Closing Guantanamo Without a Plan

As he promised during the campaign, President Obama has signed an Executive Order requiring the closure of the Guantanamo detainment facility. Aside from being an idealistic and stupid idea, it was exacerbated by Obama's's lack of any plan for dealing with the terrorists housed there. Keep in mind that the Bush administration and the military have released hundreds of detainees from Guantanamo, presumably those deemed least dangerous. About 10 percent of those released have gone back to try and kill our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. What percentage of the hardcore terrorists are likely to go back to attacking our soldiers - or worse, attack American citizens on American soil? This is not just hypothetical. A Guantanamo detainee released in 2007 has just emerged as a deputy leader of the Al Qaeda branch in Yemen. I guess you can take the man out of the terrorist group, but you can't take the terrorist out of the man. Maybe if we all hold hands, think utopian thoughts and sing songs from the 1960's, they will be moved and decide to embrace a completely different world-view. Then again, maybe they'll just opt for the 72 virgins, press the detonator for their suicide belt and try to kill and maim as many of us as they can.

A.G.W. on the Rocks

Once again, facts fly in the face of anthropogenic global warming dogma. According to the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center, the sea ice is not melting at an alarming rate, much to the relief of the booming polar bear population. Here's a hint, folks. Climate should be evaluated not by reviewing years and decades of data, but by hundreds, thousands and tens of thousands of years of data. That's the only way to put it in a proper context. Of course, that would leave the global warming Chicken Little alarmists with only one thing to shout:  "The sky is normal! The sky is normal!" 

And that wouldn't sell very many movie tickets. Right, Al?

HT: Daily Tech

Justice Applied - Simpson Convicted

There's an old adage "Justice delayed is justice denied". However, I would guess that the families of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown are feeling a certain amount of satisfaction with O. J. Simpson's armed robbery conviction on Friday. The verdict was delivered exactly 13 years to the day after a Los Angeles jury declared him not guilty of the murders of Goldman and Brown. He may have gotten away with a double murder 13 years ago, but he couldn't get away from his own narcissism which drove him commit robbery at gunpoint to retrieve some of his memorabilia which he believed was stolen from him. Never mind the fact that he still owes the Goldman's over $30 million from the civil suit.

It is certain that Simpson's attorneys will appeal the conviction claiming that the police, prosecution and/or jury were out to rectify the outcome of the murder trial. I don't know if there is any truth in that or not and, frankly, it wouldn't bother me if there was. The fact of the matter is that he either committed an armed robbery or he didn't. If the evidence is there, he should be found guilty.

Simpson can only blame himself (though he certainly won't) for the position he is in. If he hadn't murdered two people 13 years ago, his sports memorabilia would have been in his own display case today and he wouldn't be headed for prison.

Silencing Sarah

Sarah Palin was invited to speak at a rally protesting Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's appearance at the UN. The very pro-Israel speech she would have given really puts the wood to ol' Mahmoud. When fellow invitee Hillary Clinton found out Sarah had been invited, she threw a fit and refused to participate. The reason given was that inviting Sarah was a "partisan move".  (Isn't it interesting that she considers inviting representatives from both political parties to be partisan.) The organizers of the rally/protest withdrew their invitation to Sarah as a result of Hillary's tantrum. 

However, a major news source has published the transcript of the speech Sarah Palin had prepared for the rally. No, it wasn't Fox, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard or any other traditional "Conservative" outlets.  The very Left-wing Israeli paper Haaretz (think New York Times, LA Times or Minneapolis Star Tribune) has made a point to publish the speech. It seems that when you have a soon-to-be-nuclear power, led by an unabashed anti-Semite with delusions of finishing what Hitler started, within missile range or your home, you get a clearer understanding of who is on your side. You can read Sarah's speech here.

HT: Prager

The Nebulous Definition of "The Bush Doctrine"

Chuck Gibson's interview of Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin was nothing more than a continuation of the attacks on her by the Left-Wing Media elite. The question that best confirms this assessment was, "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?"  Sarah's response, which was to ask "In what respect, Charlie?", was the proper response because there is no single definition for the term Bush Doctrine. All one needs to do is to read the first paragraph of the Wikipedia entry for The Bush Doctrine. The following is the relevant section (emphasis added):

It may be viewed as a set of several related foreign policy principles, including stress on ending terrorism, spreading democracy, increased unilateralism in foreign policy and an expanded view of American national security interests. Foreign policy experts argue over the meaning of the term "Bush Doctrine," and some scholars have suggested that there is no one unified theory underlying Bush's foreign policy. Jacob Weisberg identifies six successive "Bush Doctrines" in his book The Bush Tragedy, while former Bush staffer Peter D. Feaver has counted seven.

Now, put yourself in her place. You are asked if you agree with a term that has several possible meanings. No matter which one you pick, the inquisitor can decide that the definition he meant was one of those you didn't pick. It's a bit like someone holding their hands behind their back and asking how many fingers they are holding up. No matter what number you give, they can arrogantly display their recently altered finger count and proclaim you an idiot for not getting it right.

Well, Chuck did his best, but all he succeeded in doing was to give the Kos-DU-HuffPo crowd something to cackle about. For the rest of us out here in middle America, we saw a confident, composed, strong woman who stood toe-to-toe with an aggressively biased Left-wing Media snob. Could she have done better? Yes, I think there were questions she could have handled better. More importantly, there were no Biden-like gaffes -- or if you prefer, Obama-like gaffes.

And what about Chuck's idea of what the Bush Doctrine means? To his credit, he narrowed the timeframe to, ". . . the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war." Then he defined it (emphasis added):

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

If that is the Bush Doctrine, then virtually every leader of every civilization in history agreed with it. If FDR had received information on December 6th that the Japanese fleet was going to attack Pearl Harbor the following day, is there any doubt that he would have ordered a preemptive strike? Of course he would have. However, Chuck got it wrong according to the previously referenced Wikipedia entry. Again, I will quote the relevant section (again, emphasis added):

Other foreign policy experts have taken the term to mean Bush's doctrine of preventive war, first articulated in 2002, which holds that the United States government should depose foreign regimes that represent a threat to the security of the United States, even if such threats are not immediate and no attack is imminent. This policy was used to justify the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

I am certain, given Chuck's obvious bias, that this was the policy he intended to trap her with. Unfortunately, he couldn't get it right and he failed miserably in trying to make her look bad. In fact, his ineptitude gave her the perfect opportunity to highlight what almost all Americans know in this election:  If we want to be safe from enemies, foreign and domestic, the only choice is McCain-Palin.

Peggy Noonan Explains

Peggy Noonan has issued an apology regarding the recent unpleasantness which I addressed in my last post. In using the word 'apology', I mean it in the philosophical sense:  "a defense, excuse, or justification in speech or writing, as for a cause or doctrine." Other than making that distinction, I will let the readers draw their own conclusions.

Noonan's "Jesse Jackson" Moment

I'd like to think that WSJ columnist Peggy Noonan and Republican strategist Mike Murphy are not stupid. I said that I'd LIKE to think that.  However, they apparently didn't learn anything from Jesse Jackson's recent experience with open microphones after television interviews.

After an interview on MSNBC, Murphy and Noonan decided to provide some audio for future Obama campaign ads. Transcript and video here.  What makes Noonan's comments so astounding is that she had just written positively about Sarah Palin's candidacy earlier today. Not only that, Noonan also proved to be somewhat prophetic when she wrote:

Let me say of myself and almost everyone I know in the press, all the chattering classes and political strategists and inside dopesters of the Amtrak Acela Line: We live in a bubble and have around us bubble people. We are Bubbleheads.

. . . And when you forget you're a Bubblehead you get in trouble, you misjudge things.

