In clarifying his position regarding the Iraq war, Barack Obama said the following:

"I'm going to call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and give them a new mission, and that is to bring the war in Iraq to a close. We are going to get out."

That is a very definitive statement. Very decisive. Very presidential. It would be very impressive, except for one minor detail…

The Joint Chiefs of Staff don't have operational command of U.S. military forces. They don't carry out the mission in Iraq. They serve as military advisors to the President. Obama can tell them anything he wants, and it won't change a thing in Iraq. If Barry Brilliant wants to change the mission in Iraq, he needs to tell the Secretary of Defense and the commanders of the Unified Combatant Commands (CENTCOM commander, Gen. David Petraeus, and the US commander for Iraq, Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno).

I know Obama doesn't have any military experience, and I know Obama doesn't have any management experience, and I know Obama doesn't have any foreign policy experience, and I know Obama doesn't have any economics experience, and I know Obama doesn't have any executive experience, and I know Obama has precious little congressional experience, and I know Obama has changed his views on almost every major policy issue you can name, but is it too much to ask for Obama to actually figure out how the federal government works prior to becoming President ? I think not. There should be SOME requirements to be President beside the ability to con gullible people into voting for you. Perhaps we need a NPLB program (No President Left Behind).

I'm wondering, is it possible for Obama to serve a summer Presidential internship or something under Dubya prior to the fall elections ? He really needs the experience, and 2009 is coming up pretty quick. It would really be a shame if a President Obama THOUGHT he ended the war, and then 16 months later he discovered all the troops were still in Iraq going "withdraw ? Nobody told us to withdraw." Maybe Obama could wear an President Trainee badge around the White House for the next couple months that reads "Hello, my name is Barack Obama. Ask me about the chain of command."

I am, of course, assuming Barack could first pass the mandatory background check and drug test for the President Trainee job. Also, the President must be a non-smoker (for insurance reasons), so Obama could be disqualified right there. Luckily for BHO, he won't be required to submit a resume or even pass a basic skills test. President of the United States is apparently an entry level position, no experience required. You'd think the President would at least have to pass a civil service exam, but I guess the position isn't as critical as, say, a sewer worker or a fireman. Those people need tangible skills.

Talking about Obama reminds me, July 16th was Cost Of Government Day (COGD). That's when the average American pays his share of government's financial burden. Happy COGD, each and every one of you. It's great to live in freedom. To celebrate, go ahead and splurge today. Buy a quart of gasoline. We could arrange COGD parties every year, but you never know on which day COGD will fall, because government keeps growing and growing. If we elect Barack Obama, who promises to "invest in American families" (aka, tax and spend) as far as the eye can see, it won't be long until we can celebrate COGD with a costume party, because it will probably fall on Halloween. Sigh.

This link contains 2008 federal budget data. These are the numbers I'm going to use for my following proposals.

The estimated federal revenue for 2008 is $2.9 trillion. Of this amount, $1.788 trillion goes to mandatory spending (Social Security, Medicare. Medicaid, Welfare, Other entitlement programs, Interest on the Debt). Subtracting out the interest on the federal debt leaves us with an annual entitlement program budget of approximately $1.5 trillion.

We have approximately 300 million people in our country. Of this number, about 25% of them are children under 18. This leaves roughly 225 million adults in America. If we divide our entitlement spending by the number of American adults, we see we are spending $6,666.66 (an omen ?) in entitlements for every single adult in America. Now, many of those adults are relatively wealthy folks who don't really need any entitlements. They can afford their own health insurance. They aren't on welfare, and they have private retirement plans. Or they may just have enough wealth that none of that matters. The top 25% of wage earners are those earning $77,500 or more. Let's assume they don't need help with government entitlements and subtract them from the equation. That leaves us with 168,750,000 American adults who make less than $77,500 per year. That leaves us with annual federal entitlement spending of $8,888.88 for each of those 168 million+ people. Of those people, there are still many who don't need entitlements. They could be wealthy people who don't work. If we wealth tested people, we could eliminate the need for many more entitlements. For the sake of simplicity, let's round off the numbers and say we could provide 150 million American adults with a $10,000 check each year for the amount we are currently spending on entitlements in this country, $20,000 for a married couple.

