Some Obama Fans Really Are In a Cult

Too bad they worship someone other than the Obamamessiah:

Prosecutors said Craig's victims met him through a shared interest in Satan worship. They alleged Craig shackled his victims to beds, kept them in dog cages and starved them inside his Albany Street home.

He was charged with beating one victim with a cane and a cord and with raping a woman.

Johnson, who was third vice-chair of the Durham County Democratic Party and vice-chair for the Young Democrats, was charged with two counts of aiding and abetting. Prosecutors said she knew her husband planned the crime and watched as they were committed.

She has resigned her positions with the Democratic Party, said state Sen. Floyd McKissick, D-Durham.

When reached for comment this afternoon, Obama said, "this is not the Satan-worshiping third vice-chair of the Durham County Democratic Party that I knew."

The Saddest Thing About Barack Obama's Available Military Expertise...

...is that though he has Wes Clark in his corner, the only person he knows with the experience of getting a bomb on target is Bill Ayers.

Code Pink Founder: "I Wouldn't Characterize Anybody Who Fought in Vietnam As A War Hero."

This quote was from Medea Benjamin, co-founder of Code Pink, an organization that gave $600,000 in cash and supplies in "humanitarian aide" to an insurgent-controlled Fallujah several years ago in our current war (the Marines won anyway, which is perhaps why Code Pink is leading the assault against the Marines in Berkeley).

That is just one toxic outburst is a collection of indefensible comments from the radical fringe of the Democratic Party laughably called "progressives" in a series of personal attacks levied at Presidential candidate John McCain and chronicled by Ben Smith in a Politico article.

Prominent progressive blogger John Aravosis attacked McCain for breaking under brutal torture in North Vietnamese prisons, and labeled the unwilling use of McCain in a North Vietnamese propaganda film as "disloyalty." Tellingly, Aravosis has never uttered similar words of disapproval against Jane Fonda, who willingly and famously posed for propaganda photos on North Vietnamese antiaircraft guns that were used to shoot at American pilots like McCain.

Other angry souls associated with MoveOn.org, CounterPunch, the Huffington Post, and Mother Jones also have expressed interest in attacking McCain's military record.

Democrat Wesley Clark—notable for his scarcity of support in the military, notes fighter pilot Lex—also attacked McCain's military experience as an example of poor leadership experience, without, or course, expressing how Obama's thin resume has prepared him to lead anything as consequential as a Cub Scout Troop.

We've known that Barack Obama's base among the radical fringe would bring out some long-seated uglinesses in part of the Democratic Party that makes up his base, but I don't think that anyone could have expected it would come out this soon, this hard, this transparently.

He Just Can't Help Lying, Can He?

An email fired out to supporters by the Obama Campaign:

Tonight is the crucial financial reporting deadline for June.

Right now is the time to step up and own a piece of this campaign. I need your help to take on John McCain, the Republican National Committee, and the shady so-called 527 groups that are dedicated to attacking this campaign using millions of dollars in unregulated contributions.

Please support this movement by making a donation of $25 by Midnight tonight:

https://donate.barackobama.com/deadlinejune

Together we are setting a new standard for how presidential campaigns will be organized and funded.

For the first time in a generation, a presidential campaign is putting staff in every single state for the general election. Our staff and the Obama Organizing Fellows are getting to work right now to build on grassroots energy in all 50 states.

And -- unlike John McCain -- we're going to do it without contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs that have held too much power for far too long in this country.

By putting our organizational and financial future in your hands, it's clear who will be responsible for our success and who we will be accountable to in the White House: the people.

But in order to match the resources of our opponents, we're going to have to do more and get more people involved than ever before. Your donation of $25 right now will help make that happen:

https://donate.barackobama.com/deadlinejune

I'm counting on you to take the lead and build this campaign.

The stakes couldn't be higher, and every American who hopes for something better from their government is counting on us.

Thank you,

Barack

We see Obama is still signing his name to an lie so obvious that even NPR is smacking him around for it. The only 527s of note have been those formed to support the election of Hillary Clinton... or Barack Obama. There are no significant Republican 527s in 2008, and none are expected. Obama's fundraising pitch is based upon a lie.

I guess we'll know soon how many of his supporters are willing to accept being lied to time and again.

ATF Takes Machine Guns From Blackwater in NC

22 fully-automatic assault rifles were confiscated by the BATF from Moyock, NC-based Blackwater Worldwide last week after a story was published in the Raleigh News & Observer questioning an arrangement between the private military contractor and the Camden County, North Carolina Sheriff's Department.

Blackwater financed the purchase of 17 Romanian AK-47s and 17 Bushmaster Bushmaster XM15 E2S for the Sheriff's SWAT team as it was forming in 2005. The Sheriff's Department had requested both weapons systems for trial. After training, deputies determined that the AK-47s did not meet their needs for SWAT use, and since that time, the 17 AK-47s and 5 of the17 XM15 carbines have been stored in a weapons locker dedicated to the Sheriff's Department at Blackwater's training facility armory. The other 12 XM15s are deployed with deputies. The department does not have an armory of it's own. Both the Sheriff's Department and Blackwater insist that the arrangement made three years ago is legal.

Fully-automatic weapons have always been legal to own in the United States according to federal law, though they are prohibited or further restricted in some states. There are more than 240,000 machine guns registered with the BATF as of 1995. Roughly half of those are owned by civilians, and the rest are owned by government entities such as police and sheriff's departments.

As a matter of policy the BATF will not comment on pending investigations, but the most likely cause for the confiscation was the determination by the BATF that the arrangement may have constituted a "strawman" purchase. On the most basic level, a "strawman" occurs when someone who is legally authorized to purchase a firearm knowingly purchases it for someone who they know or suspect cannot buy a firearm on their own. Additional scrutiny applies to the purchase, transfer and possession of machine guns under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) and the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA). NFA places a $200 tax on the transfer of firearms, and FOPA banned the possession or sale of machine guns to civilians manufactured after May of 1986.

The BATF may claim that the three-year-old arrangement, where the Sheriff's Department stores their weapons at Blackwater's armory is a violation of the transfer and possession requirements of NFA and/or FOPA. Anne Tyrrell, spokesperson for Blackwater Worldwide, argues that FOPA does not apply "because we never owned the weapons. The Camden County Sheriff's Department own them."

Tyrrell further claims that BATF agents have known of the arrangement with the Camden County Sheriff for an extended period of time, saying via email:

"All aspects of our contract with a local Sheriff's Department are valid and lawful. Some of the same ATF agents involved in the current inquiry have long been aware of this arrangement as a result of visits to our facility and audits of our firearms programs at Blackwater's request. As a company that is fully licensed to sell, provide training on, or even manufacture weapons---including machine guns---we have worked closely with the ATF to ensure we are in compliance with all applicable federal firearms laws. We look forward to cooperating with the government to resolve this allegation."

Pro-Blackwater blog Blackwaterfacts backs Tyrrell, claiming that the AFT did a full inventory of the facility in 2005, including the Camden County Weapons locker, after Blackwater alerted the ATF to two employees that worked in the armory were engaged in illegal activity.

If it is accurate that BATF agents had "long been aware" of the existence of the Camden County Weapons locker at Blackwater, but had not seen fit to confiscate them until now, it suggests that new details may have emerged. That detail may have been provided in articles from the News & Observer and the Elizabeth City, NC-based Daily Advance, which note that in addition to merely storing the Sheriff's Department weapons, they may have been used to train police and military units.

Blackwater, which also manufactures vehicles and airships, is the largest security contractor for the U.S. State Department and operates one of the largest tactical firearms training centers in the world. Critics of the company have attacked it as a mercenary army, and Blackwater security personnel in Iraq have been accused of using excessive force in numerous engagements, including a September 2007 incident in Baghdad's Nisour Square where 17 Iraqi civilians were killed.

correction: Moyock, NC not Mynock, as noted by "EC" in the comments.

SHOCKER: Associated Press Gets Facts Wrong in Gun Story

In a story about the Federal ATF raid to confiscate assault rifles (real ones for a change) that Blackwater International held in a secure vault for the local Camden County Sheriff that owns them, Associated Press report Mike Baker twice claims that it is illegal for private citizens or companies to purchase automatic weapons.

Fair-use, non-lede quote:

Federal laws prohibit private parties from buying automatic weapons, but allows law enforcement agencies to have them.

This claim is absolutely and unquestioningly false.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) imposed a tax on machine guns, but did not make them illegal to own by private citizens or companies. While extremely expensive, one can legally purchase machine guns from a wide variety of vendors.

Due to a Clinton-era restriction, machine guns manufactured after 1986 are not available for private sale, but this has had the side effect of making these machine guns an investment, and they are being marketed that way.

The media's ignorance of the subjects they write about never fails to amaze me.

We Must Still be Losing

Tell the Democrats we're running out of people to which we can surrender.

Abu Khalaf (a pseudonym) was the top al Qaeda leader in Mosul, al Qaeda's last reputed stronghold in Iraq, until American soldiers shot him full of holes. Further south, al Sadr's Madhi Army may be falling apart, with perhaps as few as 150 military members.

So, will someone please bring me up to speed on Barack Obama's position this hour? Is he still insisting that it is 2006 in Iraq, that the situation is untenable, and that the best thing we can do is withdraw all our forces in an expensive, resource-abandoning retreat that many experts suspect could trigger a regional war that makes today's gas prices look like a bargain and trigger a worldwide depression?

I ask, because it's rather difficult to keep up with his positions these days as he continues to throw his principles, campaign promises, friends, mentors, and supporters under the proverbial bus to bow at the alter of political expediency.

I kid, of course.

I don't seriously think Obama will change his position on Iraq being lost, as that is the only viable issue of his campaign once you eliminate his Carteresque economic schemes, head-in-the-sand energy policy, his Clintonian heathcare plan, and his beautifully empty platitudes. What he and his allies will try to do is attempt to redefine losing and winning, and try to cast obvious developing successes as defeats. If he can't successfully redefine success into failure, Barack Obama is finished as a viable candidate.

