaign rebuke during a surprise appearance Friday night at a fundraiser for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Toward the end of a 10-minute standup routine at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in downtown Chicago, the 50-year-old star of "The Bernie Mac Show" joked about menopause, sexual infidelity and promiscuity, and used occasional crude language.

"My little nephew came to me and he said, 'Uncle, what's the difference between a hypothetical question and a realistic question?'" Mac said. "I said, I don't know, but I said, 'Go upstairs and ask your mother if she'd make love to the mailman for $50,000.'"

As the joke continued, the punchline evoked an angry response from at least one person in the audience, who said it was offensive to women.

"It's not funny. Let's get Barack on," a man shouted from the crowd, which paid $2,300 each to support the Illinois senator.

About 15 minutes later, Obama tried to smooth things over with a joke of his own.

"We can't afford to be divided by race. We can't afford to be divided by region or by class and we can't afford to be divided by gender, which by the way, that means, Bernie, you've got to clean up your act next time," Obama said. "This is a family affair. By the way, I'm just messing with you, man."

The incident drew response from Obama's campaign, which criticized Mac for his choice of material.

"Sen. Obama told Bernie Mac that he doesn't condone these statements and believes what was said was inappropriate," spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in a statement after the event.

Jen Psaki, lead Obama prevaricator, doing her best to counter the inevitable Bernie Mac attacks. 

Helluva job these Obama handlers have.  He keeps them busy.

'We're Oh So..."

From The American Thinker comes a nice little Russ Vaughn ditty that explains how the Democrats feel about us ignorant Right wingers. Enjoy:

We're Oh So... (a poem)

We’re hip, we’re cool and oh so arty;
We’re Democrats, the smarter party.
We’re sophisticated unlike you;
We understand merci beaucoup.
We’re urbane while you’re provincial;
We’re worldly-wise, so existential.
We’re cultured, complex, so refined;
We’ve left you ignorant serfs behind.
We’re witty authors of clever puns,
While you clods cling to God and guns.
Were you not so closed and clannish,
We’d have you peons speaking Spanish.
We say all this with knowing smirks;
We’re Democrats, you red-state jerks.

H/T Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler

Obama embarrassed of Americans

Gateway Pundit has more.

"Get off of my back"

The woman speaks for me.  You?

Via Flopping Aces.

Nailed

Morgan plays hammer:

I know this was a cooperative agreement in which President Bush sought approval from Congress and the United Nations, and had to sell ‘em on it. Whether that was a constitutional requirement (in the case of Congress) is a dubious proposition; the presidency, arguably, exists to sidestep bureaucratic committee-style inefficiency, especially with regard to military activities. And so in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq in Spring of ‘03, he became a war salesman, putting great effort into convincing mostly nameless & faceless authorities that Saddam was a dangerous dude.

I’m from Planet Earth and have red blood in my veins. So where I come from, the real scandal — what was really “unjust and illegal” — was that this was put up for debate in the first place.

Now to be serious about it, I doubt the revolver/trenchcoat/P220 analogy is the “holy grail” that will shut these people up. I do think if anything would do that, this is a great candidate…but I labor under no delusions this has taken place. salvage’s episodes of presence & absence occur in coarse, generously-sized chunks of time; as if his mommy decided he was spending too much time arguing on the innernets with those Damn Yankees down south, and laid down the law that he had to cut the grass in order to keep living in her basement.

Well, these people have a right to free speech. But down on this side of the border, I seriously, seriously do believe they shouldn’t be voting. If there is no legal way to deprive them of the vote, we need to create one and create one fast. I’m heart-attack serious. These are the people who say, if you find black widows under that play equipment, you gotta leave ‘em where they are if you called “scorpion” or “snake.” They should not be choosing anything. Forget voting; they shouldn’t be allowed out of the house.

Bang. Bang. Bang.

Nailed.

Booyah.

Impeach Congress (UPDATED)

Sooner rather than later:

The percentage of voters who give Congress good or excellent ratings has fallen to single digits for the first time in Rasmussen Reports tracking history. This month, just 9% say Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Most voters (52%) say Congress is doing a poor job, which ties the record high in that dubious category.

Last month, 11% of voters gave the legislature good or excellent ratings. Congress has not received higher than a 15% approval rating since the beginning of 2008.

The percentage of Democrats who give Congress positive ratings fell from 17% last month to 13% this month. The number of Democrats who give Congress a poor rating remained unchanged. Among Republicans, 8% give Congress good or excellent ratings, up just a point from last month. Sixty-five percent (65%) of GOP voters say Congress is doing a poor job, down a single point from last month.

Voters not affiliated with either party are the most critical of Congressional performance. Just 3% of those voters give Congress positive ratings, down from 6% last month. Sixty-three percent (63%) believe Congress is doing a poor job, up from 57% last month.

