I repeat it to anyone who asks: I support 85% of what Ron Paul says, especially about domestic policy and the Constitution. But the other 15% is going to get me killed someday, if the man is allowed to dictate foreign policy. And for that reason, I won’t touch him or his mind-numbed Obamatonesque Paulbots with a 39-foot cattle prod.
Bradley Manning is a narcissistic, sociopathic coward and traitor with the blood of murder on his delicate little hands.
But that’s not the Bradley Manning Ron Paul knows.
No, Ron Paul sees the "hero" and "patriot" in him.
Last night, The Wall Street Journal posted an interesting symposium of Hopes for the Obama Presidency, with a wide variety of influential contributors joining in. Expectedly, there are voices like Katrina vanden Heuvel and George McGovern calling for the President to “Marshal the Power of
Liberalism Government” and “Feed the Hungry”. (Just as an aside: Is there anyone in this country really hungry? I thought the latest talking point was that we’re too fat, and I don’t think the food stamp program has been abolished or local charities have stopped feeding the poor.)
But two of the offerings stand out. One came closest to my own thoughts yesterday, and asks for us to “Show Each Other Some Respect”. It took a double-take to notice that the contributor was none other than Glenn Reynolds:
I agree with Barack Obama on some issues and disagree on others, but my hopes for the Obama presidency have mostly to do with tone. By reaching out to conservative columnists, and by going out of his way to say that he thinks George W. Bush is “a good man,” Mr. Obama has made some efforts to transcend the nastiness that has emanated from much of the Democratic Party over the past eight years, where open hatred of Mr. Bush and Republicans has been a major source of social bonding. That is a wise move on his part, as it makes it less likely that Republicans will return the favor. Venomous hatred by the opposition seriously harmed the Clinton and Bush administrations, and Mr. Obama will have a much more successful presidency if he can avoid similar problems. Whether this approach succeeds or not, however, will depend on whether his followers go along; in this, it is an early test of President Obama’s ability to lead.
While I am disappointed and wary of what a new progressivism may bring us, I most dread a continuation of the senseless and increasing hatred that has been thrown back and forth between Democrats and Republicans since Bill Clinton defeated George H.W. Bush. The more recent President Bush entered office with eggs being thrown at his inaugural motorcade, and left Washington yesterday afternoon to the infantile jeers of the inauguration revelers, singing “Hey, Hey, Good-Bye”. Let’s find a way to share our respective opinions with spirit and candor (and yes, humor), but without senseless anger and hate. I’ll start by pointing out to my conservative colleagues that you can’t call President Obama a smooth talker with empty rhetoric, and then accuse him of being a Marxist totalitarian, all in one breath. Uncle Joe was many evil things, but he wasn’t subtle; Obama is not Bill or Hillary Clinton (let’s thank God above for that).
The other notable post in the WSJ column was from Shelby Steele, who noted, “I feel earnest goodwill toward this new administration, but I’m afraid my actual ‘hopes’ for it run to the negative.” He then proceeded to explain how he “hopes” the President fails to find traction for the progressive agenda he seems poised to implement, and how he “despair(s) at seeing the moral capital of my race put to these ends.” The title of Mr. Steele’s post: “Black America Could Have Done Better”. There’s a simple, honest statement of dispute without bomb-throwing. I couldn’t agree more.
The inauguration is still weeks away, and already they’re whining. The NY Daily News has a story today about how “Bill must spill secrets” in order that Hillary may become Secretary of State. The best part about it isn’t the content of the story. Most of this is just a re-hash of junk we already know about the Clintons and more evidence of how this is Bill Clinton’s 3rd term. No, the best part are the comments from the left-wing boneheads, like this one from “Aloha62″: “I’m really confused by this. Most people backed Obama because we wanted a different direction, particularly on foreign policy. And to just hand over the foreign policy apparatus to the Clintons is just like back going in time.” Hey, you voted for the guy. You didn’t expect this? Oh, I’m so sorry. No, I’m not rolling a booger, I’m playing the world’s smallest violin.