Update: Dr. Krauthammer is equally unimpressed with Obama's constantly shifting positions, and the media's unwillingness to challenge him.

It's an odd relationship Obama has with journalists. He treats them with the arrogant disdain of last night's 2:00 AM hookup, and still they pine over him, happily used, as they're shown the door.

SCOTUS Decides For Individual Rights in Heller, Liberal Blogger Calls on Scalia to be Murdered

The Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling supporting the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment today, and within moments, a commenter to the liberal blog Crooks and Liars said Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority decision on the case, should be murdered.

David Ehrenstein, an entertainment industry liberal, made the comment. He blogs at Fablog.

Update: As noted by a sharp-eyed "Jabba the Tutt" in the comments, this is the same David Ehrenstein that created the meme of Barack the Magic Negro. Quick, somebody tell Rush!

Update: Wiped. Crooks and Liars has finally scrubbed Ehrenstein's comment.

Obama: The Bus List

Yet another uncomfortable Obama associate has found his way under the treads of the Hope and Change Express.

This time it was former Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) chairman Michael Klonsky, a long-time friend of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn, Barack Obama's long-time terrorist friends. Ayers and Klonsky have co-authored several works together, and trace their relationship back to their days in the 1960s as radicals in Students for a Democratic Society, back before the Weathermen split off and began active domestic terrorism.

Klonsky had a blog on Obama's community web site. The page was quickly "disappeared" overnight by the campaign with an efficiency that Che-loving Obama fans will certainly admire.

For those of you keeping score at home:

The lists is off the top of my head and is no doubt incomplete, and doesn't include the various countries and/or regions the freshman Senator from Illinois has irritated or infuriated with his gaffe-a-matic pandering to his left-wing domestic base and woefully inadequate foreign policy inexperience.

Still it illustrates just how bloody the undercarriage of the Obama bus is, as the candidate who promised a new kind of campaign shows he's lied to the media and his supporters when he promised something other than politics as usual.

Multi-Gunshot Suicides Soon to Be On the Rise

So says the Supreme Court.

There is a macabre old urban legend that has floated around for years in which an exceedingly bad person—a wife-beater, a child-abuser, or other such societal dreg—is found perforated with bullets, and knowing local law enforcement officials note that the miscreant's death was a serious suicide, where the deceased if found having shot himself in the head and/or back multiple times, in some variations even taking the time to reload an empty weapon and fire again.

Such stories, of course, are told with a knowing smile.

We find before us—and perhaps a bit beneath us—a Supreme Court of the United States that in this session has found more sympathy and more previously unknown rights for suspected terrorists and child rapists than it has for the average American.

From Bagram to Baltimore, expect to hear some names and dates begin to be associated with this and similar urban legends.

It is a truism of the human experience that when a people sees their system of justice fail due to inequities in the judicial process, they will find justice on their own.

Not Alex, Thank God

Like many of you I saw the insipid MoveOn.org "Not Alex" ad, in which a young liberal mother proves her lack of knowledge of our military (we don't draft), ignorance of term limits (John McCain won't still be President in 17 years), parental consent laws (at 18, Alex can make his own decisions, including joining the military is he so desires) and selfishness (send someone else's child to defend her freedoms). At least we can be thankful that Alex's mother didn't exercise her option for "choice"... this time, at least.

Over at Hot Air this morning, Ed posts a rebuttal video from the family of Eric Egland, an Air Force veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan.

I don't know if it is simply a matter of perception, an artifact of the campaign season, or a real and growing divide, but it seems that the values and ideals held by those on the far left are becoming more and more divorced from those traditional values generally credited with this nation's success up until now. They don't seem to be pushing away from just the right, but from the center as well.

Is anyone else seeing anything like this?

A Sad Day for Copperheads

You won't easily find it on Fox News or CNN or Google News, but somewhere, between the shocking news that Don Imus might have a race-relations problem and the ground-breaking development that Palestinians have engaged in self-defeating random violence, most of us seemed to miss that a dream is more than halfway towards completion.

Al Anbar province in Iraq, once described as all but lost, will become the tenth Iraqi province handed over to Iraqi government control:

The U.S. military will transfer control of security in Anbar Province to Iraqi forces this week, the governor of the region said Monday, a remarkable turnaround given that the region was considered lost to insurgents less than two years ago.

Anbar will be the 10th of 18 provinces in Iraq to return security matters to Iraqi control since the U.S.-led invasion of 2003, but it will be the first Sunni Arab region to do so.

Mamun Sami Rasheed, governor of Anbar Province, said the handover ceremony would take place Saturday. "We have been dreaming of this event since 2003," he said.

With ten provinces down and eight to go, we are passing a milestone of sorts. More than half of the country will be under the control of a democratically-elected Iraqi government, the first freely-elected Arab government in modern history. You would think that Democrats would be thrilled at this step towards freedom, as the turnover also means we are one small step closer to a withdrawal from Iraq, which they claim to be their goal.

Barack Obama isn't trumpeting the good news, however. Left-leaning blogs also appear to be silent on the issue, or nearly so, if Memeorandum is a guide. Instead, liberal bloggers there seem more interested in reacting to Glenn Greenwald's latest long-winded rant about FISA (while ignoring Greenwald's own history of wiretapping, of course).

Al Anbar? It doesn't seem to exist.

With ever passing day that Iraq inches towards success or takes a dramatic leap, it becomes ever more apparent that many Democrats in this country, be they members of the news media, the new media, elected officials, or the activist left, don't just want the United States out of Iraq. They want us cast out or withdrawn in defeat.

The al Anbar handover is symbolic in nature as well as practical, and good news for two Democratic nations. Sadly Democratic leaders cannot join in sharing the good news, because what is good for the United States and what is good for the citizens of Iraq is not good for Harry Reid, or Nancy Pelosi, or Barack Obama.

How sad this day must be for Democrats that are more loyal to their nation than the spite-based political ideology of their fellow travelers.

Update: Peter Wehner, writing at NRO's The Corner, concludes:

Iraq has gone from broken to fragile and slowly mending. Even now, though, leading Democrats seem wholly uninterested in the outcome in Iraq; all they care about is withdrawing American troops. It is a commitment they hold with ideological and theological intensity – and if they are ever allowed to act on their convictions, misery and death and defeat would follow.

Network News: If We Can't Lose The War, We'll Act Like It Doesn't Exist

Someone please tell CBS News chief foreign correspondent Lara Logan that her reaction is precisely the reaction her peers are shooting for:

"If I were to watch the news that you hear here in the United States, I would just blow my brains out because it would drive me nuts," Ms. Logan said.

Logan admits here a common complaint about the kind of news reported out of Iraq for the duration of the war, which is a macabre focus on blood-soaked sensationalism to the near exclusion of any other sort of story.

The newsworks (to perhaps coin a phrase) have never been interesting in reporting all the news, a fact that far predates television. News outlets—both state-controlled and private—have had a propaganda role throughout history. What may be unique among western news organizations is an often obvious desire to present only one side of the story, even when they have the option of objectivity. They are guilty of providing propaganda just as state-run media often are, but are often blind to this, confusing the biased views they advocate with "truth."

This bias is often wrongly blamed upon the political leanings of a news outlets ownership. In days past (and perhaps in the New York Times present), family control over an outlet may have strongly influenced the focus and bias of news organizations, but the modern reality of corporate news ownership, with organizations and divisions of news organizations being bought, sold, fragmented, consolidated, and always for sale, has rendered that argument laughably simplistic and out of date.

No, in the modern era where news is viewed by "suits" as another potential revenue stream and not a public service, "news" is pushed to be shallow infotainment providing immediate gratification. It is under this pressure-cooker environment that producers, editors and journalists are forced to drop even the pretense of objectivity and produce news quickly, cheaply and sensationally. This pressure brings personal biases out in sharp relief. Journalists, which have self-defined themselves time and again as being left-of-center in their world views and based in bias-reinforcing left-of-center urban enclaves, pushed by business-oriented ownership focused on ratings, have succumbed to their baser instincts, leading us into situation where news is reduced to little more than a veneer of political advocacy attempting to guide the public on how they should think about current events. From global cooling global warming global cooling climate change, to views of conflicts, the proper application of diplomacy, and even the kind of lightbulbs we use, the media attempts to shape how we think by presenting the news they deem newsworthy from a perspective they deem correct.

Reality, however, does not have a leftward bias (neither does it have a rightward bias). Reality, like nature, seeks equilibrium... balance.

The reaction of the newsworks is simple when reality intrudes on the narrative: they dispute it, then they ignore it, and if they can no longer ignore it, they pretend that they never held a contrary position.

Presently, the falloff in news coverage in Iraq is the result of media attempting to ignore that the "quagmire in a failed state" narrative they've been promoting has been failing for over a year.

According to data compiled by Andrew Tyndall, a television consultant who monitors the three network evening newscasts, coverage of Iraq has been "massively scaled back this year." Almost halfway into 2008, the three newscasts have shown 181 weekday minutes of Iraq coverage, compared with 1,157 minutes for all of 2007. The "CBS Evening News" has devoted the fewest minutes to Iraq, 51, versus 55 minutes on ABC's "World News" and 74 minutes on "NBC Nightly News." (The average evening newscast is 22 minutes long.)

CBS News no longer stations a single full-time correspondent in Iraq, where some 150,000 United States troops are deployed.

I'm sure that psychologists have more precise terms to describe this collective behavior, but it comes down to this: the situation in Iraq is far better than the media have predicted it would be, and they aren't sure what to do. They don't want to report success, as success means having to explain why they've been wrong. They also morbidly hope—no doubt subconsciously—that things will once again turn worse, and vindicate their years of predicting doom and failure.

