Susan Rice, the most “qualified” Barack Obama adviser, was on MSNBC’s Morning Joe moments ago explaining how Barack Obama’s “timetable” to retreat from Iraq is not the same as a “fixed deadline”.

Say what?

So, if you intend to leave Iraq 16 months from today, then - barring a rift in the space-time continuum - you are expecting to depart on a particular day, 16 months from now.  We get a new detail, too - Obama wanted to pull out of Iraq so that more troops could go to Afghanistan. Considering that he chairs a subcommittee with oversight authority over NATO forces in the Afghan theater. and has yet to hold a single hearing on the topic, this line of rationale reeks of disbelief. That Obama was willing to lose a country that functions as the lynchpin of Middle Eastern stability in order to stabilize the Afghanistan government is small comfort.

Susan Rice also poo-pooed Henry Kissinger’s editorial in The Washington Post today which, in a fittingly diplomatic way, described Obama’s position on Iraq as asinine

Establishing a deadline is the surest way to undermine the hopeful prospects. It will encourage largely defeated internal groups to go underground until a world more congenial to their survival arises with the departure of American forces. Al-Qaeda will have a deadline against which to plan a full-scale resumption of operations. And it will give Iran an incentive to strengthen its supporters in the Shiite community for the period after the American withdrawal. Establishing a fixed deadline would also dissipate assets needed for the diplomatic endgame.

No matter what Rice says, saying we will leave Iraq in 16 months means…we will leave Iraq in 16 months. Kissinger’s analysis is not rocket science - one does not have to have spent decades in diplomatic circles to understand it. It is logically very simple. Most worrisome is that Barack Obama seems completely unable to comprehend it. The only explanation that makes any sense of Obama’s Iraq position is the McCain camp’s retort that he is willing to lose a war to win an election. Indeed, he is steadfast in it.

The only thing more ridiculous than Obama’s ideas is the way his surrogates have to defend them.

 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

House Majority Whip James Clyburn has, like most congressional Democrats, made his career by finding racially tinged “victims” and exploiting their collective discontent. The storied tradition continues

“It is critical our community be an integral and active part of the debate because African-Americans are disproportionately impacted by the effects of climate change economically, socially and through our health and well-being,” House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., said July 29.

Clyburn spoke at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., to help launch the Commission to Engage African-Americans on Climate Change, a project of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.

I may accept that those who do not possess operational air conditions are more affected than I am; however, it’s not because air conditioners don’t like black people. He goes on a conclusionary bullet-point inspired racial soliloquy

“African-Americans are also more vulnerable to higher energy bills, unemployment, recessions caused by global energy price shocks, and a greater economic burden from military operations designed to protect the flow of oil to the U.S,” it says.

And the real kicker

The commission Clyburn helped launch claims Hurricane Katrina’s impact on New Orleans was a preview of how global warming will affect African-Americans.

Of course! Global warming is what made Mayor Ray Nagin and Governor Kathleen Blanco so inept.

Let’s break this down a little more. The black armed forces myth continues to be perpetrated - blacks make up 17% of the armed forces, but it’s not because they are black and forced to serve. They may or may not come from poorer backgrounds - if they do, which is probably what the congressman would argue, he should be praising global warming and the American appetite for oil, as it provides a need and opportunity for poor black kids who otherwise might have none.

Twisted logic to be sure, but no more twisted than Clyburn’s ridiculous attempt to racialize the climate. It seems he is also equating higher energy prices with global warming, which on a most basic level maintains an economically unsound connection.

Missing the larger socio-economic point, and assuming Clyburn’s truth of the Klan-like discretionary effects of global warming, it is not just poor blacks Clyburn should be pandering to, as they are, in all material respects, no different than the impoverished of other melanin contents.

Here is a news flash. The poor always suffer more than anyone else, no matter what the “climate”. If Clyburn truly cared about all poor people, he ought to be looking to real policies of opportunity aimed at economic growth, rather than racializing humidity. For argument, conceding its man-made existence, global warming does not affect blacks because they are black - it affects them because they are poor.  Dave Chappell is not losing any sleep over global warming.

