sic semper tyrannis

Who’s going to answer the call when it comes at 3 am, the call that informs the president of some heinous act against which we need to take immediate action? Hillary Clinton has finally put out an ad (video here) that most clearly distinguishes her from Barack Obama.

The ad is effective. The ad should be seen by every potential caucus-goer and primary-voter in Ohio and Texas. And it’s about time that Hillary began by illuminating the biggest difference between her and St. Barack: she may or may not do the right thing (my preference will always be with John McCain), but at least she’ll know the difference.

Stated differently, Michael Gerson is exactly right in his assessment of St. Barack: great words; weak worldview. From his column:

McCain can and should make an ideological case against his opponent. Why does Obama want to fight terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan but not in Iraq? How would it advance the war on terrorism to grant al-Qaeda’s fondest wish — an untimely American retreat from the Middle East? Would Obama really devote his first year in office to a series of surrender summits with the leaders of Cuba, Iran, Venezuela and North Korea?

Great turn of phrase:  surrender summits.  Which would be exactly what such meetings, with no preconditions, would amount to.  Hillary has also pandered to the left wing of her party by promising an early withdrawal from Iraq. But, at least, I believe that she knows the difference, and, if elected president, would quickly reconsider and do the right thing.

Maybe. Again, it is always best to go with character and firmness of purpose. Both of which John McCain has way over either of his likely Democratic rivals.

Barack Obama shows his peacenik colors in this YouTube item. Money quote: “I will slow the development of future combat systems.”

There would be nothing exceptional, except that Obama is about to be anointed as the Democratic savior, who will lead the party out of its Clintonian wilderness. He sounds more like a student radical with absolutely no smarts about the world beyond the classroom.

We have enemies in this world. It is not a nice, orderly, logical place, this world. It is folly to assume that it is, which appears to be the mindset behind Obama’s categorically rejecting improving our national defenses.

Democrats will annoint St. Barack of Obama at the risk of leaving behind the liberal but realist legacies of FDR, Harry Truman, and JFK.

The Democrats have spent most of the primary season arguing amongst themselves as to who was first to oppose our war in Iraq. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama have tussled, over and over again, as to who voted for the war, who didn’t, who even thought about it first. The rubric? War is bad; we made a huge mistake going to war in Iraq; I (fill in the name) am best suited to end it since I was against it first back in (pick any date after the birth of the individual speaking).

In one word, the Donks have been feuding about what happened in the past. As for the future, they are doing what most politicians in either party do: promise whatever the audience before them at that moment wants to hear. For Democrats, what the audiences have wanted to hear was “No blood for oil; Bushitler; Hallilburton.” Oh, and of course, we “support the troops.” Support them as victims of Bush; never the heroes that they are.

Obama now wants to have it both ways: we’ll go after al Qaeda, except when they’re in Iraq. But if only we had that time machine, we could go back in time and not invade Iraq. At least that is the unspoken background for what BHO has been saying. John McCain has rightly called Obama on his prevarications. From CBS News:

McCain criticized Obama for saying in Tuesday night’s Democratic debate that, after U.S. troops were withdrawn, as president he would act “if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq.”

“I have some news. Al Qaeda is in Iraq. It’s called `al Qaeda in Iraq,’” McCain told a crowd in Tyler, Texas, drawing laughter at Obama’s expense. He said Obama’s statement was “pretty remarkable.”

Obama quickly answered back while campaigning in Ohio. “I do know that al Qaeda is in Iraq and that’s why I have said we should continue to strike al Qaeda targets.”

Well, good. BHO knows that al Qaeda is in Iraq. So why is it that he keeps promising to bring our troops home? Which is it? Bring ‘em home ASAP, or stay and fight and kill al Qaeda in Iraq?

Obama is right when he reminds us that Bush truly made a mess of what should have been a quick military action. But we can’t change the past; only learn from its errors. We can only move forward, and at this moment we are engaged on the ground in Iraq, with increasing success in security and reconciliation. Both admittedly have not progressed without setbacks, but the trend is good in both. And we are far better off now than we were a year ago.

Obama is, at best, a naif about world affairs. It is scary to think of him as our commander-in-chief. The good news is that we won’t have to have him in that capacity. Keep Barack in the Senate, where he can continue to compete with his state-mate Dick Durbin as the Senate’s most liberal member.

William F. Buckley, Jr. died today, age 82.

He was one of my heroes, and one of the principal voices I heard back when I turned conservative back before any of us could be called “neo-” anything.  Here’s a brief statement from the editors of the magazine uniquely identified with WFB, National Review.

A giant has passed.

Recquisat in pace.

Barack Hussein Obama. Kind of rolls off the tongue, doesn’t it? And here he is dressed as a Muslim in Africa, a photo that the Obama people is claiming is a racist taunt from the Clintons.

Meanwhile, John McCain, ever the gentleman, has apologized to Obama for remarks made by a supporter, radio talk-show host Bill Cunningham (WaPo story). What was so offensive? Here’s the gist, from the Post:

Cunningham, who is known locally for his fiery right-wing rhetoric on the radio, challenged the media to “stop taking sides and begin covering Barack Hussein Obama” as they do Republicans.He used Obama’s middle name two more times and referred to him as “a hack, Chicago-style Daley politician who’s picturing himself as change.” He said, “When he gets done with you, all you’re going to have in your pocket is change.”

Cunningham then mocked foreign policy statements of “Barack Hussein Obama,” calling him the “fraud from Chicago” and saying that if Obama were to be elected president he would meet with the leaders of enemy nations. He continued by saying the “world leaders who want to kill us” will be “singing ‘Kumbaya’ together around the table with Barack Obama.”

The use of quotation marks around Obama’s full name is telling. What it is telling us is that the mainstream media believes it to be an insult to use Obama’s middle name of Hussein.

First, the basics: Obama is not a Muslim; I don’t believe that Obama is a terrorist, or a supporter of terrorists. While a president Obama’s policies will invite more terrorist attacks, it won’t be because that’s what Obama would prefer.

