Fred's had some recent troubles getting his words through the lefty media, so he does what he's done before--slips right past them and speaks out for himself, directly to the voters. I, who came of political age in the era of Reagan, think he sounds quite Reaganesque, and not just because he invokes the Gipper in his speech.
Fred's had some recent troubles getting his words through the lefty media, so he does what he's done before--slips right past them and speaks out for himself, directly to the voters. I, who came of political age in the era of Reagan, think he sounds quite Reaganesque, and not just because he invokes the Gipper in his speech.
Posted by C-C-G at 19:56
This report can't be very good for Musharraf:
Did Musharraf deliberately deny the visas in order to keep Bhutto vulnerable? Inquiring minds want to know.
Benazir Bhutto was so fearful for her life that she tried to hire British and American security experts to protect her, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.
But the plans collapsed because President Pervez Musharraf refused to allow the foreign contractors to operate in Pakistan, according to senior aides.
"She asked to bring in trained security personnel from abroad," said Mark Siegel, her US representative. "In fact she and her husband repeatedly tried to get visas for such protection, but they were denied by the government of Pakistan."
Mark Steyn lays his finger on one of the biggest problems in Pakistan:
It’s easy to tell Musharraf what he should do. Over one thousand Pakistani soldiers have been killed fighting Islamists in Waziristan and other tribal lands. That would be a lot even for an army solidly behind Musharraf. But in Pakistan every institution charged with “relentlessly hunting down terrorists” has, to one degree or another, been subverted by them: Pakistan’s military – the least corrupt agency in the country – and its intelligence service, the ISI, are both riddled with Islamist sympathizers. As Churchill noted, the British had a fondness for the more bloodcurdling Pushtun warriors: In 1939, for example, Lieutenant-Colonel Peter Sanders accepted an invitation to tikala (lunch) from the tribesman who’d blown him up. The Pushtun apologized for costing the Colonel his right arm, and the Colonel accepted the apology and raised his glass in a presumably left-handed toast, and they got on splendidly and had a whale of a time. But a mutual respect between combatants is very different from the ties that bind Taliban leaders in Waziristan with elements of the Pakistani military and intelligence service: Two groups, nominally at war with each other, nevertheless share indistinguishable views on the joys of hardline sharia and the wickedness of the United States.Read the whole thing--link, as usual, in the title. Really.
NASHUA, N.H. -- Former president Bill Clinton yesterday delivered in stark terms a version of his wife's central campaign message: that her experience in Washington better prepares her to "deal with the unexpected."
Addressing more than 100 supporters at a VFW hall here Saturday, Clinton used the strongest language he has so far in the campaign to describe the threats facing the nation, making an oblique reference to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and saying that the "most important thing of all" in selecting a nominee is the question of who could best manage unforeseen catastrophes.
"You have to have a leader who is strong and commanding and convincing enough . . . to deal with the unexpected," he said. "There is a better than 50 percent chance that sometime in the first year or 18 months of the next presidency, something will happen that is not being discussed in this campaign. President Bush never talked about Osama bin Laden and didn't foresee Hurricane Katrina. And if you're not ready for that, then everything else you do can be undermined. You need a president that you trust to deal with something that we will not discuss in this campaign. . . . And I think, on this score, she's the best of all."
Hmmm... I thought even hinting at 9/11 was off-limits for someone like Giuliani or McCain... but let a Clinton do it, and that's just fine with the lefties.Must be hard to keep those two sets of standards straight.
This can't be good:
Still ruminating on what the outcome(s) might be, but I figured I'd get this out there for comment.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States condemned an attack that killed Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, a U.S. State Department official said on Thursday.
"The attack shows that there are still those in Pakistan trying to undermine reconciliation and democratic development in Pakistan," the official said.
Bhutto was killed in a gun and bomb attack after a rally in the city of Rawalpindi on Thursday.
Fair warning: If you think that the American Armed Forces are made up of people that are barely one step above Neanderthals, you might not want to read this article... the crushing of a stereotype can be very painful, and I want to save you the agony.
FORWARD OPERATING BASE HAMMER, Iraq – Standing upright and walking on her own is something 20-year-old Soham Hassan Ka-Naan, a young woman from Khargulia, never thought she would be able to do again.The Blackfive article (link in the title) includes a picture, and her smile says it all. A job well done, ladies and gentlemen. Give yourselves a pat on the back.
After receiving her second prosthetic leg Dec. 20 at the 28th Combat Support Hospital in Baghdad, Soham was able to walk upright with the assistance of crutches.
Soldiers of Troop A, 3rd Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division found Soham in July, after an insurgent rocket attack hit her house, amputating both of her legs. Since then, she has undergone multiple trips to the 28th CSH for surgery, prosthetic fittings and physical therapy.
The journey was a painful one according to Soham; however, her final fitting leaves her pain free with two prosthetic legs. One of the legs fills in the missing calf and foot on her left leg, and the other extends from the beginning of her right hip.
“I am very happy, I have no pain,” she said through a translator. “I feel normal again.”
Got bad news for all those nattering nabobs of negativism who say that there is no hope for Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites to live together in peace:
Just one more way the lefties have been wrong about Iraq.
BAGHDAD — Approximately 1,000 Iraqi citizens, of both Shia and Sunni religions, joined together on the sectarian fault line in Rawaniyah, the Karkh District of Baghdad, to march with one another in what they called a “Peace March”, Dec. 19.