So coverage withers away. The war becomes a non-event, and thankfully, a Presidential campaign between a far left shape-shifter and an occasional Republican provides a welcome distraction.

The War in Iraq is plenty interesting to Americans. That has never faded in five years, and most would be heartened to hear what independent reporters have been indicating for months; that real progress has been made economically, diplomatically, and militarily.

But the newsworks doesn't want to admit they may have been wrong, and so their interests have now focused eslewhere. They don't want to undermine a political party that long ago made abandoning Iraq a key part of their party platform. They don't want to expose a shameful candidate who has made defeating his own military and abandoning a fledgling democracy his signature issue.

From their perspective, it is better to provide only the bad news, and when the bad news fails to live up to expectations, to ignore the uncomfortable.

Damn the news. Send in the clowns.

The Real "Dead-Enders"

It has been fascinating—and often more than a little infuriating—to watch the anti-Administration wing of the anti-war movement over the past year.

I'd like to first make that distinction clear: there are those who are against the concept of warfare to resolve conflicts, and those that are against this war in specific because they have an acute loathing for their domestic political opposition, led by the current President. Make no mistake: so many of those who presently claim to be anti-war now would change their position on military intervention in an heartbeat if it meant intervening in Darfur or (_fill_in_the_blank_), if it satisfied their political desires and could be painted as a "humanitarian" mission.

Those politically-motivated progressives that see anti-war sentiment as little more than a way to grab power via the ballot box have been most aggravating and occasionally amusing. They saw that an unpopular and protracted war was a way to market themselves to pick up seats in Congress in 2004 and 2006, and hoped perhaps they could ride anti-war sentiment to the White House in 2008.

They rallied behind an eloquent dove of a candidate who has repeatedly promised America to withdrawal U.S. forces on a rigid 16-month timetable, regardless of condition on the ground or the effect it would have on the Iraqi people or on the stability of the region.

That timetable was predicated upon conditions on the ground in Iraq in 2006, when violence was spiraling out of control, and it seemed all but assured that Iraq would become a failed state. Obviously, a lot has changed in the time since Barack Obama predicated his campaign on achieving defeat, and in the past year in particular.

Violence dropped as U.S. and Iraqi forces moved off-base and into the communities, and as the communities themselves began rejecting insurgents, terrorists, gangs, and rogue militias. The Iraqi Parliament, once almost as ineffective as our current Congress, has passed important reconciliation legislation, including an amnesty law that has already led to hundreds of captured insurgents, including Associated Press personnel, to be set free.

Though leading Democrats like Harry Reid still insist that the war is lost, and the Speaker of the House insists that any progress must be due to Iran's moderating influence (and not the success of American and Iraqi forces in killing those carrying out those "moderating Iranian influences") it has become obvious to most of the world that the Iraqi experiment just might work and is well worth pursuing.

Austin Bay noted this morning that freshman Senator Hopeandchange may be trying to distance himself from his adopted policy of purposeful defeat (h/t: Instapundit):

Obama still touts his pull-out — sort of, occasionally, okay, less occasionally. Obama, like his cohort of supporters, is politically committed to defeat. Obama will now rely on rhetoric to assauge the DailyKos-crowd and obscure his shift on Iraq. He will change his position– and Samantha Power prepared the way several months ago in her ill-fated BBC interview this past spring. Obama thinks he can get away with it: he just backed out of public financing.

The NY Times on the deal before the vote. And Fox.

The real rubes in this election won’t be the rural Midwesterners Obama slandered, the ones who cling to their guns and religon. It will be the gray-haired profs with ponytails, clinging to their cannabis and liturgy of defeat.

When Obama quietly slinks aways from his signature issue and the anti-Bush wing of the anti-war movement loses their defeat-at-any-cost pledgemaster, what will become of the anti-war progressive fringe?

Obama Volunteers Boot Muslims From Stage

I don't think for a second that the freshman Senator is himself anti-Muslim—his father's family and many of his half-siblings are Muslim—but this incident once again shows he is part of anything other than a post-racial campaign:

Two Muslim women at Barack Obama's rally in Detroit Monday were barred from sitting behind the podium by campaign volunteers seeking to prevent the women's headscarves from appearing in photographs or on television with the candidate.

The campaign has apologized to the women, all Obama supporters who said they felt betrayed by their treatment at the rally.

"This is of course not the policy of the campaign. It is offensive and counter to Obama's commitment to bring Americans together and simply not the kind of campaign we run," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton. "We sincerely apologize for the behavior of these volunteers."

He can blame the volunteers that forced these Muslim women off stage today in two separate incidents by different Obama volunteers, but these incidents aren't the first and second audience-shaping controversies for Obama's campaign. In April, campaign volunteers issued a directive to "Get me more white people, we need more white people" for Michelle Obama's appearance at Carnegie Mellon.

AP, Let's Do This Thing

Michelle Malkin's take is typical of bloggers who find the Associated Press' tiered excerpt pricing scheme targeted at bloggers to be farcical, but I think her response of charging the Associated Press for content they cite from bloggers doesn't go far enough.

I propose that in addition to charging AP for using blogger content, that AP be charged editorial fees when bloggers are forced to do the fact checking that in-house editors fail to do. For every blog entry proving than an Associated Press story is using false information or misleading, the Associated Press should pay that blogger the AP-supplied standard of $2.50/word. Just doing a quick check of my content from the present back until the beginning of May, the Associated Press owes me editorial services fees of $2,580 for 1,032 words correcting AP stories dating back to May 2. Some of that would be returned to AP (at $2.50/word) for the text examples I cited, but overall, it is a worthwhile enterprise. If I went back through all of my archives, I suspect that I could easily compile a fact-checking bill for the AP in the tens of thousands of dollars.

You'll not find me complaining about the Associated Press' new ideas of content fees. Their accountants, however, may feel otherwise.

An Army Learns

Over at The Donovan, proof that this generation of military leaders is learning from mistakes made in the past.

Gore Shame

The worlds greatest environmental hypocrite wastes so much energy that his consumption would power 232 normal homes.

Sadly not content with even that level of wastefulness, the Goracle has now taken to directly belching balls of energy into the atmosphere.

Update: Steve Strum notes (correctly) that Gore's annual usage would power 232 normal homes for a month. Not quite as bad as originally thought, but still horrific.

Obama Gaffes Again

Somebody get a history book for the clueless freshman Senator from Illinois (my bold):

And, you know, let's take the example of Guantanamo. What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks -- for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.

And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, "Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims."

For the moment let's ignore that terrorist recruitment in general (and for al Qaeda in particular) is on the decline and Barack is making up his inconvenient untruths as he goes along, to focus instead on his insistence that Bill Clinton's flawed policy of treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue is somehow a winning strategy. We'll use Obama's own 1993 WTC bombing example to debunk his claim.

It's quite simple: where is the 1993 World Trade Center bomb-builder? Is he in a U.S prison, as Obama claims? Not even close.

Though grossly neglected in the media, Abdul Rahman Yasin conducted the first attempted chemical weapons attack on U.S. soil by terrorists with the 1993 World Trade Center bomb. The bomb that detonated in the WTC garage in 1993 was built by Yasin to create smoke filled with sodium cyanide *(update, see below) which he hoped would rise through elevator shafts, ventilation ducts, and stairwells to suffocate 50,000 people.

Fortunately for those in the World Trade Center that day, the bomb burned hotter than Yasin expected, and incinerated the cyanide as it detonated instead of spreading it in toxic smoke.

Yasin fled the United States after the bombing to Iraq, and lived as Saddam Hussein's guest in Baghdad until the invasion. He is still free, and wanted by the FBI.

Once again, Barack Obama is dead wrong on the facts.

Update: It now appears that the claim that Yasin used sodium cyanide in the bomb is on very weak ground, and is more than likely false From an online term paper that does a good job of synthesizing the story.

Forensics in World Trade Center Bombing in 1993

... So, what were the evidences, which supported the statement of the Judge Duffy, that there had been cyanide in the WTC bomb? The main question to be solved here lied in the following: what could be the consequences of mixing cyanide with nitric or sulfuric acids, both of which had been found in the bomb fragments? The FBI chemist Steven Burgmeister was the main person to be inquired about the results of the forensic chemical analysis. The thing is, that Burgmeister never made it clear, that he had come to any positive conclusions as for cyanide' presence in the explosive. (Dwyer, 1994, p. 237) This is an abstract from the Burgmeister's interview by one of the prosecutors during the trial:

Prosecutor: What happens, when sodium cyanide is mixed with nitric or sulfuric acid?

Burmeister: There is formed hydrogen cyanide, which is a gas, and which is extremely toxic.

Prosecutor: When you say, that hydrogen cyanide is very toxic, could you give an idea of how toxic it is?

Burmeister: Very toxic, if you breathe, you are dead… (Burgmeister, 1994, p. 6911)

One of the proofs for FBI agents was the discovery of the bottle with sodium cyanide at the place, where the terrorists were preparing their explosive. But it is clear, that this does not directly prove there was any cyanide in the bomb. The fact is that sodium cyanide may be used for different purposes, for example, for photography. Its cost is very low, and it is sold in tons for industrial use. There have been also carried out technical analysis as for how much cyanide would be needed to create such an explosive, and how it is possible to create hydrogen cyanide and the assertions of the Judge Duffy were not confirmed by the FBI. (Dwyer, 1994, p. 240)

It seems that the cyanide claims I cited in this and the previous blog entry were based upon the words of Judge Duffy, based upon his interpretation of what he heard from FBI chemist Steven Burgmeister, yet Burgmeister neither confirmed nor denied cyanide was in the bomb. I'm not sure how Duffy got from Burgmeister's statements to his conclusion. Forensics did not recover any cyanide at the bomb site, only a small quantity at the sit where the bomb was constructed.