So, why don't we just DO that, or at least something like that ? We'd have to make some adjustments, since we don't want to keep running huge federal deficits, and we also want to pay down the debt. If the deficit is $300 billion for a year, then we'd have to adjust the yearly checks down to reach a balanced budget. That means people would receive a check for $8000 instead of $10,000. I think people would be motivated to make sure our federal government balances it's budget when they see how the deficit comes directly out of their pocket, don't you ?

What we have accomplished is to eliminate the federal budget deficit, eliminate the problem of people with no health insurance (the uninsured would HAVE to purchase private insurance with their check), dismantle the huge wasteful government Social Security/Medicare/Welfare bureaucracies (saving a ton of money by dismantling them), eliminate the future entitlement crisis, and give Americans a financial boost. That's problem solving, something very few of our political power brokers in Washington D.C. seem interested in doing.

I'm just spitballing here, trying to float a seed of an idea, since our current entitlement system is a gigantic disaster that MUST be reformed, or our children our going to suffer terribly due to our irresponsibility.

Any thoughts ?

Above is a photo of an aborted fetus (story below)

From the Wayward Home For Mentally Ill Moonbats: There have been some celebrations of the death of former White House Press Secretary and Fox News host Tony Snow on the left-wing blogosphere. The link provided is but one example. Sick freaks.

The return of Clintonian politics ?: We all remember how the Clintons used to sell access to the Lincoln Bedroom. We also remember how Marc Rich's wife donated $450,000 to the Clinton presidential library, and then Marc Rich was granted a miraculous last minute pardon by Bubba as he and Hillary were exiting the White House with the good china and silver flatware in tow (at least they left that condom covered Christmas tree behind. Classy - as if Bubba hadn't degraded the presidency enough already). Well, now it may be that the Bushies are taking a page from Slick Willie's pay-for-access playbook. Stephen Payne, a lobbyist with close White House ties is selling opportunities to meet Bush luminaries, such as Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, or even the Big Bush himself for a mere $250,000 presidential library donation. In addition, the Bushies will supposedly even say nice things about the donator in exchange for the do-re-mi. Isn't that cozy ? If this story is real, expect to hear a LOT more about it in coming days. This isn't some Democrat getting a sweetheart deal on housing (Obama, Dodd, Rangel). This is a REPUBLICAN scandal. That's big news, baby. I think we should frog march Karl Rove out of the White House, pronto. What's that ? He's already out ? Oh….Well, then, let's boot Scooter Libby out on his can then. What's that ? Oh…….

The Daily Obamanations: While kissing up to La Raza the other day, Barack Obama referred to our illegal immigration enforcement personnel as terrorists and fascists. Hmmm. And here I always thought they were, like, LAW ENFORCEMENT !!! I don't have a fancy Harvard law degree like Obama does, so I guess I could be wrong. Maybe the next time I get busted for running an interstate gambling ring a traffic ticket, I'll call the police officers a bunch of fascist terrorists. I'll tell them Obama told me so. That should work out just fine.

Not to worry, however. Obama assures us he is against crime in general, and wants capital punishment for Bin Laden as long as the whole world agrees with us, and as long as Bin Laden doesn't become a martyr, and as long as we all understand Obama isn't generally in favor of capital punishment, except for when he is, which usually he's not, mostly, except in the case of narrowly defined child rape or other narrowly defined unspecified crimes and circumstances, but not when they are gang-related or fall upon select minority groups more heavily, and stuff like that. It's crystal clear, really, and that's a debate Obama is happy to have, because McCain is like Bush. Failed policies. Hope and change. Yes we can. Changing for change. New. Improved. Economy size. A chicken in every pot. Tippecanoe and Tyler too. Keep hope alive. We are the ones we've been looking at, er, waiting for. I believe that children are the future. I love babies, little fuzzy ducks, and America. Education is super neato. Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste, gibberish, gibberish, gibberish……

Sorry, everyone. It's just that I get so carried away with my Obama euphoria. He's so, so…brilliant.

