Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Obama Inherited what?...Don't let them get away with this

One thing I can say about the Democrats, they are disciplined about their talking points.

The latest one is if you are speaking to anyone about anything, intersperse every third sentence with,...."The Deficit that Obama inherited”. You can get away with,.."The Debt that Obama inherited”...or the old standby “The Economic crisis that Obama inherited”.

Now if we want to behave like Republicans of the past, we can just shrug and say, Oh let them have their fun. Why start an argument, We’ll look like obstructionist.

Let’s get something straight. Obama is lying and the Democrats are responsible.

For starters if Bush is to blame for an innocent Obama being saddled with debt, we can assume that Obama would have stopped the debt increase had he been given the chance and he obviously would stop bad, bad debt now. Yet he did not and is not.

Who was that Democrat candidate that raced to Washington in September to ride point on the Democrat congress’ TARP bill, that was initially defeated by the Republicans. That was Barack Obama. He voted for this debt. Had he told his party to hold off, they would have. He told us the money was all going to be used to buy bad assets that would go up and provide us with a profit that he would pay us back. He lied.

Did he try to fix that mistake or did he choose to run up more debt once given the chance to stop bad, bad debt. He criticized Bush’s debt and then successfully outdid every porkladen deficit monster of all time. Then within 48 hours he returned to the scene of the crime and again blamed Bush for creating Deficits “against Obama’s will” and Obama promised to cut them in half. I suppose that means the spending bills will stop now right? Not a chance in hell. This guy has Chutzpah upon Chutzpah.

Charles Krauthammer pointed out that he said last night, there were no ear marks in the stimulus package last week and next years budget will have no earmarks. He didn’t mention that this weeks budget will have NINE THOUSAND earmarks!!! Chutzpah!!!

If you have any doubt that this is the Democrat financial meltdown and very much Obama’s meltdown, read Red State’s top ten lies from last night and the accompanying piece on Obama and his intimate relationship with the meltdown from its early days:

Here is Stanley Kurts describing Obama’s early ties to the Meltdown:

And don’t forget the wannabe Community Organizer in Chief Barack Obama:

ACORN attracted Barack Obama in his youthful community organizing days. Madeline Talbott hired him to train her staff — the very people who would later descend on Chicago’s banks as CRA shakedown artists. The Democratic nominee later funneled money to the group through the Woods Fund, on whose board he sat, and through the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, ditto. Obama was not just sympathetic — he was an ACORN fellow traveler.

The possibility of a financial meltdown was foreseen in advance. Senator McCain co-sponsored legislation to impose bank-like regulation on Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac. That legislation, which could have prevented the current crisis, was killed by the Democrats.

As I wrote over the weekend, the Democrats tried to reward ACORN by providing the organization a portion of whatever profits were to be made in the rejected big bailout. That giveaway to the community organizers was only removed after Senator McCain was able to get Republicans a seat at the negotiations for the big bailout.

And Finally, as the Democrats point blame fingers at others over the rejection of the big bailout, don’t forget that the Democrats control Congress. As my RedState colleague, Mark Impomeni, explained there are more than enough Democrats in the House to pass any bill Speaker Pelosi really wants to pass. But she can’t get it done if she orders her Whip not to do his job.

If you haven’t watched theFannie Freddie video since the campaign, watch it again in the new context of the clean up. Astonishing.

It should be noted that the Regulator by the name of Falco, that is being chewed out was a Clinton Appointee who was once not as concerned about FM/FM, but rightly saw the writing on the wall, knew he was going to take a lot of heat and blew the whistle. This gang beat down he is getting is the result of his coming forward.

First watch this video of Stanly Kurtz explaining Obama’s ties to ACORN, and thus the financial crisis that is destroying the economy. (Inherit my eye!):

Monday, February 16, 2009

Fundamentalists continue to lose in Iraq, Thanks George W. Bush

Some of this is a bit of inside baseball stuff, but seeing the way the Fundamentalists are continuing to lose ground in Iraq's democratic process is an ongoing reminder of the fallacy that Democrats proposed that Iraq was a permanent basket case full of nutty foreigners that were incapable of grasping the concept of liberty.

It also is a reminder of the prescience of George W. Bush whose faith in the Universality of inalienable rights and natural law is playing out before our eyes.....that is if you can dig past the farce of the Drive by Media.

The Islamic party of Iraq was the power structure in place in Anbar before the awakening. They were considered corrupt, impudent, full of promises without action, and in many cases actually collaborating with AQI. The Awakening councils formed and did the heavy lifting of working with the Americans to eject AQI and bring peace to the Sunni Triangle. When they learned the Americans were leaving, they were nervous of the continued power of the Islamic party and galled that agreements in place meant that the Awakening councils would continue to be under the Islamic party...until this weeks elections.

