Red State

IF THE GOP, ALONG WITH THEIR RECENT LAWSUIT FILING INVESTIGATING CAMPAIGN FUND IRREGULARITY IN THE BHO CAMPAIGN, DOESN'T ALSO ADDRESS THE BLATANT AND RAMPANT VOTER REGISTRATION FRAUD IN THE FIVE 'UP FOR GRABS' STATES AND ISN'T DONE SO WITH IMMANENCY. THERE WILL BE A MUCH LARGER WAR TO ADDRESS IN AMERICA.. A VERY REAL AND VERY VALID RACIAL WAR! THIS WAR WILL BE DOWNPLAYED AS JUST ANOTHER SOUR GRAPES ATTEMPT BY 'THE WHITE RIGHT', BUT TAKE HEED- IT WILL BE MORE THAN JUST THE AVERAGE CAUCASIAN CONSERVATIVE CITIZEN.. MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS WILL RISE UP LIKE WE HAVE NEVER SEEN BEFORE.

MAKE NOTE, THAT THE TENTATIVE AND UPCOMING 'HELL -WILL- BE- HOSTING- A RACIAL ASPERSIONS COCKTAIL PARTY' SCHEDULED TO IMMEDIATELY FOLLOW NEXT MONTHS ELECTION EARTHQUAKE,WILL MAKE THE POST 2000 FLORIDA ELECTION FIASCO LOOK AND FEEL LIKE A GARDEN TEA PARTY!!

I RECALL THE FORMER SOVIET DICTATOR NIKITA KHRUSHCHEV AND HIS PERHAPS MOST MEMORABLE ANTI-AMERICAN STATEMENT, WHEN HE DECLARED THAT : "THE U.S. WILL NOT FALL AT THE HANDS OF HER ENEMIES, FOR IT WILL BE DESTROYED FROM WITHIN"

HOW THAT SENDS A CHILLING JOLT UPON MY AMERICAN SPINE.

IS IT COINCIDENCE THAT RADICAL AND RACIAL ARE JUST ONE LETTER APART?

STAY TUNED...

I don't mind when people disagree with me. I really don't. Diversity of opinion is what makes this country great, one can learn a great deal from their ideological opponents even if it is just trying to figure out how they think. However dreary of hyperbolic their diagnosis of the ills of our country are, I can live with people who have a liberal opinion. In fact, I appreciate some true liberals because of their openness to other ideas, moreso than even some of my fellow conservatives. What I and many other conservatives cannot stand is liberals insistence that conservatives are, among other things, mean, stupid, reckless, racist and just all around terrible people. In all reality, I care very little what people think and politics is not something that is brought up in my regular, everyday conversation with people, but I have had a few encounters with people that have convinced me that liberals believe that conservatives are idiots.

I work at the Apple Store and I going to get a woman's repair from the back room, I saw her last name on her ID and it was the same as a Republican political operative that I know. I asked the woman if she was related to this man and she asked about who he is. I told her that he is a political operative, trying to keep it as general as possible. She asked me what party is was for and I told her he worked for the Republican party. She had a panic attack inside the store, "Oh my God, are you serious?" she asked. Somehow we talked about news and she asked me what kind of news I watched, already feeling a bit skiddish because #1) This woman was completely unbalanced and having panic attacks over Republicans #2) because I was at work and the conversation was already too unappropriate, I declined to tell her I usually watch Fox News, CNBC, and from time to time CNN and just said, "All of them." She told me "You better not watch Fox News, that's just all lies." The woman went on to belittle conservatives in general saying, "I just don't understand them, how can they be so stupid."

I attended a community college my first year and walked up to an unmarked voter registration table, I asked if I could could register and a nice, middle aged woman handed me the form. "I hope you'll be registering as a Democrat" she slipped pass me. "No," I told her, "I'm registering as a Republican" ( I have since registered as an Independent and then back to Republican as of a few weeks ago.) She gasped and literally asked me "How could you?" I stated matter of factly, "Because I believe in conservative principles, and right now the Republican Party is where conservativism is thriving." She looked at me with utter disdain, "Republicans are all warmongering racists, you realize that don't you?" I wasn't at work this time, "That's a lie and you know it." I told her plainly, "Shame on you for intimidating students like this, you should be ashamed of yourself." I handed her the completed form. She rolled her eyes and I was able to vote, so I assume that means she turned it in.

Now as I watch the media's reaction to Gov. Sarah Palin, they're not only critical of her they are making an effort to belittle her, to make her look stupid, to loop the worst of her moments and completely ignore Barack Obama and Joe Bidens misstatements and gaffes. It has really made me sick and tired of liberalism and gave me an epiphany, I'm not one of those "I'm not supporting McCain" based on ideological purity people, I am voting for McCain, enthusiasticly with high hopes that he and the Gov. of Alaska can pull through on this, but maybe we win by loosing this time around.

The Democrats are so arrogant, so full of confidence that their plans for wealth redistribution, socialized medicine, emotion laden reactions (they call it "sensitivity") to national security emergencies. Let Obama, Biden, Pelosi and Reid take the reigns for two years, let the country see what this party is all about. We'll win by loosing in '08, because after these four have had a go at our country (just look how swimmingly things have been these last two years since they have taken over Congress) the Democrats are going to have a hard time ever winning any sort of election for a very, very long time.

Don't get me wrong, for the sake of our country, I want us to succeed, I want McCain to win. But Americans have forgotten what it's like to have a liberal Democratic president, (Bill Clinton was hardly a "liberal" where it counted, the pocket book) it might be good to remind them what they are all about and what they really think of them. There's nothing better than a bunch of puffed up arrogant twads being toppeled by the very people they thought they were better than. Part of me wants to see this happen as well.