Slippery slope THIS, you SOB: Speaking of Obama's "brilliance", have you heard about Barry Brilliant voting against the 2001 Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act ??? A federal version of the same act was signed into law in 2002 by George W. Bush. It states that if a child being aborted is born still ALIVE, then it may not be killed after it's born. In other words, it states that a live born baby IS a LIVE BORN BABY. This is pretty obvious stuff for most people. When most of us see a baby crying and squirming around on the delivery table, we assume it's a baby, not a clump of inhuman tissue that can be disposed of at our discretion. We'd refer to the killing of a birthed live baby as MURDER. Not Barack Obama. He assumed it was a threat to Roe v. Wade and voted against the rights of the live babies to live. I kid you not. I couldn't make THIS up. If you want to watch something really pathetic, watch CNN attempt to rehabilitate Obama's twisted vote on the Act. Listen to James Carville's spin near the end for some real inanity. This is freaking unbelievable.

No word yet on how Obama will vote on Dr. Mengele's upcoming proposal to extend the right of abortion into the twenty third trimester. Word is, Barry's leaning towards voting "present".

One of the things that irks me most about the Bush Jr. era is how an allegedly Compassionate Conservative president, along with an allegedly Conservative Republican majority Congress, increased federal spending by over 30% and ran up unprecedented federal deficits, adding over $4 trillion to the federal debt. For the life of me, I can't find the "conservative" in such alleged Conservatives. I'm sure I heard something about Republicans being for low taxes and limited government. I'm certain I read that somewhere. Perhaps I was mistaken. Our federal debt comes to roughly $32,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country. The interest alone on the federal debt is over $400 billion every year. What's even worse is, if you add in all the unfunded entitlement liabilities for which the government has us on the hook, the REAL deficit is about $2.5 trillion each year. That's what we commit to as opposed to what we have paid for in future Medicare/Social Security and other entitlement programs. Those monies are not included in the federal budget. If that sounds like a lot of money to you, well, it should. What's even worse than that is, we are transferring wealth out of the United States to foreign countries at an astounding rate, never before seen in the history of our country. When we import nearly 70% of our oil from foreign sources, that's a nice fat wad of American wealth that is waving bye bye to America. China owns a sizeable portion of our debt as well. We are selling our country piece by piece to the highest bidder, living way beyond our means, outsourcing our jobs and industries, and then we wonder why our economy is stagnating.

Forrest Gump could figure this one out, but our politicians seem to be totally stumped (or bought).

So, we kicked the Republican Congress to the curb in 2006 (deservedly), and we put the Democrats in to replace them (undeservedly). And according to the polls, we are going to put a Democrat, Barack Obama, in the White House too (waaay undeservedly). Okay. It is what it is.

Before we put Mr. Obama in the Oval Office (or that other guy, old whathisname), maybe we should figure out what he'll do once he gets there, even though that's a near impossible task, since Mr. Obama's elastic policy positions don't lend themselves to much analysis. I almost feel bad now for calling John Kerry a flip-flopper back in 2004, because Kerry was a rock compared to Obama the human jellyfish. But let's give it a try.

The two presidential candidates discussed our enormous federal deficits a little the other day. John McCain promised to cut spending, cut taxes, and balance the budget by the end of his first term in 2013 (hey ! That's what Conservatives are supposed to do ! I knew I read it somewhere). Barack Obama, on the other hand, has a different take on federal deficits. He doesn't have any intention of balancing the budget, and it's not even a priority for him. From an Associated Press news story:

Not only does Obama say he won't eliminate the deficit in his first term, as McCain aims to do, he frankly says he's not sure he'd bring it down at all in four years, considering his own spending plans.

"I do not make a promise that we can reduce it by 2013 because I think it is important for us to make some critical investments right now in America's families," Obama told reporters this week when asked if he'd match McCain's pledge.

So there you have it. McCain will attempt to balance the budget, and Obama will attempt to spend a ton more taxpayer money with no regard to the budget, deficits, or debt. It's not hard to find the Conservative between those two. It's also not hard to find the economically sound approach between those two (Hint - it isn't Obama). When the economy is already stagnant or in recession, raising taxes and spending to new astronomic levels is a recipe for disaster. It's almost like Obama WANTS to drive the country into recession. Either that, or he just doesn't understand economics. The more likely scenario is that Obama doesn't understand economics. After all, he doesn't have any experience balancing budgets, managing economies, or even running a business, to go along with his no military experience and scant Congressional experience. Why is Obama the nominee again ? I keep forgetting. Oh yeah, he's a good public speaker (isn't there an old saying about 'bull-something walks' ? Oh well, too late).

