Welcome To The Machine - On the same day President Obama invited Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT) to the White House to pressure him to switch his vote on health care reform, Obama appointed Matheson's brother, Scott Matheson, to a judgeship on the 10th Circuit Court Of Appeals. I'm sure that was an entirely random, coincidental event with absolutely no underlying political calculations whatsoever…not at all similar to the way things are done in Obama's old stomping grounds…not at all similar to the Chicago way….not at all. This is the most ethical administration ever…especially when they aren't lying about everything.
===
Global Warming Kettle Calls Pot Black – "First of all, we just got five feet of snow in Washington and so everybody is like — a lot of the people who are opponents of climate change, they say, see, look at that, there’s all this snow on the ground, this doesn’t mean anything. I want to just be clear that the science of climate change doesn’t mean that every place is getting warmer; it means the planet as a whole is getting warmer. But what it may mean is, for example, Vancouver, which is supposed to be getting snow during the Olympics, suddenly is at 55 degrees, and Dallas suddenly is getting seven inches of snow." – Barack "The Weatherman" Obama.

The glaring problem with Obama's "everything is climate change now" rhetoric is that Vancouver doesn't usually get much snow in February. The average temperature there in February is 48 degrees Fahrenheit. Not exactly snow weather, and a temp of 55 degrees is just an example of normal weather variation. Exit questions – What if Sarah Palin said something this dumb ? How many months would it be before the media stopped talking about it ?
===
Nominee For Idiot Of The Year - The following video shows MSNBC talker Dylan Ratigan "interviewing" a Tea Party representative, and hijacking his own interview by refusing to allow the Tea Party guy to answer the questions put to him. Ratigan instead used the segment as a transparent ploy to parrot the constant MSNBC propaganda point that the Tea Party movement is a racist movement.

This might be a new low in what passes for journalism. Either that, or Ratigan fancies himself the next Keith Olbermann, a dubious aspiration at best.

While I'm on the subject of the Tea Party movement…I keep hearing from liberals that the Tea Parties are chock full of racist signs, and having attended Tea Parties, I haven't seen any. Not one. I have seen a couple signs on the internet that COULD be interpreted as racist (and could also be liberal plants), out of the hundreds of thousands of signs from which to choose at Tea Party events. Can some liberal please show me all these racist Tea Party signs ??? I really want to see what all the fuss is about.
===
A Good Day To Die – "Today is a big day in America. Only 36,000 people lost their jobs today, which is really good." – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) link

I've heard of the bigotry of soft expectations, but this is ridiculous. By Reid's standard, if only 20,000 people lost their jobs next month, that would be, as Tony the Tiger used to say, "GRRREEAAT !"

Time for a new Senate Majority Leader. This one's broken.
===
Rules ? We Don't Need No Stinking Rules - From NBC News:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said today the American people ought to know more about what she called "total obstruction" by the Republican Party in the Senate. Referring to Sen. Jim Bunning's hold-up of unemployment benefits earlier this week, Pelosi said, "It's not about rules, it's about a decision they've made to obstruct."

Here we have Pelosi admitting that the Pay-Go rules passed by the Democrats a couple weeks ago are basically meaningless. They bypassed them the first time they had the opportunity to enforce them, and then they have the gall to portray the one Senator who called the Dems on their dishonesty an obstructionist. Wow. Words fail me.

Time for a new Congress. This one's broken.
===
Obama As The New Bush - Students in Jakarta, Indonesia are protesting President Obama's upcoming visit to that country. Obama previously has been very popular in Indonesia, having spent part of his childhood in Jakarta. From the Associated Press:

Scores of Islamic students staged protests outside Jakarta's parliament and in at least three other major Indonesian cities on Friday against President Barack Obama's upcoming visit to this predominantly Muslim country.

The students carried banners branding Obama as an enemy of Islam and an imperialist in downtown Jakarta as well as in the provincial capitals Padang, Yogyakarta and Surabaya.

They also threw shoes at large pictures of Obama's head. An Iraqi journalist was sentenced to a year in prison for throwing his shoes at U.S. President George W. Bush during a news conference in Baghdad in 2008.

Protest organizer Ahmad Irhamul Fikri, spokesman for the Coordinating Board for Campus Proselytizing Institute, said bigger rallies will be staged next Friday in more Indonesian cities ahead of Obama's March 20-22 visit.

If there's a bright side here…maybe this will shut up some of the fringe element nuts known as the Birthers, who think Obama is a foreign-born Muslim who wants to establish a Caliphate here in America, or something.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke

In march 1964, a twenty-eight-year-old woman named Kitty Genovese drove home from work and parked her car in Queens, a borough in New York City. She lived in a nice neighborhood there, Kew Gardens. Genovese exited her car and a man came after her, stabbing her in the back. The assault took place on the sidewalk in front of a row of shops and across the street from a ten-story apartment building called the Mowbray. The assailant, twenty-nine-year-old Winston Moseley, retreated to his car and backed it down the street out of view. Moseley returned to the scene of his crime, sexually assaulting Genovese and stabbing her again. The stabbing and and sexual assault went on for 35 minutes, then Moseley went back to his car and drove home. Kitty Genovese was left dead.

This is a horrible story, one that is played out all too frequently. The Genovese story, however, became national news due to a New York Times article that was written about it. The article stated the following:

For more than half an hour, thirty eight respectable, law-abiding citizens in Queens watched a killer stalk and stab a woman in three separate attacks in Kew Gardens…Not one person telephoned the police during the assault; one witness called after the woman was dead.

The apathy of Genovese's neighbors sparked outrage across the nation. People couldn't understand how they could be so cold-hearted. It was generally agreed that the incident represented a new low in human civilization. The inaction of the neighbors in the face of such evil was itself a form of evil, known in legal circles as "depraved indifference."

Now let's expand that Queens neighborhood. Let's expand it to include the entire world. What is our proper response in the face of evil ? What responsibility do we have ? Do we get involved, or do we stand by watching and doing nothing like the neighbors of Kitty Genovese ? An easy example of this is our response to the warmongering of Adolph Hitler. All but the most feeble-minded among us know that our only choice there was to get involved, no matter how high the price. If we had stood by idly then chanting simple-minded flower-child slogans like the 60's-era "war harms children and other living things," it would have had disastrous results. The body count would have been far more astronomical, the Holocaust many times larger, and Hitler's endgame was to attack the United States after Europe and Russia were defeated, thereby conquering the world. We know this from Hitler's own writings. In an unpublished sequel to Mein Kampf, Hitler acknowledged this endgame. He considered the United States his most dangerous enemy, and he was proven correct, fortunately for the world.

But not all evil in the world represents a direct existential threat to the United States, as Hitler did. We can stand by and watch the human carnage and do nothing if we wish, just as the neighbors of Kitty Genovese did. We can adopt a policy of depraved indifference and watch the genocide in Darfur, the brutal repression of the Taliban, or the mass murders of Saddam Hussein, the Butcher of Baghdad. Often we have sat back and watched the human carnage play out as we went happily about our daily lives. We good men have watched the triumph of evil as we did nothing, or at least nothing effective. We get together with other alleged civilized countries and draft meaningless U.N. resolutions condemning mass murderers, while the mass murderers go right on pillaging, slaughtering, raping, and mutilating. As grateful as I imagine the genocide victims are for those spineless U.N. resolutions, it seems a country like the United States, a superpower, should do more than talk or pass an economic sanction. Sometimes, it takes armies to do the talking, and sometimes, even though war is as terrible as it gets, war is the answer. Sometimes, as Orwellian as it sounds, only war can bring peace. If humans were a more noble species, it might not be so, but if human history teaches us anything, it teaches us that humans have been on a thousands of years long struggle for power. That says something dark about the human heart, or at least some human hearts, but we can't deny it. That power struggle will be quite fruitless if evil wins in the end, and the depraved indifference of the free world, led by the United States, can only help to bring about that very result.

And that is why people of a certain political stripe should shut the hell up about U.S. military spending, as if it's all a tremendous waste of money on the "war machine." That is a self-defeating view, and naive beyond belief. I'm sure we can streamline our military spending and make it more effective, but I doubt any spending we do is more essential. If we disarm, I guaran-fricking-tee you our enemies will not. Our enemies will be absolutely thrilled if we disarm, and I'm all for NOT pleasing them. I want the USA to be the strongest, because I believe in our principles far above those of Iran, China, Cuba, North Korea, etc. It should be obvious, but for some it isn't. They take freedom for granted in a critical failure of logic. I will never understand what they can possibly be thinking. Maybe they have a death wish or maybe they just live in lollipop land, but I know one thing for sure – we should not listen to them, ever.

This column is dedicated to the folks who believe ObamaCare, with it's alleged 31 million more people being covered by health insurance, and with it's 2,500 pages of myriad rules, regulations, and taxes being implemented on business and the citizenry by Congress…..will somehow make health care LESS expensive. To all such folks, I bestow upon you the Reality Deniers Of The Year award.

The ObamaCare debacle is so massive and will ravage such a huge slice of our economy that I should have bestowed the Reality Deniers Of The Decade award on the aforementioned people, especially when the previous decade ended only a few days ago, right ?

Except the previous decade didn't end a few days ago, no matter how often we hear the news media say it did. That's something we believe that just isn't so. Because there was no year zero on our calendar, the first year A.D. was year one. That means means a new decade doesn't start until year 11. Our next decade starts on january 1, 2011, not 2010.

That's a small thing, but columnist Walter Williams mentioned it in his latest article, in which he tackled another thing we believe is true but just isn't so. I've even bought into this false belief myself, more than I should have. The belief is that America doesn't make anything anymore, that we've lost our manufacturing sector. This belief comes from all the losses of manufacturing jobs in this country over the last thiry years. The job loss is true, but much of that loss is due to technological advances in industry that make manufacturing less labor intensive. From the Williams piece:

According to the Federal Reserve, the dollar value of U.S. manufacturing output in November was $2.72 trillion (in 2000 dollars). Today's manufacturing worker is so productive that the value of his average output is $234,220. Output per worker is three times as high as it was in 1980 and twice as high as it was in 1990. For the year 2008, the Federal Reserve estimates that the value of U.S. manufacturing output was about $3.7 trillion (in 2008 dollars). If the U.S. manufacturing sector were a separate economy, with its own GDP, it would be tied with Germany as the world's fourth richest economy. The GDPs are: U.S. ($14.2 trillion), Japan ($4.9 trillion), China ($4.3 trillion), U.S. manufacturing ($3.7 trillion), Germany ($3.7 trillion), France ($2.9 trillion) and the United Kingdom ($2.7 trillion).

With a manufacturing sector that produces more revenue than the entire GDP of all but two other countries, it sure seems we still make things here in the U.S., lots of things. It just doesn't take as many people to make them. Are we to roll back our technological advances just so we can employ more people ? I don't think so. Such a move WOULD sound the death knell for our manufacturing sector. Just as advances in the agricultural industry over the last century made farming far less labor intensive, so it is with manufacturing today. We could go the China route and pay manufacturing workers slave wages to produce cheap goods, but that isn't a desirable solution either. What we must do is adapt to a changing world. That is always going to be what we have to do to succeed. Instead of saying 'America doesn't make anything anymore,' it would be more accurate to say 'America doesn't make everything anymore.'

The next belief some hold that just isn't true is about the Guantanamo Bay prison. Even President Obama believes closing Gitmo will lessen the fervor of terrorists to attack us. Obama says Gitmo is a key recruiting tool of the jihadist movement. This is absolute nonsense. In order to share Obama's feeling, you have to believe that the simple act of moving the terrorists from Cuba to Illinois will somehow make the terrorists respond, "okay, things are alright now." This is absurdity taken to the nth degree. We'll still be holding the terrorists in prison, it'll just be in a different place. The idea that this will somehow appease the Islamic jihadists is inane. Do you really think they care WHERE Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his like-minded brethren are being held by the U.S. ??? It's the fact WE ARE HOLDING THEM that they care about. The fact we are fighting them in the first place is what they care about. The closing of Gitmo will have zero effect on the recruitment of jihadists. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA. Of course, we could always release more terrorists to Yemen or some other country sympathetic to the jihadists, as we've been doing, in the hopes it will appease the terrorists. That WOULD have an effect on terrorist recruitment. It would go UP by the number of terrorists we released, and it already has. Our lax policies have already resulted in over 70 terrorists going back to the jihadist fight against us. Brilliant policy, eh ? Let's try to appease ruthless murdering religious extremists who wish to establish dominance over the entire world. I'm certain that will work (NOT).

