Sparks from the Anvil

a Barack Belt is a Ranking that is Redistributed, Never Earned

2009-11-23T23:24:00.000-08:00

Photo: President Obama and South Korean President Lee Myung-bak. Credit: EPA

Wow….a Barack belt. That’s just so many ways of awesome, right there.

Is there anything that this man can’t accomplish without ever having earned it, first?

A book deal, the presidency, a Nobel Peace Prize….now a black belt (hat tip to Patvann):

Anyway, there he was in Seoul, the last stop of his journey.

And out of the Seoul sky, President Lee Myung-bak hands over to the American leader a tae kwon do outfit. And then Lee, who practices tae kwon do himself, presents Obama with a coveted black belt.

After zero long years of study.

Apparently, President Obama does have some martial arts experience:

President Obama practiced Taekwondo for about four years with an American master in Chicago from 2001 while he was serving in the Illinois state senate. He obtained a green belt.

Well, he’s green alright. And it shows.

On a side note, my personal experience with martial arts doesn't make me put much stock in most belt ranking systems. In some schools, especially in the U.S. but I doubt exclusive to the U.S., running a martial arts school is about running a business; and belt promotions are handed out as easily as personal fitness certifications.

A black belt really doesn't signify much of anything beyond achieving a certain level of proficiency at the basics, a level of understanding and commitment; a black belt symbolizes a student who is now ready to engage in serious training. Really, it's another level of being a beginner.

Caption contest at Flopping Aces

Sunday Funnies

2009-11-22T00:02:00.001-08:00

More Sunday Funnies at Flopping Aces

Abuse photos of U.S. Soldiers Terrorizing Muslims Posted

2009-11-17T00:28:00.000-08:00

I know Bloviating Zeppelin chastised me about sending y'all elsewhere to read, rather than typing my stuff out over here. But I'm only mostly doing this with posts where the number of photos are just too time-consuming to upload in both places (like Sunday Funnies).

Anyway, I think this is a post worth taking a look at. You have to understand just how terribly our soldiers have mistreated Muslims. It will help you understand why Nidal Hasan did what he did.

Sunday Funnies

2009-11-15T07:56:00.000-08:00

More Sunday Funnies

Veterans Day

2009-11-11T00:36:00.001-08:00

Standing in awe, in the presence of giants...

Morgan Styke, 5, stands in a formation with her dad, Sgt. Jeremy Charlet, at a dismissal ceremony for his NG unit Monday at the Civic Center in New Ulm, Minn. The New Ulm-based 125th Field Artillary HQ and HQ Battery unit returned home after 22 months of active duty.
john Cross, Mankato (Minn.) Free Press, via AP

To all those who have served in our Armed Forces and to all those currently serving, a heartfelt

THANK YOU!!!

"It's not a crime to call al Qaeda, is it?"

2009-11-10T09:51:00.000-08:00

Clueless Chris Matthews:

"See - we have a problem," Matthews said. "How do we know when someone like Hasan is going to make his move and do we know he's an Islamist until he's made his move? He makes a phone call or whatever, according to Reuters right now. Apparently he tried to contact al Qaeda. Is that the point at which you say, ‘This guy is dangerous?' That's not a crime to call up al Qaeda, is it? Is it? I mean, where do you stop the guy?"

Here's a list of 34 clues for Chris Matthews.

I love it how Dr. Jasser is trying to get a word in, and the host just goes on and on....and on with his blathering ramble. Just unbelievable to watch this news guy tie himself up in knots, trying to rationalize and come to terms with the fact that Islam played an influential role in Nidal Hassan's murderous act of terrorism, and all the signs for taking preemptive action were present, yet ignored for fear of being branded racist/bigoted/intolerant/discriminating/etc. Thank you PC!

Incidentally, Zuhdi Jasser, who considers himself a devout Muslim, believes in the virtues of profiling:

If more Muslims had the same pro-active attitude as AIFD, rabidly attacking Islamism and political Islam rather than being apologists and deniers for it and playing the victim card, it would go a long way to quelling some of the anti-Islam sentiments. Instead, those Muslims who fear a backlash only encourage such backlash to occur every time they make excuses for Islamic terror and deny that their faith has any role to play in this.

Cross-posted at Flopping Aces

American Muslims Who are Americans First

2009-11-09T07:35:00.000-08:00

I think others within the Muslim community in America are not only being misled by Islamist imams who'd rather promote political Islam over spiritual Islam and speak on American foreign policy matters; but they are also being misled by the anti-Americanism and foreign policy criticism of leftists within our country. Muslim-American youth are going to the same schools and universities, being indoctrinated by the same liberal bullcrap schooling when it comes to American history and current events.

Nor are decent Muslims being served well by political correctness, anymore than the rest of us; political correctness is a disservice to all who seek clarity:

The question, though, is how representative of the wider American Muslim community is Dr. Jasser and other liberal Muslims? This is a question you cannot expect to learn from our media. Just this morning I opened the New York Times, and found on the op-ed page an editorial telling us not to draw prejudicial conclusions about the Fort Hood attack, and two columns characterizing the attack as a wake-up call to mental stress faced by soldiers in wartime -- which is interesting, because Hasan had never been in combat. When it comes to covering Islam in America, the news media is all about managing the story, not telling it in all its complications.