Here's a thought - Since Obama wants to run up more deficits and increase spending (like Bush did), and McCain wants to balance the budget and cut spending (unlike Bush)……DOESN'T THAT MAKE OBAMA THE ONE WHO IS THE SAME AS BUSH, AND MCCAIN THE ONE WHO IS FOR CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN ????

Vote for Barack Obama, for a Bush third term.

Al Qaeda in Iraq has been virtually defeated. 15 of 18 surge benchmarks have been met. Violence has dropped dramatically, to it's lowest level in 4 years. The insurgency is being quelled as crackdowns against both Sunni and Shia insurgents have been carried out. The Iraqi people are rejecting violence. Iraqi troops are taking mission leads now, with US forces providing backup roles. Iraqis already run 9 of 18 Iraq provinces. The US is beginning to draw it's troop levels down. There will be more troop reductions this month. Some troops will be redeployed from Iraq to Afghanistan.

Now, as part of current security negotiations with the US, Iraqi prime minister Nouri Al-Maliki has called for a timetable for American troop withdrawal. An Associated Press article states the Iraqi position as follows:

"Our stance in the negotiations underway with the American side will be strong … We will not accept any memorandum of understanding that doesn't have specific dates to withdraw foreign forces from Iraq," [Iraq security adviser] Mouwaffak al-Rubaie said.

He provided no details. But Ali al-Adeeb, a Shiite lawmaker and a prominent official in the prime minister's party, told The Associated Press that Iraq was linking the timetable proposal to the ongoing handover of various provinces to Iraqi control. The Iraqi proposal stipulates that, once Iraqi forces have resumed security responsibility in all 18 of Iraq's provinces, U.S.-led forces would then withdraw from all cities in the country. After that, the country's security situation would be reviewed every six months, for three to five years, to decide when U.S.-led troops would pull out entirely, al-Adeeb said.

"This is what the Iraqi people want, the parliament and other Iraqi leaders," said al-Adeeb.

The proposal, as outlined by al-Adeeb, is phrased in a way that would allow Iraqi officials to tell the Iraqi public that it includes a specific timetable and dates for a U.S. withdrawal. However, it also would provide the United States some flexibility on timing because the dates of the provincial handovers are not set.

This is the best news yet. It looks like we can finally start pulling our troops from Iraq. President Bush has resisted fixed withdrawal timetables up to this point, preferring instead to have troop levels dictated by conditions on the ground in Iraq. Defense secretary Robert Gates reiterated that view yesterday:

"As the Iraqi security forces get stronger and get better, then we will be able to continue drawing down our troops in the future," Gates told reporters Tuesday during a visit to Fort Lewis, Wash. "However long that takes really will depend on the situation on the ground. But things are going very well at this point."

While wanting troop levels to be determined by the conditions on the ground, Bush himself has said US forces would leave if the Iraqi government told us to leave. In May, 2007, Bush said "It's their government's choice. If they were to say, 'Leave,' we would leave."

I think it's time to grant the Iraqis their wish. All along, the stated plan from the Bush administration has been "as they stand up, we'll stand down." Well, the Iraqis are standing up. It sure took long enough, but they are finally taking control of their country, and it IS their country, not ours. A withdrawal timetable now might actually be a positive thing, a signal to the Iraqi people that the US is not interested in occupying their country, only in securing it. This timetable would be predicated on successful completion of the Iraqi mission, not on failure-producing political tactics, as were previous calls for withdrawal by Democrats, including Barack Obama. If Obama and the Congressional Democrats had gotten their way in 2006/2007, there would have been no surge, there would be no successful completion of the Iraq mission, and there would be no stable Iraq government. There would be only defeat and chaos.

John McCain should get some props here. He was the one who advocated for the surge long before there was a surge. McCain was long a critic of the pre-surge Bush/Rumsfeld Iraq policy that was not working, and McCain was proven correct. Obama, on the other hand, displayed only his inexperience and desire for defeat, claiming that the surge could never work. What was that Wesley Clark said about military experience not qualifying a man to be president ? Sure, Wes, whatever you say. Go find another talking point, because you know what REALLY doesn't qualify a man to be president ? NO EXPERIENCE, whose name is Barack Obama.

