Quote of the day - James Fagan (D. Mass.) [child rape victims]

"I'm gonna rip them apart. I'm going to make sure that the rest of their life is ruined, that when they're 8 years old, they throw up; when they're 12 years old, they won't sleep; when they're 19 years old, they'll have nightmares and they'll never have a relationship with anybody."

Massachusetts (Democrat) Representative James Fagan.

Fagan was speaking of child rape victims - not the rapists.

CNN does not know what party Fagan belongs to.

Just as Fagan's fellow Massachusetts Democrat William Delahunt favors Al Qaeda over the Bush administration, James Fagan actually views child victims as the enemy.

This statement was predictable - the Left vs. America.

Congressman William Delahunt incites Al Qaeda

As if trying to prove my point from this post, Massachusetts Congressman Bill Delahunt expressed his support for Al Qaeda today:

Massachusetts Rep. Bill Delahunt made the remark Thursday while questioning David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, during a House subcommittee hearing on interrogation policies. Addington said he couldn't discuss certain interrogation techniques because "Al Qaeda may watch C-SPAN," which was televising the hearing. Delahunt responded: "Right, well, I'm sure they are watching, and I'm glad they finally have a chance to see you Mr. Addington."

You can easily guess to which party Delahunt belongs.


As I wrote on Thursday:

The left views terrorists, criminals, illegal aliens, foreign enemies, etc. as little more than cannon fodder to use against its real enemy - average, taxpaying Americans. If we change our outlook and stop thinking of leftists as well-meaning or merely naive, we will no longer be surprised by each new leftist absurdity. We must get used to the idea that with each challenge that confronts America, we will face two enemies instead of one. The obvious enemy in front of us will be different in each conflict, but the second enemy standing behind us will always be the same.

Congressman Delahunt may wave the flag at campaign rallies, he may salute the flag or go through the motions of praying or saying the pledge or numerous other acts of faux patriotism, but when faced with a choice of the Republicans or Al Qaeda, Delahunt sides with Al Qaeda. Axis Sally was imprisoned for similar conduct. Delahunt and his party are not mere "clowns", as Michelle Malkin writes. This is far more deadly, and we had better treat it as such.

Quote of the day - Powerline [Obama]

What Obama really stands for is managed decline--a government-supervised lowering of Americans' standards of living. (That would be your standard of living, of course, not his.)

Powerline - 6-26-08

Previous - the Left vs. America

David Brooks; Barack Hussein Obama; "change"; Gunfights and knife fights - foreign and domestic.

As we learn more about Obama and the emptiness of his promises to "change" Washington, there are those who wonder if there is a positive side to Obama's cynicism and opportunism.

David Brooks seems to understand the real Barack Hussein Obama better than most people:

This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He’s the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside.

But he’s been giving us an education, for anybody who cares to pay attention. Just try to imagine Mister Rogers playing the agent Ari in “Entourage” and it all falls into place.

Back when he was in the Illinois State Senate, Dr. Barack could have taken positions on politically uncomfortable issues. But Fast Eddie Obama voted “present” nearly 130 times. From time to time, he threw his voting power under the truck.

Dr. Barack said he could no more disown the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than disown his own grandmother. Then the political costs of Rev. Wright escalated and Fast Eddie Obama threw Wright under the truck.

Dr. Barack could have been a workhorse senator. But primary candidates don’t do tough votes, so Fast Eddie Obama threw the workhorse duties under the truck.

Dr. Barack could have changed the way presidential campaigning works. John McCain offered to have a series of extended town-hall meetings around the country. But favored candidates don’t go in for unscripted free-range conversations. Fast Eddie Obama threw the new-politics mantra under the truck.

Brooks concludes, "all I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe Barack Obama."

Brooks








While the MSM/DNC fawns over Obama and his wife's fashion sense, the Republicans criticize Obama's "judgment" or lack of experience (as if he would make a better President in 4 or 8 years).

Obama's second face revealed itself again last week when, in speaking about the campaign, he said the following in Philadelphia:

If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.

This type of talk is another example of how Obama's mantra of "change" is meaningless. He brings to politics the same confrontational style that has dominated elections (and the intervening periods) for more than a generation.

"See-dubya" at Michelle Malkin.com spends a great deal of time speculating on how Obama might better apply this attitude to our foreign enemies than to domestic politics.

David Brooks concludes his column by missing the same point:

On the other hand, global affairs ain’t beanbag. If we’re going to have a president who is going to go toe to toe with the likes of Vladimir Putin, maybe it is better that he should have a ruthlessly opportunist Fast Eddie Obama lurking inside.