My final belief that just isn't so is about enacting more government entitlements in a country already $12 trillion in debt, that can't pay for all the unfunded entitlements already in existence, and with a government that invariably robs us blind, as it has with Social Security. That is completely insane thinking, but liberals think it's the right way to go, because they somehow believe it's "compassionate." (to bankrupt the entire nation).

But you've all heard me rant on about that enough already, so I'll spare you the details this time. Peace out.

1. How can President Obama hold a jobs summit and not invite the Chamber Of Commerce ? That's like holding a football game and forgetting to invite the offense.

2. How can the unemployment rate drop from 10.2% to 10% when 11,000 more jobs were lost in november 2009 ?

3. From 1776 to 1913, the value of the dollar increased by 13%. In 1913, the Federal Reserve was implemented. Since 1913, the value of the dollar has dropped by 92%. Why do we have a Federal Reserve ?

4. Why would the President announce a withdrawal date of july 2011 from a war that is not yet won ?

5. Why would President Obama call the november 2009 jobs report "the best jobs report since december 2007" and talk about White House administration officials hugging each other in joy over the good news, when the november unemployment rate is 10% and the december 2007 unemployment rate was 4.9% ? FYI – the january 2008 unemployment rate was also 4.9%.

6. Why are the extramarital affairs of golfer Tiger Woods a big news story ?

7. If the Federal Reserve prints money out of thin air, backed by nothing, in order to, say, lend $85 billion to AIG, and then AIG pays back that money from profits, isn't the net effect nothing but a devaluation of the dollar ?

8. Isn't a devaluation of the dollar nothing but a hidden tax on the assets of all Americans ?

9. If a citizen continually spends more money than he/she makes, he/she will go bankrupt. How is it any different when the government does the same thing, except that the government will take all the citizens down along with it ?

10. Why would we hand health care over to government control when the part of health care the government does control (Medicare/Medicaid) is already so far in the red ?

11. How can the Obama stimulus possibly be working when it is based upon money borrowed or printed out of thin air, backed by nothing, and is therefore entirely artificial ? (See questions #3, #7, and #8).

12. If question #11 is too confusing, perhaps this will help simplify the matter. Does a man up to his neck in credit card debt improve his financial situation by getting more credit cards ?

13. What is wrong with asking the President of the United States to produce his original birth certificate ?

14. Is there any major Obama policy that is supported by the American people ?

15. Why don't we just put Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in front of a firing squad and save everyone a lot of time and money ?

16. How do tax increases ever help the private sector economy ?

17. Shouldn't there have to be at least one act of Tea Party-related violence (from the Tea Party side) before the media denounces the crazy, violent, extremist Tea Partiers ?

18. On the same subject, why is it considered crazy and extreme to be in favor of fiscal responsibility, liberty, and the U.S. Constitution, as the Tea Partiers are ? What does that say about the state of our country ?

19. On the jobs front, which Obama policies are pro-business ?

20. Why are Democrats now in favor of cutting Medicare, when they've been against Medicare cuts for four decades ?

The USA is making progress with Iran on the nuclear issue.

That's what I keep hearing, anyway. Progress in this case is defined as Iran allowing the UN's nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, to inspect it's uranium processing facility outside Qom on October 25th. IAEA head Mohammed El Baradei said the inspection is to insure Iran's nuclear plant is "for peaceful purposes." This is interesting, because the Iranians attempted to hide that "peaceful" nuclear facility from the outside world for years, and didn't acknowledge it's existence until very recently, after several Western intelligence agencies blew Iran's cover. I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that the IAEA will not find nuclear weapons sitting around at the Qom facility during their inspection. I'm basing my prediction on the fact that the Iranians are not the Three Stooges. They are not THAT dumb. They just think we are.

Even more interesting is the fact that we don't know how many other secret nuclear enrichment plants Iran has. Back in january, the NY Times reported the following about a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that concluded Iran had suspended it's pursuit of nuclear weapons in 2003:

The public version [of the NIE] made only glancing reference to evidence described at great length in the 140-page classified version of the assessment: the suspicion that Iran had 10 or 15 other nuclear-related facilities, never opened to international inspectors, where enrichment activity, weapons work or the manufacturing of centrifuges might be taking place.

The Israelis didn't buy the American conclusion in 2007 that Iran had stopped working on nuclear weapons, and reportedly presented evidence to the U.S. that Iran was still pursuing nukes. Israel requested bunker-busting bombs from the U.S. in 2008, which were capable of penetrating Iran's underground nuclear facilities. Israel also requested refueling equipment that would allow Israeli aircraft to fly to Iran and back to Israel, along with the right to fly over Iran. Obviously, Israel wanted to take out Iran's nuclear sites. President Bush turned the requests down. Bush pursued further covert ops instead. Israel wasn't the only one who thought the CIA's 2007 NIE was wrong. British intelligence agreed.

So here we are in 2009, knowing for certain that Iran has engaged in deception regarding it's nuclear ambitions, and the problem has been kicked down the road to President Obama. The Iranians continue with their nuclear plans unabated, while America and the UN continue the same path as always, negotiations and threats of sanctions. In the meantime, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is meeting with Vladimir Putin to ask Russia to stop helping Iran build a nuclear bomb. I assume Russia cannot stop helping unless they have already BEEN helping.

The problem with negotiating with Iran is simple – the Iranians lie.

The problem with sanctions against Iran are mainly two – Russia and China, who have shared economic interests with Iran, namely, oil. India is also heavily interwined with Iran's oil industry, along with many other countries. The Russians and the Chinese help Iran negate the power of any sanctions. One of the sanctions being discussed against Iran now is a ban on importation of oil products to Iran. Even though Iran is an oil-rich country, a lack of oil refining facilities causes Iran to import much of it's gasoline and other petroleum products. China opposes those sanctions and has restated it's prioritization of Iranian oil. Russia said recently it will "consider" new sanctions against Iran (my translation: Russia will vote against any truly harsh sanctions, or will continue to help Iran get around them. I'd love to be wrong about this).

If negotiations are fruitless, and sanctions can be gotten around, what's left ? Military action against Iran ? Non-military regime change ? Can anyone see Obama or the UN actually taking military action against Iran ? Very doubtful, and the American people are extremely war weary already. The way I see it, Israel is the only one who'd be willing to take military action, but they'd most likely have to do it without American or UN approval, which makes that a lot more dicey, and since we don't even know how many nuclear facilities Iran has, it may not even work.

In conclusion, welcome to the dawning of a new age – an Iranian theocratic, terrorist-supporting government, with a holocaust-denying, apocalyptic President who openly states that he wants to destroy Israel, having nuclear weapons. What could possibly go wrong ? Besides everything. Various experts say Iran could have a bomb between next year and 2013, but the experts have been wrong about quite a lot in the Middle East in recent years, so who knows ?

I sure hope I'm wrong. We need your help, President Obama. This is way beyond partisanship or political ideology. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it could and probably would start an arms race throughout the Middle East. I can barely think of a less desirable outcome.

"For those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months." - President Barack Hussein Obama, narcissist, addressing the United Nations, September, 2009.

I'm sure glad Barry came along and fixed the character and cause of this nation after 232 years of American villainy, aren't you ? On the bright side, at least he didn't call pre-Obama America "The Great Satan." And our President spoke these words in front of an audience that included the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, Moammar Gadhafi, and a slew of other human rights violators (many of whom are on the Orwellian UN Human Rights Council).
===
"Since Americans can only be prodded into doing something with money, we need to tax crappy foods that make us sick like we do with cigarettes, and alcohol." - pot-smoking comedian Bill Maher, September, 2009.

Unbelievably, Maher calls himself a Libertarian. In reality, he's just another authoritarian left-winger. Someone should familiarize Maher with the words "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It's none of Bill Maher's business who smokes, drinks, or eats what, which Maher would quickly realize if someone took his weed away. Maher's "libertarianism" extends only to his desire to get high. What a hypocrite.
===
"Is capitalism a sin ?" - Leni Riefenstahl Award-winning, Castro-loving filmmaker Michael Moore, in a trailer from his forthcoming movie, Capitalism, A Love Story.

The answer from Moore's questionee is "yes," by the way, capitalism IS a sin. Hugo Chavez couldn't have said it better.
===
"President Obama didn't make much news on his round of five Sunday talk shows … with one notable exception. The President revealed a great deal about his philosophy of government and how he defines a tax increase. It turns out the President thinks a health-care tax is not a tax if he thinks the tax is for your own good. … Mr. Obama was asked by [ABC] host George Stephanopoulos about the 'individual mandate.' Under Max Baucus's Senate bill that Mr. Obama supports, everyone would be required to buy health insurance or else pay a penalty as high as $3,800 a year. Mr. Stephanopoulos posed the obvious question about this kind of coercion when 'the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't [buy insurance]. … How is that not a tax?' 'Well, hold on a second, George,' Mr. Obama replied. 'Here's what's happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average — our families — in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I've said is that if you can't afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn't be punished for that. That's just piling on. If, on the other hand, we're giving tax credits, we've set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we've driven down the costs, we've done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you've just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that's…' 'That may be,' Mr. Stephanopoulos responded, 'but it's still a tax increase.' (In fact, uncompensated care accounts for about only 2.2% of national health spending today, but that's another subject.) Mr. Obama: 'No. That's not true, George. The — for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore…' In other words, like parents talking to their children, this levy — don't call it a tax — is for your own good. … Mr. Obama complains that 'My critics say everything is a tax increase,' as if that is his political problem. His real problem is that the individual mandate really is a tax, but the President doesn't want voters to think of it that way, because taxes are unpopular." –The Wall Street Journal, September, 2009.

Yes, of course, Obama's penalty for not having health insurance is a tax, no matter what he wants to call it. Obama probably wouldn't consider his cap-and-trade proposal a tax either, but that's exactly what it is. The creative subterfuge being engaged in by Democrats these days is to pass tax increases without calling them tax increases. Instead, they are called penalties, mandates, fees, carbon allowances, etc. Does this stuff actually fool anyone ? (except for liberals, that is). I hope not. Obama isn't "helping the little guy" one bit, in case anyone hasn't noticed (and the media sure hasn't). He's only raising the little guy's expenses, through both direct and indirect means. This brings to mind Ronald Reagan's quote about the most terrifying words in the english language – "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
===
"We understand the gravity of the climate threat. We are determined to act. And we will meet our responsibility to future generations." - Barack Obama, speaking at the UN climate change conference, September, 2009.

"Responsibility to future generations," eh ? More than a tad ironic, coming from the President who is running up the debt faster than every other administration in history combined, thereby irresponsibly ruining the prospects of future generations.
===
"It doesn't smell of sulfur here anymore. It smells of something else. It smells of hope." - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, addressing the UN, September, 2009.

The "sulfur" smell was Bush, whom Chavez called "the devil" at last year's UN meeting. The "hope" smell is Obama. It's sure nice that we've won over Chavez, don't you think ? Yes, he may be a tyrannical nut who nationalizes industries, shuts down opposition media, and puts opposition political figures in jail, but that's the socialist way. Because Chavez's version of "hope" would be hope of a worldwide socialist revolution, I wonder what it is he likes so much about Obama ??? I can agree with Chavez on this much – something smells alright.