Sunday Funnies

2009-11-08T07:27:00.000-08:00

More at Flopping Aces

Wife of One of the Victims of Yesterday's Shootings was Commenting at FA

2009-11-06T12:21:00.000-08:00

I had set up a quick blogpost yesterday on the Fort Hood shooting, before heading off to work, so readers at Flopping Aces could talk about the days events. It turns out that one of the commenters was the wife of Spc. Jason Dean Hunt,1st Cavalry Unit 2-8 Infantry, stationed at the post. Married for only 2 months, the 22 year old soldier, who served 15 months in Iraq, was one of the 13 murdered on Thursday.

My thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends of the victims; and most of all with Jenn Hunt, who knew by the end of the day what she could not have ever fathomed happening at the beginning of it: The senseless loss of her husband who survived war-torn Iraq, only to be gunned down by a fellow soldier in the most unlikeliest of places, here at home.

"O"

2009-11-04T11:15:00.000-08:00

By Glenn Garvin McClatchy/Chicago Tribune News (Hat tip: NoisyRoom.net):

Imagine this. At a time of political turmoil, a charismatic, telegenic new leader arrives virtually out of nowhere. He offers a message of hope and reconciliation based on compromise and promises to marshal technology for a better future that will include universal health care.

The news media swoons in admiration -- one simpering anchorman even shouts at a reporter who asks a tough question: "Why don't you show some respect?!" The public is likewise smitten, except for a few nut cases who circulate batty rumors on the Internet about the leader's origins and intentions. The leader, undismayed, offers assurances that are soothing, if also just a tiny bit condescending: "Embracing change is never easy."

So, does that sound like anyone you know? Oh, wait -- did I mention the leader is secretly a totalitarian space lizard who's come here to eat us?

Welcome to ABC's "V," the most fascinating and bound to be the most controversial new show of the fall television season. Nominally a rousing sci-fi space opera about alien invaders bent on the conquest (and digestion) of all humanity, it's also a barbed commentary on Obamamania that will infuriate the president's supporters and delight his detractors.

"We're all so quick to jump on the bandwagon," observes one character. "A ride on the bandwagon, it sounds like fun. But before we get on, let us at least make sure it is sturdy."

I remember the old mini-series (not so much the subsequent tv series).

Apparently, the parallels to current events are striking enough, that the show is being "softened". By way of MidnightBlue, another columnist, Tom Jicha, notes:

The teasers running on ABC offer a hint of this. “They gave us hope. We gave them our trust.” Who does that bring to mind? Of course, the Visitors (hence the title), after promising things like universal health care and peace in a one world government, turn out to be totally evil. They attempt to seize control of the media, favoring those who don’t challenge them or ask probing questions about their real agenda, which turns out to be the annihilation of humanity. The heroes are everyday people, who form a grass roots resistance movement. Supposedly, the show is being slightly re-conceptualized to soften or remove events some might interpret as negative parallels to today.

"Subtle" is fine. But don't water down the political allegory!

Hopefully by "softening", it just means they changed the acting role of the lead lizard from a black male actor to that of a white female (Hillary?).

"V" for "Vendetta"? No! "V" for "Visitor"? Sorta....."V" for "Victory"? In 2010 and 2012, yes we will!

The show airs on ABC, Tuesday nights.

Trailer:

The first 9 minutes:

Check out OwntheWorld.com's trailer, "O".

Cross-posted at Flopping Aces

Obama's America

2009-11-01T17:41:00.000-08:00

Bloviating Zeppelin has a good article from Steve Huntley of the Chicago Sun Times. It concludes:

Is this the America Obama promised when he campaigned to end the cynical and divisive politics of the past?

Welcome to Obama Nation!

The dithering and Bush-blame is wearing thin.

Sunday Funnies

2009-11-01T00:14:00.001-07:00

More Sunday Funnies at Flopping Aces (and Halloween Funnies yesterday)

Happy Halloween!

2009-10-31T17:01:00.000-07:00

Just to drive my liberal friends batty:

Hat tip: Mike's America

Flying Imam Settlement Makes Us Less Safe

2009-10-28T23:17:00.000-07:00

The case of the Flying Imams reached a settlement; and it favors political correctness and misguided views on profiling and religious sensitivities over common sense.

Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which represented the imams, said the settlement is "a victory for civil rights."

"The six imams are pleased," Hooper said. "Their rights were maintained by the settlement."

This is no victory for civil rights. These imams gave reasonable cause for alarm, based as much upon behavioral profiling as much as religious and ethnic profiling. The settlement sends a message that favors stupidity over safety:

That lawsuit has now been settled out of court for an undisclosed amount — which might serve the defendants' short-term interests but carries a long-term price for air safety.

Consider what the pilot and police knew, or thought they knew, at the time: Passengers reported the men had been praying loudly in the terminal, chanting "Allah, Allah" and cursing U.S. policies in Iraq. Once on board, the men took separate seats in the cabin's front, middle and back. Two imams asked for seat belt extenders, which include a heavy metal buckle that could be used as a weapon, but left them on the floor. The pilot was told that three of the men had one-way tickets. A passenger who spoke Arabic said one imam expressed fundamentalist views. All told, the imams' actions appeared to be either intentionally provocative or clueless as to how others might perceive them in the aftermath of 9/11.

Yet, after a federal judge ruled in July that the defendants could be liable for civil damages and authorities lacked probable cause to detain the imams, the airline and airport operators settled the case last week, without admitting any wrongdoing.

While the settlement spared them the uncertainly and expense of a trial, it could have a chilling effect on the ability of airline crews and officials to protect passengers from a perceived threat. Pilots have to make quick, tough judgment calls: Take off with frightening suspicions unresolved or err on the side of caution. The only way to determine whether a real threat existed was to remove the clerics from the plane and investigate.

In this case, some of the initial suspicions proved unfounded. It turned out that the imams, who had been attending a religious conference in Minneapolis, didn't have one-way tickets and hadn't changed their seat assignments, as first thought. They denied making remarks about Saddam Hussein or U.S. involvement in Iraq. Even so, that was the information available to the captain when he had to make a "go/no go" decision. Airlines and airport authorities need flexibility to act in the interest of safety without worrying about being sued.

This case was especially troubling because the imams initially attempted to drag into their lawsuit an unknown number of passengers and airline employees who had raised concerns. They were dismissed as potential defendants just before Congress enacted a law to give immunity to people who report suspicious behavior.

Ethnic profiling is wrong and violates American values. "Flying while Muslim" is no more an offense than "driving while black," the common complaint of African Americans pulled over without credible cause. In this case, though, it was primarily the imams' behavior that led to their detention.

I would disagree that ethnic profiling is "the big evil" that it is made out to be. I think we've become overly sensitive on matters of race. There is a certain logic to racial, religious, and national profiling- to all types of profiling- that have nothing to do with racism, religious bigotry, or national prejudice.

If there were a terror cult whose immediate, recognizably identifiable trait was a love for wearing white t-shirts and an addiction to sporting Casio F91W watches, then it would make sense to pay attention to those wearing white t's and Casio F91Ws. It doesn't mean you believe every frikkin' person on planet earth wearing white t-shirts and a particular brand of watch is part of the terror cult; you'd even concede that the majority of people wearing white T's and those Casios are not terrorists. But they are a part of the list of traits you have every reason to be looking for in a member of the cult. It warrants further investigation.

I do however, agree with the conclusion of the article post:

It would be sad if this settlement prompted others to act out in hopes of cashing in. And it could be tragic if it prevented passengers from speaking up, or airline crews from acting, when they have reasonable suspicions.

And I also agree with Dr. Zuhdi Jasser:

countering Islamism and combating Islamist terrorism should be a greater public responsibility for the organized American Muslim community than the obsession with civil rights and victimization in which current Islamist organizations like CAIR engage, and says the credibility of the Muslim community suffers because groups such as CAIR, ISNA, and the North American Imams Federation deny the interplay between Islamism and terrorism

Cross-posted at Flopping Aces

Socialists: A ♥ Story

2009-10-28T13:31:00.000-07:00

Another celebrity romance falls to pieces:

By Guy Adams

Wednesday, 28 October 2009

He's crossed swords, over the years, with all the usual right-wing suspects, from car-makers to gun owners to Wall Street executives, health companies, and George W Bush. Now Michael Moore has picked a fight with a hero of the international left.

The documentary-maker has caused outrage among Hugo Chavez's supporters by using a late-night chat show to tell a humorous anecdote about meeting Venezuela's socialist President in a luxury hotel suite during the recent Venice Film Festival.

His two-minute yarn, told to ABC host Jimmy Kimmel earlier this month, seemed harmless enough. Moore alleged that he and his wife had been woken at 2am by a racket coming from Mr Chavez's room and ventured upstairs to ask him to quieten down.

"A bottle and a half of tequila later," Moore claimed, he had helped the President to write the speech he recently delivered to the UN. "At the very least, the guy owes me a year's worth of free gasoline!" he joked.

But there was a problem with the story. A big one. The meeting that Moore so confidently described never happened. And tequila certainly wasn't consumed: Mr Chavez is teetotal.

The duo did meet in Venice, but only in the daytime. Moore, in town to launch his new film, Capitalism, sat with Mr Chavez, who was there to promote Oliver Stone's documentary South of the Border, for three hours. The US press were excluded from the meeting.

Supporters of Mr Chavez now suspect that Moore fabricated his anecdote to gloss over the chummy nature of that encounter. They have taken to the airwaves in a Monty Python-style PR offensive, to accuse Moore of betraying a supposed comrade.

"Michael Moore is a most unfortunate coward," declared blogger Eva Golinger. She dubbed him "the worst of yellow journalists, a liar and storyteller on the big screen", and said his yarn was "offensive and insulting" and a clear sign of his "hypocrisy and lack of ethics". Franz JT Lee, a Marxist academic and blogger, claimed that the film-maker's comments were "part of the United States' 'war of ideas'" against Venezuela, and said similar "propaganda" led to the rise of the Nazis in 1930s Germany.

They didn't just spark outrage on the left, though. Critics of Mr Chavez have called the level of invective against Moore – some of which was aired on Venezuelan state television – disproportionate. They believe his anecdote was intended to be a harmless, tongue-in-cheek joke. The socialist movement failed to grasp the nuances of his intended irony, they claim, because they lack a sense of humour.

Quite what the affair says about the integrity of Moore and his documentaries remains to be seen. The film-maker has declined to comment or apologise for misleading TV viewers, save for a brief message posted on his Twitter feed on Monday: "For the record, the President of Venezuela doesn't drink."

To go along with this break up, Moore's office responded to Guy Adams' article. Below is the following exchange of emails, according to Mr. Adams (to be updated, I'm sure):

Less than hour after that article had appeared on our internet site, I got an email from Mr Moore’s office. It is printed below (with email addresses and phone numbers redacted). My reply to that email is also carried in full.

"Hamdan, Basel" *****@michaelmoore.com 28/10/2009 00:49
To: "g.adams@independent.co.uk"
cc: "Weinrib, Eric"
Subject: Michael Moore

Hi Guy,

I’m Basel Hamdan, a producer in Michael Moore’s office. There is something inaccurate in the below piece:

The long meeting did, in fact, occur extremely late in the evening. I’m not sure who told you otherwise (daytime), but they are wrong. I was present, as was my colleague Eric Weinrib (cc’d).

Could you please correct the piece, if not retract it, as you use the time of day to question the veracity of the story. Please get back to me soon – we don’t want this falsehood to spread…

Thanks,
Basel Hamdan

---------------------
Basel Hamdan
Dog Eat Dog Films
Producer
231-922-**** X240

Guy Adams/Editorial/Independent News and Media 28/10/2009 02:02
To: "Hamdan, Basel"
cc: "Weinrib, Eric"
Subject: Re: Michael Moore

Hi Basel

It feels a little rich to be castigated for a very minor inaccuracy, given the extent of the whopper that Mr Moore has apparently told!

I will, however, happily clarify that element of the piece - on one condition.

In the interest of giving our readers a full and accurate picture of what actually went on, I would like either Mr Moore, or someone in his office, to offer an on-the-record explanation as to why he went on the Jimmy Kimmel show and claimed to have both drunk tequila with Mr Chavez and written a significant portion of his speech to the UN.

Provided you're able to do this (and it would surely represent staggering hypocrisy if you were not) then I will of course make the correction you desire.

Yours
Guy

Guy Adams
Los Angeles Correspondent
The Independent

+1 310 396 ****

So, what happened? Well it may not surprise you to hear that I am still waiting for Mr Moore to agree to my request.

He is, we must therefore assume, happy to broadcast what appear to be substantive lies about someone, without ever explaining, apologizing or issuing proper clarification.

However journalists who write about him are expected to immediately correct any slight - and, I might add, alleged - inaccuracy in their piece, however minor. They are even invited to retract the entire article.

Mr Moore expects, therefore, to apply one rule for himself, and another for everyone else. This is surely the essence of hypocrisy. I can't speak for what this tells us about his journalistic technique, or the reliability of his very moving documentaries. But (at risk of sounding like a tosser) I fear that it speaks volumes about his sense of entitlement.

UPDATE - Wednesday, 2pm GMT

Mr Moore's office have emailed with what journalists among you will recognise as the "Alastair Campbell" response...

"Hamdan, Basel" *****@michaelmoor
Subject RE: Michael Moore

You are clearly not a journalist, so we will take the matter up with your editors.

Oh, that is just sooo rich!

Cross-posted at Flopping Aces

Mood of the Country

2009-10-27T10:06:00.000-07:00

Obama moving the country further right? Are more Americans identifying themselves as conservative?

Dithering Democrats...

2009-10-27T09:56:00.000-07:00

This is the moment....when Senator John Kerry, who served in Vietnam and currently chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Monday that he opposes sending more troops unless conditions on the ground improve in Afghanistan. I'd say that's the basic gist of it. I think James Dobbins states it very well:

James Dobbins, who served as a special envoy to Afghanistan during the Bush administration and is now at the Rand Corp., said that Kerry had made many "sensible" points in the speech but that he found the conclusion unsatisfactory.

"The argument seems to be that we're not going to send more troops until we start winning -- which seems to me to be an inversion of the usual sequence," he said.

This is the moment....when on the same day, Nobel Peace Laureate, President Obama, gave an address at the Naval Air Station Jacksonville, in part to offer a statement on the 14 Americans who lost their lives in two helicopter crashes in Afghanistan.

"I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm's way. I won't risk your lives unless it is absolutely necessary," Obama said to loud applause. "And if it is necessary, we will back you up to the hilt."

The problem I have with this, is that we already have troops in theater in "harm's way", in what he claimed as a "war of necessity"; and his top general whom he had chosen is requesting reinforcements. And the dithering Democrat appears to want to vote "present".

This is the moment, when Senator John Kerry says NATO allies and the UN need to step up and do more to support the efforts in Afghanistan. I agree; and so does NATO, which is backing Gen. McChrystal's request for the counterinsurgency approach and troop increase:

America's NATO allies signaled broad support Friday for an ambitious counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan, adding to the momentum building for a substantial U.S. troop increase.

NATO defense ministers meeting in Bratislava, Slovakia, endorsed the strategy put forward by Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the U.S. and allied commander. The alliance rejected competing proposals to narrow the military mission to fighting the remnants of Al Qaeda.

This is the moment when Senator Kerry also said:

"Achieving our goals does not require us to build a flawless democracy, defeat the Taliban in every corner of the country, or create a modern economy-what we're talking about is "good-enough" governance, basic sustainable economic development, and Afghan security forces capable enough that we can drawdown our forces,"

Can anyone say "duh"? Who has ever said we were attempting to build a western-style democracy that looks like our own? Or that we would spend blood and treasure on Afghanistan until its opium fields were magically transformed into pink daffodils, fuzzy bunnies, and cotton candy clouds floating overhead?

"given the balance of our strategic interests, it should give serious pause to military and civilian strategists alike that the current balance of our expenditure between Afghanistan, where there is virtually no Al Qaeda, and Pakistan, where there is, tallies thirty-to-one."

Here's failed presidential candidate John " I served in Vietnam" Kerry, September 14, 2006 at Howard University:

The central front in the war on terror is still in Afghanistan, but this Administration treats it like a sideshow. When did denying al Qaeda a terrorist stronghold in Afghanistan stop being an urgent American priority? How did we end up with seven times more troops in Iraq – which even the Administration now admits had nothing to do with 9/11 – than in Afghanistan, where the killers still roam free? Why is the Administration sending thousands more American troops into the crossfire of a civil war in Iraq but we can’t find any more troops to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan?