Obama happens to have a middle name that is Arab and, for virtually all of its holders, Muslim. So what? The point is, that is his name. It can’t be slander, although it is, at the least, a bit snarky to use it, which is why I use it. Sort of like what was done to George Felix Allen during his failed senate re-election campaign in 2006.

If Obama does not like his middle name, he can change it legally. If he does like it, fine, he can do with his name as he wishes — it is his, after all. But his supporters have got to stop being so thin-skinned about its use if Obama continues to keep his middle name.

As for why McCain felt the need to apologize, that is merely because of who he is: a gentleman first. I wish he hadn’t, because I’m not at all sure that anything said by Cunningham was either untrue or very far afield from the reality of an Obama presidency.

Even liberals are noticing: Barack Hussein Obama is running as a black man with racial grievances. And winning. A longish essay by Sean Wilentz at the New Republic explains the hows and whys and wherefores. The bottom line is that Obama is using his race as a hammer against Hillary Clinton. Wilentz concluding paragraph:

It may strike some as ironic that the racializing should be coming from a black candidate’s campaign and its supporters. But this is an American presidential campaign–and there is a long history of candidates who are willing to inflame the most deadly passions in our national life in order to get elected. Sadly, it is what Barack Obama and his campaign gurus have been doing for months–with the aid of their media helpers on the news and op-ed pages and on cable television, mocked by “SNL” as in the tank for Obama. They promise to continue until they win the nomination, by any means necessary.

This is classic liberal doublespeak — the “everyone does it” argument that is the “guilty with an explanation” that liberals offer for one of their own. But the facts remain, and even the slightest hint of racial atonality (e.g. the Martin Luther King — LBJ analogy correctly used by Hillary) is taken as down-and-dirty white racism.

If the liberals at the New Republic have noticed this, or at least are willing to say so in public, then perhaps there is hope. It is likely true that there are a lot of people who don’t care about any of this, and who will vote for the kumbayah candidate BHO no matter how many Louis Farrakhans endorse him*. We can only hope there are enough voters who are sufficiently engaged to look hard at who Obama really is and at the great, yawning chasm between his rhetoric and his reality.

_______
*Yes, technically, Farrakhan did not endorse Obama. But that is a distinction without much difference. Consider this turning-of-tables reported by Byron York at NRO: if a white racist such as David Duke had endorsed McCain, as against the black racist Farrakhan endorsing Obama.

John McCain was held as a prisoner of war from October 26, 1967 until March 15, 1973. Barack Hussein Obama attended primary schools in Indonesia from 1967-1971. Obama claims that his “international experience” has helped prepare him for the office of president.  Wonder what John McCain’s “international experience” might prepare him for?

From Indonesia, the privileged Obama landed at the elite Punahou School in Honolulu, thence on to Columbia (via Occidental) and Harvard Law.  A real man of the people, that Barack.

The general election campaign should be interesting if BHO brings up the subject of life experiences. He’s a classic son of privilege and while his family may not have been filthy rich, they surely weren’t hurting. His career arc has also been classic left-wingery: law degree from Harvard; community “activism” (for which one may substitute “socialist organizer”), the most liberal U.S. senator (so far; he’s only been there three years).

Thin resume; grand rhetoric about hoping for audacious change.  Faux populist attacks on NAFTA.  Are there enough stupids out there to buy it?  Perhaps.  Let’s hope not, but let’s also elect an adult: John McCain.

Both charismatic. Both far to the left of sensibility. And Oliver Stone loves them both. Check this paean to the evil dictator by Stone out, and plan on seeing it during the general election. A lot.

Oh, and catch this precious bit: Fidel may have done bad things, but that’s ok, ’cause he didn’t do them for money. Oliver Stone is some kind of moral cipher to believe that kind of cow flop.

There’s a very old saying in Anglo-Saxon nations, and one must assume that each culture has its version: don’t have the fox guarding the chicken coop. Looks like the United Nations has forgotten this elemental wisdom in the personage of the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Mohamed ElBaradei.

The IAEA’s most important mission is to blow the whistle when a nation appears to be going nuclear. It can’t prevent anything; only shine a light. Except, of course, when it is led by a see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil Western-hating bureaucrat. Which helps explain why the IAEA has been a no-show in bringing the Iranian nuclear project into the light.

From the Wall Street Journal today, a good article on the fundamental lack of oversight by the IAEA. Much of the blame rests with ElBaredei, who’s been the man in charge for over a decade. Consider this sorry history:

Mr. ElBaradei assumed the directorship on Dec. 1, 1997. On his watch, but undetected by his agency, Iran constructed its covert enrichment facilities and, according to the 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, engaged in covert nuclear-weapons design. India and Pakistan detonated nuclear devices. A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani nuclear godfather, exported nuclear technology around the world.

In 2003, Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi confessed to an undetected weapons effort. Mr. ElBaradei’s response? He rebuked the U.S. and U.K. for bypassing him. When Israel recently destroyed what many believe was a secret (also undetected) nuclear facility in Syria, Mr. ElBaradei told the New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh that it is “unlikely that this building was a nuclear facility,” although his agency has not physically investigated the site.

The basic problem is that the IAEA is a politicized agency working for a useless international body: the United Nations. Why even have an Egyptian national as head of a nuclear watchdog agency? Political correctness, international-style. Can a Muslim be truly dispassionate in reporting on an Islamic nation’s nuclear bomb project?

It’s certainly possible. But, as good government folks are ever so fond of telling us, even the appearance of a conflict of interest is sufficient to disqualify. What we have with ElBaredei is more than the appearance of a conflict of interest. We seem to have a willful disregard of the evidence.

Kudos to the Washington Post for showing some clarity in its coverage of the rise of St. Barack of Obama. In this analysis, the Post accurately notes that Obama may have more difficulty in the general election than he’s had so far in the Democratic primaries.