When the democratically elected Honduran president, Manuel Zelaya, was removed from office by the Honduran military, President Obama immediately denounced it as an illegal military coup. Obama stated "our goal now is on restoring democratic order in Honduras." Obama was joined by a slew of others criticizing Honduras for removing Zelaya. United Nations chief Ban Ki-Moon called the Honduran actions "an unconstitutional change of power." The Organization of American States (OAS) issued an ultimatum to Honduras to either restore Zelaya within 72 hours or be suspended from the OAS. Latin Leftist leaders (dictators) are in an uproar and threatening violence. Cuba's Fidel Castro called the Zelaya coup "a suicidal error," and urged a reverse coup. Venezuela's Hugo Chavez pledged that "we will bring them [the new Honduras leaders] down," and said Venezuelan troops are on alert. Chavez, who in addition to being a Leftist strongman, is also a coked up lunatic, also blamed the USA for the coup, by saying the Honduran coup leaders "had Yankee support," though Chavez admits that Obama was against the coup (it must be that other US government that supported it). Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega called on President Obama to stand firm against the Honduran coup (pretty ironic when only a few months ago, Ortega blasted Obama with a 50-minute long diatribe railing AGAINST the USA's interference in Central America).

With all this condemnation taking place, it's easy to forget what actually happened in Honduras. What makes it even easier to forget is that our media doesn't tell us what really happened there. They gloss over the details by saying something like "the military removed Zelaya shortly before a vote about term limits." Well, that doesn't quite cover it. There's more to that story. A lot more.

First, a few words about the government of Honduras. It is a democratic constitutional republic. Honduras holds free elections. It has a Constitution (since 1982), a Congress, and a Supreme Court. A division of power.

The Constitution of Honduras sets strict term limits and bars any changes to those term limits, and that is where the current problem started. President Zelaya would have been term-limited out of office next january, and Zelaya, a Chavez wannabe, wasn't too keen on that idea. He wanted term limits repealed, and moved unilaterally to have a referendum vote on the matter, in violation of the Honduran Constitution, against the Honduran attorney general, and in violation of the Honduran Supreme Court, who ruled against him. Zelaya went ahead with his referendum anyway. When the military refused to pass out the illegal ballots, Zelaya fired the head of the military, then he had (drumroll, please) his buddy HUGO CHAVEZ print up the ballots for the illegal term limits vote. With the illegal vote only hours away, the Supreme Court ordered Zelaya be arrested. At that point, Zelaya was removed from office and kicked out of the country.

Is that a coup, or is it enforcing the constitutional rule of law against Zelaya's illegal power grab ? I think it's far more the latter than the former. It's true that Zelaya didn't get any due process according to our standards, but the Honduran standards are not our standards. Here's article 239 of the Honduran Constitution:

Article 239 — No citizen that has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President.

Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.

The Constitution mandated that Zelaya be removed from office IMMEDIATELY, and that's exactly what happened. The rule of law prevailed over Zelaya's selfish interests. So, when you hear the new interim President of Honduras, Roberto Micheletti, say ""We are abiding by the Constitution of our country and that's why we have national support," he is correct. That's also why the Congress of Honduras voted to keep Zelaya out of office.

I understand why Leftist leaders around the world are condemning the so-called coup in Honduras, because they are interested in obtaining power through any means necessary, but why did President Obama join in so strongly and immediately in denouncing the removal of Zelaya ? What does Obama stand for, the constitutional rule of law, or the unilateral and illegal bullying tactics of Manuel Zelaya ? There's a question I'd love to hear the press ask our President.

We have another Obama nominee who didn't pay taxes (notify the CDC. This is becoming an epidemic):

President Obama’s choice as chief of protocol for the State Department, a position that carries the status of an ambassadorship, did not file tax returns for 2005 and 2006, errors she corrected last November. The nominee, Capricia Penavic Marshall, has placed blame for the problem on the Postal Service and on miscommunication between her husband and their accountant.

Ah, the old "it got lost in the mail" excuse. I'm also wondering what kind of an accountant forgets to file one's income taxes. Perhaps the Dems all use the same one. Time for a switch.
—
President Obama is in trouble with a liberal group – for killing a fly during a television interview, in an impressive display of hand-eye coordination by our prez. PETA is upset. They are terming Obama's act an "execution," and called for President Miyagi to show compassion for "the least sympathetic animals." Compassion for unsympathetic creatures is a liberal trait, so PETA has a point here. I mean, who is a more unsympathetic animal than 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed ? Liberals have sympathy for him. They'd even like to put President Bush in prison for swatting KSM. I have more sympathy for the fly.
—
An Iranian envoy to the IAEA, the UN atomic watchdog group, is gonna be in big trouble with the Mullahs back home, because he let the cat out of the bag regarding Iran's intentions to acquire nuclear weapons (like we didn't already know):

After saying as usual that Iran was only pursuing nuclear energy for civilian purposes, Ali Asghar Soltanieh strayed alarmingly from the Islamic republic's usual line.

"The whole Iranian nation are united… on (the) inalienable right of (having a) nuclear weapon," the envoy to the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency said.

Oops. Maybe what Soltanieh meant was, Iran would only use their nuclear weapons for civilian purposes, like to nuke those civilian protestors and their crazy ideas about fair democratic elections.
—
It seems the Israelis have lost their appetite for Hopenchange. They no longer think Obama is pro-Israel, according to the latest poll:

The percentage of Jewish Israelis who see the Obama administration as being pro-Israel has declined from 31% to 6% since May 17 according to a JPost/Smith poll published in Friday's editions. In the intervening month, Obama gave his homily to the Muslim world in Cairo on June 4, and his administration has come into open conflict with Israel's leaders over a 'settlement freeze' and over the opening of the Gaza crossings without the release of kidnapped IDF corporal Gilad Shalit.

In related news, more Americans are starting to catch on to what Hopenchange really is – total domination by the federal government. Obama's poll ratings are dropping here too, down to 56% approval for the prez, according to an NBC/Wall Street Journal survey:

According to the survey , the greatest loss of support was registered among those who described themselves as "politically independent."
"President Obama’s honeymoon is coming to an end," affirmed Chuck Todd, the NBC correspondent to the White House, while presenting the results of the survey.
"The public appears to be judging the president for some of his actions. There is now a growing concern over the budget deficit, as well as other government measures with respect to the economy," he added.

Outrageous. Judging the president for his actions ?!?! What kind of right-wing claptrap is Chuck Todd trying to pass off here ? You just gotta B-E-L-I-E-V-E, people. Don't worry your pretty little heads. Remember, Obama is "saving" jobs, even though we've lost 1.6 million jobs since the $800 billion Porkulus package was passed. Remember, Obama is "fiscally responsible," even though we're going to have the largest single year deficit in American history, with more enormous deficits as far as the eye can see. Don't worry, be happy. Besides, the Federal Reserve is in charge now, with the new financial rules Obama has put in place. The Fed will oversee everything, so it's all being handled. Problem solved.

As a reminder of how well the Fed handles things, just remember what a great job Ben Bernanke, the current Fed chairman, did in predicting the housing market crash and recession we're in now. Let's go to the videotape !

In Bernanke's defense, except for housing, energy, the automobile industry, the stock market, the economy, the coming recession, jobs, and just about everything else, Bernake NAILED it from 2005-2007. Also, once we were up to our necks in the recession, Bernanke DID recognize it. He's the expert leading the Fed now, so, no worries. What could possibly go wrong ?

This morning I wanted to write about President Obama's speech in Cairo, Egypt. I thought it was a very good speech, once you get past our President's troubling penchant to go overseas and heap blame on America again and again. That drives me nuts. Somebody should tell Obama that it is a real bad idea to condemn the Iraq War when OUR SOLDIERS ARE STILL IN IRAQ FIGHTING IT. Has any other U.S. President ever done such a thing ? I can't think of one.

But I'm not going to write about that, because I can't stop thinking about the murder of Dr. George Tiller, the late term abortionist. Not surprisingly, the family of the alleged assassin, Scott Roeder, says that Roeder is mentally ill. The Wichita District Attorney handling the case said Tiller's murder was the act of a lone gunman. No doubt, the lone gunman theory is a disappointment to certain liberal groups who want the culprit to be – the entire pro-life and conservative movements. Maybe someone should evaluate the mental fitness of those liberal groups.

Since the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision in 1973, we have aborted 49 million babies here in the land of the free. Anti-abortion extremist nuts like Scott Roeder have killed 5 doctors. As much as I condemn the killings of those 5 doctors, maybe we should try to do something about that 49 million number too. I'm just saying. 49 million seems like a much bigger problem than 5. Let's start by getting rid of late term abortions (third trimester).

In the aforementioned Roe v. Wade decision, the court ruled that a mother may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes viable.’" The Court defined "viable" as follows:

"[The fetus is] potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."

Here in the year 2009, with current medical technology, fetuses are viable at 24 weeks, and even earlier. Roe v. Wade also ruled that abortion after viability was allowed in order to protect a woman's health. A woman's "health" was defined in the lesser known Doe v. Bolton Supreme Court case, also from 1973. Here's the relevant definition of "health" from that case:

“Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, "an abortion is necessary" is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age – relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health."

In other words, a woman's "health" can mean almost anything. If a woman is merely upset that she is pregnant, a doctor like George Tiller can say the woman's emotional or psychological "health" is at risk, and provide a late term abortion five minutes prior to the baby's birth, according to the Doe v. Bolton ruling. Oddly enough, the anonymous "Mary Doe," who was the plaintiff in Doe v. Bolton, is in real life Sandra Cano. Cano describes herself as pro-life, and tried to get Doe v. Bolton overturned. Cano said her attorney lied to her in order to get a plaintiff to bring the case. Cano said she was not aware she was even the plaintiff in the case, and if she had been aware of it, she wouldn't have supported the litigiation. In 2003, Cano filed a motion to get the case reopened. The District and Appellate courts denied her motion, and the Supreme Court declined to hear her case.

I would not want to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision. I'm grudgingly pro-choice (for this week, at least). I don't want to return to the days of back-alley abortions, but I most definitely think the Doe v. Bolton case is a travesty. It makes the abortion right virtually unlimited, and allows for viable fetuses (commonly known as "babies"), to be killed. When a baby is killed, there is no word for that other than murder, whether it's legal or not. It's morally wrong, without doubt. It was also legal in this country at one time to hold slaves and deny women the right to vote. Those things were morally wrong as well, and they were corrected. This should be corrected too. The only time a late term abortion should be allowed is if the mother's life is at significant risk. We love to talk about human rights in this country, and then we withdraw ALL human rights for the most innocent and fragile humans among us. That is a stain on our national soul, and it occasionally gives rise to acts of extremism like that of Scott Roeder, who decided that if a person can be aborted in the third trimester, why not abort one in the 270th trimester (which is about where Dr. Tiller was at age 67). I'm certain that Scott Roeder thought he was murdering a murderer. While I don't approve of his actions in any way, I find it difficult to disagree with him on that point.

But don't hold your breath expecting sanity on the abortion issue to come from our current President. Obama even voted against the Born Alive Protection Act when he was an Illinois legislator. That act only required that babies surviving abortion not be thrown in the trash can and left to die. Obama voted AGAINST that. He's every bit as mentally ill as Scott Roeder when it comes to the issue of abortion.

Baffle 'em with you-know-what.

If Washington D.C. has a credo, that must surely be it. The media isn't far behind.

But before I get into that, I'd like to take a moment to thank President Obama for saving us all from last week's swine flu pandemic (worldwide epidemic). Just think, if Bush was still the President, we'd probably all be dead now. Plus, Obama saved the country for the bargain basement price of $1.5 billion, which hasn't even been spent yet. Oh man, that Obama is GOOD.