When the US media believed that the Awakening councils had lost they ran to the presses to trumpet the bad news for Iraq, but when it turned out that the Islamic party was stomped, the US media fell silent.

On the Shiite side of the story, it is also worth noting that Muqtada Al Sadr's party has lost big time and Nouri Al Maliki's Shia candidates have shifted the center of gravity from Islamic radicals to a more secular political environment that is more favorable to a unified Iraq than a Fractious State.

Has anybody announced the end of the so called civil war yet?

When they do let's offer our gratitude for the wisdom of George W. Bush.

Back in those days, we had a real President.

From Gateway Pundit:

February 13, 2009
Finally... The Truth About the Islamist Defeat in the Anbar Elections

Iraq held historic democratic elections in January.
The elections occurred without reports of major violence. The sectarian parties made gains and ral-Sadr's radical party was trounced.
This was a magnificent day for Iraq.

But, after the elections the anti-Iraq Western media reported that the elections in the once lost Anbar Province were stolen by the Islamists.
This news was, of course, widely reported:

Tribal groups, known as Awakening Councils, had hoped to win power in Anbar, believing they were entitled because of their contribution to routing al-Qaida.

Election officials have not released official figures from the balloting. Nevertheless, the Iraqi Islamic Party, a Sunni group that is part of the national government, said unofficial tallies showed it would retain control of the province.

Today, we finally hear the truth about the Anbar elections.
The Islamists lost... Big-time.

Nibraz Kazimi, Iraqi expert and blogger at the exceptional Talisman Gate, wrote about the final Anbar election results at The Hudson Institute today.
Nibraz reported on the devastating losses by the Islamist Parties in Anbar Province.
You won't see this reported by the corrupt anti-Iraq media any time soon:

The results from Anbar were supposed to tell us whether tribes are to be a significant political player in Iraq’s future, and the answer is no. The traditional tribal forces had organized themselves within the ‘Tribes of Iraq List’ led by one of several contenders to the grand but ultimately hollow title of the ‘Prince of the Dulaim Tribe’, Ali Hatem al-Suleiman, in alliance with Hamid al-Hayis, a male nurse turned ferocious Al-Qaeda nemesis who had been the former director of the Iraqi National Congress’ office in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar. The Dulaim are by far the most populous tribe in the province. Yet this slate only got 4.5 percent of the vote.

The other Anbar list that most analysts take to be ‘tribal’ is not very tribal at all. It is led by Ahmad Abu Risha, brother to slain Awakening Councils founder Sattar Abu Risha. Their tribe is very small in number, numbering a few hundred. But Ahmad had shied away from tribalism, and billed himself and his coalition as one of urbane businessmen and administrators. They won by 17.1 percent, the second highest vote earners. A rival list, of similar composition headed by the former deputy head of the Iraqi Red Crescent Society, who also happens to be a tribal chief, managed to pull off a respectable 7.8 percent. In a sense, the ‘tribesman-turned-chic’ category was the second biggest winners of Anbar’s ballot.

The foremost winners were the neo-Ba’athists, whose best-performing lists took in 17.6 percent, 6.6 percent and 4.6 percent respectively. The next governor of Anbar will probably be picked from their ranks, and Abu Risha has already signaled that he is willing to join their coalition.

The biggest and most unexpected loser was the Iraqi Islamic Party that had trumpeted itself as the leader of Iraq’s Sunnis. Here in Iraq’s most homogenous Sunni province, they only received 15.9 percent— even so, they are being accused of ballot stuffing to get this paltry showing. (Note: The Islamic Party won a majority in the 2005 Anbar elections. They also claimed to be the most significant national force among Iraq’s Sunnis.)

This is a remarkable defeat for Islamist politics in Sunni provinces, notwithstanding all the accusations of corruption and complicity with the ‘occupation’ leveled against the IP. For example, a more militant and equally well-funded Islamist list that had vocally supported the insurgency squeaked by with only 3.2 percent of the vote, reflecting the fact that fundamentalists have lost their footing among Sunnis in a general sense.


A Film on Iraq that may surprise you, HBO's "Taking Chance"

On Saturday Feb. 21 through March 1, HBO will be airing "Taking Chance" starring Kevin Bacon.