Being the ever-liberal Post, they are rather cautious in any thing that even hints that the new messiah may not be the chosen one, after all. Consider this rather nuanced statement:

…the picture emerging of his appeal in GOP strongholds and in swing states, even as he widens his delegate lead over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), is more complex than his claim to broad popularity in “red state” America would have one believe. (emphasis added)

“More complex” is actually less complex: Barack Obama is a black candidate. Barack Obama is a liberal candidate. These are his first two identities. A fresh face? Yes; he’s young and inexperienced. But his appeal is skewing ever more towards the young, the liberal, and the black.

This plays well in Democratic primaries, where the sole opponent is the immensely unlikeable Hillary Clinton. Who else are they going to vote for? Ralph Nader? Well, not yet.

Considering that he’s basically only been running against Hillary, Obama has yet to be tested. From the WaPo:

Obama (Ill.) posted big wins over Clinton in caucuses in Plains and Mountain states such as Kansas, Nebraska and Idaho, but Republicans in those states scoff at the suggestion that victories in the small universe of Democrats there translate into strength in November. In Tennessee and Oklahoma, Obama lost by wide margins to Clinton, who lived in nearby Arkansas. He narrowly won the primary in the swing state of Missouri, but did so thanks to the state’s solidly Democratic cities, losing its more rural, and more conservative, areas to Clinton.”

If he’s the nominee . . . he’ll start off with a good urban base, but he’ll have to get out and develop these other areas,” said former Tennessee governor Ned McWherter, a Democrat and Clinton supporter.

There’s little doubt that Obama would garner 85-95 percent of the black vote. He isn’t Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, after all. But he remains, now, for better or worse, the black candidate. What is unknown is the degree to which he may continue to garner the support of whites. So far, he’s been impressive, but that’s in the Democratic universe.

In the general election, Obama’s going to need to convince Joe Six Pack (called, among other things, Reagan Democrats and independents) that he’s also got their interests at heart. Once Joe and his buds have an actual option to Obama, which they lack with Hillary, we may see an entirely different dynamic.

My guess is that this is what will happen. Blacks, and liberals, will not be sufficient. John McCain has enough centrist appeal to siphon off many of those ethnic and working class whites, not to mention he’s got some appeal with Hispanics. Who have had their difficulties with blacks, being on the front lines, as it were, of the struggle for local control in changing neighborhoods across the nation.

In short, McCain’s got a real shot. Especially when St. Barack of Obama is shown to have those great big feet of clay.

Here’s more of that audacious hope for change. Or, perhaps it is hoping for audacious change. We have a featured article in the Washington Post that tells us, in so many words, that evangelicals may have a home in the Democratic Party. The title: “How Would Jesus Vote?
I’m an Evangelical — and a Liberal. Really.”

Really really. And circles can be square, if we just wish hard enough. The writer writes many, many words, but it comes down to having to make a compromise between our understanding of Scripture, and the needs of the secular world. Much is also made of the ground that is shared by evangelicals and liberals, such as being good stewards of the earth.

No argument there; there are certainly things like the so-called social Gospel that requires Christians to help those least able to help themselves. But to self-identify as a “liberal” in this year of our Lord 2008 requires that one first be faithful to Scripture. And here is where the writer, hoping for audacious change, comes crashing against the command that we must not conform to this world (Romans 12:2).

The most telling admission from the article:

Most of these youthful evangelicals are still antiabortion, and many still oppose gay rights. But their priorities no longer stop with those two issues. And it is in large part because of changes in the Democratic approach to abortion that more moderate evangelicals are willing to give the party a chance.

So. “More moderate evangelicals” are allowed to give up on the sanctity of human life, born, and unborn. That’s not “moderate.” That is choosing death over life.

You may think that you can join in secular politics with those who accept nothing less than abortion on demand, including partial-birth abortions. But no Bible-believing Christian should ever go along with such a platform. We are instructed by God to choose life.

And know this, Christians: abortion on demand is the Democratic holy writ. Join them at the peril of your very souls.

Michael Barone, the man who probably knows more about the ins and outs of American politics than any living person, has a must-read essay on pride up at NRO. The essay is titled “Pride Goeth Before a Fall.” But the salient message is the subtitle: “Michelle Obama’s comments may prove significant.”

This spoiled woman, who believes that, somehow, Barack Obama is entitled to be president because he’s just so darn hopeful. But, at age 42, she says that “for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country.” Well, missy, your country surely ain’t proud of you. My point, and, I believe, Michael Barone’s point? Most Americans don’t like this kind of arrogant, upper-crust talk. And mostly, we’re still quite proud of our country.

Pride can be taken to extremes, of course. Pride in country does not excuse wrongful acts. Perhaps that oft-quoted bromide of Senator Carl Schurz (1829–1906) should be recalled:

My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.

Actually, most people only use the first part: my country, right or wrong. No thinking person could agree with this, and to believe it demonstrates an unseemly jingoism. But, for many Democrats, it seems that this has been turned around: their version of the United States is always wrong. This it would seem has been Michelle Obama’s view, at least until now.

As for patriotism, I don’t think that Obama is particularly patriotic as I would understand that term. He seems almost to have an allergy to supporting our troops, except in the backhanded fashion of surrendering in Iraq, as that would undoubtedly save some American lives. In the very short term. The full bill will be presented for payment later, when Islamic terrorists become emboldened by an Obama administration’s lack of guts.

Finally, let’s get back to Michael Barone’s essay, and his mention of what has become an iconic C&W song about our love of our nation:

I remember the electric feeling in the hall, at the first Republican National Convention I attended, in 1984, when Lee Greenwood belted out his country hit, “I’m proud to be an American.” I don’t believe that I’ve heard it at any Democratic National Convention, and I’m pretty sure that some nontrivial number of the delegates would find it off-putting, even obnoxious.

The song in video may be seen here. And be proud you’re an American, should you be one so fortunate as to call her home.

We helped wrest Kosovo from Serbian control, and we’ve led the charge to recognize the former Serbian province of Kosovo as yet another tiny tribal non-nation nation. The difference is that the Kosovars are now mostly Muslim, so there is that feel-good dhimmitude that seems to motivate the president and his State Department’s Arabists.

It’s also great good fun to poke the great nation of Russia in the eye. Russia, who should be our natural ally in the world-wide war against Islamic aggression (ongoing since the 7th century against Christian lands).

There are many reasons we should not have recognized Kosovo as an independent state, but let’s look at just two primary reasons, as given in this cogent essay by Caroline Glick at RealClearPolitics. First there is the most important reason: we have provided another possible safe haven for Islamists in Europe:

The fledgling failed-state of Kosovo is a great boon for the global jihad. It is true that Kosovar Muslims by and large do not subscribe to radical Islam. But it is also true that they have allowed their territory to be used as bases for al-Qaida operations; that members of the ruling Kosovo Liberation Army have direct links to al-Qaida; and that the Islamic world as a whole perceived Kosovo’s fight for independence from Serbia as a jihad for Islamic domination of the disputed province.

According to a 2002 Wall Street Journal report, al-Qaida began operating actively in Kosovo, and in the rest of the Balkans, in 1992. Osama bin Laden visited Albania in 1996 and 1997. He received a Bosnian passport from the Bosnian Embassy in Austria in 1993. Acting on bin Laden’s orders, in 1994 his deputy, Ayman Zawahiri set up training bases throughout the Balkans including one in Mitrovica, Kosovo. The Taliban and al-Qaida set up drug trafficking operations in Kosovo to finance their operations in Afghanistan and beyond.

The second reason is that we insult the very idea of America’s founding as a nation of ideas, a nation of e pluribus unum, out of many, one. America transcends tribe. America transcends religion. Or at least that was the founders’ intention.

Imperfect, yes. No human enterprise can be anything but. But Kosovo begins a state of a particular tribal and religious group: Balkan Muslims who are Albanians, for the most part. Orthodox and other Christians most certainly unwelcome. From Ms. Glick’s essay:

Kosovo’s US-backed declaration of independence is deeply troubling. By setting a precedent of legitimizing the secession of disaffected minorities, it weakens the long-term viability of multi-ethnic states. In so doing, it destabilizes the already stressed state-based international system.

States as diverse as Canada, Morocco, Spain, Georgia, Russia and China currently suffer problems with politicized minorities. They are deeply concerned by the Kosovo precedent. Even the US has latent sovereignty issues with its increasingly politicized Hispanic minority along its border with Mexico. It may one day experience a domestic backlash from its support for Kosovar independence from Serbia.

The very notion of a tribal statelet such as Kosovo is troubling. That it comes with an Islamist threat makes one wonder: what were they thinking at the State Department and the White House to so eagerly get on board this particular train to hell?

For those so inclined, piss off your peace-loving Muslim neighbors. They are, after all, members of the “religion of peace.” Test them on it by purchasing and wearing this lovely tee shirt from MilitaryClothing.com.

Safety notice: should you choose to wear this shirt, be sure to be armed. Be sure to be prepared to send jihadis to meet their 72 white raisins. And to any bleeding hearts out there who think I’m being too insensitive to our Muslim friends, go tell that to the thousands of innocent civilians who have been murdered by Islamic jihadis. And cry me a river…

The McCain campaign just got a huge boost from the Grey Lady, quickly becoming the National Enquirer of Record. The Times, of Jayson Blair and other fabulists fame, has now published a longish hit piece on the integrity of John McCain. It’s a “he says” “she says” ramble about improper access to the senator by a very attractive lobbyist, with whom the senator is linked romantically. Basically all innuendo; a hatchet job.

The Times had endorsed McCain early in the primary season, and this may be used to buttress the Times’ traditional Republican character assassination project — after all, he was our guy; why would we lie? That was then, when McCain, the man who had often bucked the conservative Republican establishment, was running against more conventionally conservative aspirants.

Now that McCain is the presumptive nominee, it is time for the Times to begin its traditional attack on any Republican candidate. It doesn’t matter if the Democrat is Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or Al Gore (hey, he’s tanned, ready, and rested, and he found this Nobel Peace Prize in a box of Cracker Jacks…)

The McCain campaign, and the candidate himself, deny any wrongdoing. From a news source that is much more credible than the Times:

McCain called a press conference in Toledo, Ohio, to refute the story Thursday.“I’m very disappointed in the New York Times piece. It’s not true,” he said.

Asked about his relationship with the lobbyist, he said, “I have many friends in Washington who represent various interests and … I consider her a friend.” He said he saw her “on occasion” at fundraisers, receptions and committee meetings, but that was all.

The article, published in Thursday’s edition of the Times but released the day before on its Web site, revisits rumors spread during McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign and tries to wipe the sheen off the Arizona senator’s record as an anti-special interest crusader, McCain campaign communications director Jill Hazelbaker said.

The Times’ basically unsourced, anonymous story about McCain will help him with millions of independent and centrist Democratic voters who don’t happen to live in Manhattan. It will be seen as the hatchet job it is, and should engender feelings of sympathy from any guy or gal who has ever been the target of unsubstantiated rumors.

Thanks, Grey Lady. Keep up the good work.

Let’s assume that John McCain will face the man of audaciously changing hope in the general election.

Now, at first one might think that on the one hand, we’ve got the son and grandson of four-star admirals, and a white man, and an Episcopalian (well, ok, he’s a Baptist now, but, hey, we all fall off the high church wagon now and again…). They don’t come much more entitled than that, do they?

Well, yes, and no. John McCain served his nation; put himself in harm’s way. And paid for it, physically, and mentally. But he has not stopped serving, and what he said just last night rings true: I don’t seek the office out of a sense of entitlement.

On the other we’ve got a man who is half African and half American: a true African American, even if his Kenyan father’s forebears were never slaves. At least in this hemisphere. Actual slavery isn’t the point; it’s victimhood, and Barack Obama is surely a dues-paying member of a victim class. At least according to the victimologists on the left who now have control of the Democratic Party.

Listening to his gaseous speeches about hope and change and audacity and more change and hope and “we can change the universe” can get a practical man yearning for some good old-fashioned meat and potatoes. What we get with Obama is thin gruel; not much nutrition, and what there is is more taxes, more spending, leading to yet more taxes and yet more spending.

But the sense of the Obama campaign is one of overwhelming entitlement: you, America, owe me, Barack Obama, simply because of who and what I am.  And any that deny this are racists.

This could be huge, if it is sustained at the voting booth. From the New York Post, this polling result that should given the Democratic elders nightmares:

February 19, 2008 — Likely GOP presidential nominee John McCain is within single-digit striking distance of Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama in heavily Democratic New York state, and leads both in the suburbs and upstate, according to a new poll released yesterday.

The Siena College Survey found Clinton and Obama just 7 points ahead of McCain – 49 to 42 percent and 47 to 40 percent, respectively – largely because of overwhelming support from heavily Democratic New York City voters.

Polls vary all over the map, of course, and one should never bet the farm on any single poll. However, it does give one pause as to the inevitability of a Democrat’s taking the White House. Beyond giving one pause, it gives me hope that we may avoid the lefty naif Obama or the calculating Hillary.

The reasons the American electorate may recover from its Obamarama swooning are summarized by John Derbyshire at NRO. They relate to a simple side-by-side comparison of what each candidate has to offer. His succinct comparison of the resumes of the three candidates left standing:

• Hillary: U.S. Senator (7 yrs). Wife of president (8 yrs). Wife of state governor (12 yrs). Amateur, but sensationally successful, trader/investor (2 yrs). Wife of state attorney general (2 yrs). “Rainmaker” lawyer (on and off). Law school, lawyering.
• Obama: U.S. senator (3 yrs). State senator (8 yrs). Lawyer on behalf of community groups and discrimination claims (4 yrs). Part-time lecturing (12 yrs). Community organizing (2-3 yrs). Office work (2 yrs). Law school, lawyering.
• Compare: John McCain U.S. senator (21 yrs). U.S. congressman (4 yrs). Businessman (2½ yrs). U.S. Navy (22 yrs, including 5½ yrs as a prisoner of war).

Yes, indeed: compare. Resumes, of course, do not a president make. But aside from his resume, John McCain is, if we have to repeat it, a hero, a man of conviction who has demonstrated he isn’t afraid to stand up to North Vietnamese captors or Democratic and Republican pork barrel politics.

And, in sharp contrast to the lies told by Obama about being bipartisan (Obama’s slim record shows he is a down-the-line liberal Democrat), John McCain has actually crossed party lines to work with Democrats. And gotten in dutch with some of our more vocal conservative watchdogs in the process.

It should take any American about three seconds, tops, to conclude which candidate would be best for America, the one that Michelle Obama is, finally, so darn proud of.

Douglas Wilder, the first elected black governor or Virginia (a job he did not do all that well) is now mayor of Richmond, the state capitol and all-around pesthole (unofficial city motto: “now with fewer bars and brothels than Norfolk!”). Old Doug now weighs in on the prospect that Hillary might use the Donk so-called superdelegates to overturn the primary election results.

From Politico, in a story concerning the possibility that Clinton might poach some delegates supposedly pledged to Obama, we learn that the Donks don’t. Learn, that is, from their past mistakes:

On Sunday, Doug Wilder, the mayor of Richmond and a former governor of Virginia, went even further, predicting riots in the streets if the Clinton campaign were to overturn an Obama lead through the use of superdelegates.

On Sunday, Doug Wilder, the mayor of Richmond and a former governor of Virginia, went even further, predicting riots in the streets if the Clinton campaign were to overturn an Obama lead through the use of superdelegates.

“There will be chaos at the convention,” Wilder told Bob Schieffer on “Face the Nation.”

“If you think 1968 was bad, you watch: In 2008, it will be worse.”

Hmm. predicting “riots in the streets.” Sounds grim; can’t we all just get along? Now why would a black man predict “riots” if a black man is denied the nomination under extant Democratic Party rules?

It’s been said that Hillary Clinton would say, and do, just about anything to get elected president. Perhaps. Would this include using party rules to deny the primary voters their clear choice (assuming that Obama winds up winning more delegates and a greater share of the popular vote)?

Very much yes, and more power to her if she can pull it off.

Mrs. Barack Hussein Obama has said that for “the first time in her adult life,” she was proud of America (YouTube). And what have we Americans done to rate such praise from Mrs. Messiah? Just this: Mr. Messiah has a decent chance to gain the Democratic nomination and win the presidency, thereby saving us from our racist wretchedness.

Michelle Obama is 42 years old and was an adult when Soviet communism folded its tents. She was an adult when the Untied States rescued Balkan Muslims from Serbian oppression. She was an adult when the United States rid Afghanistan of an evil theocracy. She was an adult when the United States toppled one of the worst genocidal tyrants of all time in Iraq. Tsunami relief. Other humanitarian relief around the world. AIDs relief to Africa. It’s a long list, but apparently this woman can’t be “proud” of something unless it is her husband who’s done it.

What we do know is that Mrs. Messiah is a great big solipsist. She and Mr. Messiah, with their vacuous talk of “hope” and “change” are the end-all and be-all; the alpha and omega. It’s all about them, and only them. Kind of remind you of the Clintons, without Paula Jones or Whitewater (so far; there is that slumlord thing…)

Another mini-state is born, and, again, we demonstrate our ability to poke Russia in the eye. We’ve just recognized the new mini-state Kosovo, and it is basically another grouping of ethnic Albanians in the southeast quadrant of the former Yugoslavia. They are also (mostly) Muslims, so I guess the Bush administration feels some special responsibility to be kind to them.

It’s said that Albania, in particular, is the most pro-American nation in the world. Well and good; why didn’t they annex Kosovo? It is, after all, just chock full of their ethnic cousins.