The media was speculating today that the recession has bottomed out, because we only LOST 539,000 jobs in April. This rosy optimism came because the experts had predicted job losses of over 600,000. The media left out that the government hired 66,000 people to do the census, and the government hired many others as well (which accounts for almost the entire difference between the projections and the actual job numbers). Those government jobs are all on the taxpayer dime, of course, and add nothing to economic growth. The private sector is still hemorrhaging jobs as fast as ever, but I guess the media is looking for something positive to hand their hat on, because Obama is the president now, and that means CHANGE has come. Call me crazy, but I'll say the recession is over when we start CREATING jobs instead of losing them. The media's optimism comes in spite of the fact that GDP shrunk by 6.1% in the first quarter, and that we're $11 trillion in debt, and that we'll be running a $1.8 trillion deficit this year, and that we have massive deficits projected as far as the eye can see, and that Obama is projected to double the national debt in four years and triple it in eight years, and that unemployment is 8.9%, the highest in 25 years, and that we had a Treasury bond auction with demand so weak that we had to pay higher interest rates just to continue selling our long-term debt (which will raise Obama's deficit and debt projections even higher), and that our industrial base is vanishing, and that what's left of it is collapsing, and that we have massive unfunded entitlement liabilities looming on the horizon (growing at the rate of $2 trillion yearly), and that most of our state governments are broke, and that many banks failed the stress tests (they need $75 billion more bailout dollars, with more surely to come), and that credit still isn't flowing after $700 billion spent on TARP, and that companies all across the country are cutting back the hours of the workers they are retaining, and that if you add the folks who have fallen off the unemployment rolls to the unemployed numbers, unemployment comes out close to 15%, and that the federal government is spending dollars it doesn't have at an all-time record pace, and that the government is printing trillions of dollars out of thin air, and that the government has committed a total of $12 trillion thus far in fighting the recession, and that on top of that, Obama wants to raise energy prices through the roof and create lots more entitlements…………

I guess other than that, happy days are here again.

Oh yeah, and we're still fighting two wars, Obama has no idea what to do with the Gitmo prisoners, we're funneling money to Hamas, we're pondering whether to charge Bushco with war crimes, Pelosi's STILL lying about her knowledge of waterboarding even after the leaked CIA information proves she lied her butt off, Obama is looking for a Supreme Court Justice who is "empathetic" to certain groups as opposed to one who follows the law, the price index is rising in while we're in the depths of recession, Iran is almost certain to have nuclear weapons soon, the Pakistan government is in jeopardy (and Pakistan has nukes, which just maybe could be a problem if the Taliban gets their hands on)…

But other than that, everything's coming up roses.

Plus, Obama cut $17 billion from the budget. Golf clap for Obama. What the media left out of that story was that Obama isn't reducing the deficit by that $17 billion, oh no, he's going to use that money for OTHER government programs, so the net savings to taxpayers is ZERO. This is what passes for fiscal responsibility in the new Obama CHANGE era.

But it's all good. Thar's a new sheriff in town, and he reads that thar teleprompter REAL good.

Never mind that in order to avert fiscal armaggedon, Obama is going to have to come up with a tax increase of proportions never before contemplated in this country's history. By my reckoning, it will have to be at least $2 trillion per year to cover the deficits, interest on the debt, and the unfunded entitlements. It's either that or make drastic government spending cuts, and you know our new sheriff ain't 'bout to do that. Only them thar rightwing extremist fellas talk that kind o' crazy talk.

Welcome to the age of universal government.

I've gone on several rants on this blog previously about what a Ponzi scheme Social Security is. I now realize I've been thinking too small. It isn't just SS that is a Ponzi scheme. It's our entire federal government, and that Ponzi scheme is unraveling. The new funds required from the taxpayers can no longer keep up with the demand for funds the federal government requires. Like all Ponzi schemes, even one on as grand a scale as our government, it is destined to collapse.

But remember, put your hand over your mouth when you cough, and wash your hands frequently. Then everything should be fine.

In it's first 100 days, the Obama administration has shifted gears on national security issues. Does political ideology now trump national security ? Here are a few things to think about.

- The release of the Bush OLC "torture" memos. There was NO reason to release those memos, other than political ones. Obama cited a lawsuit as the reason, but Obama is the President. He could have resisted the lawsuit. The President Of The United States ALWAYS has the right to keep classified information secret. Obama's cited lawsuit justification was bogus. This was pure politics.

- The coming release of photos of alleged Iraq prisoner abuses. Obama is citing the same reasons as he did over the OLC "torture" memos. They are equally as bogus. Politics over national security again. The OLC memos and alleged abuse photos do NOTHING to help our national security, and do plenty to harm it as propaganda tools for the enemy.

- Janet Napolitano, head of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), said illegally crossing the border "isn't a crime." Since when, and in what country is that true ? Illegally crossing the border into any country is a crime. I'm sure glad Napolitano isn't concerned with border crossings, since she's only the head of HOMELAND freaking SECURITY. Good lord.

- Janet Napolitano released the absurd report about "rightwing extremism" that didn't cite a single rightwing group posing a threat (except for Timothy McVeigh, who is dead), but still managed to imply national threats from veterans, pro-lifers, border enforcers, and those who believe in the Constitution of the United States. Napolitano's rightwing extremist report may as well have cut to the chase and identified the "extremist" group she is really worried about – REPUBLICANS. Can I get a second on the idea that Janet Napolitano should be replaced as DHS head, and perhaps get a job more suited to her skills, like maybe as a Corporate Diversity Trainer at Moveon.org ?

- Obama is wavering on European missile defense, and said he'd be willing to abandon it in exchange for Iran's cooperation on nukes. Russia loves the idea, but, being old-school, I always thought the POTUS was supposed to advanced AMERICA'S interests, not Russia's.

- Obama announced the closure of the terrorist prison in Guantanomo Bay before he knew what to do with the detainees being held there. Strictly a public relations move. Since then, other countries have said they won't take the terrorists off our hands (what a shocker), and now Obama is saying he'll release 17 Chinese Gitmo terrorist detainees into the United States. What an improvement over the Bush policies ! NOT. No word yet on whether Obama will Free Mumia.

- Obama made a public announcement in banning ALL of the enhanced interrogation techniques used by the Bush administration following 9/11. Hurrah ! Our moral integrity as a nation is restored (and now the terrorists know exactly how to resist our new wimpy interrogation methods, which we've spelled out for them). I'm sure this will never be a problem, because the terrorist threat is all over…..right ?

- Obama closed all the overseas CIA detention centers. I guess this is okay, because we can't do anything to get captured terrorists to spill the beans anymore anyway. An unnamed source (which I can neither confirm nor deny as being me) says the Obama administration will replace the CIA detention center interrogation program with a new Take A Terrorist To Starbuck's program that is more "moral." Janet Napolitano says terrorists are known to have a fondness for double mocha lattes, and will surely not be able to resist. Victory is at hand.

- Obama halted the military commissions trial of the mastermind of the USS Cole bombing, for the obvious reason that we can't trust our own military to do anything right, especially during wartime. I'm sure that will boost soldier morale. We should use a more objective court to try detainees instead, preferably one selected by the ACLU, or even better yet, by the anti-semitic U.N. Human Rights Council. Musn't overlook international law, because Europe and Asia are better than us.

- The Obama administration made some critical changes in terminology. "Terrorism" is now "man-made disaster." (Does this make CO2 emissions a terrorist act ? I'm sure Algore would think so.) The "war on terror" is now the "overseas contingency operation." And "Republicans" will now be called "Evildoers," but that is only for internal White House communications. The official stance of the Obama administration will still be "tolerance and inclusivity." And naturally, "hope and change."

- Obama has given over $20 million in aid to the Palestinians in Gaza. The one itsy-bitsy problem here is that Gaza is run by Hamas, a designated terrorist group, and Hamas is known to intercept any and all humanitarian aid that heads it's way, diverting the aid for Hamas' own use. Even the U.N. has stopped sending aid to the Palestinians for this reason. In Obama's defense, he might see this as a key terrorist trust-building exercise. I don't know. In any case, it's only $20 million. It's not like we're talking about real money, and maybe we can make some new terrorist friends. It's not like we have any substantive ideological differences with Islamic extremists. We may be infidels, but we're inclusive infidels now.

- Obama's World Apology Tour 2009. Obama has apologized to Europe, the Middle East, Mexico, and South America. What can I say ? America sucks and the liberals know it. It's their new-fangled "power through weakness and self-doubt" theory. Come to think of it, it isn't that new.

- On the plus side, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says that we are now "on track" in Iraq. This is certainly good news. In only 100 days, Obama and company have us "on track" after six years of Bush ineptitude. Hillary's own intellectual journey on Iraq is also, um, "transformative." In 2002, she condemned Saddam for his wmd, echoing her hubby's position. In 2005, she condemned Bush for lying to her about Saddam's wmd. In 2006, she opposed the surge (which is the reason Iraq is "on track" today), and now she has come full circle back to supporting the US effort in Iraq. Hillary is most definitely a woman of principle. No transparent political motives in her. No sirree.

- Also on the plus side, Obama is ramping up the fight in Afghanistan, continuing the NSA surveillance Bush started, and is striking at Pakistan with drones (which Congress has never approved, in contrast to the Congressionally approved actions in Iraq and Afghanistan). No word yet on why the far lefties aren't calling Obama a war criminal and demanding he be prosecuted. I'm going to guess it's because he's a Democrat, but maybe there's another reason. If so, I'd love to hear it.

President Obama has been criticized in conservative circles for going around the world and apologizing for America, and also for reaching out to America's enemies. I have criticized Obama myself for the apologizing, which I consider counterproductive. America does, after all, engage in diplomacy in order to advance America's interests, not to immolate itself on the world stage or score political points back home. Obama's latest apology was to Mexico, where Obama repeated the false statistic, previously cited by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and others, that 90% of the weapons used by the Mexican drug cartels come from America. The real number of weapons traceable back to the U.S. is 17.6%. The Obama administration should have known better.

Where I think the conservatives are wrong is in criticizing Obama for engaging antagonist foreign powers in the first place. As an opening foreign policy gambit, which is what Obama's world tour is, a first act in a longer foreign policy play, I think it's quite smart of Obama to engage our enemies as well as our friends. Without opening the channels of communication, how is progress even possible ? It isn't. As long as Obama isn't making strategic concessions to our enemies, there is no harm in talking to them, and there is a potential benefit. In that sense, pushing the reset button is a good thing.

So far, there are few tangible foreign policy benefits. Cuba has signaled that it is willing to put discussions of everything on the table, including Cuba's political prisoners and human rights violations. If true, some real good could be accomplished there. In South America, Obama has had to endure a litany recitation of America's alleged sins against our Latin neighbors. The coca-head Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez gave our President a book as a gift. The book was "Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent" by Uruguayan author Eduardo Galeano. As you can probably tell by the title, it is a highly critical portrait of American and European foreign policy in South America. Obama sat through a 50-minute long anti-American tirade by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, where Ortega spoke of "terroristic U.S. aggression in Central America." While Hillary Clinton dodged questions about Ortega's inflammatory words, Obama eventually said this:

"To move forward, we cannot let ourselves be prisoners of past disagreements. I'm grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old. Too often, an opportunity to build a fresh partnership of the Americas has been undermined by stale debates. We've all heard these arguments before."

That's only a mild slap at Ortega, but Obama's words were well-chosen. We can't move forward on foreign policy while looking only at the past. Several other Latin American leaders complained about U.S. foreign policy as well.

Obama has made a couple recent moves on foreign policy that I wholeheartedly agree with. The first was in allowing the Navy to take out the Somali pirates if the American captain's life was under imminent threat. There was no other decision to make there, and Obama made the right one, even though it took a couple days longer than it should have for him to make it. America's policy of non-negotation with thugs remains. Secondly, Obama pulled out of the United Nations international council on racism, because of the U.N. inclusion of a draft document that is itself racist. The UN Human Rights Council has long singled our Israel for human rights violations while ignoring the human rights violations of other countries. Much of the UN Human Rights Council is anti-semitic, and Obama was correct in not legitimizing racism in the name of fighting racism. Australia, Canada, Israel, Italy and Sweden are also not attending.

By traveling around the world, our new President is getting the education in foreign affairs that he needs. We have a long way to go, and the tough decisions remain, but overall, for a new President, Obama is off to a pretty good start on foreign relations. The conservatives would be well-served by not engaging in knee-jerk criticism solely for political gain, because that's what it's starting to sound like. With the exception of easing travel restrictions to Cuba, Obama hasn't abandoned any long-held American foreign policies yet, and a change in American-Cuban relations is probably overdue anyway. When you criticize, it's only helpful if there's actually something of which to be critical. If you're critical of open dialogue only because 'thy name is Obama,' well, then that is the conservatives problem, not Obama's.

