Better late than never...

Fred Thompson confirmed all the rumors about his presidential candidacy last night on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno. From his 15 or so minutes he actually made some decent points... his support of the war and being respected by the "international community" instead of being liked. Based on his appearance last night (and I really don't know much else about him or his views) he seems to have a solid grasp of things and certainly comes across in a straightforward, easy to understand manner. If his campaign team doesn't fall apart on him, he certainly can't be counted out...

Senate Republicans stand firm and block the Democrats attempt to force troop withdrawal

The only Republican that broke ranks and voted with the Dems was Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon. WASHINGTON, March 15 — The Senate on Thursday rejected a Democratic resolution to withdraw most American combat troops from Iraq in 2008, but a similar measure advanced in the House, and Democratic leaders vowed to keep challenging President Bush to change course in Iraq. Go to Complete Coverage » The vote in the Senate was 50 against and 48 in favor, 12 short of what was needed to pass, with just a few defections in each party. It came just hours after the House Appropriations Committee, in another vote largely on party lines, approved an emergency spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan that includes a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. The House will vote on that legislation next Thursday, setting the stage for another confrontation. [...] The Democratic resolution in the Senate would have redefined the United States mission in Iraq and set a goal of withdrawing American combat troops by March 31, 2008, except for a “limited number” focused on counterterrorism, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and protecting American and allied personnel. The House measure set a withdrawal deadline of Sept. 1, 2008. Good work Senate Republicans blocking the Democrats proposal. Setting a set date for withdrawal is like giving the terrorists a date after which they can do whatever they want. It's like Aussie Prime Minister Howard had said about a possible presidential Democratic victory in '08: "If I were running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March, 2008, and pray as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats." Whatever date we set for withdrawal, I'm sure the terrorists' calendar would have a big circle around that date. But cheer up Democrats. Your party finally did a couple things right. They finally had an original idea, and they actually tried to enact policy based on that idea. Sure it was about as wrong an idea as they could have possibly come up with, but at least it's more than the pointless anti-Bush blather that they usually rely on.

Bush fires 8 US Attorneys!! Oh the humanity!!

Apparently the Dems never got the memo that as Commander in Chief of the most powerful nation on the planet, if someone under your employ doesn't perform up to expectations, you can fire them. As if these were the first US Attorneys a president had ever fired... The key here is "perform up to expectations" as opposed to "on a whim" or "to avoid your own criminal prosecution." But the Democratic Presidential candidates smelled blood and added to the MSM's feeding frenzy over this non-issue. But who would take the the 1st place for the "best shameless grandstanding", "beating a dead horse beyond recognition", and "wasting perfectly good airtime on a major news network for absolutely nothing" contest? Senator Barack Obama needs to fire his PR guy for not getting him more airtime on this exceedingly pointless issue as well as his speechwriter for not coming up with something with a bit more panache. Well maybe not fire... that's so Republican... I opposed Mr. Gonzalez's nomination, in part, because he had shown in his role as White House Counsel a penchant for subverting justice to serve the President's political goals, and I feared that in an Attorney General. Sadly, the latest revelations underscore my concern. Americans deserve to know who in the White House is pulling the strings at the Department of Justice, and why. Anyone involved should appear under oath and answer these questions. You opposed him from the beginning. Is that really the best you could come up with? Rookie... You get 3rd place. Senator John Edwards is outraged and takes 2nd place in our little contest for lumping the firing of US Attorneys to the Patriot Act, Gitmo, and Abu Ghraib. Kudos John! Today's news is only the latest and most disturbing sign of the politicization of justice under President Bush. From the abuse of investigative authority under the Patriot Act to the unconstitutional imprisonment of the Guantanamo Bay detainees and illegal torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Bagram Air Force Base, this president has consistently shown contempt for the rule of law. But Senator Hillary Clinton takes the cake and is our grandprize winner due to her complete and total hypocrisy. "The buck should stop somewhere," Clinton told ABC News senior political correspondent Jake Tapper, "and the attorney general — who still seems to confuse his prior role as the president's personal attorney with his duty to the system of justice and to the entire country — should resign. "I'm deeply disturbed by what we have learned thus far," Clinton said, "and I join those who are calling for a full and thorough investigation to try to get to the bottom of these very political decisions that interfere with prosecutorial responsibility by U.S. attorneys, and I think that the attorney general should resign." But where's the hypocrisy you ask? When Clinton's husband took office in 1993, one of the first actions his attorney general took was to remove every U.S. attorney. Clinton was asked how this was different from the termination of eight U.S. attorneys last December. "There is a great difference," Clinton said. "When a new president comes in, a new president gets to clean house. It's not done on a case-by-case basis where you didn't do what some senator or member of Congress told you to do in terms of investigations into your opponents. It is 'Let's start afresh' and every president has done that." Oh Hillary! How soon we forget! Check out this great op-ed from the WSJ that explains a little better how unprecedented Clinton's firing of all 93 US Attonreys was and not only the Democratic buddies he helped, he quite possibly quashed the White Water scandal he and his wife were up to their necks in as well. Mega-sooper-dooper bonus points for using the executive powers to prevent investigation into your own shady dealings! At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently." In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition. Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was "within 30 days" of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton. Also at the time, allegations concerning some of the Clintons' Whitewater dealings were coming to a head. By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint "Friend of Bill" Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock. Ms. Casey never did bring any big Whitewater indictments, and she rejected information from another FOB, David Hale, on the business practices of the Arkansas elite including Mr. Clinton. When it comes to "politicizing" Justice, in short, the Bush White House is full of amateurs compared to the Clintons. This doesn't of course mean that Bush's firings weren't politically motivated. They were. They just weren't of the grotesquely criminal nature the Clintons' were. I mean really... has our society reached a point where it's criminal to fire someone for performing required tasks poorly or not performing them at all? The supposed scandal this week is that Mr. Bush had been informed last fall that some U.S. Attorneys had been less than vigorous in pursuing voter-fraud cases and that the President had made the point to Attorney General Albert Gonzales. Voter fraud strikes at the heart of democratic institutions, and it was entirely appropriate for Mr. Bush -- or any President -- to insist that his appointees act energetically against it. Take sacked U.S. Attorney John McKay from Washington state. In 2004, the Governor's race was decided in favor of Democrat Christine Gregoire by 129-votes on a third recount. As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and other media outlets reported, some of the "voters" were deceased, others were registered in storage-rental facilities, and still others were convicted felons. More than 100 ballots were "discovered" in a Seattle warehouse. None of this constitutes proof that the election was stolen. But it should have been enough to prompt Mr. McKay, a Democrat, to investigate, something he declined to do, apparently on grounds that he had better things to do. In New Mexico, another state in which recent elections have been decided by razor thin margins, U.S. Attorney David Iglesias did establish a voter fraud task force in 2004. But it lasted all of 10 weeks before closing its doors, despite evidence of irregularities by the likes of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or Acorn. As our John Fund reported at the time, Acorn's director Matt Henderson refused to answer questions in court about whether his group had illegally made copies of voter registration cards in the run-up to the 2004 election. As for some of the other fired Attorneys, at least one of their dismissals seemed to owe to differences with the Administration about the death penalty, another to questions about the Attorney's managerial skills. Not surprisingly, the dismissed Attorneys are insisting their dismissals were unfair, and perhaps in some cases they were. It would not be the first time in history that a dismissed employee did not take kindly to his firing, nor would it be the first in which an employer sacked the wrong person. So sure this could have been handled better. But once you actually start to look at facts as opposed to innuendo, you pretty quickly figure out just how liberally biased the MSM is and just how much hot air Democratic presidential candidates are full of.