This is why we cannot put the Democrat foxes in charge of the United States hen house!
The nonbinding, largely symbolic resolution passed the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week, despite strong opposition from the White House. It infuriated NATO ally Turkey, which hinted it might halt logistic support to U.S. troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan if the bill passes.
Largely symbolic? TOTALLY symbolic, and would result in delays getting our troops the Beans, Bullets, and Blankets they need to continue winning this war. And if the Turks really decided to flex their political muscles and prevent all transit across their territory (which they, as a sovereign nation, have every right to do), then the flights taking our wounded soldiers to advanced medical treatment centers at US bases in Germany and England will need to take a less direct route, resulting in longer flights and possibly higher mortality rates.
So, in what kind of world do we live in where the Speaker of the US House of Representitives pushes symbolic legislation that would alienate one of our most vital war allies and could potentially end up costing hundreds of millions $ more to get our troops the food and equipment they need and maybe even the lives of some of our wounded? Unfortunately, in a world where symbolism is more important than substance and, to the Liberal Socialists currently in positions of power, a world where the ends justify the means. It is painfully clear that in this case (as in most with these Stalinists), the aquisition of more power is worth any price.
Think I’m wrong? Think I’m over the top calling these people Stalinists and Liberal Socialists? Well try this new pants-suit on for size…
“Many of you are well enough off that … the tax cuts may have helped you,” Sen. Hillary Clinton said last week, according to the Associated Press. “We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”
Looks like a familiar uniform, doesn’t it?
We cannot let these jackals have the keys to the kingdom, or like the foxes in the hen house, they will gorge themselves on those they are supposed to protect.
Amir Taheri, writing at OpinionJournal.com, advises us how things are going in Iran.
The regime is trying to mobilize its shrinking base by claiming that the Islamic Republic is under threat from internal and external foes. It was in that context that the four Iranian-American hostages held in Tehran were forced to make televised “confessions” last month about alleged plots to foment a “velvet revolution.”If this is all true, I’ll end up agreeing with the Democrats: our plans to attack Iran are just plain nuts.
Over 40 people have been arrested on charges of espionage since April, 20 in the southern city of Shiraz. Khomeinist paranoia reached a new peak last week when the authorities announced, through the Islamic Republic News Agency, the capture of four squirrels in the Western city of Kermanshah and claimed that the furry creatures had been fitted with “espionage devices” by the Americans in Iraq and smuggled into the Islamic Republic.
Today was one for the books.
It began with a vote in the Senate that beat, throttled, and mutilated the hotly contested immigration bill before it finally died. Good riddance. I can’t help but wonder if we’ve seen a life preserver thrown to the Republican Party.
FULL DISCLOSURE: As someone who has clicked occasionally on the “Those Shirts” ads on HotAir, I am apparently involved in the plot.
That would have been a full day’s news, but we’re not finished.
SCOTUS decided to get into the action by offering its final ruling (yet another 5-4 with Kennedy siding with the Originalist/Textualist half of the court) [ SCOTUSBlog] on affirmative action in public schools. We’ll need time to really digest this mammoth ruling; I’ve only managed to skim the Chief Justice’s opinion for the court. But, as widely reported, the CJ has offered a statement in conclusion that I trust will become one of the great catchphrases of Supreme Court jurisprudence:
The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.Can I hear a Hallelujah?
Next, Mike Pence’s preventative measure banning the UnFairness Doctrine thundered out of the House, 309-115. Expect the Senate to pass it on a voice vote some Friday night in July.
To finish off a tumultuous day with a little comic relief tonight, the Dems had a debate, where they discussed the evils of resegregation being forced on America by the Supreme Court. The event was held at Howard University.
A long time ago, I signed up for some sort of email newsletter from The Jerusalem Post. I found it informative, and it let me see what was concerning our friends in Israel. On a very basic, emotional and subjective level, it also let me see their ads and read their stories to observe how much alike Israel and the United States are, even while being very different. I like and greatly admire the Israeli people, and believe their success is vital to our own economic, cultural, and national security interests.