What if Bush or Palin said this ?: "It was also interesting to see that political interaction in Europe is not that different from the United States Senate. There's a lot of — I don't know what the term is in Austrian — wheeling and dealing — and, you know, people are pursuing their interests, and everybody has their own particular issues and their own particular politics" – Barack Obama, who apparently doesn't know that Austrians speak German.

Yes, but freedom fries were before Sarkozy: "In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive." – Barack Obama, Apologist-In-Chief. Maybe you didn't notice Barry, but Europe was pretty dismissive of YOU during your overseas lovefest. The NATO countries are bailing on the Afghanistan War. Someone please remind me, why does NATO still exist ?

Um, weren't those JUDEO-CHRISTIAN ideals and values ?: "One of the great strengths of the United States is — although as I mentioned, we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation; we consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values." - Barack Obama in Turkey.

The times, they are a changin': "London hosted a Group of 20 meeting amid chaos. Chinese communists are now the capitalists, France's president is Hungarian, the Anglo-Saxons are being led by a socialist and a Kenyan, and Germany is refusing to send troops into other countries. Astronauts aboard the Space Station report the Earth is spinning backwards." – comedian Argus Hamilton.

This guy knows liberals: "The Huffington Post is organizing "citizen journalists" to attend the protests, allegedly to "report." Which means that they will try to find someone in a crowd who says something stupid, will post it on the internet, and build an argument around it trying to demonize the movement. And left-wing bloggers will react in unison like dogs responding to a whistle, about the "dangerous" and "violent" and "racist" tea parties. This tactic is as old as time; or at least as old as the internet." - William Jacobson, creator of the website Legal Insurrection, describing the pre-emptive faux-horror strategy of the left about the upcoming "treasonous and seditious" tea party rallies. Which reminds me, I'll see you at the Cleveland Tax Day Tea Party rally on April 15th at Mall C from 4-6pm.

And here's the reason why we are having Tea Party rallies: "Finally, what of the claim not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 a year? Even ignoring his large energy taxes, Mr. Obama must reconcile his arithmetic. Every dollar of debt he runs up means that future taxes must be $1 higher in present-value terms. Mr. Obama is going to leave a discounted present-value legacy of $6.5 trillion of additional future taxes, unless he dramatically cuts spending. (With interest the future tax hikes would be much larger later on.) Call it a stealth tax increase or ticking tax time-bomb.
What does $6.5 trillion of additional debt imply for the typical family? If spread evenly over all those paying income taxes (which under Mr. Obama’s plan would shrink to a little over 50% of the population), every income-tax paying family would get a tax bill for $163,000. (In 10 years, interest would bring the total to well over a quarter million dollars, if paid all at once. If paid annually over the succeeding 10 years, the tax hike every year would average almost $34,000.) That’s in addition to his explicit tax hikes. While the future tax time-bomb is pushed beyond Mr. Obama’s budget horizon, and future presidents and Congresses will decide how it will be paid, it is likely to be paid by future income tax hikes as these are general fund deficits." – Michael Boskin.

For science lover's only: "New research from NASA suggests that the Arctic warming trend seen in recent decades has indeed resulted from human activities: but not, as is widely assumed at present, those leading to carbon dioxide emissions. Rather, Arctic warming has been caused in large part by laws introduced to improve air quality and fight acid rain. Dr Drew Shindell of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has led a new study which indicates that much of the general upward trend in temperatures since the 1970s – particularly in the Arctic – may have resulted from changes in levels of solid “aerosol” particles in the atmosphere, rather than elevated CO2. Arctic temperatures are of particular concern to those worried about the effects of global warming, as a melting of the ice cap could lead to disastrous rises in sea level – of a sort which might burst the Thames Barrier and flood London, for instance.
Shindell’s research indicates that, ironically, much of the rise in polar temperature seen over the last few decades may have resulted from US and European restrictions on sulphur emissions. According to NASA:
Sulfates, which come primarily from the burning of coal and oil, scatter incoming solar radiation and have a net cooling effect on climate. Over the past three decades, the United States and European countries have passed a series of laws that have reduced sulfate emissions by 50 percent. While improving air quality and aiding public health, the result has been less atmospheric cooling from sulfates." – Lewis Page, The Register.

Snort. I knew those NASA guys were nothing but a bunch of evangelical religious nut holocaust denying flat-earther zealots in the pocket of big oil. Geez. Don't they know the "debate is over," as the pre-eminent [non]scientist Al Gore says ? Enough with this so-called "science." It only confuses people.

In 2006, North Korea attempted a launch of a Taepodong-2 ballistic missile. The launch failed, with the missile blowing apart about 40 seconds after takeoff. In response to the North Korean launch, the United Nations issued Resolution 1718, which stated, "[We demand] that the DPRK [North Korea] not conduct any further nuclear test or launch of a ballistic missile." The North Koreans ignored the resolution, and launched another test of the Taepodong-2 ballistic missile last week. Rogue regimes like North Korea treat UN resolutions like the toothless requests that they usually are. Saddam Hussein ignored about 14 UN resolutions regarding WMD inspections in Iraq during the 1990's. Iran hasn't cared a whit about multiple UN resolutions calling for Iran to alter it's nuclear ambitions.

So, now that North Korea has proven it will ignore UN resolutions, guess what President Obama wants in response to the Korean missile test ??? He wants ANOTHER UN resolution, of course. Here's Obama on the missile test:

We will immediately consult with our allies in the region, including Japan and the Republic of Korea, and members of the U.N. Security Council to bring this matter before the Council.

I don't mean to single out only Obama here. Things were much the same under Bush and Clinton too. If countries like North Korea and Iran were responsive to the international community, they wouldn't be considered rogue regimes in the first place. NK and Iran didn't comprise two of the three countries in Bush's "axis of evil" for nothing (notably absent from the axis of evil now is IRAQ. I wonder what happened there ?)

President Obama called an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council in response to North Korea's launch. After a three hour closed door session, the Security Council announced…..nothing. They couldn't agree on a response. Obama is urging for a strong response to North Korea, whatever that means, but Russia, China, Libya, Uganda, and Vietnam all called for restraint by the UN (is the UN ever anything OTHER than restrained ?). These countries are saying a strong UN response will endanger the Six Party Talks (that North Korea is already ignoring). Russia even laughably claimed to be "studying" whether North Korea actually violated any UN resolutions, which NK so obviously did.

Ironically, the North Koreans launched their Taepodong-2 missile on the same day Obama called for "a world without nuclear weapons." While I applaud Obama's notions to reduce strategic nuclear weapons, stop their proliferation, and secure nuclear material around the world, there will NEVER be a world without nukes. That genie is out of the bottle. There's no going back. Obama was being naive in that respect. At this point, it is the dark threat of mutually assured destruction that keeps nuclear weapons from being used. If the major powers like the U.S., Russia, and China abandoned their nuclear weapons, it would actually increase the threat that rogue regimes and terrorist groups like Al Qaeda could pose to the world if they acquired nukes. The rest of the world would be defenseless.

Obama also reversed course on European missile defense, and is attempting to use it as a bargaining chip to get Iran to stop it's nuclear program. Here's Obama again:

"Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the US, but to Iran's neighbours and our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system."

I guess you could call this a kind of nuclear cap-and-trade policy, but to my way of thinking, this bargain should not be struck, even if Iran does agree to it. Iran isn't the only nuclear threat to Europe, not to mention that Iran cannot be trusted to keep their side of the bargain, any more than North Korea could be trusted to keep it's past pledges.
—
FYI – Don't forget to attend the Cleveland Tax Day Tea Party on April 15th. The event will take place from 4-6pm. The location has been moved from Public Square to Mall C. Nuclear weapons aren't the only thing proliferating. So is the government confiscation of our hard-earned money.

I'm no expert in international protocol, so maybe someone can explain this to me:

The Queen of England, our greatest ally, gets a little nod from Obama, but the Saudi Arabian monarch, who heads a repressive and radical regime, gets a deep submissive bow (notice that the Saudi didn't return the gesture). Former President Bush was criticized for holding hands with the Saudi king (a show of friendship), but I'd say Obama's gesture goes quite a bit further.

With Obama caving to Russia and the EU, and apologizing to Europe for America, maybe submission is the new American foreign policy.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is quite pleased that the United States government is approaching foreign policy with a new attitude. He is willing to deal with the USA based upon "mutual respect and equality." Ahmadinejad is all about CHANGE.

As long as it's the United States that does all the changing. (link)

In an interview with Iranian state-run television, Mr Ahmadinejad once again called upon Washington's new administration of President Barack Obama to implement changes that could make a "real" difference in the region.

"If they accept the rights of the Palestinians, the Afghans… if there is a real change, relations can change," he said.

"We are waiting to see the change. A lot of people are awaiting the change and if they [the United States] do change the relationship will change itself."

However, Mr Ahmadinejad also said his country's controversial nuclear programme which the West suspects is aimed at making atomic weapons is a "closed" chapter.

"If anybody wants to talk of the nuclear issue, they would be hurting themselves," he said in the television interview.

So, if the USA allows Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, and if the USA gets out of Afghanistan, and if the USA drops it's support of Israel, and if the USA supports the Palestinians instead, then that is change that Ahmadinejad can believe in. As for anything else, forget it.

Piece of cake. Who said it would be difficult to deal with Iran ?

Iran has decided the nuclear issue is "closed" without letting the UN know what Iran is up to.

"Iran right now is not providing any access, any clarification with regards to the whole area of possible military dimension," said Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

It must be those failed Bush policies that are causing Iran to be so uncooperative.

North Korea also showed it's willingness to change during Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton's meeting with Asian leaders in Tokyo, by immediately threatening to test launch a new missile capable of reaching the United States. (link)

In an apparent attempt to command attention, North Korea hinted that it will test-launch a Taepodong 2 missile from its eastern coast.

"One will come to know later what will be launched," the government's state-run Korean Central News Agency said as the regime celebrated the 67th birthday of leader Kim Jong Il. It said the effort was related to "space development," rather than military ambitions.

At an appearance today with Japanese Foreign Minister Hirofumi Nakasone, Clinton responded that a missile launch by Pyongyang "would be very unhelpful in moving our relationship forward."

North Korean technicians have been assembling a Taepodong missile, and intelligence officials believe it is nearly ready to be fired, according to South Korean media. The missile may have the potential to reach Alaska and possibly the West Coast.

North Korea is also threatening to attack South Korea over a border dispute.

Quick, somebody send Kim Jong Il tapes of a couple Obama speeches, so he can see the error of his ways.

Pakistan has agreed to stop fighting extremists in the northwest part of the country, allowing Taliban-style Islamic rule to be imposed there. Big victory for the bad guys. (link)

Battle-weary residents welcomed a pro-Taliban cleric dispatched by the government Tuesday to convince militants in the former tourist haven of Swat to stop fighting in exchange for the imposition of Islamic law and suspension of military offensives there.

Sufi Muhammad arrived in a caravan of some 300 vehicles in Swat Valley's main city of Mingora a day after he struck the truce, which a U.S. defense official called "negative" and critics said represented a surrender to extremists fanning out from nearby strongholds close to the Afghan border.

NATO also expressed dismay. "We would all be concerned by a situation in which extremists would have safe haven," NATO spokesman James Appathurai said at a news briefing. "It is certainly reason for concern."

In response to these troubling signs coming from the world's most repressive and unstable regimes, President Obama said…….well, I couldn't find anything, but I'm sure he's on top of the situation. Obama didn't cause these problems, you know. Um, Bush did ?

The media's obsession with John McCain's VP nominee, Sarah Palin, is matched only by it's total lack of curiosity regarding Obama's VP pick, Hillary Clinton Joe Biden. In one short month, America has become intimately acquainted with Palin's entire life history, including, at last count, about 125 phony smears. If you want to know what Sarah Palin was doing on, say, August 14th, 1996, just ask the New York Times. They know, or at least they think they know. We even know her husband Todd's life story. At the same time, I bet 99.9% of America couldn't tell you the name of Biden's wife. An army of reporters didn't descend on Scranton, or to Delaware, or to anywhere, to dig up the dirt on Joe Biden and blast it all over the airwaves. All the media wants you to know about Biden is, he is very, very experienced and Obama made a very, very deliberative and wise pick in choosing him. Now, I don't really care about Biden's story either, to tell the truth, but somebody has to talk about him. I promise the same unbiased and respectful treatment the mainstream media has shown Palin. In other words, I'm just going to make fun of Biden. All in the name of fair play, of course.