Is Obama taking a staunch position against Iran?

That's certainly what this Chicago Tribune headline makes it seem like: Obama calls Iran threat to U.S., Israel. Kinda makes him sound like he's the next JFK... Could it be true? Seeking to woo Jewish votes and contributions, Sen. Barack Obama told an audience in Chicago Friday that he considers Iran "one of the greatest threats to the United States, Israel and world peace" and pledged he would try to end that nation's uranium enrichment program. At least the ChiTrib is honest enough to note a political campaign promise when they see one. Still, Obama says Iran is one of the greatest threats to world peace. So far he's on the money... As he criticized the Bush administration's Iraq policies, the Democratic presidential candidate suggested that the danger posed by neighboring Iran has grown in recent years because of U.S. policy in the Middle East. Ahh the truth at last... It wouldn't be a Democratic fundraiser without a good ol' fashioned Bush-bash: Iran is our fault! So it's a back-assed view of national security. Yes, Iran's a threat, but because we screwed the region up. Nevermind that the region has been screwed up for centuries and we just got there... And then the annointed one speaks! "One of the most profound consequences of the administration's failed strategy in Iraq has been to strengthen Iran's strategic position, reduce U.S. credibility and influence in the region, and place Israel and other nations friendly to the United States in greater peril," Obama (D-Ill.) said before a regional gathering of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a major pro-Israel lobbying group. Obama is looking at the strategy completely backwards. Iran is stronger by default because we ahnililated the stronger military threat in the region, and they're in a strategic position now because we already took out Iraq that was in a more strategic position. And it's not like Iran just figured out Israel existed in the past three years since we've been in the Middle East. Israel's been a target since the country was founded, and they've been a target simply because they exist. America has probably done more to inhibit Israel than help Israel. US officials talk alot about our great ally Israel, but most of our foreign policies have been made to placate the Arab street at the expense of Israel. And Obama's audience ought to realize that if he or any other Democrat is elected, we'll be leaving the region shortly after they take office, and Israel will be left alone to defend itself. Again. So sure Obama sounds great. It's easy to sound great when you spew misconceptions and half-truths... UPDATE @ 10:22am: And good luck to Obama when he tries to play the black card to get elected. Especially since his white ancestors owned slaves.