None of that matters to the central thesis, which is that Obama was wrong about terrorist recruitment and about his daft view that combating terrorism is best done as a law enforcement matter.

Law enforcement is the enforcement of laws after they have been broken and a crime has been committed. Preemption is not an option using this model; you can't arrest a terrorist until they have broken a law, and you can't do that unless you have jurisdiction, cooperation with local law enforcement, a judge who will give you a warrant, etc. Good luck with that.

The terrorists use asymmetrical warfare as their tool of choice, and common sense dictates that the proper response is also military in nature.

They Never Change

Pfleger's baaaaack:

Two weeks after his controversial sermon on race sparked a national uproar, Rev. Michael Pfleger returned Monday to his office at St. Sabina Catholic Church, expressing gratitude to Cardinal Francis George and saying activism would always be a part of him.

Pfleger said he would wait to make further comments until mass Sunday, when he plans to address his entire congregation for the first time since George suspended him. St. Sabina, one of the most vibrant Catholic churches in the city, is predominantly African-American and draws nearly 2,000 worshipers.

"I'm good. I'll speak Sunday and give my talk then," Pfleger said as he sifted through a desk full of papers. "I'm grateful to be back and to do what I'm called to do. I'm grateful to the cardinal for letting me back."

When asked if he was the same "Michael Pfleger" as before, he said: "I'm me. I'm not changing. This is how I've been since I've been born. I'm not changing."

I find it refreshing that like the other radicals in Barack Obama's closet, Michael Pfleger is the same person today as he was yesterday, as he was more than 20 years ago when he first became a moral compass for Barack Obama. Jeremiah Wright, likewise, seems to have never veered from his course in the decades Obama followed him until now, even after those controversial views were exposed. These men have strong views and convictions that are unwavering. Their core values have apparently remain unchanged. Most of Obama's associates have also remained true to themselves.

Obama kicked off his political career at the home of domestic terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn. The Obama campaign has tried to minimize their relationship, but the facts remain that Obama has extensive tied to Ayers.

Obama and Ayers served together for many years at the Woods Fund, and Obama was chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a $50 million education grant project for which Ayers wrote the grant proposal. Steve Diamond at the blog Global Labor and the Global Economy makes a compelling argument that it was a concerted effort of the Ayers family, including terrorist Bill, his father Thomas, brother John, and Bill's Manson Family-admiring wife (and fellow Weatherman terrorist) Bernadine Dorhn that "made" Obama's poltical career:

Thus, we have one possible answer to the question: Who "sent" Obama? It was the Ayers family, including Tom, John, Bill and Bernardine Dohrn.

It is highly unlikely that a 30-something second year lawyer would have been plucked from relative obscurity out of a left wing law firm to head up something as visible and important in Chicago as the Annenberg Challenge by Bill Ayers if Ayers had not already known Obama very well. One possibility is that Obama proved himself to the Ayers's in the battle for local school control when he was at the DCP in the 80s.

Diamond also ties Obama's present Presidential campaign to other radicals, including the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), a faction of which later became the Weathermen:

As it turns out, there are other ex-SDS types around the Obama campaign as well, including Marilyn Katz, a public relations professional, who was head of security for the SDS during the disaster in the streets of Chicago in 1968. She is close (politically) to Carl Davidson, a former vice president of SDS and longtime Fidelista, who is webmaster for a group called Progressives for Obama, that is headlined by other former 60s radicals like Tom Hayden and the maoist Bill Fletcher. Davidson and Katz were key organizers of the 2002 anti-war demonstration where Obama made public his opposition to the Iraq war that has been so critical to his successful presidential campaign. Davidson apparently moved into the maoist movements of the 70s after the disintegration of SDS.

None of these people have deviated from established characters and viewpoints that are unerringly radical in nature when compared to the traditional values of most Americans.

This web of radical associates strongly suggests that the actual substance of Barack Obama is quite different from the carefully-scripted character his campaign message machine has tried to forge in the media. It strongly suggests that his continual, inevitable surprise at the uncovered radicalism of his dearest friends and oldest contacts is entirely feigned.

The Obama campaigns attempts to minimize his troubling, decades-long relationships with radicals is nothing more than more or less than the work of a campaign feverishly trying to hide a past that most conservative Democrats and independent voters would find revolting.

From his absolutist views on the Second Amendment in favor of outlawing most common firearms, to support of a radical view of reproductive rights "too close to infanticide" that suggests babies who survive abortions should be left to die, to a "dazed and malaised" return to Jimmy Carter's failed economics, the greatest challenge to Barack Obama's campaign is consistently Barack Obama himself, and his requirement of us that we believe a lifetime shaped by and shared with the most radical fringes of society was a lifetime spent in the dark, not knowing who these people really are, unaware of the influence they had over him.

Barack Obama requires potential voters to accept that he doesn't know his friends, his family, nor himself. Should someone with such a stunning lack of awareness be President?

Chinese Company Develops "UFO"

Interesting, of course, but abductees say they feel like being probed again a half hour later.

POT MEET KETTLE: Obama Says Black Men Should Be Better Fathers

Frankly, I agree with the general sentiment. He's raised valid points few will argue.

That said, I did notice that Obama gave his speech at the Apostolic Church of God, and not Trinity United Church of Christ. Obama recently quit Trinity at roughly the same time it was discovered that Rev. Jeremiah Wright was refusing to relinquish control of the church, and lynching advocate Rev. Michael Pfleger issued forth his most recent offensive comments against Hillary Clinton in specific and white people in general in front of a congregation roaring their approval.

Someone should ask Obama if absentee fatherism is any worst than purposefully exposing their children to the hate speech of that radical church for nearly the entirety of their short lives. One doesn't have to be an absentee father to be a bad one, a point that a man closely aligned with a cadre of racists, conspiracy theorists, political radicals, anti-Semites, and domestic terrorists would no doubt rather ignore.

McClatchy's Dying: Who's Got the Will?

You could have seen this coming a mile away:

McClatchy Co., which owns The News & Observer newspaper in Raleigh, said Monday it will cut 10 percent of its work force in a move to save $70 million a year as the publisher continues to struggle to attract advertising dollars.

McClatchy, which also owns The Charlotte Observer, the Kansas City Star and Miami Herald, will trim about 1,400 employees. The staff reductions are part of a plan to reduce overall expenses by $95 million to $100 million over the next four quarters.

That is hardly surprising, considering we're in an environment where many print-based news outlets are fading, but perhaps McClatchy in particular wouldn't be fading as fast if they would try to address at least two points.

1. Make an attempt to remove obvious and pervasive left-leaning political biases in reporting;
2. find a less obnoxious and politically-charged slogan that the nutroots favorite, "Truth to Power."

The powers that be are not amused with the company's business sense, and many readers are immediately turned of by McClatchy's editorial stance. A flailing company should try to shore up a reader base, not alienate potential readers and advertisers, who will simply find a less-obviously biased competitor.

Enjoy "speaking truth to power" McClatchy, all the way to bankruptcy.

Tim Russert Dead at 58

I've written hundreds of posts critiquing journalism, but have never had anything but respect for Tim Russerts' professionalism. He was what a journalist should be, and he will be missed.

Go with God, Mr. Russert.

al Sadr Crafting an Iraqi Hezbollah?

Via email from a trusted source, a VOI account. It looks like al Sadr is going to continue his Iranian-backed insurrection against the Iraqi government:

The anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr on Friday expressed intention to authorize setting up "cells to resist the occupation", head of the political bureau of Sadr's Movement said.

"The declaration by Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr to form cells to resist the
occupation comes in full conformity with the approach of the
Sadrists," Sheikh Liwa Semaysam told Aswat al-Iraq- Voices of Iraq-
(VOI) on the phone.

The key Sadrist leader added that these cells will "have a written
authorization by Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr to carry out their task, on
the condition that arms will only be in their hands for use against
the occupier and none else."

Sheikh Semaysam, a close aide of Sadr, provided no further details.

If true—and apparently, it is—al Sadr is attempting to split and sanction a military wing off of the Madhi Army and Iranian "Special groups" to continue insurgent operations, while making at least a face-value attempt to demilitarize the organization.

Intresting, isn't it?

Iran tried to infiltrate Iraqi government at all levels, along with militia groups and criminal gangs. Obviously, as PM Maliki's clearing out of Sadrists from Baghdad to Basra proved, the government route has failed, and the militia route is on the ropes.

As a result, al Sadr is apparently attempting to craft an Iraqi Hezbollah, entrenching his group socially as an Iranian-supported shadow government with it's own insurgent military wing. Iraq's security forces and government are far less fractured than those in Lebanon, so it seems unlikely that al Sadr's hopes will come to fruition, but the development does raise an interesting question, namely: is this the best Iran has left?

Che We Can Beleive In?

Nope, not concerned about liberal judges, at all.

(h/t Gabriel Malor)

Krauthammer: Iraqis Have Done "Nothing;" Somehow Obama Has Done Less

And here's his sarcastic list of the "nothings" they've accomplished that "cut-and-run Barry" Obama tries to pretend haven't happened:

1. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki sent the Iraqi army into Basra. It achieved in a few weeks what the British had failed to do in four years: take the city, drive out the Mahdi army, and seize the ports from Iranian-backed militias.
2. When Mahdi fighters rose up in support of their Basra brethren, the Iraqi army at Maliki's direction confronted them and prevailed in every town — Najaf, Karbala, Hilla, Kut, Nasiriyah, and Diwaniyah — from Basra to Baghdad.
3. Without any American ground forces, the Iraqi army entered and occupied Sadr City, the Mahdi army stronghold.
4. Maliki flew to Mosul, directing a joint Iraqi-U.S. offensive against the last redoubt of al-Qaeda, which had already been driven out of Anbar, Baghdad, and Diyala provinces.
5. The Iraqi parliament enacted a de-Baathification law, a major Democratic benchmark for political reconciliation.
6. Parliament also passed the other reconciliation benchmarks — a pension law, an amnesty law, and a provincial elections and powers law. Oil revenues are being distributed to the provinces through the annual budget.
7. With Maliki having demonstrated that he would fight not just Sunni insurgents (e.g., in Mosul) but Shiite militias (e.g., the Mahdi army), the Sunni parliamentary bloc began negotiations to join the Shiite-led government. (The final sticking point is a squabble over a sixth Cabinet position.)

