President Palin’s First 100 Days
A look ahead.

By Victor Davis Hanson

EDITOR’S NOTE: In these messianic times we have slouched into an acceptance of presidential worship, and we need to be reminded from time to time that the media’s Obama standard is really no standard at all. The following is a sequel to the recent “Bush Did It.”

 WASHINGTON (AP) — The first 100 days of the Palin presidency, according to a consensus of media commentators, have proven a near disaster. Perhaps it was Palin’s scant two years’ experience in a major government position that has eroded her gravitas, or maybe it was her flirty reliance on looks and informal chit-chat. In any case, the press has had a field day, and it is hard to see how President Palin can ever recover from the Quayle/potatoe syndrome. Here is a roundup of this week’s pundit mockery.

 LET THEM EAT MOOSE

“Ted Stevens may have gotten off,” wrote Bob Herbert in the New York Times, “but he taught our Sarah something first — like using $100-a-pound beef for her state dinners. And what’s this $50 mil for her inauguration gala? Since when do you fly in your favorite pizza-maker from across the country on our dime? Or send the presidential 747 for a spin over the Big Apple for a third-of-a-million-dollar joyride? Does Palin think she’s still in Alaska and has to have everything flown in from the South 48 by jumbo jet?”

 WASILLA CHIC

Also in the Times, Gail Collins weighed in on the already-tired yokelism of the new commander in chief. “What we’re getting is Wasilla chic. That’s what we’re getting. She arrives in the Oval Office, and first thing sends back Blair’s gift of the Churchill bust as if it’s a once-worn Penney’s outfit. Then she gives the Brits some unwatchable DVDs as a booby prize — as if she idled the old Yukon and ran into Target’s sale aisle. Did Sarah send Bristol into Wal-Mart back in Anchorage for that ‘engraved’ iPod for the queen? And what’s this don’t-bow-to-the-queen stuff, but curtsy for a Saudi sheik? Maybe that explains why she brags to Stephanopoulos about her ‘Muslim faith.’ So far, the best things going for her are Todd’s biceps.”

 IT’S THE MATH, STUPID!

“Well,” lectured Paul Krugman, again in the Times, “we were worried that they didn’t teach math at Idaho U., and now we know for sure they don’t. Is it $1.6 trillion, $1.7 trillion, or $2 trillion in red ink this year? Are we supposed to be impressed that she offers ‘fiscal sobriety’ by cutting 0.003 percent of the budget? She gives out money to those who don’t pay taxes and calls it a tax cut. And now Queen Sarah tells us that in four years she’ll ‘halve’ the deficit, as if she hasn’t borrowed another $5 trillion in the meantime. Does she think we’re morons? How many ‘Drill, baby, drill!’ oil wells can she tap into up there in Alaska to pay for the extra $11 trillion in debt she’s saddling us with?”

 WORSE THAN ‘NUCULAR’

ABC’s Katie Couric summed up the general disappointment with the president’s communication skills. “I tried to warn the American people in that interview a few years back what they would get if they voted for her. Let’s face it: She’s a walking embarrassment. I mean just count ’em up: The mayor of Wasilla thinks Austrians speak some lingo called ‘Austrian.’ Then she tries her hand at Spanish and comes up with some concoction, ‘Cinco de Cuatro.’ Next thing she’ll walk into the window of the Oval Office and expect it to open — oops, she’s already done that. No wonder that when her Teleprompter stalls, she shuts her mouth until it catches up. I’m surprised she managed to get sworn in. And did she think that tasteless ‘Special Olympics’ slur was funny? Or making fun of octogenarian Nancy Reagan’s séances? No wonder Wanda Sykes feels at home.”

 ANCHORAGE STYLE

A “dragon lady in heels” is what President Palin is, according to the NYT’s Frank Rich. “Don’t fall for this pageant nice-girl stuff. Our former beauty queen is a ward hack. Look at her nominations. Can’t Palin find anyone who has paid his taxes — or do they simply ignore that stuff in no-tax Alaska? Does ‘No more lobbyists’ mean ‘More lobbyists than ever’? Her chief performance overseer doesn’t perform too well herself — and, like Daschle, Geithner, and the rest, skips out on her taxes. When Palin brags about fiscal sobriety, it really means record deficits. In Sarahland, not wanting to take over banks and car companies translates into, ‘She already has.’ Highest ethical standards equates to ‘There are none.’ Calling herself the VA president means she’s just told vets to use their own health insurance.”

 GUTTER TRASH

“Pretty crude, pretty petty,” Sally Quinn sighed in the Washington Post. “No manners at all. Does our new mom in chief think it’s neat to laugh when her court jester at the correspondents’ dinner calls Michael Moore a traitor and a terrorist — and hopes he dies of kidney failure? Is that funny? Ask those on dialysis. Is that what Alaskan hockey moms do — scream out at every talk-show host who hurts their itty-bitty feelings? Limbaugh, Hannity — who will it will be next? Poor old Jim Cramer?”

 NEOCON CON

“She’s a Bush clone,” the Times’s Maureen Dowd chimed in. “Bush is out, Palin is in — but we keep getting renditions, military tribunals, wiretaps, e-mail intercepts, Predator drone executions over Pakistan, the same in Iraq, and even more of the same in Afghanistan — all retrofitted with new ‘hope and change’ banalities. I mean, who’s putting Mommy Dearest up to this — Wolfie, Perlie, Cheney?”

 TINGLE FOR HUGO?

“There is no foreign policy,” Chris Matthews said on Hardball, his voice dripping with scorn. “She just tours the world and nods, as if her good looks and serial apologies are going to win us a collective tingle abroad. I don’t think Hugo Chávez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad care much that she’s got great legs and a nice wink. How many times can Ms. Vapid say, ‘We’re sorry’ and ‘Hit that old reset button’ and expect thugs to make nice?”