Let's start at the end. In an interview with Katie Couric a couple days ago, Biden brought his decades of experience and knowledge to bear, weighing in on how the White House should act in a financial crisis. He said, “When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the princes of greed, he said, ‘Look, here’s what happened.’”

Excellent point, Joey. Except that FDR wasn't the president when the stock market crashed in 1929, Herbert Hoover was, and television wasn't available yet. In the same interview, Biden condemned the Obama ad about McCain's lack of computer skills, then said Obama wasn't behind the ad (in spite of the "I am Barack Obama, and I approve this message" endorsement at the end). Then Biden claimed he hadn't seen the ad at all.

While trolling for votes in Ohio this week, Biden took a firm stand against the use of coal for energy, in direct contradiction to Barack Obama's stance in favor of clean coal technology. Three days earlier, Joey praised the possibilities of coal to a crowd at the United Mine Workers of America annual fish fry in Castlewood, Virginia. Biden also became a sudden pro-gun rights advocate at that same Virginia fish fry, saying, “I guarantee you Barack Obama ain’t taking my shotguns, so don’t buy that malarkey. Don’t buy that malarkey. They’re going to start peddling that to you.” The National Rifle Association has given Biden a rating of "F", it's lowest grade, meaning he votes for gun control at every turn.

As you can see, Biden is a man of principle. It's just that his principles change with each campaign stop. Help like this, Obama doesn't need. At times, it almost seems like Biden is running against Obama rather than for him.

Okay, that gets us through the last week or so. Let's see, what else has the gaffemaster said ? A couple weeks back, Biden asked a man in a wheelchair (Missouri State Senator Chuck Graham) to stand up and be recognized at a campaign rally. Oops. Biden also said that Hillary Clinton was more qualified than him to be Vice President (no argument there). Biden said paying more in taxes was "patriotic." And speaking of running against Barack Obama, Joe Biden did, in the Democratic primaries, where Biden made an early exit, in spite of all his many qualifications.

So here are a couple Biden quotes about Senator Obama.

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.” And to think Dems find racial code-speak when Republicans say "community organizer."

“When this campaign is over, political slogans like ‘experience’ and ‘change’ will mean absolutely nothing. The next president has to act.”

Here's a Biden quote about Senator McCain.

“John McCain is a personal friend, a great friend, and I would be honored to run with or against John McCain, because I think the country would be better off."

But enough quotes. Let's look at Biden's resume (at least the part he didn't plagiarize). Biden has been in the U.S. Senate since 1972. He is a long-time member and current charman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. With all that experience, Biden is an expert on foreign policy (look out, Palin). Here are Biden's positions on the biggest foreign policy decisions of the last three decades: Biden was against the Reagan Cold War buildup that led to the collapse of the USSR. Biden voted against the Gulf War after Saddam Hussein invaded our key oil ally, Kuwait. Biden voted for the Iraq War. Biden was against the Surge in Iraq that has transformed the war…

Question: Does being WRONG about everything count as experience ? I guess so. If you want a guy in the Oval Office who will always make the wrong call, Joe Biden's your guy.

Oh yeah, Biden's wife's name is Jill.

Anybody want to go double or nothing on his daughter's name ?

As ABC's Charlie Gibson started interviewing Governor Sarah Palin (R-AL), asking her this series of questions:

"Governor, let me start by asking you a question that I asked John McCain about you, and it is really the central question. Can you look the country in the eye and say "I have the experience and I have the ability to be not just vice president, but perhaps president of the United States of America?""
and
"…didn't say to yourself, "Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I — will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?""
and
"Didn't that take some hubris? [to run for VP]"
and
"When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?"
and
"I'm just saying that national security is a whole lot more than energy".
and
"Did you ever travel outside the country prior to your trip to Kuwait and Germany last year?"
and
"Have you ever met a foreign head of state?"

I found myself wondering why no reporter EVER sat down with Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and asked him these same questions during the 19 months of Obama's presidential campaign, when here they are asking Palin within 2 weeks of her VP nomination. Obama, with no executive experience, no governing experience, no management experience, no foreign policy experience prior to running for the presidency, no experience running any type of military outfit, indeed, no military experience of any kind, and none of the energy experience that Palin has either. Why didn't they ever ask him if HE had hubris, if he had the experience, if he had the qualifications, not just to be Vice President, but to be the leader of the free world, the Commander-In-Chief, the President of the United States ??? Even during 21 Democratic primary debates, I don't remember any reporter ever questioning Obama's credentials, not for one second. Hillary Clinton did question Obama's credentials, and the media castigated her for it. They called her mean-spirited. What incredible double standards we have in this country. Charles Gibson's first EIGHT questions all implied that Sarah Palin is not qualififed for the job.

When Gibson got done impugning Palin's experience, he tried to cast her as a religious kook, with these questions and statements:

"You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?"
and
"I take your point about Lincoln's words, but you went on and said, "There is a plan and it is God's plan."
and
"…are you sending your son [to Iraq] on a task that is from God?"

Again, Obama, who is a Christian, has never been asked any questions of this kind that I can recall. Apparently, "God's plan" is only important if you're running for Vice President. The only questions asked regarding Obama's church had nothing much to do with theology, they had to do with Obama's spiritual mentor of 20 years being an anti-american racist.

So, Gibson tried to establish right up front that Sarah Palin is a provincial holy roller who has never set foot outside the igloo. All in the spirit of fairness, I'm sure.

That being said, I thought the interview was tedious and repetitive (how could it not be, with Gibson asking the same question over and over and over ?), and I thought Palin looked nervous, and at times confused. She made some errors. She referred to Russia's aggression toward Georgia as "unprovoked", but that is an oversimplification. It was reported that way in the American media, but Russia's actions weren't unprovoked. Russia's response wasn't proportional, however, and was a clear act of aggression. In the later part of the interview that was broadcast on Nightline, Palin said we should do something about global warming whether it is man-made or merely the result of natural weather cycles. Uh, no. If global warming is the result of natural weather changes (i.e. solar activity), there isn't anything we can do about it. The last I heard, we don't have any control over the sun.

Gibson asked Palin over and over whether the USA should support Israel if Israel decided to act to take out Iran's nuclear facilities, and Palin repeatedly gave the same answer, that Israel is an ally and we shouldn't second guess Israel regarding it's own national security. Gibson tried real hard to get Palin to say Israel should destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, and I applaud her for not saying that.
Gibson asked Palin over and over whether we should cross into Pakistan without Musharraf's permission to take out Al Qaeda, and Palin repeatedly gave the same answer, that we must do what is necessary to defeat Al Qaeda and shouldn't take any options off the table. Gibson tried real hard to get Palin to say we should invade Pakistan, and I applaud her for not saying that. Gibson tried to get Palin to say we'd have to go to war with Russia if we let Georgia into NATO, and Palin took the bait on that one a little bit, indicating that was perhaps a possibility according to the terms of the NATO alliance, which, of course, it is.

Are y'all getting the drift of all these 'will you take military action ?' questions from Gibson ? The more times he can get Palin to answer in the affirmative to military action, or even acknowledge the possibility of military conflict, the more the media can portray her, and Republicans in general, as warmongers. Or maybe I'm just being paranoid from watching this same sort of thing happen my entire lifetime. When Obama says we should invade Pakistan, well, that's just sensible, because that's where Bin Laden is. When a Republican says the same thing, they are unilateral fascist warmongers.

I heard some response from the left. I heard Alan Colmes allege that Palin didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was, but that was specious. Palin only asked for clarification on that question from Gibson, for specifics. I heard Clinton supporter Lanny Davis say he was shocked by Palin's declaration that we would go to war with Russia, but that was a severe misrepresentation of what she said.

I'm sure the furious spin will start today, as every word Palin spoke will be parsed, dissected, and recast.

Warning to liberals – I am going to talk about Barack Obama again, so please read carefully.

I extend this warning because, in the past, when I write something like "Obama's foreign policy regarding Iran doesn't make sense", liberals read it as "I'm a heartless racist Republican dittohead who hates black people and the poor". This time, I'd like to point out the difference between those things up front, to hopefully avoid any further misunderstanding.

If that is understood, then I can continue, by saying…

Obama's foreign policy regarding Iran doesn't make sense.

Two things stand clear about Barack Obama's presidential campaign. First, he's going to be critical of all things Bush, that's a given, and second, he is going to try to link Bush to John McCain at every turn. Obama and the Democrats in general are running against George W. Bush much more than they are running against John McCain, even though Bush isn't running. That's why Obama's foreign policy speech from last week didn't discuss just how Bush's policies were wrong, his speech discussed how the "Bush/McCain" policies were wrong. Obama said "Bush/McCain" so many times (at least 10) that I started thinking maybe those guys are really one person rather than two, or at least conjoined twins. The second that John McCain became the de facto Republican presidential nominee, he stopped being the Democrats favorite ethical stand-up bipartisan maverick Senator who bucked his own party in the name of truth, justice, and the american way, and he started being McCain the Bush clone, the Bush third termer. Funny how that works. The New York Times can't find anything nice to say about John McCain anymore. It's so sad when a love affair ends.

Here are some examples of Obama's 'Bush/McCain Are Conjoined Twins' strategy on Iran from that speech:

"George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for…[Their foreign policy] made Iran stronger. George Bush’s policies. They’re [Bush/McCain] going to have to explain why Hamas now controls Gaza, Hamas that was strengthened because the United States insisted that we should have democratic elections in the Palestinian authority. They’re going to have to explain why it is that Iran is able to fund Hezbollah and poses the greatest threat to the United States and Israel in the Middle East in a generation. That’s the Bush-McCain record on protecting this country. Those are the failed policies that John McCain wants to double down on, because he still hasn’t spelled out one substantial way in which he’d be different from George Bush when it comes to foreign policy…Our Iran policy is a complete failure right now, and that is the policy that John McCain is running on right now. He has nothing to offer except the naive and irresponsible belief that tough talk from Washington will somehow cause Iran to give up its nuclear program and support for terrorism. I’m running for President to change course, not to continue George Bush’s course. I believe we need to use all elements of American power to pressure Iran, including tough, principled and direct diplomacy".

I think you all get the message here. Barack Obama is clearly against George John Bush McCain's Iranian policy. Clearly.

Now for the kicker, the mind-blowing mother of all hypocrisies. About 10 seconds later, in the exact same speech, after savaging Bush's Iranian foreign policy, Barack Obama said this:

"It’s time to present Iran with a clear choice. If it abandons its nuclear program, its support for terrorists and its threats to Israel, then it can rejoin the community of nations. If not, Iran will face deeper isolation and steeper sanctions. But in the Bush-McCain view, everybody who disagrees with their failed Iran policy is an “appeaser.”"

For those of you who don't recognize it, presenting Iran with a choice between it's nuclear program, it's support for terrorists, it's threats against Israel, and suffering sanctions and further isolation IS THE BUSH POLICY TOWARD IRAN !!!!! After trashing Bush's Iranian policy, Obama turns right around and adopts it as if it's his own !!! And then Obama pretends that Bush doesn't even hold his own policy !!! IS ANYBODY OUT THERE LISTENING TO THE WORDS COMING OUT OF BARACK OBAMA'S MOUTH ??? The media sure isn't, because none of them even appeared to notice. By the way, did any of you notice how Obama had pretty much the entire mainstream media at his beck and call last week ? He had about 30 minutes of free campaign commercials all over the news networks, on demand. In the interests of fairness, the media later gave John McCain-Bush III about 30 seconds too. It's only fair. The media also couldn't be bothered to point out that Obama's new position on Iran (the Bush position) is a complete about face from his previous stance of negotiating with Iran without preconditions (the position Hillary ridiculed in the Democratic debates). Obama has now completely surrounded Iranian foreign policy by taking both sides of the argument, as he attempts to do on so many issues. That is as hypocritical as can be ("nuanced" in New York TimesSpeak). My reaction to Obama's foreign policy drivel is the same reaction Lebron James has to that obnoxious chubby guy in the lawnmower commercial: "get that weak stuff outta here !"