Why do I think that Brooks has missed the point? Primarily because Obama and the Democrats have no intention of using any kind of toughness with U.S. opponents overseas. They never do.

For Democrats, toughness is reserved only for domestic opponents - not foreign enemies. The domestic enemy (capitalists, homeschoolers, Christians, crime victims, taxpayers, boy scouts, heterosexuals, flag wavers, etc.) must be fought "on the beaches," "in the fields," "in the streets" and "in the hills." The left "shall never surrender."

But with foreign opponents, all such toughness disappears. Obama wants only to meet with foreign dictators and terror supporters, no matter how odious and no matter how counterproductive such meetings will be. To Chavez, Ahmedinejad and Kim Jong Il, Obama offers neither a knife fight nor a gun fight. The knives and guns are reserved solely for Americans. In response to Kim Jong Il's endorsement of Obama, Obama supporters in this country - instead of pausing to rethink their positions in light of such foul company - immediately prayed for the death of Michelle Malkin. Such policy is not unique to Obama or to 2008.

Aside from the examples here, we saw the spectacle of abortion supporters, in the wake of 9-11, demanding that America's anti-terror efforts be devoted to fighting abortion protesters instead of foreign terrorists. We have seen repeated calls for tax increases since 9-11. I recall an Albert Hunt column in the immediate aftermath of 9-11, in which he celebrated the return of big government as a result of the attacks (as if big government had ever left). The left repeatedly makes comparisons between the Taliban and the "Christian right" in America. In 2002, Senator Patty Murray (D. Wa) praised bin Laden's policies on education and day care.

So in the wake of this generation's Pearl Harbor, leftists trained their sites, inter alia, on (1) taxpayers (2) Christians and (3) abortion protesters while using bin Laden as support for their domestic programs and using the attacks as a long awaited excuse to expand big government even further. The terrorist attacks of 9-11 provided, at worst, a distraction for the left from its war against its real enemy (the rest of us), and, at best, a new ally for the left in its crusade to expand the federal government. Senator Murray's speech showed that expanding federal day care and education are more important to the left than fighting the world's number one terrorist.
That the left would automatically question whether the "world's number one terrorist" is bin Laden or Bush is also noteworthy. Remember that Dennis Miller had to remind Jay Leno's TV audience that as between Hussein and Bush - "Hussein is the bad guy." Most leftists would not admit this fact and would go to great lengths to avoid making a public choice between the two.

More recently, the left has plotted to shut down an entire city so as to attack its real opponents - Republicans - in a series of military style maneuvers that the left would never use against Al-Qaeda.

The fact remains that the same left that supported the Soviets during the cold war now supports the terrorists. This policy makes no sense. While the leftists at least shared an ideology with the Soviets, they have nothing in common with Islam, except for the shared goal of destroying America. As I wrote three years ago:

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, there is no point to the left's anti-Americanism or to the left's destructive foreign policy. The Soviet Union, the chief beneficiary of the left's policies for so many decades, is gone. There remains no leftist ally for the MSM/DNC to aid. While it was plausible to imagine the left in bed with its Soviet co-ideologues during the cold war, the left has nothing in common with our current enemies, the Islamists. The left has nothing to gain from helping the Islamists except its own destruction alongside the rest of us.

The left views terrorists, criminals, illegal aliens, foreign enemies, etc. as little more than cannon fodder to use against its real enemy - average, taxpaying Americans. If we change our outlook and stop thinking of leftists as well-meaning or merely naive, we will no longer be surprised by each new leftist absurdity. We must get used to the idea that with each challenge that confronts America, we will face two enemies instead of one. The obvious enemy in front of us will be different in each conflict, but the second enemy standing behind us will always be the same.

• (1) Terrorists attack us while (2) the western left excuses and enables the terrorists and demoralizes and undermines us as we try to fight back.
• (1) Criminals tear at the fabric of society while (2) the left plays the race card and inhibits law enforcement efforts.
• (1) Illegal aliens colonize America and undermine the very nature of American culture while (2) the left plays the race card and prevents us from securing our borders.
• (1) Foreign dictators threaten to incinerate the earth while (2) the left seeks to bolster the foreign dictators' image and standing with their own people.
• (1) Foreign terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in 1993 and (2) leftist politicians immediately responded by attacking a compound in Waco, ultimately burning dozens of people to death (while the Islamic terrorists plotted to finish the job at the WTC).
• (1) Energy prices threaten our economy while (2) leftists pursue policies designed to increase fuel prices.
• (1) Foreign countries surpass our declining industrial capacity while (2) the left seeks to destroy what is left of our industry through massive hoaxes.

