Ivyman68's Blog

Fred Thompson's Remarks At The National Right To Life Conference

By Fred Thompson

Thursday, July 03, 2008

First, I would like to thank you for your support in my recent political endeavor. In that business, many are called, but few are chosen. We took a strong stand for the principles we believe in, and together I believe we made a difference in the debate that will ultimately benefit our country.

The fact is – I have not changed my mind about any of what we discussed.  The issues. Our nation’s values. And most important, our principles. And as I watch the presidential campaign I am convinced more than ever of the importance of these principles and I bet you feel the same way.

There has been a lot of talk about the need for change in this country. That is Senator Obama’s mantra, of course. And all of the commentators say, “It is a change election.” Well, I can understand why the call for change is so powerful considering the pitiful condition that our country is in.

We simply have the most prosperous, freest and strongest country in the history of the world. So we can understand why liberal politicians and their supporters see the need for great change.

On a more serious note, we have long recognized the role change plays in lives. Edmund Burke wrote extensively about it in the 18th century.  He said that change was inevitable and when properly guided, change was a process of renewal. But it was his opinion that the man who loves change is disqualified from being a reformer because of his lust … to be the agent of change.

Remind you of anybody you know?

 So it is not change that concerns us — it’s change in the wrong direction. And what we may be changing from.

This country was founded on certain eternal truths – the lessons of the Scriptures and the wisdom of the ages … the recognition that there is such a thing as human nature that must be taken into account when governing … a respect for tradition and – most fundamentally – the proposition that people are meant to be free.

From these principles a government was formed – a government with its powers separated, checked and balanced, because the Founders knew that power tended to corrupt human beings. In keeping with that, they incorporated into our Constitution a system of Federalism to ensure that there was not too much power concentrated in the central government –a central government that was given certain delineated powers and no others.

From the application of these principles we developed a market economy, the rule of law, a system of trade with other nations, and a strong national defense. From the prosperity, freedom, and strength that came from this system we became a friend and example to all those around the world who aspired to those same things. We won wars, including the Cold War.  We helped rebuild our enemies’ countries, which enhanced world stability, and which strengthened our own security along the way. 

So with that in mind, I’d like to suggest a change for us: Instead of a constant search for the new, exciting and different, let’s re-assert the “First Principles” that made this country great. 

Has freedom, liberty and the strength which guarantees them become outdated? And just what part of our Constitutional framework requires sprucing up or should be abandoned altogether? 

Those changes that are momentarily popular in elite circles, which would expand our government, weaken our ability to defend ourselves, redefine marriage and life itself, sap our sense of personal responsibility and treat our people as if they were merely a collection of appetites to be fed in an election year … they must be rejected.

These are not changes we can believe in.  These are changes we should run away from.  Because the ideas behind these endeavors, which have long inspired left-wing politicians around the world, have led to consistently disastrous results.

Unfortunately the greatest agent of change this country has ever seen may be the Supreme Court of the United States –a fact that would astound the Founding Fathers who created it. Last month the Court for the first time in our nation’s history took from the elected branches of government the management of enemy combatants held abroad during times of war and gave these combatants the same habeas corpus rights we possess as American citizens. 

Then the Court, in another 5-4 decision, overturned a death penalty conviction of a child rapist as a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment. Part of the opinion of the majority was based upon what they perceived as, “the evolving standards of decency” in America.  The Court basically concluded we have reached the lofty moral level where a state will not be allowed to execute a child rapist no matter how young the child, no matter the brutality of the assault, or the frequency of the offender’s actions.

Logically, this can only mean that, when the Court decides that our moral standards have evolved even further, they will feel free to abolish the death penalty for all crimes. Then, presumably, we will have evolved to the level of decency of Europeans.

I am not sure what is more outrageous – holding that a state cannot impose the death penalty for such a heinous crime, the Court’s continued reshaping of the Constitution, or that we are governed by a Court’s perception of how far our standards of decency have evolved.  This is a Court which is apparently unaware that most Americans’ consideration would include the child … not just the rapist. 

Clearly, this is a Court that is often engaged in what can only be called a “liberal legislative function.” And these are legislative activities and outcomes that would never pass in the normal legislative process where you and I have a say in the matter.

I don’t know how to put it any plainer: If Senator Obama is elected, he will, through Supreme Court and federal court nominations cause this trend to accelerate. And that will bring about harmful changes in this country that no one in this room will want to see and no one in this room will live long enough to see rectified.

During his brief time in the U.S. Senate, the Senator strongly opposed the nomination of Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.  And without a doubt – despite what he may say – he would continue to follow the agenda of those who have enabled his meteoric rise: MoveOn.org, the NEA, NARAL, and the remnants of the 1960s radical left that failed then, but sees the opportunity for one last gasp. 

I highlight our courts because, second only to national security, the shaping of the federal judiciary is the most significant legacy that the next president is likely to leave—especially these days with such an evenly divided court.

The Court is important.  But I want to get back to where we started … our principles.  And there is no more important principle than the defense of liberty… and of life.  And here, too, Senator Obama has been an agent of change in the wrong direction.

For example, in 2002 a federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was signed by President Bush. This act protected babies that survived late-term abortions. Only 15 members of the US House opposed it, and it passed the US Senate unanimously. Even NARAL did not oppose it.

