American Elephants


Not exactly a foreign policy you can believe in… by The Elephant's Child

There’s a perennially popular genre of literature which might be called “Kids Say the Darnedest Things”. Small children, in all innocence, give charming answers to questions because they know so little.

Another version is based on the answers that college students write on exam questions. These are more often hilarious in their utter stupidity. The entire genre is based on the fact that we, as educated adults, know the subject well, and they, groping for an answer to a question on which they are poorly informed, make silly mistakes. It is usually enough to remind any adult that a simple “I don’t know” is a wise answer.

There are degrees of knowing about any subject ranging from superficial to mastery, and those who reach true mastery recognize that there is always more to learn. But as the old saying goes: “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”.

Which brings me to Barack Obama’s op-ed in the New York Times.

The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.

Must have seemed like a gift when some news reports claimed that Maliki had called for a timetable for removal of American troops. Obama’s insistence on removing troops was becoming increasingly untenable. He’d just removed all his previous statements on the surge from his website, assuming that voters were unfamiliar with Google.

Unfortunately, that’s not what Maliki said.

The BBC reports that in an audio recording of his speech he did not use the word “withdrawal”. Elections are coming, and Maliki’s speech was directed to that audience. Some Iraqis are anxious for us to leave: Some are fearful that we will not be patient enough with them to allow them enough time to learn how to be a democracy. A US official close to the talks with the Iraqi government said “the troops will leave when the Iraqis are ready to take over. …It is politics — how you package it, how you sell it to your people. They want our support, but they also want to show that there’s progress towards sovereignty.” Obama goes on:

Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.

But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office.I would give the military a new mission; ending this war.

Sigh. If Obama had been paying attention and keeping informed, he would be aware of the recommended force reductions and mission shift broadcast by General Petraeus during his testimony to Congress in September of 2007. And he might be aware that all of the important benchmarks have been met.

In San Diego, Obama argued that “just because Sen. John McCain had made multiple visits to Iraq, that does not mean that he has the correct perspective on the region”. Well, at least McCain is well informed.

Obama also remarked earlier that he knew more about foreign policy than Senator McCain or George W. Bush because he had lived in Indonesia (from age 6 to age 10).

Obama is still trying to validate his big moment when he opposed the Iraq War while he was still in the Illinois legislature, which endears him to the anti-war crowd. He didn’t understand the reasons for going into Iraq. He didn’t understand the reasons for the surge. He doesn’t grasp the nature of Islamic jihad. And he has apparently never studied a map of the region. Along with announcing how many brigades he’s going to move around, he’s now attempting to push the tired old Democrat spin that the real war is only in Afghanistan in pursuit of bin Laden.

I find this endlessly fascinating. How do the Democrats do it? Do they all get together in a meeting and someone says — “I know, let’s say that the war isn’t in Iraq, that we’re really supposed to be chasing Osama in Afghanistan. I’ll bet we can get away with that.” Or perhaps they get a memo from MoveOn.org with the talking points, which they circulate, because they all say the same thing in the same words. Do they have rehearsals?

And how do they all manage to forget the same things at the same time?

Obama is going to great lengths to appear “presidential”. There are the sets designed to look like a presidential press conference, the array of flags in photographs, and of course, his “presidential seal” (quickly disposed of when it evoked more humor than awe). There’s the decision to deliver his acceptance speech at Invesco Field in Denver rather than at the convention site. Obama says he wants to give the common folk more “access” to the process. Uh huh. Visions of Leni Riefenstahl.  Do you think there will be torches?

And then a demand to give a speech at the Brandenburg Gate like Presidents Kennedy and Reagan (he might wait until he’s actually a president, and it is usual for those things to be arranged quietly behind the scenes). German officials were not too keen on allowing their historic spot to be used as a prop for a candidate. It puts the German government in the awkward position of appearing to favor one candidate.