Alien forces strike at our front while the left strikes at our back. (While high energy prices are not an "alien force," the left welcomes them as if they were gift wrapped in a turban or Che Guevara flag.) In every one of these examples, there is one element in common. The left works against the rest of us - no matter who the nominal enemy is. The left need not agree with, be coordinated with or make formal arrangements with our nominal enemy. The left supports our enemies anyway. Prior to 9-11, the left knew nothing of Islam except that Islam was yet another anti-abortion religion and that muslim countries had served as a convenient whipping boy whenever Bill Clinton got into trouble. Only on 9-11 did the left realize the potential of Islamic terrorism as a new found ally in the eternal war against the U.S.

It is time for the rest of us to stop talking about leftists as "well-meaning" or "well-intentioned" or "naive" or even "inexperienced." The left has plenty of experience. The left has more than enough experience to know better. The left is not naive. No one, no matter how naive, stupid or stubborn could be this consistently wrong for so long - especially where their positions just happen to be the anti-American position on each issue. As Ayn Rand wrote in December, 1962:

Fifty years ago, there might have been some excuse (though not justification) for the widespread belief that socialism is a political theory motivated by benevolence and aimed at the achievement of men's well-being. Today, that belief can no longer be regarded as an innocent error. Socialism has been tried on every continent of the globe. In the light of its results, it is time to question the motives of socialism's advocates.

It is time that we recognize the left for what it is - a willing partner with whatever enemy or problem confronts the U.S. It is time we treat the left that way. Otherwise, we shall never learn what is killing us. Barack Obama's opportunism, dishonesty, threats and other cynical activities do not translate into a tough foreign policy. They will translate into a foreign policy in which Obama and his administration are aligned with foreign enemies against the rest of us.
----------------------------------------
visit counter added 6-26-08

Barack Hussein Obama birth certificate a forgery?

Copies of birth certificates that have been circulating on the web and that have appeared at Daily Kos are apparent forgeries, according to "israelinsider:"

An authentic Hawaiian birth certificate for another Hawaiian individual has since surfaced which, using the same official form as the presumptive Obama certificate, includes an embossed official seal and an authoritative signature, coming through from the back. Obama's alleged certificate lacks those features, and the certificate number referencing the birth year has been blacked out, making it untraceable.

Obama birth certificate a forgery?


Even if Obama was not born in this country and is ineligible to run for President, I predict that this controversy will not derail his campaign. Any attempt to deny Obama his position on the ballot would result in rioting.

Also, the left savors the opportunity to flout yet another U.S. law. The left would rather win illegally than win legally. Electing an ineligible candidate would open the door to further violations of the constitution, including future elections of foreigners to high office. Electing the Kenyan Obama in 2008 would open the door for election of those who are more obviously foreign. One more element of U.S. sovereignty would disappear as we slowly merge into a one world government.
------------------------------------
update - American Thinker posts more information, including forged copies on Obama's website.

Quote of the day - Official Obama website

"GODDAMN (this) AMERICA! GODDAMN GEORGE BUSH’S AMERICA! GODDAMN THIS FASCIST “AMERICA”! GODDAMN AN AMERICA THAT FIGHTS WARS FOR OIL FOR ELITE WEALTH ACCUMULATION! GODDAMN AN AMERICA THAT DOESNT GIVE TWO SH*TS ABOUT THEIR POOR OR THEIR MINORITIES! F*** YOU PRESIDENT BUSH!

F*** this “Christian” movement."

From the official Obama campaign website. H/T LGF



--------------------------------------------------------
visit counter added on January 25, 2009.

Charlie Black's comments and Barack Hussein Obama's supporters.

John McCain should not apologize to Barack Obama for the comments of Charlie Black (who stated that a terrorist attack in America would benefit the Republicans). He should apologize to the American people, but not Obama. After all, any such attack would probably be perpetrated by some of Obama's supporters.

Quote of the day - Jodie Evans - [Osama had a valid argument]

Evans: We were attacked because we were in Saudi Arabia. That was the message of Osama, was that, because we had our bases in the Middle East, he attacked the United States.

Ibbetson: Do you think that’s a valid argument?

Evans: Sure. Why do we have bases in the Middle East? We totally violated the rights of that, that country. Why do we get to have bases in the Middle East?