Setting a success-based timetable for withdrawal from Iraq could also quell the suspicions of those who view the US as imperialists in the Middle East. If our presence in Iraq is a terrorist recruiting tool, as the Dems have long said, and are most certainly correct about, a withdrawal timetable might lessen that a little bit. Of course, we'll still be in Afghanistan, so I'm not sure how much it would be lessened. Probably not much. The Dems never spoke about THAT part of the equation, because it would have mostly nullified their point. All the Dems were really interested in was losing the Iraq war. Fortunately, we didn't take the Dems advice, and today Iraq is far better off because of it. After taking down Saddam's wretched government, we obliged ourselves to the Iraqi people. It looks like that obligation may soon be fulfilled (knock on wood), and then we can get out of Iraq, the right way.

Above is a photo of Flipper, who somehow seemed appropriate for this post. Hi Flipper !

It has recently been brought to my attention that there is another fellow running for president, one whose name is NOT Barack Obama. Has anyone else heard about this ? I heard it mentioned on FoxNews the other day, in between the Obama stories and Obama speeches. His name is John McCain, and he's a Republican, in the mold of Democrat turned Independent, Joe Lieberman. I hear this McCain guy might even have purchased Alan Greenspan's book to learn about the economy, so you know he's a serious candidate. Obama bought Karl Marx's book to learn about the economy. That reminds me, don't forget to buy your tickets for Obamapalooza ! They're selling out fast ! I thought it might be a good idea to check McCain's record, since he could become president if Obama decides to move to Tibet and become a monk prior to november 4th, 2008.

John McCain has over two decades of military experience, over two decades of Congressional experience, and ran for president in 2000 (this is what former general Wesley Clark, an Obama supporter, refers to as "untested and untried", and with a straight face too ! Must be Clark's counterintelligence training).

McCain has a reputation for being a "maverick", which means he often stands against his own party on issues. This garnered much pseudo-love for Johnny Mac from the media throughout his career, but at some point McCain realized he'd have to get Republicans to vote for him if he wanted to become the Republican nominee (who says McCain's not too bright ?), so the maverick started jumping back and forth over a lot of fences to make himself appear more conservative base-friendly. He catered to some evangelicals he formerly disliked, and he decided those Bush tax cuts weren't so bad after all. He referred to himself as a "Reagan footsoldier" a lot during the primaries, and voila, it worked. McCain defeated Huckleberry and the Mormon (the guy the GOP SHOULD have picked as their nominee, who would have beaten Obama), and became the Republican nominee (note - To whom it may concern, Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign is STILL missing. The search has been called off, though Rudy's picture is still on many milk cartons).

In any case, the Republicans are stuck with McCain now, so let's examine his flip-flops on the issues. Tracking McCain's flip-flops is no easy task, since most lists of them are contained on far left websites, and are thus wildly inaccurate. The far left websites are some of the biggest liars on the planet. One of the best website lists of McCain flip-flops is a sweet and rabidly "objective" little site called How Insane Is John McCain ? This site is about half right and half lies, and is also a perfect example of liberal compassion, tolerance, and diversity. It's premise, obviously, is that McCain is mentally unstable. That reminds me, the media wants me to tell you that the Republican attack machine is racist and will smear Barack Obama, so get your tickets to Obamapalooza NOW ! Children under 12 are indoctrinated for free.

Without further ado, here are some of J-Mac's more "nuanced" positions:

Tax cuts flip-flop -
McCain's most famous flip-flop. He was against the Bush tax cuts before he was for them. Now he wants to make them permanent, and is even proposing more tax cuts if he becomes president. Back in 2001, McCain said, "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief."
Hopefully, McCain learned something about economics since 2001, but I doubt it. High taxes are very bad for our country. I call this a flip-flop in the right direction, even if it's for the wrong reasons. Liberals, who have never heard of the principle of scarcity, which underlies all economic theory, disagree. They want to send as much money as possible to Washington D.C. Somehow, they call this "fairness".
===
Social Security privatization flip-flop -
"I’m not for, quote, privatizing Social Security. I never have been. I never will be” - John McCain, June 2008.
“Without privatization, I don’t see how you can possibly, over time, make sure that young Americans are able to receive Social Security benefits” - John McCain, November 2004
“As part of Social Security reform, I believe that private savings accounts are a part of it - along the lines that President Bush proposed” - John McCain, March 2003
This is undoubtedly a flip-flop, right ? Nope. It sounds like one, but it isn't. You must remember, Bush's Social Security plan was NOT a plan to privatize Social Security. It only contained a provision for a SMALL PART of SS funds to be placed into private accounts. Therefore, McCain could support Bush's plan for private accounts, as he did, and still be against a total privatization of Social Security, as he is. Subtract one flip-flop.
===
Abortion flip-flop -
“In the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade…[overturning Roe would force] women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.” - John McCain, 1999.