Aussie PM John Howard rips Barack Obama

It's put up or shut up, and John Howard has been a staunch ally and understands what's at stake in the GWOT and in Iraq. So he gets to make comments like this. National Post - In a rare intervention by a foreign leader into U.S. domestic politics, Australian Prime Minister John Howard ridiculed a proposal by Mr. Obama to completely withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq over the next 13 months. Mr. Howard's unexpected criticism of Mr. Obama -- an underdog candidate to win his party's presidential nomination -- stunned Democrats even as U.S. conservatives joined the attack on the Illinois senator's dovish foreign policy views. "If I were running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March, 2008, and pray as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats," Mr. Howard told an Australian broadcaster. I wonder if Obama will put that on his campaign bumper sticker? UPDATE @ 11:56am: This story has gone around the world and back again and everyone's got an opinion. Obama responded to Howard's remarks... "I think it's flattering that one of George Bush's allies on the other side of the world started attacking me the day after I announced," Mr Obama told reporters in the mid-western US state of Iowa. I would also note that we have close to 140,000 troops in Iraq, and my understanding is Mr Howard has deployed 1400, so if he is ... to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq. Otherwise it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric." As far as I'm concerned those 1400 could simply be cooking meals over there and it's still notable and as a nation we ought to be thankful. Or we can be like Obama and look a gift horse in the mouth. You decide... Howard won't take that lying down and he of course refuses to retract any part of his statement. What I have done is to criticize Sen. Obama's views on a particular issue, and I don't retreat in any way from that criticism," Howard said. "I think if America is defeated in Iraq that will be catastrophic for the West and it will have tremendously adverse consequences for Australia." Howard, who trails the opposition Labor Party in his re-election bid this year, criticized his opponents as being hypocritical. "Apparently it's all right for people in the Labor Party to regularly criticize the Bush administration's policy on Iraq -- and they do that almost on a daily basis," Howard said. "Yet my criticism of the policy position of somebody who is not president -- and is not even the Democratic candidate for the presidency -- that is interfering in American politics and is absolutely to be forbidden." Can't disagree with that. If you disagree and/or hate George Bush, that's fine. Speak your mind, no one will judge you. Of course if you agree with him you're an idiot. Expect to be shunned.

Bloggers on staff with Sen. Edwards are giving him a bit of a headache

Two bloggers Sen. Edwards staffed put him in a bit of a sticky spot the other day... WaPo - Former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) condemned comments made by two bloggers on his presidential campaign staff but chose not to fire the women, an incident that exposed the fault lines between the largely unfiltered world of new media and the highly regulated universe of national politics. At the center of the brouhaha are Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwen, both of whom were hired last month by Edwards to oversee his "Net roots" outreach. A loose conglomeration of liberal-minded bloggers have grown increasingly influential in Democratic politics. Before joining the Edwards campaign, Marcotte and McEwen each maintained personal Web logs on which they posted highly critical and profane thoughts about topics including the Roman Catholic Church. Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, called on Edwards to fire the duo, whom he described as "vulgar, trash-talking bigots." Wow... second chances abound for liberals who trash WASPs. Of course we were talking about Mitt Romney and some off his staffers popping off, we'd have a national outcry and the oh-so-tolerant left would demand he withdraw from the race, no matter how many apologies he and the staffers issued. And since the MSM isn't paying attention, this isn't the only issue Edwards has made for himself at the moment. He's getting himself in enough trouble talking out of both sides of his face (after all, he did learn from from the best in the business, John Kerry, who flipped flopped more than a fish out of water). 2 weeks ago, speaking at the Herzliya Conference in Israel Edwards addressed the issue of Iran and their pursuit of nukes quite firmly. "Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons . . . The vast majority of people are concerned about what is going on in Iraq. This will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran. But I think the American people are smart if they are told the truth, and if they trust their president. So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran." He then took a page from John Kerry's playbook and proceeded to change his position. Q. Can we live with a nuclear Iran? A. "I'm not ready to cross that bridge yet... When [Bush] uses this kind of language 'options are on the table,' he does it in a very threatening kind of way - with a country that he's not engaging with or making any serious diplomatic proposals to. I mean I think that he's just dead wrong about that." How else should a military threat be made? What option does Edwards mean to leave on the table - a bouquet of flowers? On the February 4 edition of Meet the Press, Edwards was asked, "Would President Edwards allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons?" His response: "There's no answer to that question at this moment... We ought to negotiate directly with the Iranians, which has not been done...." Q. But they may get one. A. "I think we don't know, and you have to make a judgment as you go along." So he's gone from staunch position to a policy of jibberish flexible it's spineless. So Edward has become the protege of John Kerry. Only Edwards has charisma and better hair

It's always fun mixing it up with dissenting, anonymous commenters...