Obama’s now backed off on that, but seems unaware of the foreign policy gaffes he is making, or the problems he is creating. The rewriting of NAFTA created big problems with Mexico and Canada, opposing a free trade agreement with Columbia, invading Pakistan, the embarrassing Jerusalem gaffe all presented foreign policy problems that had to be soothed. And his pronouncements on getting out of Iraq aren’t going down too well in Europe.

On his upcoming trip abroad, he is making it clear that he isn’t going to Iraq or Afghanistan to learn, but to enhance his image. It’s (as usual) all about him. With a crew of star liberal TV anchors along to interview him at significant sites (looking presidential) he expects to raise his foreign policy qualifications. Oh, so that’s how it’s done.

Let me be clear. People may differ on the war. People may be opposed to the war, but if they are going to make pronouncements about the war, then they need to know what they are talking about. For Obama, this is a problem, and it is a problem for America. He does say the darnedest things, but it’s not funny.



Is The Iraq War Over? by The Elephant's Child

From Michael Yon, outstanding correspondent:

The war continues to abate in Iraq. Violence is still present, but, of course, Iraq was a relatively violent place long before Coalition forces moved in. I would go so far as to say that barring any major and unexpected developments (like an Israeli air strike on Iran and the retaliations that would follow), a fair-minded person could say with reasonable certainty that the war has ended. A new and better nation is growing legs. What’s left is messy politics that likely will be punctuated by low-level violence and the occasional spectacular attack. Yet the will of the Iraqi people has changed, and the Iraqi military has dramatically improved, so those spectacular attacks are diminishing along with the regular violence. Now it’s time to rebuild the country, and create a pluralistic, stable and peaceful Iraq. That will be long, hard work. But by my estimation, the Iraq War is over.

From Abe Greenwald, at Commentary’s blog, Contentions:

The corkscrew landing is a rite of passage for travelers to Iraq, who feel the pull of gravity as their airplane make a rapid, spiraling descent to avoid ground fire.

So it was a surprise to one periodic visitor last week when the Royal Jordanian Airlines aircraft from Amman descended into Baghdad International Airport with the same lack of drama as any commuter flight anywhere. No sudden plunge, no tight rotation, no straightening out the flight path just before the runway.

It didn’t feel like flying into a war zone anymore.

And another example:

Alcohol is openly for sale once more in Baghdad. All over the Iraqi capital, drink stores, which closed their doors in early 2006 when sectarian strife was raging, have slowly begin to reopen. Two years ago, al-Qa’ida militants were burning down liquor stores and shooting their owners. Now around Saadoun Street, in the centre of the city, at least 50 stores are advertising that they have alcohol for sale.

The fear of being seen drinking in public is also subsiding.,. Young men openly drink beer in some, if not all, streets. A favourite spot where drinkers traditionally gathered is al-Jadriya bridge, which has fine views up and down the Tigris river. Two years ago even serious drunks decided that boozing on the bridge was too dangerous. But in the past three months they have returned, a sign that militant gunmen no longer decide what people in Baghdad do at night.

An excerpt from a correspondent on active duty in Iraq on David Frum’s Diary at NRO:

Best experience of my life, even for the days when I was praying pretty hard.

Have a lot of folks over here that, believe me, will, I think, remember the US the way that (the immediate) post-war Germans and French remembered us.

Hope so, anyway. They’re good people. Been through quite a bit (understatement of the last three decades). Still, trying to work things out and I think (hope) they can and will.

Anecdotal, but indicative.



ABC News Connects Saddam and Bin Laden — in 1999! by American Elephant

I am shocked to have just stumbled across this video for the first time. I’ve never seen it before in my life — and I should have! Every American should have. Have you?

In it, ABC News shows the clear and increasingly dangerous connections between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden… in 1999! Over two years before the 9/11 attacks!

Filmed and aired long before then Governor Bush ever ran for the White House to begin with, and over 2 years before he took office, this video proves several very important things:

  1. That President Bush’s rationale for removing Saddam Hussein from power was entirely justified and based on widely accepted facts.
  2. That the idea that Saddam and Bin Laden would never work together because Saddam was secular and Bin Laden fundamentalist was ridiculous from the get go, and…
  3. That the intelligence that justified removing Saddam existed and was understood long before the Bush administration was even in Washington to supposedly manipulate it.