McCain in 2006, during an interview with George Stephanopolous:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask one question about abortion…You’re for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, with some exceptions for life and rape and incest.

MCCAIN: Rape, incest and the life of the mother. Yes.

We'll call this the flip-flop for the evangelical vote that I mentioned earlier.
===
McCain flip-flopped on offshore oil drilling once gas reached $4 per gallon. Good ! Now if he'd only flip on ANWR. I guess that won't happen until gas hits $5 per gallon.
===
And if anyone can tell me what McCain thinks about immigration, please let me know. I can't figure it out. He came out with a plan, then was against his own plan, and now he's saying he's for it again. The Straight Talk Express has me straight confused on this one. I'll call this one a double reverse flip-flop with a half twist ending in a belly flop. I don't even want to hear what McCain has to say on the immigration issue anymore.
===
Ethanol flip-flop -
"Ethanol is a product that would not exist if Congress didn't create an artificial market for it. No one would be willing to buy it. Yet thanks to agricultural subsidies and ethanol producer subsidies, it is now a very big business - tens of billions of dollars that have enriched a handful of corporate interests - primarily one big corporation, ADM. Ethanol does nothing to reduce fuel consumption, nothing to increase our energy independence, nothing to improve air quality." - John McCain on CNN in 2003.

"I support ethanol and I think it is a vital, a vital alternative energy source not only because of our dependency on foreign oil but its greenhouse gas reduction effects" - John McCain, 2006.

Johnny must have watched Al Gore's movie.
===
The left-wing websites characterize many other McCain positions as flip-flops that really aren't. These include the estate tax, the 100 years in Iraq comment, FISA, and others. I have purposely left those off the list. In conclusion, let's just say that John McCain doesn't have much room to talk about Obama's many flip-flops. During the GOP primaries, the media made much of Mitt Romney's flip-flops, but they zipped their lips about McCain, who has as many if not more than Romney ever did. Now that Johnny Mac has the GOP nomination, the media suddenly discovered that John McCain has flip-flopped on about every position he ever held. Funny how that works, isn't it ? All the news that fits the agenda.

I wish you all a happy Fourth of July ! May God bless America, and don't ever take liberty for granted (or it will surely be washed away). Here are some quotes from great men (mostly):

"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men." — Samuel Adams

"(W)e here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." — Abe Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." — Abraham Lincoln

"You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children (America), the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done." — Ronald Reagan

"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, For then it costs nothing to be a patriot." — Mark Twain

"Sure I wave the American flag. Do you know a better flag to wave? Sure I love my country with all her faults. I'm not ashamed of that, never have been, never will be." — John Wayne

"Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom."
– Albert Einstein

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from his government." — Thomas Paine

"When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will … become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." — Thomas Jefferson

"Evil triumphs when good men do nothing." — Thomas Jefferson

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." — Benjamin Franklin

"Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn't. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and excusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let men label you as they may." — Mark Twain

"It is wonderful to be here in the great state of Chicago" — Dan Quayle

Barack Obama's flip-flops are coming so fast and furious these days that I think we should rename the Obama campaign Shock And Awe. It's shocking how easily Obama abandons a previously held position, and we should all be in awe of the fact that he gets away with it. Now, I'm just spitballing here, but wouldn't it be nice if we had some kind of group that would keep track of the issues and could question Obama on his endless contradictions before we make him the leader of the free world ? That would be very helpful and informative for the American voting public. We could call that group, say, the media.

Sadly, the majority of the mainstream media isn't much interested in speaking truth to power when it comes to St. Barack. They are more interested in swooning at his eloquence and patting themselves on the back for how wonderfully cosmopolitan and progressive they are. Truth has nothing to do with it. Who cares if Obama flip-flops on an issue or twenty ? That only demonstrates his "complexity". Yeah, that's the ticket.

But I'm probably just distracting you from the issues America really cares about.