This person wasn't exactly a troll, but did their best to cover their tracks... So I thought I'd post their original comment as well as my repsonse. It's so much easier to read when you don't have to scroll through those tiny Haloscan comments windows... I stumbled across you blog. it's so fascinating to read a conservative perspective on war. The problem I have with Iraq war is the number of Iraqi deaths. The fucked up situation in Iraq wasn't created by Americans...it happened way before all of that with the division of the Ottoman empire...the formation of a multi-tribed nation state later living under a dictator... the problems are complex but why are American troops in there trying to liberate a country and killing so many people in the process? THere's this paternalistic attitude that only Americans can save these people because they are too uncivilised to govern themselves. They support unpopular governments that promote the American agenda. While the idea of saving a country from an evil dictator is noble (and Hollywood) the reality is the dictator is dead, there are more people dying. What is being gained from this war? Meanwhile North Korea has nukes, and after seeing what happened in Iraq I'm sure more countries will be nuking up to protect themselves. The only country that has ever dropped a nuke on a civillian population is us. More people will die for nothing. So many in Iraq already have. An American life is not worth more than an Iraqi life. All life is equal. You people amaze me with your over simplification of issues. I guess it makes the world an easier place to live in. Have a nice life. - Interest A fabulous comment, no? So here's my reply... Hey, thanks for stopping by. Other perspectives are always welcome here. I can appreciate your concern for the Iraqi civilian casualties, and I agree that the problem in Iraq (and the Middle East in general) is based on issues and hatreds centuries old. We are coming into this fight a bit late... And that's about where my agreement with you ends. 99% of civilians killed in Iraq were murdered by the insurgents in an effort to break the spirit of not just Americans, but Iraqis as well. They're certainly not being killed by US troops. All you have to do is read any newspaper or tune to any news program to see the latest car bomb at a market, mosque, or recruitment center. And since you appear to by confused by who's who over there, our guys are the ones wearing uniforms, in jeeps, holding guns. You know... normal soldiers. The bad guys are hiding among the innocent, using them as shields, blowing them up in an effort to blackmail us. What I love about the liberal perspective is how they make the terrorists moral equivalents to our troops. They kill civilians, we kill terrorists. Apparently that's a distinction only those not blinded by their liberal hate can recognize. As far as the popularity contest, you'd prefer be the main priority of the US government, the Iraqi government is only unpopular with the insurgents. The average Iraqi was thrilled at the chance to vote on their leadership. Just see the poll turnouts. And they're damn thankful we ignored the rest of the world and helped free them from the oppressive, genocidal, murderer that had been ruling their country. As far as North Korea and their nukes, you've got a great example of what happens when you ignore the rest of the world and rely 100% on diplomatic efforts. Kim Jong Il flat out lied to Clinton, signed the nuclear proliferation treaty, and then went ahead with his nuclear programs anyway. We didn't attack NK, or anywhere nearby that made him fear for the safety of his nation. Evil dictators don't need an excuse for their nuclear agendas, and saying they'd only pursue nukes because we are in the region is a gross, childish oversimplification. Sure we've got nukes and yes we've used them and we did so to force the hand of an adversary unwilling to surrender. How long should we have let that war drag on? That of course brings us to your million dollar question, why are we there? How's national security, global war on terror, and freeing an oppressed people strike you? And wouldn't you know it, that also shows that we value Iraqi life just as much as we value American life. We value it so much that we're sending our own sons and daughters there, risking their lives for the lives of Iraqis. Some might even argue we're valuing the lives of the Iraqis more than our own. Regardless, it certainly doesn't prove we don't value Iraqi lives. So when you're done oversimplifying things with your pacifist hopes and dreams that we ought to be trying to make a world were all problems are solved with hugs and puppy dogs, I'll be having a nice life. In reality. Anyone want to add something? Feel free to leave a comment! And hopefully, in the next couple days, I'll get a chance to repsond to a global warming email I got. This guy didn't like the little Al Gore image over on the left... So check back soon for that!

Hillary's in...

It's kinda the "duh" statement of the year so far. Pretty much everyone assumed she'd be in the running for President. (CBS/AP) Sen. Hillary Clinton finally ended all the speculation about her presidential ambitions over the weekend, declaring her candidacy on her Web site. [...] "It will be a great contest with a lot of talented people," Clinton said Sunday – "a lot" being the operative word. So the election for the most powerful person in the free world is just a contest huh? Hope you're not a sore loser...

Zawahiri says elections are for the birds. Blowing up people is the way to go

That's what he told Palestinians. Nevermind that they elected Hamas into their government. They should stick to what they do best. Car bombs at pizza parlors. Dec. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Al-Qaeda's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, urged Palestinians to reject elections and wage Islamic holy war to "liberate Palestine," warning that attempts to form a national unity government will fail. "Any road other than jihad will only lead to loss and failure," al-Zawahiri said in a videotaped message broadcast today on the Qatar-based al-Jazeera television channel. "Anyone trying to liberate the land of Islam through elections based on secular constitutions or on decisions to surrender Palestine to the Jews will not free a grain of sand," he said. Jihad is the only way. The sad thing is they'll keep the jihad as long as 40% of the population continues to be teenage boys, and as long as they hate the Jews more than they love their children (as the famous quote goes...). How else to you convince someone to commit suicide for you...