That same year as an Illinois legislator, Senator Obama voted against similar legislation that would have given these babies life-saving medical attention.

I trust that he is explaining how it is that he is to the left of NARAL on this issue during the “religious outreach” meetings he’s been holding of late.

The fact is that at a time when the Supreme Court is in the balance, and America is facing unprecedented national security threats … at a time when rogue nations have or are developing nuclear capabilities … at a time when Russia is increasingly belligerent and China is engaged in a rapid military build-up, the Democratic Party has nominated for president one of the most inexperienced and the most liberal members of the United States Senate. Think George McGovern … without the experience.

On the other hand, we have John McCain.  He is strongly supportive of sound constitutionalists on the bench. And he has been consistently pro-life throughout his career.  His life experience has prepared him to lead this country in the troubled times we live in today.  His life has been one of sacrifice, and he has exhibited the courage to place the interest of his country and his fellow citizens above his own during both times of war and peace.

Recently, Democratic minions, including former General Wesley Clark, have been sent out to denigrate the importance of Senator McCain’s honor and courage during times of war. Apparently Team Obama believes that just like timeless principles, character you can depend on is not a particularly important qualification to be President of the United States. They are dead wrong.

 In light of our country’s history and what likely lies ahead, personal honor, courage and integrity are the most important qualifications for a President.  I am disappointed that Wes Clark chose to allow himself to be used this way. He really shouldn’t have. It too easily invokes the image of a bantam rooster trying to belittle an American eagle.

Even more important to our future than how we view the candidates is how we view ourselves. Do we see our nation as one in decline, populated by helpless victims for whom every misfortune and every economic downturn is a conspiracy against them?

Or do we still see that we are a people of free will, willing to accept our responsibilities? 

Are we a people who – as generations of American before us did – believe that our best days are ahead of us?

Will we realize and appreciate what we have and what we have achieved?

Will we remember who we are, what we stand for, and what we represent to the world?  That we are free people …  who respect life … who love liberty.  

I believe we will.  And for those who have lost sight, there are the the principles we believe in to guide them.

We’ve had them for a long time. And these principles do not change.  And will not change. 

High-Stakes Courts

By Thomas Sowell

Jewish World Review July 1, 2008

Recent landmark court decisions are reminders that elections are not just about putting candidates in office for a few years.

The judges that elected officials put on the bench can remake the legal landscape, change fundamental social policies and even affect the way wars are fought, long after those who appointed them have served their terms and passed from the scene.

The Supreme Court recently created a new "right" out of thin air for captured enemy soldiers and terrorists— the right to seek release in the federal courts, something that neither the Constitution nor the Geneva Convention provided.

The High Court has also struck down gun control laws as violations of the Second Amendment. Whatever the legal merits or the policy merits of that decision, it is a major change, created by judges.

The point here is that federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, wield enormous— and growing— power. What that means is that when we vote for the candidates who will nominate and confirm judges, we are making decisions not only for ourselves but for generations yet unborn.

Recent momentous decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court have been decided by 5 to 4 votes, including the votes of justices appointed by presidents who are no longer living— Justice John Paul Stevens, appointed by President Ford, and Justice Anthony Kennedy, appointed by President Reagan.

Whoever is elected to the White House this November is expected to appoint two or three new members of the Supreme Court— justices who will be making major decisions affecting the future of American society, long after that president is gone.

Your children will be living during the lifetime tenure of those justices, and your grandchildren will be living in a world shaped by the precedents that those justices set.

In a year when dissatisfaction has been expressed by both Democrats and Republicans with the presidential candidates chosen by their own parties, it is worth keeping in mind the high stakes involved in judicial appointments— and therefore in presidential elections.

This is especially important to be kept in mind by voters who are thinking of venting their frustrations by voting for some third-party candidate that they know has no chance of being elected.

There will be a president chosen this November, and he will appoint Supreme Court justices during his term, regardless of whether you stay home or go to the polls.

His choices for the High Court will have a major impact on history, whether you vote after a sober consideration of many facts or vote on the basis of the candidate's rhetoric, style or demographics.

Even more important than the particular issues that courts will decide is the more fundamental issue of what a judge's role is in our system of Constitutional government.

In the gun control decision, for example, there were justices who read the history and meaning of the Second Amendment differently. What was most dangerous, however, was Justice Stephen Breyer's opinion that it was up to judges to weigh and "balance" the pros and cons of gun control laws.

If we have Constitutional rights only when judges like the end results, we may as well not have a Constitution.

Is the right to free speech to be put aside, and a journalist put behind bars, whenever a judge thinks that journalist went "too far" in expressing an opinion about some politician or bureaucrat?

Is someone to be tried over again for the same crime, even after having been acquitted, if judges regard the Constitutional ban on double jeopardy as just a suggestion to be weighed and "balanced?"

We have already seen what happens when a 5 to 4 majority decides that politicians can seize your home and give it to somebody else, if judges don't think your property rights "balance" whatever politicians choose to call "the public interest."

When deciding which candidate you want in the White House for the next 4 years, it is worth considering what kind of judges you want on the federal courts for the next generation.

Does patriotism matter?

By Thomas Sowell

Jewish World Review July 2, 2008

The Fourth of July is a patriotic holiday but patriotism has long been viewed with suspicion or disdain by many of the intelligentsia. As far back as 1793, prominent British writer William Godwin called patriotism "high-sounding nonsense."