The latest rollover by Obama is his stance on gay marriage. Previously, he opposed gay marriage, but said that individual states should have the right to form their own policies on the issue. Then California proposed an initiative to ban gay marriage, and….Obama OPPOSES it. So much for states rights. The gay marriage issue has become like so, so many others for Barack Obama. He opposes gay marriage, except for when he doesn't. In a letter to a San Francisco based lesbian/gay alliance group, Obama said he believes in:

“fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law…And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states”

Yet Obama still says he opposes gay marriage. Yup. Okay. Whatever. Hope and change. This is a historic election. It's the first time an invisible man will become president.

In addition to Obama opposing gay marriage (sorta), supporting the Second Amendment (sometimes), supporting the FISA bill (for now), supporting NAFTA (except when in Ohio or Michigan), and opposing the Fairness Doctrine (definitely, maybe), Barack made a speech yesterday voicing his support for the expansion of faith-based initiatives. With the continued softening of Obama's positions on Iraq, Iran, and his backpedaling on increasing the capital gains tax rate, it's starting to look like Obama is nothing but a "Bush third termer", if I may borrow a Democratic talking point (Sorry Dems, I couldn't resist taking that shot). When Bush started faith-based initiatives, the entire Left screamed "separation of church and state !" in unison. They were certain Bush was going to implement a theocratic thug state, reminiscent of the Taliban, but without the bourkas. That didn't happen, naturally, but what is the Left saying now about Barack the evangelical faith-baser ? They should be apoplectic, but so far the protests are far less than deafening. The Huffington Post mentioned Obama's faith-based speech (far down the page), but only said it "could cause controversy", and that Obama was doing it to "court the evangelical vote". No outrage from HuffPo, not that I really thought there would be. Somehow it's different when it's one of their own.

Barack Obama gave a speech on patriotism yesterday. I pretty much agreed with every word uttered by Mr. Obama in that speech. It's worth the read. Even though it was a self-serving and calculated speech, as are all of his (he IS a politician, after all), the principles he stated were sound, and quite patriotic. Obama said he would not question anybody's patriotism in this presidential campaign, and he will not sit idly by while anyone questions his. Clever bugger, that Obama, since it is virtually impossible for any sane person to question the patriotism of John McCain, while questions of Obama's associations with anti-american sentiment are rife (Rev. Wright, Father Pfleger, William Ayers, Mrs. Obama, flag pins, and all that). Obama can't win a patriotism contest with John McCain (few could), so he's trying to take that issue off the table.

I don't question Obama's patriotism. I take him at his word, but I do question some of those past associations of his. It's a matter of judgement, not patriotism. When a guy like Obama has a history of being a leftist, I'm a little suspicious of the new centrist Obama who has appeared just in time to win the general election and become the president (with a Democratic majority Congress led by liberals Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi). Obama's tack appears much more strategy than principle. That I do not admire (not that McCain can't be accused of the same tacking into favorable political winds on some issues).

Obama also said it isn't unpatriotic to dissent when you disagree with your government. That is also unquestionably true. Sometimes, dissent is required. I have dissented with some aspects of my government for most of my adult life.

But there is a difference between dissent and undermining your country. There is a difference between dissent and propaganda. There is a difference between dissent and lies. There is a difference between dissent and hate. I wish Obama had drawn some of those distrinctions in his speech, but he did not. As Obama was speaking about how dissent was patriotic, I was thinking of Moveon.org's "General Betray-us" ad, of Hillary Clinton saying it took "the willing suspension of disbelief" to believe Petraeus' testimony about the success of the Surge in Iraq. The "dissenters" had no problem calling Petraeus a liar for their own political gain. I was thinking about how the New York Times has divulged multiple classified U.S. intelligence programs during wartime (they did it again the other day by revealing classified details of the hunt for Bin laden). I was thinking about Seymour Hersch recently revealing classified information about alleged covert cross-border intelligence operations into Iran. I was even thinking about how the left-wing dissenters called American soldiers "baby killers" back during the Vietnam War. Thank goodness the hatemongers dissenters learned not to do that anymore……Except a few of them haven't learned. John Murtha (D-Pa), a former marine himself, accused the Haditha marines of "killing innocent civilians in cold blood" in Iraq before any of them had even been tried, and now 7 of the 8 of Haditha soldiers have been acquitted. I haven't heard any apologies from the Distinguished Gentlemen from Pennsylvania. Dick Durbin compared Guantanomo Bay to Pol Pot and the Nazis.