Incoming Senate Intelligence Committee Chair fails basic intelligence quiz

I know it's an bit of an old story, but I still couldn't resist. Intelligence chairman fails quiz... You really can't make this stuff up... Washington, D.C. (AHN)-It seems ironic that the person selected by incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to chair the Senate Intelligence Committee would fail to pass a basic intelligence quiz. But that is exactly what happened when Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas)-who is slated to take the helm of the Intelligence Committee in January-attempted to take a simple quiz put together by Congressional Quarterly. Reyes struggled when asked even simple questions about major terrorist organizations, Al Qaeda and Hezbollah. For example, Reyes' response to a question asking which branch of Islam-Sunni or Shiite-comprised Al Qaeda was "probably both, predominantly, probably Shiite." That answer is incorrect. In fact, Al Qaeda was founded by Osama Bin Laden and is a Sunni organization which rejects Shiites as heretics. Reyes was also unsure who or what Hezbollah was-a major terrorist group which operates outside of Southern Lebanon. CQ National Security Editor Jeff Stein, who posed the questions to Reyes, said he was "amazed" by Reyes lack of knowledge about the two major terrorist organizations, telling CNN, "If you're the baseball commissioner and you don't know the difference between the Yankees and the Red Sox, you don't know baseball. You're not going to have the respect of the people you work with." What else can you say about that? It's simply unbeleivable. Hopefully America files that in the back of their minds and corrects this sort of mistake in 2008 (see also Chuckie Rangel calls for reinstatement of draft). I bet if the follow up question to that was "Hezbollah attacked Israel recently. Who's fault is that?" he would have answered Bush. Nevermind that he doesn't even know who Hezbollah is...

John Bolton to resign as US Ambassador to the UN

He was never confirmed as UN Ambassador thanks to a Democratic filibuster, so his term ends with the current lame duck session, another casualty of the November election. Mr. Bush had planned to push for confirmation during the current lame-duck session of the Republican Congress, which would have allowed Mr. Bolton to continue as ambassador. But today’s announcement suggests that the White House realized it was not going to receive the necessary votes. President Bush said that he accepted “with deep regret” Mr. Bolton’s decision to end his service. “I am deeply disappointed that a handful of United States Senators prevented Ambassador Bolton from receiving the up or down vote he deserved in the Senate,” Mr. Bush said. “They chose to obstruct his confirmation, even though he enjoys majority support in the Senate, and even though their tactics will disrupt our diplomatic work at a sensitive and important time.” Mr. Bush, who is expected to meet with Mr. Bolton later today, said in his statement that this “stubborn obstructionism ill serves our country, and discourages men and women of talent from serving their nation.” To be fair, we can't blame this one entirely on the election and the Democrats. Republicans should have grown a spine and pushed his nomination through when they had control of the House and Senate. Now we're going to get a watered down, PC version of John who will simply allow the UN to continue to be the pointless organization it currently is. We continue to pour billions of dollars into the UN without any hope of meaningful action in return. Bolton was the only bright spot in that organization. Now he's gone.

Newly elected Congressman Ellison insists he'll only swear in on a copy of the Koran

He's the first Muslim elected to US Congress and he's refusing to swear in on the Bible. Some think, what's the big deal? He's not Christian; he's Muslim, so let him swear on his own holy book. A fair argument, but Dennis Prager's become the latest conservative labeled a racist by the PC police thanks to this column that says it is a big deal what book he uses to swear in on. Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath. It's a good point. America reveres its symbols; from the flag to the bald eagle to our public officials swearing to uphold the laws of this great country and taking that oath with their left hand on the Bible and right hand in the air. Can we just subsitute that powerful imagery to suit the person taking the oath? Would it mean the same if a Mormon swore on the Book of Mormon? A Scientologist on a copy of Dianetics? Should a left handed person be allowed to swap their hands around, right hand on the Bible and left in the air? Would those images have the same meaning to the American people? It may seem arbitrary, but like most symbols, it's the meaning that's important. What's the big deal about the flag? It's just some stars and stripes... Who cares if we burn it our not? WHo cares if an "artist" puts it on a wall covered in urine and feces? Or the bald eagle... it's just another bird. It's the people who fought, bled, and died for those images that gives the image meaning. Washington, Jefferson, and Madison swore on the Bible. So have thousands of other Christians, Jews, agnostics and aetheists who served as congressmen, senators, and presidents. Why should Muslims receive preferential treatment? Dennis also cautions that we ought to take this seriously because of the message this send the Muslim world. The appeasement crowd would say that this would show our accceptance of all cultures, creeds, and religions. That would matter if our primary concern was making the rest of the world like us. But our enemies could see this as the beginning of their ultimate goal: the Islamicization of America. Take some time to read the whole article. It's well worth it...

Al Qaeda leader in Iraq takes credit for Rumsfeld's resignation

Why is it so hard for Americans to believe that the Iraqis are closely watching what we do here at home, including our elections? BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A purported audio recording by the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq vows to step up the group's fight against the United States, saying, "We haven't had enough of your blood yet." The recording was posted Friday on an Islamist Web site and the speaker is identified as Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, successor to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Al-Muhajer is also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri. "Come down to the battlefield, you coward," the speaker says on the recording, which CNN cannot independently confirm as the voice of al-Muhajer. Calling President Bush a "lame duck" the speaker tells Bush not to "run away as your lame defense secretary ran away," referring to Donald Rumsfeld, who resigned Wednesday. [...] The speaker on the tape vows that al Qaeda in Iraq will not stop its jihad "until we sit under the olive trees in Rumiya after we blow up the wicked house known as the White House." He says the first phase of the jihad is now over, and that the next phase -- building an Islamic nation -- has begun. "The victory day has come faster than we expected," he says. "Here is the Islamic nation in Iraq victorious against the tyrant. The enemy is incapable of fighting on and has no choice but to run away." And being that we're in a "lame duck session" on top of Rumsfeld's resignation, America needs to take note that our actions at home are being monitored by the terrorists, and they're taking their cues from us. Rumsfeld's resignation is seen as a retreat. The Republican's loss in the midterm election is seen as weakness. America take note. We are under surveillance...