 RACE, ALL THE TIME

Eugene Robinson worried in the Washington Post about Palin’s emphasis on race. “Look, she gets 95 percent of the working-class white vote. She promises next month to talk to the ‘Christian world’ from Estonia, of all places. Hello? She goes to the Summit of the Americas and immediately puts race on the table — as if we are supposed to separate those with European heritage from those without. Then she tells al Arabiyya that she hopes to heal the rift with Europe ‘because of my own shared European heritage that seems to resonate in ways I hadn’t imagined throughout the EU.’ I guess we’re learning that those ‘gaffes’ last year on the campaign trail, like her ‘typical black person’ remark and Todd’s ‘I am finally proud of my country again’ nonsense were not gaffes at all.”

 WHERE IS THE PRESS?

Howard Kurtz summed up the press cynicism the best in his Washington Post column. “How long does she think she can keep picking on her right-wing plants in the audience for these softball Q-and-A sessions? I mean, there are only so many pukey ‘What has surprised you the most about this office? What has enchanted you the most about serving in this office?’ questions you can lob.”

— Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal. © 2009 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

Morality and Enhanced Interrogation Techniques

Peter Wehner

The issue of the Bush Administration’s enhanced interrogation techniques involve several inter-related questions.

There is, first of all, the matter of morality. Critics of enhanced interrogation techniques have taken to saying that Americans don’t torture, period – meaning in this instance that we do not engage in coercive interrogation techniques ranging from sleep deprivation to prolonged loud noise and/or bright lights to waterboarding. Anyone who holds the opposite view is a moral cretin and guilty of “arrant inhumanity.” Or so the argument goes.  

But this posture begins to come apart under examination. For one thing, the issue of “torture” itself needs to be put in a moral context and on a moral continuum. Waterboarding is a very nasty technique for sure – but it is considerably different (particularly in the manner administered by the CIA) than, say, mutilation with electric drills, rape, splitting knees, or forcing a terrorist to watch his children suffer and die in order to try to elicit information from him. Waterboarding is a technique that has been routinely used in the training of some U.S. military personnel – and which the journalist Christopher Hitchens endured. I certainly wouldn’t want to undergo waterboarding – but while a very harsh technique, it is one that was applied in part because it would do far less damage to a person than other techniques. It is also surely relevant that waterboarding was not used randomly and promiscuously, but rather on three known terrorists. And of the thousands of unlawful combatants captured by the U.S., fewer than 100 were detained and questioned in the CIA program, according to Michael Hayden, President Bush’s last CIA director, and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey – and of those, fewer than one-third were subjected to any of the techniques discussed in the memos on enhanced interrogation.

Morality also involves balancing ends and means. It is therefore relevant to take into account the possible benefits from the act of coercive interrogation techniques. Democratic Senator Charles Schumer, during a 2004 hearing on the subject of torture, put it this way. “There are times when we all get into high dudgeon” on this matter, Schumer said, but that we “ought to be reasonable about this.” He then added this:

I think there are probably very few people in this [Congressional hearing] room or in America who would say that torture should never, ever be used, particularly if thousands of lives are at stake. Take the hypothetical: if we knew that there was a nuclear bomb hidden in an American city and we believe that some kind of torture, fairly severe maybe, would give us a chance of finding that bomb before it went off, my guess is most Americans and most Senators, maybe all, would do what you have to do. So it’s easy to sit back in the armchair and say that torture can never be used. But when you’re in the fox hole, it’s a very different deal. And I respect, I think we all respect the fact that the President’s in the fox-hole every day. So he can hardly be blamed for asking you, or his White House counsel or the Department of Defense, to figure out when it comes to torture, what the law allows and when the law allows it, and what there is permission to do.

Senator Schumer noted, “We certainly don’t want torture to be used willy-nilly… But we also don’t want the situation like I mentioned in Chicago to preclude it.”

Apropos of Schumer’s comments, critics of enhanced interrogation techniques need to wrestle with a set of questions they like to avoid: if you knew using waterboarding against a known terrorist may well elicit information that would stop a massive attack on an American city, would you still insist it never be used? Do you oppose the use of waterboarding if it would save a thousand innocent lives? Ten thousand? A hundred thousand? What exactly is the point, if any, at which you believe waterboarding might be justified? I simply don’t accept that those who answer “never” are taking a morally superior stand to those who answer “sometimes, in extremely rare circumstances and in very limited cases.”

Let’s consider the more common cases that don’t involve a “ticking time bomb scenario.” How might you react if you found yourself in government in the immediate aftermath of the attacks on 9/11, in which you knew al Qaeda was responsible for the strike and knew it was intent on doing far more damage to America. You captured a high-value terrorist who, if you elicit information from him, might well provide you with details that are essential to preventing a future attack and mass death. You are told enhanced interrogation techniques, if employed properly and under guidance, will work; and will probably save many thousands of innocent lives. In that case many people would, I think, (reluctantly) give the green light to coercive techniques – which is exactly what Congress, including Democratic Members of Congress, did.

On the substantive level, there is the question of the efficacy of enhanced interrogation techniques. There is an intense debate surrounding this matter, but we can certainly say that respected members of the intelligence world insist that innocent Americans are today alive because we employed a set of coercive interrogation techniques. According to Hayden and Mukasey, “As late as 2006, fully half of the government’s knowledge about the structure and activities of Al Qaeda came from those interrogations.” Former CIA Director George Tenet said, “I know that this program has saved lives. I know we’ve disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than [what] the FBI, the [CIA], and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us.” And former National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell has said, “We have people walking around in this country that are alive today because this process happened.”

Stuart Taylor, the politically moderate and intellectually honest columnist for National Journal, put it this way:

The fashionable assumption that coercive interrogation (up to and including torture) never saved a single life makes it easy to resolve what otherwise would be an agonizing moral quandary. The same assumption makes it even easier for congressional Democrats, human-rights activists, and George W. Bush-hating avengers to call for prosecuting and imprisoning the former president and his entire national security team, including their lawyers. . . . But there is a body of evidence suggesting that brutal interrogation methods may indeed have saved lives, perhaps a great many lives — and that renouncing those methods may someday end up costing many, many more.