Internationalism has long been a competitor with patriotism, especially among the intelligentsia. H.G. Wells advocated replacing the idea of duty to one's country with "the idea of cosmopolitan duty."

Perhaps nowhere was patriotism so downplayed or deplored than among intellectuals in the Western democracies in the two decades after the horrors of the First World War, fought under various nations' banners of patriotism.

In France, after the First World War, the teachers' unions launched a systematic purge of textbooks, in order to promote internationalism and pacifism.

Books that depicted the courage and self-sacrifice of soldiers who had defended France against the German invaders were called "bellicose" books to be banished from the schools.

Textbook publishers caved in to the power of the teachers' unions, rather than lose a large market for their books. History books were sharply revised to conform to internationalism and pacifism.

The once epic story of the French soldiers' heroic defense against the German invaders at Verdun, despite the massive casualties suffered by the French, was now transformed into a story of horrible suffering by all soldiers at Verdun— French and German alike.

In short, soldiers once depicted as national heroes were now depicted as victims— and just like victims in other nations' armies.

Children were bombarded with stories on the horrors of war. In some schools, children whose fathers had been killed during the war were asked to speak to the class and many of these children— as well as some of their classmates and teachers— broke down in tears.

In Britain, Winston Churchill warned that a country "cannot avoid war by dilating upon its horrors." In France, Marshal Philippe Petain, the victor at Verdun, warned in 1934 that teachers were trying to "raise our sons in ignorance of or in contempt of the fatherland."

But they were voices drowned out by the pacifist and internationalist rhetoric of the 1920s and 1930s.

Did it matter? Does patriotism matter?

France, where pacifism and internationalism were strongest, became a classic example of how much it can matter.

During the First World War, France fought on against the German invaders for four long years, despite having more of its soldiers killed than all the American soldiers killed in all the wars in the history of the United States, put together.

But during the Second World War, France collapsed after just six weeks of fighting and surrendered to Nazi Germany. At the bitter moment of defeat the head of the French teachers' union was told, "You are partially responsible for the defeat."

Charles de Gaulle, Francois Mauriac, and other Frenchmen blamed a lack of national will or general moral decay, for the sudden and humiliating collapse of France in 1940.

At the outset of the invasion, both German and French generals assessed French military forces as more likely to gain victory, and virtually no one expected France to collapse like a house of cards — except Adolf Hitler, who had studied French society instead of French military forces.

Did patriotism matter? It mattered more than superior French tanks and planes.

Most Americans today are unaware of how much our schools have followed in the footsteps of the French schools of the 1920s and 1930s, or how much our intellectuals have become citizens of the world instead of American patriots.

Our media are busy verbally transforming American combat troops from heroes into victims, just as the French intelligentsia did— with the added twist of calling this "supporting the troops."

Will that matter? Time will tell.

McCain Press Release: Barack Obama — A “Poison Pill” To Immigration Reform

June 28, 2008 | Permalink

ARLINGTON, VA — Today, McCain spokesman Brian Rogers issued the following statement on Barack Obama’s remarks at the NALEO conference where he conveniently glossed over his record of putting politics ahead of reforming our immigration system:

“It’s quite audacious for Barack Obama to question John McCain’s commitment to immigration reform when it was Obama himself who worked to kill the Senate’s bipartisan immigration reform compromise last year. Barack Obama voted for five ‘poison pill’ amendments designed by special interests to kill the immigration reform deal. These efforts were strongly opposed by Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), the Democrat who led the fight for immigration reform, because he understood they would have the effect of ending the bipartisan work toward immigration reform.

“The reality is that Barack Obama has never reached across the aisle to lead in a bipartisan fashion on an issue of major importance to the American people when his own political interests were at risk. The American people are tired of typical politicians like Barack Obama. While John McCain was reaching across the aisle to solve the tough problem of immigration reform, Barack Obama was working for politics as usual in Washington.”

FACT CHECK: Obama Put Politics First And Supported “Poison Pill” Efforts To Kill The Immigration Reform Compromise Last Year

The Weekly Standard’s Fred Barnes: “Obama Professes In Speeches And His Bestselling Book, The Audacity Of Hope, To Rise Above Crass Party Interests. Not This Time.” “Where was Barack Obama? The moment was perfect last week for the Illinois senator and champion of bipartisanship to step forward and help save the compromise immigration bill from a premature death. All he needed to do was switch his vote to oppose an amendment whose passage was going to shatter the Senate coalition that negotiated the bill. By switching, Obama would have substantiated his claim to be a politician eager to reach across the partisan aisle and end the bitter polarization in Washington. But Obama was not heard from. A day later, with the deliberations on the bill in turmoil, Senate majority leader Harry Reid yanked it off the Senate floor. Obama voted with Reid on cloture, which failed, prompting the shutdown. It may be unfair to single ou t Obama for backing a so-called poison pill that would have weakened the proposed temporary worker program (by terminating it after five years). Obama wasn’t alone. Two Democratic presidential candidates–Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden–voted with him, as did Reid, Chuck Schumer, and Dick Durbin, Reid’s colleagues in the Senate Democratic leadership. What made Obama’s vote different was his hypocrisy. The others are hard-core partisans. Obama professes in speeches and his bestselling book, The Audacity of Hope, to rise above crass party interests. Not this time.” (Fred Barnes, “The ‘Grand Bargain’ Comes Undone,” The Weekly Standard, 6/18/07)

Obama Voted For Five “Poison Pill” Amendments Designed To Kill Immigration Reform Compromise:

• S.A. 1169 (Bingaman) — Obama Voted In Favor Of Lowering The Annual Visa Quota For Guest Workers From 400,000 To 200,000. “Bingaman, D-N.M., amendment no. 1169 to the Kennedy, D-Mass., substitute amendment no. 1150. The Bingaman amendment would lower the annual visa quota for guest workers from 400,000 to 200,000 per year.” (S. 1348, CQ Vote #175: Adopted 74-24: R 27-21; D 46-2; I 1-1, 5/23/07, Obama Voted Yea, Kennedy Voted Nay, McCain Did Not Vote)
• S.A. 1181 (Dorgan) — Obama Voted In Favor Of Sunsetting The Guest Worker Visa Program After Five Years. “Dorgan, D-N.D., amendment no. 1181 to the Kennedy, D-Mass., substitute amendment no. 1150. The Dorgan amendment would sunset the temporary guest worker visa program in the bill after five years.” (S. 1348, CQ Vote #178: Rejected 48-49: R 9-38; D 38-10; I 1-1, 5/24/07, Obama Voted Yea, Kennedy Voted Nay, McCain Voted Nay)
• S.A. 1202 (Obama) — Obama Sponsored And Voted In Favor Of An Amendment That Would Sunset The Merit-Based Evaluation System For Immigrants. “Obama, D-Ill., amendment no. 1202 to the Kennedy, D-Mass., substitute amendment no. 1150. The Obama amendment would sunset the merit-based evaluation system for immigrants after five years.” (S. 1348, CQ Vote #200: Rejected 42-55: R 1-47; D 39-8; I 2-0, 6/6/07, Obama Voted Yea, Kennedy Voted Nay, McCain Voted Nay)
• S.A. 1267 (Bingaman) — Obama Proposed And Voted In Favor Of His Amendment That Would Remove The Requirement That “Y” Visa Holders Leave The U.S. For One Year Before Being Able To Renew The Visa. “Bingaman, D-N.M., amendment no. 1267 to the Kennedy, D-Mass., substitute amendment no. 1150. The Bingaman amendment would remove the requirement that ‘Y’ non-immigrant visa holders leave the United States before they are able to renew their visa.” (S. 1348, CQ Vote #189: Rejected 41-57: R 4-44; D 35-13; I 2-0, 6/6/07, Obama Voted Yea, Kennedy Voted Nay, McCain Voted Nay)
• S.A. 1316 (Dorgan) — Obama Voted To Sunset The Y-1 Non-Immigrant Temporary Worker Visa Program After Five Years. “Dorgan, D-N.D., amendment to the Kennedy, D-Mass., substitute amendment. The Dorgan amendment would sunset the Y-1 non-immigrant temporary worker visa program after five years.” (S. 1348, CQ Vote #201: Adopted 49-48: R 11-37; D 37-10; I 1-1, 6/6/07, Obama Voted Yea, Kennedy Voted Nay, McCain Voted Nay)

Obama-Backed Amendments Dealt “Potentially Fatal Blows To The Fragile Coalition Backing The Bill”:

Obama “Backed 11th- Hour Amendments” To The Bipartisan Immigration Bill That Imperiled The Immigration Reform Compromise. “Obama was part of the bipartisan group of senators who began meeting in 2005 on comprehensive immigration reform. But last summer, with the presidential nominating race well under way, Obama backed 11th-hour amendments - supported by labor, immigrant rights, and clergy groups - that Republicans saw as imperiling the fragile compromise. None of those measures passed. But Obama was part of a 49-to-48 majority that voted to end after five years a temporary worker program that had been a cornerstone of the immigration deal. The vote, backed by labor, was seen as a major setback to bipartisan negotiations.” (Ariel Sabar, “For Obama, Bipartisan Aims, Party-Line Votes,” Christian Science Monitor, 4/17/08)

• Obama “Voted For One Amendment … Designed To Insert A Deadly ‘Poison Pill’ Into The Bipartisan ‘Grand Bargain’ On Immigration Reform.” “But then, on the floor of the Senate last week, Obama voted for one amendment - backed by the AFL-CIO and sponsored by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) - designed to insert a deadly ‘poison pill’ into the bipartisan ‘grand bargain’ on immigration reform.” (Mort Kondracke, Op-Ed, “Pandering to Base, 2008 Candidates Risk More Division,” Roll Call, 6/14/07)
• Obama Proposed An Amendment That Was Seen As Part Of An Effort To Offer “Potentially Fatal Blows To The Fragile Coalition Backing The Bill.” “They first had turned back a Republican bid to reduce the number of illegal immigrants who could gain lawful status. They later rejected two high-profile Democratic amendments. One would have postponed the bill’s shift to an emphasis on education and skills among visa applicants as opposed to family connections. The other, offered by Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., would have ended a new point system for those seeking permanent resident ‘green cards’ after five years rather than 14 years. All three amendments were seen as potentially fatal blows to the fragile coalition backing the bill, which remains under attack from the right and left.” (Charles Babington, “Immigration Deal Survives Senate Challenges, Backers Cautiously Optimistic,” The Associated Press, 6/7/07)

Obama Not Heavily Involved In Bipartisan Immigration Reform Compromise:

Senate Staff Members And Sen. Arlen Specter Recalled That Obama Had Not Been At The Early Legislation-Crafting Meetings He Claimed To Attend. “To Senate staff members, who had been arriving for 7 a.m. negotiating sessions for weeks, it was a galling moment. Those morning sessions had attracted just three to four senators a side, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) recalled, each deeply involved in the issue. Obama was not one of them.” (Shailagh Murray and Jonathan Weisman, “Both Obama And Clinton Embellish Their Roles,” The Washington Post, 3/24/08)

Obama Was Not Heavily Involved In Efforts To Secure Bipartisan Immigration Reform. “He did support the bipartisan effort to get an immigration bill last year, winning a plaudit from McCain. But he didn’t work closely with the White House, as did Sen. Edward Kennedy.” (David Ignatius, Op-Ed, “Obama: A Thin Record For A Bridge Builder,” The Washington Post, 3/2/08)

Cheer up. We're winning this War on Terror Al-Qaeda and the Taleban are in retreat, the surge has worked in Iraq and Islamism is discredited. Not a bad haul

Gerard Baker (From The Times, June 27, 2008)

"My centre is giving way. My right is in retreat. Situation excellent. I shall attack!”

If only our political leaders and opinion-formers displayed even a hint of the defiant resilience that carried Marshal Foch to victory at the Battle of the Marne. But these days timorous defeatism is on the march. In Britain setbacks in the Afghan war are greeted as harbingers of inevitable defeat. In America, large swaths of the political class continues to insist Iraq is a lost cause. The consensus in much of the West is that the War on Terror is unwinnable.

And yet the evidence is now overwhelming that on all fronts, despite inevitable losses from time to time, it is we who are advancing and the enemy who is in retreat. The current mood on both sides of the Atlantic, in fact, represents a kind of curious inversion of the great French soldier's dictum: “Success against the Taleban. Enemy giving way in Iraq. Al-Qaeda on the run. Situation dire. Let's retreat!”

Since it is remarkable how pervasive this pessimism is, it's worth recapping what has been achieved in the past few years.

Afghanistan has been a signal success. There has been much focus on the latest counter-offensive by the Taleban in the southeast of the country and it would be churlish to minimise the ferocity with which the terrorists are fighting, but it would be much more foolish to understate the scale of the continuing Nato achievement. Establishing a stable government for the whole nation is painstaking work, years in the making. It might never be completed. But that was not the principal objective of the war there.

Until the US-led invasion in 2001, Afghanistan was the cockpit of ascendant Islamist terrorism. Consider the bigger picture. Between 1998 and 2005 there were five big terrorist attacks against Western targets - the bombings of the US embassies in Africa in 1998, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, 9/11, and the Madrid and London bombings in 2004 and 2005. All owed their success either exclusively or largely to Afghanistan's status as a training and planning base for al-Qaeda.

In the past three years there has been no attack on anything like that scale. Al-Qaeda has been driven into a state of permanent flight. Its ability to train jihadists has been severely compromised; its financial networks have been ripped apart. Thousands of its activists and enablers have been killed. It's true that Osama bin Laden's forces have been regrouping in the border areas of Pakistan but their ability to orchestrate mass terrorism there is severely attenuated. And there are encouraging signs that Pakistanis are starting to take to the offensive against them.

Next time you hear someone say that the war in Afghanistan is an exercise in futility ask them this: do they seriously think that if the US and its allies had not ousted the Taleban and sustained an offensive against them for six years that there would have been no more terrorist attacks in the West? What characterised Islamist terrorism before the Afghan war was increasing sophistication, boldness and terrifying efficiency. What has characterised the terrorist attacks in the past few years has been their crudeness, insignificance and a faintly comical ineptitude (remember Glasgow airport?)

The second great advance in the War on Terror has been in Iraq. There's no need to recapitulate the disasters of the US-led war from the fall of Saddam Hussein in April 2003 to his execution at the end of 2006. We may never fully make up for three and a half lost years of hubris and incompetence but in the last 18 months the change has been startling.

The “surge”, despite all the doubts and derision at the time, has been a triumph of US military planning and execution. Political progress was slower in coming but is now evident too. The Iraqi leadership has shown great courage and dispatch in extirpating extremists and a growing willingness even to turn on Shia militias. Basra is more peaceful and safer than it has been since before the British moved in. Despite setbacks such as yesterday's bombings, the streets of Iraq's cities are calmer and safer than they have been in years. Seventy companies have bid for oil contracts from the Iraqi Government. There are signs of a real political reconciliation that may reach fruition in the election later this year.

The third and perhaps most significant advance of all in the War on Terror is the discrediting of the Islamist creed and its appeal.

This was first of all evident in Iraq, where the head-hacking frenzy of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his associates so alienated the majority of Muslims that it gave rise to the so-called Sunni Awakening that enabled the surge to be so effective.

But it has spread way beyond Iraq. As Lawrence Wright described in an important piece in The New Yorker last month, there is growing disgust not just among moderate Muslims but even among other jihadists at the extremism of the terrorists.

Deeply encouraging has been the widespread revulsion in Muslim communities in Europe - especially in Britain after the 7/7 attacks of three years ago. Some of the biggest intelligence breakthroughs in the past few years have been achieved from former al-Qaeda supporters who have turned against the movement.

There ought to be no surprise here. It's only their apologists in the Western media who really failed to see the intrinsic evil of Islamists. Those who have had to live with it have never been in much doubt about what it represents. Ask the people of Iran. Or those who fled the horrors of Afghanistan under the Taleban.

This is why we fight. Primarily, of course, to protect ourselves from the immediate threat of terrorist carnage, but also because we know that extending the embrace of a civilisation that liberates everyone makes us all safer.

Every death is an unspeakable tragedy. It's right that each time a soldier is killed in action we ask why. Was it really worth it?

The right response to the loss of brave souls such as Corporal Sarah Bryant, the first British woman to die in Afghanistan, is not an immediate call for retreat. It is, first of all, pride; a great, deep conviction that it is on such sacrifice that our own freedoms have always rested. Then, defiance. How foolish is the enemy that it might think our grief is really some prelude to their victory? Finally, confidence. We are prevailing in this struggle. We know it. And everywhere: in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and among Muslims around the world, the enemy knows it too.

An Old Newness

By Thomas Sowell

Jewish World Review April 29, 2008

Many years ago, a great hitter named Paul Waner was nearing the end of his long career. He entered a ballgame with 2,999 hits — one hit away from the landmark total of 3,000, which so many hitters want to reach, but which relatively few actually do reach.

Waner hit a ball that the fielder did not handle cleanly but the official scorer called it a hit, making it Waner's 3,000th. Paul Waner then sent word to the official scorer that he did not want that questionable hit to be the one that put him over the top.

The official scorer reversed himself and called it an error. Later Paul Waner got a clean hit for number 3,000.

What reminded me of this is the great fervor that many seem to feel over the prospect of the first black President of the United States.

No doubt it is only a matter of time before there is a black president, just as it was only a matter of time before Paul Waner got his 3,000th hit. The issue is whether we want to reach that landmark so badly that we are willing to overlook how questionably that landmark is reached.

Paul Waner had too much pride to accept a scratch hit. Choosing a President of the United States is a lot more momentous than a baseball record. We the voters need to have far more concern about who we put in that office that holds the destiny of a nation and of generations yet unborn.

There is no reason why someone as arrogant, foolishly clever and ultimately dangerous as Barack Obama should become president — especially not at a time when the threat of international terrorists with nuclear weapons looms over 300 million Americans.

Many people seem to regard elections as occasions for venting emotions, like cheering for your favorite team or choosing a Homecoming Queen.

The three leading candidates for their party's nomination are being discussed in terms of their demographics — race, sex and age — as if that is what the job is about.

One of the painful aspects of studying great catastrophes of the past is discovering how many times people were preoccupied with trivialities when they were teetering on the edge of doom. The demographics of the presidency are far less important than the momentous weight of responsibility that office carries.

Just the power to nominate federal judges to trial courts and appellate courts across the country, including the Supreme Court, can have an enormous impact for decades to come. There is no point feeling outraged by things done by federal judges, if you vote on the basis of emotion for those who appoint them.

Barack Obama has already indicated that he wants judges who make social policy instead of just applying the law. He has already tried to stop young violent criminals from being tried as adults.

Although Senator Obama has presented himself as the candidate of new things — using the mantra of "change" endlessly — the cold fact is that virtually everything he says about domestic policy is straight out of the 1960s and virtually everything he says about foreign policy is straight out of the 1930s.

Protecting criminals, attacking business, increasing government spending, promoting a sense of envy and grievance, raising taxes on people who are productive and subsidizing those who are not — all this is a re-run of the 1960s.

We paid a terrible price for such 1960s notions in the years that followed, in the form of soaring crime rates, double-digit inflation and double-digit unemployment. During the 1960s, ghettoes across the countries were ravaged by riots from which many have not fully recovered to this day.

The violence and destruction were concentrated not where there was the greatest poverty or injustice but where there were the most liberal politicians, promoting grievances and hamstringing the police.

Internationally, the approach that Senator Obama proposes — including the media magic of meetings between heads of state — was tried during the 1930s. That approach, in the name of peace, is what led to the most catastrophic war in human history.

Everything seems new to those too young to remember the old and too ignorant of history to have heard about it.

New Campaign Slogan!

Why the U.S. Has Not Had another Major Terror Attack

Gregory D. Lee

It seems the more time passes since the events of 9/11, the more complacent Americans become, and the more they believe the threat of terrorism really isn't as bad as they once thought.

What is al Qaeda waiting for? Have they lost their will, or are the security measures implemented by the Bush Administration succeeded in preventing other attacks? The Democrats would like you to think we are as bad off as before 9/11 because they have absolutely no record of achievement in this arena. So how do you measure success against an enemy that does not wear a uniform or engage you on the battlefield?

Bush haters will never give the president credit for preventing additional attacks on the homeland. Democrats continue their attempt to score political points with their liberal base by obstructing him over security enhancements at every opportunity. Since 9/11, congressional Democrats have attempted to derail the logical steps he has taken to prevent future attacks. Those steps include increasing communication intercept capabilities and tearing down the barriers between the intelligence and law enforcement communities so they may exchange terrorism information, as provided for in the Protect America and Patriot Acts.

These two measures have been extremely effective, but they are only part of the reason the homeland has remained safe from another spectacular attack. I submit that no single government action has done the job, but rather that it has been a combination of factors.

In 2000, the Metropolitan Police in Manchester, England seized a computer of an al Qaeda associate that contained a file titled "the military series." That and other related files collectively contained what is now commonly referred to as The al Qaeda Training Manual. Handwritten copies of this same material have been discovered elsewhere.

The manual covers topics such as how to conduct assassinations, bombings, create forged documents, conduct surveillance, gather intelligence and avoid detection. The doctrine throughout the manual is that time is on their side, and operations will not take place unless there is virtual certainty that the attack will be successful. This extremely conservative approach has worked in the favor of law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and has given them an opportunity to retool their efforts against al Qaeda.

When the FBI, ICE, other federal agencies and state and local law enforcement shifted their priorities from crime fighting to terrorism prevention and investigation, there was a positive impact on homeland security that cannot be fully measured. That's one of the frustrations of the job. You cannot say with certainty what security measures prevent attacks. When an Air Force pilot drops a 2,000-pound bomb on an al Qaeda target, there is instant feedback. Not so in terrorism investigations.

Every time a uniformed police officer unknowingly writes an al Qaeda cell member a traffic ticket, another terrorist event may have been disrupted. Paranoid Jihadists, who erroneously perceive they are being followed by FBI surveillance agents, will postpone the operation for fear of being detected. When immigration agents visit the homes of Muslims who have overstayed their visas, their mere presence impacts terrorist operations that are either in the planning stages or about to occur.

When an alert customs inspector searched the car of a Muslim man at the Canadian border and found explosives that were to be used to blow up Los Angeles International Airport, other untold coordinated terrorist acts were prevented. The terrorists cannot assume the customs inspector had a lucky hit. They have to believe that someone is providing information to the FBI or CIA.

Also, the al Qaeda human resource department has a limited pool of potential suicide warriors to recruit from. Few Muslims are fanatics, and for many among them, brain power is not their strong suit (even though the well-educated are indeed represented within their ranks). Nonetheless (and fortunately for us),al Qaeda is forced to work mostly with the lower tier of the gene pool who are not the best educated, most sophisticated, reliable and trustworthy people available to conduct complex international operations.

Whatever President Bush is doing, it's obviously working, much to the chagrin of the Democrats. It's imperative we keep up the offensive and not be lulled into complacency by liberals who would like to set the security clock back to the days of the Clinton Administration.

Gregory D. Lee is a syndicated columnist with North Star Writers Group (http://www.northstarwriters.com/
). You can see his previous material at http://www.northstarwriters.com/gregorydlee.h
tm

PUMA ROARS: JUST SAY NO DEAL

 IN NOVEMBER 2004, BARACK OBAMA SAID HE DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT EXPERIENCE TO RUN ON A NATIONAL POLITICAL TICKET.

IN JANUARY 2007, BARACK OBAMA ENTERED THE RACE FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

WHEN DID BARACK OBAMA OBTAIN THE EXPERIENCE THAT HE SAID HE DID NOT HAVE?

Obama campaign rep STUMPED on legislative accomplishments

Freedom Journal Iraq     Sunday, 08 June 2008 •  This Edition features coverage of an Iraqi Women’s Conference, and the ‘Sons of Iraq’ taking Security into its own Hands.

Watch Now

Obama Admires Bush

Hezbollah is one of the world’s most radical terrorist organizations. Over the last week or so, it has staged an armed assault on the democratic government of Lebanon.

That sentence has the whiff of what President Bush described yesterday as appeasement. Is Obama naïve enough to think that an extremist ideological organization like Hezbollah can be mollified with a less corrupt patronage system and some electoral reform? Does he really believe that Hezbollah is a normal social welfare agency seeking more government services for its followers? Does Obama believe that even the most intractable enemies can be pacified with diplomacy? What “Lebanese consensus” can Hezbollah possibly be a part of?

If Obama believes all this, he’s not just a Jimmy Carter-style liberal. He’s off in Noam Chomskyland.

That didn’t strike me as right, so I spoke with Obama Tuesday to ask him what he meant by all this.

Right off the bat he reaffirmed that Hezbollah is “not a legitimate political party.” Instead, “It’s a destabilizing organization by any common-sense standard. This wouldn’t happen without the support of Iran and Syria.”

I asked him what he meant with all this emphasis on electoral and patronage reform. He said the U.S. should help the Lebanese government deliver better services to the Shiites “to peel support away from Hezbollah” and encourage the local populace to “view them as an oppressive force.” The U.S. should “find a mechanism whereby the disaffected have an effective outlet for their grievances, which assures them they are getting social services.”

The U.S. needs a foreign policy that “looks at the root causes of problems and dangers.” Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that “they’re going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims.” He knows these movements aren’t going away anytime soon (“Those missiles aren’t going to dissolve”), but “if they decide to shift, we’re going to recognize that. That’s an evolution that should be recognized.”

Obama being Obama, he understood the broader reason I was asking about Lebanon. Everybody knows that Obama is smart (and he was quite well informed about Lebanon). The question is whether he’s seasoned and tough enough to deal with implacable enemies.

“The debate we’re going to be having with John McCain is how do we understand the blend of military action to diplomatic action that we are going to undertake,” he said. “I constantly reject this notion that any hint of strategies involving diplomacy are somehow soft or indicate surrender or means that you are not going to crack down on terrorism. Those are the terms of debate that have led to blunder after blunder.”

Obama said he found that the military brass thinks the way he does: “The generals are light-years ahead of the civilians. They are trying to get the job done rather than look tough.”

I asked him if negotiating with a theocratic/ideological power like Iran is different from negotiating with a nation that’s primarily pursuing material interests. He acknowledged that “If your opponents are looking for your destruction it’s hard to sit across the table from them,” but, he continued: “There are rarely purely ideological movements out there. We can encourage actors to think in practical and not ideological terms. We can strengthen those elements that are making practical calculations.”

Obama doesn’t broadcast moral disgust when talking about terror groups, but he said that in some ways he’d be tougher than the Bush administration. He said he would do more to arm the Lebanese military and would be tougher on North Korea. “This is not an argument between Democrats and Republicans,” he concluded. “It’s an argument between ideology and foreign policy realism. I have enormous sympathy for the foreign policy of George H. W. Bush. I don’t have a lot of complaints about their handling of Desert Storm. I don’t have a lot of complaints with their handling of the fall of the Berlin Wall.”

In the early 1990s, the Democrats and the first Bush administration had a series of arguments — about humanitarian interventions, whether to get involved in the former Yugoslavia, and so on. In his heart, Obama talks like the Democrats of that era, viewing foreign policy from the ground up. But in his head, he aligns himself with the realist dealmaking of the first Bush. Apparently, he’s part Harry Hopkins and part James Baker.

Talking Versus Doing

In 1965, Mancur Olson wrote a classic book called “The Logic of Collective Action,” which pointed out that large, amorphous groups are often less powerful politically than small, organized ones. He followed it up with “The Rise and Decline of Nations.” In that book, Olson observed that as the number of small, organized factions in a society grows, the political culture becomes more divisive, the economy becomes more rigid and the nation loses vitality.

The $307 billion farm bill that rolled through Congress is a perfect example of the pattern. Farm net income is up 56 percent over the past two years, yet the farm bill plows subsidies into agribusinesses, thoroughbred breeders and the rest.

The growers of nearly every crop will get more money. Farmers in the top 1 percent of earners qualify for federal payments. Under the legislation, the government will buy sugar for roughly twice the world price and then resell it at an 80 percent loss. Parts of the bill that would have protected wetlands and wildlife habitat were deleted or shrunk.

My colleagues on The Times’s editorial page called the bill “disgraceful.” My former colleagues at The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page ripped it as a “scam.” Yet such is the logic of collective action; the bill is certain to become law. It passed with 81 votes in the Senate and 318 in the House — enough to override President Bush’s coming veto. Nearly everyone in Congress got something.

The question amid this supposed change election is: Who is going to end this sort of thing?

Barack Obama talks about taking on the special interests. This farm bill would have been a perfect opportunity to do so. But Obama supported the bill, just as he supported the 2005 energy bill that was a Christmas tree for the oil and gas industries.

Obama’s support may help him win Iowa, but it will lead to higher global food prices and more hunger in Africa. Moreover, it raises questions about how exactly he expects to bring about the change that he promises.

If elected, Obama’s main opposition will not come from Republicans. It will come from Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill. Already, the Democratic machine is reborn. Lobbyists are now giving 60 percent of their dollars to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The pharmaceutical industry, the defense industry and the financial sector all give more money to Democrats than Republicans. If Obama is actually going to bring about change, he’s going to have to ruffle these sorts of alliances. If he can’t do it in an easy case like the farm bill, will he ever?

John McCain opposed the farm bill. In an impassioned speech on Monday, he declared: “It would be hard to find any single bill that better sums up why so many Americans in both parties are so disappointed in the conduct of their government, and at times so disgusted by it.”

McCain has been in Congress for decades, but he has remained a national rather than a parochial politician. The main axis in his mind is not between Republican and Democrat. It’s between narrow interest and patriotic service. And so it is characteristic that he would oppose a bill that benefits the particular at the expense of the general.

In fact, in this issue, McCain may have found a theme to unify his so far scattershot campaign. He has always been an awkward ideological warrior. In any case, this year may not be the best year for Republicans to launch a right versus left crusade. But McCain has infinitely better grounds than Obama to run as a do-what-it-takes reformer.

He has a long record of taking on not only the other party, but his own. In the current Weekly Standard, the brilliant young writer Yuval Levin suggests that McCain put reforming America’s decrepit governing institutions at the center of his presidential race.

Levin points out that the health care system, the immigration system, the regulatory system and the entitlement system all need reforms. Instead of talking about personal honor or perpetual tax cuts, McCain should focus relentlessly on modernization.

In fact, Monday in Chicago, McCain declared: “In all my reforms, the goal is not to denigrate government but to make it better, not to deride government but to restore its good name.”

Obama, sad to say, failed the farm bill test. McCain may have found a theme for a nation that has lost faith in its own institutions.

THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. (Thomas Paine)