So who's going to run the House Committees for the Democrats?

Yesterday I mentioned Conyers taking control of the Judiciary Committee and Rangel over at Ways & Means and what that moght entail. But those aren't the only committees in the House. Here's an indispensible article by Patrick Poole, cited by Dennis today, that gives you a little more background into the likely new House Committee Chairs. You have to read the whole thing, but I'll give you some of the highlights. Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence – Alcee Hastings (FL-23) Pelosi is likely to pick her friend Hastings over ranking current Democrat on the committee, Jane Harman. Hastings was one of six federal judges in American history impeached when she was caught taking a $150,000 bribe in exchange for a lenient exchange. Oh and Harman's been taking flak from her own party for being too pro-Israel. Committee on Appropriations – David Obey (WI-7) Obey has openly vowed to battle our country's biggest national security threat, global warming and would love make individual contributions to a political candidate a federal crime. Committee on Armed Services – Ike Skelton (MO-4) Skelton is mentioned as one of the "more sensible" Democrats in Congress, but has lately fallen into the John Kerry approach to the war in Iraq. He was for the war before he was against the war. Or is it the other way around? I can never keep track. Skelton's also been hanging around with and approving of Murtha's cut and run Iraq policy. Committee on the Budget – John Spratt (SC-5) The National Taxpayer's Union gave Spratt an "F" grade last year as one of the biggest spenders in Congress. However, he will be up for re-election in '08 in a district that voted overwhelmingly for Bush in '04, so he might try to bump that "F" up to a "C" to appeal to his constituents. Committee on Energy and Commerce – John Dingell (MI-15) Currently the longest serving member in the House, he's also had a longstanding plan to nationalize America's healthcare. Committee on Financial Services – Barney Frank (MA-4) Frank is infamous for being censured when it was discovered his boyfriend was running a male prostitution ring out of Frank's home. He was also one of only 3 representatives to vote against the Fallen Heroes Act that prohibited protests in national cemeteries during soldiers' funerals. Committee on International Relations – Tom Lantos (CA-12) Openly pro-Israel, but also a member of faaaaaar-left group Progressive Caucus, founded by socialist Bernie Sanders and currently headed by Dennis Kucinich. Please go read the rest of Patrick Poole's article for all the links on each of the above Congressmen and women. In fact email it to all your friends.

Immediate election fallout: Rumsfeld resigns and stocks decline

Rumsfeld is stepping down as Secretary of Defense, and former CIA Director Robert Gates will take over. Fox News talked a lot about this as a possibility last night, a change to give the impression that the President will be flexible in his approach to the war in Iraq instead of what appeared to be obstinant, "we move ahead as planned", and resistant to any change. Most of that is simply perception of course, not reality, but this is the olive branch to the American people who voted for change. I think the more interesting story is the stock market decline. Nov. 8 (Bloomberg) -- Shares of health-insurance providers such as Humana Inc. and drugmakers including Pfizer Inc. fell after voters gave control of the U.S. House of Representatives to Democrats who've pledged to cut government health-care payments. Sounds good up front, but what it's saying is in an effort to cut costs the government is looking to stiff the pharmaceutical companies. [...] House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi has vowed in the first 100 legislative hours of the new Congress in January to seek votes allowing the federal government's Medicare program, the biggest U.S. buyer of health-care products and services, to negotiate with drugmakers for lower prices. Democrats who oversee Medicare also have said they want to cut payments to health insurers that manage certain types of government plans. "It is going to give them a lot of leverage in dictating price rather than negotiating price, and that is the scariest thing coming out of this election," said Jack Lafferty, managing director at US Trust Co. in New York, in a telephone interview. The Medicare system is a mess to begin with, and I've maintained the first step in fixing the problem is actually tort reform. Make it a loser pays system; that helps lower doctors' malpractice rates; might makee medical insurance rates decline, and reduce legal costs for the drug companies constantly scared about created wonderful new drugs to save lives since there will be that one person out there that has a negative reaction and is hurt who will sue for a bazillion dollars. More profit for drug companies due to less legal overhead means more money for research into new therapies and lower prices on existing drugs. With Democrats taking control, don't expect to see any legal reforms whatsoever. Instead they'll try to strong arm the companies into submission undoing the Medicare privatization efforts Republicans had begun. It's a possiblity at this point. Hasn't actually happened. We'll have to wait and see... UPDATE @ 12:17pm: In from the Cold has a great post giving credit where credit is due with regards to Rumsfeld's tenure as SecDef. He's also got this blurb on the new choice Robert Gates. Regarding Mr. Gates, he is a good man but the wrong one for the job. He spent most of his professional life at the CIA before retiring and becoming the President of Texas A&M University. Robert Gates certainly knows the intelligence end of military affairs, but his expertise ends there. Moreover, his management skills as DCI weren't particularly impressive, and as an analyst, he was part of a CIA team that consistently got it wrong on their assessments of the former Soviet Union. Gates strikes me as a easy confirmation, someone with no ties to the current Pentagon regime. That's probably a necessity in today's political climate, but that doesn't make Mr. Gates the right choice for DoD. Reading through Gates' wikipedia page, he spent 2 years in the Air Force, and 26 in the CIA. He was involved in the Iran/Contra affair to a limited degree since he was never indicted for anything. Ought to make for an interesting confirmation hearing... UPDATE @ 2:52pm: BlackFive is not particularly thrilled with Rummy's resignation and he certainly doesn't mince words. During a mid-term election that turned into a referendum on W's leadership overall, and in Iraq especially, he stands tall and says Rumsfeld will stay out the rest of his presidency. Knowing full well that this will alienate some of the moderate Dems and Repubs who support the war on terror, but wonder about Rumsfeld's prosecution of it. So these folks decide enough is enough and take their frustration to the only place they can voice it, voting the bums who support Bush out and a Dem majority in. Now both Houses of Congress will be run by a party that burns with hate from having 2 elections stolen. [...] If this was a possibility then it should have happened before the election and would probably have shown the folks who voted against staying the course that he was making important changes. Instead he ensures they believe the prevailing story that W and Rummy are not listening and have no plan and it cost dearly. Can't argue with his logic... How many votes would have swayed if this had happened before the election? Gates has said he was contacted about possibly returning to the government's service as SecDef a month or so ago. What might have been... If nothing else check out BlackFive's post, Rumsfeld's 6 years: a pictorial... It's classic...