Code Pink founder and major Obama donor and fundraiser Jodie Evans

Spengler; Asia Times; Kung Fu Panda; the end of slacker culture

"Spengler's" column in Asia Times should be regular required reading for all of you. This week, Spengler writes of the slacker culture in America end predicts said culture's demise. He ties in everything from the Kung Fu Panda movie to current trends in unemployment and the banking collapse:

Two events on June 6 might denote the death of the "slacker" as an American cultural archetype. . . .

-----------------

America might be the first country in recorded history whose culture celebrates not only indolence but also the sheer absence of ability. Byronic loafing is the birthright of genius, but slacking has become the entitlement of every young American.

Kung Fu Panda - symbol of a dying culture?



----------------

It is hard to think of a comparable case in social history: a country borrows from foreigners to lend money to its young people to spend four years binge-drinking at a university that pretends to prepare them for the world.

------------------

So-called home equity loans, or second mortgages on homes, are the cause of the crash of US bank stock prices during the past few weeks. The well is dry. That leaves the youngsters in the lurch, which is precisely where most of them deserve to be.

A profound sense of panic appears to have gripped American youth, which might explain why so many of them are seeking a messiah in Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barak Obama. But there isn't much that Obama or anyone else, for that matter, can do to help the slackers.

-----------------------
While Spengler's outlook is grim, I would be relieved if the only consequences for the western world are those outlined in Spengler's article. Read it all.

Michelle Kosinski; Iowa flood coverage; fake canoe stunt; Today Show

I have been watching the coverage of the Iowa floods for about a week on the Today Show. I have noted the absence of Michelle Kosinski from any such coverage until this morning.

Michelle Kosinski handling a prior story


Kosinski is the "reporter" who was caught reporting from a canoe live almost three years ago during some relatively minor flooding in New Jersey. The problem occurred when two men walked past her canoe revealing the water to be only ankle-high. The incident became notorious and the subject of blooper reels and internet mirth. I still receive google traffic from people researching the incident. Newsbusters received record traffic over this incident. [I wonder what NBC's Washington bureau chief Tim Russert thought of the incident at the time.]

Michelle Kosinski canoe incident - 2005


I could not help but remember Kosinski's prior experience with flood coverage as I watched her this morning. I found myself paying closer attention than normal as I scrutinized everything she said and every piece of film that accompanied her report.

I would love to know the decision making process that resulted in Kosinski travelling to Iowa (whether at all or after one week had elapsed) to cover this story.

• Did NBC figure that three years was long enough for the viewers to forget the canoe incident?
• Did NBC delay Kosinski's involvement in the Iowa story because of the 2005 canoe incident?
• Did NBC even remember the canoe incident?
• Did they let Kosinski go to Iowa only if she promised to stay out of canoes?
• Were NBC's editors and producers extra careful in reviewing the report before putting it on the air?
• Did NBC figure that since the flooding was real this time, there would not be a need for a staged event, thus making Kosinski less likely to pull another stunt?
• Was the original canoe stunt even Kosinski's idea - or was it suggested by the Today Show producers, thus making Kosinski a mere scapegoat?
• Does NBC simply not care how it is perceived anymore?

The MSM/DNC must be the only employer for whom you can continue to work despite being caught defrauding your customers live on TV.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsbusters posts Michelle Kosinski's history.

Quote of the day - Ann Coulter [Vietnam]

"Enragingly, liberals talk about Vietnam as if it proves something about the use of force generally rather than the Democrats own bungling incompetence in military affairs. Historical accounts of the Vietnam war are incomprehensible because liberals refuse to admit the failure of their own national security strategy. The only important lesson from the Vietnam War is this: Democrats lose wars." -- Ann Coulter, P. 125

John Hinckley - mentally ill or merely a "progressive"?

"Mr. Hinckley believes himself entitled to a life of leisure and shows significant signs of stress when he is not given his way."

Motion filed by U.S. Attorneys - June 4, 2008 - United States v. Hinckley (related to Hinckley's attempts to obtain increased forloughs).

He sounds like a typical Democrat voter.

----------------------------------
update

Daily Scoff

Quote of the day - Joe Sobran [socialism, Francois Mitterand]

I recall a news item about an indignant middle-
class Frenchwoman some years ago, during the presidency
of the Socialist Francois Mitterand. "Mitterand told us
he was going to tax the rich," she complained. "Now he
tells us that we are the rich!" It's called the
"slippery slope," madame. If you set fire to your
neighbor's house, the flames may spread to your own home.
And once you support violations of your neighbor's
rights, your own rights may become the next target.