That's right, Peggy. When you forget that you're a Bubblehead, you misjudge the American people. You see, Peggy, most Americans don't rub elbows with the Manhattan Elites or attend cocktail parties in Georgetown. When you look at Sarah Palin, you see a "narrative". When we look at Sarah Palin, we see someone like us. We see a woman of faith who loves this country, loves her family, loves life and will do what she needs to do to protect them all. That may be "political B.S."  to the Bubblehead crowd, but to the rest of us out here in "fly-over country" that's who we are.

To end this post, dear Peggy, I remind you of a favorite saying of the late, great Ronald Reagan. It is a quote you, of all people, ought to have remembered:

"Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican."

Spanish Athretes Orympic Brunder

Oh, those crazy Spaniards.  Apparently no one told them that they are supposed to be nervously looking over their shoulders out of fear that they might offend someone.  Instead, they foolishly spent a little of their free time between Olympic events goofing off and having fun. What were they thinking?

Wesley Clark Does Obama's Dirty Work

Retired General Wesley Clark appeared on CBS' Face the Nation and had the following to say about Republican Presidential candidate John McCain's military experience:

"Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president"

Using the former General's reasoning, getting your PT boat sunk while you're at the helm would also not be a qualification to be president. That didn't stop JFK from using it to get elected, did it?

I'm a little surprised that he doesn't know that you don't "ride a fighter plane".  Also, John McCain flew an attack aircraft, an A-4E Skyhawk to be specific. If he flew a fighter, the nomenclature would begin with an "F" as in F-16 or F-22. I guess basic military knowledge is not a qualification to be a General -- or a failed Democrat Presidential candidate for that matter.

Needless to say, Clark was just doing the dirty work for B. H. Obama. That way Obama can make some vague comments about respecting military service and perpetuate the illusion that he is for "change". This is just regular old sleazy Chicago politics that Obama knows so well.

Right Here. Right Now. Let's Drill.

Sign this petition demanding that:

. . . the U.S. Congress to act immediately to lower gasoline prices
(and diesel and other fuel prices)* by authorizing the exploration
of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign
energy sources from unstable countries.

The first thing out of Madame Pelosi's mouth will be that this won't help because it will take 10 years before the oil will flow. That argument is irrelevant for three reasons.

First, even if that is true, all the more reason to start now. Who knows how bad things might be in ten years? Besides, most of those 10 years would be caused by bureaucratic red tape which Congress could easily cut through.

Second, much of the increase in oil prices is due to speculation in the futures market. If the USA begins to tap its own reserves, it will likely result in a drop in oil prices due to the expectation of increased supply in the future. Buy low, sell high.

Third, the oil producing countries which we are currently dependent on will have less incentive to restrict current production. They love the high price of oil and that they have the USA over a barrel (no pun intended). It was embarrassing to watch President Bush go over to our so-called friends, the Saudis, and beg them to increase production, only to be told (and I'll paraphrase here) "Go pound sand." If we start moving towards more domestic production, I think they will be more interested in producing more oil in the hope that it might discourage us from becoming too enthusiastic about cutting the petrol-umbilical cord.

And now, for your YouTube viewing pleasure, a message from Chuck Norris:

HT: Powerline

Habeas Ruling and Election '08

Hugh Hewitt's column at Townhall.com, The United States Supreme Court Versus America: Awarding "The Privilege of Habeas Corpus To Terrorists", addresses the outrageous, irresponsible and narrow 5-4 SCOTUS ruling handed down today. The following is a portion of Justice Scalia's sobering dissent from Hugh's column:

America is at war with radical Islamists. The enemy began by killing Americans and American allies abroad: 241 at the Marine barracks in Lebanon, 19 at the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, 224 at our embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, and 17 on the USS Cole in Yemen. See National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report, pp. 60–61, 70, 190 (2004). On September 11, 2001, the enemy brought the battle to American soil, killing 2,749 at the Twin Towers in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon in Washington, D. C., and 40 in Pennsylvania. See id., at 552, n. 9. It has threatened further attacks against our homeland; one need only walk about buttressed and barricaded Washington, or board a plane anywhere in the country, to know that the threat is a serious one. Our Armed Forces are now in the field against the enemy, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Last week, 13 of our countrymen in arms were killed.

The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the Nation’s Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.

Like Hugh, I pray that Scalia is wrong, but I have no doubt that he absolutely correct.

Hugh puts much of the blame for this ruling at the feet of Justice Kennedy, and rightly so. Of the five justices in the majority, he was the only one who might have decided differently. The next President will likely have at least 2-3 vacancies to fill on the Supreme Court. Barak Obama has stated that his appointments will be in the mold of Justice Ginsberg. John McCain has repeatedly stated that he will appoint justices like Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. Ginsberg has just decided that foreign terrorists who want to destroy us, our country and our way of life deserve the same Constitutional protections that we, as citizens, have. Roberts and Alito, along with Thomas and Scalia, dissented from that view.

I have never been a McCain fan. Not even close. However, there are two issues that will affect this country for decades to come: the GWOT and the Supreme Court. McCain is absolutely right on both issues. Obama is absolutely wrong on both issues. When it comes to my choice for President this year, I have only one option. And it is not Barak Obama.

Google: Free Speech for Terrorists

UPI has reported that Google has refused to remove all terrorist videos from YouTube. In defending their decision, Google issued as statement that, in part, says:

". . . YouTube encourages free speech and defends everyone's right to express unpopular points of view."

Apparently, this policy doesn't apply in Communist totalitarian regimes which have a population of more than 1 billion people and are located in Asia. Fortunately, we live in the good ol' USA where we are free to have the propaganda of our worst enemies -- people who would love to rip your child's face off with piano wire while you watch in horror -- treated the same as some teenager's anti-Archuleta rant.

At least we know that Google won't let any sense of morality cloud their judgment. That task is reserved for "the bottom line".

The Answer is Not Blowing in the Wind

According to this Reuters report, Texas had a power grid emergency on Tuesday. What caused the emergency? Well, let's just say it doesn't always blow in Texas:

A drop in wind generation late on Tuesday, coupled with colder weather, triggered an electric emergency that caused the Texas grid operator to cut service to some large customers, the grid agency said on Wednesday...

[Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT)] said the grid's frequency dropped suddenly when wind production fell from more than 1,700 megawatts, before the event, to 300 MW when the emergency was declared.

In addition, ERCOT said multiple power suppliers fell below the amount of power they were scheduled to produce on Tuesday. That, coupled with the loss of wind generated in West Texas, created problems moving power to the west from North Texas.

Here's an idea. Build a few nuclear power plants.

I'm Not Dead Yet

Okay, I'll admit it. My blogging frequency leaves much to be desired. On the other hand, nobody ever gets tired of hearing what I have to say. On a few occasions, I have been dangerously close to putting my thoughts on the 2008 Presidential candidates on the record. However, I'm one of the few (apparently) who really despise the fact that the race began a year earlier than in the past. Not only that, but states have been playing chicken to see who can set their primary closest to January 1, 2008 without going over.

Maybe it's jut me, but doesn't it seem odd that, with all our advanced technology and transportation, Presidential candidates need a longer period of time to run for office than they did 200 years ago? A two year election campaign would have made sense when candidates "flew" from town to town on a speeding horse-drawn carriage and the equivalent of an e-blast was some pimple-faced kid handing out campaign brochures on the street corner.

It is likely that this election will eclipse all previous records for campaign spending. At least we have McCain-Feingold to get the money out of politics . . . (do I need to add?) . . . NOT!

Victory Ignored

I knew things must be going well in Iraq when the media stopped the daily barrage of body counts and stock footage of convoys being blown up. As I was watching the news the other day, I noticed something else interesting. They were reporting the sad news of another serviceman being killed in Iraq. The interesting part was how the story was framed. Do you suppose they put it in the context of 5 straight months of declining casualties among US troops AND Iraqi citizens? No, that would not be "objective" reporting. They reported the death of that honorable and heroic soldier as adding to the "deadliest year" of the Iraq War. It may be true that this has been the deadliest year of the war. I haven't checked the facts, but I'm willing to accept it at face value. However, if they were really concerned about objectivity, why did they chose to leave out the positive news altogether?

Victor Davis Hanson's RCP article, Good News Is No News, addresses this very issue. You can read more of VDH at VDH's Private Papers or his Pajamas Media blog, Works and Days.

Sound Instruction Through Film

In an earlier post, I mentioned that there was going to be a showing of the film The Great Global Warming Swindle at a local nature center on October 13th. Well, I decided to go and make sure that at least one person who has abstained from Al Gore's kool-aid attends the event. The nature center is tucked away in a residential neighborhood of a Minneapolis suburb. It's quite a nice little park/squirrel haven. At any rate, the nature center staff and the gentleman facilitating the event were all quite pleasant. The total attendance ended up at around 10 people. Interestingly enough, they had about the same attendance for each of the two showings of Al G.'s hysteria flick which were shown back in April. Interestingly, they were not able to locate a copy of TGGWS on DVD or VHS. They ended up downloading a copy off of Google Video.

The film was very well done and, I think, did a good job of refuting some of the main arguments for anthropogenic global warming. However, what I found interesting is that all ten of the people in attendance were skeptical of the view that global warming is mainly anthropogenic. I guess Gore's acolytes took him at his word when he said that the debate is over. Once you buy into that bit of rhetoric, there's no point in polluting your mind with opposing views, no matter how fact-based they are. After all, science isn't about critically examining the evidence. It's about taking a stand on a issue and refusing to consider any evidence to the contrary. Kind of like, well, blind faith.

Suppressing the Truth

The following video is a clear demonstration of the type of the "irrational rationalization" by the Left-Stream Media. Howard Kurtz, on his CNN show "Reliable Sources", interviews Robin Wright of the WashPo and Barbara Starr of CNN. The topic: The media's failure to report the drop in casualties, US military and Iraqi civilian, in Iraq. Their answers must be heard to be believed.





Notice how the facts change as they answer the questions. There have been 4 months of decline in casualties. First, Ms. Wright reduces it to 2 months in her attempt to discount the progress in Iraq. Then, at the end of the clip, Babs has reduced it to 1 month. Also notice how they try to discount the casualty numbers and call them into question. It seems to me that one of the best arguments supporting their accuracy is the fact that the media is trying to bury the story. Why don't they report it straight up and include their doubts about the accuracy of the numbers? The answer is, of course, that they have an agenda and it doesn't include success in Iraq.

For further coverage, transcript excerpts and follow up, go to NewsBusters.

HT: Prager

Has 24 Jumped the Shark?

If the series hasn't already, the addition of Janeane Garofalo to the cast for the upcoming season may very well be the equivalent of Jack Bauer strapping on a pair of skis and grabbing the tow rope. Maybe Ms. Garofalo will surprise me, but can anything good come from Air America? I mean, really? The only thing one can hope for is that they find a more interesting way to bump off her character than they did for Samwise Gamgee, er, I mean Sean Astin.

A War We Just Might Win

If you have not yet read the New York Times article A War We Just Might Win by Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, please do so now. These gentlemen have been critics of the War in Iraq although, as some have pointed out, they have not been stridently anti-war. I don't think that that undermines their credibility, since the strident anti-war folks would never, ever consider anything to be evidence of progress no matter how hard they have to suck on their Everlasting Gobstoppers of Denial.

One Man's Felony Is Another Man's Art

Dennis Prager's article, Why Islamophobia Is a Brilliant Term, points out the intellectual disconnect of criminalizing the placing of a Koran in a toilet while considering a crucifix in a jar of urine "art". The only permissible religious intolerance is the intolerance of conservative Christianity.