You would think that the media would do more to force Obama to recognize that his view of Iraqi is frozen in time in 2006. AFP, Reuters, McClatchy, the Associated Press, etc., all have journalists in the region. Many have multiple reporters, videographers, and photographers throughout the country of Iraq itself.

At least one of those news agencies, the Associated Press, has benefited directly and publicly from the new laws passed by the Iraqi Parliament that have largely been ignored in the press. Pulitzer-winning AP photojournalist Bilal Hussein, captured with a known al Qaeda leader, was released from prison several months ago directly as a result of Iraq's new amnesty law, and not, as the news organization would have you believe, because he was found innocent.

But the media refuse to push Obama and other Democrats to admit to their failure to recognize the massive changes sweeping Iraq since the 2006 elections.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid still doggedly insists that the U.S. "surge" is a continuation of Bush's original policies, and that strategically, tactically, and politically, nothing has changed. He still shrilly insists the war is "lost" acting as if the Sunni and Shia Awakening movements, Iraqi political advancement on both domestic and foreign policy fronts, and the impressive performance of Iraqi security forces successfully executing a cascade of large-scale operations, never occurred.

Nancy Pelosi presides over the other half one of the most unaccomplished Congresses in U.S. history, with the lowest approval rates in history, currently a dismal 10.3% lower than even George W. Bush's 29% approval rating. She take a similar route as Reid, insisting that there is no progress... but said if there was, it is because of the efforts of Iran. She will not credit the American and Iraqi forces with their hard-won successes. Instead, she would give credit to those training and arming forces those fighting against the Iraqi government.

Neither Reid, nor Pelosi, nor their anti-war allies will concede progress in Iraq because they've thoroughly wedded their political futures to failure there, and have left themselves no viable escape routes. This means that Democrats have created for themselves a vicious trap, where for the good of their party, they have to pull against two democracies (the United States and Iraq), against freedom, and against peace.

They have created for themselves a hell where for their aspirations to come true, they must hope for a failed state, crippled by resurgent brutality. The must hope that recent successes change back for the worst. History may well well look back on the post-surge Democratic House and Senate of 2007-2008 as being the most anti-democratic Congress since similar Democrats (called copperheads) attempted to concede the U.S. Civil War.

Barack Obama took the lead early in attacking the Iraq War, even when he was just a state Senator in Illinois and had no access to intelligence information to base that opinion upon. He doggedly stuck to that position through the worst of Iraq's violence in 2006, riding a cry of withdrawal and defeat to prominence, first in the U.S. Senate, and then within scant months of graduating from his mediocre stint in state politics, into the Democratic Presidential race.

His strident, unwavering opposition to the war is the entirety of his appeal; without the conflict, his resume of unaccomplishments and rote university-indoctrinated progressive politics make him an entirely conventional and uninteresting urban Democratic candidate, if one admittedly better at reading a teleprompter than most.

For this reason, Barack Obama is forced to continue running on a platform of failure in Iraq. He cannot acknowledge that his position on the war has been proven wrong. To make that concession—admitting that John McCain was right to take the unpopular position of supporting the "surge" now that the situation has so radically changed in favor of success—is to admit defeat in the general election.

Instead, Barack Obama has hitched his entire political future to becoming a political Frankenstein. He combines the worst aspects of two Presidents reviled by many; Jimmy Carter's naive pacifism and horrific grasp of taxation and economics, with George W. Bush's dead-certain stubbornness, tightly-scripted and excessively-controlled (one might even say Rovian) public relations, arrogant detachment, and inflexibility.

Obama is a man wedded to a singular message, which he markets as "hope and change."

But his "hope" is reliant on a return of brutal sectarian and terrorist violence, the collapse of the first Arab democracy, and the extinguishing of freedom. His "change" entails a headlong and arbitrary retreat, regardless of what threats the ensuing security vacuum will cause in the lives of Iraqi men, women, and children just beginning to cautiously embrace a less violent, dictator-free society.

Barack Obama has staked his future on dragging two nations back into the past, into defeat. That is not a change we can accept from a man who has never shown at any point in his life that he is capable of being a leader.

You Don't Want to Go There

Judging by all the links noted on Memeorandum to this Salon article, the left has decided to raise a huge stink about a Fox News caption labeling Michelle Obama as "Obama's baby mama."

There are two reasons they should drop this tempest in a teacup quickly. The first is that Michelle Obama has referred to herself in similar terms ("My baby's daddy Barack Obama" is the same thing as calling herself "Obama's baby mama"), making them look rather childish and petty.

The second is that they don't want to start a legitimacy argument related to this particular candidate. Barack Obama Sr. never divorced his first wife Kezia Obama. His wedding to Ann Dunham when she was three months pregnant with the junior Senator was illegitimate, and so was the junior Senator. This isn't "new" news—the information has been out there for anyone to see—and it shouldn't be that big of a deal, but his supporters shouldn't start conversations that they may not want to finish.

Rallying for Defeat

John McCain is presumably learning a hard lesson as Democrats and their willing accomplices in the media unfairly rip him (yet again) over comments about Iraq taken utterly out of context.

The exchange that has Democrats licking their chops began when co-host Matt Lauer asked about the surge strategy in Iraq: "If it's working Senator, do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?"

McCain replied: "No, but that's not too important. What's important is the casualties in Iraq, Americans are in South Korea, Americans are in Japan, American troops are in Germany. That’s all fine. American casualties and the ability to withdraw; we will be able to withdraw. General [David] Petraeus is going to tell us in July when he thinks we are.

"But the key to it is that we don't want any more Americans in harm's way. That way, they will be safe, and serve our country and come home with honor and victory, not in defeat, which is what Senator Obama's proposal would have done. I'm proud of them. And they're doing a great job. And we are succeeding and it's fascinating that Senator Obama still doesn't realize that."

From that exchange, all Democrats heard was "No, but that's not too important."

The deceptively shortened quote was possibly taken out of context by ignorance, but far more likely by design. What McCain seemed to be saying is that arbitrarily-decided pullout dates (such as the 16 month "run for the exits" date favored by Obama) are asinine; conditions on the ground should indicate when a withdrawal is feasible, and he thinks he'd have a better idea of when that might possible be the next time General David Petraeus briefs Congress in June.

Common sense, isn't it?

John "find me a river" Kerry twisted McCain's words, perhaps filtered through a too tight magic hat, and claimed:

McCain's comment was "unbelievably out of touch with the needs and concerns of most Americans," saying that to families of troops in harm's way, "To them, it's the most important thing in the world."

Kerry claimed "an enormous, fundamental flaw in his candidacy for the presidency, which supposedly has hung on his strength as commander in chief and his understanding of foreign policy."

Kerry's foreign policy, like freshman Senator Obama's, is based upon the goal of losing the war, hoping that even at this late date a defeat could be portrayed as Bush's loss, not a concerted effort by the leaders the modern Democratic Party to cost their nation a war in the hope of establishing short-term political gains.

These Copperhead Democrats naturally view a desire for victory a "fundamental flaw," one that is "unbelievably out of touch" with their goals.

Ignored by the media in McCain's comments was his noting that Obama and many of his supporters still refuse to concede progress in Iraq, despite across-the-board gains.

Democrats have spent the past seven years excoriating George W. Bush for doggedly holding an absolutist view on certain issues, immune to acknowledging changing conditions. I find it highly amusing that they now rally around a political neophyte with many of the exact same personality traits.

Get Your Racist Checklist Here

Here you go, haters.

I'll have you know this does not help Michelle Obama's children.

Welcome Back Carter

Despite the hopes of Democrats, the economy isn't going to tank, at least not unless Barack Obama gets into the White House.

While the media would like to help along the meme that McCain's financial plan of low taxes and lowered government spending is a continuation of Bush's economy, that is fiction. McCain's policies are in line with Ronald Reagan's successful conservative economic plans; of the two Presidential candidates, it is Obama's plan that is more like those practiced by Bush.

The bloated government and increased spending seen under the Bush Administration is horrific from a fiscally conservative standpoint, and a prequel to what would occur if the ultra-liberal Obama campaign lives up to its promises, creating more than $87 billion in new government and entitlements. Obama will need to substantially raise taxes to fulfill even some of his campaign promises.

Think Bush is bad? Obama will be worse, pulling for "higher income taxes, Social Security taxes, capital gains taxes, dividend taxes," and taxes on job-creating small businesses straight out of the "dazed and malaised" days of James Earl Carter's failed one-term Presidency. I'm sure I am not alone in hearing from parents concerned that an Obama presidency will ruin the economy for their children.

This is just on the home front, where Obama thinks he's strongest. Overseas, Obama is even more of a dismal failure.

We are not losing in Iraq, despite the best efforts of Democrats in Congress and on the Presidential campaign trial. Oh, they've certainly tried, but the war is actually progressing well enough that a Iraqi Sunni sheik is pressing to go to Afghanistan to help fight al Qaeda there. He trusts America. Democrats? Not so much.

As for Iran, the mullah's no doubt salivate at the possibility of an Obama presidency, and the reasons why are obvious.

They seek to exploit Obama's status as a foreign policy naif pledged to a campaign of pacifism to recreate the glory days of their Islamic Revolution. I'd remind you that these were their glory days due in no small part due to Carter's ineffectual Presidency, which Obama is already emulating with his stated policy of unconditional talks with tyrants. Other strongmen in the region also smell Obama's fear, which is why they are actively campaigning for him.