Joe Sobran

Iowa 2008 v. New Orleans 2005 - the un-Katrina flood response.

If the new media does its job, the Iowa floods will finally accomplish what 3 years and the truth could not accomplish - remove Hurricane Katrina from the talking points of the MSM/DNC.

Iowa 2008


In Iowa, 83 of the state's 99 counties have been declared disaster areas (according to NBC this morning). While no Iowa city is as large as New Orleans, the devastation is no less thorough throughout the entire state.

Consider the differences between the Iowa floods of 2008 and Katrina (2005):

• No one is trapped in a convention center or other public building.


• Evacuations were not delayed by incompetent local officials.


• Instead of looting, the citizens are volunteering to provide sandbags and protect their homes and cities.


• We see no corrupt politicians on TV crying about invented stories.


• We don't see corrupt politicians trying to blame the President.


• We don't yet see MSM/DNC outlets coaching guests to be angry (give that one some time - the crisis is still young).


• We have not seen parking lots full of buses that could have been used to evacuate the victims.


• We don't hear cries of racism or conspiracy theories.


• We have not yet seen celebrities making a big show of doing nothing.


• We have not yet seen Senators making a big show of doing nothing.


• We have not yet seen reporters making a big show of doing nothing.


• We have not seen local officials more concerned with the racial make-up of their city than solving the problem.

volunteers sandbagging the water instead of "journalists" sandbagging the viewers.


AP












The bottom line is, we are seeing more self-reliance and less complaining in Iowa. The citizens evacuated themselves instead of waiting for someone to rescue them. Iowa will not become a political football as did New Orleans. But it may show the contrast that will deflate the Katrina football and deprive the MSM/DNC of another weapon.

update - Sunday evening:

Lagniappe's Lair posted something very similar yesterday.

Arhooley comments thusly:

. . . . another underreported story was the San Diego wildfires of a few months back. With no assistance from the government (none asked and none provided), private citizens and businesses oversaw the best-organized refuge center in our Qualcomm Park that a person could imagine. Pets were taken care of, translation services provided, medical facilities set up, kids' entertainment provided, blankets and beds donated in plenty. With KOGO radio talking several times an hour with the refuge center's organizer, it generally took about 15 minutes from the time a need was announced on the air to the time a truck was pulling up outside the stadium. San Diegans volunteered all over the county to open their homes and staff assistance centers. Oh yes, and Barbara Boxer did fly in to Qualcomm to denounce George Bush for depriving San Diegans of National Guardsmen and firefighters for his war for oil. What would we have done without her?

--------------------------------------------
update - Joe Soucheray gets it.

Quote of the day - Ann Coulter

It is unquestionable that Bush has made this country safe by keeping Islamic lunatics pinned down fighting our troops in Iraq. In the past few years, our brave troops have killed more than 20,000 al-Qaida and other Islamic militants in Iraq alone. That's 20,000 terrorists who will never board a plane headed for JFK -- or a landmark building, for that matter.

We are, in fact, fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them at, say, the corner of 72nd and Columbus in Manhattan -- the mere mention of which never fails to enrage liberals, which is why you should say it as often as possible.

Ann Coulter - June 11, 2008

Tim Russert, Keith Oblermann, Barack Hussein Obama, "strawman" arguments, Reverend Wright, John Kerry, George Soros, "historic" elections

The news of Tim Russert's passing has dominated the television for the past day. [Update - 6-16-08 - Debbie Schlussel comments on the endless coverage.]

Many conservatives have praised Russert and conducted themselves with more class than the left ever did at the death of a non-leftist.

I noted from watching Russert's old interview with Charlie Rose last night the real difference between Russert and someone like Keith Olbermann. Russert was not a one-trick pony. He could speak about a variety of topics with conviction and thoroughness. Olbermann seems to have nothing to talk about except for his hatred of the Republicans. Even when Oblermann hosts the NBC Sunday football program, the viewer expects that he is about to drop the football talk and explode into a "Bush is Hitler" rant. Regardless of ideology, there is more to Russert than Olbmermann or Chris Matthews or many others.

That being said, conservatives are fooling themselves if they believe Russert was unbiased or did not advocate the leftist cause. The rest of this post is necessary and is not meant to detract from our thoughts of sympathy for the family on the occasion of this untimely tragedy.

Russert's bias was much more subtle than that of most MSM/DNC employees, and therefore escaped notice by most conservatives. I know of no examples of Russert engaging in the outright lie.

Russert, instead, used the strawman(#15).

(1) Reverend Wright. In one of the last efforts of his life, Russert was recording an interview with MSNBC about Obama and this campaign yesterday. He summarized the arguments against Obama with a mythical conversation:

I remember being in Indianapolis covering the Indiana primary and a man came up to me and said he wasn’t going to vote for Senator Obama because he was very concerned about the comments made by Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s pastor. I said, “That’s interesting. As a reporter, I’m curious what comments particularly bothered you?” He said, “Well, I can’t think of any that come to mind, but I also read on the Internet that he’s a Muslim.” And I said, “Now wait a minute. You can’t have both. You can’t be offended by his Christian minister and then say he’s a Muslim. You’ve got to pick one.”

Had this been a real conversation, Russert's nemesis would have had no trouble remembering what particularly offended him about Wright. The only people in this country who don't remember "AIDs Conspiracy Sunday, or God Damn America Sunday, or U.S. of KKKA Sunday, or the Post-9/11 America-Had-It-Coming Memorial Service" are apparently Barack Obama and Tim Russert. [And even Obama threw Wright under the bus long before Russert was apparently trying to argue, yesterday, that no one could identify what Wright had done wrong.]

And no, we don't need to choose between our legitimate reservations regarding Obama's judgment over the Wright affair and our concern with what Obama's own Kenyan brother has referred to as Obama's Muslim background. The fact remains that Reverend Wright is repellant and Obama has a Muslim background. Both facts can be and are true. Russert's strawman story cannot disprove these facts.

(2) John Kerry - 2006. Just before the 2006 elections, John Kerry insulted all American servicemen while campaigning for the Democrat congressional candidates, thus jeopardizing the Democrats' attempts to retake the House and Senate. Tim Russert attempted to ride to the rescue with an invented Kerry "apology" that explained away the insult. In this case, Russert had to invent a strawman apology from his own side in order to diffuse a problem created by John Kerry.

(3) Obama - "smears." Russert's final interview also promoted the Obama website whose stated goal is to refute "smears" against Obama. Russert alleged that Obama's opponents were going to create a new website to "spread the rumors, so that people that go to the Internet to get clarification will go to the wrong web site and get confused." Legitimate criticisms against Obama are thus dismissed as "rumors" designed to "confuse" people.

(4) Scott McClellan. Two weeks ago, Russert discussed Scott McClellan's book on the Today Show. While not explicitly endorsing or agreeing with the book, he subtly defended the book by stating "This is not Moveon.org" (George Soros' organization) even as it was being revealed elsewhere that a Soros' company published the book. While Russert may not have known of the Soros' connection, he never retracted that statement and he was eager to build up the book's credibility. In attempting to knock down a straw man argument ("moveon.org is behind this book") he accidentally hit upon the truth.

(5) Hillary - drivers licenses - the 15 year drought. Tim Russert took 15 years before he finally asked the Clintons a tough question. It was great that Russert helped Hillary trip herself up on the illegal alien/drivers license question last fall, but he waited until a more leftist viable candidate appeared on the scene. This was not a "strawman" example, but it shows that Russert is willing to be tough on the leftist standard bearer only when a more viable leftist replacement exists. Russert's toughness thus becomes the real strawman in this situation.

(6) "Historic" - Russert never explicitly said "vote for Obama." But as much as anyone else, Russert has referred to the 2008 election as "historic." Even yesterday's blurb at MSNBC states the following - "Tim Russert spent a lifetime preparing to cover the historic 2008 primary elections." As strange as that statement is, it points up the subtlety in the use of the word "historic." Russert used that word "historic" since the primaries began. Translation - a black man is going to be elected President for the first time. That is the only possible meaning of "historic" in this context. There would be nothing "historic" about a mundane Republican victory, so the continued use of that word implies that the Republicans will lose. If you don't vote for the Democrat, this election will lose its historic flavor. The use of the word "historic" allows Russert (and many others) to promote Obama without being explicit.

Russert demonstrated the most dangerous kind of bias. Everyone can ignore the raving lunatic like Olbermann. But a politician is more effective when he sits behind the news desk and refuses to endorse or openly advocate but, instead, boxes in one side with strawman arguments that take the form of "reporting" and "journalism."