Eventually, I found I didn’t have time for the newsletter. Though I unsubscribed, I would occasionally get advertisements for subscriptions and requests for donations to their affiliated charities. I never tried to get off that mailing list, because I thought it was harmless, and still more fun and informative that most of the other spam I get.
Similarly, I like Rudy Giuliani. He seems like a nice guy in most cases, and I can imagine it might be fun to be able to sit down to dinner with him. I believe him to be a strong economic conservative, with good federalist tendencies, regardless of any compromises he might have had to make to get along in liberal New York. I think he has strong pro-defense and foreign policy instincts. I don’t like his social liberalism at all, and I am offended by some of his seemingly anti-Catholic, cafeteria Catholicism. I will not vote for him in a primary. But between him and any Democrat in a general election, I would not hesitate to vote for him.
That all said….
The following just popped up in my email. I am quoting it in its entirety.
Dear Friend,As you can see if you click the links, they lead to the joinrudy2008.com domain. Confirmation is required by the donating person that (among others) the following statement is true:
As a longtime friend and staunch supporter of Israel during my entire public life, I want to share with you my deep concern for the Jewish state and ask for your support as I campaign to become the next President of the United States.
We are at a crucial moment in history. We are once again at a point where the free world’s resolve in fighting evil is being tested.
In the 1990’s, we had the blinders on with regard to Islamic terrorism. Coddling terrorists-even applauding for winning the Nobel Peace prize as was done with Yasser Arafat-is a policy we cannot return to.
Yet, these blinders are still worn by some people who wish to lead our country.
In neither of their debates did the Democrats mention Islamic fundamentalist terrorists and the threat they pose to our country. One candidate has even said that the global war on terror is nothing but a bumper sticker slogan. It makes the point that I’ve been making over and over again – that the Democrats, or at least some of them, are in denial.
I promise you that if elected President, I will make sure this country remains on offense against terrorism. But I need your help and support to get there. Will you consider giving $1,000, $500, $250, $100 or $50 to my campaign?
Israel and the United States share common values. We cherish freedom, democracy, and human life. Our shared values have attracted common enemies. The terrorists Israel is fighting are the same terrorists America is fighting, and we must continue to fight them together.
Last week Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, announced that the world would soon witness the destruction of Israel. This 2008 presidential campaign will determine how we deal with statements like these and the madmen who make them.
I stand by Israel and I’ll never embrace a terrorist like Arafat, a tyrant like Ahmadinejad, or a party like Hamas.
Will you join me and support my campaign for President so we can continue to work together? Your contribution of $1,000, $500, $250, $100 or $50 will go a long way in helping us to ensure victory.
Please consider signing up for my email list as well. Doing so will keep you up to date on the latest news from my campaign.
A Giuliani administration won’t accept business as usual. We will stay strong amidst the threats of tyrants and we will stay on offense against the terrorists.
I am a United States citizen or an individual lawfully admitted with permanent residence status (e.g., a “green card holder”)There is also a disclaimer at the bottom of the page that includes the following statement:
Contributions from corporations, labor organizations, federal government contractors, and foreign nationals without permanent residency status (“green cards”) are prohibited.Rudy, please tell me there’s no law against your campaign paying The Jerusalem Post (a foreign corporation) to send out this email from their servers.
If there isn’t, please tell me you really did pay them, because otherwise it’s a contribution prohibited by the statement I just cited.
Most of all, tell me how you’re going to deride the Democrats for any foreign donations from Communist countries or for direct income from foreign nations to a candidate’s spouse when The Jerusalem Post is acting as your liaison to Israeli dual-citizens.
Lesbian loudmouth Rosie O’Donnell is the last person I wish to be talking about, and if you are also bored by her act, please accept my apologies for inflicting her upon your thoughts. Today it was announced that she would not be completing the final three weeks of her time on the View television show, she punked out after the sole conservative on the show held her accountable for her own words. Imagine that, an adult has to defend their own words, what have we come to (insert sarcasm here)?