The deranged left will never be convinced of anything remotely resembling the truth, but remember this video next time you wonder if the war in Iraq was justified…

This video makes it clear: following 9/11, there was no other responsible alternative.

Tom Joscelyn elaborates at Powerline:

In any event, Saddam’s response was telling. Just two days after Operation Desert Fox ended he dispatched one of his top intelligence operatives, Faruq Hijazi, to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. As I and others have written, Hijazi was no low-level flunky. He was one of Saddam’s most trusted goons and was responsible for overseeing a good deal of the regime’s terrorist and other covert activities. It was this meeting that led to widespread reporting on the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. I collected a bunch of these reports, including the ABC News report, in “The Four-Day War.” Another, earlier piece also discusses Saddam’s conspicuous response to Operation Desert Fox.

The consensus in the media then was that there was a relationship between the two and that Saddam’s regime was very willing to work with al Qaeda against their common foe: America. And vice versa. Indeed, the reporting indicated that they had been working together even long before Operation Desert Fox…. [Read the rest]

Has anyone noticed ABC airing this report since we invaded Iraq? And why the hell haven’t they!? Where the hell was this report during the Senate Intelligence Committee hearings??

Unconscionable!

(h/t: Powerline via Vince P)



Democrats Attempt to Censor Petraeus by American Elephant

General David Petraeus

There are no “General Betray-Us” ads this time around, I guess we should be glad Democrats aren’t stupid enough to pull that bone-headed move again. But don’t worry, they’re still plenty stupid…

With General Petraeus set to testify before congress again, the Democrats talking points are exactly the same as last time — “General Petraeus is a puppet for the White House, things are going horribly in Iraq, and he damn well better not try to tell Americans any different!”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) warned Army Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker on Thursday not to “put a shine on recent events” in Iraq when they testify before Congress next week.

“I hope we don’t hear any glorification of what happened in Basra,” said Pelosi, referring to a recent military offensive against Shiite militants in the city led by the Iraqi government and supported by U.S. forces. [read more]

The implication that General Petraeus would even consider presenting anything but a fair and honest assessment of conditions on the ground is just as disgraceful and inexcusable now as it was the last time Democrats smeared him.

The fact is the only reason the Democrats need to warn Petraeus in the first place is because the surge has been so successful. Violence continues to drop, the Iraqi parliament has passed a whole slew of some of the most contentious benchmarks, and now the Iraqi government has again proven Democrats wrong, by leading the fight against the very same Shiite militias Democrats complained just a short time ago they were unable and unwilling to fight.

The Weekly Standard puts the lie to the Democrats latest spin.



A Movie Hollywood Won’t Make, and Liberals Won’t Watch by American Elephant

And one people should see. Especially liberals — if only they’d pull their heads out of the sand long enough.

This is the highly anticipated “Fitna”, a short-film (15 minutes) from Dutch politician Geert Wilders. As you may recall, the Netherlands has been besieged by violence from Islamic fundamentalists angry over cartoon depictions of Mohammad and criticism of Islam. This is his answer. He describes it as “a call to shake off the creeping tyranny of Islamization.”

YouTube cuts the film into two parts. Keep in mind, “Fitna” addresses Islamic fundamentalism and as such shows graphic violence. Powerful. Do watch.



Tell it to the Marines! by The Elephant's Child

Speaking of war protesters, the anti-war loony left continually amazes in their crass ability to offend public decency.

The ever-yearning-for-attention Berkeley City Council had, I thought, crossed the line when they attempted to banish the Marine Recruiting Office from downtown Berkeley, and gave Code Pink a parking place directly in front of the office. That all dissolved in a fit of giggles when Code Pink Princess Medea Benjamin was spat upon by an angry veteran and she started screaming for help from — the Marines! Bwa ha ha ha!

It appears, however, that attacks on military recruiters are not isolated incidents, but an ongoing campaign by the left. Michelle Malkin details the attacks which have been taking place since 2003.