It was an Iraqi initiative to ease sectarian tensions, solely driven by Iraqi Neighborhood Council (NAC) and District Advisory Council (DAC) leaders and Sheiks from both religious sects in the area, said Capt. Marcus Melton, commander of Pale Horse Troop, 4th Squadron, 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment, attached to the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault).
With Iraqi Army and Iraqi policemen maintaining the security on the streets and within the crowd during the event, they were able to successfully complete the march for united peace among all Iraqis.
Drums beat, children ran, silly string littered the air and one man nearly wept. It was an exciting, yet emotional day for the Iraqis who participated.
Merry Christmas, lefties!
Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night. And behold, an angel of the Lord stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were greatly afraid. Then the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.Luke 2:8-11, NKJV.
Fascinating stuff--to me at least:
Read the whole thing at the link in the title.
He is synonymous with the traditional image of the Victorian English Christmas but Ebenezer Scrooge may have his roots much further afield.
According to Sjef de Jong, a Dutch academic, the Charles Dickens character may have been inspired by the real life of Gabriel de Graaf, a 19th century gravedigger who lived in Holland.
De Graaf, a drunken curmudgeon obsessed with money, was said to have disappeared one Christmas Eve, only to emerge years later as a reformed character.
And as Tiny Tim said, God bless us--everyone.
At least according to one Al Qaeda imam:
So who is this guy?
WASHINGTON — One of Al Qaeda's senior theologians is calling on his followers to end their military jihad and saying the attacks of September 11, 2001, were a "catastrophe for all Muslims."
In a serialized manifesto written from prison in Egypt, Sayyed Imam al-Sharif is blasting Osama bin Laden for deceiving the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, and for insulting the Prophet Muhammad by comparing the September 11 attacks to the early raids of the Ansar warriors. The lapsed jihadist even calls for the formation of a special Islamic court to try Osama bin Laden and his old comrade Ayman al-Zawahri.
The disclosures from Mr. Sharif, also known as Dr. Fadl and Abd al-Qadir ibn Abd al-Aziz, have already opened a rift at the highest levels of Al Qaeda. The group's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, a former associate of the defecting theologian in Egypt, personally mocked him last month in a video, remarking that he was unaware Egyptian prisons had fax machines. Meanwhile, leading Western analysts are saying the defection of Mr. Sharif indicates the beginning of the end for Al Qaeda.
Oh, Senator Reid... do you still think the war is lost? Senator Edwards, is the war on terror still a bumper sticker?
Mr. Sharif, currently serving a life sentence in an undisclosed Egyptian prison, wrote in the 1980s two of the modern seminal texts for Sunni jihadism and in particular Al Qaeda, in "Fundamental Concepts Regarding Jihad" and "The Five Ground Rules for the Achieving of Victory or Its Absence." Those books are scholarly justifications, citing the Koran and Hadiths, for joining a war against Muslim apostates such as the Egyptian ruling class and for a broader jihad against the far enemy of America.
More is coming out about people who've given money to Hillary:
Corruption, thy name is Clinton.
The New York Times, which has discovered the identity of 97 donors who together gave or pledged $69 million early on, reports some of the million-dollar donors sought changes in policies and two of them were under Justice Department probes.
With the presidential election approaching, Clinton Foundation donations skyrocketed last year to $135 million, 70% more than the year before, with two-thirds of the booty from only 11 donors.
So much for Bill and Hil's populist image.
The former president steadfastly refused to reveal the donors' identities — including one super-rich donor giving $31.3 million.
We can certainly now see why. The $31-million-dollar man turned out to be Canadian mining mogul and founder of Lionsgate Entertainment (distributor of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11") Frank Giustra, who plans to give another $100 million, plus half his future earnings.
Foreign contributions to presidential campaigns are illegal, but foreigners such as Giustra can anonymously give as much as they like to presidential foundations. So can the Saudi royal family, the king of Morocco, a United Arab Emirates foundation, and the governments of Kuwait and Qatar, all of whom reportedly gave undisclosed amounts to the Clinton Foundation.
That should make for interesting Mideast policy under Hillary.
Here at home, Anheuser-Busch gave $1 million after the Clinton administration's Federal Trade Commission agreed not to regulate beer, wine and liquor ads.
Chicago bankruptcy lawyer William A. Brandt Jr. pledged $1 million in 1999 as the Justice Department investigated whether he lied about using a big-money fundraiser for Clinton's 1996 re-election to lobby a top bankruptcy official. Later that year, Clinton's Justice Department cleared Brandt, who has since given big to Hil-lary's (sic) campaign.
When Loral Space and Communications' then-chairman, Bernard Schwartz, agreed to give $1 million in 2000, the firm was being investigated over whether it gave satellite technology to China. Under the Bush administration, Loral agreed to a $14 million fine.
Other million-dollar contributors got themselves deals on things like Medicare reimbursements for hospitals in Puerto Rico and special treatment on cell phone licenses from the Federal Communications Commission. One is an Iranian-born aviation executive who provided military equipment to Tehran during Iran-Contra.
Then there's the notorious income tax fugitive Marc Rich, pardoned by Bill after his ex-wife, Denise, gave $450,000 to the Clinton Library.