Just 12% of voters think Congress has passed any legislation to improve life in this country over the past six months. That number has ranged from 11% to 13% throughout 2008. The majority of voters (62%) say Congress has not passed any legislation to improve life in America.

Hope and change. With a Democratic majority. 

Are you hearing this trumpeted on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN. NPR, The New York Times, the Washington Post, the L.A. Times or other MSM outlets?  No?  Hmm... I wonder why that is.

Via Don Surber.

UPDATE: Harry Reid, Chief Butt Hat on the Left, blames Bush for Congress' low poll numbers:

“Any time you have a president who is down so, so far in poll numbers, it drags down city council members, it drags down any elected official — including us, and we recognize that,” Reid said, adding that he met Monday night with a group of pollsters and consultants, one of whom put Bush’s approval rating at 11 percent.

That’s significantly lower than other public tracking polls, which recently have registered Bush’s approval rating as hovering around 30 percent.

Reid also cited Senate Republicans’ efforts to block legislation — primarily through the use of filibusters — as a contributing factor for low poll numbers.

But Rebecca Fisher, spokeswoman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said “it’s embarrassing that Democrats won’t take responsibility for their own inaction and are trying to deflect their failures onto the president.

Harry Reid is an embarrassment to humanity.

Period.

The Wrong Man With The Wrong Message, Once Again

Posted by guest blogger Locutisprime.

Once again we hear from the campaign man of wrongs.

John Kerry says Republican John McCain doesn't have the judgment to be president.

If that's the case, then it's probably a good thing McCain rejected overtures from Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, to form a bipartisan ticket and run with Kerry as his candidate for vice president.

Kerry had no kind words his Senate colleague Sunday, accusing McCain of poor decision-making on everything from backing tax cuts for the wealthy to making support for continuing the U.S. military presence in Iraq the centerpiece of his presidential campaign.

"John McCain ... has proven that he has been wrong about every judgment he's made about the war. Wrong about the Iraqis paying for the reconstruction, wrong about whether or not the oil would pay for it, wrong about Sunni and Shia violence through the years, wrong about the willingness of the Iraqis to stand up for themselves," Kerry, who supports Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

"If you like the Bush tax cut and what it's done to our economy, making wealthier people wealthier and the average middle class struggle harder, then John McCain is going to give you a third term of George Bush and Karl Rove," the Massachusetts senator added, echoing an Obama campaign talking point.

Four years ago, we listened to his litany of wrongs, as he expounded upon all the supposed reasons that George Bush had been wrong and he had been right all along over the previous four years. Except for that brief period when he was wrong, but later became right. You remember...."I was for the war before I was against it."

So here we are four years later....and in the space of the last two weeks now, we have seen Obama surrogates stepping forward to supposedly take one for the team. First with Wesley Clark and now with John Kerry. And all that either have to offer is more mud and slander aimed at John McCain, while ignoring that their candidate of choice, Barack Obama, collects negatives with the regularity of lint in a belly button.

And the beauty of liberal politics? Is that when these Obama surrogates are called out on their missteps and over reaching character assaults against McCain? The man of the hour Obama, can simply decry their remarks obliquely and speak of his belief in unity behind vision and the change that he will bring to the political landscape.

When pigs fly.

"Change we can believe in"

Via Gateway Pundit, the latest political ad from the group "Vets for Freedom":

Amen.

What Uranium in Iraq? What victory in Iraq? (UPDATE)

This uranium in Iraq:

The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program _ a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium _ reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.

The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" _ the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment _ was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.

What's now left is the final and complicated push to clean up the remaining radioactive debris at the former Tuwaitha nuclear complex about 12 miles south of Baghdad _ using teams that include Iraqi experts recently trained in the Chernobyl fallout zone in Ukraine.

"Everyone is very happy to have this safely out of Iraq," said a senior U.S. official who outlined the nearly three-month operation to The Associated Press. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.

While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called "dirty bomb" _ a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material _ it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast. Yellowcake also can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment.

This victory in Iraq:

Al-Qaeda is driven from Mosul bastion after bloody last stand.

The murder toll is dropping, the insurgents are on the run. Our correspondent is on the front line as the Iraqi army takes control.

As time continues to pass, as the country continues to move toward stability and peace, history continues to draw a much more favorable picture supporting our incursion into Iraq.

To the gnashing of teeth of the leftist and liberal naysayers in this country who cannot stand the idea of a positive outcome in that region.

UPDATE: Don Surber, with more truth than a liberal can bare:

Joe Wilson is a liar who should be investigated for contempt of Congress charges regarding knowingly giving false testimony.

There is a happy ending. This stuff is not in the hands of terrorists, thanks to President Bush’s actions for which he has been hammered by the left for 5+ years

...

There is a reason Bush has not fought back against critics: National security. There are secrets a president cannot divulge in his lifetime. History vindicates the Harry Trumans — and punishes the Bill Clintons. Never equate popularity with quality.