In short, the old headline canard we all love - World Ends - Minorities and Women Hardest Hit, but in a made-for-2008 environmental package.

Barack Obama, citizen of the world, speaking to the 58th state of Germany, declared his foreign policy credentials today to us all.  Early polls say that Berlin will likely go Obama in November.  I hear MSNBC is going to pad their next poll accordingly.  Chris Matthews is already practicing his technique. Keith Olbermann has patented a Barack Obama blow-up doll. The New York Times is planning a scratch-and-sniff edition.

There is a divide, not between the civilized West and the Islamist and doctrinal East, but between America and Europe, according to Barack Obama. He is a dangerous, clueless, ill-equipped blusterer.

Barack Obama has pitched a world view that subserviates the American culture, economy, and her values, to the less-accomplished, aged countries that drag down the European Union.

Get this, folks - especially you Obama supporters. The European “way” is in no fashion, by any measure, superior.

It is worth recalling that our country, in fact her very essence, was created and founded upon a desire to be most unlike Europe. We established no royalty. Our Founders, brilliant by any historical standard, engenderd the world’s first successful, long functioning democratic republic, fashioned inapposite to every tradition stemming from the history of the Old World. Our brilliance is in our leadership, our entrepreneurialism, and our desire to exceed the limitations imposed by the culture we escaped. That is our gift to them, to the world. Any man who desires the presidency must realize that, and ultimately, must accept it with every fiber of his being. If not, he is unfit to hold the office.

Indeed, and contrary to this requirement, Barack Obama wants to rescind that promise to our future. His position is that we must reapproach the Europeans, and become more like them. He has not learned even the most fundamental truths underpinning the founding of our country.  His world view sells America’s founding principles out on the self-esteem auction block. We must be liked. Feelings matter. Waa, waa, we must be popular. Buy a cool car. Outfit the cabinet at Hot Topic. Do whatever it takes to be loved. One would think the constitutional minimum age requirement of 35 years to be president would get us past a lot of that. Apparently, the only thing Obama needs to do now is sport some baggy pants.

No, the reality is that the United States must be respected, revered, and, if necessary, feared.  No great president has ever executed the office otherwise (and my apologies to the Clinton apologists, he was not a great president).  Obama is not of this mold. He is an apologist for his country, more in the mold of Jimmy Carter than John Kennedy. John McCain is right - Barack Obama wants to win this campaign more than he wants to win any war. The only victory he seems okay with is the vanquishment of the spirit of the country he seeks to lead.

If gas prices at the pump are still falling come November, John McCain will win.

Practically all the polls say that the electorate wants change, which is a common sentiment come election time without an incumbent. What this means, however, is that people want a change in circumstance. If oil prices continue to fall, the Iraqi government holds firms and we begin to withdraw, and Afghanistan begins moving in the right direction (all not unlikely developments in the next three months), George W. Bush will leave office a popular president. People do not dislike President Bush - they dislike the daily facts surrounding his present time in office.

And recall, the Congress, controlled by Barack Obama’s cohorts, has a 9% approval rating, making Bush look almost Beatle-like in comparison. The Democrat brand is not as damaged as the Republican brand, but there is time yet for that.

All this is not to say that lower energy prices are the only way McCain can win - Obama has a penchant for gaffing, and may be the worst extemporaneous speaker on the planet. Things can happen. Plus, he has thus far had the luxury of running on a phantom history. His real record, which will largely shock middle America, has not even remotely been exposed.

The best thing Bush can do, and McCain can continue to do, is advocate more oil exploration. This is an issue Obama has lost, and the Democrat leadership has walked away from. More news like this, which confirms the United States could be more of a player in the world petroleum market, makes the Democrats’ position more untenable by the day. As prices fall, the Democrats won’t be there to get the credit, and in view of that reality, Obama’s candidacy may simply implode.

Clearly - wait, scratch that - puzzlingly, no wait - predictably? Yes, predictably.

Predictably, the bumbler (heard any of his press conferences while abroad?) Barack Obama has changed his public opinion on yet another matter of foreign policy import - the proposed use of nuclear weapons. On August 2, 2007, Obama had this to say about the use of the American nuclear arsenal

But when asked by The Associated Press after a Capitol Hill breakfast with constituents whether there was any circumstance where he would be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons to defeat terrorism and Osama bin Laden, Mr. Obama replied that “There’s been no discussion of using nuclear weapons and that’s not a hypothetical that I’m going to discuss.”

When asked whether his answer also applied to the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons, he said it did.

Now, the flaccid senator from Illinois has apparently changed his mind

Obama told reporters during a visit to Israel that if elected, he would take “no options off the table” in dealing with the Iran issue and said tougher sanctions could be imposed.

“A nuclear Iran would pose a grave threat and the world must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” Obama told reporters after visiting the Israeli town of Sderot, which lies close to the border with the Hamas-run Gaza Strip.

Unless, of course, his understanding of what a table actually constitutes is something different than the commonly used metaphor implies. Does he even know what he believes?

The same “speculators” so ignorantly derided by economic obtuses in the Senate and Congress aren’t getting the credit for the lower trading price of that precious sloggy commodity we all love to hate.

The oil market is perfectly operable within the laws of supply of demand. The futures market, which is where the price of oil is set, responds to external stimuli like anything else. The President lifts the executive drilling ban, and the prospects of a long term drop in price causes near-term futures prices to adjust downward. Mexico buys contracts to sell oil at today’s price in 30 days, and the price falls.The prospect of an increase in interest rates, which should be a no-brainer at this point, causes the value of the dollar to increase, which means that the price of all imports (chiefly, oil) will decrease.

There is no “Big Oil” - especially not anywhere within America, because the Left won’t let us effectively drill. There is no “oil conspiracy”. We are not, and never were, in Iraq for their oil.  All of these canards are the modern-day equivalent of believing there are goblins in the forest and that werewolves roam under the full moon. They are merely stories to scare children - er, leftist voters.

The last thing the government needs to do is increase taxes and interfere in the markets. Increased transparency is okay, but significant limits on futures trading is troublesome. So far, the Democrats in Congress have proven themselves inept at passing much of anything. There is no reason to believe that on the subject of socializing energy they would be any more effective.

 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

According to a link unearthed by Ben Cunningham, there is preliminary research that the effects of Alzheimers may be reversible

Building on previous work by the same authors, published in BioMed Central’s Journal of Neuroinflammation, this study focuses on the effect of the anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) drug, etanercept, on measures of verbal ability.

TNF-alpha, a critical component of the brain’s immune system, normally finely regulates the transmission of neural impulses in the brain. The authors hypothesize that elevated levels of TNF-alpha in Alzheimer’s disease interfere with this regulation. To reduce elevated TNF-alpha, the authors utilized a unique perispinal delivery method to administer etanercept.

There are drugs that can inhibit worsening symptoms, but nothing yet that can reverse what had been thought to be permanent damage. Anything that could roll back this awful disease is something worth more research.

I don’t spend much time whining about media bias. To me, the ridiculous love affair that the media has with Obama is pretty obvious, but what are you doing to do about it? I’ve limited my writing on the subject to an occasional jab at Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews simply because their salivating and sweaty infatuation with Obama is downright comical. I’m amused that they would consider themselves “journalists”.

Tonight on Hardball, Chris Matthews did something despicable that I cannot ignore. During his “Photos from the Trail” segment (or something like that), he showed a photo of Senator Obama and General Petraus in a helicopter flying over Iraq. Matthews then said, “And what was Senator McCain doing at this very moment?” Matthews proceeded to show a photo of McCain sitting in a golf cart with former President George H.W. Bush.