That stuff isn't really dissent. That stuff is political propaganda designed to undermine the American government during wartime, with the reason being the acquisition of political power. There is nothing patriotic about any of that.

Lastly, I was thinking about outright political horse manure, like the kind general Wesley Clark was slinging about John McCain the other day, in what has to be one of the most tone-deaf displays of political nonsense to date. Clark actually tried to call McCain inexperienced, when McCain is the most experienced candidate to run for president from either party this year. Apparently, irony and hypocrisy don't register with Wes Clark, because the candidate Clark is backing, Barack Obama, is the most inexperienced person ever to get this close to the presidency. Clark actually called McCain "untested and untried", said about McCain that "he hasn’t held executive responsibility" (as opposed to all Obama's executive experience - NONE). Clark even said that McCain's "large squadron in the Navy that he commanded wasn’t a wartime squadron. He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall". Uh, general Clark, John McCain's plane was SHOT DOWN IN VIETNAM. That's about as "wartime" as you can get. Duh, general. Btw, exactly what military service and experience does Barack Obama have ? That would also be NONE. See just how dumb Wesley Clark is here.

To his credit, Obama disavowed Clark's remarks, and I assume Clark has blown his shot at the vice presidency.

Can you say "cheesy" ? - Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton actually traveled all the way to a town called UNITY, New Hampshire to meet, in an effort to bring Hillary supporters and Obama supporters together into one united Democratic party.

Unity, N.H. Oh, brother. Hand me an air sickness bag, please. Were all the hotel rooms booked up in Stupidsymboliccrap, South Dakota ? The candidates actually wasted jet fuel for such an empty gesture ? This one ranks pretty high on the list of all-time silly political theatrics. I half expected Michael Dukakis to show up in his tank.

In related news, John McCain's campaign made a stop in Deadhorse, Alaska.
===
Speaking of dead things, contrarian Christopher Hitchens was interviewed by Rich Lowry on PBS and said "if the GOP was a dog, it would be shot", among other things. Indeed, it looks like the GOP will be shot, precisely on November 4th, 2008. The interview is standard Hitchens fare and pretty entertaining. He's an equal opportunity offender, and takes shots at everyone - McCain, the GOP, both Obamas, and both Clintons. See it here.
===
We all know how the Left likes to ban things (guns, cigarettes, radio talk show hosts, army recruiting offices, free speech on college campuses, christian symbols, capitalism, logical thought, etc). Now, it seems they've even taken to separating food into patriotic and non-patriotic categories for purposes of banning the unpatriotic ones. For the upcoming Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado, the unpatriotic foods (fried) are banned, and only the patriotic foods (green) are allowed. Denver's mayor, John "Chickpea" Hickenlooper, called it "the new patriotism". Link.

Great. And here I thought the Soup Nazi was just a funny character on the Seinfeld show.

No word yet on whether onion rings and Southern fried chicken will be sent to Gitmo. Senate investigatory hearings are forthcoming, as soon as the Dems finish interviewing every last American citizen regarding their knowledge of Valerie Plame.
===
Perennial presidential candidate Ralph Nader is tired of Democrats blaming him for Al Gore losing in 2000. Nader said, "They [the Democrats] are so small-minded to keep the myth up that it wasn't them that got Bush in the White House, it was Nader/LaDuke.”

This is news to me. I didn't think the Dems had finished blaming the Supreme Court for 2000 yet.
===
In the weirdest story of the day, John McCain's former jailer at the Hanoi Hilton for 5 1/2 years said he'd vote for McCain if he was an american voter. From the Associated Press:

"If I were an American voter, I would vote for Mr. John McCain," Tran Trong Duyet said Friday, sitting in his living room in the northern city of Haiphong, surrounded by black-and-white photos of a much younger version of himself and former Vietnam War prisoners.

At the same time, he denies prisoners of war were tortured. Despite detailed POW accounts and physical wounds, Duyet claims the presumed Republican presidential nominee made up beatings and solitary confinement in an attempt to win votes.

Of course, if Duyet had admitted McCain and the other Hanoi Hilton prisoners WERE tortured, he'd be in jail himself. There is no freedom of speech in Vietnam. It is a communist dictatorship, due to the fact that………..well, you know. Peace with honor.

Over four months until the elections. It will only get deeper.