Now, on March 19, the Pittsburgh Organizing Group intends to evict the Marines from their Pittsburgh recruiting office, “and everything inside it, occupy the location and transform it into something useful for the community. We’ll also be bringing a movable cage in which to confine military recruiters until they no longer pose a danger to our friends and neighbors.”

Goodness. And who do you suppose will defend their right to freedom of speech and their right to demonstrate? And who will, if necessary, save their sorry butts? The Marines.

American Elephant Adds: Code pink and other anti-war activists spend a lot of time harassing, protesting and insulting our military men and women. Why not take a moment and write a short email to tell our armed forces just how much you appreciate and support them:

(Just click the “America Supports You” button, then click the button for “Thank the troops”. You can be as brief or as long-winded as you want. It’s not hard, and they’ve certainly earned it.)

America Supports You!



Real Hope — John McCain Style by American Elephant

Excellent new campaign ad from John McCain.

This election is about many important issues — the economy, health care, energy, etc… All of them vital, all of which Republicans have better answers for than Democrats.

But John McCain reminds us that there is one issue more important than all the rest. He reminds us that real hope does not come from turning your back on reality and wishing it away. Real hope can never come from surrender. Real hope comes when you face the challenges the world presents you, when you have prepared yourself for them, and when you then put everything you have into overcoming them:

America, the last, best hope.

“We will never surrender — they will!”

Support John McCain for President.

(h/t Black Five)



A Word for our Friends by The Elephant's Child

John Howard

John Howard, the former prime minister of Australia, was honored by the American Enterprise Institute last Wednesday at a gala dinner, where he delivered the Irving Kristol lecture.

In the protracted struggle against Islamic extremism there will be no stronger weapon than the maintenance by western liberal democracies of a steadfast belief in the continuing worth of our own national value systems. And where necessary a soaring optimism about the future of freedom and democracy .

We should not think that by trading away some of the values which have made us who we are will buy us either immunity from terrorists or respect from noisy minorities.

If the butter of common national values is spread too thinly it will disappear altogether.

We should not forget that it is the values of our societies that terrorists despise most. That is why we should never compromise on them.

The entire speech is available here. It is worth reading the whole thing. Prime Minister Howard has been a very good friend to the United States. We don’t express our appreciation for the Aussies often enough or loudly enough, just as we often forget to show our gratitude to our own family members. Thank you, dear friends.



Obama: Spam, Spam, Hope and Spam! by American Elephant

Obama mania

Barack Obama sure talks a pretty talk.

To me, however, and almost anyone I’ve encountered who no longer has the suffix “teen” included in their age, it has been almost universally decried as empty, vapid and disturbingly ignorant. Even my staunchly liberal friends tell me they are frightened by his utter lack of qualification and the cult-like following he has developed in spite of it.

Obama loves to talk about hope. Hope and change, and change and hope. Hope, hope, change and hope. He uses the word “hope” like  the Monty Python players use the word “Spam“.

And his followers eat it up.

He likes to talk about uniting America. “We are not red-states and blue-states,” he says to deafening cheers, “but the United States!” And yet, as the non-partisan National Journal has verified, Barack Obama has the singular most liberal voting record of anyone in the senate. Which by implication also means he has among the most, if not the most partisan voting record of anyone in the senate. Indeed, despite all his flowery rhetoric, Obama hasn’t co-sponsored one single bill with a Republican.

He has flatly refused to reach across the isle, he has zero experience uniting anyone but the far-left wing of the Democrat party, and has proven he is as partisan as they come. Yet his followers believe he will change Washington and unite America.

Which finally made me understand Obama’s appeal. (Aside from the fact that he’s the first viable candidate Democrats have had in 12 years with any semblance of a personality.)

Obama is the candidate who won’t make you feel bad that you don’t know anything about anything — because he doesn’t talk about anything. He doesn’t talk policy, he talks about feelings.

He is Oprahbama.

When Obama recently held a rally for 20,000 people in my area (Seattle), reporters asked a supporter what she thought the average age of attendees was. She guessed 16-22. Judging from the footage, and other reports, I would say she was right.