With Pakistan in the midst of cleaning out the hornets nest of Taliban fighters in southern Waziristan, I'd say now would be an ideal time for sending more troops to deny the Taliban any safe havens into Afghanistan and to send out a message that America is resolute in its commitment to see things through.

In regards to the claim of no al Qaeda in Afghanistan, after making big campaign issues out of Afghanistan as being "the good and necessary war" that we had to return to, there might be a minimal al Qaeda footprint there today; but should the Taliban regain power in Afghanistan, is there really any question that the Taliban today is inextricably linked to al Qaeda, and wouldn't provide it safe haven and continued alliance?

While the Afghan Taliban share many of al-Qaida's violent goals, including the defeat of the Kabul government, Barrett said, they are more regionally focused and do not hold the same global jihadist views.

Some U.S. military and intelligence officials, however, warn against underestimating the relationship between al-Qaida and the Afghan Taliban.

While the Taliban and al-Qaida may have differences, senior counterterrorism officials say that al-Qaida still has strong historical ties to Mullah Omar and that is not likely to go away. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence.

Should we cut deals with irreconcilables?

President Barack Obama's review of strategy in Afghanistan means America will end up making a deal with the Taliban, and tolerating warlords, to end the fighting.

"Moderate Taliban" is rather oxymoronic, isn't it? And wasn't it the moment of the third presidential debate in 2004 that John frickin' Kerry said the following:

When the president had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, he took his focus off of them, outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, and Osama bin Laden escaped.

So it wasn't ok to do business with Afghan warlords then, but today it's a practical solution?

The Taliban may not have their sights set on waging a global jihad war; but they are clearly one of those who "If they're not with us, they're with the terrorists". An al Qaeda without safe haven is an al Qaeda made impotent.

Thomas Joscelyn and Bill Roggio also warn against the narrower approach that seeks to draw distinctions between al Qaeda and its allies:

if the US and its coalition partners prevent the Taliban and its allies from returning to power in Afghanistan, then this will necessarily weaken al Qaeda’s allies and, in turn, al Qaeda itself. In the military’s view, al Qaeda is not a standalone problem but instead one head of several on a jihadist hydra.

In the piece below, we take a look at the insurgency in Afghanistan more closely – from al Qaeda’s perspective. We do not think that a shift to a predominately counterterrorism campaign utilizing airstrikes and the like is sufficient to beat back the threat to America’s interests. In fact, we argue that such thinking is rooted in a dangerous ignorance of al Qaeda and our terrorist enemies. Al Qaeda was never a self-contained problem that could be defeated by neutralizing select individuals – even though capturing or killing senior al Qaeda members surely does substantially weaken the network.

Instead, Osama bin Laden and his cohorts deliberately fashioned their organization to be the tip of a much longer jihadist spear.

The previous administration has been criticized by the current one for "taking its eyes off the ball" and diverting resources to Iraq "which didn't attack us" and failing to catch bin Laden.

The current administration can be criticized for reneging on its campaign warhawk stance in a desire to divert resources from Afghanistan to pursue funding and public support for its domestic agenda of "nation rebuilding". Shoveling socialism down the throat of "that region of the world" that didn't attack us and had nothing to do with 9/11. As Steve Schippert puts it:

Though I've been screaming this in my own mind for weeks and weeks, actually months, maybe I ahve not said it out loud enough. Because it has a 95% probability of accuracy, with a 5% chance pub pressuer can change Obama's mind ---

We will not see an Afghan Surge (TM) for one simple, yet critical, reason. Do you all recall, post-stimulus, the Obama budget forcasts that were eventually blown out of the water by both the CBO and reality? Do you remember whaere most of the budgetary "savings" came from?

That's right, a draw down in Iraq. Merely shifting these resources in number and cost to Afghanistan will have an even more devastating impact on the already laughable Obama budget projections, and materialize right in the heat of 2010 election cycles. Deficit beyond imagination and so far off Obama forecasts as to appear wholly mindless. the 2010 elections would be an even hotter Hell to pay for Dems supporting the O nonsense.

This was the reality that I saw from the beginning: That Afghanistan will be starved of resources rather than fed them as Candidate Obama assured in his pledges to fight "the real war" in Afghanistan.

It is domestic budget - NOT intellectually considered counterinsurgency v. counterterrorism strategies - which will dictate how this White House conducts the war in Afghanistan.

The trick for them is how to sell not shifting resources from Iraq to Afghanistan as brilliance rather than the domestic policy trickery that it really is.

Our enemies can take heart: This President and his team have greater and more aggressive designs on the American society and its free market-based economy than on them, the jihadists who would slit our throats quite literally given opportunity.

And this budget elephant in the Situation Room is what makes me so angry when folks consider Biden/Levin/Kerry options as intellectually vetted counterterrorism alternatives.

Bull. Look at the budget. Someone go back to spring '09 and dig up the Iraq Drawdown accounting in O's budget as the source for freed funds. Fighting the enemy in Afghanistan? It was bullshit on the campaign trail, and its bullshit now. Iraq Drawdown funds (created or saved) were never - EVER - accounted for as shifting to another theater of war, "real" or imagined. It was shifted to redistribution schemes here at home.

Go ahead. Prove me wrong. Please. Someone.

For John Kerry, the 2004 presidential candidate who served in Vietnam, he has taken all the wrong lessons he learned from that conflict, and is trying to apply them to this conflict. John Kerry's Afghanistan plan is the same as his Vietnam plan.

For 2009 Nobel Peace Laureate, President Obama, Afghanistan is a diversion; a distraction. I don't think there's any question that Democrats would love nothing better than to return us back to the glory days when Overseas Contingency Operations were largely a law enforcement issue, and we suffered the drip, drip, drip of "small-scale" terror attacks.

This is the moment...

Also blogging:
Brutally Honest
The Radio Patriot

Cross-posted at Flopping Aces

Those evil obscene profit health insurers

2009-10-26T03:33:00.000-07:00

A Democrat boogieman myth. AP finally reports (albeit on a Sunday) on the fact that health insurers have posted a 2.2% profit margin, placing them 35th on Fortune 500's list of top industries. Contrast this to the 14% that trial lawyers have made:

In comparison, trial lawyers showed a profit margin of almost 14%, six times that of the health insurers. Do Democrats scream about villainous trial lawyers and windfall profits taxes on those that exploit the legal system and drive prices up across all American industries? No, because the trial lawyers share a good portion of their filthy lucre with Democrats.

Sunday Funnies

2009-10-25T06:21:00.000-07:00

More at Flopping Aces

The Decider and the Ditherer

2009-10-23T09:54:00.000-07:00

Bookworm Room offers a study in contrast

The Gitmo Music Awards

2009-10-22T12:36:00.000-07:00

And the winner for most torturous sounds to a jihadi's ears is.....

Was the theme to "Sesame Street" really played to torture prisoners held at Guantanamo and other detention camps? What about Don McLean's "American Pie"? Or the Meow Mix jingle? Bruce Springsteen's "Born in the U.S.A."?

A high-profile coalition of artists -- including the members of Pearl Jam, R.E.M. and the Roots -- demanded Thursday that the government release the names of all the songs that were blasted since 2002 at prisoners for hours, even days, on end, to try to coerce cooperation or as a method of punishment.

Dozens of musicians endorsed a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the National Security Archive, a Washington-based independent research institute, seeking the declassification of all records related to the use of music in interrogation practices. The artists also launched a formal protest of the use of music in conjunction with torture.

"I think every musician should be involved," said Rosanne Cash in a telephone interview Wednesday. "It seems so obvious. Music should never be used as torture." The singer-songwriter (and daughter of Johnny Cash) said she reacted with "absolute disgust" when she heard of the practice. "It's beyond the pale. It's hard to even think about."

Other musicians, including Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails and Tom Morello, formerly of the band Rage Against the Machine, also expressed outrage.

"The fact that music I helped create was used in crimes against humanity sickens me," Morello said in a statement. "We need to end torture and close Guantanamo now."

I agree Morello's music is sickening. But do these moralizers understand what real torture is? And that Guantanamo today is the world's most humane detention facility, thanks in no small part to their efforts in making it the most heavily scrutinized?

Admittedly, in its early days, Guantanamo had its share of problems. But that doesn't hold true, today; nor has it been the case for quite some time, thanks to media sensationalism and world opinion outrage that did shed some light on some problems; and put the facility under a microscope.

Cusick, the NYU music professor, has interviewed a number of former detainees about their experiences and says the music they most often described hearing was heavy metal, rap and country. Specific songs mentioned include Queen's "We Are the Champions" and "March of the Pigs" by industrial rockers Nine Inch Nails.

Another former prisoner, Binyam Mohamed, told Human Rights Watch that he had been forced to listen to the rapper Eminem's song "The Real Slim Shady" for 20 days.

Joining in the call for the release of information were dozens of musicians, including David Byrne, Billy Bragg, Steve Earle, Jackson Browne, Bonnie Raitt and T-Bone Burnett.

For now, the artists are trying to find out what songs were played. They say they will explore legal options once the songs are known. It is unclear what, if any, recourse they may have.

Darth Cheney vs. Obama "The One" Kenobi

2009-10-22T12:33:00.000-07:00

Give 'im both barrels, Mr. Vice President!

Democrats Fighting the "Good Fight", for "Truth, Justice, and the American Way"!

2009-10-21T10:37:00.000-07:00

"it is a plain fact of American political life today that Democrats are completely dependent on black votes. The day African Americans stop casting 80 to 95 percent of their votes for Democrats is the day Democrats stop winning elections."
- Mona Charen, Do-Gooders

In the Age of Obama, racism has no place in America. Therefore, if a white girl wins a beauty pageant at a historically all-black university, it will be celebrated as a historic first; or, not made a big deal of at all, since she would have been judged upon the merits of her beauty, regardless of the color of her skin. As the previous pageant winner, Patrece Parson, expresses it, she was

‘very shocked’ at the judge’s choice of a white woman, adding: ‘We’ve never had one before’.

Hmmm....I wonder if she had the same "very shocked" reaction at the election of Barack Obama to the highest office in the land, as "we've never had one before" [i.e., a "black" president].

In Kinston North Carolina, in Barack's America, comes news of the following:

Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party.

The Justice Department's ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their "candidates of choice" - identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black.

The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters' right to elect the candidates they want.

Ok, not only is this condescending toward black voters, not only is it politically partisan, but it is also absolutely a racist position and attitude for the Justice Department to hold. It's an outrage! So if most black politicians happen to be in the Democratic Party, voters need to be made aware that the skin color of who they elect is important, as well as party affiliation? What about an individual candidate's ideas and policy position?

It is a myth that the Republican Party has a greater history of racism. And given the race-baiting, race-profiteering, and racial identity politics that are perpetuated by the Democratic Party, I'd say the Democrats to this day are the ones with a prevalence of racist attitudes. And it is also based upon holding onto political power:

Whites can migrate from party to party; but blacks are required to register themselves on the Democrat plantation? And if an American town votes to do away with party affiliation in local elections, blacks are basically too dumb not to vote for the candidate who they can identify with ideologically and policy-wise? They have to know who is a Democrat? How condescendingly racist.

Stephen LaRoque, a former Republican state lawmaker who led the drive to end partisan local elections, called the Justice Department's decision "racial as well as partisan."

"On top of that, you have an unelected bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., overturning a valid election," he said. "That is un-American."

The decision, made by the same Justice official who ordered the dismissal of a voting rights case against members of the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia, has irritated other locals as well. They bristle at federal interference in this city of nearly 23,000 people, two-thirds of whom are black.

In interviews in sleepy downtown Kinston - a place best known as a road sign on the way to the Carolina beaches - residents said partisan voting is largely unimportant because people are personally acquainted with their elected officials and are familiar with their views.

"To begin with, 'nonpartisan elections' is a misconceived and deceiving statement because even though no party affiliation shows up on a ballot form, candidates still adhere to certain ideologies and people understand that, and are going to identify with who they feel has their best interest at heart," said William Cooke, president of the Kinston/Lenoir County branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Mr. Cooke said his group does not take a position on this issue and would not disclose his personal stance, but expressed skepticism about the Justice Department's involvement.

Others noted the absurdity of partisan elections since Kinston is essentially a one-party city anyway; no one among more than a half-dozen city officials and local residents was able to recall a Republican winning office here.

Justice Department spokesman Alejandro Miyar denied that the decision was intended to help the Democratic Party. He said the ruling was based on "what the facts are in a particular jurisdiction" and how it affects blacks' ability to elect the candidates they favor.

"The determination of who is a 'candidate of choice' for any group of voters in a given jurisdiction is based on an analysis of the electoral behavior of those voters within a particular jurisdiction," he said.

Critics on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights are not so sure. "The Voting Rights Act is supposed to protect against situations when black voters are locked out because of racism," said Abigail Thernstrom, a Republican appointee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. "There is no entitlement to elect a candidate they prefer on the assumption that all black voters prefer Democratic candidates."

So now instead of being "locked out because of racism", they are being "locked in", on account of racism and a desire to retain political power over "the black vote".

Welcome to Barack's America: An Obamanation, indeed.

Cross-posted at Flopping Aces

White House Declares War!

2009-10-20T02:06:00.000-07:00

"The biggest bunch of crybabies" has launched a counterinsurgency campaign against FOX News.

If FOX News had aired a White House infomercial on healthcare, would the White House have declared war on FOX News?

If Chris Wallace had decided FOX too would run a factcheck on a comedy skit, would FOX be in the White House cross-hairs?

If FOX had joined the rest of the MSM club in ignoring the Van Jones story and not aired the undercover videos of ACORN,

Perhaps if Sean Hannity got a thrill up his leg over Obamamania, then The One would not have snubbed FOX from inclusion in his 5 interview-weekend blitzkrieg.

But no...instead, FOX does a good deal of what the other star-struck networks have failed to do: Provide a critical look at the Obama Presidency and act in the role of a watchdog press.

62% say that criticism of political leaders is worthwhile because it keeps those leaders from doing things that should not be done, while 22% say such criticism keeps leaders from doing their jobs.

What if the MSM gave proper coverage vetting of candidate Obama in '08?

Posts to reflect upon:

UPDATED! The Ties That Bind…The NYT’s Kills Story To Protect Obama Before Election

VDH: MSM Unprofessional Lobbying For Obama Will, In A Decade Or Two, Become Case Study In Graduate Classes On Journalistic Ethics

Mark Halperin: MSM Bias For Obama Worst In Recent History

The WaPo Tries To Buy Back Some Of It’s Credibility

The Suppression Of Bad Obama News By Our MSM

Where Did the Public Get the Idea that McCain is Running A Negative Campaign?

Excellent commentary by Jim Pinkerton:

Transcript:

what is so striking to me about this is the number of liberal journalists or liberal observers who have said the white house is making a huge mistakes not just on the politics of it, but the first amendment issues.

John nichols at the nation magazine and camille polly at salon and megan garner columbia review, on and on and on saying to the white house this is a bad thing to do just on the constitutional principle of it let alone the politics.
~~~

I think what you just heard from jim is more typical people say, thinking back to president nixon and his attitude towards the new york times and "the washington post," that no matter which side of the political aisle you're on, to see people in power acting in this way really invites corruption, corruption of a kind that would, you know, impede our democratic principle, our democratic values.

Former Clinton aide David Gergen:

"It's a very risky strategy and not one that I would advocate. If you're going to get very personal with the media, you're going to find that the animosities are just going to deepen. And you're going to find that you sort of almost draw viewers and readers to the people you are attacking. You build them up in some ways. You give the stature. The press always has the last barrel of ink."

David Carr- no friend to FOX- in the NYTimes:

Even though almost all the critiques contained a kernel of truth, in each instance the folks who had the barrels of ink, and now pixels, seemed to come out ahead. So far, the only winner in this latest dispute seems to be Fox News. Ratings are up 20 percent this year, and the network basked for a week in the antagonism of a sitting president

It could all be written off as a sideshow, but it may present a genuine problem for Mr. Obama, who took great pains during the campaign to depict himself as being above the fray of over-heated partisan squabbling. In his victory speech he promised, “I will listen to you, especially when we disagree.”

Or not. Under the direction of Ms. Dunn, the administration has begun to punch back. On Sept. 20, the president visited all the Sunday talk shows save Fox News’, with Ms. Dunn explaining that Fox was not a legitimate news organization, but a “wing of the Republican Party.”

The one weapon all administrations can wield is access, and the White House, making it clear that it will use that leverage going forward, informed Fox News not to expect to bump knees with the president until 2010. But Fox News, as many have pointed out, is not in the access business. They are in the agitation business. And the administration, by deploying official resources against a troublesome media organization, seems to have brought a knife to a gunfight.

Curt linked yesterday to The Nation. Even those diversity of free speech-lovers from the left are floored by the White House strategy to go after a media outlet (perhaps taking notes from Hugo Chavez who muses Obama may end up further to the left than himself?).

An administration that won the White House with an almost always on-message campaign and generally friendly coverage from old and new media is now frustrated by its inability to control the debate and get the coverage it wants.

President Bush was supposedly the one accused of stifling dissent and free speech. But here, we have a thin-skinned, intolerant White House that has declared open war against a major news outlet. They may have found their sacrificial lamb in the form of Anita Dunn:

Dunn brags that the Obama campaign controlled the media rather than allowing the press to determine the narrative.

Transcript

DUNN: So it was very much we controlled it, as opposed to the press controlled it. And it did not always make us popular with the press. But we increasingly by the general election very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn't absolutely control.

That certainly explains why the Obama White House is so hostile toward FOX News.

The White House fall gal and attack dog had company over the weekend:

White House officials to appear on Fox News
October 19, 2009
The Front Page
"White House officials to appear on Fox News"
Krissah Thompson, Washington Post, October 19, 2009

"Finding a new model for news reporting"
Leonard Downie Jr. and Michael Schudson, Washington Post, October 19, 2009

"New Age Journalism"
Howard Kurtz, Washington Post, October 19, 2009

"Northwestern University's Medill Innocence Project is in a standoff with Cook County prosecutors"
Jeff Long, Chicago Tribune, October 19, 2009

"Back on the frontline but without a flak jacket"
Stephen Foley, The Independent, October 19, 2009

"Obama aides say Fox News should not be treated as a news organization"
Ann Sanner, Chicago Tribune, October 18, 2009

"A Newsroom Subsidized? Minds Reel "
David Carr, New York Times, October 18, 2009

David Axelrod on ABC This Week:

Axelrod defended Anita Dunn’s comments about Fox News saying “They’re not really a news station” and “it’s really not news, it’s pushing a point of view.” Axelrod went on to say “other news organizations, should not treat them that way.”

Rahm Emanuel on CNN:

it is not a news organization so much as it has a perspective. And that's a different take. And more importantly, does not have -- the CNNs and others in the world basically be led and following FOX, as if that -- what they're trying to do is a legitimate news organization in the sense of both sides and a sense of value (ph) opinion.

But let me say this. While it's clear what the White House and what Anita said, I mean, the concentration at the White House isn't about what FOX is doing.

And even White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs can't avoid weighing in:

Q: Chris Wallace called you the "biggest bunch of crybabies I've seen in 30 years …

GIBBS: I thought it was "whiners."

Q: … in Washington." That was in the New York Times. What's your reaction?

GIBBS: I haven't cried yet. (Laughter)

Rather than allow me even one follow-up – as he had done to a dozen other reporters – Gibbs went to another reporter on another subject. After that three-part exchange, I called out my second question:

Q: The Times also quoted the president – (laughter) – as saying, "I've got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration." My question: Did he mean to say one television network, or was he informing this opinion watching one station, a Fox network station?

GIBBS: I think the president was clear in what he said, and I think based on your question you understand the answer too.

Another reporter followed-up by asking:

Q: How do you respond to criticism that the administration's posture toward Fox News constitutes some sort of bullying or chilling of speech?

GIBBS: We get questions throughout the day, seven days a week, about policies here at the White House, questions that you guys want answered. And our goal is to make sure you have the facts to do your job. That's what we do for everybody.

Q: Well, specifically, the comments by Anita Dunn about Fox not being a real news network.

GIBBS: I have watched many stories on that network that I've found not to be true. I think everybody in this room has been likely on the other side of a phone conversation with me when I've had issues with your stories. I don't think that's new.

Despite Gibbs' claim "That's what we do for everybody," the number of reporters at every Gibbs press briefing who are not recognized for questions continues to average 40 percent, while he gives multiple question time to a chosen few. And the Obama White House war on Fox News continues unabated.

Dunn went on CNN to announce:

"Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party."

Tony Blankley, who once served as press secretary to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, noted on CNN:

"Going after a news organization, in my experience, is always a loser. They have a big audience. And Fox has an audience of not just conservatives – they've got liberals and moderates who watch too. They've got Obama supporters who are watching. So it's a temptation for a politician, but it needs to be resisted."

Last week, Fox News was informed by the White House that Obama would grant no interviews to the channel until at least 2010. The edict was relayed to Fox News by a White House official after Dunn discussed the channel at a meeting with Gibbs and other Obama advisers.

Even that left-wing journal The Nation ridiculed the Obama press operation for turning Obama into "whiner in chief."

And then there's this beauty of an exchange between Jake Tapper and Gibbs (Hat tip: Radio Patriot):

Tapper: It’s escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations “not a news organization” and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one –

(Crosstalk)

Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.

Tapper: But that’s a pretty sweeping declaration that they are “not a news organization.” How are they any different from, say –

Gibbs: ABC -

Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?

Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o’clock tonight. Or 5 o’clock this afternoon.

Tapper: I’m not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I’m talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a “news organization” -- why is that appropriate for the White House to say?

Gibbs: That’s our opinion.

Pass me the popcorn!
Cross-posted at Flopping Aces

Sunday Funnies

2009-10-18T07:32:00.000-07:00

More at Flopping Aces