It seems unlikely that asking a jihadist his surname, first name and rank, date of birth, army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information – which is what the Geneva Conventions say ought to apply to prisoners of war but not, historically, to unlawful enemy combatants – would elicit as much information as coercive interrogation techniques. Dennis Blair, Obama’s national intelligence director, admitted to his staff that “high value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding” of al Qaeda. (Once Blair’s memo was revealed, he added this caveat: “There is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means.”) And thanks to Taylor, we know that in 2002 the current Attorney General, Eric Holder, said that terrorists are not “entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention” and that we need to “find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located.”

I am not one who believes that there is no cost to pursuing enhanced interrogation techniques. In debating policies, especially those that reach the president, there are costs and benefits to consider. So it’s certainly possible that our employment of enhanced interrogation techniques was used as a recruitment tool for militant jihadists; if so, that needs to be weighed against the plots you break up and the innocent lives you save. Also, many members of the military oppose waterboarding because they feel it stains the reputation of America and endangers our own servicemen and women (though it’s hard to accept the argument that al Qaeda would be less sadistic if we had not used coercive interrogation techniques; after all, they were beheading innocent people even before it was known the U.S. used water-boarding). These are not silly objections. Beyond that, most of us instinctively pull back from using harsh interrogation techniques and certainly torture. Given the double-obligation of morality and law, we should begin with the presumption that waterboarding shouldn’t be utilized and then set a very high bar for anyone who would argue that it might be acceptable in very limited instances.

But that is, in fact, what seems to have occurred. And so I do not accept for a moment that the last eight years constitute a “dark chapter” in our history. Quite the opposite. Michael Gerson points out that our history is replete with actions – the firebombing of Dresden, dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, and (I would add) Franklin Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066, which led to the internment of more than 100,000 Japanese Americans in World War II – which certainly raise more morally problematic issues than what the Bush Administration pursued.

There are of course serious-minded critics of enhanced interrogation techniques. But to pretend, as some critics do, that the morality of this issue is self-evident and that waterboarding and other coercive interrogation techniques are obviously unacceptable and something for which our nation should be ashamed is, in my judgment, not only wrong but irresponsible. When a nation is engaged in war, you hope to find in government sober people who are able to weigh competing moral goods and who take seriously their obligation to protect our nation. They may not get everything right at the time – hardly anyone does in the heat of the moment – but they should not have to face a lynch mob years after the fact (especially those in the lynch mob who blessed the activities at the time they were being used). The American public, one hopes, can see through all this. And as Nancy Pelosi might well discover, playing a role in inciting a mob can come at a cost.

About the Author

 

Peter Wehner is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in  Washington, D.C. He served in the Bush White House as director of the office of strategic initiatives.

 At our house we call them furrkids, because they aren’t pets, they are members of our family. Ours, now, are all adopted from rescue organizations, and most recently one here in the DFW area, the North Texas Samoyed Rescue, from which we adopted Illya 8+ years ago (and have taken care of his medical bills through this trial, our eternal thanks to Lynn and all), with his pal, Mikhi (who passed Sept of ’07), and most recently, Natalya, a young lady just over a year old, and still quite a puppy.

I got involved with Samoyeds in the mid-80s, eventually going into show and breeding (once), and have taken in the rescues since my early Sammies passed away, so since around ’95.  All of these guys & gals have become integral to our lives and deeply embedded in our hearts and souls; which is for our good if not theirs.

My wife has never had children of her own, physically, but she is the best mother any one could want or need. She whole-heartily loves my sons, our skinkids, and helped me finish raising my youngest when we were granted custody of him when he was 13. Today, he’d tell you she was one of his best friends those years at home, and to this day he talks to her about things he won’t with me. The main thing about my beloved, Marsha, is she has so much heart and love that anyone or animal that she cares about will know a rich life, myself the most fortunate. Our furrkids are the ones to most benefit (outside of me, of course), in that these really are her kids and if we weren’t restricted on numbers, we’d probably have a hundred. So as we face losing another in such a short time, our 5th in 2 years, we mourn our loss and wish we had more time, but God granted us another month that we didn’t think we had. And we won’t be adding any more to our family until my economic situation vastly improves.

We are bi-animal folks as well, both cats and dogs, and all adopted, as I’ve said. How anyone can say that these kids don’t have individual characters is beyond me and if they do, then they’ve either never grown close to one or have never had one–and their life is sorely empty of that love and pain.

So, do all dogs go to Heaven? My belief is yes, and cats too for those that are dog-biased, and I believe the reason why is the piece of our souls that we give to them in return for the love that we receive from them. In my world, a Heaven bereft of those we’ve nurtured and loved would be an emptier place without them and no Heaven at all. Aren’t we guaranteed by our faith that we’ll see our loved ones again? Then why wouldn’t they be there to jump up, lick our faces and mill around our feet, as we are met by our other loved ones that greet us? More would be the shame if not; they were part of our lives just as our friends and families are and were, if not more so in some unfortunate circumstances.

From our family there is already a group waiting to greet Illya, Mihki, of course; Timber, who he played slobber-baby with; his kitties, Sheba (She-Who-Would-Not-Ignored) and Bonzo (Guard Cat [see picture below] and Honorary Sammie, after spending a whole day in a crate with Vina), ; and new friends for him, Vina and Boris (Marsha’s first dog ever), my early Sammies; and Sassy, one of the sweetest cats I’ve ever known. They’re all there to say, “Howdy!” (they’re all Texans, ya’ know), and to show him around and off to those that await us.

We will miss our beloved Sergeant Major; he was always alert and on guard looking out from his posts and giving out alerts when errant dogs were loose (or being walked for that matter); I even know of one false alert where I swear I caught him snickering when the other two took off into the backyard to see what was up.  If there ever was a fellow that should have been a Marine, it was Illya, from his “high and tight” when he was groomed, to his compact musculature (he’s part Chow, but have never held it against him) and his ferocity when needed, and his mirth when at play — he was one to admire.

Bonzo & Illya On Guard

It might be presumptuous of me, especially being a bubblehead squid (Navy submariner, for you landlubbers), but I would say Semper Fi  to my friend and worthy furrson, Illya, until we meet again, play hard and know we love you, and Semper Fi.

You know how I feel about Obama (no cutsie wutsie names today). One of the proofs is the aforementioned decision that I’m making, since his Stimulus Plan had no incentives for my typical employer: small business, single owner or electronic/technology-driven manufacturer–nope, nothing.

Jackie Gingrich Cushman has a great article that will take you through a number of points about how Obama is fundamentally changing our country, just as he promised and no one seemed to believe (when I wrote about it last year).

Obama’s New Foundation: Change In What We Believe
Jackie Gingrich Cushman
Sunday, April 26, 2009

President Barack Obama will celebrate his first 100 days in office on April 29.  He has tackled big issues head-on and continued his campaign of well-delivered speeches and late night TV appearances. Delivering on his promise of getting a first dog for the first children, he has captivated the hearts of dog lovers, while evoking the hope and optimism that marked Camelot. 

What’s not to love?  Beautiful, smart wife with incredible arms seen tilling a White House garden in sweater and boots, photogenic children who want to go to their private school when it snows – (who could have – had they been in public school), a president, tall, handsome, cool and collected.

Obama, referred to as “a storybook”by then-Senator Joseph Biden, must realize that Americans like happy endings to their storybooks, especially in times of trouble.  Regardless of what some radio talk-show hosts might say, the culture of America wants individuals to succeed, especially if those individuals are personally appealing, as is Obama.  As one conservative friend told me over dinner, “but they just look so good.” 

The question is – what would be the price if the president were to succeed in getting what he wants?

In his op-ed “Yanks in Crisis,” (New York Times, April 23, 2009), David Brooks cites numerous polls and concludes that “the economic crisis has produced a desire for change but not a philosophical shift.”  Brooks says that, “after this crisis is over, they [the American People] still want a return to normalcy, with balanced budgets and a limited state. Americans still want to see power dispersed among a diversity of institutions, not concentrated in the hands of supertechnocrats in Washington.”

While the values of the American people (faith in people, not in government) might give David Brooks comfort, these same views are not being reflected in the proposals of the Obama administration.  Obama has laid out a sweeping agenda that calls for huge changes in how the American economy would operate.

John Judis writes in “Fundamentally Different: That’s what American capitalism will be once Obama’s done with it,” (The New Republic, April 23, 2009) that the impact of Obama’s policies will be “the balance of economic power away from the private and toward the public sector. The American relationship of state to economy will begin to look more like that of France and Sweden, whose non-crisis budgets total over 45 percent of GDP. And our politics may change accordingly–shifting public opinion on regulation, spending, and taxes well to the left.”

How, you might ask, does this happen, since the American people do not share these values?  The answer – little by little, step by step – like everything else.

Obama’s remarks at Georgetown University on April 14 give insight into how language changes understanding.  “I absolutely agree,” said Obama, “that our long-term deficit is a major problem that we have to fix. But the fact is that this recovery plan represents only a tiny fraction of that long-term deficit.”

The fact is correct but only because the debt more than doubles under his proposed budget, from $10 trillion (actual 2008) to $23 trillion in 2019.  The 130 percent increase in debt is what makes the recovery plan appear to be a “tiny fraction” of the long-term deficit.  But don’t get lost in the words: It’s not that the stimulus is small – but that the projected debt under Obama’s plan is immense.

The question is not only how fast we can help the economy recover, and at what economic cost – but also what would be the cost to our culture? 

Bailing out companies, chasing stimulus money, converting government preferred stock into common stock (moving towards social democracy), making perpetrators victims, waiting for government to intervene and fix.  These proposed changes do not reflect the America of opportunity and free enterprise – of hard work and reward.

Many of those Americans who have been financially successful in legitimate ventures are now trying to hide the fruits of their hard work.  What has happened?  In an effort to ease the pain – we have only spread it around.

While economic redistribution might “heal the pocketbook, it does not feed the soul” according to Arthur Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute, “Americans are happiest as a nation of makers, not takers.” 

It’s not the money that makes us happy, it might help us get by, but it doesn’t make us happy.  We’re happiest when individuals – not institutions — are helping others, creating value and making a difference.  This happens in a country of opportunity, free enterprise and limited government.

If we are not careful, instead of change we can believe in – we are going to have change, in what we believe.

Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Anyway, I digress, Jack has determined that this, our cause, is all to no avail, and sites the MSM, Demoncrats, TheLEFT, BHO, the Obamafascists, and assundry “mainstream” Republicans (a.k.a. RINOs) like Meghan McCain (who put her in charge, anyway?) & her father, along with of the Elite Republican commenters; we,  conservatives, are dead as a political influence.  We just haven’t dug the grave and held the wake yet, but we might as well have.

So, please read  Jack’s obituary for us:

The Top Ten Reasons Conservatism is Dead as Disco!
John Hawkins
Tuesday, April 21, 2009

First of all, I know this column isn’t going to be popular with all the mouth breathing, troglodytic, primitive dittoheads out there. But, facts are facts: conservatives are NEVER, EVER, EVER going to get back into power again.

The mainstream media says so, legendary conservative icons like David Frum, Meghan McCain, and David Brooks say so — and, yes, Democrats in Congress who we should remember soundly beat us in November, say so.

So, I think it’s time to point out what even completely unbiased political luminaries like Chuck Schumer and Keith Olbermann have been saying since Barack Obama was elected: conservatism is done, over with, as finished as warm days in the middle of December!

1) Sure, America’s political history has been one long churning political cycle with both party’s fortunes going up and down, but that’s not going to happen this time! This time, the Republicans aren’t going to learn anything from losing, conservatives aren’t going to be inspired to take action by being out of power, and the Democrats aren’t going to get even more complacent and corrupt as they enjoy the rewards of being in power. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid are just too smart, too sharp, and too doggone perfect to allow that to happen!

2) Conservatives are fighting with each other too much to ever get organized again. That certainly never happened when liberals were out of power…well, except when the environmentalists fought with the unions over ANWR. Oh, then there was Joe Lieberman vs. the netroots. We also can’t forget the gay lobby vs. black Democrats over gay marriage. Kos vs. New Republic, too. Plus, The Democratic Leadership Council vs. the Left. We also shouldn’t forget about the Barack Obama vs. Hillary Clinton brawl and dozens and dozens of other minor fights, feuds, and brouhahas. But certainly, all those fights are nothing like the fights on the Right!

3) The biggest disadvantage Republicans have is all those darn Christian conservatives. As everybody knows, Christianity is passe in America. It’s as old hat as conservatism and capitalism now. Don’t bother to close the barn door, Mary, because Jesus and the donkey he’s riding on are long gone and this is now post-Christian America. So, until Republicans smarten up and stop trying to represent the views of the 76% of Americans who still consider themselves Christian, they’re just wasting their time!

4) As many people have pointed out, you can’t win with conservative values in America any more. Republicans have just got to accept that and follow in the shoes of the Democrats — who completely re-did their agenda by rolling out a plan that combines the long discredited elements of FDR’s agenda that kept us mired in the Depression and the parts of Mussolini’s agenda that served as an example to fascists worldwide. Republicans may as well abandon all hope if they think they can go toe-to-toe with that combination without completely abandoning everything they’ve stood for since Reagan was first elected and start over from scratch.

5) Notice how popular Barack Obama is today? He’s on the cover of every magazine, the press loves him, and everybody at all the best Washington cocktail parties agree that it will be that way forever. Besides, Presidents never get less popular over time, do they? George Bush had a popularity in the thirties for his entire presidency — didn’t he? Wow, wonder how he ever got re-elected? How did that happen? My memory is a little foggy on that one.

6) The percentage of minorities in the American population is rising and as we all know, party affiliation is genetically programmed into people at birth. Certainly black Americans, who used to vote overwhelmingly for the Republican Party before they began voting overwhelmingly for the Democratic Party, can never vote for Republicans again. And Hispanics? Jews? They’re ALWAYS going to vote Democratic in increasingly larger blocks, no matter how much their interests tilt towards the GOP!

7) Everybody knows that the GOP has practically been “wiped out” in much of the Northern United States. Why, they’ve lost seat after seat that they’ll never win again! Granted, some people might think that when the political winds shift again, that moderate Republicans could run and win in many of those same districts — just as the Democratic Party won in moderate Republican districts in 2006 and 2008, but every liberal I know agrees that just won’t be possible for some very legitimate reason that isn’t quite coming to mind right now!

8) The advantage that liberals have with the mainstream media is just insurmountable! They own the cable news (well, except for the one people watch, Fox), they own the newspapers (which seem to be rapidly going out of business) and they own the blogosphere (granted, the liberal blogs are all shrinking now while the conservative blogs seem to be getting bigger).

Anyway, as we all know, it’s impossible to overcome the mainstream media given how much the public trusts them. That’s why that crazypants actor Ron Reagan lost to Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush lost to Michael Dukakis, and George W. Bush lost twice to Al Gore AND John Kerry! Wait a second…oh, yeah. So, ah, how’s that Fairness Doctrine coming along?

9) Certainly America’s enemies wouldn’t be so rude as to take advantage of Barack Obama. After Barack Obama decided to close Gitmo and started weakening our security, Al-Qaeda must be too grateful to attack. Iran wouldn’t go ahead and build nukes on Obama’s watch after he risked so much to reach out to them, right? Then there’s Castro and Chavez — they won’t make Obama look like a fool at this point, after he risked so much to reach out to them. And Europe, well, they’re not cooperating with Obama now, but they love the big guy! That has to pay off at some point. Doesn’t it?

10) Barack Obama’s policies, which consist primarily of expanding government and government spending faster than any politician in history, are sure to remain popular long-term — well, as long as we never have to pay for anything — right? Our good friends, like the Chinese, Russians, and Saudis, will be delighted to keep footing our bill forevermore without expecting us to pay it back. That’s what friends do, right? If not, the rich would certainly never change their behavior in any way to avoid paying an ever-increasing percentage of their income in taxes — would they?

Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

 

Now, all that said, I’m also an American. I served my country in the US Navy riding a submarine and have lived in many of states through my Navy days and since. Since, 9/11, I tear up and get a lump in my throat EVERY time I hear the National Anthem, and would have gladly served again in the military after if they’d had me (too old now). And what’s going on in this country right now tears my loyalties. I cannot speak to all Texans’, West or the remainder of the state (about half), politics; I can only speak to mine and y’all know what that is–just so you know, yesterday DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano confirmed (stood by the Departments assessment) that I am a frakkin’ right-wing extremist radical inclined to become a violent militia member because I am anti-abortion, anti-illegal immigration, anti-massive government and socialist spending and any number of other criteria that was listed in the assessment.

So, to the three extremist issues that are burning up the blogs (all sides) today are the aforementioned DHS assessment, the Tea Parties yesterday (which should give the DHS agents plenty to worry about–see the Google map of the Tea Parties across the nation) and Texas Governor Rick Perry’s support of House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 50 in support of states’ rights under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by re-establishing our state sovereignty (along with 10 other states) and the declaration that Texas could leave the Union if it wants (that ought to get HRO and Jannie Napolly’s panties in a bunch, as well as automatically get the whole damn state on the DHS assessment list)–of course the latter is not as easy as every one thinks, especially Texans.