On her blog Rosie’s assertion that we have killed 655,000 innocent Iraqis and therefore we are the terrorists is being defended. Some other goof is making the defense, and it is laughable.
According to the contributor, Rosie wasn’t calling our soldiers terrorists, just America. She says the troops are dupes who are only following orders; the real terrorists are those back here who are in command. Which we all understand to translate into, “it’s Bush’s fault”.
Of course that is ridiculous. Even if there were orders from on high for our soldiers to kill civilians, which is so much crap in itself, any soldier who obeyed such an order would be equally guilty. Anyone who goes to the movies knows that. Didn’t she see A Few Good Men? Don’t these Hollywood types see each other’s works? (Sure we could cite statute and code of conduct and real life situations to make the point, but that would be too real for the truthers, and since I could not recall a standup comic explaining the point, I went to next best source for the pseudo-intelligent, the movies).
In that movie two enlisted men are ordered to give a third soldier a “Code Red”, which is an illegal beating used as inducement to conform. LCpl Dawson and PFC Downey follow the orders too well resulting in the death of PFC William T. Santiago. At the murder trial of Dawson and Downey their commanding officer breaks down on the stand and admits that he ordered the “Code Red”. But, Col. Jessup’s confession does not exonerate his soldiers, for by the military rules of conduct they were expected to disobey the illegal order. So, even when, in that situation, the boss was shown to have ordered the wrong thing, the perpetrators did not get a pass.
So, even if the BusHitler and Darth Cheney had ordered the execution of civilians, (yeah right, like that would happen), any soldier who followed that order would also by guilty. Meaning, that in spite of the denial on her blog, and Rosie’s own suggestion, post-comment, on the View that she wasn’t calling our troops terrorists; she was calling them terrorists. And she was wrong. And now she is being the coward, turning tail, cutting and running, and living in a state of denial.
In so many ways Rosie has become the perfect metaphor for the left in America; loud and wrong, angry and unpatriotic, dumb and dumber by the minute. Also, I believe Rosie and left know they are wrong, but are too vain and too invested in their hate America attitude to admit their errors. If they come clean they will lose the support of their fellow travelers, they would lose their support system of like-minded loons, and they are too fragile to face the ostracism that would follow. Cowards all.
Additional- Math problem:
If 655,000 Iraqis die in four years, how many died on average each day?
365 days in a year times four equals 1460. Subtract one day for the leap year which happens once every four years, and we have 1459 days. Divide 655,00 by 1459 and we get 448.94. So, by that metric, about 449 Iraqis have died each day since May 1, 2003? As bad as it has been over there, I do not remember one single day when that many people have died. And our anti-American press agents would have surely told us if 449 people were killed in a twenty four hour period. I say that 655,000 dead, is a myth.
When the 2008 Presidential election is finally over those colorful maps showing states which voted Republican in red and states which voted Democrat in blue needs an adjustment. Next time red for Republicans, and yellow for Democrats.
A story in Reuters today has some troubling news about the state of affairs in Russia.
The pursuit of science in President Vladimir Putin’s Russia is driven by profit alone and there was less government interference even under Josef Stalin, a Russian Nobel Prize winner said in a interview.So we don’t need to worry that Russia is backsliding into communism, but it’s apparently been taken over by the Ferengi. Will the Communist Manifesto soon make way for The Rules of Acquisition?
If you thought there was a chance that Fred Thompson might not eventually enter the presidential race, consider this piece of evidence hanging out at RedState, posted by da Man himself.
Some in the West seem part of Iran’s propaganda war; claiming that the release of the hostages was a victory that proves the Iranian dictatorship can be reasoned with. To misrepresent unpunished piracy as a victory is as Orwellian as the congressional mandate banning use of the term “the global war on terror.” What are we — Reuters?He’s not rubbing keyboards with the Republican version of the ‘netroots’ for giggles boys and girls, he’s hunting for the enthusiasm that can be translated into cash and primary votes in a few months.