From what I understand, the Film maker stayed fairly true to the true story told by Lt. Col Michael Strobl in a "Blackfive" MilBlog story from 2004 that I read when it came out. Blackfive is a great MilBlog and for anybody that follows MilBlogs, you read incredible stories of Heroism and drama that you are convinced will never see the light of day, because of the fact that Hollywood controls the ability to tell stories in our culture. They complain that there is a lack of stories so they retell stories from comic characters, any novel that made the New York Times 10 ten, Remakes of Foreign films or old movies that have been forgotten, and sequels of movies that should have been forgotten, but...with millions of real life dramas being played out on behalf of each and every one of us in a land far away, we hear nothing but negative Films coming out of Iraq.

So I was surprised to see this Movie Promo show up in the banner ads at Powerline.

It is the story of an Officer who volunteered to escort the body of a fallen soldier home to his small Wyoming town for his final resting place.

I read a review of this movie that tried to make a political point out of what I have been told is a very non-political movie, saying this Movie underscores why Bush should have allowed footage of flag draped coffins at Dover. I think Lt. Col. Strobl's story does exactly the opposite. I think it reminds us of why each fallen soldier and his family deserve a dignified Homecoming and not have their body be used as a prop for a quick and cute photo caption that can be used for propaganda by people including our enemies that want to undercut the very mission that the fallen soldier gave his life to defend.

If the final epilogue of a soldiers life is that his body was used against his will to work against the cause he died for, that would be a desecration of a life well lived and an injury to all of the Americans you see in this Film that stopped what they were doing to salute this man's sacrifice.

A few years ago, I read "Stoic Warriors", a book about the deeper philosophical underpinnings of the military mind and the traditions that they live by. The book dedicates nearly an entire chapter to respect for the dead, protection against desecration of the body, protocol and procedures, and the reasons for the importance of risking ones life to bring back a dead body of a fallen soldier even in the most dangerous combat zone. The explanation covers thousands upon thousands of years of tradition passed from culture to culture, Soldier to Soldier, Father to Son, Brother to Brother and especially a Soldier to a Mother.

In ancient times, having the body return was proof to a grieving family whose mind struggled to convince their heart that their doubts of a loved one that might have actually survived or there might be a mistake, must be let go. It also gave the families and comrades a central point of focus for all the energy and emotion that was looking for an outlet and a direction to release.

Recent polls show that more Americans today think that the Iraq war will be remembered by history as a success and a cause worth fighting for. In this story, seeing the reverence being paid by not only the soldiers, but each and every average American along the way is a tribute to the very personal relationship that most of us feel with the Men and women who give their last full measure of devotion on the alter of liberty, so that we can all live free.

If you have a few minutes, read Lt. Col. Strobl's 2004, story at Blackfive. If it moves you to act "Snowball Express" and "Operation Homefront" are two great charities for supporting families of the fallen. It's a long story, but well worth reading.

For all of the attempts to use the fallen for the selfish purposes of someone else's cause, honor the life of a hero for the cause he exchanged his finest years for so that we might live free.

The HBO film, "Taking Chance" will air Saturday and Sunday and throughout that week.

From BlackFive in 2004:
...When the remains of a service member are loaded onto a hearse and ready to leave the Dover mortuary, there is an announcement made over the building’s intercom system. With the announcement, all service members working at the mortuary, regardless of service branch, stop work and form up along the driveway to render a slow ceremonial salute as the hearse departs. Escorts also participated in each formation until it was their time to leave.

On this day there were some civilian workers doing construction on the mortuary grounds. As each hearse passed, they would stop working and place their hard hats over their hearts. This was my first sign that my mission with PFC Phelps was larger than the Marine Corps and that his family and friends were not grieving alone.

Eventually I was the last escort remaining in the lounge. The Marine Master Gunnery Sergeant in charge of the Marine liaison there came to see me. He had Chance Phelps’s personal effects. He removed each item; a large watch, a wooden cross with a lanyard, two loose dog tags, two dog tags on a chain, and a Saint Christopher medal on a silver chain. Although we had been briefed that we might be carrying some personal effects of the deceased, this set me aback. Holding his personal effects, I was starting to get to know Chance Phelps...

Friday, February 6, 2009

When Abortion results in murder, It's time to unite on our strategy

With the possibility of a new Supreme court seat opening soon, the debate will revolve again around conservatives claims that Abortion is murder and liberals claims that law can not be based on Religious dogma.

There is a recent story of a woman that delivered a live child before the abortion doctor arrived and one of the owners of the business, who was not a doctor, cut the imbilical and threw the living baby into a garbage bag. Even many liberals are reluctantly admitting this was murder.

The Republican party spends most of its time on the defense on the Abortion issue. When appointing Justices many conservatives have come to the conclusion that appointing strict constructionists, will result in overturning Roe, even if the left believes that strict constructionism is a gimick.

