Have any reporters asked Barak Obama whether the Bhutto assassination makes the would-be Commander in Chief's idea for a U.S. invasion of Pakistan a "Go"?
I’m guessing that Islamists assassinated Bhutto. Not because Musharref is incapable of political murder, but because destabilizing Pakistan plays into the hands of Islamists trying to get their hands on Nukes.
This is similar to the Al Qaeda in Iraq strategy of bombing of the Shia mosque in Sammara to touch off vendettas between Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq.
Count on Western Media and Islamist communication networks (i.e. Al Jazeera, the Madrassas, CNN, etc…) to cooperate in placing the blame on Musharref in an attempt to accomplish a Shah of Iran redux.
My wife and I were returning home Saturday night from a business trip in Ohio, when she noticed the Stars and Stripes flying at half-mast at an Illinois Tollway Plaza. I asked the toll attendant why, and he replied, “a congressman died,” then asked his colleague whether they knew the name of the congressman, and she answered, “Henry Hyde.” The attendant was clearly surprised at our emotional response. When I told him that Henry Hyde was a great man; his only response was a bemused facial expression suggesting incredulity that a couple driving along the Tollway would actually care about the passing of some politician.
Our fourth son, Asa Hyde Naselli, born in 1999, is named in honor of this great and good man? Gail and I had the privilege of being invited to introduce eight-month old Asa to Henry Hyde in person. We talked with the Congressman in his Addison, Illinois office for about fifteen minutes, while important-looking men in expensive suits tapped their feet impatiently on the waiting room tiles. The Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee listened attentively as we answered his questions about home schooling and raising a large family, and answered our questions, crediting his mother for instilling moral backbone in him, to stand up for what is right no matter the consequences. He also spoke of his generation of Americans’ answer to the threat of Fascist imperialism, describing how he and all his friends eagerly joined the military (the U.S. Navy in his case), and would have felt ashamed to do otherwise.
He seemed in no hurry to wrap up the conversation, but I wanted to be considerate of his time, so I asked if, before we left, we could pray for him. This Catholic gentleman rose and hobbled out from behind his desk, standing before us with head bowed reverently, permitting my wife and I to lay hands on him and entreat the blessings of God upon him.
We were on our way out when he called after us, “wait, I have something for Asa.” He brought out an engraved silver cup, bearing the inscription, “To my namesake, Asa Hyde Naselli, from Chairman Henry Hyde.” Then he asked if we would stay a moment while his secretary shot a photo of the three of us with him. I confess that I relished the indignant sniffs as we passed by the “suits” who had been watching through the waiting room window as a peculiarly humane public servant demonstrated his priorities.
Senator Obama: having recently threatened a U.S. invasion of Pakistan, do you feel you would be in a better or worse position than President Bush to apply diplomatic pressure on President Musharref? And why?
Senator Edwards: a recent Treaury report showed that, contrary to your “Two Americas” scenario, America today enjoys the most robust social mobility since such statistics have been computed. In light of this information, how is your campaign theme relevant to what is really happening economically in our country?
Governor Richardson: during your watch as Energy Secretary, National Secrets were stolen from the Los Alamos Laboratories – secrets fyou were responsible to protect. When the espionage was finally discovered, your Department allowed an apparently innocent employee to be accused of the crime and have his character assassinated by the Justice Department and the Media. How does that episode help qualify you to take charge of America’s National Security?
Senator Clinton: uh, um . . . my but you look lovely this evening; what’s that scent you’re wearing?
Michelle Obama, like a good Left Wing Elitist, scolded America for having “a deep empathy deficit.” What country does she live in? Her smug comments are reminicient of Bill Clinton’s “Volunteerism Summit,” and the U.N. Official who chided the USA for our supposed parsimony in helping Tsunami victims. Democrats are still and always the people who “Blame America First.”