Here we go again... Presidential candidate John McCain asked yesterday for an investigation of thousands of calls to New Hampshire voters disparaging the Republican senator and supporting rival Mike Huckabee. In a letter to the New Hampshire attorney general's office, McCain's campaign accused a Colorado-based nonprofit, Common Sense Issues, of illegally conducting push polling, which is asking questions intended to influence voters while pretending to take a poll. "This push poll disparages John McCain, while, at the same time, urging support for Governor Huckabee," McCain adviser Chuck Douglas wrote. "We demand a full inquiry into these distressing and illegal calls." Common Sense Issues responded that New Hampshire law doesn't apply to presidential primaries, only to other elections. "This law isn't applicable to us," said Patrick Davis, the group's executive director. "This is a headline-grabbing release. I'm not surprised this is coming from the McCain campaign. . . . This is pretty straightforward. They didn't read the law." The state law regulating push-polling says the caller must identify the candidate he is working for or against. Deputy Attorney General Bud Fitch said the law specifically exempts primary campaigns. Common Sense Issues favors Huckabee but does not explicitly say so in the calls, which are similar to ones being made in Iowa, South Carolina and Florida. Voters are asked if they know that McCain was part of a group "that derailed the nominations of 14 conservative judicial nominees." The callers also ask voters if they know McCain limited the free-speech rights of anti-abortion groups and pushed for campaign finance legislation.
This one is far from over, folks, and could really destroy the Huckabee campaign. Unfortunately, the failure of Huckabee could cause future problems for Christian candidates... I'm still ruminating on those effects, so more on that later.
Presidential candidate John McCain asked yesterday for an investigation of thousands of calls to New Hampshire voters disparaging the Republican senator and supporting rival Mike Huckabee.
In a letter to the New Hampshire attorney general's office, McCain's campaign accused a Colorado-based nonprofit, Common Sense Issues, of illegally conducting push polling, which is asking questions intended to influence voters while pretending to take a poll.
"This push poll disparages John McCain, while, at the same time, urging support for Governor Huckabee," McCain adviser Chuck Douglas wrote. "We demand a full inquiry into these distressing and illegal calls."
Common Sense Issues responded that New Hampshire law doesn't apply to presidential primaries, only to other elections.
"This law isn't applicable to us," said Patrick Davis, the group's executive director. "This is a headline-grabbing release. I'm not surprised this is coming from the McCain campaign. . . . This is pretty straightforward. They didn't read the law."
The state law regulating push-polling says the caller must identify the candidate he is working for or against. Deputy Attorney General Bud Fitch said the law specifically exempts primary campaigns.
Common Sense Issues favors Huckabee but does not explicitly say so in the calls, which are similar to ones being made in Iowa, South Carolina and Florida.
Voters are asked if they know that McCain was part of a group "that derailed the nominations of 14 conservative judicial nominees." The callers also ask voters if they know McCain limited the free-speech rights of anti-abortion groups and pushed for campaign finance legislation.
The latest Evans-Novak Political Report has some interesting tidbits about Fred (bold in original):
Thompson has far more upside potential than any other Republican, and he is spending the entire final stretch in the Hawkeye State. Thompson has perhaps the most broadly conservative record of any candidate besides the three congressmen (see below). Many conservative Iowans currently settling for Romney, Giuliani or Huckabee (or planning a protest vote of sorts for one of the congressmen) could certainly jump on board with Thompson. If he defies his reputation as a lazy worker, he could make a spectacular surge here.
Huckabee's high poll numbers and big leads do not guarantee a victory. He has nowhere near the campaign team, organization or money of runner-up Romney. As media scrutiny is finally arriving, he could be in trouble. Still, he is likable, and his openness about his Christianity plays very well among some blocs in the GOP.
Many Iowa Republicans like Huckabee because he comes across as genuine, especially in comparison to Romney. This is soft support that could bail to Thompson if he rises or to another candidate if Huckabee's negatives continue to surface.
Immigration is a big issue for Iowa Republicans, and Huckabee's support of state-subsidized education for illegal immigrants hurts him. His big-government record turns off some voters but is not a factor for some of his core supporters.
Huckabee's dig at Mormons in Sunday's New York Times magazine has turned off some Republican voters as dirty, bigoted or just politically dumb. This is the sort of thing that could bring him down.
This battle will hinge on Thompson's performance down the stretch. If he excels, he could draw down Huckabee's support significantly, and maybe Romney's, too. If Thompson is as uninspired as he has been to date, Huckabee will probably win.
The most likely result at this point appears to be a slight Thompson surge at Huckabee's expense, leaving Romney in first place and either Thompson or Huckabee in second. Leaning Romney.
In other words, don't count Fred out yet.
Professor Bainbridge takes apart Ron Paul's candidacy in a way I wish I'd done myself. It's one of those hard articles to excerpt, so just click the link in the title and read it for yourself.
By the way, Bainbridge points out his blog's comment policy, in part (or in toto) because of the well-documented online antics of the Ronulans. Therefore, permit me to remind everyone that my comment policy is posted here, and that it includes my right to delete or edit any post for any reason... and it's a sad thing when I have to remind the followers of any candidate about policies like that.
Opinions seem to be mixed--even within one online publication--among conservatives about whether Mike Huckabee's Christmas ad will prove a net gain for his campaign, or a loss.
I, personally, come down on the latter side. Jim Geraghty explains it thus:
But it's worth noting that too much talk about Jesus in a political context can make folks look skeptically even on utterly innocuous uses of His name.I would phrase it a bit differently... it seems to this lay preacher that Reverend Huckabee is turning what should be one of the holiest days in the year into a campaign sound bite. And, honestly, I agree it is likely to increase the skepticism overall, and that can't be good for Huck.
Bottom line, Huck is talking too much Jesus and not enough policy for a political election, and I think it will backfire on him. If he were running for, say, Archbishop of Washington or High Priest of America, it would be different, but the office of the Presidency is a secular, not religious, office.
Someone needs to remind Huck about that.
From the pen--or is it keyboard these days?--of Mark Steyn:
This is the time of year, as Hillary Clinton once put it, when Christians celebrate “the birth of a homeless child” — or, in Al Gore’s words, “a homeless woman gave birth to a homeless child.”The sad part is, he's got a point.
Just for the record, Jesus wasn’t “homeless.” He had a perfectly nice home back in Nazareth. But he happened to be born in Bethlehem. It was census time and Joseph was obliged to schlep halfway across the country to register in the town of his birth. Which is such an absurdly bureaucratic over-regulatory cockamamie Big Government nightmare it’s surely only a matter of time before Massachusetts or California reintroduce it.
It's not just Wayne Dumond... there appears to really be something there:
Over the course of more than a decade as governor, Huckabee granted over 1,000 commutations and pardons, and they’re currently being examined closely by journalists. The latest to draw national attention is a commutation of Eugene Fields, who had multiple drunk-driving convictions.Read the whole thing... link is in the title, as usual.
The question is if there was there a connection between his wife Glenda Fields’s five-figure political donations and Huckabee’s action. On April 14, 2004, then-Gov. Huckabee commuted the sentence of Mr. Fields — then a four-time driving-while-intoxicated offender — granting him early release from prison. Fields, a resident of the western Arkansas town of Van Buren, was a habitual offender. He had already been convicted of DWIs in 1996, 1998, and 2000, but his 2001 felony-DWI conviction resulted in the maximum six-year prison sentence and a $5,000 fine.
What is it about Arkansas governors?
Military historian Victor Davis Hanson takes on several of the more common canards about Iraq and the broader war on terror, and tears them to shreds.
Washington is an echo chamber. One pundit, one senator, one reporter proclaim a snazzy “truth” and almost immediately it reverberates as gospel. Conventional wisdom about Iraq is rarely questioned. A notion seems to find validity not on its logic or through empirical evidence, but simply by the degree to which it is repeated and felt to resonate.Read the whole thing--link is in the title, as usual--and bookmark it for quick reference when debating a lefty.
Did you see this story in the news today?
I bet you didn't. I had to go digging for it, tipped off by an item in Investor's Business Daily.
KABUL (Reuters) - Afghan and NATO-led troops killed, wounded and detained hundreds of insurgents during fighting in the Taliban's biggest stronghold, the Defence Ministry said on Thursday.
Musa Qala, in the southern province of Helmand, took on a symbolic importance after the Taliban seized it in February following the breakdown of a much-criticized local truce that allowed besieged British troops to pull out of the town in October last year.
Thousands of Afghan and NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) troops captured the town on Tuesday after one of the biggest operations the Afghan army has carried out.
"During the successful operation by ISAF and Afghan troops in Musa Qala, hundreds of insurgents including several commanders and tens of foreign fighters have been either killed, wounded or detained," Defence Ministry spokesman Zahir Azimi told a news conference.
Seems that victory in the war against Islamofascism isn't newsworthy.
And the leftymedia wonder why people aren't trusting them for news any more.
Looks like the former governor of the great state of Arkansas has had questions raised about some gifts that he received while in office.
You can take the politician out of Arkansas...
"there are reports that Huckabee received hundreds of gifts as governor the value of which exceeded $100,000 in one year. One of the donors apparently was appointed to a state commission. Huckabee and his wife also registered for gifts as they were planning to leave the governor's mansion and move into a home they had recently purchased. In a related matter, Huckabee removed the drapes from the governor's mansion when he left.
There was no violation here; the drapes had been one of the many gifts. As a friend from Arkansas told me, Huckabee wasn't a corrupt governor; just a tacky one."
Even though some Congressional Democrats are still opposing a trade deal with Columbia, there are signs that it may be coming to an end:
Since the two trade pacts are essentially identical, it doesn't make much sense to agree to one and not the other... and if the Congressional Republicans are smart, they'll point this out loudly and often, to raise domestic support for the bill.
It matters little to them that Colombian trade unionists arrived this week from Colombia to urge passage of the pact that will beef up Colombia's unions. They want to punish an ally to show they still matter. Many obedient Democrats may still be in their pocket.
But two events this week may change that.
First, the captains of American industry stepped forward, urging Congress with one voice to extend the pact to Colombia. "Congress' vote on the U.S.-Colombia (pact) will shape the next decade of America's engagement with our hemisphere," the 19 chief executives wrote in a Dec. 11 letter. It was sponsored by the Emergency Committee for American Trade, representing CEOs from Microsoft, Citibank, McGraw-Hill, GM, Oracle, Intel, Coca-Cola, 3M, Procter & Gamble, Target, Wal-Mart and Exxon Mobil, companies that together employ six million Americans.
Hopefully, that might just focus minds in Congress.
In fact, some of these companies — such as Citibank, Oracle, Target, and Microsoft — have leaders associated with Democratic causes and campaigns.
But it's not just about big business or big labor. As the Office of the U.S Trade Representative has noted, the U.S. now has about $16 billion in trade with Colombia, $6.7 billion of that in exports. More than 8,000 U.S. businesses sell to that country. Those businesses aren't the big boys: 84% are small and midsize firms.
Latin America is a fast-growing market. With businesses of all sizes speaking up for the Colombia pact, change may be in the offing.
Peru is the other helpful factor.
Colombian President Alvaro Uribe made a spectacular state visit to Peru on Dec. 11. Not only did the leader get the red-carpet welcome, he got a big pledge from Peruvian President Alan Garcia to help his old ally get free trade.
"I want to say to everyone, Peruvians and especially to Colombians: This treaty of free trade that Peru has signed with the U.S. will not be complete until Colombia has signed the free trade treaty with the United States," Garcia declared.
Because Garcia is headed to Washington to sign the free trade agreement on Friday, it is likely he will urge congress to sign off on the Colombia pact, too.
National Review has posted an interview--part one of three--with an American Muslim who has some interesting things to say:
A native of Wisconsin and the son of Syrian immigrants, joining the United States military was natural. I was raised to appreciate American freedom which guaranteed my right to life, liberty, and the practice of my personal faith of Islam, like in no so-called Muslim country. My grandfather used to talk about how the devastation of Syria brought by the military coups and the Baathists, and ultimately by Hafez Assad, was allowed to happen because moderate freedom-loving Syrians abandoned the military to the thugs, who ultimately repeatedly savaged the country, before entrenching the Assad family despots for generations.Read the whole thing... the link, as usual, is in the title of this post.
I have always been a devout practicing Muslim maintaining a central personal spiritual relationship with God in my life. I have also held true to the importance of spiritual practices in my life including fasting, daily prayer, scriptural recitation, charity, community worship, and personal integrity. As a result, I have often been asked by the local communities in which I have lived, to speak about Islam, its role in my life, and my understanding of its history. Well, before 9/11, in the 1980s, as I found myself frustrated by the politicization of many but not all of the Muslim communities in which I participated, I began to focus on the main problem I experienced — the harmful impact of political Islam upon the practice of Islam in America. I slowly began to absorb as much information as I could about Salafism, Wahhabism, and its associated extremist ideology. I looked into the history and workings of the Muslim Brotherhood in America and realized that at some point anti-Islamists were going to need to take them on to rescue our faith from their clutches.
While I have never heard violence preached in any mosque I attended, I did hear conspiracy theories, anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism, and radical politics which often predominated instead of a focus on spirituality, humility, and moral courage. This led to a regular struggle with many, but not all, of the clerical leadership in many of the Muslim communities in which I have lived and participated. My refrain for decades has been to them, “why do you impose your Islamist agenda upon the congregants of your mosque who come to worship God, atone, and learn God’s scripture. Most of us don’t come to mosque to blame the world for our own maladies or to listen to your own political agenda.” I tried to intellectually counter them from within the community, but did so to no avail. For who was I to question clerical authority and interpretations? Who was I to take away their bully pulpit for Islamism?
It's truly sad that this story has to appear on Pearl Harbor Day: WASHINGTON — NBC has nixed holiday advertisements meant to thank troops for serving overseas in opposition to the inclusion of a non-profit's Web address. The ads, paid for by the non-profit Freedom's Watch, are a simple thank you, the group says, with people shown paying gratitude to members of the military and the final frame showing the group's Web address, www.freedomswatch.org. NBC is refusing to air the ads as long as the address is included, according to an e-mail exchange between NBC and the group, which Freedom's Watch provided to FOX News. "Per my previous email, the www.freedomswatch.org website will have to be redacted from the commercials for approval. This comes from Alan Wurtzel and Rick Cotton," according to one of the notes. Wurtzel is president of research at NBC. Rick Cotton is general counsel for NBC Universal.
Well, I don't have any NBC censors here, so I will say it:
To all our vets, past and present, Democrat or Republican or Third-Party, Christian or Jewish, Hindu or Buddhist, atheist or Other... THANK YOU.
Update and BUMP: NBC blinks.
WASHINGTON — NBC has nixed holiday advertisements meant to thank troops for serving overseas in opposition to the inclusion of a non-profit's Web address.
The ads, paid for by the non-profit Freedom's Watch, are a simple thank you, the group says, with people shown paying gratitude to members of the military and the final frame showing the group's Web address, www.freedomswatch.org.
NBC is refusing to air the ads as long as the address is included, according to an e-mail exchange between NBC and the group, which Freedom's Watch provided to FOX News.
"Per my previous email, the www.freedomswatch.org website will have to be redacted from the commercials for approval. This comes from Alan Wurtzel and Rick Cotton," according to one of the notes.
Wurtzel is president of research at NBC. Rick Cotton is general counsel for NBC Universal.
Score one for the good guys.
WASHINGTON (AP) — NBC reversed course Saturday and decided to air a conservative group's television ad thanking U.S. troops.
The ad, by the group Freedom's Watch, asks viewers to remember the troops during the holiday season. NBC had refused to air the ad because it guides viewers to the Freedom's Watch Web site, which NBC said was too political.
But in a statement issued Saturday evening, NBC said:
"We have reviewed and changed our ad standards guidelines and made the decision that our policy will apply to content only and not to a referenced Web site. Based on these amended standards the Freedom's Watch ad will begin to run as early as Sunday."