A recent survey shows that two-thirds of people in this age group can’t even find Iraq on a map after three years (at that point) of war. Yet Obama’s supporters are universally certain we should not be there — wherever there is. Twenty-nine percent couldn’t locate the Pacific Ocean, yet are convinced man is causing global warming.

No wonder they love Obama! He doesn’t require them to know anything about the issues, he only asks them to “hope” and “believe“. There won’t be any knowledge of math or history required and no one will ask them to find anything on a map!

Everyone will prosper if only we raise taxes enough! The reason healthcare is so expensive is because government doesn’t regulate it enough! Everything would be better if only we would abandon our fledgeling democratic ally in Iraq and allow terrorists to take it over!

These are the fantasies people believe when they “hope” instead of think.

And yet, if his naive followers get their way, with his $900 billion in new spending proposals (thus far), mammoth tax hikes, his Carter-era advisers, and dangerously naive foreign policy prescriptions, if Obama were to get elected, it will be the rest of America, and the world, that will be in very serious need of hope.



The Surge is a Success — Democrats Are The Failure! by American Elephant

Nancy Pelosi Failure

Let’s take a short, but very important walk down memory lane:

In the run-up to the 2006 election, Democrats claimed it was time for a new strategy in Iraq. They refused to tell the American people what their new strategy would be, and then when they won, claimed the war was lost and that they had a mandate to pull the troops out of Iraq.

This despite the fact that President Bush had already announced a new strategy, which became known as the surge, and that Democrats had just unanimously confirmed General Petraeus who made his support for the surge central to his confirmation hearing.

Then, before the Surge troops had even all arrived in Iraq, Democrats declared it was a failure.

When General Petraeus was set to report to congress on the considerable success he had been having, first Nancy Pelosi refused to meet with him, then Democrats accused him of being a liar who was nothing but a mouthpiece for President Bush. MoveOn.org. one of Democrats most powerful special interest groups accused Petraeus of being a traitor to the country for daring to report the truth of the Surge’s success.

Remember that this November! The base of the Democratic party called General Petraeus a traitor to America because he refused to deliver them the defeat they so desperately lusted for for their own political gain!

When Democrats could no longer feasibly deny that the Surge was working, and working dramatically well, determined to secure defeat for their political gain, they again changed their defeatist propaganda. Now, they said, the troops have done a great job, but the Surge is still a failure because there has been no political progress.

One month ago Harry Reid claimed precisely that at almost exactly the same time the Iraqi Parliament passed one of the most contentious benchmarks, a de Ba’athification law allowing former members of Saddam’s ruling party to seek employment in the government.

Just eleven Days ago, Nancy Pelosi repeated her party’s talking point — again calling Iraq a failure. The problem is, she did so just one day after the announcement that one of al Qaeda’s top leaders has himself said that al Qaeda in Iraq has been devastated by the surge.

Now, just a few short days after San Fran Nan’s latest ejaculation of, “FAILURE!” the Iraqi Parliament has once again proved itself more able to compromise than the US Democrat party:

Within the last week the Iraqi parliament passed key laws having to do with provincial elections (the law devolves power to the local level in a decentralization system that is groundbreaking for the region), the distribution of resources, and amnesty. And those laws follow ones passed in recent months having to do with pensions, investment, and de-Ba’athification. [read more]

That is more progress and more compromise in one week than Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the bitterly partisan Democrats have shown since the war in Iraq began.

Saddam Hussein is dead and gone. Iraq is turning from an avowed enemy of the United States into a democracy and an ally of the United States. And while Democrats voted for the war, they have done everything in their power since to ensure it fails.

If President Bush had not stood up to them, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the rest of the power-hungry Democrats would have had us out of Iraq by now, almost ensuring the nation would once again become a tyranny, a danger to the region and the world, a stronghold of al Qaeda and an enemy of the United States.

But despite their best efforts to ensure just such a defeat for their political gain, the Surge is a Success! Democrats are the Failure!