He's a well-rounded candidate, the first-term senator from Illinois. Obama's foreign policy is equally incompetent as are his domestic policies, all of which are as bad or worse than that of the thirty-ninth President.

Higher taxes. Bigger government. Intrusive regulations.

Welcome Back, Carter.

Impeachment: Just Do It

Former Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich has filed articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush.

I hope that the Democrat-controlled Congress will not treat this event with the seriousness that it deserves, and instead, high on their own fumes, launches full-blown impeachment proceedings.

Let's do this thing.

We've been listening the fringe left grow ever more hysterical over the past few years, perpetrating the "Bush lied, people died" hyperbole so long and hard that they now accept their fevered fantasies as fact, even as their own politically-motivated investigations proven otherwise.

So let us see the Democrats make their very best case for impeachment. Let us see every one of their "facts" placed under extreme scrutiny in a national spotlight, carried across network and cable news and wire services in an onslaught of continuous wall-to-wall coverage, with nary a second of coverage ignored.

Support your rhetoric. Make your best case directly to the American people. Lay out all the facts, under oath.

Give it your best shot, impeachment fans.

We can hardly wait.

Toddler Shot with CCH Holder's Gun

The sad story out of Columbia, SC, is an example of why I find some methods of carrying concealed completely unacceptable:

A 4-year-old girl grabbed her grandmother's gun and shot herself at a Sam's Club store in Columbia, S.C., authorities said.

Police Department spokesman Brick Lewis said the child took the gun from her grandmother's purse Monday and shot herself in the chest.

He said the child's grandmother has a valid permit to carry a concealed weapon. She has not been charged with a crime.

While I'm sure to have folks disagree on this point, I simply don't find off-body carry to be responsible. If you have your carry weapon in a purse or a bag, you put yourself in a situation where you will, during the course of your day, willingly relinquish control of your weapon numerous times. No person on this planet keeps a purse, bag, or briefcase in hand at all times, often placing it in a seat, shopping cart, on a desk, etc.

For unarmed people this is not an issue; shoplifters, purse-snatchers, and other thieves aren't rampant at our homes or places of work, and the very worst that can occur as a result of someone else accessing a bag or case is identity theft. For those who chose to carry a firearm, you should be held to a higher standard of responsibility, and when you carry off-body in a bag, you create a situation where unauthorized access arms curious children or thieves with a lethal weapon.

Frankly, the grandmother in this case should be charged for criminal negligence (or something similar) and have her carry permit revoked. She knew she was going to be around small children, and apparently left a lethal weapon unsecured in a purse in a shopping cart with a small child.

I'm glad that the child looks like she will recover, but Grandma should not be allowed to make such an irresponsible mistake again, and I'd urge my fellow CCH holders to carry on your person, or not carry at all.

Eeyore to Get New Tail

Though I doubt it helps her much.

Prequel: Obama's Legacy Already Lamer Than Gore's

At least manbearpig is falsely credited with creating something of value.

Obama? Not so much.

Vote for Obama, You Bunch of Knuckle-Dragging, Bible-Thumping, Gun-Toting Racists

That is the subtext, oui?

Joyce Susick is the type of voter who might carry Barack Obama to the White House — or keep him out. A registered Democrat in a highly competitive state, she is eager to replace George W. Bush, whom she ranks among the worst presidents ever.

There's just one problem.

"I don't think our country is ready for a black president," Susick, who is white, said in an interview in the paint store where she works. "A black man is never going to win Pennsylvania."

Susick said her personal objection to Obama is his inexperience, not his color. "It has nothing to do with race," she said.

Obama has national political experience that is dwarfed by that of Dan Quayle, a resume devoid of leadership experience, economic policies that look like they were designed by Jack Kevorkian, and a collection of friends and associates better viewed by a grand jury than an electorate, but the media wants you to think that only your inherent racism is keeping you from voting from him.

Why, you don't even know how racist you are.

Many voters hide their feelings from pollsters and it is possible that some do not even realize race's influence on their behavior.

You might even be racist and senile.

Robert Miller, 72, who lives in a government subsidized room in Bedford, said the Constitution should be amended so it will "not let any colored people run for the White House." He seemed unsure about his voting record in recent elections, but vividly recalled voting for Dwight Eisenhower in 1956.

You may not recognize the symptoms, folks, but you know the cure: vote Obama.

Update: Carol Platt Liebau discusses the meme.

The General Election Gets Dirty

Over the course of the weekend my comment sections on several posts was hit by anti-McCain comments (summarily deleted) that appear to be astroturfed, claiming that McCain's actions during his imprisonment and torture at the hands of the North Vietnamese was dishonorable, echoing a theme that his drawing disability pay for lingering injuries resulting from his torture was dishonorable (and apparently sinfully unattractive to at least one key Obama-supporting blogger).

After a 2004 campaign in which Democrats were first to play up the service of one Vietnam veteran, they are now lurching back towards the more familiar ground of spitting upon them. We should expect more of this.

This morning I was sent a chain email (origins murky and unknown, but based upon stilted syntax and racial overtones, I'll suggest it originated from a Clinton supporter prior to Obama's clinching of the nomination), including pictures of Obama's African relatives as the new "First Family."

It included pictures of his Kenyan grandmother, Sarah Hussein Onyango Obama, Obama's stepmother Kezia, half-bother Abongo, half-brother Malik, his father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., and other unidentified African family members.

The email mentions (but doesn't show a picture) of Raila Odinga, Prime Minister of Kenya who claims to be Barack Obama's cousin. The email claims that Odinga signed a 'Shariah pact' with Kenyan Muslims (disputed) and that Odinga's son was named after Fidel Casto (fact).

It mentions Barack Sr. was born and buried a Muslim.

It also alludes to the Democratic frontrunner as literally being a bastard, as Barack Sr. never divorced his first wife, and also the candidate's parents took part in shotgun wedding, citing Barack Jr. in his autobiography as saying, "How and when the marriage occurred remains a bit murky, a bill of particulars that I have never quite had the courage to explore."

Having not read the book, I cannot verify if that quote is accurate, but all of the other claims are apparently undisputed in Obama's Wikipedia bio. Facts or not, these are irrelevant cheap shots, as if the candidate had a say in the matter of when he was born, or under what conditions.

It also claimed that Abongo "Roy" Obama, the candidate's half-brother, is a militant Muslim, and cites Barack's book (it didn't say which book) as saying the black man must "liberate himself from the poisoning influences of European culture," claims also published to little fanfare.

Neither of these lines of attack—on McCain's shattered teeth and other abuse in the Hanoi Hilton, or on Obama's origins and distant African relatives—are libel to convince any voters to change their minds, but it does seem to show that the 2008 general election is going to be one of the nastiest Presidential elections yet.

Fighting the War With the President We'd Like To Have

Fred Kagan, via Instapundit:

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

The two men brought different backgrounds to the test, of course. In January 2007, McCain had been a senator for 10 years and had served in the military for 23 years. Obama had been a senator for 2 years and before that was a state legislator, lawyer, and community organizer. But neither presidential candidates nor the commander in chief gets to choose the tests that history brings. Once in office, the one elected must perform.

You can have at the helm a President who have seen the worst of human nature, survived it and thrived, or a man who has never led anything as consequential as a Cub Scout troop.

There is a truism among small arms trainers that you will not rise to the occasion when the fecal matter hits the fan, but you will default to your level of training.

Precisely what is Barack Obama prepared for?

Sodom and Obama

I can think of no better words to describe the unrepentant man-love Mark Morford gushes forth with regarding ObamaMessiah:

Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul.

The unusual thing is, true Lightworkers almost never appear on such a brutal, spiritually demeaning stage as national politics. This is why Obama is so rare. And this why he is so often compared to Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., to those leaders in our culture whose stirring vibrations still resonate throughout our short history.

Wow. Most adults can at least fake objectivity (or make their fandom more opaque) when discussing politicians, but Morford is merely one of an embarrassing string of media figures giddily in love with the idea of being in love with their idol. He is incapable of addressing Obama as the quite flawed human man that the is. Barack Obama is far from being a "Lightworker" whatever that is, and as his associations with various pastors and priests have made clear, he'd prefer to be a "Darkworker," thank you very much and pass the Black Liberation Theology.

In reality, far from being the antidote to George W. Bush, Barack H. Obama is far closer to being the flip side of the more corroded parts of the very same coin.

Smug. Arrogant. Stupid. Unerringly Partisan. These are some of the more choice (and publicly repeatable) words of critics directed at George W. Bush.

Often used to describe the sitting two-term President's personality, up-bringing, detachment, and cocksure certainty, words such as "smug" and "stupid" and others like them apply equally well to the new Democratic President candidate, even though he has yet to complete a single term in office on the national stage.

Ivy-League educated with admitted substance abuse in their younger, more intemperate days, Barack Obama and George Bush have far more in common than either man would like to admit. Bush is viewed as out-of-touch for his family's wealth and dynastic political successes; Obama for his Hyde Park liberal elitism and association with a string of America-damning radicals and cadre of domestic terrorists.

Both men deliver prepared speeches (Bush adequately, Obama eloquently), but both gaffe frequently when forced off-script. Bush mangles syntax with reckless abandon; Obama mangles history (including his own) with feckless disregard for the facts.

Bush and Obama are both exceedingly stubborn men, and will not change policy viewpoints, even though emerging realities render their positions comically obsolete. The "surge" in Iraq bookends this commonality. For years Bush refused to acknowledge a new strategy and tactics were needed in the war, while in 15 months since the surge was implemented, Obama has resolutely refused to acknowledge that the new strategy and tactics have worked. Neither man will admit that his position was at fault. Their egos are too large.

Before winning office in 2000, George W. Bush created a record as Governor of Texas as someone who was capable of bridging the partisan divide between Democrats and Republicans. That bipartisanship did not survive the brutal politics of Washington D.C. Barack Obama's campaign has attempted the impossible stunt portraying him as "post-partisan," a candidate beyond political parties. Morford is one of many who are eager to brush aside reality to embrace that comforting fable, but nothing in Obama's record supports that construct.

Obama, in his short political career, has actually established a clear record of either abdicating responsibility (voting "present" time and again), or of taking radically liberal partisan positions, in every level of government in which he has ever served. It is no accident that the National Journal listed him as the Most Liberal U.S. Senator, even to the left of Socialist Bernie Sanders. Barack Obama is not bi-partisan. He is radically polarized when engaged, and out of touch the rest of the time, a near-perfect mirror image of everything liberals claim to hate about George W. Bush.

But Mark Morford can't see that. More importantly, he won't see it. Having poisoned himself with hatred against our sitting President, he creates an illusion where Obama is the antidote to Bush, when instead he is hair of the dog.

Jesus wouldn't support watching babies die, even in San Francisco. Only someone of far darker values would find holiness there, in the place where Morford worships a false idol as a god.

JUNE 6, 1944. Patton: Links in a Great Chain

[Repost]

"Be Seated."

"Men, this stuff we hear about America wanting to stay out of the war, not wanting to fight, is a lot of bullshit. Americans love to fight - traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle. When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble player; the fastest runner; the big league ball players; the toughest boxers. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win - all the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost, not ever will lose a war, for the very thought of losing is hateful to an American."

"You are not all going to die. Only two percent of you here today would die in a major battle. Death must not be feared. Every man is frightened at first in battle. If he says he isn't, he's a goddamn liar. Some men are cowards, yes! But they fight just the same, or get the hell shamed out of them watching men who do fight who are just as scared. The real hero is the man who fights even though he is scared. Some get over their fright in a minute under fire, some take an hour. For some it takes days. But the real man never lets fear of death overpower his honor, his sense of duty to this country and his innate manhood."

"All through your army career you men have bitched about "This chickenshit drilling." That is all for a purpose. Drilling and discipline must be maintained in any army if for only one reason -- INSTANT OBEDIENCE TO ORDERS AND TO CREATE CONSTANT ALERTNESS. I don't give a damn for a man who is not always on his toes. You men are veterans or you wouldn't be here. You are ready. A man to continue breathing must be alert at all times. If not, sometime a German son-of-a-bitch will sneak up behind him and beat him to death with a sock full of shit."

"There are 400 neatly marked graves somewhere in Sicily all because one man went to sleep on his job -- but they were German graves for we caught the bastard asleep before his officers did. An Army is a team. Lives, sleeps, eats, fights as a team. This individual heroic stuff is a lot of crap. The bilious bastards who wrote that kind of stuff for the Saturday Evening Post don't know any more about real fighting, under fire, than they do about fucking. We have the best food, the finest equipment, the best spirit and the best fighting men in the world. Why, by God, I actually pity these poor sons-of-bitches we are going up against. By God, I do!"

"My men don't surrender. I don't want to hear of any soldier under my command being captured unless he is hit. Even if you are hit, you can still fight. That's not just bullshit, either. The kind of man I want under me is like the lieutenant in Libya, who, with a Lugar against his chest, jerked off his helmet, swept the gun aside with one hand and busted hell out of the Boche with the helmet. Then he jumped on the gun and went out and killed another German: All this with a bullet through his lung. That's a man for you."

"All real heroes are not story book combat fighters either. Every man in the army plays a vital part. Every little job is essential. Don't ever let down, thinking your role is unimportant. Every man has a job to do. Every man is a link in the great chain. What if every truck driver decided that he didn't like the whine of the shells overhead, turned yellow and jumped headlong into the ditch? He could say to himself, "They won't miss me -- just one in thousands." What if every man said that? Where in hell would we be now? No, thank God, Americans don't say that! Every man does his job; every man serves the whole. Every department, every unit, is important to the vast scheme of things. The Ordnance men are needed to supply the guns, the Quartermaster to bring up the food and clothes to us -- for where we're going there isn't a hell of a lot to steal. Every last man in the mess hall, even the one who heats the water to keep us from getting the GI shits has a job to do. Even the chaplain is important, for if we get killed and if he is not there to bury us we'd all go to hell."

"Each man must not only think of himself, but of his buddy fighting beside him. We don't want yellow cowards in this army. They should all be killed off like flies. If not they will go back home after the war and breed more cowards. The brave men will breed brave men. Kill off the goddamn cowards and we'll have a nation of brave men."

"One of the bravest men I ever saw in the African campaign was the fellow I saw on top of a telegraph pole in the midst of furious fire while we were plowing toward Tunis. I stopped and asked what the hell he was doing up there at that time. He answered, "Fixing the wire, sir." "Isn't it a little unhealthy right now?," I asked. "Yes sir, but this goddamn wire's got to be fixed." There was a real soldier. There was a man who devoted all he had to his duty, no matter how great the odds, no matter how seemingly insignificant his duty might appear at the time."

"You should have seen those trucks on the road to Gabes. The drivers were magnificent. All day and all night they rolled over those son-of-a-bitching roads, never stopping, never faltering from their course, with shells bursting around them all the time. We got through on good old American guts. Many of these men drove over forty consecutive hours. These weren't combat men. But they were soldiers with a job to do. They did it -- and in a whale of a way they did it. They were part of a team. Without them the fight would have been lost. All the links in the chain pulled together and that chain became unbreakable."

"Don't forget, you don't know I'm here. No word of the fact is to be mentioned in any letters. The world is not supposed to know what the hell became of me. I'm not supposed to be commanding this Army. I'm not even supposed to be in England. Let the first bastards to find out be the goddamn Germans. Someday I want them to raise up on their hind legs and howl, 'Jesus Christ, it's the goddamn Third Army and that son-of-a-bitch Patton again.'"

"We want to get the hell over there. We want to get over there and clear the goddamn thing up. You can't win a war lying down. The quicker we clean up this goddamn mess, the quicker we can take a jaunt against the purple pissing Japs an clean their nest out too, before the Marines get all the goddamn credit."

"Sure, we all want to be home. We want this thing over with. The quickest way to get it over is to get the bastards. The quicker they are whipped, the quicker we go home. The shortest way home is through Berlin. When a man is lying in a shell hole, if he just stays there all day, a Boche will get him eventually, and the hell with that idea. The hell with taking it. My men don't dig foxholes. I don't want them to. Foxholes only slow up an offensive. Keep moving. And don't give the enemy time to dig one. We'll win this war but we'll win it only by fighting and by showing the Germans we've got more guts than they have."

"There is one great thing you men will all be able to say when you go home. You may thank God for it. Thank God, that at least, thirty years from now, when you are sitting around the fireside with your grandson on your knees, and he asks you what you did in the great war, you won't have to cough and say, 'I shoveled shit in Louisiana.' No, Sir, you can look him straight in the eye and say, 'Son, your Granddaddy rode with the Great Third Army and a Son-of-a-Goddamned-Bitch named George Patton!'"

"That is all."

God Bless the veterans of the Great Crusade launched on this day in Normandy, France in 1944, and the soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen that today carry on that same fighting spirit.

The Latest. The Greatest.

The Final HamNation.

Obama on Your Shoulder.

Surviving Barack Obama

The pro-life movement has often referred to abortion advocates as "baby killers" for supporting the deaths of inconvenient and unwanted pregnancies, though rarely has that criticism been as valid as when applied to radical left-wing freshman senator, Barack Obama.

Obama supports the negligent homicide—and I use that term after careful consideration as being the most accurate descriptor—of babies that survive the best efforts of abortionists and accidentally enter the world alive.

As Michael Gerson noted with obvious revulsion in the Washington Post in April:

Obama has not made abortion rights the shouted refrain of his campaign, as other Democrats have done. He seems to realize that pro-choice enthusiasm is inconsistent with a reputation for post-partisanship.

But Obama's record on abortion is extreme. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion -- a practice a fellow Democrat, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once called "too close to infanticide." Obama strongly criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban. In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion. And now Obama has oddly claimed that he would not want his daughters to be "punished with a baby" because of a crisis pregnancy -- hardly a welcoming attitude toward new life.

Yes, you heard that correctly. Even though wealthy and quite capable of supporting an inadvertent pregnancy, the Democratic Party's choice for President would consider his own grandchild a punishment. Should the child somehow survive the abortion "Grandpa Barack" apparently wants, Obama would support withholding medical care to his born grandchild. Barack Obama would let him or her die in the hospital through purposeful neglect after having been born alive.

There is no hope here. This is not the kind of radical, dehumanizing change that most Americans realize Obama supports.

Daniel Allott continues shredding Obama's radical support of postpartum infanticide in the Wall Street Journal's The Audacity of Death today, beginning with an interview of Gianna Jessen, an abortion survivor that Obama would have seen die, and then launches into the specifics of Obama's chilling record:

As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama twice opposed legislation to define as "persons" babies who survive late-term abortions. Babies like Gianna. Mr. Obama said in a speech on the Illinois Senate floor that he could not accept that babies wholly emerged from their mother's wombs are "persons," and thus deserving of equal protection under the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

A federal version on the same legislation passed the Senate unanimously and with the support of all but 15 members of the House. Gianna was present when President Bush signed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in 2002.

When I asked Gianna to reflect on Mr. Obama's candidacy, she paused, then said, "I really hope the American people will have their eyes wide open and choose to be discerning. . . . He is extreme, extreme, extreme."

"Extreme" may not be the impression the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have bought Mr. Obama's autobiography have been left with. In "The Audacity of Hope," Mr. Obama's presidential manifesto, he calls abortion "undeniably difficult," "a very difficult issue," "never a good thing" and "a wrenching moral issue."

He laments his party's "litmus test" for "orthodoxy" on abortion and other issues, and even admits, "I do not presume to know the answer to that question." That question being the moral status of the fetus, who he nonetheless concedes has "moral weight."

Those statements are seriously made but, alas, cannot be taken at all seriously. Mr. Obama has compiled a 100% lifetime "pro-choice" voting record, including votes against any and all restrictions on late-term abortions and parental involvement in teenagers' abortions.

To Mr. Obama, abortion, or "reproductive justice," is "one of the most fundamental rights we possess." And he promises, "the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," which would overturn hundreds of federal and state laws limiting abortion, including the federal ban on partial-birth abortion and bans on public funding of abortion.

Then there's Mr. Obama's aforementioned opposition to laws that protect babies born-alive during botched abortions. If partial-birth abortion is, as Democratic icon Daniel Patrick Moynihan labeled it, "too close to infanticide," then what is killing fully-birthed babies?

It is of course, infanticide.

If Barack Obama is smart, perhaps he can restart the false "Obama is a Muslim" meme to distract us away from his far more damnable short-comings as a father, presumptive grandfather, and human being.

Update: Read this, via Rightwingsparkle in the comments at Ace of Spades:

Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse who was the prime mover behind the legislation after she witnessed aborted babies' being born alive and left to die, testified twice before Obama in support of the Induced Infant Liability Act bills. She also testified before the U.S. Congress in support of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

Stanek told me her testimony "did not faze" Obama.

In the second hearing, Stanek said, "I brought pictures in and presented them to the committee of very premature babies from my neonatal resuscitation book from the American Pediatric Association, trying to show them unwanted babies were being cast aside. Babies the same age were being treated if they were wanted!"

"And those pictures didn't faze him [Obama] at all," she said.

It's not that Obama didn't know. It's that he doesn't care.

RE: The Michelle Obama "Whitey" Video

I've not posted on the existence of the alleged Michelle Obama "Whitey" rant being pushed by pro-Hillary bloggers who will not be named. They, of course, claim Republicans are behind acquiring such a video, a bit hard to swallow considering the dirty tricks team the Clinton's have put together between Little Rock, Pennsylvania Avenue, and New York. Frankly I think it is a bogus claim, as it lacks specifics or credible sourcing, even this latest version, pulled from (shocking, I know) another pro-Hillary blog.

The Michelle Obama Rant Tape was filmed between June 26th - July 1st 2004 in Chicago, IL at the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition Conference at Trinity United Church: specifically the Women's Event.

Michelle Obama appeared as a panelist alongside Mrs. Khadijah Farrakhan and Mrs. James Meeks.

Bill Clinton spoke during the Conference, as did Bill Cosby and other speakers, but not at the panel Michelle attended.

Michelle Obama spoke at the Women's Event, but referenced Bill Clinton in her rant --- his presence at the conference was the impetus for her raving, it seems.

For about 30 minutes, Michelle Obama launched into a rant about the evils of America, and how America is to blame for the problems of Africa. Michelle personally blamed President Clinton for the deaths of millions of Africans and said America is responsible for the genocide of the Tutsis and other ethnic groups. She then launched into an attack on "whitey", and talked about solutions to black on black crime in the realm of diverting those actions onto white America. Her rant was fueled by the crowd: they reacted strongly to what she said, so she got more passionate and enraged, and that's when she completely loses it and says things that have made the mouths drop of everyone who's seen this.

The "tape" is a DVD that Trinity United sold on its website, and possibly offered free for download up until March 2008 when Trinity's site was scrubbed and the DVDs were no longer offered for sale.

Despite all the damning specifics offered, it is the last sentence that makes this claim so unlikely.

Early on in the heat of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright fiasco, major news organizations purchased dozens, if not hundreds of DVDs from Trinity United Chruch of Christ. Some were looking merely for Wright's rants, and some were not doubt hoping to observe the family in the congregation during one of Wright's more obscene rants to trap Barack in a "gotcha" moment. If they would have likely uncovered a rant like the one proposed above they wold have run it that very night. Do you think that the media could sit on such a bombshell? They may like Barack, but they love an exclusive, and the rush would be on to see which network or cable news show could scoop the others.

If Michelle Obama was caught in such a rant on video, and the video was sold on DVD or was available for download from the church, it would have been exposed months ago. Pro-Hillary bloggers can continue to KKKarry on pushing this story, but I see no reason to find their claim credible.

What Lies Will He Tell Today?

Over at Hot Air this morning, Ed Morrissey points to an article in the Weekly Standard about Barack Obama's opposition to the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) a terrorist organization:

These designations are more than just rhetorical; labeling the IRGC as a terrorist organization brings to bear a range of powerful sanctions that crack down on its ability to work in the global financial system.

The proximate cause of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment was a growing dossier of evidence from General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, documenting the IRGC's role in financing, training, arming, and directing extremists in Iraq responsible for the murder of hundreds of American and Iraqi soldiers and civilians.

Of course, that's not the full extent of the IRGC's malign influence. The group is an acknowledged supporter of terror (a fact even Senator Obama concedes), training, financing and arming Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and most recently, the Taliban. At home in Iran, the IRGC now dominates the regime, with 9 out of 21 seats in the Ahmadinejad cabinet held by former IRGC and IRGC-affiliated officials. The IRGC is also a vital player in Iran's licit and illicit economies, and dominates important sectors like construction.

Needless to say, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment won broad support in the Senate, passing 76-22. Senator Hillary Clinton voted for it, as did Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senator Chuck Schumer, and Senator Dick Durbin.

Senator Obama, however, was one of a handful of senators who opposed the amendment--which had aroused the ire of the left-wing blogosphere. In the frenzied minds of DailyKos and Moveon.org, Kyl-Lieberman--or "Lieberman-Kyl," as they preferred to call it--was nothing less than a stealth declaration of war on Iran.

So if the National Journal's Most Liberal Senator is still taking marching orders from Kossacks and the "General Betray Us" radicals of Moveon.org, where, precisely, is Obama's claimed but never seen bipartisanship? It doesn't exist. It never has.

As Ed astutely notes:

There are only two reasons to oppose the application of sanctions on Iran. Either one wants to go to war and skip all of the other options, or doesn't believe Iran to be a threat and a sponsor of terror. Into which group should we put Barack Obama?

Obama, who resolutely refuses to acknowledge changing fortunes in Iraq (the more than year-long string of successes there are not changes he can believe in), obviously takes the later, "see no evil" view.

Pro-Palestinian Obama will try to gloss over his record (such as the Kyl-Lieberman vote) and his past associations today as he addresses AIPAC. Perhaps someone in the audience will ask Obama why he allowed a pair of grants totaling $75,000 to go to the Arab-American Action Network, a group that calls the establishment of Israel as a "catastrophe," while director of the ultra-liberal Woods Fund.

Barack Obama supports Israel the way R. Kelly supports Girl Scouts. It's time someone calls him on it.

Yon: War Could be Over By Year's End

A stunning prediction from Michael Yon:

One of the biggest problems with the Iraq War is that politics has frequently triumphed over truth. For instance, we went into Iraq with shoddy intelligence (at best), no reconstruction plan, and perhaps half as many troops as were required. We refused to admit that an insurgency was growing, until the country collapsed into anarchy and civil war. Now the truth is that Iraq is showing real progress on many fronts: Al Qaeda is being defeated and violence is down and continuing to decrease. As a result, the militias have lost their reason for existence and are getting beaten back or co-opted. Shia, Sunni and Kurds are coming together -- although with various stresses -- under the national government. If progress continues at this rate, it is very possible that before 2008 is out, we can finally say "the war has ended."

This comes as part of Yon's offer to tour Iraq with U.S. Senators—including the Presidential candidates—so that they can make informed decisions regarding the progress of the conflict.

If Yon is accurate, then Democrats (including Barack Obama) who continue to insist that the war is lost are going to lose all of their credibility in coming months. They will of course try to pivot, and make up some excuse to take credit for the success of operations in Iraq if such a situation develops.

History will not remember pro-defeat politicians or activists kindly.

Edumacated

It appears that our education system is failing us once more, as a collegiate newspaper published an anti-gun editorial penned upon completely false information.

It is sad enough when one editorialist makes up the basic facts his story hinges upon; it's worse when editorial board signs off on this kind of ignorance:

In 2004, a federal ban on assault weapons expired.

Now, four years later, Mayor Michael Nutter and Governor Ed Rendell want to reduce violent crime nationally by convincing Congress to re-enact the ban.

The ten-year federal ban forbids the possession, manufacture, use and import of assault weapons. And according to a 1999 National Institute of Justice study, it reduced the percent of crime committed with assault weapons, including police murders, by a significant amount.

The only thing that the editorial board of the Daily Pennsylvanian got right in this editorial is that the ban expired in 2004.

As we well know, the so-called "assault weapons" ban in the 1994 Crime Bill:

• Did not ban the manufacture of semiautomatic firearms. In fact, companies that manufacture semi-automatic firearms, such as Bushmaster and Olympic Arms thrived throughout the length of the ban, and Kahr Arms was founded as a direct result of a market created by the ban;
• Did not ban the transfer of semiautomatic firearms. Sales of semiautomatic firearms actually increased during the 1994-2004 ban.
• Did not ban the possession of semi-automatic firearms. This includes weapons defined as "assault weapons" under the ban, as long as they had been manufactured prior to the law going into effect, and tens of thousands of semi-automatic firearms made and sold during the ban;

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was irrelevant; if anything it had the unintended effect of making such firearms more desirable, increasing their popularity.

Sadly, this mythical view of the accomplishments of the 1994 AW Ban is common "conventional wisdom" in left-leaning journalism and politics. Unlike so many views held in the community-based reality, however, the perception has nothing to do with the truth.

Nagin Endorsement Now Key to Obama Campaign

When you've got to throw this many people under the bus, it's going to take a lot of buses.

One Campaign in Two Sentences

I've had extremely questionable judgment for the past twenty years.

Would you give me four more?