I suggest Obama change his campaign theme from 'Change You Can Believe In' to 'Change That Isn't Change', or maybe he can use that old David Byrne/Talking Heads blurb from the 80's, 'Stop Making Sense', because when it comes to foreign policy, Obama stopped making sense a while ago. In sports terms, Obama might be the Rookie Of The Year, but he sure doesn't deserve the MVP.

I could write 10 posts about what was wrong with Obama's foreign policy speech last week, and perhaps I will. It was riddled with falsehoods, doubletalk, and distortions. I only pointed out some of the more egregious ones this time. See ya later.

Isn't it sad to see the President Of The United States begging Saudi Arabia to pump more oil ? And then being turned down ? It didn't have to be this way.

Isn't it sad that the war funding bill has to be kicked around like a political football by Congress ? The Democrats attempted to add all sorts of non-war related domestic items to the bill, the Republicans revolted and sat out the vote, and the end result was, the war funding bill was voted down. The troops appreciate your non-support, you sorry politicians.

Isn't it sad that every bill that comes before Congress seems to go over budget and is full of all kinds of unnecessary earmarks to inflate the cost, as was seen in the Farm Bill that Congress sent to Bush's desk ?

Isn't it sad that we've spent a billion dollars on this presidential election race, and we haven't even reached the general election phase yet ? There are still 5 1/2 months until november. This election seems like it's gone on forever. There has to be a better and more cost effective way, not to mention one which doesn't disenfranchise millions of voters in Florida and Michigan.

Isn't it sad how Barack Obama thinks any political opinion that differs from his own is "divisive" and "the politics of fear" ? What an ego. Bush told the Israeli Knesset that he disagreed with those who would negotiate with terrorists and radicals, and Obama went into what John McCain termed "hysterical diatribe" mode to denounce Bush's words. Why is it that Obama's endless attacks against the Bush administration AREN'T "divisive", but Bush says one thing (that wasn't even directed toward Obama) and you'd think the world just collapsed ? Here's just one of many overblown comments from the Obama campaign yesterday:

“Obviously, this is an unprecedented political attack on foreign soil,” Obama Communications Director Robert Gibbs told CNN’s John Roberts.

Ludicrous political theater. It makes Bush's comments sound equivalent to, say, Pearl Harbor. By the way, during his hissy fit, Obama repeated his schizoid foreign policy of NOT negotiating with Hamas because they are a terrorist group, but YES to negotiating with Iran, a state sponsor of terrorist groups Hamas, Hezbollah, the Iraqi insurgency, and a designated terrorist group themselves (Iranian Revolutionary Guard). Is anyone ever going to call Obama on any of his nonsensical and contradictory rhetoric ? It seems not. He's historic, after all.

Speaking of Obama, here's another in a growing number of very sad quotes from him: "We need to stand up to the special interests, bring Republicans and Democrats together and pass the farm bill immediately". Uh, stand up to WHAT special interests ? The Farm bill by it's nature is a bundle of money thrown at special interests in the form of subsidies. Here are only a few of the special interests being catered to in the Farm bill, courtesy of Jacob Sullum of Townhall.com:

"…tax breaks for racehorse owners, "marketing aid" for fruit and vegetable growers, research funding for organic farmers, enhanced price supports for domestic sugar producers, increased subsidies for dairy farmers, a $170-million earmark for the salmon industry, and billions of dollars in automatic payments and "permanent disaster assistance" for corn, wheat, cotton, rice and soybean growers. Take that, special interests!"

To be accurate, Obama would have to say passing the Farm bill required a bipartisan CAVING IN to special interests (which Congress did, as usual, and it was bipartisan, just as Obama requested). Is anybody really listening to the words coming out of Obama's mouth ? It seems not. The more I hear Obama talk, the less sense he makes.

And the very saddest thing of all on the political front yesterday also involved Obama's words, when Obama criticized the Bush administration for promoting democracy in Palestine and Iraq. I assume this means democracy would no longer be an important part of american foreign policy during an Obama presidency. That would be a major foreign policy reversal. Yeah, who needs liberty and open government ? Bah, humbug. Like I asked before, is anybody listening to the words coming out of Obama's mouth ? Obama said "words count". I couldn't agree more, and Obama's words are scary, not to mention, dare I say, divisive.

We all remember when Barack Obama said he would meet with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to negotiate, without precondition. Obama said it during a YouTube debate, and has repeated his promise to negotiate with our enemies as well as our friends many times. It has even become part of his stump speech. Hillary Clinton used it as an example of Obama's inexperience and naivete on foreign policy. Nevertheless, Barack stuck to his guns, saying that his view represented a break from the politics of the past, was the hope and change that americans want, and probably a few other airy Obamanian catchphrases as well.

Until now.

Maybe it was the way the terrorist group Hamas turned Jimmy Carter into a "useful idiot" and used his meeting to legitimize themselves and propagandize the Israel/Palestine issue, or maybe it was the fact that Hamas endorsed Barack Obama for president of the USA, leading to some back and forth contention between Obama and John McCain. Whatever it was, the Obama camp sensed a shift in the political winds, and is now backing away from the idea of negotiating with our enemies, to the point that they are even saying Obama didn't say what we all so clearly heard him say before. The liberal's best friend, the New York Times, is rushing to aid the Obama campaign in changing history. Here's an excerpt from the relevant Times article:

…But important nuances appear to have been lost in the partisan salvos, particularly on Mr. McCain’s side. An examination of Mr. Obama’s numerous public statements on the subjects indicates that he has consistently condemned Hamas as a “terrorist organization,” has not sought the group’s support and does not advocate immediate, direct or unconditional negotiations with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president

Note how the Times says the McCain side has "lost" "important nuances" (love that phraseology), even as the Times is TELLING A BLATANT FALSEHOOD REGARDING WHAT OBAMA SAID ABOUT IRAN. Classic, typical, and hilarious.

Susan E. Rice, an Obama foreign policy advisor, further added this, according to the same Times article:

“for political purposes, Senator Obama’s opponents on the right have distorted and reframed” his views. Mr. McCain and his surrogates have repeatedly stated that Mr. Obama would be willing to meet “unconditionally” with Mr. Ahmadinejad. But Dr. Rice said that this was not the case for Iran or any other so-called “rogue” state. Mr. Obama believes “that engagement at the presidential level, at the appropriate time and with the appropriate preparation, can be used to leverage the change we need,” Dr. Rice said. “But nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work.”

The problem with the statements of Dr. Rice and the New York Times, as I said, is that they they are patently false. They are attempting a little mid-campaign spin, because they have been caught with their pants down. Obama DID say he would personally meet with Iran, without preconditions, and he not only said it in front of the whole nation during the YouTube debate, he also SAID IT IN A NEW YORK TIMES INTERVIEW, which the Times has conveniently forgotten. Here's a little from THAT interview, from november 2007 (the misty "beforetimes" which have been erased from the Times memory banks):

Senator Barack Obama said he would “engage in aggressive personal diplomacy” with Iran if elected president…Making clear that he planned to talk to Iran without preconditions, Mr. Obama emphasized further that “changes in behavior” by Iran could possibly be rewarded with membership in the World Trade Organization, other economic benefits and security guarantees…“We are willing to talk about certain assurances in the context of them showing some good faith,” [Obama] said in the interview at his campaign headquarters here. “I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hellbent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change…"

Oops. Blatant lie exposed. When first we practice to deceive….

Here's another interesting part of that 2007 Times interview:

Mr. Obama has also talked about keeping a limited force in Iraq after withdrawing American combat units at the rate of one or two per month. But Mr. Obama insisted in the interview that the mission of his residual force would be more limited than that posited by Mrs. Clinton.

Excuse me, but would that residual military force in Iraq be the same residual military force that has become one of the Democrats big phony talking points against McCain, stirred up by distorting McCain's "we might stay in Iraq for 100 years" comment ? Why, yes, I believe it would. Lie times two.

They say Barack Obama represents a new kind of politics, but to me, this sounds exactly like the old kind. Just a bunch of politically expedient BS. No character, no truth, just spin, spin, spin.

Here's something you might not have heard about, seeing as how our left-biased media (90% of newspapers, 80% of television stations) didn't bother to report on it. It concerns the other war, in Afghanistan. As every american media consumer knows, and as every Democrat happily reports, Bush abandoned Afghanistan to go into Iraq. Thus, the Taliban is returning to power and Afghanistan is going to hell due to Dubya's wrong-headed policy. That's pretty much the way they characterize it, right ? Right.

There's a problem with that characterization, and the problem is, it isn't true. NATO released a progress report on Afghanistan earlier this month. Here is an excerpt from the executive summary of that report:

August 2008 marks the fifth anniversary of NATO’s presence in Afghanistan. Set against the devastating effect of decades of conflict, these five years have witnessed substantial progress in all spheres of Afghan life – from a reasonably stable security situation in most of the country to a massive increase in the number of health clinics and children in schools. Since 2003, NATO-ISAF has gradually extended its reach and is now responsible for security across the whole country. The number of our troops has grown steadily from the initial 5,000 in Kabul to the current 47,000 ISAF personnel in theatre. Today, large parts of the country are relatively stable with no or very few security incidents per month even if the security situation in southern Afghanistan and parts of the East remains challenging for international and Afghan security forces. There is room for cautious optimism. In 2007, the direct engagement of Afghan National Army (ANA) and ISAF routinely defeated militants. Although the overall number of security incidents across Afghanistan has increased, this corresponds to the expansion of Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) and NATO-ISAF operations to areas formerly considered to be extremist strongholds. In 2007, 70% of security incidents were confined to 10% of Afghanistan’s 398 Districts. These districts contain less than 6% of the Afghan population. This progress would not be possible without the increasing effectiveness of our Afghan partners. The ANA is becoming a professional, well-trained and equipped force that will be able to fully provide for its country’s security. In 2002, there was no ANA to speak of. Today, the ANA stands at around 50,000; every two weeks, the Kabul Military Training Centre graduates 1,100 more soldiers. The ANA is increasingly taking the lead in security operations and played a key role in liberating Musa Qala from Taleban extremists in December 2007. Ninety per cent of the Afghan public sees the ANA as an honest and fair institution. The evolution of the ANA and particularly the ANP are essential pillars in building an Afghanistan that is at peace with itself and its neighbours.

It's not all peaches and cream in Afghanistan, but there is substantial positive news, and Afghanistan is light years better than it was before. I wonder why Democrats and the media can't bring themselves to acknowledge that ? It wouldn't have anything to do with POLITICS, would it ?

The art of deception is alive and well. You see, the prospects for the Democrats in the fall elections are in inverse proportion to how things are going in america. If Afghanistan is going badly, that's good for Democrats. If Iraq is going badly, that's good for Democrats. If the economy is going badly, that's good for Democrats. Anything going right in america seems to be bad for Democrats. Is it any wonder then that the Democrats have painted such a negative picture of the United States ? The Dems say we're losing both wars, are sure global warming is about to destroy the planet, are predicting a second Great Depression, act as if most americans are living in tents, and pretend that border control is some kind of racist plot. They try to convince us that the rich are out to enslave the poor, that capitalism is a disease, and that free trade is our enemy. The solution, of course, is to elect Democrats to save us from this horrible fate. The solution, incredibly, is for Dems to increase taxes by a few trillion so they can make sure the country is destroyed fix all the problems. All this brings to my mind those old words that should never fail to have us shaking in our boots – "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." No thank you, government. You've done enough already.

I submit to you that Hillary Clinton is NOT a leader, is dishonest, and for those reasons should NOT be the next president of the United States. Most of you already know this. This is for the few who don't. Her continuous lying about Iraq, for the sole reason of garnering votes, proves the point. Her non-stop shucking and jiving on the war, her myriad poll-driven positions on the same, all point to a woman devoid of principle, but one consumed with the hunger for power. Look at her history regarding Iraq.