I have a question for Candidate Clinton: “Mrs. Clinton, as is well known, the Republican Party is all about helping the rich get richer and grinding the faces of the poor and middle-class into the dirt, while the Democrat Party is about FAIRNESS. My wife and I have eight children, the eldest is 22 and the youngest is 5 years old. Your Baby Bonus Program will tax the rich to give a $5000 IRA to every child born after the program goes into effect.
How is that fair? We’ve got eight kids and we get nothing? Why should these Johnny-come-lately reproducers get to soak the rich, while we populating pioneers are left out in the cold? Madam, have you no decency? Basic fairness demands that our kids, and ALL The Children should receive IRA accounts, with interest and adjusted for inflation" (after all, our first child was born back when five-thousand bucks was worth something).
If I’m going to sell my vote to a panderer, I want it to be an equal opportunity panderer.
Recent events have made this the ideal time for Congress to offer Amnesty. No, not to illegal aliens, to Democrats.
With the Troop Surge and General Petraeus’ Counterinsurgency strategy bearing fruit in Iraq, the prospects for an American victory have brightened, and this is very gloomy news indeed for Democrat politicians who have invested their political future in American failure in Iraq.
Democrats face a serious conflict of interest: if the U.S. wins, Democrats lose; if the U.S. loses, Democrats win. This is bad for Democrats, and it’s bad for America. But, if Democrats were to change course and suddenly begin rooting for America to win in Iraq, they rightly fear that Republicans would bludgeon them with this flip-flop in the upcoming election campaign.
But, what if Congress – which jumped headlong into the restriction of political speech with the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act – were to grant a full Amnesty from political repercussions, to any Democrat willing to stop helping our enemies, and support America’s war effort?
The legislation could shield repentant Democrat candidates from negative GOP campaign ads pointing out for how many years and in how many ways Democrats have undermined the efforts of our military and taken up the interests of America’s enemies, and Left wing 527 organizations could be forced to continue contributing to Democrat election campaigns at a rate equal to the previous election cycle, plus a specified cost-of-living increase.
I know it would be tempting for Republicans to oppose such legislation, both on Constitutional grounds, and because it would deny them the target-rich environment of campaigning against Democrat candidates who have rooted against the U.S. and for our enemies in this war. But, times like these call for sacrifices, and Republicans should be willing to lead the way by supporting Amnesty now for every Democrat who wants to come in from the cold.
In his speech to the nation following the Petraeus Report, President Bush announced that the success of the Troop Surge so far has made possible U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq this year, thereby re-casting the debate with Democrats from "you want the troops to come and I want the troops to stay," to "we all want the troops to come home, and the Surge has demonstrated that victory in arms will bring them home."
That leaves Democrats to stomp their foot and say in effect, "no dammit, we don't just want the troops home, we want them home defeated!"
During the Congressional testimony of General David Petraeus, Democrat Party leaders (and flunkies) exhibited their military command expertise so impressively that I will hereafter refer to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Jack Murtha and Barak Obama as the Joint Chiefs of Surrender, with Pelosi earning the title of Chairperson of the Joint Chiefs of Surrender.
I saw "3:10 To Yuma" Friday night with my wife. This is a great movie.
I was surprised that the theater was only 1/4 full for the 10pm show on opening Friday night, but it was nice that the audience was devoid of the usual collection of loud-mouthed idiots and courtesy-free youths, all of whom must have been down the hall for the opening of "Balls of Fury."
A couple of cautions:
a) 3:10 To Yuma is appropriately rated "R." Don't bring the kids to this one. It's rough in violence, intensity and language, along with a brief, but unusually sublime, moment of female partial nudity.
b) The feature presentation may be preceded in your theater by previews of two upcoming movies, starring usual suspects, Robert Redford, Tom Cruise, Meryl Streep, Matt Damon and Charlize Theron. I don't recall the titles of these works of Leftist propaganda, but they demonstrate that Hollywood hasn't tired of browbeating American audiences with demoralizing anti-American claptrap.
And now the good stuff: All the acting is excellent, top to bottom, with Russell Crowe playing an unforgettable and complex bad guy. The writing is superb, with credible dialog and a story that draws you in from the first scene and keeps you riveted throughout the efficiently used two hours. The chase and fight scenes are also believable, which is becoming a rarity in an age of CGI and directorial one-ups-manship.