Mysteries abound. We recognize a “nation” that is not unique and that only adds to the confusion in the Balkans. Meanwhile, we sell brave allies in Taiwan down the river; allies who have created a prosperous democracy in the face of the Chinese dragon.  All for some communist Chinese trade, which in typical amoral fashion we celebrate, hoping for human rights to spring up as if by magic.  And looking away when we hear of the latest atrocity from our Chinese trading partners.

The word feckless comes to mind in our diplomatic dealings with various actors, great and small, on the world’s stage. And, just a final thought for all those who may cheer the Kosovars on: why is everyone’s nationalism a good thing, regardless of how tiny their “nation” may be, yet our nationalism is a thing to be shunned?

Just asking.

From Victor Davis Hanson, a brief reminder of the “religion of peace” and their recent antics, and some of “us”:

Them—honor violence in the UK; plot broken up to kill the Danish cartoonists; Turkish Prime Minister announces in Germany to Turkish residents that assimilation is a crime against humanity; videos posted of al Qaeda burning prisoners alive; reports of Al Qaeda recruiting women with Down’s syndrome and other mental ailments to serve as human bombs.

Us—Archbishop of Canterbury announces imposition of Sharia Law is “unavoidable; Congress shuts down without passing renewal of ant-terrorist statutes; Obama reiterates proposed withdrawal from Iraq within 60 days of his inauguration; Hirsi Ali pleads in vain for EU security details while in Europe; Nancy Pelosi announces surge has “failed”; Zbigniew Brzezinski visits Syria at time marquee terrorists are murdered, and exposed as having lived here with full knowledge of government.

So the question remains, is the third millennium up to battle against the first? Are we arguing over wiretaps while al Qaeda burns its captives alive in Iraq?

Where are the millions of peace-loving, human-rights-advocating Muslims, taking to the streets to protest such inhumanity as Islamic terrorists demonstrate at every turn?

We know who some of our idiots are. Do the world’s billion or so Muslims know theirs, or are they all part of the problem?

Found this lovely screed from Canada via Mark Steyn’s piece at NRO, “You Say You Want a Revolution — Political worshippers of the new Messiah.”

The new Messiah is, of course, Barack Hussein Obama. And the author of the rabidly anti-American screed warns us, darkly, of what primitives we truly are here, south of the Canadian border:

They do not want to hear that Barack Obama is as much an American as they are, and who has had to explain more times than he should have that he is not a Muslim, but a secular Christian. They do not want to hear that he is a better American than they are, these right-wing extremist fascists in the land of America who no doubt believe it’s God’s will Barack Obama not get to the White House, no method of deterrence out of bounds, in their zealotry to protect and perpetuate Roy Rogers, John Wayne, Mom’s apple pie, and the cross of Jesus in every home.

Wow. Who would’ve thunk it? That Roy Rogers, the Singing Cowboy, needed to be “perpetuated” in order to save the cross of Jesus in every home. Words almost fail at the ass-hattery of this Canadian idiot.

The idiot’s thesis is that Obama, much like the sainted martyrs who went before, will be killed before his time by some sheet-wearing acolyte of Roy Rogers.

Well, let’s hope not. Not that there aren’t folks out there who would kill a presidential candidate who is half-black. But, as Mark Steyn shows, there’s no shortage of those who wish George W. BusHitler were murdered. But that doesn’t count, because, after all, President Bush is just so gol-darned mean to Muslims and terrorists.

Obama is different. He’s bright, new, and shiny. And he’s got the hope for change. Or was that changing hopes? Whatever, dude. Let’s not get bogged down in policies; that’s so Hillary…

Some folks are never happy. They don’t like the Republicans. They don’t like the Democrats. They’ll show ‘em by registering as independents. Independents are smart, and have the courage not to be tied down by messy and corrupt partisan politics. Probably recycle and drive Priouses as well, and always think good thoughts.

Being an independent means…drum roll, maestro…not belonging to a political party. Among other things, it means they may not be able to vote in elections held by a political party to choose a candidate. May not. But there are quite a few states that hold open primaries, in which one’s party registration does not matter. And, in a perfect world, they should never be able to vote in what must be seen as the internal workings of a political party.

Ah, but there are always those who believe they can, and should, have it both ways. Get that feel-good-about-myself-glow by registering as an independent. And still have a voice in the selection of one party’s candidates. Cake. Eat it. Too.

One whiner wrote in today’s WaPo that “In D.C., Independents Were Disenfranchised.” Outrageous; surely the Supreme Court will hear of this rape of our Constitution. From the complaint:

As a recently converted independent, I have been forced to confront the reality that I have no primary voting rights in the District.independents are still citizens who deserve a voice in the political process. Although independents may feel their political views are not easily categorized in the two-party system, they must have equal opportunity to participate in the electoral process.

An open primary in Washington could be one step toward a representative, inclusive system in a place famous for taxation without representation. (emphasis added)

Ah, inclusiveness. The primary virtue of those who believe they are entitled to something merely because they believe it to be so. For those slow learners out there, apparently including this writer, let’s take this slowly:

• Political parties exist as a group of like-minded people who band together to select candidates to run in the general election.
• Those who choose not to become a member of that group should not expect to be part of the internal selection process.
• Being an independent means exactly what it says: one is independent of any political party.

Finally, no more whines about a primary election not being “inclusive.” It is not supposed to be. It is, by its very nature, suppose to exclude those who are not members of the party. That some state primaries are open to all comers reflects a weakening of political parties.

Miss, you haven’t been disenfranchised. Independents, with their pride in their political purity, may still vote in the general election. If you want something more, register with the party of your choice. In Washington, D.C. the Democratic primary is tantamount to the general election. There is essentially zero chance that the Democratic nominee for national or city-wide office will not win. So, at the risk of repetition, you want in? Register as a Democrat.

If, on the other hand, you’re one of the three or so Republicans who live in D.C., get out before they come for you…

An interesting portrait of the blue-collar Rust Belt voter in today’s WaPo. It shows the travails of a failing town, Lima, Ohio, through the eyes of one man who may have a good-paying job, but it’s bringing him down.

The point of the portrait is to show how white ethnics view the current race between Obama and Clinton. The lens through which these folks view things is pretty depressing, and shows a rather stark lack of independent thought. While there is some discomfort with Obama (“‘Do you know his middle name?’ she asked. ‘It’s Hussein. Hussein.’”), that doesn’t really matter to this citizen:

“I mean, don’t get me wrong. He’s all right. If he gets the nomination, well, we’re going to have to vote for him and get behind him because we’re Democrats above anything else. But I just don’t like the preaching that he’s doing. He sounds like an old Bible-thumper to me. I like being talked to. I don’t like being yelled at.” (emphasis added)

The name for this kind of unthinking party loyalty? Yellow Dog Democrat. Defined at Wikipedia thusly:

In the late 19th century and throughout the 20th century, yellow dog Democrats were voters in the U.S. Southern states who consistently voted for Democratic candidates because of lingering resentment against Republicans from the Civil War and Reconstruction periods. The term arose from the notion that a Southerner would vote for a yellow dog before voting for a Republican.

Some things never change. Back then, the Democrats tried to keep the black man down. Now, that particular motive has been replaced with a vague notion that, somehow, voting Democratic will bring jobs and prosperity back to the Rust Belt. And along the way, we can shut our borders to anything manufactured overseas unless all the workers are paid-in-full members of the AFL-CIO. If wishes were fishes…you know the rest; these folks in Ohio don’t seem to.

Such lack of thought probably also afflicts some Republicans. We’re only human, despite what Democrats may think. Sadly, there are ignorant folks in both parties. But, somehow, it’s the Democrats who seem to have the franchise on lack of thought in their candidates.

Whenever a lone nut with guns kills some innocents, especially at a school, there is a lot of pious talk about how evil and dangerous guns are. And, as sure as night follows day, there are calls for more restrictions on firearms.

The latest round of shootings at Northern Illinois University, which left six students dead, is “evidence” that something needs to be done.

As usual, it is liberal politicians who are leading the charge. Mostly, they are two-faced. St. Barack of Obama is typical, but I’ll pick on him because he’s got a good chance to become president. From the Baltimore Sun’s political blog, The Swamp, consider this:

Obama said he believes in the Second Amendment, but that there is plenty of room for added gun regulations. “There is an individual right to bear arms, but it’s subject to commonsense regulation,” he said.

Mentioning his home city, Obama said local entities should also have the ability to have their own more strict regulations.

“I think that local jurisdictions have the capacity to institute their own gun laws…The City of Chicago has gun laws, as does Washington, D.C.” (emphasis added)

It should be assumed that by “plenty of room for added gun regulations,” St. Barack presumably means making it basically illegal to own a gun as a private citizen. But “he believes in the Second Amendment,” so that it’ll be alright.

Classic lefty cant, of course: having it both ways; stating mutually incompatible beliefs.  But, in another classic lefty move, St. Barack assumes that more and more restrictions on guns will make the problem go away.

Consider Washington, D.C. Now, in case you’ve not been following the news, Washington, D.C. has pretty much the toughest gun control law in the nation; said law in clear violation of the Second Amendment. But, ignoring the constitutionality of the law, by any reasonable standard it has not much helped reduce the murder rate in D.C.

And let’s look at St. Barack’s Chicago. Consider these two numbers, 6.0 and 22.1. These are homicide rates per 100,000 in 1900 and 2000, respectively (source: Encyclopedia of Chicago). Something like 80% of homicides in Chicago are committed with firearms; let’s for argument sake assume that this percentage has been reasonably consistent.

Now, just one question: In which year do you think Chicago had stricter gun control, 1900 or 2000?

To read media accounts, St. Barack of Obama is on his way to becoming, pick one or more, a) the messiah, b) the Anti-Clinton, c) the next High Priest of the United States. Correct answer, of course, is all three. What’s missing is any evidence that Obama will be any kind of a credible president.

Obama’s past and present associations, and his almost total lack of experience doing anything relating to national security or, for that matter, any kind of governance at the federal level, should disqualify him from even running. But, that’s not the way our system works, and the Democrats have fallen in love with the audacity of hope. Or was that hoping for audacity? No matter.

In a classic case of chickens coming home to roost, the Democratic Party now faces a conundrum: ignore vox populi and let the so-called super delegates choose Hillary Clinton as nominee, or, go with Obama. Who, if he wins, will be the professional politician’s worst nightmare: a potential president who doesn’t owe them.

If it were Bill Richardson or Joe Biden or Chris Dodd, or, for that matter, virtually anyone else who ran this past year, it would be different. At least in those we’d have men with substantial records, men with whom we could debate and discuss the issues. With Obama, what we are getting, so far, is gas. It is hard to pin anything on a vapor.

Let’s be clear. Hillary Clinton has baggage. Major baggage, not least including the former letch-in-chief Bill Clinton. It also seems that the mainstream media has deserted their former darling, and cast poor Hill adrift, their visual clarity somehow, miraculously, improved by visions of St. Barack of Obama. The chattering class has virtually written Hill off (e.g. Eugene Robinson’s piece today, or E.J. Dionne’s, both liberals).

The crunching sound you may hear is the sound of the liberal press eating one of its own…Praise the Lord, and let’s anoint the new king…

Barack Hussein Obama. Kind of rolls off the tongue, a mixture of African and Arab. When I first saw the name, I thought it would be about someone in Sudan.

Now, of course, I know that the preferred naming by the now-front running Democratic candidate is “Barack Obama.” Because, as we all now know, it would be racist or Islamophic or something not the least bit politically correct to point out the man’s Muslim roots.

As BHO’s star rose in the East, as it were, the ever-vigilant WaPo headlined a typical story late last year thusly: “Foes Use Obama’s Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him”. Rumors aside, there is that inconvenient middle name of Hussein. But, apparently, having Muslims in one’s family tree is a good thing. From the WaPo:

In campaign appearances, Obama regularly mentions his time living and attending school in Indonesia, and the fact that his paternal grandfather, a Kenyan farmer, was a Muslim. Obama invokes these facts as part of his case that he is prepared to handle foreign policy, despite having been in the Senate for only three years, and that he would literally bring a new face to parts of the world where the United States is not popular.

Yep. Having a president whose middle name is Hussein would should endear us to the Arabs. They’ll just fall over themselves to make nice with Israel and stop their world-wide violent jihad against the West. Uh-huh. Anyone want more smores while we sit around the Girl Scout campfire and sing another round of Kumbayah?

If Obama objects to folks using his middle name, just one question:  Is he embarrassed by having Hussein as a middle name? If so, why not change it? If not, why should anyone object to its use?

Just asking…

Barack Hussein Obama is starting to show his true colors: a tax and spend liberal. While he has been criticized for being vague on what, exactly, he would do as president, he now has revealed some rather unsurprising proposals. Tax the “wealthiest Americans” and spend on infrastructure. From the WaPo:

The newest element of his [Obama's] proposal was the establishment of a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank, which would spend $60 billion over a decade to rebuild deteriorating roads, bridges and waterways. Obama said the spending would generate 2 million new jobs, many of them in a construction industry that has been hard hit by the housing market downturn.

Sounds an awful lot like that marvelous pork-barrel project from the 1930s that FDR foisted on us: The Works Progress Administration, or WPA. Even its name connotes lefty goodness. Who could possibly be against “progress?” What WPA was, was a make-work enterprise, a handout by any other name. Did some good things get done? Sure. Had to have; it would have been like dropping napalm on the forest: you’re sure to kill some critters.

From the Wikipedia entry on the WPA, this should be noted:

The WPA had numerous conservative critics unlike the Civilian Conservation Corps, which was quite popular. One of the principal criticisms was that the program wasted federal dollars on projects that were not always needed or wanted. A relic of this criticism survives today in the form of a satirical observation that WPA workers were hired ‘to rake leaves in the park.’ White-collar WPA projects in particular were often singled out for their sometimes overtly left-wing social and political themes.

I have no first-hand knowledge of the WPA; I was patiently waiting a few years to be born. But my parents lived through it, and, although they were liberals, they scoffed at the monies that were wasted on make-work and needless projects.

The WPA was merely an expensive form of welfare. Since it did not contribute to any market forces, but, rather, artificially engaged a significant fraction of the labor force, it also arguably delayed the actual economic recovery. It took World War II to actually get us out of the depression that was never tackled by FDR’s socialist nostrums.

Welfare is needed for people while they seek work, or for those unable to work.  In the 1930s, regardless of St. Franklin’s responsibility, we should never let people starve to death to prove a political point.  But let us be crystal clear:  make-work projects are just welfare, gussied up in leftist cant.  Looks like we’d be getting more of the same from Obama.

How do I know Obama’s plan would be wasteful?  For the simple reason that infrastructure is a local matter, and while the Federal taxpayers may have to pitch in to help funding to the states, it is always wasteful to attempt to direct local enterprise from Washington.  Always.

Some people either never learn, or are too blinded by their own ideology to learn. Obama appears to be one such.

“With reports from the Potomac Primary that Obama swept yesterday that he had garnered close to 90% of black votes, he has become the black candidate. While he also has the support of a lot of others, especially the young voters who typically get enthused during the primary season and then don’t vote in the general election, this isn’t the way he started last year — as a candidate who happens to be black.

Given the “we-are-all-victims” mentality of the Democratic Party, they will accuse even the staunchest supporter of quotas (a/k/a affirmative action) and political correctness, such as the Clintons, of being racist should they bring up the inconvenient notion that Obama has become the minority candidate.

A bit of a storm ensued when the governor of Pennsylvania, Ed Rendell, Democrat had the temerity to tell the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

“You’ve got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate.” (via FoxNews)

I don’t know that taking race into consideration would make one a “conservative.” By that standard, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson should be awarded lifetime achievement awards from the Heritage Foundation. Oh, that’s right. I forgot to add “whites.” When a Democrat talks about “conservative whites” in the context of race, he surely means knuckle-dragging racists.

Based on an informal sample of some of our friends who are Democrats, and who are white, there may be more than just conservative whites who react negatively against the notion of a candidate who is so thoroughly supported by one racial group. Time will tell, and I suspect that there will be a significant number of white Democrats and independents who are not racists but who will be pressured into saying they support Obama. But not voting for him.

Whether they will vote for John McCain remains to be seen.

This is really not too surprising: Dutch Catholics can’t call the penitential season before Easter Lent. From the Telegraph (UK):

Dutch Catholics have re-branded the Lent fast as the “Christian Ramadan” in an attempt to appeal to young people who are more likely to know about Islam than Christianity.

The Catholic charity Vastenaktie, which collects for the Third World across the Netherlands during the Lent period, is concerned that the Christian festival has become less important for the Dutch over the last generation.

The image of the Catholic Lent must be polished. The fact that we use a Muslim term is related to the fact that Ramadan is a better-known concept among young people than Lent,” said Vastenaktie Director, Martin Van der Kuil.

The Christian “brand” shows great market weakness; need to pump it up in terms more familiar to the young ‘uns. Unfortunately, this is no surprise, given the continuing secularization of Western Europe among those who formerly had been Christian. More accurately, those who formerly had been born into Christian families.

While no one may know with any certainty what is in the hearts of Dutch Christians, by the usual measure of church attendance, Holland, along with most of the rest of Western Europe, is now a Christian desert. Secular. And this has created a vacuum of sorts, a vacuum of faith. Which has been filled by Muslim immigrants.

Both as a matter of faith, and as a matter of sheer demographics, the future of Europe is beginning to look more and more Islamic. Whether Bat Ye’or’s book, Eurabia, is a rallying cry to action before it is too late, or the ravings of an Islamophobe, there is gathering evidence that Islam is having a far-too-great influence on Europe.

“Christian Ramadan” is just one datum, however egregious it sounds to actual Christians. It is time that Christians reclaim what is ours.