Here's Hillary defending her husband's 4-day Iraq bombing campaign, known as Operation Desert Fox:

“[T]he so-called presidential palaces … in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left.” – Hillary in December, 1998.

And here's what Hillary said when the polls looked favorably toward the Iraq war, and when she thought it might look bad to vote against it, so she voted for it, as did John Edwards, as did John Kerry. Obama was not yet in the Senate, so he had no vote.

There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm’s way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I’ve followed for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. . . . I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount the political or other factors that I didn’t believe should be in any way part of this decision – Hillary addresses Code Pink on March 7, 2003.

Take note of the fact that in 2003, Hillary said she'd been following Saddam's movements for "more than a decade".

Here's what Hillary said to the troops back then:

“We must stay the course” in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and asked for more troops to finish the job…We have to exert all of our efforts militarily” – Hillary on November 29, 2003, when visiting the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But something happened on the way to the easy six-week american victory in Iraq. Saddam's men didn't really fight us. Instead, they disbanded and adopted guerilla-style insurgent tactics, and then Al Qaeda sympathizers flooded into the country to fight The Great Satan in the same manner, using terrorist tactics. It became a security nightmare, severely impairing the new Iraqi government and reconstruction.

So what did Hillary do ? She started dissembling. In 2005, Hillary embarked upon a new strategy, claiming she had been misled by false intelligence from – guess who – THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ! You aren't supposed to notice that the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION had all the same intelligence conclusions for it's entire 8 years, that regime change in Iraq was the policy of the Clinton administration, or that the intelligence doesn't really come from any ADMINISTRATION, it comes from the CIA and other intelligence bodies.

"If Congress had been asked [to authorize the war], based on what we know now, we never would have agreed" – Hillary on November 29, 2005 in an e-mail sent to her supporters.

At the same time, Hillary began her absurd claim that she didn't know her vote authorizing the use of military force in Iraq actually authorized the use of military force in Iraq:

"assurances they gave that they would first seek to resolve the issue of weapons of mass destruction peacefully through United Nations sponsored inspections," Clinton lamented: "Their assurances turned out to be empty ones." – Hillary on November 29, 2005 from the same e-mail.

Of course, Hillary still "supports the troops", as she attempts to lose the war in order to get votes, as Iraq war popularity plummets. Hillary also doesn't want to be seen as soft on Al Qaeda, even as she begins shilling for an Al Qaeda victory in Iraq.

"I have continually raised doubts about the President's claims, lack of planning and execution of the war,while standing firmly in support of our troops…Criticism of this Administration's policies should not in any way be confused with softness against terrorists, inadequate support for democracy or lack of patriotism" Hillary on November 29, 2005 from the same e-mail.

By 2007, you weren't even supposed to remember that Hillary voted for the war, much less that Congress authorized it:

"Nearly four years ago our president rushed us into war in Iraq." – Hillary on February 7, 2007

When Rumsfeld was canned, and new tactics were implemented in Iraq (the surge) in 2007, Hillary was completely against it. She even called general Petraeus a liar in so many words for reporting on the success of the surge, a success that everyone must now admit to (other than the hardcore lunatic fringe who won't ever admit to anything being successful as long as Bush is at the helm).

But get a load of how Hillary actually tried to TAKE CREDIT for the successes of the surge she was dead set against. A giant hook should have come out and pulled her off the stage when she tried this lie out on Tim Russert on Meet The Press.

January 13, 2008, on Meet The Press

MR. RUSSERT: If General Petraeus says, "Senator, in September you called the surge the suspension of belief. It has worked, and you know it's worked"–let me finish–"you can see on the ground. I'm saying to you, Senator, or president-elect Clinton, don't destroy Iraq. It's working, the surge is working. Keep troops there just a few more months to get this reconciliation complete."

SEN. CLINTON: …The point of the surge was to quickly move the Iraqi government and Iraqi people. That is only now beginning to happen, and I believe in large measure because the Iraqi government, they watch us, they listen to us. I know very well that they follow everything that I say. And my commitment to begin withdrawing our troops in January of 2009 is a big factor, as it is with Senator Obama, Senator Edwards, those of us on the Democratic side. It is a big factor in pushing the Iraqi government to finally do what they should have been doing all along.

One slight correction to Mr. Russert. Hillary actually called Petraeus' testimony "the willing suspension of disbelief".

In closing, there is one Hillary quote I can wholeheartedly agree with:

"The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they're not" – Hillary Clinton.

The number of lawyers seeking the Democratic presidential nomination has been reduced from three to two. The ambulance chasing lawyer is out. The coattail riding lawyer and the civil rights lawyer remain. The coattail rider is the frontrunner for the moment, and has the edge in experience, having both 35 years of coattail riding plus seven years in the Senate. The civil rights lawyer has only three years in the Senate, but at least he didn't earn his Senate seat because of his last name, like the coattail rider did. He earned it the old-fashioned way (his primary opponent, who was leading, self-destructed amid allegations of domestic abuse, and his opponent in the general election withdrew due to a sex scandal, leaving him virtually unopposed, with Alan Keyes jumping in as 11th hour opposition with no chance of winning). The Democratic party had tagged the civil rights lawyer for greatness even before he won his Senate seat by default however, by making him the keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He is the anointed candidate of change, and the future of the Democratic party. The Kennedy family has endorsed him, and Caroline Kennedy said he reminds her of her father, JFK. Visions of a new Camelot are dancing in Democratic heads. Never mind that Caroline also said John F. Kerry reminded her of her father back in 2004 (Must be the initials in the name, because I can't think of any other resemblence there).

All this talk of change, the future, Camelot, and anointing has the coattail rider hopping mad, because, dammit, this was supposed to be HER year, she was supposed to be the anointee, and, double dammit, SHE'S A WOMAN, which gives her street cred in Democratic Identity Politics (DIP). However, in an ironic twist of cruel fate for the coattail rider, the civil rights lawyer is black, giving him even MORE street cred in DIP world. The ambulance chasing lawyer was a mere third wheel, with no DIP cred whatsoever. No wonder he was so angry.

The coattail rider pulled out her 'Big Gun' (pun intended) – the esteemed, venerable, beloved in the Democratic party, lecherous, adulterous, sexual abuser, the ex-president. The Big Gun called the civil rights lawyer's position on Iraq a "fairy tale", which was immediately denounced as a racist remark (don't ask me to explain how that was allegedly racist. This is the Democratic party. Nothing makes sense here. The Big Gun did make later remarks that were racially motivated, though). Apparently, the Big Gun didn't notice his wife the coattail rider's position on Iraq was much more of a fairy tale than that of her opponent. The coattail rider literally said that when she voted in favor of a resolution called the AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE IN IRAQ, she didn't know that meant it was an AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE IN IRAQ. She claimed she thought she was only voting for weapons inspectors to finish their job. Seriously. This is the woman Democrats call 'the smartest woman in the world'. And, SHE'S THE FRONTRUNNER ! Like I said, don't expect this stuff to make sense, it's the Democrats. Being a boldfaced liar is usually an asset. It mostly worked for the Big Gun, until a certain blue dress appeared…..

But I digress. Back on topic, there is a new fairy tale being tossed around by the Democrats regarding Iraq, and I've heard both the coattail rider and the civil rights lawyer mention it, so it must have been cooked up over at DIP headquarters, maybe at the DNC by Howie Dean. This fantasy seems too silly for even James Carville to have cooked up. The fairy tale goes like this : The Iraqis, knowing that either the coattail rider or the civil rights lawyer could be the next president of the USA, and would remove US troops, are behaving better and making progress, because they know their time for depending on the USA is running out.

This master(batory) stroke of demented and corrupt genius accomplishes a number of things for the Democrats: it is used to nullify the results of the surge, which the Democrats were uniformly wrong about; it lays more groundwork for pulling out of Iraq; it provides justification for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The Dems are heavily invested in defeat, because they must prove Bush wrong at all costs. If you haven't noticed, every time one benchmark of success is met in Iraq, and several have been met recently, the Democrats move onto the next one as proof of american failure. Now, I don't want to paint the Iraq picture as a bowl of cherries here, but shouldn't we at least expect a little basic honesty from our leading presidential candidates on one of biggest issues going, instead of this pure fiction and spin for political gain ? Shouldn't we at least expect our leading presidential candidates to WANT america to succeed ? At the VERY LEAST ???

The scene was the New Hampshire debates. Moderator Charles Gibson asked the Democrats the following question: “We started the surge early this year. You all opposed it. But there are real signs it has worked…So I want to ask all of you, are any of you ready to say that the surge has worked?”

Most of the candidates went to the stock Democratic evasion, and said no political reconciliation has occurred, therefore the surge was a failure. Apparently, substantial reductions in violence and deaths mean nothing. Hillary Clinton didn't even apologize for her "willing suspension of disbelief" slander of General Petraeus, the orchestrator of surge progress. Being a Democrat means never having to say you're sorry, or even having to acknowledge reality.

But Barack Obama took first prize for creative fiction with his answer. Obama, in a statement not about the Audacity Of Hope, but just pure, brazen audacity, said, “Now, I had no doubt — and I said at the time, when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence…I welcome the genuine reductions of violence that have taken place, although I would point out that much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar province — Sunni tribes — who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what, the Americans may be leaving soon, and we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shi'as. We should start negotiating now. That's how you change behavior.”

Obama actually said the DEMOCRATS are responsible for the reductions in violence in Iraq that have accompanied the surge !!! ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME ??? THE DEMOCRATS ??? The 'war is lost', 'impeach Bush', 'bring the troops home now', 'no war for oil', 'Al Qaeda's american political mouthpiece' DEMOCRATS ??? Oh, HELL NO !!! The only thing the Democrats are responsible for in the Iraq war is giving Al Qaeda hope. Except you, Joe Lieberman. Oh wait, the Dems kicked you out. You're an Independent now. Good for you.

Obama also said he opposed the surge even though he knew it would work, due to 'how wonderfully our troops perform' (yes, he's a politician, for sure). Why did he oppose it if he knew it would work ? Could it be because he knows that success in Iraq is very bad news for Democrats ? Could it be because the Democrats are heavily invested in failure in Iraq, that they care more about winning elections than winning the war ? No, I suppose that isn't possible at all. I must be all wrong about that. Sure.

What Obama also failed to mention regarding american troops leaving Iraq (beside the fact that they aren't), is that getting the american troops out of Iraq IS AL QAEDA'S NUMBER ONE GOAL. In 2005, a correspondence from Al Qaeda number two man Ayman Al-Zawahiri to Iraq Al Qaeda leader Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi (now deceased) was intercepted, and has been declassified. In that communique, Al-Zawahiri outlined Al Qaeda's four stage plan for domination of the Middle East. Iraq was Job One. The four stages of Al Qaeda domination, in Al Zawahiri's words, are:

The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq.

The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate- over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq, i.e., in Sunni areas, is in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans, immediately upon their exit and before un-Islamic forces attempt to fill this void, whether those whom the Americans will leave behind them, or those among the un-Islamic forces who will try to jump at taking power.

There is no doubt that this amirate will enter into a fierce struggle with the foreign infidel forces, and those supporting them among the local forces, to put it in a state of constant preoccupation with defending itself, to make it impossible for it to establish a stable state which could proclaim a caliphate, and to keep the Jihadist groups in a constant state of war, until these forces find a chance to annihilate them.

The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.

The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.

I guess Barack Obama just forgot that, as has the rest of the Democratic party. I hope this also puts to rest the idea that Iraq isn't part of the war on terrorism. It's the central front. It's the central front because Bush (and Al Qaeda) made it the central front, that's true, but we still have to be successful there. There is no other acceptable option. Leaving Iraq before the Iraqi government can stay together and defend itself is nothing more than an invitation for Al Qaeda to fill the power vacuum, and isn't Al Qaeda the main enemy ? It may not be the position we want to be in, but it's the position we're in. It's about time the Democrats start dealing with the truth about Iraq instead of making up politically convenient fantasies like Barack Obama just did.