The second story, Iraqis are purging their country of al-Qaida.

This fairy tale about no al-Qaida in Iraq is almost as bad as the fairy tale about a civil war in Iraq.

...

So much for Reid’s “The war is lost.”

...

Obama is unfit to tie Bush’s shoelaces.

I know not how November’s election will go.

But I got the war right.

That’s good enough for me and the other 30% of America who has stood by the Best President of the 21st Century — George Bush.

OK, he’s the only one in that category so far. But he will be a tough act to follow.

I was for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq...

... before I was against it:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Thursday backed off his firm promise to withdraw combat forces from Iraq immediately and instead said he could “refine” his plan after his trip to Baghdad later this month.

Earlier, a top Obama adviser had said that the senator is not “wedded” to a specific timeline.

Obama told reporters in Fargo, N.D., that he is “going to do a thorough assessment."

"When I go to Iraq and I have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies," he said, according to CBS News. “I have been consistent, throughout this process, that I believe the war in Iraq was a mistake.”

Obama later said at a second news conference he still intends to stick to the timeline.

At the second meeting with reporters, Obama said: "We're going to try this again. Apparently I wasn't clear enough this morning on my position with respect to the war in Iraq. ... I have said throughout this campaign that ... I would bring our troops home at a pace of one to two brigades per month and at that pace we would have our combat troops out in 16 months. That position has not changed. I have not equivocated on that position. I am not searching for maneuvering room with respect to that position.

"What I said this morning and what I will repeat because it's consistent with what I've said over the last two years is that in putting this plan together, I will always listen to the advice of commanders on the ground, but that ultimately, I'm the person who is making the strategic decisions."

There is but one core principle that this man has. One. He wants to be President. Everything else is negotiable.

Hope and change my rear-end.

Video of Bulldozer terrorist being offed

Via Robert Avrech at Seraphic Secret who predicts:

The big story in the mainstream media will not be the terrorist attack or the victims; but we can anticipate buckets of tears and liberal rage that the terrorist was killed—with too many bullets. They will want to know why the terrorist was not taken prisoner and read his rights.

Like this ignorant reporter.

“The video also shows a policeman shooting the lifeless man at point-blank range, a move that could spark questions from Israeli human rights groups about whether the officer's shot was necessary and if he might have unnecessarily killed the man.”

Unnecessarily killing a guy who is literally running over innocent civilians with a bulldozer.

Unnecessarily.

Freakin' complete and unabridged buffoonish and totally retarded idiot.

"A Brighter Future for Baghdad?"

More and more people are thinking so:

There is an unexpected air of normalcy prevailing in Baghdad these days, with consumption flourishing and confidence in the government growing. The progress is astonishing, but can it last?

Pork is available in Baghdad once again. Not just in the Green Zone, where US diplomats can enjoy their spare ribs and Parma ham, but also across the Tigris River, in the real Baghdad, at "Al-Warda" on Karada Street. Bassim Dencha, 32, one of the few Christians remaining in Iraq and the co-owner of Baghdad's finest supermarket, has developed a supply line from Syria. As a result, he now has frozen pork chops and bratwurst arranged in his freezers, next to boxes of frozen French fries and German Black Forest Cakes. And the customers are buying.

For four years, selling pork or alcohol in Baghdad was a security risk. But the acts of terror committed by Islamist fundamentalists, who once punished such violations of their interpretation of the Koran with attacks on businesses and their owners, have gradually subsided. The supply of imported goods is also relatively secure today, now that roads through the Sunni Triangle are significantly safer than they were only a few months ago.

"It's worth it again," says businessman Bassim Dencha. "All we need now is enough electricity to reopen our refrigerated warehouse."

Two kilometers down the street, business is booming late into the night at Ali Lami's roadside snack bar. Before the war the establishment, a Baghdad institution, was a favorite hangout for former dictator Saddam Hussein's henchmen and United Nations weapons inspectors alike. Today professors and students from the university, which is once again open every day, come here to eat shawarma, an Arab fast-food dish consisting of shaved meat and salad served in pita bread.

News not fit to print in most MSM outlets stateside... after all, there's an agenda to foist.  Thankfully there are those like Bookworm who brought us this Spiegel piece from across the water.  She opines:

Do you think Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama have read this?  Do you think they care?  How about the New York Times, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Newsweek, Time, etc., ad nauseum?  I doubt any of them want to see stories like this published in America between now and November.  It will be devastating to their oft repeated message that the Iraq War is unwinnable (since this report allows for the possibility that we won), and that Bush was a horrible, malevolent idiot, whose wrongful conduct taints all Republicans, practically mandating an Obama victory.

Please go to the Spiegel story and email it to your friends.  More people should read it and see what they’re missing when they open America’s papers and magazines, or turn on the news channels.

The only way to deal with terrorists

Per Uncle Jimbo at BlackFive: