Reward for tape being held hostage by the LA Times

WHISTLEBLOWER REWARD: $200,000 For Khalidi/Obama/Ayers Tape

Too many holes in the story

Stanley Kurtz is doing a job that should be done by the rest of our free press. He is asking important questions that need answers. And there are other who seems to be stonewalling about letting those answers get out:

Questions to Press
While Rolling’s letter raises more questions than answers, it seems clear that we’re not being told the whole truth about who chose Obama to lead the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. In particular, the Obama campaign’s claim that Deborah Leff and Patricia Graham may have put forward Obama’s nomination can no longer be taken as the last word on the subject. The Rolling letter strongly suggests that Obama and his allies are not being fully forthcoming on this issue, quite possibly in an attempt to disguise the fact the Bill Ayers had a substantial role in elevating Barack Obama to the chairmanship of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. More generally, in the immediate wake of my attempt to gain access to the CAC records, Rolling appears to have been maneuvering, both to block my access, and to make sure that the full story of who chose Obama as CAC head would not come out.

Given the Rolling letter, here are some questions that need to be asked:

1. Why did Ken Rolling contact UIC on August 11, 2008? Was he tipped off to my inquiry on the same day by someone at UIC? If so, who?

2. Was Ken Rolling in touch with anyone in the Obama campaign on August 11, or shortly thereafter. Has Rolling been in touch with Bill Ayers since August 11? Has the Obama campaign been in touch with any of the CAC founders, Chapman, Hallett, or Ayers, since August 11? In other words, has the Obama campaign been working through Rolling or the other CAC founders, including Ayers, to help manage this story?

3. What is the full story of Obama’s elevation to the chairmanship of CAC, and what role did Bill Ayers play in the choice of Obama?

4. Did Obama and Ayers know one another prior to their time at CAC?

The Obama campaign’s initial response to this issue notwithstanding, the question of how a young and inexperienced lawyer like Obama was chosen to head a foundation created by Bill Ayers in 1995 is still very much open. Ken Rolling, Warren Chapman, Anne Hallett, and indeed, Barack Obama and Bill Ayers must now provide some answers.

Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis?

Updated after someone attempted to get the original video banned from YouTube...

How did we get here? Watch this 10-minute video. All claims are cited, so you can do your own research if you so choose:



H/T: Instapundit

Obama's Presidential Coin

Will the narcissism never end? Grim links to Dad29, who links to Hot Air, who links to the Birmingham (UK) Post article:

The coins already sold to the Democrats will be presented to the senators, congressmen, governors and other politicians they are being given to within the next two weeks.

There will also be a television advertising campaign launched in the US.
...
When they got in touch with the Democrats the party jumped at the chance. And the coins have proved such a hit that locally produced versions have already been launched to compete with the UK originals.

The coins show Senator Obama’s face, along with a picture of the White House and the legend “President of the United States of America”.

Never mind we are still more than 6 weeks from Election Day, and even further from Inauguration Day...

Dig It

You should be judged by the company you choose to keep. When you keep company with unrepentant domestic terrorists, I find you lacking. You have no moral compass and you should not be the Leader of the Free World.



H/T: TigerHawk

Update: Jane of Marine Moms - Bethesda sends a link to her "The Man Who Would Be President". It's just another example of how Obama lacks the character to be President of the United States of America.

Dear Mr. Obama II: Economics 101

Bill Whittle: Proud of the GOP

H/T: a commenter at Michelle Malkin

Bill Whittle has a new essay, but this time it is at National Review Online:

Sarah Palin has done more than unify and electrify the base. She’s done something I would not have thought possible, were it not happening in front of my nose: Sarah Palin has stolen Barack Obama’s glamour. She’s stolen his excitement, robbed his electricity, burgled his charisma, purloined his star power, and taken his Hope and Change mantra, woven it into a cold-weather fashion accessory, and wrapped it around her neck.

A candidate who is young, funny, well-spoken, intelligent, charming, drop-dead gorgeous — and one of ours? Is this actually happening?

...

And, finally . . . what of John McCain? I’ve read many comments about his speech being a disappointment. I don’t know how it looked or played from the floor. But I know how it played from my Los Angeles living room. I believe — and we’ll know soon enough if I’m right — that John McCain did something Thursday night more powerful and astonishing than Sarah Palin did the previous evening. Sarah stole Obama’s glamour. McCain stole his message. (Granted, that may not be a lot, apart from the glamour, but it was all Obama had left.)

...

John McCain got me to believe tonight what I never really believed about him before: he is serious about changing Washington. He is serious about getting the GOP back to basics. John McCain wants to repair the brand. Claiming to want to do something is talk. What I think will cause many to believe him is something more than talk: McCain decided to man up. It’s our fault. We lost the confidence of the American people. We said we’d be true to our principles, and we weren’t. The Democrats didn’t make us do it. We did it to ourselves.

That has the ring of truth to it. It is a grownup accepting responsibility for a mistake not of his making and asking for the chance to rectify it. I don’t know how much of the country will believe him. But I did.

...

When John McCain told me what I and untold millions of Americans have always believed, what others tell me to be ashamed of and mock me for — that I live in the greatest country in the world, a force of goodness and justice in dark places, a land of heroism and sacrifice and opportunity and joy — to me that went right to the mystic chords of memory that ultimately binds this country together. Some people don’t know what it is, but there is such a thing as patriotism — pure, unrefined, unapologetic, unconditional, non-nuanced, non-cosmopolitan, white-hot-burning patriotism. John McCain loves this country. I love it too. Not what it might be made into someday — not its promise, always and only its promise — but what it was and what it is, a nation and an idea worth fighting and dying for.

Go read the whole thing.

Previous:

Must-reads from Bill Whittle (5/22/07)
Bill Whittle: Forty Second Boyd & The Big Picture (1/2/08)

Dear Mr. Obama

An American soldier addresses Mr. Obama:



H/T: American Infidel

The problem with energy...

A month or so ago, Lyric Mezzo sent me an email pointing out a rant against "Big Oil" that Bill O'Reilly had done. It wasn't the first time he'd accused oil companies of "gouging" consumers. While I generally enjoy watching O'Reilly and think he often make intelligent points on the various issues he covers, I believe he gets a bit hysterical...

First, let me say I am by no means an expert on the oil industry. While I have one uncle who has worked for oil companies for decades (I believe his degree is in chemical engineering) and one cousin who works for an oil company with operations on the North Slope of Alaska, I've never talked to them about their work. However, I have some insight into the industry that the average person likely does not have. My undergraduate degree is in Accounting. One of the electives within my major was oil & gas accounting. Let's just say that class ensured I would never want to work within that particular field of accounting. Accounting for oil and gas enterprises is much more complicated and involved than most any other business, IMO. Now, on to the topic at hand:

Oil companies aren't gouging. Their actual margins are less than many other industries. The fact that they have "obscene profits" right now is directly related to the volume of their sales, not that they have been charging consumers an outrageously high retail price relative to the oil companies' costs. Oil is a commodity, and the oil commodities market sets the price, not "Big Oil". The United States isn't only nation with a large demand for this commodity. India and China have booming economies, so they are now demanding more oil than in years past: this energy source is lifting their large populations out of poverty.

Also, there is much speculation in the oil futures market - this has been driving up the price. Also, the US dollar has been very weak when compared to other currencies: this makes oil more expensive for us, and cheaper for those using those other currencies.

Lucky for us, the price of oil has been dropping. So, what is likely responsible for the recent drop in the price of oil, which has dropped about $30/barrel from the high of about $145/barrel? It would appear that $4 a gallon gasoline is the tipping point at which American consumers change habits: we, as a nation, have cut back on our usage of gasoline in response to the high price of gasoline.. I know I have - the past two summers, I hardly missed going to an Express baseball game. This season, I have only been to a handful of games that weren't on a Saturday or Sunday; it's about a 70-mile round trip for me, and I can't afford that for an 8-game homestand... Americans are driving less: consequently needing to buy less gasoline; American airlines are parking lots of airplanes, reducing their need for jet fuel. The law of supply & demand is at work here, folks...

Also, since President Bush lifted the executive ban on off-shore drilling, the price of crude oil has dropped dramatically. This ties back to those "evil" oil speculators. There is now one less obstacle to the United States drilling for its own oil, so the speculators have been betting on lower oil prices in the future. Now, Congress needs to get their sh*t together and remove those remaining obstacles to the United States accessing its own energy resources so we won't be beholden to countries like Iran or Venezuela, both OPEC members with no great love for the United States. Drilling in the US would help reduce the speculatory rise in crude oil prices.

One thing I am sick and tired of hearing from those in the anti-drilling crowd, who just happen to be Democrats as far as I can tell, is the "we won't get any oil for 10 years from new drilling". Well, you know what? If we'd started drilling in ANWAR when it came up under the Clinton Administration, we'd now be getting our first barrels out oil out of it... They seem to have absolutely no forward thinking when it comes to proven sources of energy. If the worst should happen in the Middle East, say an open, direct confrontation with Iran (not this proxy war they've been fighting with Israel through Hezbollah and with the US in Iraq) that disrupts the flow of oil coming out of the Persian Gulf, we need to have another reliable source of oil. Our need for crude oil isn't going anywhere, no matter what the environmentalist say. We use petroleum for far more than powering our automobiles...

We need to drill in ANWAR (the people of Alaska want to...), we need to drill in the Gulf (and not just off the Texas/LA coastline). We currently can't drill off the coast of Florida, but China is, with Cuba's help. With the price of gas being so high, it is now becoming cost-effective to drill for harder-to-get-to oil. We need to build nuclear power plants, too. Biofuels aren't the answer, but I'll get to that later. I have no problem with reasonable conservation measures - I know that fuel economy has always - even before gas prices got so high - been a huge factor in my choice of car. I won't even consider something that doesn't get an EPA estimated 30 mpg. And I keep my tires properly inflated. And I make sure to get my car in for regularly scheduled maintenance. That's just not smart fuel economy, it's smart economics - I plan to drive my car for as long as I can - as long as the upkeep is more cost effective than buying a new vehicle.

Now, for the insight I gained from the O&G accounting class all those years ago... These "windfall profits" the Democrats keep talking about make up for the times when oil companies were barely getting by (anyone remember the "Oil Bust"? It had a huge impact on the Texas economy back in the day...), and also help fund new exploration.

There are many expenses related to finding and extracting crude oil. I know, in general terms, that methods of exploration have gotten more sophisticated since I was in college, but I'm sure the basics still hold true. An oil and gas company will have a general idea, based on geology, where they think an oil or gas deposit is. If they want to do more than just speculate on what is there, they will have to obtain the rights from the property owner to come in and do surveys of what is underground. I think today, they can do a lot of this without having to sink exploratory holes into the ground.

Now, if they find a deposit they think is worth extracting, they will have to pay for the mineral rights to that property. Now, one thing I never thought about prior to taking that class is this: the owner of the mineral rights isn't necessarily the same as the owner of the ground level property. So, there may be two entities that have to be compensated for the privilege of drilling. Once the appropriate leases and mineral rights and what-not have been secured, there is the work of actually getting to the deposit. They'll have to drill. Drilling is a very dangerous bit of work. The people who do this work must be fairly compensated for the dangerous and skilled work that they do.

Once the drilling is successfully completed, it will have to be converted into an actual well, pumping the oil or gas to the surface. After that, it needs to be transported for refining. I', am not really up on what all needs to be done to natural gas to make it "market ready", beyond adding that inert gas to give it that smell so you'll know if you have a gas leak. For oil, though, what happens will depend on what the end product is supposed to be, and the quality of the crude pumped out of the ground (or from beneath the ocean floor).

I never had to pay more than $3.999 when filling up my car, but the $40 it took to completely fill my tank from "E" is more than double what it cost me when I bought that car four years ago. I filled up the other day for $3.699, but when I drove by the same gas station on the way home from work Friday, it was down to $3.619. I have a friend out in California who pays a much higher price, and I have a friend in Arkansas who has actually been paying a little less (but I think she and her husband sometimes even fill up just over the state line in Missouri for a little less than they would pay "at home" - the difference likely being taxes). Why the big differences in the price of gasoline? The gasoline that can be sold in Texas - or Arkansas and Missouri - likely isn't the proper blend to be allowed to be sold in California. All these blends are in existence because of environmental regulations. If I recall correctly, there are at least a dozen different blends of gasoline required to meet the regulations of various states and municipalities around the country. Oil refineries can't make all the different blends at one time. They'll make one kind, then they have to switch over to be able to make another kind. All these blends make the cost of turning crude oil into gasoline go up. That's one reason the price of gas went up so much after Katrina and Rita in 2005, also. Refineries along the Gulf Coast were offline, so other refineries had to make up for the decrease in refining capacity: fewer refineries still having to put out the same number of blends that are required around the country.

Once the gasoline has been refined, it now has to be transported to gas stations around the country so it can be sold to American drivers. All that costs money, too. Oh, and let's not forget all the taxes we pay to various governmental entities - in some cases, a set amount per gallon (I think that's how all the taxes work here in Texas, thank goodness!), in others, a percentage of the sale price (so when the price of a gallon of gas goes up, so does the tax you have to pay). Often, the various taxing entities make more money off of a gallon of gasoline that the oil companies do...

With regard to refineries, no one wants them in their own backyard. I've been near the refineries around the Houston area. They stink something awful. But, we need new refineries. As far as I know, we haven't built a new refinery in the United States in over 30 years (though I may have heard recently about one new project somewhere...). Environmental groups - and some in the NIMBY crowd - do their damnedest to prevent construction of new refineries. Never mind a new refinery would likely be much more efficient than the existing ones.

Now, back to biofuels. At this point in time, biofuels are not a viable alternative to gasoline. Ethanol is contributing to an increase in food prices, as acreage is going from growing food plants to growing fuel plants - and I heard on the news recently that in whatever South American country that makes biofuel from sugar beets is destroying rainforest to get more land to grow food plants because they've used so much of existing farmland to grow those sugar beets... While it is my understanding that sugar beets are a fairly effective biofuel, in regard to the amount of energy you can generate from a given amount of acreage, corn isn't so effective. But, we have corn farmers here in the US successfully lobbying Congress to push this less-effective alternative biofuel. Maybe that's why so many politicians pander to Iowa when they want to run for president - that corn lobby is pretty influential, it would seem. Biofuels might become a viable alternative, but not any time soon - certainly not any sooner than it will take to get crude oil out of the ground if all the unnecessarily obstacles were removed. And Congress needs to butt the he|| out and let the market take care of what - if any - biofuel is most effective.

What else would help solve the energy problem? Nuclear power. We have a NIMBY problem here, too. Listening to the radio this past week, one of the "local" news reports was about a proposed nuclear power plant near Victoria, Texas. The news report had a gentleman who didn't want that power plant near his town. Democrats seem to want to emulate Europe so much when it comes to failed socialist ideas, but they don't seem so keen on emulating their intelligent use of nuclear power. I'd like to see it much easier to build nuclear power plants. And, hey, they don't produce those evil "greenhouse gases" the environmentalist say are contributing to anthropogenic global warming (which I think is a bunch of hogwash, but that's a separate discussion...). Ability to get to the oil shale that is now cost-effective to recover with the current price of a barrel of crude. Clean coal technology. But the first thing that would have the most immediate impact on energy prices would be for Congress to eliminate all the road blocks to the United States accessing its own energy resources. Recent reports say that, when you combine all the resources that are currently off-limits, the United States has more oil than Saudi Arabia. If you don't think that would have a dramatic effect on crude prices, you haven't been paying attention, or you are being willfully obtuse.

Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less. And support the "rebel Republicans" who haven't taken a vacation and are keeping up the good fight to get Nancy Pelosi and Congress to do the right thing when it comes to America's energy. But even don't get me started on the "Gang of 10"...

Go check out South Park Diva

Lyric Mezzo is starting to get back into blogging. She's got a new post up:

Obama now playing the flip-flop game with Israel.

Go give it a read.

Morally depraved

There are just no words to describe the depth of my disgust with this man who may be President:

This brings us to Amanda Carpenter's excellent story about Barack Obama and the Born Alive Infants' Protection Act ("BAIPA"). For those who may not know, abortion is not always a "successful" procedure, insofar as "success" is defined as the killing of an unborn child. Most early term abortions involve the dismemberment of the child in utero and subsequent removal of the "pieces" of the uterus via suction. As you might imagine, this method does not leave many unborn children alive. However, most late-term abortions involve some combination of poisoning the unborn child and inducing the mother to deliver early. However, some of the unborn children in question are not as ready to die as their mothers are ready to... ah... "eliminate" them, and they are born alive. The Born Alive Infants' Protect Act requires, very simply, that if doctors are unsuccessful in killing the children through abortion, they may not kill them by refusing medical treatment, thus ensuring that they will die cold and alone on, say, an operating table. Or perhaps a toilet.

With this information given, Barack Obama's vote against [updated for accuracy - the IL version of] BAIPA really needs no further explanation. By way of contrast, BAIPA passed in the United States Senate unanimously, without even a dissent from Hillary Clinton or Ted Kennedy. The House passed the vote by a shocking 380-15 vote. NARAL was fine with BAIPA. I disagree strongly with this notion that we can draw an arbitrary line between small humans in utero and small humans ex utero wherein the former class may be legally killed but the latter may not. However, the latter proposition is not opposed by even the most committed merchant of death, with the exception of the proudly morally depraved like Peter Singer. And it is in this company that we find the alleged moderate and decent person Barack Obama.

...

The question I have for conservatives and moderates - and, what the heck? liberals - is this: what sort of man thinks it should be legal to allow living infants to drown in a toilet immediately after birth? The answer is very simple: a morally depraved one. And the next question that I have is this: do you want such a man making the most important decisions that will face this country over the next four years?

There are many things I don't like about Obama. But this just shows me how morally bankrupt he is, where before I just thought he was incredibly naive and misguided.

H/T: Jeff Emanuel via Jeff Emanuel

Villainous Company: Hope, Realism and the Obama Doctrine

I am so very glad Cassandra decided to start blogging again. I am no longer denied her astute insights and great writing. Today, she posted something that should be read widely:

In today's borderless world, some want to resurrect an isolationist stance which became obsolete as soon as international air travel, telephony and the internet erased the barriers that separate America from the rest of the world. We can no longer afford that pipe dream: the very people who argue most vigorously in favor of it are the ones who refuse to allow us to protect ourselves from outside aggressors via electronic surveillance, profiling, aggressive law enforcement, and military intervention. They believe it a legitimate function of the media to publish classified documents, including the vulnerabilities of Marine body armor. And yet, oxymoronically, they argue we can somehow protect ourselves from the outside world while not giving up any of our freedoms.

Barack Obama has said he would not hesitate to go into Pakistan, even against the will of its government, after al Qaeda. What reaction, precisely, does he expect from a sovereign state when it is militarily invaded by a foreign power?

Passive acceptance? What reaction does he expect from the most radical Islamist elements within Pakistan? Would this not give them all the excuse they need to stage a coup and topple a government which at present cooperates with us, if not to the extent we desire?

And if military intervention in Iraq was unrealistic, what bizarre realism governs the Obama Doctrine's refusal to distinguish between military intervention where there is at least a demonstrable American security interest and situations (like Darfur) where there is none? Who in Darfur ever tried to assassinate a former U.S. President? Who in Darfur ever gave shelter to the architect of a World Trade Center bombing? Darfur doesn't fund terrorist organizations worldwide. America hasn't paid tens of thousands of dollars for decades to man a no-fly zone over Darfur. Darfur has no history of using weapons of mass destruction - several times - on its own people and on neighboring states:

Saddam launched more than 350 chemical weapon attacks across the border. Iraq has since admitted using 1,800 tonnes of mustard gas and 740 tonnes of the highly toxic nerve agents sarin and tabun. It was the worst use of mustard gas since the First World War and the first use of nerve agents. Iranian soldiers often had inadequate masks and little detection and decontamination equipment. Civilians had nothing.

Does Barack Obama see no moral problem with asking an all volunteer force to give their lives when there is no national security interest to protect?

Because this Marine wife damned well does. I believe in freedom and democracy promotion, but the United States cannot free the entire world single-handed. Where is the much-vaunted realism steely-eyed Progressives have been calling for now? It appears to be a function of political convenience.

Go read the whole thing.

John McCain is wrong for the United States

Until today, I thought I might be able to hold my nose and vote for McCain in the general election if he were to win the Republican primary. After what I learned today, I don't know that I can even do that, and I never thought I would say that when that means Hillary Clinton might end up as President of these Unites States. As I said here, I could not trust McCain on illegal immigration. What I learned today only reinforces that distrust. John McCain DOES NOT PUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FIRST IN REGARD TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

John McCain has "think Mexico first", US-Mexico dual-citizenship-holding, former Mexican government official, open-borders zealot Dr. Juan Hernandez on his campaign staff. If you don't have the time to read all the comments (please at least read Michelle Malkin's post), here is a highlight:

Juan Hernandez, in his capacity as McCain's "Hispanic Outreach Director", calls for supporters to host a "McCain Fiesta", and based on their donation amounts, they can gain recognition at levels such as:

$2,300 Los Presidentes [ed. - "President"] (receive campaign sweatshirt and signed book)

$1,000 Los Jefes [ed. - "Boss/Chief"] (receive campaign sweatshirt and signed book)

$500 Los Hermanos [ed. - "Brother"] (receive campaign sweatshirt)

$250 Los Primos [ed. - "Cousin"] (receive campaign sweatshirt)

$100 Los Compadres [ed. - "Godfather"] — $25 Los Amigos [ed. - "Friend"]

I have a really hard time getting behind any American politician allowing such a man, with loyalty obviously NOT with the United States Constitution (but instead loyal to a foreign government) to be in any way, shape or form, associated so closely with their election campaign, especially one running for the highest office in the land: whose highest priority SHOULD BE the welfare of United States citizens, not citizens of other countries who have in essence broken into our house and expect us to take care of them.

Also disturbing in regard to McCain and his supporters:

Hernandez is also a fellow at McCain's "Reform Institute".

“Dr. Juan Hernandez serves as a Senior Fellow of the Institute’s Comprehensive Immigration Reform Initiative.”

That is: Shamnesty.

Among the immigration projects at McCain’s Reform Institute: An art contest in which students depicted their protests against a southern border fence.

Who helps fund the Reform Institute? Ed Morrissey did the research:

* The Tides Foundation, which heavily promotes “reproductive justice”, giving over $500,000 to pro-abortion efforts. They also actively oppose the death penalty (so do I, FYI). John McCain opposes abortion and supports the death penalty, so why is his chief political advisor getting so much support from those who ostensibly oppose him?

* Educational Foundation Of America, which also supports abortion. EFA also opposes drilling in ANWR, an issue on which McCain has an ambivalent record. It also supports euthanasia and assisted suicide through the Death With Dignity National Center, a group which it gave $45,000. It gave $100,000 to the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, which opposed the Yucca Mountain nuclear depository (McCain supported it), and opposes development of low-yield nuclear “bunker buster” bombs, which McCain supports.

In fact, EFA appears to contribute to just about every left-wing cause imaginable, as well as a number of noncontriversial charities and outreach efforts.

* The Proteus Fund, which also opposed the Yucca Mountain repository, spending $75K to stop it. That pales in comparison to the $935K they spent on supporting gay marriage initiatives, which McCain strongly opposes. They have also spent over $800,000 funding nuclear-disarmament and antiwar causes in each of the last two years. Their Security Policy Working Group contains nothing but left-of-center groups like Project on Defense Alternatives, which calls the Iraqi elections “faulty” and predicted disaster for the Bush administration’s “program of coercive transformation throughout the region.”

* OSI (Open Society Institute), founded and funded by George Soros. Among a litany of left-wing causes supported by OSI are People For The American Way, to support their Supreme Court Project. (Hint: It isn’t intended on assisting Bush get his nominees confirmed.) They also gave $150,000 to the Campaign Legal Center, which will be important shortly.

* David Geffen Foundation also shows up on the list, although not in the top tier. David Geffen is an entertainment-industry mogul who supports Democrats and left-wing causes. They do not have a website I could find, but Activistcash.com notes that in 2002, most of the grants Geffen gave went to environmental activists and the Tides Foundation and Tides Center.

Why are all these left-wing groups supporting a "Republican"-founded "charity"? Something truly smells about all this. I cannot vote McCain. Since Fred Thompson is no longer in the race, I have moved my support to Mitt Romney. I can still hope that I might be able to vote for a Romney/Thompson ticket come November.

Updated: An American hero and his wife don't have a very high opinion of John McCain:

A few weeks before Chuck was wounded I watched a TV movie that protrayed Jerk's time as a POW during Vietnam. I was intrigued by the story and developed a lot of respect for what he endured, and the fact that his wife waited all those years for him to return home. I knew bits and pieces of the story before watching the movie, and I knew his arms were badly damaged due to the torture he received. I had a lot of respect for the man... then I met him.

A terrifying example

of why law-abiding citizens should not be denied their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.

I don't own a gun - I'm not from a family of gun owners/enthusiasts, so it's not something I am comfortable with. When I lived alone, I had (and still have) large dogs. My dogs don't really like strangers and anyone who would have tried to break in and hurt me would have had to deal with them, which is a deterrent to some criminals. However, if I was faced with what this woman did, I would seriously consider arming myself.

Related: Fred Thompson on the DC Gun Ban case before SCOTUS

Time to rethink how we run presidential primaries?

Not sure how I got on the email list, and I sometimes just delete them without even opening them, but sometime the subject line catches my interest. The one I received yesterday was one of those:

It's Time to Change the Presidential Nomination Process:

The change from "smoke filled rooms" to putting the power in the hands of the voters was a good thing. However, a new set of dynamics has been created which hurts the process and again requires changes. States at the end of the primary schedule were becoming irrelevant. So, more and more states began "front loading" the primaries -- moving them up in the schedule. As more and more states have their primaries earlier and earlier, the race for the nomination becomes a defacto national election instead of a state by state contest as it should be.

With so many primary elections and caucuses up front, only candidates with serious reserves of cash or media attention can compete. There is no time to build momentum and use that momentum to help generate new funds. Here is how the months of January and February are laid out in 2008 for state primary elections and caucuses:

January 3 -- Iowa
January 5 -- Wyoming
January 8 -- New Hampshire
January 15 -- Michigan
January 19 -- Nevada, South Carolina
January 29 -- Florida
February 1 -- Maine
February 5 (Super Tuesday) -- Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, Alaska, Colorado, Minnesota, North Dakota, West Virginia
February 9 -- Louisiana, Kansas
February 12 -- Washington DC, Maryland, Virginia
February 19 -- Washington, Wisconsin

That is a total of thirty-four states plus the District of Columbia which will hold their elections before March.

In addition to eliminating "front loading," something should also be done to reduce the artificially inflated importance of the results in Iowa and New Hampshire. These two states often spell doom for a candidate who doesn't get off to a fast start, yet these two states provide only a small fraction of the delegates needed to secure the nomination. No candidate's bid for the presidency should be determined by how he or she finished in one state, yet that's exactly what we see now from the media. They pronounce gloom and doom or anoint an heir apparent after one or two contests. That is not fair and not right.

So, what can be done about it? A number of proposals have been floated by various Republican activists and party leaders.

Go read the whole thing to learn about the different plans being proposed.

On a side note, the nominees will have already been decided before I have a chance to make my voice heard. Texas' primary isn't until March.

Responding to an old high school teacher who I greatly respect

I received an email from an old high school teacher of mine on New Year's Day. His sister (a Republican) had inquired as to his views on the current Presidential race. He decided to share his response with a number of people in his address book (some I know, others I don't). I got an updated email yesterday with his reaction of the Iowa Caucuses. I had wanted to reply to him, but wanted to take my time about it. Here is what I wrote:

B~

Yes, I did want to take the time to respond to your email about your thoughts on the current presidential election cycle. I take it very seriously and didn’t want to just toss off a quick reply… I’m also going to “reply to all”, and I know my view won’t sit well with some of them, as I know of at least one person who REALLY doesn’t like President Bush. I might just post this to my little blog, too…

I, too, am glad I haven’t been subjected to heavy political advertising and being canvassed by telephone like the people in Iowa and other early states. This being said, I don’t like the focus and importance placed on the results of two small states that are not representative of the nation as a whole.

As for President Bush, I agree with his policies with regard to the war with radical Islam. I will, however, admit that some of the execution along the way has been flawed, especially in regard to the number of troops in the aftermath of the fall of Saddam. It hasn’t helped matters that our free and independent press shouting from the rooftops any bad report about the actions of our troops, whether or not those actions were true. Too often, American press reports about Iraq were nothing more than regurgitation of terrorist propaganda – Bilal Hussein is a prime example of this. I disagree profoundly with the president’s stance on illegal immigration. All I can say at this point is: I’m glad it was Bush who was president on 9/11 and not Gore, and that Bush defeated Kerry in 2004. Contrary to what we hear Democrats and the liberal media saying, I do not believe the results of the 2006 mid-term Congressional elections gave Democrats a mandate to do what they wanted to do – with regard to many issues. Many Republican voters just stayed home, because they were fed up with the Republican Congress spending like drunken sailors (my apologies to drunken sailors…). Also, many of the seats that the Democrats picked up were VERY close races in which the Dem candidate was running to the right of the Republican candidate.

Now, on to the current presidential election:

The more I hear from candidates, the more I like Fred Thompson. I don’t like any of the candidates from the Democratic Party. Ron Paul is a nutcase who only has an (R) behind his name because he couldn’t get elected with an (L) behind in, given the district he represents here in Texas. I like McCain with regard to foreign policy and national security, but I can’t trust him on illegal immigration, and I don’t like that he opposed the Bush tax rate cuts (which have actually increased tax revenues overall). I like Giuliani with regard to a tough stance on national security, but I can’t trust him on abortion, illegal immigration or the Second Amendment (and I’m not even a gun owner – just a good observer about “gun free zones” in actuality being “defenseless victim zones”: criminals don’t give a flying flip about signs that say “no guns allowed”, even in states that allow for licensed conceal carry). I can’t trust Romney on many issues – he’s having to change many of the positions he held while the governor of liberal Massachusetts in order to appeal to Republican voters. Romney might be an excellent administrator – he did turn the Salt Lake City Olympics around, after all. But, when he says, in regard to his lack of foreign policy experience, that he’d just “go to the State Department”: Yeah – the same State Department that has been undermining President Bush from the get-go. He also advocates government getting involved in healthcare even more than it already is – mandatory health insurance coverage in Massachusetts, anyone? As for Mike Huckabee… After his early debate performances, I wanted to hear more from him. Now that I have, I don’t like him. He might as well be an anti-abortion Democrat, what with his record on taxes and illegal immigration. I had hoped from the beginning of the campaigning that Tom Tancredo (recently dropping out) and Duncan Hunter would do better, as I really liked their messages on illegal immigration and national security.

Fred Thompson isn’t following a typical game plan with regard to running for president. I like that about him. I like his stand on illegal immigration. I like his stand on foreign policy/nation security. I like his stand on healthcare. I like his stand on taxes and fiscal policy.

Having already said I don’t like any of the Democrats running for president, I suppose I should give some reasons.

Hillary Clinton: I don’t trust her any further than I could throw her, and I can guarantee you, that wouldn’t be very far. She is a socialist. Hillarycare? No, thank you. The government matches up to $1000 for a 401(k) for EVERYONE? No, thank you. The government provides a $5000 bond for every baby born in the United States? No, thank you. She plays dirty politics. She, just as her husband did, takes funding from questionable sources, some of it possibly originating in communist China.

John Edward: Trial lawyer preaching class warfare: Real good coming from a man who owns a huge mansion and gets $400-1200 haircuts. I can’t take him seriously.

Bill Richardson: There was a time when I thought him a reasonable Democrat who I could tolerate as president, if I had to have a Democrat in the Oval Office. However, I think his stated policies, with regard to national security/foreign policy and fighting Islamic radicals, are foolish.

Barack Obama: I will concede that he is an excellent and compelling public speaking and he is very charming. But, what has he done? He has never run a business, or a city, or a state, and he’s only served seven years as a state legislator and not even a complete term as a US senator. Also, he, too, is a socialist. I want the government to not take my tax dollars because it thinks it is able to spend MY money more wisely than I can.

I don’t think rewriting the Constitution is necessary. I think the federal government needs to do less “for the people” – some segments of the American population have come to expect the government to do everything for them. To contrast: many residents of New Orleans expected the government to take the responsibility to take care of them with regard to Hurricane Katrina; in the recent wildfires in California, people didn’t wait on the government to take care of those who needed help: those who were able took it upon themselves to go lend a hand, and the I haven’t heard a big outcry from those who lost everything they owned begging the government to take care of them. We need to elect representatives who will only write legislation that pertains to the enumerated powers of the federal government, who will not pander to ANY special interests. We need judges who don’t try to legislate from the bench, and we need Supreme Court Justices who DO NOT cite FOREIGN or INTERNATIONAL law when writing decisions. The Supreme Court Justices should make decisions based on the Constitution of the United States of America ONLY.

I can only hope that the election in November brings a return of Republican control to the Congress another Republican to the White House. We have a Congress with record low approval rating, coming dangerously close to the single digits: far worse than President Bush’s low approval ratings. Time and again, they have tried to force immediate withdrawal from Iraq which would pretty much be announcing to our enemies “all you have to do is hold out until we leave, and then you can do whatever you want in Iraq”. That would only embolden the terrorists. The Democrats have fought tooth and nail to have our forces leave Iraq in defeat, and I can’t help but think it is in part because they want to hang a military defeat around the neck of their archenemy, George W. Bush. Never mind what is best for the country. It would NOT be “good for America” to leave Iraq before the Iraqis are able to stand on their own two feet. The process might not be as fast as we might like, but it is what it is. Hell, we never left Germany or Japan after WWII. And I can’t help but think how that war would have ended if Roosevelt and Truman had to deal with the same kind of hostile press who has published information about perfectly legal, but previously highly secret, programs that were part of the war effort. As a result of Vietnam, the American public has become highly casualty-averse. Never mind that the current conflict has extremely low casualties, especially when compared to past conflicts. We have yet to lose the number of soldiers in Iraq that we lost in a single days during WWII.

As for the Iowa caucuses, I think it’s funny how Hillary Clinton came in third. I expect to see the long knives come out for Obama. I’ve been sitting here tonight watching the debates on ABC – both the Republican and Democratic debates. Listening to what the candidates have been saying tonight only confirms my thoughts: any Republicans (save maybe Ron Paul) would be better than any of the Democratic candidates. I just can’t take any of the Dems (or Ron Paul) seriously when it comes to the issue highest on my list: national security and The Long War against Islamic radicals. I’ve got a lot more to say with regard to why I like Republicans over Democrats (with the rare except – I can respect someone like Joe Lieberman, who the Democratic Party threw under the bus because he wouldn’t toe the party line in regard to the Iraq War). I’ll save that for later – I’ve already gone on for nearly three entire pages. Just let me know what you want to hear me share my views on, and I’ll see about writing something up.

Oh, one last comment, before I sign off: I know you are fed up with illegal immigration. I really don’t think any of the Democrats will address that issue the way you and I seem to think it needs to be addressed. That issue is number two on my list…

Miss Ladybug

Still think government provided heathcare is a good idea?

Think again. MK over at Conservative Thoughts links to a couple of articles in the UK's Daily Mail.

How doctors lie on death certificates to hide the true scale of the toll from hospital infections

Joan said: "I fear this kind of cover-up is happening at hospitals all over the country. I miss Edwin terribly, but the way we lost him and dishonesty by the hospital about the real cause of his death has made it all much worse for me and my family. I was desperate to bring Edwin home. The hospital was dirty. I found a used syringe under the bed, soiled cotton wool pads left on his floor and there were human faeces smeared on the door. Looking back, it is no surprise he caught a superbug."

Devolution has created four different NHS systems - and England is 'poor relation'

Devolution has led to a system of medical apartheid, with four different National Health Services across the UK, a senior health official has admitted.

Labour's changes mean that patients in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are now receiving completely different standards of care.

MK's thoughts:

One state charged with providing healthcare, but four different standards, and judging by the first story, it sounds like these four are a choice between really-bad, you-might-die, just-go-to-a-third-world-hospital or stay-at-home-and-ride-it-out. A few thousand years ago the Greek philosopher Aristotle said “That which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it.” A lesson we seem unwilling to learn.

Some idiot professor thinks we should scrap the Constitution and start over...

Ran across this article over at Townhall.com this evening. Matt Mayer's "Larry Sabato Doesn’t Understand the Constitution" is an interesting read. For anyone a little rusty on their Constitution (I know I'm more rusty than I should be, although I am, sadly, much less rusty than the average American...) or ignorant of some particular historical perspective, it's a good review, and an intelligent dissecting of Sabato's foolish arguments:

In support of his call to redo the Constitution, Sabato trots out a quote from Thomas Jefferson positing that a constitution is only good for nineteen years. The quote comes from a letter Jefferson sent to James Madison on September 6, 1789. In his response, Madison raised several fundamental flaws to Jefferson’s (and Sabato’s) reasoning. The one most applicable to our times is this one: “Would not such a periodical revision engender pernicious factions that might not otherwise come into existence, and agitate the public mind more frequently and more violently than might be expedient?” Does Sabato really believe that in 50-50 America, we would have any chance at compromising on a new constitution? After all, each side will try to inject its own solution to the “intractable challenges” that Sabato laments.

You think Washington is in a sorry state of affairs now? Just imagine the mess we'd be in if, in addition to fighting Islamofascists, and a Democrat-controlled Congress seemingly intent on legislating defeat in Iraq for their own political gain, we were also in the middle of a very messy, extremely partisan Constitutional Convention? Go read the whole thing.

Writing my Senators: The Law of the Sea Treaty

Here's my letter to my two senators, in regard to the "Law of the Sea Treaty":

Senator:

I am very concerned the Senate with ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) this fall. Everything I have read about it tells me ratification would subjugate the United States Constitution as being the supreme law of the land. Ratification would make the United States no longer a sovereign nation. I urge you, and all senators, to vote against ratification of this disastrous treaty. Reagan was against this treaty in 1984. It was rejected again in 1994. This treaty would be detrimental to the United States' security and sovereignty. You have no choice to vote against it if you are truly doing what is best for the citizens of Texas and the rest of America.

Sincerely,

Miss Ladybug

For more information, you can read here or here or here or here.

Are pundits wrongly writing off Fred Thompson?

I was looking over items at Instapundit (again, for items for The Victory Caucus) and came across an item at American Thinker. Near the end of the piece:

After a recent Thompson speech in Iowa a member of the audience called out: "Kill the terrorists, secure the border, and give me back my freedom." Thompson replied "you just summed up my whole speech."

No other candidate could have carried off that quip because no other candidate is capable of delivering a convincing speech focused on those powerful themes.

I have not yet made a decision about who I will vote for in the primary - just those I know I won't vote for - so I try to learn as much about the other candidates as I can. I recommend you do the same. Go read the whole thing.