Please welcome Pete to the front page. Pete is a veteran of Iraq and the Chairman of the nonpartisan Vets for Freedom. — Erick

Today, Vets for Freedom is starting a $2.2 million ad campaign to pressure Barack Obama to officially recognize our military's progress in Iraq (he can recognize our success by supporting S.R. 636), highlighting along the way his neglect of military matters in the United States Senate.  Here is the ad we're running:

Barack Obama's history on matters directly affecting our military men and women is a matter of public record.  As you can see, in the ad we highlighted Sen. Obama's vote against emergency funding for our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2007; he preferred to hold out for a timeline in Iraq that would have constrained our troops from successfully carrying out the objectives of the surge.  We also drew attention to the fact that Barack Obama has not held a single hearing on Afghanistan, despite being the chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on European Affairs, which has jurisdiction over NATO activities.

 The ad buy is focused on California, the state with the greatest population of veterans, and to date, no other 501c4, 527 or other outside group has committed these kinds of resources to any one state.

Some of the cheerleaders of defeat have accused us of playing partisan electoral politics, despite our support for pro-victory veterans on both sides of the aisle.  That is not the intent of this ad or of Vets for Freedom in general; our goal with this ad and our previous ads is straightforward: to educate the American public about the importance of achieving success in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Please join us and tell Barack Obama to make support for our troops a priority.

A lot of people dont realize it but when America declared independence from Britain we lost protection of the British Navy. Then pirates in Africa began to attack American shipping in the Mediterranean and holding Americans as slave labor. American soldiers were being beheaded 200 years ago in 2 viscious wars. We werent born a world power we were beat that way. Here is a great article about it..

http://africanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa092001a.htm

and a book about it..

http://dogberrypatch.com/archives/the-pirate-coast-thomas-jefferson-the-first-marines-and-the-secret-mission-of-1805-by-richard-zacks/

The left always point to Afhganistan as a example AS IF they would have invaded but the truth is Clinton ignored 8 years of terrorism and failed to take decisive action because the idea of fighting a special ops war on the ground was beyond thier grasp until Bush showed them how.

Clearly Bush has set a example of leadership for generations of presidents and the left are tying to throw a fast ball and imply credit for that. The left will only take a stand with military action when its politcally expediant like during the impeachment hearings.

General Lies and Power; that was the headline for a news article written in 1939 prior to The United States involvement in the European conflict. It contents were as follows General Eisenhower is a man constantly at war with the facts. He believes that Nazi Germany is a direct threat to the United States. It is Japan that attached us not Nazi Germany. Most importantly, General Eisenhower will not admit what everyone knows: America is dead locked in a war with Japan if America reallocates her forces to fight Germany we will be in an unwinnable war on two fronts that are thousands of miles away. Even if America could win we would have to keep thousands of troops in Europe for decades. General Eisenhower has become General Lies and Power. Does this argument sound familiar? The left uses these exact same points to argue against our current war, the war on Terror. They say that countries like Iraq, Iran and Pakistan aren’t real threats. Barrack Hussein Obama actually said Iran is a tiny country and pose’s no threat compared to Russia, since the landmass of a country is the reason for its power or lack thereof. For those of you who need a history lesson Nazi Germany was a tiny country that may have appeared to not be a real threat. However they were a threat a serious one and had we not taken down the Iraqi government they would have been a very serious threat as well. Saddam Hussein had a huge body count on his hands just like Hitler. Saddam killed approximately three hundred and ten thousand of his country men in the late 80’s and early 90’s. Kurds and Shiites mostly, their only crime was having a slightly different belief structure and not bowing to Saddam. He used chemical weapons on his own people. Now the left pretends Saddam was not such a bad guy, he may have been an evil and repressive dictator but hey the Iraqi’s seemed happy, they didn’t speak out against him. They must love him, just as the majority of Germans loved Hitler. On October 3, 1938, Adolph Hitler’s armies marched into Sudetenland, a part of Czechoslovakia. Germany said it was responding to separatist demands from the large German population that lived there and that she was merely honoring their desire for reunion with Germany. Saddam made a similar move trying to expand his borders to include Kuwait; I’m beginning to see a pattern. The worst argument about the war on terror specifically Operation Iraqi Freedom is we are now locked in an unwinnable war on two fronts. This concept is laughable our Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corp is a truly unstoppable force if we needed them too or wanted them too we could effectively invade and control any country in the world. This may seem like an over confident statement but the shear size and strength of our standing army is a force uncheck able by any enemy. So to make a claim that we the United States of America can’t defeat two countries who are using military equipment from the 80’s and have a military made up of mostly untrained unorganized combatants is comical. We are the longest free standing democracy in the History of the world and any country that is not a democratic state is a direct threat to our democracy. It is easy for us to overlook and ignore the sickening inhuman acts of foreign leaders as long as they do not effect our lives but we cannot look past these things we must bring war to all those who oppress, and defend freedom no matter the cost. Freedom isn’t free an age old saying but it is as true today as ever. “Every good citizen makes his country's honor his own, and cherishes it not only as precious but as sacred. He is willing to risk his life in its defense and it’s conscious that he gains protection while he gives it.” This a quotation from one of my favorite presidents Andrew Jackson it’s meaning is clear if you have freedoms you must fight to defend freedom no matter the cost to you or your country. Also to have faith in your country because as you fight for her others will fight for you and freedom will reign.

Below the fold is the entire text of General David Petraeus's final letter to troops before departing his command of Multinational Force-Iraq and assuming leadership of United States Central Command. A scan of the original can be seen in .pdf form here.

All emphasis added.

Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, and Civilians of Multi-National Force-Iraq:

It has been the greatest of privileges to have been your commander for the past 19 months. During that time, we and our civilian and Iraqi partners have been engaged in an exceedingly complex, difficult, and important task. And in the face of numerous challenges, we and our partners have helped bring new hope to a country that was besieged by extremists and engulfed in sectarian violence.

“When I took command...I noted that the situation in Iraq was hard but not hopeless. You have proven that assessment to be correct.”

When I took command of Multi-National Force-Iraq in February 2007, I noted that the situation in Iraq was hard but not hopeless. You have proven that assessment to be correct. Indeed, your great work, sacrifice, courage, and skill have helped to reverse a downward spiral toward civil war and to wrest the initiative from the enemies of the new Iraq.

Together, Iraqi and Coalition Forces have faced determined, adaptable, and barbaric enemies. You and our Iraqi partners have taken the fight to them, and you have taken away their sanctuaries and safe havens. You have helped secure the Iraqi people and have enabled, and capitalized on, their rejection of extremism. You have also supported the Iraqi Security Forces as they have grown in number and capability and as they have increasingly shouldered more of the responsibility for security in their country.

You have not just secured the Iraqi people, you have served them, as well. By helping establish local governance, supporting reconstruction efforts, assisting with revitalization of local businesses, fostering local reconciliation, and conducting a host of other non-kinetic activities, you have contributed significantly to the communities in which you have operated. Indeed, you have been builders and diplomats as well as guardians and warriors.

“Your accomplishments have, in fact, been the stuff of history.”

The progress achieved has been hard-earned. There have been many tough days along the way, and we have suffered tragic losses. Indeed, nothing in Iraq has been anything but hard. But you have been more than equal to every task.

Your accomplishments have, in fact, been the stuff of history. Each of you should be proud of what has been achieved and of the contributions you continue to make. Although our tasks in Iraq are far from complete and hard work and tough fights lie ahead, you have helped bring about remarkable improvements.

Your new commander is precisely the right man for the job. General Ray Odierno played a central role in the progress achieved during the surge. He brings tremendous skill, experience, and understanding as he returns to Iraq for a third tour and takes the helm of MNF-I just seven months after relinquishing command of Multi-National Corps-Iraq. I have total confidence in him, and I will do all that I can as the commander of Central Command to help him, MNF-I, and our Iraqi partners to achieve the important goals that we all share for the new Iraq.

Thank you for your magnificent work here in the “Land of the Two Rivers.” And thank you for your sacrifices – and for those of your families – during this crucial phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I am honored to have soldiered with you in this critical endeavor.

With great respect and all best wishes,

David H. Petraeus

Commanding General, United States Army

I read a very interesting article in the WSJ today describing the former captors of John McCain and their support for his assent to the presidency. He fought the Vietnamese up front and personal from a cell. He suffered physically and mentally at the hands of the then enemy but was an early supporter of normalization with our former foes. McCain played a crucial role in bringing about the initial rapprochement. If anyone has a right to hate an enemy it is John McCain but that is not his nature.

He has a deep moral center based upon the Constitution and American ideals. He believes in democracy and political freedom for all people which helps explain the compassion from and for the people of Vietnam. He knows these ideals are powerful. His convictions result in action. McCain paved the way for the freedom of the Vietnamese people through diplomacy as well as the freedom for for all Americans through bipartisan reform (e.g., sponsored bill for lobbying transparency with Feingold). The Vietnamese still have a good way to go to shed the shackles of their authoritarian regime and the American people have a long way to go to rid ourselves of a corrupt government ruling class. McCain supported the Vietnamese early through ideas not aggression. He supports the American people by fighting with bipartisan reform. These are signs of wisdom based on a strong moral center. As president, McCain will know what tools to use and when to use them to further the freedoms of all peoples. Comparatively BoIraq lacks the experience to even appreciate the choices.

MY AMERICAN HERO ~

One of the reasons why I’m the patriot I am, as well as something that made an impact on my life resulting as one of the reasons why I joined the US Marine Corps, is when I was a child in 1970, at the age of 10 during the Vietnam “conflict", I proudly wore a POW bracelet ... one that I personally chose because the date captured was closest to my birthday on Oct. 6th. It said, "LCDR JOHN S. McCAIN III 10-26-67".

I wore it without EVER taking it off, no matter what … even when I bathed! I wore it snug to my wrist, always. It was my commitment of remembrance to the stranger’s name I wore; as long as he was suffering as a POW. As a child, it was all I could do to help; let others know not to forget those left behind. I prayed for his safe return everyday.

Hearing that President Nixon ended the war, I remember my excitement watching the news & reading the paper daily enjoying the stories of all the POW's coming home, always in hope anticipating to hear about "my" POW solider.

Much to my surprise, on March 15th, 1973, a month into the release of prisoners, I heard the TV news reporter state the name I had prayed to hear, "Lt Cmdr John S. Mc Cain III", as I sat in awe, elated with goose bumps & tears, I watched an American hero, "my" POW, hobble down the steps of a plane coming home embracing his family.

The following day, the local paper, the San Diego Union Tribune, celebrated that proud American moment of him disembarking the plane with a front-page story & photo! I was so proud ... so proud of him to have endured & so proud to be an American! Little did I know how famous my American Hero was ... from that day on, I searched, clipped & saved every article written about Lt Cmdr John S. Mc Cain III!

A few months later, my mother brought home a magazine featuring him on the cover! I couldn't believe the story ... oh, how he suffered! I was amazed who he was, the son of a respected military father ... he was famous, the most famous of all POW's! I was so touched that I personally wanted to thank him for his service & dedication to our country, as well as let him know I cared & that he was never forgotten.

I wrote him a letter & gathered every bit of memorabilia I had on him ... the U.S. News & World Report magazine, every other newspaper & magazine clipping, including my POW bracelet. I stuffed it all in a manila envelope hoping to find an address. Hearing he returned home to Florida, I remember calling information asking for a John S. McCain ... BINGO, I got an address! I was so excited & sent the package … a big thank you sent all the way across the county to Florida from a little 12-year-old girl in San Diego, California, all in hopes that it would reach him.

Weeks went by, months, even years ... I never heard from him, or another word about him until 9 years later in November 1982 when I was serving in the USMC & heard that John S. McCain won a Republican congressional seat for the state of Arizona! I was so proud of him running for office … serving our country again! I was reminded of how proud he made me feel as a child.

For many years I considered to write him but was never sure what to say other than just, "thank you" ... to thank him for his bravery & touching the heart of a child at such a struggling time in our country reminding him, I never forgot.

Now, here he is running for the President of the United States of America! I get goose bumps & tears in my eyes over how beautiful & touching his story is … from horrific suffering to American Hero! 35 years later, I'm still deeply touched by his commitment to this fine country & still can't get over what he suffered in the name of patriotism.

Semper Fi ~

This piece originally appeared at joshuatrevino.com.

Much ink has been spilled in the past 24 hours over a segment from ABC's Charlie Gibson's interview with Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. The clip reveals Palin momentarily confused when confronted with a query about "the Bush Doctrine," by which Gibson refers to the present Administration's practice of preemptive war (or, to be euphemistic, "anticipatory self-defense"). You may view the excerpt here, or simply read the relevant transcript:

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

The consequence of this exchange has been the predictable and familiar litany of hand-wringing over Palin's purported ignorance of basic foreign policy principles, and her concurrent fitness (or lack thereof) to lead the country. See Andrew Sullivan for a succinct demonstration of the shrieking; the rest may be found via the usual suspects.

Sullivan writes: "[A]ny serious person who has followed the debates about US foreign policy knows what the Bush doctrine is." Charlie Gibson apparently agrees. They're both wrong. The fact is that the "Bush Doctrine" is a term which has had an evolving definition over this decade. Though it's obvious Palin was momentarily baffled by the query, she was far closer to the truth when she interpreted the phrase as signifying the President's "world view." What we know as the "Bush Doctrine" has many meanings. A brief survey reveals the following:

In March 2002, the New York Times's Frank Rich described the "Bush Doctrine" as the proposition, enunciated by the President, that "any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

In March 2002, UK Guardian's Tony Dodge declared that the "Bush Doctrine" was a set of American-imposed principles for the conduct of small states, "concern[ing] the suppression of all terrorist activity on their territory, the transparency of banking and trade arrangements, and the disavowal of weapons of mass destruction."

In January 2003, Thomas Donnelly of the American Enterprise Institute defined the "Bush Doctrine" as a principle of American global hegemony, with "anticipatory self-defense" as one of its enforcement mechanisms.

In February 2003, PBS's Frontline's "The War Behind Closed Doors" described the "Bush Doctrine" as the whole set of premises undergirding the 2002 National Security Strategy -- of which "anticipatory self-defense" is merely one facet.

In March 2003, Slate's Michael Kinsley put a unique spin on the "Bush Doctrine," by asserting it signified the President's claimed right to go to war without permission from international or domestic institutions.

In June 2004, the Washington Post's Robin Wright wrote that the "Bush Doctrine" was comprised of "four broad principles," of which "anticipatory self-defense" was only one.

In March 2005, Charles Krauthammer, in Time, described the "Bush Doctrine" as encompassing the policy of democracy-promotion in the Middle East.

In December 2006, Philips H. Gordon of the Brookings Institution defined the "Bush Doctrine" as encompassing a set of four basic assumptions, of which "anticipatory self-defense" was half of one.

In June 2007, Ali Abunimah of the Electronic Intifada referred to the "Bush Doctrine" as the principle of democratization in the Middle East.

In July 2007, Senator Barack Obama described the "Bush Doctrine" as, as reported by ABC News, "only speaking to leaders of rogue nations if they first meet conditions laid out by the United States."

In January 2008 and in May 2008, Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe described the "Bush Doctrine" as the President's warning to "the sponsors of violent jihad: 'You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists.'"

Two things to note: first, that "any serious person who has followed the debates about US foreign policy" should know that describing the "Bush Doctrine" as the President's "world view" is actually rather apt; second, that even the Democratic nominee for president botches the definition by the Gibson standard. Logically, those denouncing Palin for unfitness to be vice president now, in these grounds, ought to be doubly concerned that Barack Obama is unfit to be president. This won't happen, of course, because this entire affair is a passing tactical "gotcha" rather than a serious critique.

There's a lot more where this came from -- see Ricard Starr's epic catalogue of ABC's own variations on the term's definition -- but this is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Charlie Gibson and Palin's critics got it wrong. Sarah Palin got it right.

This is a silly headline from the Politico.

Jonathan Martin's title is "Palin backs off "task from God" statement."

It looks to me like the media is backing off.

As characterized by the media, Palin allegedly said the troops to Iraq were on a "task from God."

But that is not what Palin said. And she is not backing off what she said. She is correcting the media (not that they ever think they need correction).

As Moe noted, Palin said, according to the transcript, "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

So, we have:

1. Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right;

2. Pray … that our leaders … are sending them out on a task that is from God.

She even then clarified that she wanted them to pray that they were doing what was in God's plan and not their own plan.

It's a humbling thing the secularists in the media don't seem to understand: Sarah Palin believes God is sovereign.

And clarifying that her words were meant to echo Abraham Lincoln is not backing down.

Let's accept this for what it is: the media seized on this as a gotcha moment and now are having to back down from it, but they can't admit that they got it wrong.

Apparently, if you are a mentally retarded atheist, you too can get a well paying job. You can go work at the New York Times or Washington Post or ABC News or NBC and call yourself a journalist.

By Mike DeVine, Legal Editor for The Minority Report and The HinzSight Report

If a President won’t defend America, it won’t be defended. I think this adage is driven home at a most opportune time before we choose Commanders in Chief.

Does anyone doubt that President Bush benefited from the third anniversary remembrance of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against John “international test” Kerry? And does anyone doubt the significance of the Saddleback contrast between John “defeat evil” McCain and Barack “evil on the streets of America” Obama with the images of Planes crashing into the WTC towers above those streets?

I think not.

Recently, Obama was again asked about evil, and again chose to wax not so eloquent on our need to be humble given that we have done evil in the name of fighting evil? Of course, the MSM in the tank for The One “reporter” failed to follow up on what Barack meant (maybe it is the evil of lipstick, Abu Ghraib?).

Obama, see if you can hear this above the din of your 20-year pew-parked in a Hate Whitey America church butt:

Humility hasn’t prevented more 911 attacks and if you, Terrorist William Ayers and Rev. Wright see any moral equivalence between evil attacks on America and humanity from Pearl Harbor thru Saddam’s attacks on Kuwait and our troops enforcing the cease-fire bought with American blood versus the sins of individual Americans in operations in response thereto, then I would suggest you sue Harvard for educational malpractice.

Don’t worry, we won’t question your patriotism. But we do need to define and distinguish it from those, like McCain-Palin, that love their Country, as is. You know, people that don’t make a production of ceasing to wear the flag post-911. People that don’t suggest displays of the flag are cheap patriotism as compared to the leftist “real” patriotism of criticizing our nation as it removes a megalomaniacal mass murderer of over 400,000 in the dead of night and over a million in wars; and helps millions of purple-fingered Iraqis vote for civilized freedom.

Michael Novak captures the problem of the “ideal” vs. the “real” here:

Now we know why Obama took the American flag off his lapel. On July 24, in Berlin, he told us. The American flag is too small to contain him. He is not comfortable being an American citizen, only fully comfortable as a citizen of the world.

But “citizen of the world” is a utopian, unreal, angelic, inhuman term, an abstraction of the sort that leads to immense bloodshed as human irregularities are hacked off and angularity is loudly planed away.

The Berlin speech…explains why Obama is more likely to praise an “ideal” America than the real America. He is bewitched by abstractions and lofty ideals. That is how he touches the secret chords of the heart of so many millions, the teenage romanticism of a world without different real interests, without the clashes of culture, the force of political arguments about who gets what, when, and how.

This conflict between global citizenship and pledging allegiance solely to the flag of the United States and the Republic for which it stands, suggests that we go back again to Senator Obama’s ambivalence about the flag in his lapel.

Obama himself said he wore a flag in his lapel after September 11, 2001, but then did not wear it for several years. Why? On reflection, he judged that wearing a flag in the lapel would be an inadequate symbol of patriotism (HT: Byron York, July 1). That Obama did not wear his flag in his lapel is true. Obama not only was not wearing it, but had a policy statement about why he was not wearing it.

Real patriotism, he clarified, is loving the ideals of a country and dissenting from policies not in line with those ideals.

Here Obama points to a huge divide between left-wingers and ordinary Americans. Ordinary Americans do not love a mere “ideal” out in never-never land. They love the land, the soil, the mountains, the plains, the history, the bloody battles, the mistakes, the rises and falls, the real human history of an altogether human people, the particular, imperfect people of the United States. Left-wingers, by contrast, are continually judging the real country harshly. They often judge it so harshly that their attitudes toward their leaders, their neighbors and the real country as a whole sometimes seem almost like hatred for the country itself.

But the United States is still, blessedly, largely a center-right country in this respect. Obama’s stated positions about why he took the flag out of his lapel, and what he means by patriotism, slightly incline a large number to vote against him. Therefore we can count on Obama showing up on more and more stages so thick with American flags you would think you were at a Ronald Reagan rally – and with the stars and stripes starkly visible on the left lapel of his neat, dark suit. That flag will certainly appear in his lapel a great many more times until the first Tuesday in November. A center-right country will demand it.

Our annual remembrances of 911 remind us of the all too real evil in the world seeking to destroy the real America. Rev. Wright can’t even understand that our necessary actions against the Empire of Japan were justified. Obama praises Real Red China, overlooking their gross sins and lack of any ideals (save Confucius and love for the elderly) over millennia, while denigrating the greatest nation in history, which United States is defined by increasing achievement and application of its ideals both at home and in self-sacrifice abroad so that all free people on Earth, including the one Barack sees in the mirror.

Thank you Providence (the real one), that if America had to suffer an attack from evil abroad, that it occurred in close proximity to the day when we choose the leader charged with defending us and waging war against those that harm America.

The Real America.

The America that disciples of Rev. Wright and Saul Alinsky would slight with stammering while in search of the Marxist Utopia.

The America that McCain and Palin would most assuredly defend.

[update]

As we remember the perpetrators, victims and heroes of 911, let us also remember those that have kept us safe since then, and also remember those (mostly all Bushlied Democrats) that have opposed the efforts at home and abroad that have kept us safe whether it be intelligence gathering via cell phone calls; interrogation of KSM and other terrorists; and/or our war against them in Afghanistan and in Iraq where UBL declared the main front, expended resources originally intended for the Lower Forty-Eight.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns Legal Editor for The Minority and HinzSight Reports "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice Race 4 2008 "One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

I originally posted this last year. However, many friends and acquaintances’ ask me what it was like to be at The World Trade Center on September 11th. This, I believe aptly describes that day from the ground. I will only add this preface from Emerson;

Not unless God made sharp thine ear

With sorrow such as mine

Out of that delicate lay couldst thou

The heavy dirge divine

• The unrivaled clarity of that beautiful September day
• The deafening sound of a jetliner hitting the WTC
• The dreamlike state that occurred as I watched people blown by the blast blended and falling with jet fuel and debris
• The war-like after effects on the ground
• Endless acrid smoke and the burning smell of jet fuel
• Paper, ceaseless paper, falling from the sky

• The cacophonous sound when detritus hits the ground from 100 stories; the horror as it struck the unfortunate trying to flee or help
• Absolute panic and bewilderment in the faces of those to scared to move; the comfort reassurance can bring
• Runelike sounds of screaming and sobbing from many as the situation was assessed and uncertainty became a factor
• The fulminating sound of a second airliner hitting the South Tower, combined with the blinding, effulgent light created by tons of jet fuel igniting
• Floor after floor of high rise glass shattering and the endless variegated crashing sounds of more debris
• The ghastly, unforgettable sound a person makes when they hit the ground from 100 stories; the self disavowal that comes with watching such an event
• Minutes that seemed like hours, defying all time perception; planning for retreat and egress where the lives of others hung in the balance
• Exiting to absolute confusion and a multifarious, unrecognizable assortment of emanations that stung the senses
• The clamorous, booming sound of a 100 story building disintegrating and falling to earth; the panic of being far too close and submission coming with that realization
• Day becoming night; air becoming dirt; Divine protection and dose of luck
• Silence, stentorian silence followed by choking in the initial stages of a ghastly awakening
• The unmistakable rumble of a fighter jet shattering the day; the inexplicable hope that comes with that noise
• The unending, sustained trip home on roads seemingly devoid of life; the powerful feeling of holding those you love and never wanting to let go
• Anger that years of incompetence, inaction and meaningless interlocution permitted these events to occur
• Days of insomnia, only to be broken by a promise the perpetrators would be pursued and we would be kept safe; promises kept and unceasing loyalty
• Acceptance that things will never be the same

Asked by George Staphanopoulos this morning whether or not he had ever considered serving in the military, Democratic presidential nominee and freshman Senator from Illinois Barack Obama had the following to say:

"You know, I actually did. I had to sign up for Selective Service when I graduated from high school.

And I was growing up in Hawaii. And I have friends whose parents were in the military. There are a lot of Army, military bases there.

And I actually always thought of the military as an ennobling and, you know, honorable option. But keep in mind that I graduated in 1979. The Vietnam War had come to an end. We weren't engaged in an active military conflict at that point. And so, it's not an option that I ever decided to pursue.

Interestingly enough, that claim never made it into either of the two memoirs Obama penned, despite the aggregate 848 pages the presidential candidate (and his ghostwriter) spent talking about himself within those two books.

Then again, Barack Obama was not a presidential nominee at the time that those books were published. Given the radical changes Obama has attempted to make since he became a serious contender for the Democrat presidential nomination - let alone since becoming the nominee - on such issues as Iraq (and on the 'surge'), abortion, the DC gun ban, FISA and telecom immunity, welfare reform, the death penalty for child rapists, debating John McCain "anywhere, any time," the financing of his campaign, and many others, I think it's probably well beyond safe to assume that this is yet another concocted revision of history being floated by Obama in a desperate attempt to capture voters on the right side of the aisle.

Unfortunately, lying about wanting to join the military (but deciding against it because "we weren't engaged in an active military conflict at that point" - as though the community organizer would have dived into the service had there been a chance to actually face combat) isn't likely to win over too many pro-military voters on the right, given who the GOP nominee is.

Even if this is simply an attempt to fight Obama's self-imposed appearance of a lack of patriotism, making a claim like this gives off the appearance of dishonest opportunism at best. The United States is at war, and Obama is the only member of either ticket to have no "skin" in the game.

Though he refuses to use him as a campaign prop (can you imagine Obama doing the same if it were his son?), John McCain, Republican presidential nominee, has one son who is an Iraq veteran with the USMC and another who is a Cadet 1st Class at the Naval Academy and prospective Marine. Sarah Palin, the GOP's vice presidential nominee, has a son who is heading to Iraq this month as a member of an Army Infantry unit.

Even Joe Biden, the 36-year Senate incumbent whom Obama chose as his running mate on the Democratic ticket, has a son who is deploying to Iraq as a Judge Advocate General, or a military lawyer.

Obama alone is without any connection whatsoever to military service past or present (save for his maternal grandfather and maternal great uncle's service in WWII) - a circumstance which, it appears, is beginning to make the freshman Senator feel more than a bit inadequate. Unfortunately for Obama, there is nothing within the realm of fact he can employ to address this gnawing inadequacy; so, as a result, he resorted to his usual reaction to such a situation: he made something up.

This trial balloon of Obama's should be as short-lived as his one-event-only fake presidential seal.

However, regardless what he says about this in the future, we can be certain of one thing: he'll claim that his stories and statements, on this like on every other flip and flop and historical revision he has engaged in, were "entirely consistent" the whole time.

1) Why was the RNC seemingly poorly attended last night? It seemed like half the seats were empty?

2) Why is everyone so upset with Campbell Brown who asked a simple question of Tucker Bounds who couldn't answer it.

3) Why were there almost no people of color in the RNC auditorium? I mean, I know there are a few black and hispanic R's, but the view on CSPAN was overwhelmingly white and elderly.

4) Why is it wrong to question a candidate (who is so vehemently anti-choice and so clearly in favor of abstinence only sex ed in schools) if her sex ed policy positions failed her unwed, teenage daughter? Nobody is knocking Bristle as a person. In fact, everyone with a heart wishes this poor child well with the heavy burden she has taken on at such a tender age. But to avoid the irony here is a disservice to thinking people?

5) Last, and most importantly, why was there virtually no mention of any of the serious policy issues facing many Americans last night? No discussion on gas prices (other than saying offshore drilling which, even GW's people agree will not impact prices in the near term)? No discussion of food prices? No discussion of health care? No discussion of education? No discussion of the war or the failure to kill Osama Bin Laden? Even Steve Schmidt is on record as saying that this campaign isn't about issues? Do you all really believe this? Is abortion more important than all these pressing issues?

I ask these things sincerely and being a thinking person of reasonable mind, I am capable of changing my beliefs if persuaded with well reasoned logic. Keep in mind, heartfelt answers may have the desired effect of bringing another person to the McCain camp. Vitriol and hatred will reflect poorly on the respondent.

Thanks!

It's an odd thing to watch the Democratic Convention in Denver. The messages just aren't consistent - there's an off-kilter feel to the whole thing. Just take Mark Warner's remarks last night for example. Here's a guy who's viewed as the future of the party, whose withdrawal before the presidential stakes was shocking to a lot of people, and who - if Barack Obama loses - would immediately become a frontrunner for the nomination in four years. But his speech seemed stilted and off - he was talking as the moderate he is, not the podium pounding populist the audience wants.

Maybe now we have a clear reason why speakers are struggling: the biggest foreign policy issue of the campaign - the largest policy reason, in fact, that Obama is the nominee - has swung so firmly away from the Democrats as to make their message incoherent at best, and dramatically out of touch at worse.

Rasmussen Reports has the details:

Voter confidence in the War on Terror is at the highest level ever recorded since Rasmussen Reports began regular tracking in January 2004. Fifty-four percent (54%) of American voters now think the United States and its allies are winning the war. The previous high-water mark for optimism--52%--was reached a handful of times in September and October 2004.

Optimism about the situation in Iraq is also at an all-time high. Forty-eight percent (48%) now expect the situation in that troubled country to get better over the next six months. Only 17% expect things to get worse. In addition to being the most optimistic assessment ever recorded, these numbers reflect a remarkable turnaround over the past year. Last August, just 27% thought things were going to get better while 47% were pessimistic.

Guess when the worst time to discover your message on the war and Iraq sucks? Well, during a huge televised national convention is probably near the top of the list.

Let's wait and see what Barack Obama has to say on Thursday. This used to be his political wheelhouse, one that combined with his skill as a speaker inspired a following of passionate young voters and academic communities; now, it's a deadweight with all the middle class voters Obama needs to win the election.

In what has to be one of the great political ironies of our time, one wonders if, had the surge strategy the Democrats opposed started six months earlier, Hillary Clinton would've been the nominee.

PM Maliki announced agreement on a security pact with the United States to end any foreign military presence in Iraq by the end of 2011. This is excellent news no matter which side of the Iraq divide you consider yourself to be on. Excellent because the Iraqis now consider themselves ready to confront their own challenges with no outside assistance. What remains to be seen, however, is whether their confidence can be supported by the "realities on the ground" that President Bush and General Petraeus and Lt. Gen. Odierno routinely warn us about.

The "official" US position is that the agreement is not completed, but it seems imminent that a final deal will be reached and signed and announced. When that comes, Maliki will likely reap huge political rewards in Baghdad... and Americans can finally take Iraq, the political tug-of-war toy, OFF of the Election '08 debate podium. It will come up to be sure, but a withdrawal agreement can NOT be claimed as a victory by either side of the aisle in Washington-they've both screwed the issue up so bad over the last three years that NEITHER side of the 2 contradicting war agendas can claim victory.

The Left has changed its position on WHY they want US Troops out of Iraq at least half a dozen times (I am being very generous), while in every instance suggesting we need to be spending that money here at home. The Right, to their credit, has consistently held that leaving Iraq before undeniable victory would have disastrous long-term consequences for both American AND Iraq...yet they, too, have changed positions on why that mattered to us nearly as many times.

What seems most indicative of the conflict in Iraq fought here on American soil up on Capitol Hill can be found in reading the news "headlines" and comparing them with the actual words coming out of PM Maliki's mouth. The announcements refer to security agreements which, in part, include reduced American presence on the ground in cities around Iraq. The President, and those of us that support staying at Iraq's side until they can stand up on their own, has repeatedly said we will "stand down when Iraq is ready to step up." We appear to be reaching such a point in Iraq's recovery.

The Left, of course, has stuck with "exit strategy", "withdrawal timetables," and "if we leave, they'll be MADE to fend for themselves."

Whatever the slogan, we are winding down in Iraq. We are doing so just at a time when Congressional approval remains at historical lows. And this is timed, intentionally or otherwise, around a US Presidential election cycle...and a looming election cycle in Iraq.

I remain moderately encouraged by this news, but nonetheless suspicious of the true motivations for Maliki's Government to tell their enemies when they will no longer have anyone watching their backs. And I will continue to pray for the Iraqi people who still, after all these years, just want to be left alone to live in peace and take care of themselves and their families...and get ON with their lives without having to live in fear of the next car bomb or explosive vest-wearing lunatic around the next corner.

Whatever genuine motivations might be at play here, our brave Men and Women will be home soon, and we can all thank God for that...and we damn sure better thank THEM when they get here.

The National Security Archive released a report last Friday that sheds even more light on the premeditated lying and deception that took the United States to war in Iraq. The findings are based on new evidence compiled by Dr. John Prados and published by the National Security Archive.

Most notably, Dr. Prados shows the depth of the deception perpetrated against citizens and Congress regarding the alleged threat to U.S. security posed by Iraq. It appears that the White House rewrote the Oct. 1, 2002 National Intelligence Estimate and then issued a doctored report to Congress on Oct. 4, 2002 – which few in Congress even bothered to read. In fact, Prados found evidence that the Oct. 4 White Paper was written in July 2002, and altered only slightly after the final NIE arrived. This White Paper served as the basis for the war.

The National Security Archive released a report last Friday that sheds even more light on the premeditated lying and deception that took the United States to war in Iraq. The findings are based on new evidence compiled by Dr. John Prados and published by the National Security Archive.

Most notably, Dr. Prados shows the depth of the deception perpetrated against citizens and Congress regarding the alleged threat to U.S. security posed by Iraq. It appears that the White House rewrote the Oct. 1, 2002 National Intelligence Estimate and then issued a doctored report to Congress on Oct. 4, 2002 – which few in Congress even bothered to read. In fact, Prados found evidence that the Oct. 4 White Paper was written in July 2002, and altered only slightly after the final NIE arrived. This White Paper served as the basis for the war.

His conclusion is that the Bush-Cheney White paper "justifying" the invasion was developed a full three months in advance of the intelligence data and analysis that should have served as the basis for that justification:

"The U.S. intelligence community buckled sooner in 2002 than previously reported to Bush administration pressure for data justifying an invasion of Iraq.

"The documents suggest that the public relations push for war came before the intelligence analysis, which then conformed to public positions taken by Pentagon and White House officials. For example, a July 2002 draft of the "White Paper" ultimately issued by the CIA in October 2002 actually pre-dated the National Intelligence Estimate that the paper purportedly summarized, but which Congress did not insist on until September 2002."

Ultimately, the White House had what it wanted by July 2002. When the National Intelligence Estimate arrived from an intimidated intelligence community, there was still one hope of a rational outcome on the rush to war. The NIE delivered to the White House on Oct. 1, 2002 noted that the only scenario in which Iraq would attack the United States involved a U.S. attack on Iraq that threatened Saddam Hussein's survival.

It was brutally simple. The one way to cause the hypothesized (and erroneous) claims of Hussein's intent to attack the United States is to go to war and threaten his regime. Therefore, refraining from war was the best way to protect the United States.

"Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger cause for making war.”

In the most supreme of ironies, few members of Congress even bothered to review the distorted White Paper before voting overwhelmingly to approve the invasion.

The seemingly endless war in Iraq has become a total disaster on multiple levels for all involved.

The awful toll in human deaths and casualties is largely ignored but real nevertheless. Over 4,000 U.S. soldiers have been lost in battle and tens of thousands injured. In excess of one million Iraqi civilians are dead due to civil strife unleashed by the invasion. The U.S. Treasury is drained and the steep decline in respect for the United States around the world is just beginning to be seen. The United States political establishment responds with collective denial on a scale that's incomprehensible.

Yet John McCain continues makes the bizarre yet unchallenged claim that U.S. is "surrendering" with victory in clear sight. McCain touts the surge without ever mentioning that 4-million Iraqis are "displaced from their homes." Some 10% of Iraq's pre-war population is dead or injured and there are 5-million Iraqi orphans. This pathological view of victory claims the "surge' is a success flies in the face of a devastated population in an obliterated nation lacking in the most essential supplies and services. Iraq is a nation where death continues on a shopping spree.

Will anyone ever be held to account for this series of premeditated deceptions?

An Obama adviser has announced to the world that he will use Biden's son to score political points, stating:

"Biden is very well aware that his son's deployment is going to be a big part of what we do in October. It's part of our narrative and we're going to milk it for all it's worth," says one of the Obama advisers. "Republicans would do the same."

Except they wouldn't. John McCain's own son has been deployed to Iraq, and he rarely if ever discusses it. Jimmy McCain even attended town hall meetings with him in New Hampshire and McCain never even mentioned he was present.

Not to mention the distinction between Jimmy McCain the marine and Beau Biden the JAG officer.

Another fun nugget from the same article, apparently Biden wasn't even Obama's first choice.

"He really wanted [Kansas Gov. Kathleen] Sebelius," says one Obama insider with knowledge of the Democrat candidate's vetting process. "And if our European tour had played better here at home, she might have been the pick."