Conservative California?

Sure we re-elected Feinstein again, but in the state elections California took a much more conservative attitude. Moderate Republican Schwarzenegger won re-election as Governnor, solid fiscal conservative Tom McClintock is winning for Lt. Governor, McPherson beat Brown for Secretary of State, and Poizner beat Cruz Bustamante for Insurance Commissioner. For those outside of Califnornia, driver's licenses for illegal immigration was Cruz's pet project (he tried to get it passed 8 times). We did lose Attorney General (ultra liberal Brown beat Poochigian), Controller where Chiang beat Strikcland, and Treasurer where Lockyer was re-elected. The 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E initiatives passed, sticking California with $40 billion in bond debt to pay over the next 30 years. I was for 1A because it restructured existing taxes, but not the other 4. Prop 83 passed in an effort to increase punishments for convicted sex offenders. This one was really a landslide. Not even close. Prop 84 passed. Another bond measure to get money to clean up water and improve our parks. I was against it simply because it was a bond, but at least it made Californians think. It's only winning 52 to 48. Prop 85 is unfortunately losing 53 to 47. This would have required that doctors notify the parents if a minor came in for an abortion. The No on 85 scare tactics worked, making it seem like every girl comes from an abusive house where she'll face physical harm if she tells her parents she wants an abortion. Prop 86 is losing. Tax increases are tough to pass, even if you're tripling cigarette taxes and saying it will all go to health services (even if that's a total lie). It's close though, going down 53 to 47. Al Gore got the no vote again as the Alternative Energy (Prop 87) bill that would increase taxes on oil companies appears to be losing. You've got to wonder if having Gore and Clinton in ads for this one helped or hurt... Prop 88 was a property tax increase to fund education, as if education really needs to suck up and waste more money. Fortunately Californians said borrowing billions more (Prop 1D) was more feasible than tax hikes and this won lost big 77 to 23. Californians sniffed out the bad side of campaign finance reform, Prop 89, and sent it to a resounding no. It lost 74 to 26. Prop 90 is really the only proposition that may still be in play. An eminent domain bill that seemed to favor construction monopolies is losing, but only barely, 51 to 49.

This is not what I wanted to see when I woke up this morning...

Ugh... I need some coffee... It's going to be a long two years. Don't expect to hear any whining here though. None of that "if Dems win I'm moving to Canada" crap. Not here. But America voted, turned out in record numbers in fact. And there was angry streak in some Republicans looking to send a message to what they perceived as a Republican govenrment that had strayed from its core values: fiscal responsibility, border security, small government, and family values. Turns out that faction got what it wanted. Lots of Republican representatives are cleaning out their DC offices for new Democrats to take over. The message has been sent; hopefully it motivates Republicans still in office to get their priorities straight. We controlled the House, Senate, and White House for 6 years but couldn't manage to get a fence across the entire Mexican border, we continue to waste money on huge social programs like prescription drugs and education, the government bureaucracy is larger than ever, and scandals were an anchor around several Republicans trying to replace their corrupt predecessors. In the mean time however, we've got Speaker Nancy Pelosi (San Francisco liberal), Judiciary Chair John Conyers (openly for impeaching Bush), and Ways and Means Chair Charlie Rangel (education and employment are the government's job). So look for the silver lining... Blogs sure aren't going to have a shortage of material with Dems taking over the House. Maybe we can show the country exactly what their priorities are. Still... Speaker Pelosi? (shudder)

Judicial voting guide for Californians

Probably the dumbest votes we have to cast are for judges that we know nothing about. While I don't want to have judges out there campaigning, how are we supposed to know anything about them with almost no information? Here's a link to a guide to conservative voting on the judicial candidates for our courts. It will give some info on the major appointees and let you know who appointed them to the courts originally. So figure out if you trust Deukmejian, Wilson, and Shwarzenegger and the judges they appointed... And check how I voted on the Propositions if you need some more info there...

Terrorists want Democrats to win

It's that simple. Here is video of Nasrallah saying that he wants Iraq to be another Vietnam, where we will see US troops leaving with Iraqis running after the helicopters wanting to be taken back with the Americans, just like what happened in Vietnam when we left. Vietnamese allies ran after the helicopters knowing that if they stayed behind they'd be slaughtered by the communists. That's what the terrorists want. That's what Nasrallah says. That's what will happen if the Democrats win. Video via LGF. Thanks to Dennis for pointing it out to me.

California proposition voting guide

I'm sure most of you have already figured out that I'm voting Republican down the ticket... Arnold Schwarzenegger for Governor, Tom McClintock for Lt. Governor, Bruce McPherson for Secretary of State, Tony Strickland for Controller, Claude Parrish for Treasurer, Chuck Poochigian for Attorney General, and Steve Poizner for Insurance Commissioner. But when you get to the propositions it always gets a little trickier. There's so many ads saying different things. Who knows what's right? So I thought I'd take a look at what else is on the ballot and let you know what I thought. Yes on Prop 1A: Transportation Funding Protection Legislative Constitutional Amendment To me this one makes some sense. It will help dedicate all gas taxes to transportation needs like road construction, road repairs, & congestion relief where those taxes are supposed to go. In legal terms, the bill amends Prop 42 which allows for the easy transfer of money from gas tax revenues to the general fund where it can be spent on whatever. I think it can help force the state to balance the books better, by not allowing them to use the gas revenues as a credit card, forcing them to use that money for infrastructure repair. No on Prop 1B: Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act Basically it wants us to borrow more money for more infrastructure repairs and increased port security. I’m going to bet it will pass, but I’m tired of borrowing. It will sell almost $20 billion in bonds and will cost us nearly $40 billion to repay over the next 30 years. It’s not that we don’t need the things this would pay for, but do we need to borrow the money to do it? I say trim the fat on the budget. The money’s in there, you guys will just have to find it. No on Prop 1C: Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act It’s a feel good proposal, borrowing $2.85 billion to help fund battered women shelters, low income housing for seniors, and homeownership assistance for the disabled, veterans, and working families. It will cost $6.12 billion to repay. I’m sorry, but no more borrowing. No on Prop 1D: Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act Save our kids; borrow $10.4 billion more to do it. Must we continue to throw more money at our public schools? We spend more per kid on education than just about every other nation on the planet, yet our kids seem to do worse every year. Obviously throwing money into the system doesn’t solve the problem, so why waste the cash? No on Prop 1E: Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act More borrowing. Should we borrow $4.1 billion to rebuild levees to help prevent flooding? Seems to me that this is an important issue and being that important that the state legislature would do everything in it’s power to squeeze that into the annual budget. But no… they want us to borrow the money. Arnold is encouraging voters to approve 1A, B, C, D, and E, and something tells me they’ll pass. Unfortunately… Now for some of the big gun propositions… Yes on Prop 83: Sex Offenders, Sexually Violent Predators, Punishment, Residence Restrictions and Monitoring (aka Jessica’s Law) Makes life hard for the perverts who sexually abuse children… How can you argue with that? No on Prop 84: Water Quality, Safety and Supply, Flood Control, Natural Resource Protection, Park Improvements Borrow, borrow, borrow! For crying out loud! Borrow $5.4 billion to improve water supply. If you’re keeping track at home, that’s a total of over $42 billion that people are voting on. It will cost double that to pay back: $84 billion over 30 years to pay back. Where do we stop? Yes on Prop 85: Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy This one seems like common sense to me. Parents are responsible for their children in every other legal capacity, so why not this too? Parents should be notified if their girl is looking to get an abortion… No on Prop 86: Tax on Cigarettes I don’t smoke but increasing the tax on cigarettes from $0.87 to $2.60 is outrageous! No way. No on Prop 87: Alternative Energy, Research, Production, Incentives. Tax on California Oil Producers. Al Gore and Bill Clinton are doing commercials for 87. Do I really need to say more? When commercials first started airing for 87 I was actually on the fence. Then I saw Al Gore pimping 87. I made up my mind real quick... No on Prop 88: Education Funding. Real Property Parcel Tax. Throw more money into the money pit that is our public education system with an added bonus of higher property taxes. If we had school vouchers, maybe (and that’s a big maybe) I’d think about voting for this one. We don’t need to throw more money at the schools. Period. No on Prop 89: POltical Campaigns. Public Financing. Corporate Tax Increase. Campaign Contribution and Expenditure Limits. It looks to similar to the disaster that McCain-Feingold’s campaign finance reform was. And it increases taxes on state companies. No on Prop 90: Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property. What exactly are property damages that will be sustained to properties by new laws and rules? This one appears to be a trap. That about sums it up... if anything changes I'll update the post. Other than that, make sure you get out and vote tomorrow!