As a conservative, I often have other Republicans disagree with me on the nature of the Abortion debate.

They tell me that Abortion is murder and if you don’t make that the primary thrust of your argument then you are enabling the other side. Although I believe this story is more proof that the Abortion business swims in a culture of death, I think the most effective argument is more difficult for pro-abortionists to defend.

I consider myself constitutionally pro-life. What I mean by that is if one begins with the premise that Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional because it is not based on any written words in the constitution then the end result is you thrust it back into the hands of the legislature and the states. If you agree with the basic premise that the state can not inject itself into decision making discussions between a woman and her doctor on whether to place a pair of scissors into the skull of a kicking and writhing baby as its body is still partially in the mothers body, then why is it not also an invasion of privacy for the state to inject itself into a private discussion between a woman and her doctor over Fee for service. This is what Hillary Clinton proposed in 1993. She argued that the state could forbid Doctors to engage in one on one arrangements with patients that wanted to pay directly for services.

My point is the essence of the Morality of the issue will not see the light of day if you do not move the debate to its proper place and that is out of courts and into legislatures. Then one can place the issue in context.

The context is important. Pope John Paul discussed a culture of life as opposed to the West’s devolving into a culture of death. George Bush often spoke of the culture of life and many people thought this was code speak. It wasn’t codespeak. He went into great detail about how we are moving into a new age where technology is getting ahead of our ability to thoroughly investigate as a society the moral implications of its usage. When Professors consider it enlightened to embrace cloning of humans, creating organ farms, and treating aborted fetuses like marketable commodities for their stem cells. When Universal Health care advocates argue that no matter how you have planned out your final years, you will be forbidden from planning for certain expensive life prolonging procedures if they will not substantially lengthen your life or if they are considered by the state to be excessively expensive. The same people will consider life prolonging procedures for those in coma or for those in pain or for those who in moments of depression wish to have others kill them. By the time my grandchildren retire, if the current technological advances remain in the free market, there will be technology available that people will be able to live with nearly half of there body replaced with artificial parts. There will come a time when the very meaning of what is human and what is a life will become confused if our society is not given the ability to debate and comprehend the moral implications of our decisions.

The meaning of conservativism is to not fly off the handle in the name of progress for its own sake. Our predecessors worked out centuries of difficult questions and handed us wisdom to consider. When George Bush discussed a culture of life, this is what he talked about.

When you read the above story and are shocked that a person could do such a thing, don’t be. It makes sense. This person who was not a doctor, ran a business. Every day this person sees babies in varying stages of development come into the light and then wrapped in a bag and then tossed into a pile like a used wad of Kleenex. It is not difficult to imagine a person so desensitized to the trivialization of life’s greatest miracle that they would eventually push it beyond the limits of the existing unconstitutional laws.

The left is often fond of claiming that the right is too focused on restricting people’s exposure to sexuality when in their minds exposure to violence is even more dangerous. What could be more violent than exposing someone to repetitive killing of babies everyday and then add to that a profit motive.

Whoever did this had reasons for doing it. It was either avoidance of legal trouble or protecting a financial stake in a business in which case it was murder because of greed. Or it was a person who has been brainwashed into believing newborns that are fully outside of a woman’s body and alive and screaming are somehow fair game for whatever violent act suits your fancy, as long as you don’t get caught. ...Or this person has just lost their moral compass due to a culturally imposed disregard for their fellow human beings.

Anyone of these overlapping motives has one thing in common. These disgusting motives are all extensions of what are considered “intellectually enlightened” arguments by the compassionate left like the decision of an adult supercedes the rights of a vulnerable child or It is nothing but a mass of tissue or these businesses need to not only be protected, but they need to be subsidized financially by the American public in many cases against their will.

George Bush’s culture of life, was tied into the Republican parties core beliefs in the universal liberty of all human beings, the primacy of the individual over the state, the philosophy of our founders, and a profound respect for the constitution as it was written by our founders.

If one can place the constitutional premise of Roe v. Wade and the philosophical argument regarding the ideas of our founders regarding individual rights and their belief in natural rights that protect a right to life, a right to protect your life and a right to be free to remain living, then the Religious and moral debate of whether it is murder will not be necessary, because we will have repealed Roe v. Wade and returned the issue to the People.

I think there are many pro choice Republicans that would become more vocal supporters of a strict constructionist unified platform and if the most dedicated pro-life advocates would show solidarity with them, the media's attempt to portray a split party would diminish.

The important thing is to win, not to convince your opponents you were right.

This is a very sad story of a very short life.