Aside from Russell Crowe's brilliant portrayal of the villan, I loved the moral tale of a father's attempt to give his son a noble and heroic legacy on which to build his life. So as not to spoil the plot, I'll say nothing more than that adults should not miss this outstanding movie.
It's not often that a political Party discovers the ideal Candidate: one who not only appeals to the eyes, but who epitomizes the insightfulness and spirit of reasoned argument that defines an entire political movement. Some observers even doubt whether such candidates exist; notwithstanding, Democrat Campaign Consultants have longed to present the voters with a candidate for the VP slot who combines the eloquence of Hillary Clinton, the intellectual profundity of Barak Obama and the glamour of John Edwards, so imagine the exhiliration Democrats must be feeling over the national debut of the perfect Democrat candidate for Vice President.
Amid charges by human rights groups of intentionally vague wording, President Bush issued an Executive Order prohibiting torture by U.S. Government officials.
Human rights advocates pointed to the omission of Sleep Deprivation from the list of forbidden techniques, as evidence of the Bush Administration's evasiveness on an issue that has driven a wedge between the United States and many Western European allies in the War on Terror.
White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, however, claimed that Sleep Deprivation had been removed from the list of techniques classified as torture, at the insistence of a Congressional Advisory Group, led by Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid. According to Snow, the original language of the Executive Order classified Sleep Deprivation as a form of torture, but Reid, on the advice of his lawyers, asked the President to strike that portion from the Order, for fear of lawsuits from his fellow U.S. Senators.
Reid's office did not return phone calls requesting a clarification.
Obama had a fundraising quarter that must have the smartest woman in the world in a frenzy. Nevertheless, I fully expect Hillary to win the Dem nomination in the end. Obama, the more formidable general election candidate, has the same chances of coming out on top that Naboth had when he faced the attack machine of a similar political couple. Still, the “clean and articulate” Obama must have the ambitious Ms. Rodham throwing lots of ashtrays at her Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, for all the “wrong” answers it's been giving her lately.
In the town where I work there is a business that gives passing drivers a chuckle by posting humorous messages on their outdoor marquee. Last night on my way home I drove past the Fire Department and saw this message on the Marquee: "Leave the Fireworks to the Professionals and Have a Safe and Happy 4th of July."
At first I thought they had picked up the comical spirit; then I realized they were serious -- the authors of that message were calling upon free men to celebrate Independence Day by depending on the experts to run their celebration for them.
It doesn't surprise me that a government institution would recommend docility to the citizenry, but I tremble to think how few eyebrows may be raised as they drive by that sign, ingesting its anesthetizing message.
Talking about Illegal Immigration with a pro-Comprehensive Immigration Reform Republican is a lot like talking with a Liberal about anything else.
Are the Republican supporters of Comprehensive Immigration Reform truly so weak-minded that they cannot differentiate between anti-immigration and anti-illegal immigration, or are they just willfully blind to the distinction in order to discredit Border-Security-First Conservatives?
The Access to Birth Control Act has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by "Pro-Choice" Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney of New York. Interestingly, the bill would deny freedom of conscience and the right to choose to Pharmacists (including Pharmacists who are Female), who are morally repulsed by using their professional skills to distribute the do-it-yourself abortifacent, Plan B.
Evidently the Feminist absolutes of "The Right to Choose" and "A matter of Conscience" count when the conscience-driven choice is having an abortion, but don't carry the same weight when conscience chooses life.
President Bush, back from the G-8 Summit, will meet with Republican lawmakers to persuade them to support Comprehensive Immigration Reform (a.k.a. Amnesty).
I trust that, in keeping with the treatment accorded to Chuck Hagel, John McCain (pre-surge), Arlen Specter, etc, the Republicans who defy the President on the Amnesty bill will be lionized by the media as “Mavericks” and widely and adoringly quoted in press accounts about the legislation.