Winning in Iraq II by The Elephant's Child

President Bush with Troops in Iraq

The left determined early on that George W. Bush could not be allowed to win the War in Iraq.  The Iraq War (the “illegal” one) must be a failure, and they have bent their efforts to achieve those ends.  As the situation in Iraq worsened,  they were sure that the President would have to pull out, but instead he opted for a new commanding general, 30,000 more troops and a new strategy.  To the Democrats chagrin, Al Qaeda is falling apart in Iraq, a spectacular victory in the terrorist’s war on us.

In 2007 alone, over 2,400 members of Al Qaeda in Iraq were killed and almost 9,000 have been captured.  Amit R. Paley of the Washington Post interviewed a senior leader of AQI, Riyadh al-Ogaidi.  Ogaidi said that AQI membership has shrunk from around 12,000 in June of 2007 to about 3,500 today, and the total number of foreign fighters is not more than 200.

This, of course, is not to be taken as a sign of the success of the surge.  Nancy Pelosi has announced that the surge is a failure, because the purpose of the surge is not to win, but  to buy time for the new Iraqi government to accomplish the tasks assigned to it by Nancy Pelosi, whose own record of accomplishment is a little thin.  Harry Reid has announced that the surge is a failure.  Ted Kennedy has announced that the surge is a failure.  Joe Biden has announced that the surge is a failure.  Barack Obama has announced that the surge is a failure.  Denying reality isn’t usually a politically astute plan.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared again on CNN’s “Late Edition” program Sunday that the troop surge in Iraq is a failure.

Ms. Pelosi’s timing was unfortunate for what shreds remain of her credibility. Her statement coincided with the release by U.S. forces in Iraq Saturday of the diary of Abu Tariq, an al Qaida leader around the northern city of Balad. The diary was captured in a raid in November. [read more]

Most Democrats would deny it, but the war against Islamic extremism has probably seen an important success in Iraq.  The vicious Muslim-on Muslim violence in Iraq has elicited some deep reflection about jihad among the faithful in the Middle East.  The fledgling democracy in Iraq is still tentative, but George W. Bush is, as Ruel Marc Gerecht stated, “the most momentous American leader since an angry Thomas Jefferson sent men-of-war in pursuit of the Barbary pirates.  His successor will not be able to walk away from what he has wrought.”

The president deserves a great deal of credit for recognizing that the region’s murderous extremists had to be confronted on the battlefield.  Sanctions were not enough.  And the view that was so prevalent in Washington that Muslims are only suited to dictatorship,  is no longer acceptable.  That alone is an achievement.

Al Qaeda is now training and using kids aged 8-14 for terror attacks, and their use of Down’s Syndrome women as suicide bombers reaches new levels of depravity.  Our enemies are still dangerous, as are our political enemies who are anxious to throw all our success away in the interests of appeasing their anti-war angry far left.



Conservative Marbles by American Elephant

I’ve been reading and hearing a great deal of conservatives saying they won’t vote for John McCain. Ann Coulter, James Dobson, Rick Santorum, radio hosts, their callers and many of my fellow bloggers have expressed their intentions to collect up all their marbles and go home.

I understand the sentiment, but it’s dangerously wrong.

John McCain is not my first choice for the Republican nomination. He is not my second, third, fourth or even tenth choice for the nomination, but unfortunately, I don’t control who throws their name in the hat.

“God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can, and Wisdom to know the difference.”

Nor, in the end, do I control who makes it to the general election.

Rudy Giuliani was my man, but even now that he has left the race and endorsed McCain, I will still not be voting for John McCain in our primary next week. I’ll be filling in my little bubble for Mitt Romney… not that I think he is the ideal candidate either, I’ve criticized him heavily in the past for his appearance of pandering and seeming insincerity.

Nanny Huckabee is even worse. He has proved beyond a doubt these past couple weeks, and yesterday in particular, that he is every bit the sleazy, slimy, corrupt, mean-spirited, big-government, rat-bastard that his record, his ethics troubles, and those who have worked with and for him have said he is. There can be no doubt after yesterday’s shenanigans in West Virginia, that he has struck a deal with McCain and is staying in the race only as a spoiler to Romney.

