Topic: Politics

Story here (and details about shutting down Main Street USA here). Offer your suggestions below.

What's different? At first glance, not much.

2008: The Guardian Ethos I am America's Maritime Guardian. I serve the citizens of the United States. I will protect them. I will defend them. I will save them. I am their Shield. For them I am Semper Paratus. I live the Coast Guard Core Values. I am a Guardian. We are the United States Coast Guard.

2011: The Coast Guard Ethos I am a Coast Guardsman. I serve the people of the United States. I will protect them. I will defend them. I will save them. I am their Shield. For them I am Semper Paratus. I live the Coast Guard Core Values. I am proud to be a Coast Guardsman. We are the United States Coast Guard.

Wait a minute. Whom do they serve?

Click on the banner and ponder what you find.

You might be surprised.

This is too simplistic:

Here's one that's much more accurate (click it to zoom in):

You tell me:

In every category necessary for the endurance of direct ground combat, women are behind men. They rank behind men in every category by large margins except in lower body strength, where they are the least behind.

...

Combat involves physical strength, proper mindset, physical skills, aerobic capability, sharp vision and a killer instinct. ... I personally just want the Feminists to agree that they value women as much as they say they do, because putting them in places that they are even more likely to be violently killed, subject to capture, torture, rape by our enemies, or mostly for not thinking that women are above the day to day drudgery of life not only in an infantry unit in extended ground combat, but the drudgery of the job while not deployed seems to me to be a bit in conflict with the idea of honoring them and their abilities. The idea that women belong in units in the military that participate in direct ground combat makes about as much sense as allowing me into the Feminist Studies Program at Bryn Mawr.

Think. Don't emote. The military exists to kill America's enemies and break their stuff. It does not exist to provide you a career, enhance women's rights, improve society, achieve social justice, counteract sexist stereotypes, pay for your college tuition, or any of a million other progressive pipe dreams. The military's reason for being is to violently kill people. It's an ugly fact, but it's no less true because it's ugly.

Men and women are inherently different physically, mentally, and emotionally. In every relevant respect men are better suited for combat, and especially so for ground combat. If that offends you, I don't care. Don't cry to me. Facts are often unpleasant and unyielding things, so cry to God (or if you're an atheist, cry to nature) to assuage your emotional pain. I am not out to offend you or anyone else. I am out to ensure America's military remains the most powerful and respected force on Earth, the force that gives you the protection and comfort you enjoy (and take for granted) today.

Without America's military, you'd have no leisure time to ponder the social justice implications of banning women from combat. You'd be a slave to a totalitarian government not of your choosing, a government utterly contemptuous of your needs and wants, much less your easily-bruised ego.

Save your social experimentation for arenas that don't revolve around violent death. Go fiddle with the diversity statistics at your local community college, and stop undermining the only shield between you and the barbarians. Construct whatever mental delusion or flimsy rationalization you must, but find a way to cocoon your delicate ego and find any other part of society to tinker with.

A nation that weakens its military by removing all barriers to women serving in combat is asking to be attacked an defeated.

P.S. -- If you want me to entertain your foolish ideas about women in ground combat without laughing in your face, do something first: change the law so that all young women are subject to the military draft just like all men. Once women bear equal responsibility and duty with men, then they can begin to talk about their alleged entitlement to equal goodies.

I don't know if this is legit, or whether some smart aleck hacked the Wisconsin Democrats' web site. Click on the image to see the screen shot at full size.

Not surprisingly, the Dems have yanked the page from their site. Here's the cached page on Google. Who knows how long it'll exist?

Just how much does the federal government owe? Here's a visualization of the national debt as a stack of $100 bills (click to see it at full size):

That's right, folks. Our national debt just shot past $15 trillion today. We do not have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.

Listen to this, think about it, reflect, and be of good cheer. If you can't spare the time now, bookmark this link.

Do I understand you correctly, Mr. Vice President and assorted progressive hand-wringers?

Barack Obama sounds an awful lot like a previous president who delivered his infamous "Malaise Speech" 32 years ago today.

The more things change ...

The questions change with the issues of the day, but my results stay consistent.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton questions the patriotism of Americans who object to our war "time-limited scope-limited kinetic military action" in Libya:

But the bottom line is, whose side are you on? Are you on Qadhafi's side or are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been created to support them? For the Obama Administration, the answer to that question is very easy.

Can somebody please reconcile Secretary Clinton's ever-so-subtle rhetorical question with Senator Clinton's heartfelt beliefs about challenging any president who orders troops to war whatever the heck it is we're doing in Libya? I'm trying to figure out what the guidelines are.

Totally unexpected results from Gallup:

Thirty-seven percent of all active-duty military personnel and veterans surveyed approved of the job Obama is doing during the January 2010 to April 2011 time frame. That compares with 48% of nonveterans interviewed during the same period.

Military members and veterans? Really? I'm shocked.

Take a good look at where the taxable money is. Click on the image:

President Obama and the Democrats in Washington, DC are lying to you. It is impossible to pay for their insane levels of spending by taxing "the rich." The rich don't have enough money to pay for that spending binge, even if the federal government confiscated their every last dime. The IRS data is beyond dispute. If he insists on the current insane level of spending, Barack Obama will have to raise massive amounts of taxes on the middle class to pay for it.

He's lying and he knows it. Standard & Poor's just downgraded the U.S. Government's credit outlook to "negative" for the first time in history, and it's all because the fools in Washington won't stop spending. This is awful, awful news.

As I said before, it's too late to fix our enormous deficit without pain. We can either feel some pain now and fix the problem, or we can keep living in Obama's fantasy land until we experience incredible pain a little bit later. Take your pick.

Remember this? I was way off. Here's the Congressional Budget Office's assessment of the vicious slashing and bloodletting inflicted upon the budget by those heartless Republicans:

Would you rather eat a thick slice from a small pie, or a slightly thinner slice from a much larger pie?

If you can grasp this concept, then you can figure out why tax cuts increase tax revenue. Mark Goldblatt hammers the point home.

If you think jacking up tax rates on individuals and corporations will fix the deficit, you're dreaming. See for yourself by clicking on these two graphics.

 

Before you start talking about the richest Americans "not paying their fair share," click below and play around with the interactive graphic.

But, hey, let's go after those evil rich people!

A cut is not a cut when you're playing games with the federal budget.

Imagine that the Federal Whatchamacallit Administration (FWA) has a current budget of $100 billion for 2011. Now imagine that the happy little piglets in the Democrat-controlled Senate and the Obama Administration propose a 2012 budget that appropriates $150 billion for the FWA -- the better to spread some wealth among their political buddies. Pretty straightforward so far, and sadly very predictable:

Now let's say that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives objects, countering by setting the FWA's 2012 budget at $120 billion, which looks like this:

Naturally, if you're a tax-and-spend Washington politician and you hate being told "no", you immediately call a press conference to denounce the horrible "cut" in the FWA budget.

But wait! How can it be a "cut" if the budget went up? It's a common scare tactic that comes from a system called "baseline budgeting", and it's a deceptively easy way to scare uninformed voters into supporting the tax-and-spend piglets in expensive suits.

The Congressional Budget Office defines the baseline as a benchmark for measuring the budgetary effects of proposed changes in federal revenue or spending, with the assumption that current budgetary policies or current services are continued without change. The baseline includes automatic adjustments for inflation and anticipated increases in program participation. Baseline, or current services, budgeting, therefore builds automatic, future spending increases into Congress's budgetary forecasts.

Baseline budgeting tilts the budget process in favor of increased spending and taxes. For example, if an agency's budget is projected to grow by $100 million, but only grows by $75 million, according to baseline budgeting, that agency sustained a $25 million cut. That is analogous to a person who expects to gain 100 pounds only gaining 75 pounds, and taking credit for losing 25 pounds. The federal government is the only place this absurd logic is employed.

-- Citizens Against Government Waste

You can also sometimes see the flip side of this silliness in action when politicians try to paint themselves as budget-cutters, while actually spending more. You've heard of stores that fool consumers by artificially raising prices just before a "deep discount sale", right? Politicians pull the same trick regularly.

So the next time you hear scary stories like "Republicans will cut veterans' benefits", or "Republicans want to cut Medicare", don't swallow the bait without thinking. First, find out whether those sneaky politicians are playing the baseline budgeting game again.

The Fiscal Year 2011 budget deal announced on Friday reportedly involves cuts of $38 billion. It's hard to keep billions and trillions of anything in perspective. $38 billion is a huge pile of money, after all. So how do you get a sense for that amount?

The world's richest man, Carlos Slim Helu, has a net worth of $74 billion. Bill Gates is number two at $56 billion, followed by Warren Buffett at $50 billion. Charles and David Koch (the hated bogey men of progressives' fever dreams) have $22 billion each, and George Soros (the leftist Sugar Daddy of sugar daddies) has $14.5 billion.

So $38 billion in cuts sounds like a lot, doesn't it?

Andy McCarthy's not impressed.

A mere four months ago, the big controversy in conservative and Republican circles was whether the GOP had reneged on their vaunted pledge to cut $100B in spending in the current fiscal year because they had seemingly come down to $61B. As I noted at the time, there was no question that, if you looked at the fine print of the pledge, the commitment was $61B -- but that if you looked at reality, both $61B and $100B were laughably unserious. No matter. Folks around here pooh-poohed my criticism and insisted that a $61B pledge was a sober first step, showing real fortitude about getting our fiscal house in order.

So now they've stopped short, significantly short, of that purportedly serious step, and the reaction is, "We won!" You've got to be kidding me. The only thing Boehner won is future assurance that GOP leadership can safely promise the moon but then settle for crumbs because their rah-rah corner will spin any paltry accomplishment, no matter how empty it shows the promise to have been, as a tremendous victory.

And what's the rationale for settling? Why, that these numbers are so piddling -- that the $21 billion difference is so meaningless in the context of $14 trillion -- that it's best just to settle, make believe the promise was never made, make believe we didn't flinch, and put this episode behind us so we can begin the "real work" of the next promise, the Ryan Plan.

Regarding that plan, you're to believe that the captains courageous who caved on $21 billion -- and who got elected because of Obamacare but don't even want to discuss holding out for a cancellation of $105 billion in Obamacare funding -- are somehow going to fight to the death for $6 trillion in cuts. Right.

It strikes me that Boehner caved when he had -- as Hugh Hewitt describes it -- a "veto" on all spending. Won't the Democrats feel emboldened during the upcoming fights over the debt ceiling, the FY 2012 budget, and entitlement reform? Boehner eliminated a couple of days' worth of deficits, and got two symbolic votes in the Democrat-controlled Senate on Planned Parenthood and Obamacare. Why should the GOP base (much less the Tea Party) feel encouraged?

As an aside, I'm getting really sick of the "1/2 of 1/3 of the government" talking point. It's a weak excuse. Besides, the Judicial Branch isn't even involved in spending decisions whatsoever; Boehner actually runs 1/2 of 1/2 of the spending process.

--

6:00 PM Update: I just came across Mark Levin's take:

John Boehner has said over and over again that the Republican House is only 1/2 of 1/3 of the government - even though, by the way, no spending or taxing bill can pass without the House, period. He has also said that the Republicans will not shut down the government. So tell me, what is his strategy going forward with the debt ceiling and the 2012 budget? If he is already saying House Republicans are too weak to do much, and that we are not going to shut down the government, what is his leverage when these big battles take place? I don't think the man has a strategy at all.

Remember, whenever Barack Obama announces a policy or makes a pronouncement, refer to Geraghty's Rule: "All statements from Barack Obama come with an expiration date. All of them."

As our employees in the Congress and the White House quibble over insignificant cuts in discretionary spending of between $4 billion and $60 billion, we would be wise to keep things in perspective.

Are you nervous yet? Yes? Then get the attention of your elected officials -- whose names and contact info are easily found -- and insist on serious entitlement spending reform.

How many House seats will the GOP gain today? Here's the running tally of predictions from the Tribbles (listeners of the Hugh Hewitt Show who lurk in the #hhrs hashtag on Twitter):

At stake: bragging rights for whoever gets closest without going over, of course! As of 4 PM Eastern, the InTrade odds are hovering between 60 and 65 ... and rising.

This is doubly true for MSNBC anchors.

   

   

   

   

Ask for suggestions online and you'll get suggestions:

Here's a fun way to screw with the Democrats' internal polling and brand management -- and hopefully convince them to stay the course and keep doing crazy things voters hate instead of pulling towards the middle and trying to put their mask back on before 2012.

The Democrats rely heavily on polling...with an upper tier that is dead-set against moving the party back to the middle. This is suicide for the party, but the Leftists who now control the DNC don't want to believe that. Instead, they want to see polls that tell them the public LOVES what the Democrats have been doing and want them to commit more of this madness between November 3rd, 2010 and November 2012.

It should be our mission to screw with as many Democrat internal polls as possible...to give these nuts the data they want to keep Obama on the wrong track for the party. This will guarantee the Democrats will keep making people furious for the next two years, so the public can wipe even more of them out in the next election (including people like Claire McCaskill in the Senate, and Obama himself in the White House).

...

For each one, we tried to answer while keeping in mind what would do the most damage to the Democrat Party in the long term. So, for questions that asked if we thought the party was on the right track, we said it definitely was. For questions about what issues we wanted Democrats to push, we answered the ones that would alienate Democrats from the most voters. Ie, healthcare, immigration, etc. This is counterintuitive to what YOU personally want to see, so you need to think strategically. Democrats are hurt most when they are talking about things like healthcare, immigration, the environment, etc. So, that's what they need to be encouraged to keep talking about.

Americans really want to deal exclusively with jobs...so the LAST THING we want them to actually ever talk about is jobs. Let the survey indicate Democrats need to talk nonstop about healthcare, immigration, and the environment just to keep making people mad for the next two years. That will greatly benefit conservatives.

Brilliant. You can see the HillBuzz submission at their site.

These are the people who preach endlessly about tolerance and open-mindedness.

If you find the earlier graphic too confusing, try this:

This is what happens to employment when progressives/liberals/left-wingers take charge of federal taxing, spending, and regulation. Without fail. Every. Single. Time.

"A longtime Washington D.C. insider, and former advisor to the Obama election campaign and transition team, speaks out on an administration in crisis, and a president increasingly withdrawn from the job of President."

So begins a four-part series claiming to offer a look behind the scenes of an Obama Administration in the throes of amateurism and led by an immature and unqualified narcissist:

The President Is Losing It (9/7/10)
The President Needs To Grow Up (9/15/10)
What The Hell Have We Done? (9/18/10)
The Clintons Are Going For It (9/21/10)

I've read the four pieces, and they sound plausible to me. But then, I'm predisposed to detest everything related to progressives and Democrats (sorry for repeating myself). Until there's something more here than a single sooper sekrit source who's blabbing to an unknown writer, I'm gonna take this with a bucketful of salt. After all, when something seems too good to be true ...

Chime in any time now, progressives.

Speak up, boys.

They're for "the little guy," after all.

Duane Lester, you're spot on.

Nice job, Democrats! Click any image to enlarge it.

[source]

[source]

[source]

Change is coming in November.

President Obama must fire General McChrystal and prosecute him for gross insubordination and conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman. Even if McCrystal has valid grounds for objecting to the President's war strategy, the way he went about is was utterly wrong. Every officer knows that when you need to "drop the big one" in a critical dispute with the civilian leadership of the military, you resign your commission. You don't pop off to the press and ridicule your Commander-in-Chief while whining like a brat. You never even hint at challenging the centuries-old principle of civilian control of the U.S. military.

President Obama, drop the hammer on this disgrace of a General. Relieve him, prosecute him, and replace him. You have my support.

--

1:30 PM Update: McChrystal's out, Petraeus is in. Good call.

Why else would Dave be so outrageously outraged at The Weekly Standard for insulting his mini-messiah? You be the judge. Which is worse: a gag toy that pokes fun at Barack Obama's stress-inducing presidency ...

 

... or this?

To hear some tell it, the tea party movement is riddled with minority-hating racists.

Oops.

Among the many reverberations of President Obama's election, here is one he probably never anticipated: at least 32 African-Americans are running for Congress this year as Republicans, the biggest surge since Reconstruction, according to party officials.

...

Many of the candidates are trying to align themselves with the Tea Partiers, insisting that the racial dynamics of that movement have been overblown. Videos taken at some Tea Party rallies show some participants holding up signs with racially inflammatory language.

A recent New York Times/CBS News poll found that 25 percent of self-identified Tea Party supporters think that the Obama administration favors blacks over whites, compared with 11 percent of the general public.

The black candidates interviewed overwhelmingly called the racist narrative a news media fiction. "I have been to these rallies, and there are hot dogs and banjos," said Mr. West, the candidate in Florida, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Army. "There is no violence or racism there."

Looks like it's time for the Left to try a new futile avenue of attack, since the New York Times isn't exactly a right-wing propaganda rag. Good luck, chumps.

Those awful, hateful, racist Tea Partiers scare me.

Thank Gaia we live in the Era of Hopenchange™ now, huh?

National Review's Jim Geraghty detected a pattern years ago when he said "All statements from Barack Obama come with an expiration date. All of them." Responding to popular demand, he updated his list of expired Obama statements today.

If Barack Obama's agenda isn't socialist, then what is it? For reference, please consult the Socialist Party USA's platform and the official program of the Communist Party USA

Behold the people who elected Barack Obama and his running mate, uh ... um ...

Imagine that. Ignoramuses in L.A.! Who'd a thunk it?

Robert Stacy McCain, Ali Akbar, and Erick Erickson are doing yeoman's work covering the rise of Doug Hoffman and the fall of RINO Dede Scozzafava in the special election for the vacant U.S. House seat in New York's 23rd District. Could it be that the NRCC is finally noticing the priorities expressed by GOP's conservative base?

Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich still appears to be stuck in some alternate universe where you can slap an (R) on a ham sandwich and it deserves his hearty endorsement.

--

11:35 AM Update: Scozzafava quits. The Other McCain just doesn't quit.

I know, I know. It's about as sporting as clubbing baby seals, but I can't resist.

Thanks. I feel better now.

I say the following as a retired U.S. Coast Guard commissioned officer who swore and upheld a solemn oath to defend the Constitution.

Newsmax's John L. Perry is either nuts, a naïve fool, or a childish attention-seeker. His latest column speculating on the possibility of a U.S. military coup to unseat President Obama fails the most basic B.S. test. Perry hasn't the first clue about how our military's leadership understands its oath of office, nor does he demonstrate even the most rudimentary comprehension of our Constitution.

By publishing this bilge the editors at Newsmax have forever beclowned themselves.

More commentary:
Cassandra cracks open a can o' whupass

Not much:

Hat tip: American Thinker

Click on the images below to see them at full size.

Before Obama's site was scrubbed:

After Obama's site was scrubbed:

See the difference? Look at the second bullet point.

It's a start. The first one's a matter of semantics, but the third one's still a lie.

Boy oh boy, I hope so. These crooks don't understand Americans who value individual liberty and limited government, but we understand them and their entire rotten playbook. Their houses are built on sand, and we're the onrushing tide. Stand by for a collapse.

... according to the not-so-subtle excuse offered by NPR blogger Frank James in defense of ACORN:

Meanwhile, conservatives show no signs of letting up.

...

It's also important to keep in mind that ACORN's workers are coming from the same low-income neighborhoods the organization serves, with all that entails -- poor schools, high crime and the sorts of social problems that have been documented for decades.

So the flaws conservatives are pointing out about ACORN are not so much problems associated with that organization per se but more about the problems of being poor and minority in urban America.

Wow. The sheer chutzpah here is breathtaking. This isn't proof of a problem with ACORN per se? According to his logic, every organization serving poor urban minorities (and employing same) must also be riddled with criminals. I suspect quite a few non-profits based in heavily urbanized areas would vehemently protest Mr. James' blanket slur.

What alternate universe does he live in? In JamesWorld, we are expected to gaze in condescending pity upon community organizers advising would-be politicians how to get away with mortgage fraud, tax evasion, and child prostitution. After all, the community organizers are those people. You know what he means, right? Wink-wink, nudge-nudge ... the ones who have dark skin and no money and live in the 'hood. They don't know any better, the poor dears.

Good Lord, what racist bilge!

--

9/15 Update: Maura Flynn gets it.

9/16 Update: Gregory of Yardale gets it too.

During tonight's joint session, Barack Obama faced a critic brave enough to call his dishonesty what it is:

For yelling "you lie!", I just sent Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina a $10 campaign contribution. If he hadn't apologized for his supposed rudeness in calling a lie a lie, I'd have sent him $50.

More coverage:
Hot Air
Gateway Pundit
Protein Wisdom
Conservative Culture
Ace of Spades

Another week, another address to a joint session of Congress. When in doubt, David Axelrod has just one prescription:

Obama's planned address to a joint session of Congress next week "will insert the president into the heated debate in a way he has avoided all summer." The Washington Post informed readers that the "White House is scrambling to take control of the health-care debate after watching from the sidelines." A "senior aide" to Obama says the president will be "much more prescriptive."

Why the White House press corps didn't just change the date on their old copy and run it again is beyond me. And I'll leave it to others to ponder the media's seemingly infinite capacity to give Obama as many do-overs as he might need.

Why the Obama administration is determined to do the time warp again is easier to decipher. Obama's advisers think the answer to every problem is more cowbell, if by "cowbell" you mean "Obama." It's like Obama guru David Axelrod is the Christopher Walken character from the Saturday Night Live skit about Blue Oyster Cult (if you don't know the reference, Google "cowbell").

Every time someone comes up with an alternative to throwing Obama on TV, Axelrod says, "No, no, no. Guess what? I got a fever, and the only prescription . . . is more Obama!"

Ecce:

Please keep going, Barry. The more America sees of you, the less they like what they see.

Why do we need The Maximum Leader to hector a captive audience of America's children to work hard for the country? His prepared remarks are full of barely-concealed creepy collectivist tripe.

--

Update: The OmniPresident sings in the Key of Me!

Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.

Hey, what's that foul stench? Smells like dead fish ...

Washington Post reporter Alec MacGillis doesn't like the power wielded by U.S. Senators from states with small populations. He writes:

The Senate Finance Committee's "Gang of Six" that is drafting health-care legislation that may shape the final deal -- without a public insurance option -- represents six states that are among the least populous in the country: Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, Maine, New Mexico and Iowa.

Between them, those six states hold 8.4 million people -- less than New Jersey -- and represent 3 percent of the U.S. population. North Dakota and Wyoming each have fewer than 80,000 uninsured people, in a country where about 47 million lack insurance. In the House, those six states have 13 seats out of 435, 3 percent of the whole. In the Senate, those six members are crafting what may well be the blueprint for reform.

Climate change legislation, which passed in the House, also faces daunting odds. Why? Because agriculture, coal and oil interests hold far more sway in the Senate. In the House, the big coal state of Wyoming has a single vote to New York's 29 and California's 53. In the Senate, each state has two. The two Dakotas (total population: 1.4 million) together have twice as much say in the Senate as does Florida (18.3 million) or Texas (24.3 million) or Illinois (12.9 million).

Was this really what the founders had in mind? One popular story tells of Thomas Jefferson asking George Washington what the Senate's purpose is. "Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?" Washington asked in return. "To cool it," Jefferson replied. To which Washington said, "Even so, we pour legislation in the senatorial saucer to cool it." A nice tale. But what if the coffee gets so cold that no one bothers to drink it? Or if the Senate takes its coffee black in a country that opted overwhelmingly for sugar and cream?

Kent Conrad, Democrat from North Dakota (pop. 641,481, third smallest), chairman of the Budget Committee and one of the Gang of Six, does not see any problem. Asked whether it is appropriate that his vote counts as much as those of senators from states 20 times as large, he was flummoxed. "One would hope that people would support the Constitution of the United States," said Conrad, who was reelected with 150,000 votes in 2006, when Virginia's Jim Webb needed 1.2 million votes to win. "This was the grand bargain that was struck when the Founding Fathers determined the structure and form of the United States Congress." He added: "Are you proposing changing the Constitution?"

Well, maybe. Regardless, there's nothing wrong with taking a closer look at how things came to be the way they are. The fact remains that, hallowed as it is, the Senate is as much a product of bare-knuckled, self-interested politics as last week's fight over military earmarks.

This is so damn simple to refute that my head hurts (probably due to banging it on my keyboard after reading this garbage). Apparently, neither MacGillis nor his trusty fact-checking editors bothered to read Article V of the U.S. Constitution, which sets forth the rules for changing that Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Mr. MacGillis, your entire essay was an exercise in futility. To answer your question, yes, the Founding Fathers did actually construct the Constitution with ironclad protection for each State's equal representation in the Senate, even if every other State wants to strip it away through the amendment process.

This ain't rocket science.

Hat tip: This Ain't Hell

... Barack Obama:

Great job, Barry.

It might read something like this:

No law, bill, resolution or any act of Congress shall exceed 2000 words, including all footnotes, amendments and signatures. Congress shall not vote on any item longer than that. Each item requiring a vote shall be read aloud in its entirety in session to a majority of members. Those not in attendance may not vote on the item.

Certainly worth discussing, no?

Can you name a single Obama policy decision so far that's had the intended result?

Since when does this ...

The President . . . shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law. . . .

U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 2, Clause 2

... mean "rubber stamp approval"?

More ads like this one, please.

Hat tip: Brutally Honest

Here's a graphic that illustrates where I stood on the Political Compass on June 25th, 2004:

Here's where I stood on December 11th, 2007:

And here I am today:

Although I quibble with the wording of some of its questions, the quiz is precise and pretty accurate to boot. I wonder where my SOB allies fall on the chart?

On the hilarious Jim Treacher's blog, I found a serious plea to upload a copy of the following video created by Founding Bloggers (yes, that's my copy below):

CNN is abusing copyright law to strong-arm YouTube into removing the clip. CNN's embarrassed, but that's no justification for a b.s. claim of copyright violation. Patterico has the details.

For the record, what Susan Roesgen does is anything but objective reporting.

Corrine Brown, Demcrat Repuhsentative fo' de Thirr Congreshl Districk uh Flohda:

True dat.

Gradulations, Corrine. Whenevuh I embarrass' bout mah state dellgayshun mos' ridickuhluss membuh, someone like you come 'long and remind me dat it could be worse. Yo' fly constituents been sending you to Wash'ton since 1993, where yo' masstry uh de English language continue to amaze.

Hat tip: Iowahawk

As proposed in the House, here's the text of the Orwellian legislation. They should name it the "Unionization by Intimidation Act of 2009", but of course there's no requirement for truth in advertising by Congress.

The bill's text will soon be available on THOMAS.

If a chart like this looks complicated ...

... the explanation helps (a bit). It's interesting, but it's only a start. We need to throw several monkey wrenches into the Left's works, and quickly.

To mark the impending passage of the stimulus package The Generational Theft Act of 2009, I wrote a parody for any good Barack Obama impersonator to sing (with backup vocals by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barney Frank).

"Welfare"
(Tune: "Hang Fire" by The Rolling Stones)

Welfare welfare, welfare welfare, welfare welfare, well well
Welfare welfare, welfare welfare, welfare welfare, well well

In the brand new country we're gonna remake
Nobody has a job, cuz they're all on the take, welfare
Uh welfare

Well running your life is our full time job
We know what's best for you, you're just a helpless slob, welfare
Uh welfare, welfare, sign right there, baby yeah
Uh welfare, welfare, sign right there, baby

Yeah
Uh welfare

We got four short years to spread all of your wealth
This truckload of cash won't spend itself
Here in D.C. we're on a tear
Say what the hell, say what the hell, welfare
Welfare, welfare, welfare, sign right there, baby
Welfare, welfare, welfare, welfare
Welfare, welfare, sign right there baby

Welfare welfare, welfare welfare, welfare welfare, well well
Welfare welfare, welfare welfare, welfare welfare, well well
Welfare welfare, welfare welfare, welfare welfare, well well
Welfare welfare, welfare welfare, welfare welfare, well well

Cough up a trillion dollars for us to burn
Then re-elect us cuz you never learn, welfare
Uh welfare, welfare, sign right there baby
Uh welfare, welfare, sign right there
Welfare welfare welfare welfare
Sign right there
Sign right there

Considering the original song's ironic subject, I fiured it could use an update. After all, Barack Obama is the new James Callaghan.

Read the following text buried in the House version of the Generational Theft Act of 2009 (emphasis mine):

EMERGENCY FUND. -- ''(1) ESTABLISHMENT. -- There is established in the Treasury of the United States a fund which shall be known as the 'Emergency Contingency Fund for State Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Programs' (in this subsection referred to as the 'Emergency Fund'). ''(2) DEPOSITS INTO FUND.--Out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are appropriated such sums as are necessary for payment to the Emergency Fund.

That's a blatant return to unlimited direct welfare payments. Remember those? A Republican Congress cut off those hand-outs in 1996 with Bill Clinton's approval years ago, but Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi want to go back to the bad old days of welfare queens.

I searched the text of the Senate's "compromise" version and found this:

'(1) ESTABLISHMENT.--There is established in the Treasury of the United States a fund which shall be known as the 'Emergency Contingency Fund for State Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Programs' (in this subsection referred to as the 'Emergency Fund'). ''(2) DEPOSITS INTO FUND.-- ''(A) IN GENERAL.--Out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are appropriated for fiscal year 2009, $3,000,000,000 for payment to the Emergency Fund.

It's a sad day when three billion dollars in welfare payments sounds less insane than the alternative, but here we are. Any bets on what dollar figure will result from the conference committee in which the House and Senate reconcile the differences in their bills and go for final passage?

I'm not betting on anything small.

Hat tip: Mickey Kaus

--

7:00 Update: Tom Blumer points out that this bill is 47% pork.

Courtesy of MSDNC MSNBC:

President Barack Obama issued a withering critique Thursday of Wall Street corporate behavior, calling it "the height of irresponsibility" for Wall Street employees to be paid more than $18 billion in bonuses last year while their financial sector was crumbling.

"It is shameful," Obama said from the Oval Office. "And part of what we're going to need is for the folks on Wall Street who are asking for help to show some restraint, and show some discipline, and show some sense of responsibility."

If I've got this "new Obama math" right, paying out $18 billion in executive bonuses is the height of irresponsibility, but spending $1.2 trillion in government pork is a fiscally justifiable use of taxpayer funds.

Am I on track, Mr. President?

Hmmm. Big numbers are hard to grasp. Maybe if I represented each $1,000,000,000 with a fat little pig, I'd be able to get a better handle on things. Yes, that sounds good.

Ready?

You betcha, my fellow hopenchangers. Barack Obama knows who to thank for his rise to power. That's Democrat payoffs kickbacks corruption stimulus for ya!

Earlier today a rumor surfaced on Politico.com about House Republican leadership encouraging the Republican members of the House to vote against Barack Obama's monster wasteful pork stimulus bill. I have confirmation from a DC source that this is no mere rumor. Rep. John Boehner and Rep. Eric Cantor urged their caucus to oppose the stimulus-a-palooza when it comes to the floor tomorrow.

Cantor led a working group that came up with a "House Republican Economic Recovery Plan", which they released on Friday in one-page summary form. I received an e-mailed copy of a two-page version of the plan.

Well, not yet. But the Paulbots have certainly spammed the heck out of RNCDebate.org lately. Just look at all the lickspittle paeans mixed into the questions submitted by the Ronulans. Geez, these cranks almost make Obama worshipers look rational.

Hats off to Sword At-The-Ready for the image.

If you think paying fifteen dollars for one of these monstrosities is silly ...

... imagine forking over more than twenty bucks for a secondhand coin. There's a sucker born every minute.

Hat tip: Ben Keeler

Brit Hume wrapped up his career as a full-time journalist tonight when he signed off at the end of Special Report. The guy's a no-b.s., fair, balanced, unafraid reporter who has earned his retirement.

America needs more reporters like him. I'll miss watching him in the evenings.

A research team from the Psychology Department at New York University, headed by Professor Yaacov Trope and supported by the National Science Foundation, is investigating the cognitive causes of voting behavior, political preferences, and candidate evaluations throughout the course of the 2008 U.S. Presidential election. This stage of the study focuses on the information people use to inform evaluations during the last few weeks before the election. They seek respondents of all political leanings from all over the country (and from the rest of the world) to complete a 15-minute questionnaire, the responses to which will be completely anonymous.

If you're interested, participate here.

A cut is not a cut when you're playing games with the federal budget.

Imagine that the Federal Whatchamacallit Administration (FWA) has a current budget of $100 billion for 2006, and the Bush administration requests $120 billion for 2007.

Now imagine that the happy little piglets on the House Appropriations Committee draft their 2007 budget with another $30 billion in the FWA authorization bill ... the better to fund several Congressmen's pet projects. Pretty straightforward so far, and sadly very predictable:

Now let's say that the full House of Representatives, backed by the Bush Administration, objects to the pork. They change the FWA's 2007 budget back to $120 billion, which looks like this:

Naturally, if you're a tax-and-spend Washington politician and you hate being told "no", you immediately call a press conference to denounce the horrible "cut" in the FWA budget.

But wait! How can it be a "cut" if the budget went up? It's a common scare tactic that comes from a system called "baseline budgeting", and it's a deceptively easy way to scare uninformed voters into supporting the tax-and-spend piglets in expensive suits.

The Congressional Budget Office defines the baseline as a benchmark for measuring the budgetary effects of proposed changes in federal revenue or spending, with the assumption that current budgetary policies or current services are continued without change. The baseline includes automatic adjustments for inflation and anticipated increases in program participation. Baseline, or current services, budgeting, therefore builds automatic, future spending increases into Congress's budgetary forecasts.

Baseline budgeting tilts the budget process in favor of increased spending and taxes. For example, if an agency's budget is projected to grow by $100 million, but only grows by $75 million, according to baseline budgeting, that agency sustained a $25 million cut. That is analogous to a person who expects to gain 100 pounds only gaining 75 pounds, and taking credit for losing 25 pounds. The federal government is the only place this absurd logic is employed.

-- Citizens Against Government Waste

You can also sometimes see the flip side of this silliness in action when politicians try to paint themselves as budget-cutters, while actually spending more. You've heard of stores that fool consumers by artificially raising prices just before a "deep discount sale", right? Politicians pull the same trick regularly.

So the next time you hear scary stories like "Republicans will cut veterans' benefits", or "McCain will cut Medicare", don't swallow the bait without thinking. First, find out whether those sneaky politicians are playing the baseline budgeting game again.

Stay classy, Democrats.

When will an interviewer or a reporter ask Barack Obama whether he believes in Black Liberation Theology? It's definitely not orthodox Christianity.

Imagine that I'm a leading Republican candidate for President, and I've been a member of the Westboro Baptist Church for 20 years, and donated tens of thousands of dollars to the ministry. I've also called the Reverend Fred Phelps my friend and spiritual mentor for years. Furthermore, he presided over my marriage and baptized my two daughters.

Now when embarrassing video clips of Fred Phelps' sermons surface during my campaign, I start distancing myself from the specific offensive statements in the specific videos. I also play down my association with Phelps by likening him to a crazy uncle and claiming "Gosh, he never said stuff like that when I was in the pews; the few times I attended it was all about Jesus and love and faith and family."

My supporters claim the media cherry-picked quotes to serve their own agenda, that people are afraid of me, and that my accusers don't understand the "context" of the rhetoric used in churches that focus primarily on homosexuals.

Would anybody believe a single word I said? Of course not. They'd all call B.S.

So why in the world do the Obamassiah's followers expect me to swallow his line of bull?

--

Update: Spin, baby, spin.

Are you ready for an eye-opening look at the kind of racist bilge that's taught by the church that Obama chose to support and attend for the last twenty years? Make sure you're sitting down first, because this is black liberation theology in its unvarnished ugliness.

10/01/2008 Update: There's much more to learn about Barack Obama's beliefs here.

Whoopsie:

Contrary to Senator Barack Obama's claim that he never heard his pastor Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. preach hatred of America, Obama was in the pews last July 22 when the minister blamed the "white arrogance" of America's Caucasian majority for the world's suffering, especially the oppression of blacks.

...

In fact, Obama was present in the South Side Chicago church on July 22 last year when Jim Davis, a freelance correspondent for Newsmax, attended services along with Obama. [See: "Obama's Church: Cauldron of Division."]

How many of these sermons did Obama attend? More importantly, if he lied about his supposed ignorance of Wright's hateful rhetoric, why should we believe Obama when he "condemns" those sermons?

More analysis at Hot Air.

Is it just me, or are the Congress and the President doing the usual two-step "we must be seen to be doing something about a recession because it is an election year" dance when it comes to "stimulus?" Think about it. As proposed, what would the stimulus really accomplish? We give individuals $600.00 ($1,200.00 to families or couples) to spend as they wish. It will cost approximately $150 Billion dollars. WHY?!?!? From what I have read, people are usually going to do one of two things with their checks, either pay off their credit cards (no new jobs) or go to Wal-Mart and spend it (most of the money going to China). If we are determined to put ourselves in debt that much more (and I personally don't think we should) why don't we address it differently?

If you want to truly stimulate the economy, do something that will help people long-term. This country is beginning to have major infrastructure problems. Why not propose it as a comprehensive Infrastructure Refurbishment Bill instead. Think of how many construction workers and American businesses would be hired with this amount of money? American Steel used to rebuild bridges. American families reaping the benefits of new jobs. All of the money would go into stimulus, and it would stay in the USA.

If you want relief for all Americans, then release 15% of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve over the course of a year to stabilize (reduce the price) of the oil markets. 15% is equal to 104 million barrels of oil (the current reserve level is at 697.5 million barrels). This would result in lower gasoline costs, lower heating oil costs, lower jet-fuel costs, etc. It would probably knock the price of oil back down into the $50-$60 range, which would translate to a savings of approximately $0.50 per gallon of gasoline for each consumer. Considering each family on average uses 15 gallons of gas a week (conservatively), this translates to a savings of nearly $400.00 per year per family, and jump starts the transportation industries (airlines, shipping, etc) by boosting their profits and allowing them to afford to create new jobs. It's not like we're draining the reserve, it will still be at a higher level than it was in 2001 (when it held 545 million barrels).

Or maybe it's just my exposure to the blogosphere. Here's a graphic that illustrates where I sat on the Political Compass on June 25th, 2004.

Now here's my current position.

None of this means I'm voting for Ron Paul, though.

James Lewis examines the Neocommunist Left and reaches some startling conclusions.

Today the voters have not yet caught on to the real radicalism of the Left. If they do, Democrats will once again have to choose between the totalitarian impulse and being small d-democrats. Because our Democrats are emphatically not small-d democrats. They will use and manipulate their voters, but they don't listen to them. Whenever possible, they accomplish unpopular policy initiatives through the courts, our least democratic government mechanism, one never designed to lead in formulating social policy.

The NeoCommies may not be conspirators, but they are heirs to an international political movement that was built on conspiracies.

...

The methods of Neocommunism parallel those of Old Communism to an astonishing degree.

The routine use of orchestrated group lying (so that many different people are suddenly making the same accusation);

The constant use of innocent-sounding front groups like MoveOn.org and Media Matters;

The use of stooges (like military retirees, both real and phony);

The need to whip up the rage of the faithful with constant disinformation about the enemy (i.e., America and conservatives);

The infiltration of media and government. Members of the seventies left are sprinkled throughout these institutions, carrying out the long march. These tricks are all straight out of the old, old playbook. Karl Marx really was a genius agitator and revolutionary plotter, though nothing else. Marx is still the model.

Hmmmm ...

Say hello to Congressman Joe Sestak.

Laura Ingraham's "Power To The People" book tour pulled into Cleveland today. Here I am at the WHK Meet & Greet over on the East Side.

The lady radiates energy. She's on her tenth stop in this book tour, and won't get a break 'til the middle of next month. A three day break. She's gotta be tired but you sure can't tell by looking at her or listening to her. Laura's very friendly, outgoing, and charming ... the kind of person I'd enjoy hanging out with over pizza and beer. I'd love to just sit and hear her talk about the things she's done, the places she's been and the people she's met.

Laura, I hope you get a chance to work out at some point, just to vent some stress from the tour. At least go for a run, girl. You'll go batty by October otherwise. And the next time you roll through town, you and your producers drink on my tab. Never let it be said that this USCGA grad would withhold hospitality from friends of a squid like Joe (tempting though it might be).

Here's more on the author and her work.

The words of an anonymous Senator on Friday:

No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV ... The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us.

"Other groups" clearly means MoveOn.org and its despicable full-page ad. But who's the anonymous Senator? Let's look at some likely suspects ... those Senators who enjoyed MoveOn.org's largesse during the 2006 election cycle (to be updated as I dig through the FEC reports):

Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV)
    Contributions to Friends of Robert C. Byrd Committee
    $596,100 3/30/2005 (earmarked contributions)
    $186,644 3/31/2005 (earmarked contributions)
    $51,467 3/31/2005 (earmarked contributions)
    $28,200 3/31/2005 (25 earmarked contributions over $1k)

Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
$25,899 (independent expenditure)
    Contributions to Friends of Sherrod Brown
    $287,623 9/12/2006 (earmarked contributions)
    $10,281 9/18/2006 (earmarked contributions)
    $4,000 11/1/2006 (earmarked contributions)
    $4,000 9/12/2006 (4 earmarked contributions over $1k)
    $3,325 9/25/2006 (earmarked contributions)
    $2,000 9/12/2006 (earmarked contribution)
    $1,135 10/7/2006 (earmarked contributions)

Senator Jon Tester (D-MT)
$2,051 (independent expenditure)
    Contributions to Montanans for Tester
    $225,455 11/3/2006 (earmarked contributions)
    $76,333 9/18/2006 (earmarked contributions)
    $36,363 11/6/2006 (earmarked contributions)
    $11,025 9/25/2006 (earmarked contributions)
    $9,200 11/3/2006 (7 earmarked contributions over $1k)

These figures do not cover earmarked contributions under $1000. Why? There were too many to keep track of! Several hundred contributions of $5 or $10 or $50 are significant, but somebody else can run 'em all down; I do have a life. You can still get the sense that certain Senators are wholly-owned subsidiaries of MoveOn.org.

Pete Hegseth asks the Democrats in Congress "Does MoveOn.org speak for you? Do you agree with MoveOn.org? Or do you repudiate this despicable charge?" I'm going to call the Senators above and ask them the same thing, and I'll also ask each one if he or she is the anonymous coward qupoted above who expected MoveOn.org to do the dirty deed.

Just when you think they can't manage to shoot themselves in the foot (again), MoveOn.org runs a full page ad in the NY Times with the title "General Petraeus or General Betray Us." The gist of the ad is that Petraeus is a Bush sympathizer disconnected from the facts, before he has even uttered one word to congress. It's no wonder the american people don't take democratic politics seriously when they are represented by this bunch.

As a former member of the Armed Forces, with a spouse who is currently in Iraq fighting the good fight, this kind of crap only emboldens the enemy and undercuts our military. Take it from someone who's inside source is over there, this guy knows what he is talking about and we finally have an effective military strategy in place, even if it is 4 years late in coming (thanks to the arrogant and incompetent former SecDef). The troops on the ground have faith in the guy, too bad the politicians are more concerned with sound bites than listening to a professional military general give his assessment on how to win the war. It's time for MoveOn to move on.

You can see a copy of the ad here.

--

Puddle Pirate's addendum: Guess who got a sweetheart discount on that ad?

C-SPAN has streaming video of General David Petraeus' testimony before Congress today.

--

UPDATE: The Tank is liveblogging the circus.

On Wednesday afternoon, shortly after helping U.S. Central Command improve its news distribution from the war zone, I sent the following e-mail to CENTCOM's Public Affairs Office:

Your CENTCOM podcast feed at ...

[link shortened]

... is broken. You've been uploading new podcasts all the way through 31 AUG 07, but the podcast feed has nothing new after 26 JAN 07. Just go look at ...

[link shortened]

... and you'll see. Please fix this ASAP. CENTCOM needs this podcast to function if America is to win the information war against the jihadis.

Incidentally, the following feeds are also woefully outdated (perhaps dead?):

[link shortened]

[link shortened]

Yesterday afternoon, CENTCOM replied:

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. I have contacted our web masters and you should see something new within the next couple of days. Thanks again for your support.

V/R
Master Sgt. S. Crumes
Public Affairs Operations NCO
US Central Command
(813) 827-6761
DSN 312-651-6761
Cell [snipped]
Fax 813-827-2211
parkersy@centcom.mil
www.centcom.mil

CENTCOM's three dead feeds disappeared this morning, but the two good ones remained. That leads me to believe that somebody's working on the problem. Unfortunately CENTCOM's entire site dropped offline this afternoon. I'll be watching to see what happens.

With General Petraeus' progress report on Iraq almost upon us, it's time to revisit the propaganda war (and our military's lack of success therein).

Last year Tom Blumer wondered why CENTCOM's news releases weren't showing up in key places online. I suggested solutions and followed up on Tom's excellent work. Since then, CENTCOM has taken some steps to put out some news feeds and make them available online, but their publicity effort's still woefully lacking.

Enough dilly-dallying. I dug around CENTCOM's site, found 5 feeds, and did their public affairs work for them ... and it took me all of 45 minutes.

Those five feeds are now hooked into several search engines and feed-publicizing web services, so whenever CENTCOM posts a new item, everyone will know. Google Blog Search, My Yahoo, Technorati, Bloglines, Apple's iTunes, Syndic8, FeedBlitz ... it's all covered. You can even subscribe to any feed by e-mail, if you want.

Here are the five feeds:

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Please spread the word far and wide. I'm only one voice.

--

9/6 Update: If you don't know what a "feed" is (nor why you should care) here's a one-page answer.

Jim Geraghty poses a hypothetical:

Suppose you're an undecided Republican voter, with mixed feelings about the big-name Republican presidential candidates. You respect John McCain, but he doesn't look like a viable option -- which is just as well since he bugged you with his crusade for speech-limiting campaign finance reform, and lost you with the immigration deal with Ted Kennedy.

Mitt Romney's wowed you in the debates, but you can't forget that while you agree with all his positions, he had strikingly different ones not too long ago. And you would prefer a nominee who has won more than just one political race in his life.

You love Rudy Giuliani's crime-fighting record and 9/11 leadership, but the thought of a non-pro-life Republican nominee gives you pause, and the messy home life troubles you a bit.

You were very excited about Fred Thompson, and nearly fainted with anticipation when you saw his smackdown of Michael Moore. But lately you feel like you're playing a character in Waiting for Godot, and you're wondering if he got lost somewhere on the way to the announcement.

Those still shopping for a candidate could do a lot worse than former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who with the second-place finish in Ames is not merely now a "top tier" candidate, as Newt Gingrich recently declared, but arguably belongs in the middle of that first tier.

That describes me to a tee.

Huckabee's record on taxes gives me cause for concern, yet he seems to be on solid ground when addressing national defense and The Long War. He's unabashedly pro-life, and he's an ordained Baptist minister. Thanks to his solid performances in recent debates and in several interviews (like today's with Michael Medved), and also due to his second place finish in the Iowa Straw Pool, I'm giving him a second look.

I'm eager to see whether Huckabee does well in the Texas GOP Straw Poll, especially if Fred Thompson jumps into the race and they go head-to-head. Some say Huckabee's already stolen Thompson's thunder. I suspect that Fred still has time to win the nomination, but he can't wait much longer.

Fred or Mike? Mike or Fred? Hmmmm ...

The Texas Republican Party will conduct a straw poll on Labor Day Weekend with the help of the conservative folks at TownHall.com. That's supposedly the weekend when Fred Thompson will officially declare his candidacy. What a great opportunity for Fred to make a big splash!

One thing's certain: if Fred keeps delaying his entry, I'm going to switch my allegiance to Mike Huckabee (who just got $50 from me yesterday).

Here's the latest clip of Fred Thompson on YouTube. He sent this video greeting to the National Right to Life Convention:

Fellow pro-lifers, don't dismiss any candidate solely because he was once wishy-washy on life ... or was even pro-abortion.

I too was once in favor of abortion rights, back when I didn't think about issues nearly as much as I simply emoted about them. After I graduated from college, some intelligent and persuasive pro-lifers confronted my ignorance in a friendly way, offering lots of facts and logic, and I realized that I had been wrong all along.

Since then I've become an amateur pro-life apologist by reading voraciously, hosting debates, volunteering with local pro-life organizations, sitting on the board of a crisis pregnancy center, studying for an M.A. in Bioethics while simultaneously earning my law degree, publishing a pro-life legal note against embryonic stem cell research, and blogging here on bioethics.

Yet I once supported abortion rights. Does that make me a flip-flopper? According to some narrow definitions I've been hearing lately the answer is yes (good discussions here and here and here). That's ridiculous. The mere fact that I've had a change of mind and heart doesn't justify the flip-flopper label. I've given money to, volunteered for, and argued on behalf of the pro-life movement since my switch. If I had done nothing (or worse, if I'd switched back to being pro-abortion to gain some kind of advantage or benefit like Dennis Kucinich did) then I'd be vulnerable to charges of flip-floppery or a lack of seriousness.

Fred Thompson used to be mushy on abortion. He doesn't deny it. I suspect that his former stance came from his strong federalist tendencies and a lack of serious reflection on whether the unborn is actually a person like us in every morally relevant way. Since those days, Fred's voting record in the Senate and his public writings and speeches have been solidly pro-life. The man gives every indication that he now believes human beings have a right to life from the moment of conception, and that the federal courts overstep their authority when they support a constitutional "right" to abortion.

Becoming a serious pro-lifer is a good thing. We pro-lifers know this because we try to persuade as many people we can to join us, and we heap praise on those who do. I understand the emotional appeal of feeling suspicious every time we hear a politician claim to be on our side. Resist the urge to emote; think instead. Look at the declared pro-life politician's record before you dismiss him out of hand. Some of them really are on our side.

I knew it was just a matter of time before Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi revived their cut-and-run "strategy" for fighting the Islamists. Here we go again:

In light of the additional evidence since your veto that your plan is not working, it is clear that a course correction in Iraq is needed. That is also the view of a substantial majority of the American people. Rather than respond with a new plan immediately, Administration officials as well as Republican congressional leaders suggest that your flawed Iraq strategy not be revisited until September when General Petraeus is scheduled to provide Congress with a progress report on Iraq. The only step you have proposed in the interim is to divest your National Security Advisor of control over Iraq policy and create a “war czar” position, an act that has only served to create further confusion and concerns about your plans for Iraq.

The American people cannot and should not have to wait until later this year for changes in your flawed Iraq policy. There is an obligation to act now. That is why we intend to again send you legislation that would limit the U.S. mission in Iraq, begin the phased redeployment of U.S. forces, and bring the war to a responsible end. These are goals consistent with both the national security of the United States and the will of the American people. We respectfully request that you reconsider your previous opposition to proposals that would accomplish these goals, and work with us to give our troops a strategy worthy of their sacrifice. We look forward to discussing these issues with you when we meet at the White House later today to discuss stability in the Middle East.

I warned you. The American Left cares only for its own power, can't (or won't) look past the next election, has its heart set on military defeat, and is now skating just about as close to treason as they can get without crossing the line. Click the graphic:

I eagerly await the GOP presidential candidates' responses. Especially Fred Thompson's.

--

6/15 Update: A hilariously brilliant rebuttal. Thanks for finding this one, Andy.

No doubt you've heard about this.

Folks, Limbaugh does not produce videos. He didn't create this. It's not available on his site. It was posted on YouTube and was apparently created by some web site called politicalpartypoop.com, got it?

For Heaven's sake, look at the text that opens the video. Read. The. Text.

The SONG is posted on Limbaugh's site, but not the VIDEO. Rush Limbaugh DID NOT CREATE THIS VIDEO.

Morons taken in by the video:
USAToday's Mark Memmott and Jill Lawrence
KOVR Channel 13 (CBS affiliate in Sacramento)
DiversityInc Magazine's Aysha Hussain
Joe Gandelman
Tennessee Guerrilla Women
The Mahablog
Radar Online
BlogHer's Laina Dawes
Dr. Marc Lamont Hill
DailyKos' StormBear

He's scheduled a news conference for noon today to discuss his wife's health. I hope she's OK.

Laura Ingraham interviewed Fred Dalton Thompson this morning (mostly on immigration), and an excerpt of the audio's posted here (also as a downloadable MP3) . The excerpt lasts 4:46, but I don't see it posted anywhere in its entirety. I already pay for Laura's podcast, so I can listen to it but I can't post it myself. Here's the whole interview.

If Fred decides to run, my refrain will be ...

The Draft Fred Thompson site maintains a great collection of background info and news on the former Senator. National Review Online has transcripts and audio of Fred's recent radio commentaries.

Click, pledge, and spread the word.

Thanks to Hugh Hewitt, I've heard about the latest boneheaded idea proposed by our Republican Senators in Washington. They're ginning up a "non-binding" resolution that whines about the pending troop surge into Iraq. It's no surprise that General Petraeus testified that such legislative grandstanding encourages the enemy and endangers our troops.

If the United States Senate passes a resolution, non-binding or otherwise, that criticizes the commitment of additional troops to Iraq that General Petraeus has asked for and that the president has pledged, and if the Senate does so after the testimony of General Petraeus on January 23 that such a resolution will be an encouragement to the enemy, I will not contribute to any Republican senator who voted for the resolution.

Further, if any Republican senator who votes for such a resolution is a candidate for re-election in 2008, I will not contribute to the National Republican Senatorial Committee unless the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Ensign, commits in writing that none of the funds of the NRSC will go to support the re-election of any senator supporting the non-binding resolution.

Take the pledge ... and get ready for stormy weather.

The Democrats have been running Congress for a short time now, but they're already living up (down?) to conservative expectations. The Republican Party is reverting to spinelessness, and high-profile Republicans are scampering leftward in a crass effort to win re-election in 2008. When combined with President Bush's inability to persuasively articulate the many good reasons to continue the war on islamism, the near future looks pretty bleak. Although I remain an optimist at heart, I'm also realistic about human nature and the tendency of modern Americans to be short-sighted and self-absorbed.

I just want to get the following predictions on the record. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm confident that I'm right.

• The Democratic Congress, with the help of feckless Republicans, will pass a "non-binding" resolution opposing the war in Iraq. Period. No qualifications.
• A few months later, the Democratic Congress will cut off funds for the troop surge in Iraq.
• Sensing our politicians' weakness, our islamic enemies will step up their attacks on our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
• The Democratic Congress will abandon all pretense of supporting our troops, and will cut off all funds for the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan.
• Our troops will be forced to leave Iraq and Afghanistan in disgrace.
• Afghanistan will return to its default state: general lawlessness, with tribal enclaves controlled by warlords.
• Iraq will descend into an astonishing orgy of inter-tribal and sectarian slaughter, and will come apart at the seams.
  • The Kurds in the north of Iraq will declare their independence. Turkish and Iranian Kurds will try to secede and join the new Kurdistan. Turkey will attack the Kurds to prevent this.
  • The Sunni Triangle will descend into utter lawlessness, making Somalia seem like Disney Land. Either al Qaeda or some other Sunni group will rise from the ashes and set to work plotting international terror attacks, much like Osama bin Laden did in the 1990s in Afghanistan.
  • The Shiite areas of Iraq will assert their independence, but will end up as puppets of the Iranian mullahs. Grand Ayatollah Sistani will be assassinated by Iranian-backed thugs, lest he challenge the Iranian mullahs for authority.
• The western world's media will blame President Bush and the Republicans for "angering" muslims and "creating" the problem of islamic totalitarianism. The media will ignore twin truths: that western liberalism and political "realists" are to blame for allowing the long-festering cancer of islamism to metastasize after decades of incubation; and that President Bush was actually the first leader to see the danger and try to stop it. Leftist politicians will share the media's delusional worldview.
• Military re-enlistments will begin a long decline, and senior officers and NCOs will begin retiring in droves.

• A Democrat will be elected President, proving that the American public still has its collective head in the sand.
• Thanks to weak-kneed Republican leaders afraid to express conservative principles and policies, Democrats will solidify their hold on Congress and Republicans will return to their comfortable status as the minority party. GOP leaders will be happy because they will again be invited to all of the popular cocktail parties organized by leftist socialites inside the Beltway.
• Democrats will gut the American military.
  • Defense spending will drop below maintenance levels.
  • Research and development will grind to a halt.
  • Military re-enlistments will plummet.
  • Recruiting will wither.
• American foreign policy and defense strategy will revert to empty posturing and wishful thinking as perfected by Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. The all-volunteer military will go back to being a hollowed-out and demoralized institution, and will be misused for UN peacekeeping missions in places where America has no compelling national interest.
• Once the threat of a Republican President appointing conservative judges evaporates, Supreme Court Justices Ginsburg and Stevens will announce their retirements. Their replacements will be young, doctrinaire leftists who will cement the Supreme Court's suicidal leftward drift for another generation.

• "Moderate" regimes in the islamic world will collapse from within. Islamists of both Sunni and Shiite varieties will fill the vaccuum. Formerly "moderate" rank-and-file muslims will swing toward radicalism en masse.
• Iran will go nuclear. In response, Saudi Arabia and Egypt will start nuclear weapons drives of their own.
• Israel will pre-emptively attack Iran's nuclear facilities, electrical power grid, and command & control infrastructure to prevent a nuclear strike on Israel.
• The Middle East will immediately explode into regional warfare.
• Newly-confident islamists will successfully attack at least one major civilian target on American soil, whether by using a nuke, a dirty bomb, or a biological/chemical agent.
• American military enlistments will skyrocket.
• Muslim immigration to America will drop to zero. Non-citizen muslims will be deported.
• American muslims will be interned like Japanese Americans were in WWII.
• The media will again blame President Bush and Republicans for "angering" muslims, but this time the American public will no longer swallow the lie.
• Democrats will rely on their only solution to every problem: negotiation. Predictably, it will only encourage the enemy, by revealing the spinelessness of America's Democratic leadership. Attacks will increase in number and severity.
• Islamic suicide bombers will hit several soft targets across America like malls, stadiums, movie theatres, and schools.
• The American public will finally realize that islam is bent on our destruction. Americans will toss Democrats and liberal Republicans from office.
• A very muscular and militant conservative American leadership will rebuild the military, drastically increasing its size and lethality.
• America will either suspend all financial aid to the UN, or will withdraw from the UN completely.
• Congress will reinstate the draft. The Army and Marine Corps will expand to incredible size. Within two years, the draftees will be as lethal as the career professionals among our warrior class.
• America (with possible help from Australia, The United Kingdom, and India) will finally go to all-out declared war against islam (in its radicalized forms) and all regimes based on politicized islam and/or sharia law.
• America and the West will remind the watching world what utter devastation looks like. The Flattened Cities Club (remember Hamburg, Dresden, Berlin, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki?) will welcome new members like Tehran, Baghdad, Damascus, Cairo, Islamabad, Riyadh, Mecca, and Medina.
• The western world will not bother to rebuild the destroyed societies it leaves behind, lest the inhabitants there forget that islam has been utterly defeated and discredited. Instead, we will make no bones about our need for oil. We will rebuild only the oil extraction and export infrastructure, and protect it to ensure our own stability and safety. The rest of the erstwhile muslim world will be left in its humbled and humiliated state as punishment.
• The politicized and totalitarian religion of islam as we now know it will cease to be a major influence on world events.

We will have a few short years of peace until the next popular and poisonous ideology begins to grow. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Don't say you weren't warned.

Just click the image of Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) to find out why:

I'm a veteran, and I'm outraged.

I joined up in 1990 because I wanted to serve my country. I had a full ride scholarship waiting for me at a civilian university, but I dedicated my life to the military because I wanted to protect my family, my friends, and even stupendously condescending jerks like Charlie Rangel. I am white. I came from a middle class family. I got a 1430 on my SAT, and that was in 1989 (before they dumbed it down). I have a law degree and have only a few credits between me and a master's degree in bioethics. My four brothers are (respectively) a doctor headed for a fellowship in cardiology, a hydraulic equipment salesman, a petroleum engineer, and an undergraduate physics student headed for med school. My mother and stepfather have MBAs, are former executives in a Fortune 500 company, and are successful small business owners. My father has an MBA and is a successful CPA and financial advisor.

I had tons of options, and I chose the best: serving my country in the military. Charlie Rangel can kiss my ass.

I know what I'll be doing tonight at 7:00. I'll be watching this.

Exposed: The Extremist Agenda Video 1

Exposed: The Extremist Agenda Video 2

Be heard.

Hat tip: Jawa Report

Representative Roy Blunt (R - MO) wants to be the next Minority Whip, but his responses to questions from the conservative GOP base prove that he's not the man for the job (the audio's posted here). He's been tainted by excessive spending for too long to credibly claim to be a fiscal conservative. He's refused to lead as a conservative while he's been the Majority Whip, so he doesn't deserve a chance to help cause a second electoral train wreck in 2008.

Keep the pressure on the House Republicans by picking the best questions with which the media can grill the candidates for leadership positions. The Republican National Committee just demonstrated its "to hell with conservatives" attitude by making Senator Mel Martinez its new chairman (*groan*), and unless we speak up now the Republicans in the House will choose similar leaders. Unless you want a repeat of this election in 2008, help us pressure the GOP to get back to conservatism.

--

Update: A pithy assessment of Martinez as GOP Chairman.

When conservative Republicans warned the electorate that the Democratic Party would push for a cut and run policy in Iraq, it wasn't enough to keep control of Congress. The Democrats won, and now they and their media buddies are telling anyone who'll listen that they took over because they ran "moderate" candidates whose views reflect those of the majority of Americans (check the poll results here to see what that majority thinks about Iraq).

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Now comes the fulfillment of that conservative prediction:

The Democrats — the incoming majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada; the incoming Armed Services Committee chairman, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan; and the incoming Foreign Relations Committee chairman, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware — said a phased redeployment of troops would be their top priority when the new Congress convenes in January, even before an investigation of the conduct of the war.

“We need to begin a phased redeployment of forces from Iraq in four to six months,” Mr. Levin said in an appearance on the ABC News program “This Week.” In a telephone interview later, Mr. Levin added, “The point of this is to signal to the Iraqis that the open-ended commitment is over and that they are going to have to solve their own problems.”

...

“The people have spoken in a very, very strong way that they don’t buy the administration policy,” Mr. Levin said on ABC. Mr. Reid, in an appearance on CBS, said troop redeployment “should start within the next few months.”

There's more here.

Instead of retreating we ought to increase our troop strength and crush the Islamists. Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman are calling for more troops. That makes sense ... but with the Dems in charge, does anybody want to take bets on Congressional funding of even maintaining troop strength in Iraq (much less increasing it)?

If this mess bothers you like it bothers me, speak up and influence the Republican leadership candidates while you can.

--

Update: Oh, crap. President Bush, don't be an idiot.

Yet again we see why our enemies prefer Democrats.

More evidence continues to come in to support the common sense conclusion that conservatism didn't lose last Tuesday. Of course, that won't stop some on the Left from misdiagnosing what happened. Watch for more clashes between the two worldviews.

Meanwhile the GOP prepares to elect new House leaders ... people who will definitely hear from the conservative base. The candidates' responses will be instructive.

Update: Somebody shoot me. The Stupid Party is living up to its nickname:

The depleted House Republican caucus, a minority in the next Congress, convenes at 8 a.m. in the Capitol Friday on the brink of committing an act of supreme irrationality. The House members blame their leadership for tasting the bitter dregs of defeat. Yet, the consensus so far is that, in secret ballot, they will re-elect some or all of those leaders.

In private conversation, Republican members of Congress blame Majority Leader John Boehner and Majority Whip Roy Blunt in no small part for their midterm election debacle. Yet, either Boehner, Blunt or both are expected to be returned to their leadership posts Friday. For good reason, the GOP often is called "the stupid party."

Haven't these morons ever heard the definition of insanity?

Update 2: Apparently they haven't.

We warned you it would happen. And you wonder why the Islamists are happy about the election?

--

Update: The electorate is worried about the possibility of cutting and running.

While a bare majority of 51 percent called the Democrats' victory "a good thing," even more said they were concerned about some of the actions a Democratic Congress might take, including 78 percent who were somewhat or very concerned that it would seek too hasty a withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

Another 69 percent said they were concerned that the new Congress would keep the administration "from doing what is necessary to combat terrorism," and two-thirds said they were concerned it would spend too much time investigating the administration and Republican scandals.

That's nice to know, but why did the voters support the Democrats then? Apparently, GOP corruption matters more than Democrat fecklessness on national security matters. I wish we Americans would think more than two years ahead.

*sigh*

I say it's time to do something about it.

Tip o' the hat to Michelle Malkin.

We all have questions we'd love to ask the GOP's new House leadership candidates. Surprisingly enough, they might actually have to answer them ... and you can submit and vote on questions thanks to N.Z. Bear.

Hat tip: Hugh Hewitt

What a shock. He'd better not get his hopes up. The GOP's base isn't too keen on his prospects.

I'm holding my tongue for awhile on matters of politics. I'd rather cool off and think for awhile before posting, rather than risk saying something I'll regret later. It's time for conservatives to pause and reflect on our priorities for the next two years.

This defeat of Republicanism is not a rejection of conservatism.

Our side will lose seats, but I predict that the Republicans will hold both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House. Mike DeWine will barely beat Sherrod Brown.

The Democratic Party will descend into vicious infighting as it tries to assign blame for its failure. John Kerry will be the first and most prominent whipping boy. The left-wing blogs will scream bloody murder about "voter suppression" and "election fraud", since they cannot comprehend the possibility that the majority of voters don't share the left's beliefs.

The Dinosaur Media will breathlessly report electronic voting problems and will try to sway late voters with wildly inaccurate exit polls purporting to show Democrat victory in the offing. Once it becomes clear that the Republicans have squeaked out a win, the media will openly bemoan Democrat ineptness, finally casting aside any illusion of objectivity and impartiality. They will continue to hemorrhage what little credibility they still have, and the next round of newspaper circulation numbers and TV news ratings will show major drops across the board.

My Congressional District, the 13th, will be saddled with Democrat Betty Sutton, which is a no-brainer thanks to the inept and under-funded campaign of RINO Craig Foltin.

Issue 2 (boosting the minimum wage) will pass by a close margin, Issue 3 (legalized gambling) will fail by a close margin, Issue 4 (limited smoking ban) will fail, and Issue 5 (total smoking ban) will fail by a large margin.

I grind my teeth to say it but I think Ted Strickland will be our new Governor ... yet Ken Blackwell will only lose by less than 7%. Most importantly, Blackwell will capture more than 1/3 of the black vote, which will ring alarm bells throughout the Democratic Party.

[Cross-posted at The S.O.B. Alliance]

--

Update: To quote Emily Litella ... never mind.

I'll give you one guess.

If the Democratic Party isn't in favor of cutting and running from Iraq, then please explain these NY Times poll results:

Nearly 75 percent of respondents, including 67 percent of Republicans and 92 percent of Democrats, said they expected that Americans troops would be taken out of Iraq more swiftly under a Democratic-led Congress.

Forty-one percent of respondents said they expected that troop levels would decrease if Democrats won control, while 40 percent said the party would seek to remove all troops.

The voters know the Democrats, even though the party's bigwigs try to hide their pacifist core.

Oh ... one other thing. I have a request for leftists. Please don't even try to claim that the New York Times is biased against Democrats. That paper is unabashedly pro-Democrat.

Seen on FreeRepublic:

Hat tip: NixGuy

--

Update: Direct hit!

John Kerry is defiant in his response to America's anger over his slur against our troops, but there's more to it than that. Watch his press conference closely and see if you notice what I noticed.

Did you catch it? None of his fellow Democrats are standing behind him. Cowards.

Remember that the Democratic Party is the home of politicians who despise our troops. Vote accordingly next Tuesday.

Are you sitting down?

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

-- John Kerry
[audio here]

And this guy wants to make another run at the presidency? I'll make the call right now. Kerry's run in 2008 is D.O.A.

The only difference between this colossal twit and Hillary/Obama/Feingold is that the other contenders know better than to reveal their disdain for our troops. As a veteran, I'm disgusted but not surprised.

Michelle Malkin has the mother of all round-ups of blogosphere reactions.

--

Update: "I apologize to no one." (Hat tip: RedState)

Please, John. Keep talking.

Reflecting on frequent conservative threats to punish the Republican Party by sitting out the 2006 election, Tony Blankley warns against the temptation to be stupid:

Here are some telltale signs of the sort of person who would vote (or not vote) to cause the election of a party that would act to defeat every value and interest he holds dear (merely because the party that will at least try to advance most of those issues has not done as well as he might have hoped):

1. When offered by a car dealer 25 percent off on a car, he insists on paying the full factory-recommended retail sticker price -- because he is damned if he will accept 25 percent when he deserves 30 percent off.
2. When the prettiest cheerleader asks the nerd to take her to the prom, he turns her down -- just because he can.
3. When stopped for doing 70 in a 65 zone, he tells the trooper that's not possible because he had the cruise control set on 90 -- he just resents being falsely charged.
4. When diagnosed with a serious illness, he promptly cancels his medical insurance -- in order to save the cost of premium payments to help pay for the upcoming hospital stay.

...

This current conservative petulance -- if it actually occurs on Nov. 7 -- will increase the chances of electing Hillary, or worse (if such a thing is possible) in 2008.

There is no rational policy or political basis for conservatives not voting. I'm not sure the country can take the current Democratic mob in power for long.

A realist once observed that the history of mankind is little more than the triumph of the heartless over the mindless.

The Democrats are obviously heartless. Conservatives must guard against falling into the category of the mindless. Ignore your heartfelt peevements, use your brains and vote.

Be optimistic, keep fighting, don't believe the hype, and VOTE.

I'll be attending tonight's town hall meeting featuring Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Prager, and Ken Blackwell. If I get a chance to ask a question, what would you folks like me to bring up?

In a fascinating post, J. Peter Mulhern of The American Thinker wonders what might happen if the Democrats fail to take over either the House of Representatives or the Senate:

Predicting what will happen if the Democrats win control in one or both houses of Congress next month is a burgeoning cottage industry. It is, however, both more interesting and probably more useful to consider what will happen if they don’t.

...

Some Democrats will claim that the party must take the war more seriously and appear more moderate to win. Others will argue that the party must be true to its ideological roots on the far left so that it may win a majority by the power of passion and persuasion. Neither side of this debate will grasp the true nature of the Democrat dilemma.

The would-be moderates don’t understand that Democrats can’t win without the left. The ideological purists don’t understand that Democrats can’t win with it.

...

Professional Democrats have tried for years to have their cake and eat it too. They have tried to keep the loyalty of the left without getting identified with it. That worked during the ersatz peace of the Clinton years when they were still winning, at least sometimes.

The pressure of war and defeat has made it much more difficult for Democrats to have it both ways. They have tried desperately to straddle the divide between those who want to defend America from our deadly enemies and those who don’t.

Rush Limbaugh has been making similar points all week, trying to buck up the conservative base. I've found my own reflexive pessimism about the electorate melting away. I really think this election's going to go well for the vast majority of Americans who have deep reserves of common sense. As long as the mainstream media doesn't poison the debate with their desperate left-wing bias, we should be OK come Election Day.

Courtesy of GOP Bloggers, here's the GOP Primary Straw Poll for October 2006:

David Zucker's new ad poses the question: "The security of the United States is not a game. Can we afford a party that treats it like one?"

It's hilarious and dead-on accurate! The Republicans are wusses for not running the ad, so I will.

The scummy ex-Congressman's sexual predation deserves moral condemnation. Period.

Michelle Malkin tracks the ins and outs of the story. I'm just glad the guy's history. His party affiliation is irrelevant to the severity with which he deserves to be punished.

Two retired Army Major Generals, John Batiste and Paul Eaton, showed up on Capitol Hill again yesterday to grandstand for the cameras and demand that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld resign.

Sound familiar? Yep, we've been here before. The Senate Democratic Policy Committee meeting was not an actual Senate committee meeting. Only one Republican showed up, and he wasn't even a Senator. What was Representative Walter Jones of North Carolina doing there, I wonder?

At any rate, allow me to refresh everyone's memory about the deafening chorus of retired generals and admirals calling for Rummy's head. The folks in blue represent the five or six identified gadflies, multiplied by two because I'm feeling generous. The folks in green represent all of the other retired flag officers.

Of course, I'm being unfair. I failed to mention that Generals Batiste and Eaton had retired Colonel T.X. Hammes sitting beside them.

Feel better now, Democrats?

Arthur C. Brooks thinks liberals are doomed unless they start having more children:

Simply put, liberals have a big baby problem: They're not having enough of them, they haven't for a long time, and their pool of potential new voters is suffering as a result. According to the 2004 General Social Survey, if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had, between them, 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That's a "fertility gap" of 41%. Given that about 80% of people with an identifiable party preference grow up to vote the same way as their parents, this gap translates into lots more little Republicans than little Democrats to vote in future elections. Over the past 30 years this gap has not been below 20%--explaining, to a large extent, the current ineffectiveness of liberal youth voter campaigns today.

Maybe so, maybe so.

What Mr. Brooks fails to account for in his essay is another way to create new little liberals: conversion. As long as the left has a stranglehold on public education and on the universities, many a moderate or conservative kid will come home spouting liberal claptrap.

Hugh Hewitt nails it:

Trusting the national security to Democrats is like trusting a moving car to a four year old, or the management of a vast company to the junior high school business club. Neither the child nor the preteens want to wreck the car or ruin the corporation, but both results are near inevitable.

The lefty blogs are gonna blow their tops over this one.

This week, Wictory Wednesday present Thomas Kean for the US Senate for the state of New Jersey. Tom is a known conservative supporting sound economic and political policies that will keep America going in the right direction.

Much has been said about the "culture of corruption" that permeates both parties nationally as well as in New Jersey. Recently, the New Jersey Attorney General resigned over ethical violations. Kean is no stranger to the destruction a corrupt government causes and is committed to the cause of reform to clean up not only corrupt politicans, but wasteful bureaucratic spending and expansive government agencies.

Kean understands that funding education is essential but that it must come with accountability. Projects and organizations that are achieving results should be funded and expanded. Bureaucracies and programs that are failing students and parents should be defunded and discarded. Throwing money at a problem without taking the time to ensure results just wastes money and condemns American youth to second-class status in the global economy.

As a supporter of lower taxes, Kean understands that this must come with lower spending. While the economy is growing and reducing the impact that the budget deficit has on the economy, much greater gains would be made if wasteful spending never took place to begin with. Ending absurd taxes such as the marriage penalty and the ever-expansive alternative minumum tax would not shackle the middle class. The best way to create jobs is to keep the cost of running and expanding businesses economical.

Kean would be a solid voice for conservative values in the United States Senate where it seems to be needed the most. Please consider contributing to the Kean campaign.

This has been a production of the Wictory Wednesday blogburst. If you would like to join Wictory Wednesday, please see this post or contact John Bambenek at jcb (dot) blog [at] gmail {dot} com. The following sites are members of the Wictory Wednesday team:

If you listen to Ned Lamont's acceptance speech, he says of our troops in Iraq:

We have 132,000 of our bravest troops stuck in the middle of a bloody civil war in Iraq. And I say it's high time we bring them home to the hero's welcome.

Help me out here, you Lamont zombies. If our troops are doing something bad by fighting in Iraq, why should we regard them as heroes? Conversely, if they are indeed heroes then why should we pull them out before they finish their heroic task?