The popular belief is that Texas retained it’s Right to Secede from the Union after re-admittance following the Civil War, but unfortunately it’s a misinterpretation. The only right we retained pertaining to changing the state’s status in the U.S. is that we could divide into 4 separate states–we ain’t goin’ to do that by the way. BUT, here’s the kicker, with re-establishing our State Sovereignty (if it passes the Texas House, of course) we could be one step closer, we have a clause in our state constitution which allows (in plain terms) us to re-write the Preamble and thereby Secede by specifically saying that things (basically) changed in the United States and therefor not we bought into when we were re-admitted. I couldn’t find the one I saved, but here is a link that explains this all pretty well–I don’t endorse or agree with everything there but it’s mostly neutral and straightforward 

So, here I am struggling to decide what I should say or do next. All I can rally do is write here, release my frustration and anger at what His Royal Obamaness and his minionsare doing to our country with out-of-this-world spending, inflating our currency by printing trillions of dollars backed by nothing, degrading our security by downsizing the military, relabelling Terrorism (man-caused disasters) and War on Terror (Overseas Contingency Programs) and having our Homeland Security chasing and watching those of us that oppose the list above. as well as. installing the most far left group of people into the US Government EVER, all the while bad mouthing us on foreign soil and bowing to a Saudi King’s knees (if you watch the video from behind BHO, you’ll see he damn near curtsied). Queen Nancy, TheLeft, the LooneyToonLEFT, MSNBC & CNN has attacked the Tea Parties yesterday and misrepresented what the whole concept was about (Tea Parties at the Alamo here &  Jones Plaza in Houston here; and I imagine there’ll be plenty of those basement-dwelling, hammer-n-sickle, greasy-haired, mommy-supported, orange-fingered Cheetos-eating, socialist check-grabbing human wannabes will be more than glad to see Texas go (and we not be associated with them). They dubbed us with the term “tea-baggers” (see Ann Coulter’s take on the Parties et al)to indicate that we were all out sucking (excuse the image and honesty here) scrotums and giggling about it. Excuse me? I guess it takes one to automatically know the definition to use it in the first place–I had to go look it up.

To simplify this for me, and maybe you, I’ll use a resurgent term from one of my sons’ namesake, William Barrett Travis, and say I’m Drawing a Line in the Sand, and I will make my stand here. I will work to ensure the United States continues to be the Country our Fore Fathers founded and built. I will support the United States within the limits I am allowed, but if it comes to it and I can’t recognize this great country for which our flag stands and we the people are the voice, then and only then, I will support and vote, and fight if need be, for Texas secession from the union. I pray that God grant it never comes to that, but unless the G-damn Yankees stop us, this state will not be ruled under socialism and if the rest of the country wants to be the United Socialist States of America, that’s fine, and maybe they can admit Puerto Rico as a state to replace us–what kind of trade would that be? We were a sovereign nation, The Republic of Texas, and we can be once more if pushed to it. I’d like to see 25 cent a gallon gas again, just t0 mention one advantage of the myriad of the thousands that tempt us to go our own way. Needless to say there are folks that will think this traitorous and that we are cowardly sore losers because we didn’t win the election. What it really means is that Texans think for themselves, we are Texans and Americans simultaneously (most others can’t understand this–we will more than likely answer “Texas”, when asked abroad where we’re from), we’re a bunch of  independent folks and if we’re going to pay taxes, we’d just as soon it goes to make Texas and Texans’ lives better than support freeloading, union-loaded, gimme-gimme for nothing socialist issues that barely affect us here.

Drudge had this posted first (as far as I saw) and the link failed time after time to the Washington Times article–it’s better now–Now it’s Drudge’s Prime Headline.

UPDATE: My apologies, it seems Michelle Malkin had this out early this morning–probably where DRUDGE noticed it first, but who knows–but here’s her due and link.

UPDATE II: You can go to my new post to see that Janny Napolly has confirmed her stand on the assessment.

Here is the first major excerpt:

The Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement officials about a rise in “rightwing extremist activity,” saying the economic recession, the election of America’s first black president and the return of a few disgruntled war veterans could swell the ranks of white-power militias.

A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines “rightwing extremism in the United States” as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.

“It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,” the warning says.

I always thought that “Homeland Security” from the 9/11 Panel recommendation sounded too suspiciously like Fatherland (Nazis) and Motherland (Communists)–so how’s that DHS thinking about me and you now?  So folks, where do you fit in that criteria? I’m smack in the middle of it, so now they’re worried I’m going a militia?? Are they trying to force those of us that cling to our God, Guns and jobs/money to fear that we should join together? Well, tomorrow they’re going to see quite a few Extremist Radicals at City Halls and other gathering places trying to show our solidarity against the federal government spending money they don’t have and that they plan to take from us, our children and grandchildren. They may also find that states are starting to protect their citizens against the federal government–Texas Governor Rick Perry and our Congress are the latest to draft bills to re-establish our State’s Sovereignty under the  Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution.

Beware of the Obamafascists (ACORN) that will confront us tomorrow at the Tea Parties!

Good luck tomorrow and Stand Tall for our Rights before they’re GONE! Or else we may become the USSA–United Socialist States of America!

Read the following article and here’s the actual document in .pdf–

Federal Agency Warns of Radicals on Right

Audrey Hudson (Contact) and Eli Lake (Contact)

The Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement officials about a rise in “rightwing extremist activity,” saying the economic recession, the election of America’s first black president and the return of a few disgruntled war veterans could swell the ranks of white-power militias.

A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines “rightwing extremism in the United States” as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.

“It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,” the warning says.

The White House has distanced itself from the analysis. When asked for comment on its contents, White House spokesman Nick Shapiro said, “The President is focused not on politics but rather taking the steps necessary to protect all Americans from the threat of violence and terrorism regardless of its origins. He also believes those who serve represent the best of this country, and he will continue to ensure that our veterans receive the respect and benefits they have earned.”

The nine-page document was sent to police and sheriff’s departments across the United Stateson April 7 under the headline, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.”

It says the federal government “will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months” to gather information on “rightwing extremist activity in the United States.”

The joint federal-state activities will have “a particular emphasis” on the causes of “rightwing extremist radicalization.”

Homeland Security spokeswoman Sara Kuban said the report is one in an ongoing series of assessments by the department to “facilitate a greater understanding of the phenomenon of violent radicalization in the U.S.”

The report, which was first disclosed to the public by nationally syndicated radio host Roger Hedgecock, makes clear that the Homeland Security Department does not have “specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence.”It warns that fringe organizations are gaining recruits, but it provides no numbers.

The report says extremist groups have used President Obama as a recruiting tool.

“Most statements by rightwing extremists have been rhetorical, expressing concerns about the election of the first African American president, but stopping short of calls for violent action,” the report says. “In two instances in the run-up to the election, extremists appeared to be in the early planning stages of some threatening activity targeting the Democratic nominee, but law enforcement interceded.”

When asked about this passage, Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan said, “We are concerned about anybody who will try to harm or plan to harm any one of our protectees. We don’t have the luxury to focus on one particular group at the exclusion of others.”

Congressional debates about immigration and gun control also make extremist groups suspicious and give them a rallying cry, the report says.

“It is unclear if either bill will be passed into law; nonetheless, a correlation may exist between the potential passage of gun control legislation and increased hoarding of ammunition, weapons stockpiling, and paramilitary training activities among rightwing extremists,” the report said.

The FBI was quoted Monday as saying that, since November, more than 7 million people have applied for criminal background checks in order to buy weapons.

The Homeland Security report added: “Over the past five years, various rightwing extremists, including militias and white supremacists, have adopted the immigration issue as a call to action, rallying point, and recruiting tool.”

The report could signify a change in emphasis for Homeland Security under former Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano. A German magazine quoted Ms. Napolitano as rebranding “terrorism” as “man-made disasters.” Since its inception in 2003, the department has focused primarily on radicalization of Muslims and the prospect of homegrown Islamist terrorism.

Ms. Kuban said, however, that the department had published reports on left-wing radicalization as well, though she could not name one.

“These types of reports are published all the time. There have actually been some done on the other end of the spectrum, left-wing,” Ms. Kuban said.

A similar headline was used in a report issued in January, Ms. Kuban said, although she could not provide the content of the headline.

Ms. Kuban said she did not know how long the new report had been in the making.

“The purpose of the report is to identify risk. This is nothing unusual,” said Ms. Kuban, who added that the Homeland Security Department did this “to prevent another Tim McVeigh from ever happening again.”

The Homeland Security assessment specifically says that “rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat.”

Jerry Newberry, director of communications for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, said the vast majority of veterans are patriotic citizens who would not join anti-government militias.

“As far as our military members go, I think that the military is a melting pot of society. So you might get a few, a fractional few, who are going to be attracted by militia groups and other right-wing extremists,” he said.

“We have to remember that the people serving in our military are volunteers, they do it because they love their country, and they believe in what our country stands for,” he said. “They spent their time in the military defending our Constitution, so the vast majority of them would be repulsed by the hate groups discussed in this report.”

The Homeland Security report cited a 2008 FBI report that noted that a small number of returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups.

The FBI report said that from October 2001 through May 2008 “a minuscule” number of veterans, 203 out of 23,000, had joined groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, the National Socialist Movement, the Creativity Movement, the National Alliance and some skinhead groups.

“Although the white supremacist movement is of concern to the FBI, our assessment shows that only a very small number of people with prior military experience may have an affiliation with supremacist groups,” FBI spokesman Richard Kolko said Monday when asked about the FBI report.

A 2006 report from the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that monitors white supremacists like the Klan, said that white-power groups had an interest in the kind of training the military provides.

Mark Potok, director of the center’s intelligence project, said the Homeland Security report “confirms that white supremacists are interested in the military. There is some concern, and there should be, about returning veterans, one need only think of the example of Timothy McVeigh, who was in the first Iraq war.”

Mr. Potok added that he was generally pleased with the report.

“Basically, the report tracks fairly closely with what we have been saying for some time now. They mention us a couple of times, though not by name,” he said.

I completed my day and a half, 725 mile interview tour to Houston & Austin, and although I won’t know the results until the end of next week, I think that I have a pretty good shot at both opportunities, and probably better with the Austin position. Again, the unfortunate issue is the requirement to move (I’ve always said, I’d rather be beat to death than move, as when you’re done you feel about the same) for either job; the fortunate, if the latter position, then I’ll be living much closer to my father in the Lake Hill Country of Texas. I’m one of those guilty sons that always wanted to spend more time with his father, but because of jobs have never had much opportunity. Now with his advancing age (85) and health issues (treatable– at this point– congestive heart failure) I am well aware that time is running out, so the thought of living within 50 miles (the closest since I was 18) vs. the nearest since, 245 (currently) miles, is a real boon and exciting. I spent Tuesday night with him and my step-mother and they were hopeful that the opportunity will work out.

I will be working the next two days editing the last chapter of my novel (Dragonet: Allah’s Instrument) for submission to my acqauintance for her to pass on her boss for his input next week.

On to Illya, after dropping him off at the vet on Monday morning for the fluid treatment, I went on with a number of errands, but less than 2 hours later they called for me to return and pick him up. They ran his blood tests again and they were much much worse and had decided that the treatment would kill him outright (more or less drown him) and that we could only continue with what meds we were already giving and make him comfortable. That was Monday noon, and he’s still the same, bouncy and alert, but I have noticed he seems to be resting/sleeping more. But, again, when he’s up, there doesn’t seem to be any change. This is slowly killing my wife, she feels that this is happening every couple of months  (it isn’t really that frequent), but then four in less than two years is way too much for a heart such as hers.

Now, as Life DOES go on & on, a friend sends me a reality check on my sadness of the impending loss a beloved pet while she is having to close the “doors” on her 35 year old drug-addicted daughter. They tried an intervention a couple of weeks ago (on her birthday) and this on-going hell for her has come to the tough love (as we called it in the 70s)  requirement. My pain is real, I love this animal, but what is my pain to hers — nothing. I have been fortunate and blessed that of five children (four sons and one step-daughter), they’re all well, healthy and successful. One son was on this same path in high school but God’s providence allowed him to meet a young lady (on the same path as well) and in their meeting and joining they changed their path, part of which was in giving their lives’ to Christ. Now they’ve been married 5 years, have successful careers, are integral to their church’s growth, and have a lovely home and we are hoping they’ll become parents and pass their love on to those children.

But, how do I express my pain for my friend when I haven’t had to make that choice with a child? Our children are our love personified and when they hurt we hurt, but when the seem to want to hurt, how do we take that away? Can we heal them or must we let nature take it’s course? We can only do so much for them and then it’s up to them. My friend has fought this addiction for her child and I’m sure she feels she has failed, but she hasn’t, she’s loved, supported and sacrificed to save her and the child doesn’t want saving. The problem is the child has not fought the addiction — the child has failed, not the mother. So, as I sit here worried for my wife and the pain to come for our loss of a loved furrkid, my pain is nowhere in the same realm that my friend is experiencing at this same moment.

I pray that God will intervene and save this child as he intervened and saved mine, but the child has to allow that option – she has to recognize the rescue when it shows itself–it is solely up to her. My friend should and will, I’m sure, continue to pray, as I will for her strength, and continue the love for her daughter she shows by closing the doors.

UPDATE (138 PM cdt): From my friend:

After a couple nights in her car, [Xxx] managed to get into a rehab. First she has to go to a detox facility, then to the rehab. This will be her third time in rehab. Maybe the third time will be the charm?

It does seem that tough love works, as does God’s will; perhaps He has gotten her attention. kb

I love Dennis because of his clarity which is really what his daily radio show is all about–clarity. Now,  I would add that our Dear Leader, the Messiah, His Royal Obamaness is imbecilic if he thinks that banning and removing all nuclear weapons from the world will work. Has he never heard the NRA slogan that, ‘If all the guns are banned, then only outlaws will have guns!’?

Does he not understand that this is exactly what will happen if he were to succeed? Does he really believe that those few (double handful) enlightened countries agree to give up the deterrent that has kept the world safe since WWII, that the bad actors (NoKor & Iran) will give up their plans and desires to achieve a nuclear weapon; and if they succeed, then they’ll give them up? To think that, he truly is naive, but I think only an imbecile would give them the opportunity; not to mention the idea that the United Nations will step up as the world’s policeman when the United States steps down as we are right now with Obama’s liberal mindset.

Here’s Dennis’ excellent take:

America Has a Naive President
Dennis Prager
Tuesday, April 07, 2009

“The basic bargain is sound: countries with nuclear weapons will move toward disarmament, countries without nuclear weapons will not acquire them.” — President Barack Obama, Prague, April 6, 2009

As far as nuclear weapons are concerned, the President of the United States wants America to disarm: “Countries with nuclear weapons will move toward disarmament.”

It is hard to imagine a more destructive goal. A nuclear disarmed America would lead to massive and widespread killing, more genocide, and very possibly the nuclear holocaust worldwide nuclear disarmament is meant to prevent.

There is nothing moral, let alone realistic, about this goal.

Here is an analogy. Imagine that the mayor of a large American city announced that it was his goal to have all the citizens of his city disarm — what could be more beautiful than a city with no weapons? This would, of course, ultimately include the police, but with properly signed agreements, vigorously enforced, and violators of the agreement punished, it would remain an ideal to pursue.

One has to assume that most people would regard this idea as, at the very least, useless. There would be no way to ensure that bad people would disarm; and if the police disarmed, only bad people would have weapons.

The analogy is virtually precise — but only if you acknowledge that America is the world’s policeman. To idealists of the left, however, the notion of America as the world’s policeman is both arrogant and misguided. A strengthened “world community” — as embodied by the United Nations – should be the world’s policeman.

To the rest of us, however, the idea of the United Nations as the world’s policeman is absurd and frightening. The United Nations has proven itself a moral wasteland that gives genocidal tyrannies honored positions on human rights commissions. The weaker the U.N. and the stronger America, the greater the chances of preventing or stopping mass atrocities.

On the assumption that the left and the right both seek a world without genocide and tyranny, it is, then, the answer to this question that divides them: Are genocide and tyranny more or less likely if America is the strongest country on earth, i.e., the country with the greatest and most weapons, nuclear and otherwise?

Moreover even if you answer in the negative and think that the world would experience less evil with a nuclear disarmed America, the goal of worldwide nuclear disarmament is foolish because it is unattainable. And unattainable goals are a waste of precious time and resources.

For one thing, it is inconceivable that every nation would agree to it. Why would India give up its nuclear weapons? There aren’t a dozen Hindus who believe that Pakistan would give up every one of its nuclear weapons. And the same presumably holds true for Muslims in Pakistan with regard to India disarming.

And what about Israel? Would that country destroy all its nuclear weapons? Of course not. And it would be foolish to do so. Israel is surrounded by countries that wish not merely to vanquish it, but to destroy it. It regards nuclear weapons as life assurance. And it regards the United Nations (with good reason) as its enemy, not its protector.

As for states like Iran and North Korea, they have already violated agreements regarding nuclear weapons. What would prompt them to do otherwise in a world where America got weaker? United Nations sanctions? And why would Russia and China even agree to them?

Finally, there would be no way to prevent rogue scientists from selling materials and know-how to terrorists.

The result of this left-wing fantasy of worldwide nuclear disarmament would simply be that those who illegally acquired or made but one nuclear weapon would be able to blackmail any nation.

What any president of the United States should aspire to is: 1). to keep America the strongest country in the world militarily (as well as economically, but that is not the question on the table); 2) to destroy those individuals and organizations that seek nuclear weapons so as to kill as many innocent people as possible; and 3) remain the world’s policeman. These aims cannot be achieved if America aims to disarm.

President Obama said “I am not naïve” in his talk. That, unfortunately, is as accurate as his statement before the joint session of Congress that “I do not believe in bigger government.”

Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.