NBC' head of standards and practices, Alan Wurtzel, notified Freedom's Watch's media consultant Saturday by e-mail, writing: "This will confirm that the Freedom's Watch spot is approved for air."
Freedom's Watch President Bradley A. Blakeman welcomed the decision. "We're actually very happy that NBC has agreed to change its position because it will only help the troops be properly thanked," he said.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release December 8, 2007
STATEMENT BY WHITE HOUSE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
DIRECTOR JIM NUSSLE
According to news reports today, House and Senate Democratic leaders are nearing agreement among themselves on a mammoth omnibus spending bill, two-and-a-half months after the end of the last fiscal year.
Although the Administration has not seen the legislation, according to press reports it would include 18 billion in additional domestic and emergency spending above the President’s budget. When added to emergency domestic spending Congress already included in the Defense Appropriations bill, this so-called compromise would result in more excess spending than even the Democrats’ original budget included.
This is not fiscally responsible. Our economic growth and job creation cannot be taken for granted, and Congress should not burden taxpayers with billions of dollars in additional wasteful spending.
Press reports also suggest that the Democrats in Congress believe this excessive spending is the price for providing a fraction of the funding requested for our troops in the field. Instead of trying to leverage troop-funding for more pork-barrel spending, Congress ought to pass responsible appropriations bills and the funding for the troops our commanders say they need to build on their battlefield successes.
If presented a bill like the one described in today’s press reports, the President would veto it. If Congress insists on sending the President a budget-busting bill they know he will veto and that will not become law, they should also pass a continuing resolution that keeps the government running and provides the troops in the field the funds they need without disrupting the operations of the Department of Defense and the lives of hundreds of thousands of its employees and men and women in uniform.
Posted by C-C-G at 15:10
Fred, for good or for ill, has decided to risk everything on Iowa:
Des Moines, Iowa
FORMER TENNESSEE SENATOR Fred Thompson has decided to take his campaign and virtually all of its resources to Iowa in an all-or-nothing attempt to register a strong showing in the caucuses here on January 3. "We're getting ready to make this not only our second home, but our first home," he told a small gathering of supporters at the Polk County Convention Center on Friday night. Thompson and his wife Jeri chatted with the crowd before making their way through the exhibits at the Iowa Farm Bureau's annual meeting in downtown Des Moines.
Beginning Monday, December 17, Thompson will launch a bus tour that will take him throughout the state. From the beginning of that trip through caucus night, Thompson will essentially live in Iowa, taking only a one-day trip out of the state to celebrate Christmas at his home in Virginia.
This is kind of reminiscent of the way he first won his Senate seat, by hopping in an old pickup truck and touring Tennessee in it.
Let's hope his gamble pays off this time.
Not much I can add to this:
PEARL HARBOR — They are the ironmen of their generation, living through Dec. 7, 1941, and the World War that followed, and defying the pitfalls of age and health into their 80s and 90s.
The five Pearl Harbor survivors who regularly volunteer at the USS Arizona Memorial Visitor Center here, talking and joking with tourists and signing autographs, may have lost a step or two, but not their wit.
"He's the old man right here," Alfred Rodrigues, 87, said while cocking his head toward Herb Weatherwax. "How old are you, Dad?"
Weatherwax, sitting at the same table, stated that he's 90.
"It's been 90 beautiful years. Beautiful," Weatherwax said. That excludes some dark times, though, such as witnessing the destruction of Pearl Harbor and Wheeler Army Airfield.
When a 55-year-old woman from New Jersey swoops over, plants a kiss on Rodrigues' cheek and says "Thank you" and starts to walk away, Weatherwax chimes in, "Hey, come back!" widening his ever-present smile.
That's how it goes when the aging survivors are holding court. They are a dwindling resource whose presence has become that much more precious as their ranks have thinned.
The five regular volunteers come from both Navy and Army ranks. According to a National Park Service brochure:
•Robert Kinzler was in the 25th Infantry Division. During the attack, his company was ordered to take up a position at Roosevelt High School, and Kinzler saw the Pearl Harbor destruction.
•Weatherwax, who was born in Honolulu in 1917, received the instruction to report to his duty station at Schofield Barracks that morning.
•Sterling Cale, a Navy corpsman on Dec. 7, 1941, was in charge of the burial party removing bodies from the Arizona.
•Everett Hyland was serving aboard the USS Pennsylvania, which was in dry dock No. 1 on that morning, and was seriously wounded when a Japanese bomb exploded near his battle station.
•Rodrigues, who was born in Kapaa, Kauai, was at Bishop's Point at Pearl Harbor. He was issued a .30-caliber rifle and started shooting at the Japanese planes that passed overhead.
God bless all those who serve, and have served.
Ya know, I kinda like this idea:
The "gunman" in the Omaha episode was actually a teenager who desperately wanted the kind of publicity that the 24/7 media establishment could give him. He reportedly left behind a note proclaiming, "Now I'll be famous."How did he know he'd be immortalized? Simple. He knew he could count on his enablers: The media would inevitably spread his fame by identifying him in reports in Omaha, across the U.S. and throughout the world.We in the communications world practically enabled the kid by giving him, posthumously, what he wanted all along. Shame on us.It doesn't have to be this way, though. What if the media covered all the nuances of the story but ceased naming the vicious and disturbed murderers who kill for the kicks of getting their names on the evening news and on the front pages of newspapers, magazines and Web sites?
Posted by C-C-G at 21:18
I kid you not...
WASHINGTON (AP) - Cracks are emerging in congressional Democrats' solidarity, as frustrated lawmakers concede their majority status is not enough to overcome Republican resistance on taxes, spending, Iraq and a host of other issues.
The fissures, which became obvious this week, are undermining Democrats' hopes for several key achievements this year. They also point to a bruising 2008 election in which Democrats will say Republicans blocked prudent tax and spending plans to score political points on immigration and other hot-button issues.
Republicans say they simply want to prevent higher taxes of any kind, even if the targets are not-so-sympathetic groups such as oil companies and hedge fund managers.
Let's see if I can't help the Party of the Donkey script those ads. How about, "We wanted to take more money from you, Mr. and Mrs. America, but the Republicans wouldn't work with us. Please vote for more tax-raising Democrats in the upcoming election."
Anyone else got any ideas?
I am still ruminating on what I think of Romney's religion speech today... so, in a blatant effort to get my readers involved, here's a thread for you to post what you thought about it, to discuss, and to debate. The usual rules of etiquette apply.
UPDATE: Here is the text of "The Speech" according to National Review.
Some interesting thoughts on why Chavez reacted to his recent defeat the way he did:
This brings us back to the question, Why didn't Chavez find a pretext to invalidate the election? What stopped him from doing this, I would argue, was not his respect for the existing constitution, which he was obviously willing to toss aside, nor was it his great love for the abstract principles of democracy, which he was willing to manipulate for his own purposes. What stopped him was simply the sobering realization that if he refused to accept the result of the election he would be faced with an outright rebellion among his political enemies, like the coup that removed him from power in 2002. Chavez still bears watching... I said before, and I say again, I do not think he's given up the idea of seizing powers as a de facto dictator.
Hayek believed that democratic elections were valuable because they could prevent bloodshed and civil strife, like the 2002 coup. To see how this works, consider how elections took place among primitive armed tribes. To vote for someone to be your leader, you got up and stood next to the man you supported. By doing this, you were indicating that you would fight on your leader's side against his opponent. Hence the result of the primitive election was to disclose the relative power, in terms of armed supporters, of the various candidates. If one candidate had ninety men standing around him, while the other had only ten, then it was obvious that in an armed struggle the weaker side would lose and the stronger side would win. As a result, the man with only ten supporters would concede defeat, acting on the principle that it is better to lose an election than to lose one's head. By the same logic, when two men had nearly equal support, then this too sent a signal to the community—namely, that unless the two sides would work out a compromise, they would be plunged into a civil war that would inevitably end by weakening the community's capacity to survive struggle against their collective enemies. In short, the primitive election was a way to avoid bloody power struggles that would end up destroying the solidarity of the community.
By gracefully accepting his defeat at the poll, Hugo Chavez was skillfully averting a much worse defeat in the streets. If all the population knew that half the population had defied his bid for power, then it was obvious that there would be ferocious resistance to any attempt on Chavez' part to seize what he wanted by fraud. How ferocious this resistance might be had already been shown in 2002. It was a risk that Chavez chose not to take—but only after looking at the election returns.
Paradoxically, it was Venezuela's history of political instability, the knowledge that he could be unconstitutionally removed from power by a coup d'etat that led Hugo Chavez to abandon his efforts at mangling the constitution that is the only remaining obstacle to his own dictatorial ambitions.
In short, the happy outcome of Venezuela's most recent election should not be construed as showing that Hugo Chavez harbors no dictatorial ambitions, but neither should it be taken to be proof of the infallible wisdom of the democratic system. Instead, it indicates what we should suspect already—namely, that Hugo Chavez is no fool, and he is prepared to be prudent in order to get what he wants. And one day, he still may.
Short article from the AP:
The "various political candidates" had one thing in common... they were all Democrats, including candidates named Clinton.
NEW YORK (AP) — A federal grand jury on Tuesday indicted Norman Hsu, a top Democratic fundraiser accused of cheating investors of at least $20 million and using some of the money to make illegal donations to political campaigns.
In the 15-count indictment returned in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, the government accused the 56-year-old clothing-industry entrepreneur of duping investors nationwide with a massive Ponzi scheme.
The government said Hsu also violated federal campaign finance laws by making contributions to various political candidates in the names of others.
But of course the AP doesn't consider that to be relevant.
Imagine if Hsu had contributed to, say, the Romney campaign. Do ya think maybe the AP would have discovered that the name of the candidate was relevant in that case?
And the hypocrisy goes on...
This one pretty much stands on its own:
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel brings us one from the Turnabout Is Fair Play Dept.:Indeed.
As readers of a conservative blog debated the subject of teacher salaries, a writer using the pseudonym "Observer" weighed in.
The West Bend teachers' salaries made him sick, the person wrote, adding that the 1999 Columbine High School killers had the right idea.
"They knew how to deal with the overpaid teacher union thugs. One shot at a time! Too bad the liberls (sic) rip them; they were heros (sic) and should be remembered that way," the writer said.
But police say the writer was a teacher himself--and the past president of a teachers union--apparently posing as a teacher-hater.
James Buss was arrested Thursday by West Bend police, and the 46-year-old Cudahy man could face criminal charges. He has been suspended from his job as a teacher at Oak Creek High School.
The Journal-Sentinel story includes an odd correction: "Because of an editing error, an article . . . incorrectly stated that police said he was 'apparently posing as a teacher-hater.' That statement was not made by police." We guess that means it was made by Owen Robinson, who runs the blog on which Buss allegedly made the comment.
Robinson "said Friday that it seemed that 'Observer' was 'posing as a conservative, right-wing whack job to discredit' the Web site's discussion of teachers' salaries. Robinson also criticized Buss' arrest as an overreaction." We have to agree, although we'll admit that at some level it pleases us to see a teacher rather than a child on the receiving end of such excess. The really interesting question is whether the school district will try to fire Buss--and, if so, whether the union will defend him.
On his blog, Robinson reports that he gave the police the commenter's IP address, through which they were able to trace him. Blogress "Mary" of Freedom Eden has some pertinent observations on the disinhibiting influence of online communication:
When will people learn that posting anonymously on the Internet is not the same as being anonymous? . . .
Buss is certainly paying the price for posting irresponsibly.
It appears that he may have posted while drunk or otherwise impaired. More likely, I think he utilized the technique of attempting to disguise himself with multiple misspellings and poor punctuation. (I'm assuming that Buss, the teacher, is more proficient at writing than his posts reveal.)
As Owen notes, the Internet provides a false sense of anonymity.
While blogs can provide forums for lively discussion, posters need to understand that they can be traced. They aren't free to say anything without being held accountable. They need to understand that they don't check their personal responsibility at the Internet's door.
The Internet is not a responsibility-free zone.
It's a creepy phenomenon. An otherwise responsible person will morph, jumping at the chance to let loose an alter ego when online. It can be remarkably reckless, as well as remarkably naive.
By the way, this website does track IP addresses for commenters. Trolls be warned.
Buried in the predictable sob-story about an illegal immigrant in Chicago about to be deported is this little gem:
The state [Illinois] says its employees are prohibited by federal law from seeking confirmation of citizenship before registering people to vote.Yep, you read that right. It is illegal for officials to ask if you're eligible to vote before signing you up to vote.
Am I the only one that sees a problem there?
Looks like Chavez over-reached, and the voters told him "no."
Wonder what Chavez will try next... I seriously doubt that he's done trying to seize lifetime power.
CARACAS, Venezuela - President Hugo Chavez suffered a stinging defeat Monday in a vote on constitutional changes that would have let him run for re-election indefinitely and solidify his bid to transform this major U.S. oil provider into a socialist state.
Voters defeated the sweeping measures by a vote of 51 percent to 49 percent, said Tibisay Lucena, chief of the National Electoral Council, with voter turnout just 56 percent.
She said that with 88 percent of the votes counted, the trend was irreversible.
As a Native American might say, Huckabee speaks with forked tongue. From an email from his campaign:
1. Expectations ManagementBut later in the same email...
There’s been a lot of buzz lately about “managing expectations” going into Iowa. I’m not sure about the other campaigns, but here at the Huckabee camp we expect to win—just as we expect to win the nomination and the general election. Apparantly, not everyone feels the same.
Jennifer Rubin from the American Spectator Blog quotes an interesting tidbit from the LA Times: "But in a sure sign of concern, the Romney camp has begun to raise the prospect of a second-place Iowa finish, insisting it would not hurt his chances in the contests that follow. 'It would be nice if Romney won,' said Doug Gross, an attorney overseeing Romney's Iowa campaign. 'If he finishes in the top two, he's fine.'"
Fine with second in Iowa? The Romney campaign dumped about $7 million into Iowa while we’ve spent, approximately, $327.00. Maybe they are satisfied with second but as fiscal conservatives we expect to get our money’s worth.
6. Tied for Second in NHEither the Huckabee campaign is being sarcastic at the end with the "Please moderate your expectations accordingly," or they're demonstrating a double-standard Hillary would be proud of. "Hah, hah, Romney is 'managing expectations,' now please excuse us while we do the same thing we just castigated him for doing."
According to the latest Rasmussen Poll: "The new primary election poll shows a virtual three-way tie for second place between former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Arizona Senator John McCain at 15% and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee at 14%. For Giuliani and McCain, those figures are a very slight dip from earlier in the month while Huckabee has gained four more percentage points."
Please moderate your expectations accordingly.
Either way, I don't think that it will help the campaign much.
Giuliani's latest TV ad is drawing criticism from the good--and truly non-partisan--folks at FactCheck.org:
Rudy Giuliani's latest TV ad falsely claims New York City experienced "record crime ... until Rudy." In fact, the city recorded its highest rates of both violent crime and property crime years before he took office. The downward trend was well established before he was sworn in.Read the whole thing (link in the title of this post). And while you're at it, check some of their other articles... you'll see that they skewer distortions by both Democrats and Republicans... now that's what I call fair.
The ad also claims New York is "America's most liberal city," but his campaign offers no evidence showing that the city is more liberal than, say, San Francisco; Berkeley; Washington, D.C.; or Detroit, all of which rank as more liberal in a study of voting behavior in the 2004 elections. In that study, New York ranked 21st among cities with populations of more than 100,000.
Giuliani's ad also repeats some boasts we've found to be misleading in the past. It claims he cut taxes by $9 billion but counts several tax cuts that he didn't initiate or sign, and one that he lobbied against before changing course. It also boasts that he cut welfare rolls by 60 percent but fails to note that the reduction in New York was a bit less than it was for the nation as a whole.