Amanda Marcotte at the Pandagon blog objects to Israel's tactics in its war on Hezbollah, and laments the "absence" of a more peace-loving viewpoint in the media (and presumably among Americans in general):

The fear of the Wingnutteria whining has turned the mainstream media into the biggest bunch of cowards you ever saw; meanwhile the right wing press is unafraid and this has made them less constrained on the subject of this war.

The mainstream media is most definitely not blindly backing Israel. Take for example CNN correspondent Nic Robertson's gullible participation in a Hezbollah propaganda stunt. No, the MSM is predominantly left-leaning and tends to support the "talk-talk-talk" strategy for warfighting, as advocated by liberals like UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egeland (who at least condemns Hezbollah, to his credit).

As for the right wing press (whatever that means beyond "Eeeeeevil Fox News") being "less constrained", I have to plead ignorance of exactly what she's complaining about. Is it that conservatives generally support Israel's right to strike back hard against Hezbollah and eliminate that terrorist organization for good? Or is some kook on the right advocating genocide? If so, I'll happily label him a kook of the first order.

The problem with that is when Israel does something so obviously odious as killing innocent civilians and holding them culpable for what an unsanctioned organization does, well, even just straightforward reporting is going to seem critical.

Doesn't the population of a country bear at least some responsibility for what the country does or what it allows to happen inside its borders? A goodly number of liberals seem to think so when the country in question is America. Otherwise why apologize at all?

The Lebanese government was elected by the Lebanese, and it shares some responsibility with the citizens in allowing Hezbollah to rocket Israeli civilians and kidnap Israeli soldiers inside Israel. I don't think it's unreasonable for Israel to hold all of the Lebanese people partly culpable for allowing Hezbollah to start a war. What is it that exempts Lebanese civilians from culpability for their government's behavior, while we're on the hook for America's policies?

And please remember that Hezbollah did start this war. Until this month Israel hasn't occupied a single square inch of Lebanon since 2000. Hezbollah doesn't want to end an occupation; it wants to eliminate Israel. If that doesn't make sense to you, then you're wilfully blind to reality and nothing can persuade you otherwise.

To reduce violence in the Middle East, Ralph Peters suggests redrawing the map along ethnic and religious lines.

In each case, this hypothetical redrawing of boundaries reflects ethnic affinities and religious communalism � in some cases, both. Of course, if we could wave a magic wand and amend the borders under discussion, we would certainly prefer to do so selectively. Yet, studying the revised map, in contrast to the map illustrating today's boundaries, offers some sense of the great wrongs borders drawn by Frenchmen and Englishmen in the 20th century did to a region struggling to emerge from the humiliations and defeats of the 19th century.

Correcting borders to reflect the will of the people may be impossible. For now. But given time � and the inevitable attendant bloodshed � new and natural borders will emerge. Babylon has fallen more than once.

We could actually do this if not for the existence of the U.N. (motto: "Obstructing peace and common sense since 1945!") and the west's infatuation with political correctness.

WuzzaDem completely demolishes the schizophrenically-gifted Glenn Greenwald, a NY Times bestselling author of ... oh, nevermind. I'll let the sockpuppets speak for themselves.

A cut is not a cut when you're playing games with the federal budget.

Imagine that the Federal Blog Promotion Administration has a current budget of $100 billion for 2006, and the Bush administration requests $120 billion for 2007.

Now imagine that the happy little piglets on the House Appropriations Committee draft their 2007 budget with another $30 billion in the FBPA authorization bill ... the better to fund several Congressmen's pet projects. Pretty straightforward so far, and sadly very predictable:

Now let's say that the full House of Representatives, backed by the Bush Administration, objects to the pork. They change the FBPA's 2007 budget back to $120 billion, which looks like this:

Naturally, if you're a tax-and-spend Washington politician and you hate being told "no", you immediately call a press conference to denounce the horrible "cut" in the FBPA budget.

But wait! How can it be a "cut" if the budget went up? It's called "baseline budgeting", and it's a deceptively easy way to scare uninformed constituents into supporting the tax-and-spend piglets in expensive suits.

The Congressional Budget Office defines the baseline as a benchmark for measuring the budgetary effects of proposed changes in federal revenue or spending, with the assumption that current budgetary policies or current services are continued without change. The baseline includes automatic adjustments for inflation and anticipated increases in program participation. Baseline, or current services, budgeting, therefore builds automatic, future spending increases into Congress's budgetary forecasts.

Baseline budgeting tilts the budget process in favor of increased spending and taxes. For example, if an agency's budget is projected to grow by $100 million, but only grows by $75 million, according to baseline budgeting, that agency sustained a $25 million cut. That is analogous to a person who expects to gain 100 pounds only gaining 75 pounds, and taking credit for losing 25 pounds. The federal government is the only place this absurd logic is employed.

-- Citizens Against Government Waste

You can also sometimes see the flip side of this silliness in action when politicians try to paint themselves as budget-cutters, while actually spending more. You've heard of stores that fool consumers by artificially raising prices just before a "deep discount sale", right? Politicians pull the same trick regularly.

So the next time you hear scary stories like "cuts in the Veterans' Administration budget", don't swallow the bait without thinking. First, find out whether those sneaky politicians are playing the baseline budgeting game again.

The new White House Press Secretary, Tony Snow, has begun issuing detailed rebuttals to mainstream media myths about the Bush Administration. It's about doggone time that somebody did.

Hat tip: Chuckoblog

Kathleen Willey, Candice E. Jackson, and Juanita Broaddrick remind us that Hillary Clinton's no moderate. Nor is she polite, solicitous, respectful, caring, or modest.

We on the right know this, but it's good to remind the folks in the center every so often ... and more often as 2008 approaches.

Cliff May has some direct questions for SecDef Rumsfeld's critics:

The question is not whether Donald Rumsfeld should resign. The question is not even who should replace him. The question is: What goals would a new Secretary of Defense set, and what strategies would he implement to achieve them?

If Rumsfeld's critics believe America's military has met its match on the battlefields of Iraq, they should say so forthrightly. But they should talk, too, about the ramifications of an American defeat in the heart of the Arab Middle East.

...

A separate question � one well worth asking � is whether a Pentagon reshaped by Rumsfeld will be all that it can be; whether it will be capable of employing organized violence more effectively than America's adversaries (which is, after all, the mission).

...

Retired generals should be welcomed into the debate on military transformation. But they can't make much of a contribution until and unless they start asking the right questions.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I'm encouraged by the results of a new Rasmussen poll:

Just 26% of Americans say they will definitely vote for Senator Hillary Clinton if she runs for President in 2008. That matches the lowest level of support ever recorded for the former First Lady and is the sixth consecutive Hillary Meter poll showing her solid support below 30%.

I'm pleased, naturally. But it's only 2006. This is no time to get complacent.

Below you'll find links to stuff I've read lately about the so-called "revolt of the generals."

• Richard Halloran asks (without answering) if retired military officers should publicly question the decisions of civilians in charge of the military.
• Charles Krauthammer emphatically replies "no."
• Unfortunately (but not at all surprisingly) the L.A. Times uses the generals' complaints as an excuse to hunt for unflattering quotes from deployed military members in the war zone. The Times only found one officer, and that coward declined to be identified ... rather than taking the principled approach and either resigning his commission or retiring.
• Oliver North repeats an increasingly common theme and wonders why the generals waited until now to complain, rather than resigning.
• David Mastio sees parallels between the current controversy and a seemingly unrelated incident from World War II, namely General Patton's famous slapping incidents.
• Cassandra at Villainous Company cautions civilians not to read too much into the controversy, suspects that at least one of the disgruntled generals is actually longing for President Bush's head on a platter, and handily debunks the charge that the "swift-boating" of the generals has begun.
• AcademicElephant thinks SecDef Rumsfeld has taken the wind out of his opponents' sails, and that now is the time to press the P.R. advantage.
• Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice restrains political speech by active-duty commissioned military officers.

Covering the "revolt of the generals" against SecDef Donald Rumsfeld, Fox News' heavy hitter Brit Hume found two contradictory quotes from the revolt's leader:

Former Clinton CENTCOM commander, Anthony Zinni � the most prominent of the retired generals attacking Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld � now says that, in the run-up to the war in Iraq, "What bothered me ... [was that] I was hearing a depiction of the intelligence that didn't fit what I knew. There was no solid proof, that I ever saw, that Saddam had WMD."

But in early 2000, Zinni told Congress "Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region," adding, "Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, [and] retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions ... Even if Baghdad reversed its course and surrendered all WMD capabilities, it retains scientific, technical, and industrial infrastructure to replace agents and munitions within weeks or months."

Oops. This kind of thing tends to hurt one's credibility.

Katrina Vanden Heuvel, the editor of The Nation, relishes the controversy over a few retired generals who have called for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to resign. Joining the media dogpile, Vanden Heuvel asks:

Batiste. Eaton. Newbold. Riggs. Zinni... Is there a retired general left in the States who hasn't called on Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to fall on his sword? While The Nation suggested he resign in April, 2003, an unanticipated and unprecedented cast of characters has joined the growing chorus.

So far something like six of these guys have sounded off. Heck, I'll be generous. Let's say a full dozen are out there talking to the mainstream media and urging Rumsfeld's ouster. Where does that leave us? Right here, Katrina:

The dirty dozen	Everybody else

Yes, that's a giant chorus of condemnation. This is only based on the estimate that there are roughly 4,700 retired generals and admirals, so do your own math. Maybe it'll be more persuasive.

--

Update: Welcome, readers of Hugh Hewitt, PoliPundit.com, TKS, Ed Driscoll, Right Wing News and RedState! Enjoy your stay here at Brain Shavings, and be sure to drop by the Buckeye Bloggers before you go.

I'm pleased to note that The Mountain States Legal Foundation has officially asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to withhold all federal taxpayer money from The University of California at Santa Cruz because yesterday the university again allowed student mobs to harass military recruiters and hound them from the campus. From the MSLF press release:

"It is outrageous that members of the Armed Forces, who are asked to serve in harm�s way in Afghanistan and Iraq, are driven from a campus by a mob in America," said William Perry Pendley, president and chief legal officer of Mountain States Legal Foundation. "Unless Secretary Rumsfeld responds to this craven violation of federal law, radicals on other campuses will be emboldened, will endanger the lives of men and women in uniform, and will deny students the right to learn how they may serve their country."

The Solomon Amendment, named after the late Congressman Jerry Solomon (R-NY), requires colleges and universities to allow military recruiters on campuses "at least equal in quality and scope to the [degree of] access to campuses and to students that is provided to any other employer." The law was enacted in 1996 but was not enforced by the Clinton Administration.

The Solomon Amendment is on very firm constitutional ground. Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt a resounding defeat to a liberal group called the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR), which had tried to get the courts to overturn the Solomon Amendment. Here's the unanimous (8-0) ruling in Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc.

I hope Secretary Rumsfeld triggers the Solomon Amendment. The radical anti-American left needs a good smacking-down.

Hat tip: Michelle Malkin