The battle is not won or lost with the actual arguments pro or con. The battle is won or lost when the issue is framed. Russert framed the issues for the public, thus allowing the Democrats the simplicity of fighting strawman arguments. In the courtroom the parties begin each legal filing with an identification of the "issues" before the facts are even argued. The court accepts one lawyer's (or the other's) definition of the "issues." The party that gets to define the issues usually wins the battle - in court or in politics.

Russert was a lawyer (having graduated law school in the 1970's). It is telling that the MSM/DNC's most effective advocate was not really a journalist, but a lawyer. The MSM/DNC advocates - it does not report. Russert defined the issues, while Olbermann and others made factual arguments based on those definitions.

This is how the MSM/DNC really works. Understanding the MSM/DNC requires us to understand Tim Russert more so than we understand the more obvious leftists. Otherwise, we will be reduced to perpetually praising those who would box us in with strawman arguments.

Michelle Obama suicide watch; We will not be bullied

The MSM/DNC has undertaken a coordinated effort to stop all criticism of Michelle Obama. MSM/DNC attacks are vicious and unreasoning against anyone who dares to point out that the Democrats have yet another crazy shrew for a first lady candidate.

We cannot back down. The way to respond to a bully is punch them in the mouth. That is the only language a bully understands. So in the spirit of fighting back, and so the MSM/DNC will know that "they ain't seen nuthin' yet," I link to one of my favorite new sites - The Michelle Obama Suicide Watch. I don't know who has created this site, but I congratulate them. We may not see many updates if the Dems lock Michelle in a basement like they did with Theresa Heinz Kerry in 2004.

China drilling for oil in Key West; Cuban lease; U.S. "no zone."

While the United States continues to prohibit Americans from drilling for oil in ANWR and elsewhere, the Chinese are drilling off of Key West, Florida pursuant to a Cuban government lease. House Republicans have issued a press release:

By prohibiting the United States from taking part in the same type of energy exploration that the Chinese are conducting just miles off our shores, the Democratic Majority on Capitol Hill continues to prove itself complicit in an energy crisis that has saddled American families and small businesses with gas prices that have reached $4.05 per gallon today. Do congressional Democrats actually believe China has more ingenuity and more concern for the environment than the United States?

Instead of initiating our own drilling program, we are debating proposals by people like Barack Hussein Obama to tax corporate profits - profits that could otherwise be used for exploration and technology.

More information at DU and Gateway Pundit(36 Chinese wells, U.S. no zone).

"No zone" where U.S. companies are prohibited from drilling - H/T Gateway Pundit


It should be no surprise that China would be drilling in the Carribean. China already has troops in Haiti and maintains control over the Panama Canal.

Michelle Malkin posts the story of yesterday's vote by the Democrats in Congress (House Appropriations Subcommittee) to disallow drilling by U.S. companies offshore. Gateway posts an update.

Quote of the day - Mark Steyn [Obama, change]

As for coming together "to remake this great nation," if it's so great, why do we have to remake it? A few months back, just after the New Hampshire primary, a Canadian reader of mine – John Gross of Quebec – sent me an all-purpose stump speech for the 2008 campaign:

"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it."

I thought this was so cute, I posted it on the Web at National Review. Whereupon one of those Internetty-type things happened, and three links and a Google search later the line was being attributed not to my correspondent but to Sen. Obama, and a few weeks after that I started getting e-mails from reporters from Florida to Oregon, asking if I could recall at which campaign stop the senator, in fact, uttered these words. And I'd patiently write back and explain that they're John Gross' words, and that not even Barack would be dumb enough to say such a thing in public. Yet last week his demand in his victory speech that we "come together to remake this great nation" came awful close.

Mark Steyn - 6-7-08

Detroit News, Obama, Osama

H/T to Deb Schlussel for copying this Detroit News headline today. It is not a photoshop.

If Obama wins the election, the headline will read, "Obama, Osama meet to discuss unity."

Sarah Palin; possible running mate for John McCain;

I know almost nothing about Sarah Palin except that she is the Republican Governor of Alaska and that she looked like this in 1984:

Sarah Palin - 1984














But that alone would make her at least as good of a President as John McCain. H/T Powerline for the photo.









Sarah Palin








I realize that I have nothing more than a superficial basis for supporting Palin, but if the Obama followers can act that way, so can I.

Her website is full of platitutes about the environment and health care, etc., but there are a few interesting tidbits:

I am pro-life and I believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. I am opposed to any expansion of gambling in Alaska.

She also claims to be a member of the NRA. Her site contains some detail about a statewide gasline issue that I have not researched. Palin's administration is currently suing the U.S. Department of the Interior over the Department's characterization of the polar bear as "endangered."

This information is only the beginning, but I believe Palin is worthy of consideration until some leftist skeleton is unearthed from her closet.

----------------------------------

update 12:30

Politico posts more info on Palin's Lt. Governor and an endorsement by Pat Toomey. I am now more firmly in Palin's camp:

The Club for Growth endorsed Alaska Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell, who is challenging Young in the state’s Aug. 26 primary. The group’s president, Pat Toomey, made the endorsement in a Wall Street Journal editorial today.

Parnell is an ally of the state's governor, Sarah Palin, a reform-minded Republican who unseated former Gov. Frank Murkowski in a 2006 Republican primary.

"I have a dream" - 45 year anniversary - Obama acceptance speech.

August 28, 2008 will be the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech. That same night, Barack Hussein Obama will deliver his acceptance speech to the Democrat national convention. In trying to turn this event into something historic, the MSM/DNC will repeatedly remind us all of this connection for the next three months. ("As we approach the 45 year anniversary of Dr. Reverand Martin Luther King, Jr.'s historic speech, Barack Obama prepares to make history himself. . . . etc. etc.")

But the MSM/DNC has a problem. The MLK speech has been so hyped for the past 4decades that neither Obama (nor anyone else) can live up to it.

But regardless of how well Obama actually performs, the MSM/DNC will treat it better than the Gettysburg Address and the Sermon on the Mount. Here is a sample of what MSM/DNC mouthpieces will say about Obama's speech:

- "truly historic"

- "transcends politics"

- "a new era has begun"

- "I will always remember where I was when I heard THE SPEECH."

- "something to tell our grandchildren about"

- "my leg is tingling"

The analysis and commentary is already written. The decision has been made. Obama's acceptance speech will be great. You will love it and worship it and be inspired - or else.

But now the hard part begins. Obama's handlers at the MSM/DNC must actually write something for Obama that sounds remotely like those post-speech comments. You can bet that speechwriters from all over the world are devoting themselves to this task. They have a little more than two months and three weeks (assuming they have not been working on it already for the past few months) to fill the teleprompter with stirring words.

The speech may include a new laundry list of things to dream about. We may discover that Obama has been dreaming about the end to war (the teleprompter will avoid the phrase "peace in our time") or the restoration of America's reputation among foreign nations. He will dream about the end of bitter, divisive politics and the rebirth of prosperity, where Americans can afford to keep their homes without fear of foreclosure. He will dream about the end of fear generally.

Obama will dream about the restoration of all of those industrial jobs that we have lost (but it is doubtful that the teleprompter will contain the word "China"). The speechwriters may contrast the "nightmare" of global warming with Obama's dream of a clean environment. The speechwriters may contrast many such "nightmares" with Obama's dreams. The nightmare of war, the nightmare of those hurricanes that Bush sent to New Orleans, the nightmare of all of that domestic spying that Bush/Halliburton is doing to this country and its legitimate dissidents like Khalid Sheik Mohhamed. But the nightmare theme will be downplayed, as the speech must be positive and must promise the moon.

Obama will dream that every child will be a planned and wanted child, who will then have access to government health care, midnight basketball, targeted tax credits for tuition and the end to the fear of being gunned down in school.

----------------------------------------------
update - I almost forgot - Obama's dream will also include the end of lobbyists in American politics (except for NARAL, unions, the trial lawyers, environmentalists, etc. etc.).
end update
----------------------------------------------

These are among the many dreams that speechwriters are busy cobbling together for the Obama acceptance speech.

It will be fun that evening to watch the commentators feign genuine emotion at hearing the speech, the basic substance of which they will already know (or can easily predict).

Two and 1/2 months may not be enough, as the MSM/DNC has 45 years of hype to live up to.

previous - The race speech.

Quote of the day - Mark Steyn

By midcentury, when today’s millions of surplus boys will be entering middle age, India and China are expected to account for a combined 50 percent of global GDP. On present trends, they will be the most male-heavy societies that have ever existed. As I wrote in my book America Alone, unless China’s planning on becoming the first gay superpower since Sparta, what’s going to happen to all those excess men? As a general rule, large numbers of excitable lads who can’t get any action are not a recipe for societal stability. Unless the Japanese have invented amazingly lifelike sex robots by then (think Austin Powers’s “fembots”), we’re likely to be in a planet-wide rape epidemic and a world of globalized industrial-scale sex slavery.

Mark Steyn May 31, 2008