Matthews concluded the segment by saying, “It would be quite telling if you put these two photos side-by-side about who is more concerned with what is going on in the world.”

Are you kidding me??? Senator McCain has been to Iraq EIGHT TIMES!! This slimy move by Matthews is insulting and a blatantly misleading play. Chris Matthews knew exactly what he was doing and who he was helping through this ridiculous comparison. People are worried about Fox News? I shudder to think that anyone gets their political information from MSNBC! (Luckily, from the published ratings, it’s apparent that not many people do.)

Pssst … I saw this picture once of Barack Obama sitting with Al Gore. What’s the deal with that? Wasting time with a former vice-president while receiving an endorsement? Guess he doesn’t care about what’s going on in the country.

Barack Obama actually said he would not have supported the surge, even knowing what he knows now. He would have preferred complete withdrawal, which, under his grand Utopian worldview, would have already been accomplished by now. The old tale Barack Obama tells never follows through to its assuredly disastrous ending (alas, we can ask Hillary Clinton about Obama’s finishing abilities).

In short, we would already be out of Iraq, and the Iran funded Shiite religiocide of Sunnis would be well underway.

What this means, in real-world speak, is that Barack Obama would have been perfectly at peace with having lost Iraq to Iran. And, it seems safe to say, he has also reached a troubling mahamudra with losing Iraq in the future. The Washington Post called Obama “indifferent” to success in Iraq. I think that may be too kind. He is not merely apathetic. He is actively advocating policies that would assure America’s defeat to an enemy who is mentally mired in the 8th century.

But oh, how the Europeans would like us!

As John McCain perceptively noted, Barack Obama would not have been able to visit Iraq if his own policies had been implemented. This irony is lost on the Democrats’ nominee and the vast swath of liberals who wish for an America something less American than what the Founders deigned her to be. It is not just the adolescent desire to be “liked” by the rest of the world (no matter how unworthy the rest of the world actually is) that drives them, but a core belief that the socialistic European model is superior. This Euro-fondness is projected onto our foreign policy.

Barack Obama claims, above all his “qualifications” for the Oval Office, to possess superior judgment to John McCain. The evidence, however, is massively to the contrary.

 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

A well-placed Washington Republican source says the pick is Rudy Giuliani.

Don’t bet yet, folks.

I debated whether or not to address one of the comments left on my previous post. Sometimes, it is best just to ignore misguided folks. But, when someone accuses me of abusing my child, it’s not something I can leave alone.

A couple of days ago, I described an incident in which my daughter defended herself against a child three times her age and twice her size. This child had been bullying the little ones in the center since her arrival, and I guess Catherine had had enough. Here is how one person responded:

Nice. Teaching your child to resolve conflict violence is never okay. And you are bragging about it?

Actually, sometimes you need to resolve conflict with violence. If a man ever physically assaults me, you better believe I will kick, punch, and gouge out his eyes. If someone is heading towards a school while shooting a gun, I will hit him with my car. Are these extreme examples? Yes. But, sometimes violence is required to end conflict. My daughter would be naive to think otherwise. Should she pick fights on the playground? Absolutely not. Should she be respectful and kind to everyone until her own person is threatened? You bet. But, I am also going to teach her that she has a right to take care of herself.

You have a thug in the making.

Yes, the polite girl who says, “Please,” “Thank you”, and “Yes, Ma’am” is a thug. She sure hid her thugness well last Christmas as she cowered behind me when she saw Santa Claus in the mall. My daughter will never instigate violence or bother innocent people. That’s what thugs do. DO NOT call my kind, intelligent, funny, creative little girl a thug.

Teaching a two year old that violence is not an appropriate response to someone taking a toy out of her hand would have been the appropriate response.

My daughter did politely ask for her toy to be returned. That politeness (which was the correct response) got her a push in the gut. Should she have said, “Oh, please, bully, allow me to play with the toy I was peacefully enjoying before your arrival.”? Or, maybe she should just walk away so that the bully can continue with the belief that shoving a small child is the way to get what you want.

Perhaps you need parenting classes. If you’re interested, please email us.

No, thank you. I’m certainly not a perfect parent, but I am darn good. My daughter knows that she is loved and protected by both her daddy and me. We are teaching her to love, show kindness to others, share, be respectful and explore.

I read that you once put gum on the nose of one of your students, which is child humiliating and emotionally harmful.

No, that was my middle school social studies teacher in 1988 (Mr. Vinson … still one of my favorites). If a teacher clearly states on the first day of class that gum is not allowed in his classroom and that if you are found to be chewing gum in his classroom, you will be required to wear the gum on the end of your nose for the rest of class, then there were no surprises. These were twelve and thirteen-year-old adolescents. They knew what they were doing. Emotionally harmful? Come on.

I just hope you never go back to teaching and harm anymore children.

I don’t plan to go back to teaching, but that is because I enjoy staying home with my daughter and because I cannot work in such a broken school system. Are you actually accusing me of harming a child?

As for your own child, there are organizations, mine included, (CAP= Children Abuse Prevention)
to keep an eye on women and men like you. So thanks for the heads up.

Nothing angers me more than monsters who abuse children in any way. I hope there are other organizations, obviously not your own, that actually spend time protecting children who are in dangerous situations. To threaten that you will be keeping an eye on me is absurd and a disservice to the thousands of children who are abused in this state every day. In fact, more than anything else, your response makes me sad. I hope that people who read this blog and are interested in donating money to organizations that actually help children will know not to send anything your way.

The Democrats squabbling over the right to get trounced by Lamar Alexander are, well, tiffing. Per Clint Brewer at the City Paper

“Bob Tuke has already failed us once,” Eaton insisted. “We had a Democrat in Harold Ford Jr. that should have won this state in 2006 and didn’t. Who was party chair? Bob Tuke, and he has already let us down.”

Eaton late in the week rolled that tidbit out in a press release. Clad in sandals, shorts and a Hawaiian print shirt, Eaton did not cut a very senatorial profile sitting in our offices. But his riff on Tuke is the best shot of the otherwise sleepy Democratic Senate primary to date.

I have met Mr. Eaton. He is, to say the least, a peculiar fellow. Clint did not mention the pinky ring, which means Eaton was getting it cleaned or Clint is slipping a bit. Many moons ago, I sat opposite Tuke on the much-missed, now-defunct Teddy Bart Show when he was Democrat Party chairman. True, Tuke had no pinky ring, but the partisan bling was decidedly glaring.

Of course, how do you respond to Eaton? He is already bizarre, and very comfortable in his own skin. In a way, Tuke is going to have to, because Eaton is now on par financially with Tuke, which ought to make the campaign all that more interesting.

And imagine - all this just to lose by 25 in November!

I picked up Catherine from the child watch room at the Y last week and was told by one of the workers that my daughter had been in a fight. I just went with my first instinct and asked, “Did she win?” And, apparently, she had. It was one of those “I’m so proud but need to pretend I’m not” parent moments.

Here is why my pride was at least somewhat warranted. Catherine was simply defending herself from a girl four years her senior who grabbed a toy out of her hands. When Catherine asked for it back, the girl pushed her. Turning the other cheek is not a skill that my two-year-old has mastered yet. So, she pushed back and the older girl ended up on the floor with Catherine on top of her. Catherine had to be pulled off the other child.

Bravo, I say! Catherine did not instigate the violence, but she wasn’t going to allow herself to be bullied. But, I still gave her the, “If a kid bothers you, you never hit back. You go tell an adult” speech. I felt that was an obligatory nod to keeping the peace.

A warning to all six-year-old girls out there who think they can mess with my child — do not underestimate my girl … she is tough and ready to rumble if you get her riled up!

The New York Times has an article today detailing the speech that New York Governor David “I Had an Affair, Too, But I Didn’t Pay for It” Paterson gave to the NAACP Convention in Cincinnati.

The closing paragraph of the story has a disturbing quote from Gov. Paterson –

“How are some of us, who have many times been luckier than we have been good, going to help those who unfortunately haven’t been able to receive prosperity as we have?”

So, how exactly does one go about getting in on this whole “receiving prosperity” deal? I’m just hanging out on my couch right now watching Airline on the Biography Channel. Could it be that any moment my doorbell will ring and someone will hand me some prosperity? That would be awesome.

I was under this crazy assumption that prosperity was earned through hard work, or at least accurate completion of a Publishers Clearinghouse form. I didn’t know it simply could be wrapped up in a bow and given like a gift.

It takes a twisted perspective to think that those who are prosperous did nothing but wait for someone to hand it over. Those with prosperity were just lucky to “receive” it.

Now, to the main point of Paterson’s quote, I certainly think we should make contributions to our community and help out one another. But, this involvement should not be based on guilt over being one of the lucky ones to “get” prosperity as a gift.

A federal jury has found former Tennessee State Senator John Ford guilty on all counts.

Charles Krauthammer has an excellent opinion piece in the Washington Post today (which was brought to my attention by one of our most faithful readers in Maryland). Obama’s trip to Europe, billed as a tour-de-force of his foreign policy acumen, comes off rather as a poorly orchestrated attempt to bolster a resume-less candidate

Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted “present” nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.

Hmm, I’m sure there are plenty of mirrors on the continent. The point is sound, however, not that experience alone makes a good president (Herbert Hoover had ample), but virtually no relevant experience should make Americans wary. In fact, because we cannot breach the threshold of experience, there is no need to talk about accomplishment. Not only is there no track record of journeyman experience, but a rather distinct dearth of accomplishment in the various roles he has assumed, from law school to his “present” status as Senator from Illinois.

However, he has accomplished an improbable feat in the sheer existence and viability of his candidacy. That, in itself, is a Clintonian accomplishment. But at least Bill Clinton had run a government. Obama is not BIll Clinton. He is more, well - Seinfeldian, which properly compliments the incessant whining.

It is a silly question. Of course they are. Especially so when the political spouse is involved in a campaign for the presidency of the United States.

The whiniest campaign on the planet, however, thinks otherwise. Barack Obama himself has jumped to Michelle Obama’s defense (against what, exactly), as if she is unassuming, unoffensive and uninvolved in the political process.

This is one of my favorite liberal paradoxes. You want to be strong woman, you want to be treated equally, you are, by choice, a feminist. And then, when things get mildly uncomfortable and it is politically expedient, you are the meek female in need of manly defense. Besides, what is Barack Obama defending his wife from, really? A cartoon by a sympathetic communist New York rag?

Let’s get this straight. Michelle Obama is fair game from now until her husband loses in November. In the primary, she made herself an arm of his campaign. She still makes appearances and speeches on his behalf. She has given sermons from the pulpit of Trinity United Church of Christ that are, unapologetically, Marxist in nature. And she wants to be the first spouse of a country she doesn’t terribly like.

Yeah, she’s fair game. And no, Barack, you don’t look chivalrous defending her from a cartoon.

not to vote for Barack Obama.

“As long as nuclear weapons exist, we’ll retain a strong deterrent. But we will make the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons a central element in our nuclear policy,” Obama said.

Of course! Why would we want to maintain a deterrent from attacks on our homeland? Those silly nukes are part of an old-school defense policy that contains nary a lick of hope and change.

While the messiah may believe he can wave his hand across all the lands and make nuclear weapons immediately disappear, it may not be that simple. At least all of our current world leaders are rational people who will be forthcoming in their shared desire to become weapon-free. Right?

The “I’m going to get rid of weapons and bad guys and school bullies and road rage and cuss words and we will all live in a world of peace and brotherhood” promises seem to be both arrogant and naive.

European beer giant InBev has reached an agreement to acquire Anheuser-Busch for $50 billion.

Does this mean that Budweiser will now actually taste like beer? Or will Stella Artois begin to taste like water?