And, I might add, he’s speaking the language of the blogosphere with remarkable adeptness. Between his choice of venue and his snarky use of anti-MSM language, here’s someone who (at the very least) is being given great advice about how to formulate a script in the new media. After eight years of domestic defensiveness and mangled prose, choosing another hard-nosed, politically-adept, conservative Hollywood actor (like Dutch, God rest his soul) might just be what the Republican party needs most in 2008.
I’ve said a lot in support of George Bush and Tony Blair, but this Cox & Forkum cartooon explains well why – like so many other people, I’m sure – they’re losing my support, not because we’re at war, but because we’re not fighting.
Valerie Plame finally spoke in public, and while under oath she contradicts the CIA’s version of how Plame’s husband became involved in WMD discussion.
“Plame said she did not select her husband for a CIA fact-finding trip to Niger. Wilson later wrote in a newspaper column that his trip debunked the administration’s prewar intelligence that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from Africa.
“I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him. There was no nepotism involved. I did not have the authority,” she said.
That conflicts with senior officials at the CIA and State Department, who testified during Libby’s trial and told Congress that Plame recommended Wilson for the trip.”
One has to wonder what authority is required to make a suggestion. Sounds like doublespeak to me. A family trait perhaps, as it is now known that while Mr. Wilson’s op-ed column had purported that his finding in Niger had debunked the pre-war intelligence it had actually contradicted his oral reporting’s to the CIA which had reinforced the prevailing belief that Iraq had been seeking uranium. Wilson’s assertion that Vice President Cheney had sent him to Niger has also been shown to be in error. One has to wonder if the truth is ever in these two, Wilson and Plame.
PLAME COVER BLOWN YEARS BEFORE
Wilson has also made a big deal out of his assertion that his wife’s cover was blown as a way to punish him, and that such exposure of her CIA employment put her at risk. But, those too are lies, and ones which she must have known as lies. For her cover had been blown twice before Novak reported it, once during the Clinton administration. You can’t blame Bush for that one, (though we certainly expect the nut job Bush haters to try.). This revelation, that she was a known spy, may explain one part of this story which always bothered me. Why send the diplomat husband to spy and yet leave the spy wife (and WMD expert) at home when she was decidedly more qualified for the mission? The obvious answer now is that she could no long spy, her cover was already blown!
And, there is no evidence to support his paranoid accusation that the White house was out to get him as retribution. That is just partisan paranoia on his part.
Her exposure as a spy within the intelligence community created far greater danger, to her and the nation, than did her exposure to the public. Keeping her spy status secret from the public is only valuable when it helps to keep it secret from the intelligence community. A spy is in danger from the other spies, not from the public. The other spies already knew about her.
INDICT PLAME ON PERJURY
I don’t buy her lame explanation on how her husband was chosen for the mission. Her own bosses say that she was the one who got his name in the mix. So, she just perjured herself. Time for a special prosecutor? No, just have AG Gonzales fire back with an indictment charging her with lying to Congress. I know it is not a crime when a Congressman lies, but surely it is a chargeable offense when a sworn witness lies to Congress.
Her appearance and testimony at this late date is no mistake either. This was a staged event, her testimony a manufactured and no doubt practiced parcel of deceit. Fitzgerald would have her in irons if she was a Republican. Ask Libby. He is convicted and she is walking around free; as long as that is the case don’t talk to me about equal justice.
I was shocked and deeply saddened when I read Drudge today. One of the more prominent headlines read: UN secretary general urges Iran to stop enriching uranium. Clicking the link leads to this Breitbart.com article.
All I could think was “When did these UN types get so bold and reactionary?”
I mean they go from “UN secretary general would like Iran to stop enriching uranium” to “UN secretary general asks Iran to stop enriching uranium” and then jump straight away to “UN secretary general urges Iran to stop enriching uranium”.
Whatever happened to “UN secretary general suggests Iran stop enriching uranium”.
This new Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, is just way too volatile and reckless.
It’s all Bush’s fault! (…and Global Warming!)