Now some have suggested he has made a deal to become McCain’s running mate. I don’t trust the Huckster as far as I can spit, and I have never before experienced a ticket that would pain me more to vote for….

However I will vote for the Republican ticket, even if it is John McCain and the Huckster, and I strongly suggest everyone hold their noses, get a little drunk if necessary and do the same. Elections are not popularity contests we hold every four years — they have very real, very nation-changing consequences.

If Democrats win the presidency, and hold onto or increase their majorities in congress (as seems likely):

1. they WILL nationalize and destroy the healthcare industry. And can anyone point out an entitlement program that once started was ever ended? There will be no going back. Ever.
2. they WILL pull out of Iraq. If you are not aware why this would be an unmitigated disaster on all fronts, let me know, I will be happy to expound.
3. they WILL appoint anywhere from 2 to as many as 5 youthful Ruth Bader Ginsburgs to the SCOTUS and pack the appellate courts to bursting with same. They could very well shift the balance of the Supreme court back to the left for generations to come. (A Republican president, even a President McCain on the other hand could ensure the court becomes even more conservative and remains that way for the next 40 years.)
4. they WILL extend many if not all constitutional protections to terrorists.
5. they WILL shrink the military and do extraordinary damage to it, to the intelligence community, and to homeland security.
6. they WILL pass amnesty and weaken border security. They want illegal immigrants in America and they want them voting.
7. they WILL reinstate the fairness doctrine to silence dissent, but only for talk radio. There will be no fairness doctrine for the liberal media.
8. they WILL, as their top priority, pass whatever legislation they can to ensure they never, ever, ever, ever end up in the minority again. (Think: amnesty, motor voter, fairness doctrine, nationwide absentee ballots, nationwide extended voting, making it illegal to ask for voter ID, etc, etc)… does another 40 years in the minority sound appealing to anyone?
9. the WILL commit America to Kyoto and any other number of international treaties designed by our competitors to cripple our economy, and it will have just such an effect. As Bill Clinton accidentally let slip, “We have to slow down the economy.”
10. they WILL allow the Bush tax-cuts to expire, increase taxes on top of that, and drastically increase regulation driving business of all sizes out of business and overseas.
11. they WILL make energy extraordinarily more expensive both intentionally through additional gas taxes, energy company taxes and regulations, and unwittingly through all the “green” crap they want to pull from outlawing light bulbs, to Kyoto, to dangerous foreign policy.
12. the economy is in very uncertain territory. It can be turned around, but Democrats WILL devastate it.

These are not just possibilities. With a strong majority in the house, a majority in the senate and approximately 10 RINO Republicans, a large number of Republican retirements, and a greater number of Republicans up for re-election, it is very, very likely that Democrats will gain strong enough majorities to ram almost anything they want through congress. These are all at the top of their agenda.

I understand the temptations to gather up all your marbles and go home when you don’t get most of what you want. John McCain is a media suck-up and compromises conservative principles far too much. I can think of very few Republicans I would support less than Nanny Huckabee.

But if the only choice I am given is to see all 12 of those things come to fruition, or only half of them, then I know what I must do. Vote and yes, even campaign for the lesser of two evils.

In 230 years, there has been only one Ronald Reagan. There have been very few “great” presidents. Some conservatives are behaving as though they are entitled to one every 4 years.

Democrats have been extremely successful in pushing this nation further and further into socialism because when they cannot make large gains, they are content to make incremental gains. They stand poised to make huge gains. Imagine the damage Democrats can do to this country in just 2 years if they have strong majorities in congress and the White House. Conservatives, conversely, seem only willing to settle for the whole enchilada. They aren’t content to make gains when they can, and hold the line when they can’t. No, many on the right seem to want the whole bag of marbles, or nothing at all.

THAT needs to stop. THAT is how we will lose our country.




Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 6,427 other followers

%d bloggers like this: