Dark Star

As a man, as a politician, as soldier.

On Face the Nation, here's what he had to add:

However, McCain's readiness was disputed by retired General Wesley Clark, who is backing Obama for president, despite McCain's storied military experience in Vietnam. "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," he said.

"I think Joe has it exactly backwards here," Clark told Schieffer. "I think being president is about having good judgment. It's about the ability to communicate. And what Barack Obama brings is incredible communication skills, proven judgment. You look at his meteoric rise in politics and you see a guy who deals with people well, who understands issues, who brings people together, and who has good judgment in moving forward.

"And I think what we need to do, Bob, is we need to stop talking about the old politics of left and right, and we need to pull together and move the country forward. And I think that's what Barack Obama will do.

"Because in the matters of national security policymaking, it's a matter of understanding risk. It's a matter of gauging your opponents and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service … But he hasn't held executive responsibility."

The use of he word, "riding," in regards to what McCain was doing in that fighter plane, and his slimy insinuation that McCain was an incompetent pilot by adding that he was shot down is a nice touch.

As far as what qualifies one to be president, honorable service in the military, honorable behavior as a horribly mistreated POW, decades of service in the U.S. Senate, just doesn't cut it with Clark. But being a "Community Organizer," in the politically corrupt city of Chicago, attending a church for 20 years where the preacher spews racist and insane conspiracy theories, and just being a nice looking-guy -- hell, that qualifies. And if Clark is concerned about McCain not having "executive experience," what is Obama's experience in executive leadership? Last I checked he was also a Senator, albeit just for a couple of years before running for president.
__

Not a flinch. Not a flicker. Not a hint of shame. By the time he's finished, Obama will have made the Clintons look scrupulous.

Read it here.
__

From American Thinker.

Let's start with ANWR...
__

From American Thinker:

Lovers of freedom, rejoice! Defenders of the Constitution, celebrate! For today, the Supreme Court, that erstwhile judicial body turned dictatorial oligarchy, officially and finally endorsed the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. For posterity, I reprint the text of the venerable amendment below:

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Justice Scalia wrote the opinion for the 5-4 majority, available here. It's a long but very thorough examination of the textual and historical evidence supporting the view that the Second Amendment codified the pre-existing right of all citizens to keep and bear (ie own, store, carry, and use) Arms. There is precious little evidence to support the opposing view (endorsed by the dissenting justices) that the Second Amendment only protects the right of states to maintain armed militias (i.e. the National Guard), and what little evidence cited is usually distorted or fundamentally misunderstood.

__

Dick Morris has a great explanation of Obama's recent comments:

Obama and the conservative right are mutually trying to keep the debate about his candidacy on the existential level — is he the hope for America’s future or a Manchurian Candidate, a kind of sleeper agent sent to destroy our democracy? That debate, which pits Obama’s rhetoric against the Rev. Wright’s rantings, is a contest that could go on all day, and Obama would win it. It is simply a bridge too far to believe that Obama is that evil and that invidious.

But the more the debate covers such fundamental questions, the more it ignores the details — details which could bring Obama down.

Quite simply, Obama would rather address his religious views and his optimism about America and his embrace of diversity than talk about his plans to raise taxes, let gasoline prices soar and socialize healthcare.

Well worth read the whole thing.
__

And thought I'd share.


__

LGF takes note of the editorial scalding Obama is getting over his decision to opt out of public funds. Unlike LGF, I doubt, very seriously doubt, the honeymoon is over.
__

OpenLeft is typically a well thought out blog from a Liberal. But this:

Note to anyone who espouses the ridiculous idea that "both extremes are the same" in any form: What did the Republican base do when their Majority leader was actually indicted for multiple felonies? What did they do when their Speaker was found covering up for a Republican known to make advances on teenage boys? What did they do when their President's rationale for war proved untrue, then proved to have been known to be untrue? They stood by them. Tooth and nail. Clearly there are some core principles at stake on the left, lines people will not cross even for people they really like.

The first reference is to Tom Delay. From Wikipedia:

In 2005, a Texas grand jury indicted DeLay on criminal charges that he had conspired to violate campaign finance laws during that period. DeLay denied the charges and pled not guilty, saying they were politically motivated and the law he was indicted under did not apply until later, but Republican Conference rules forced him to resign temporarily from his position as Majority Leader. In January 2006, under pressure from fellow Republicans, DeLay announced that he would not seek to return to the position. In the months before and after this decision, two of his former aides were convicted in the Jack Abramoff scandal. DeLay ran for re-election in 2006, and won the Republican primary election in March 2006, but, citing the possibility of losing the general election, he announced in April 2006 that he would withdraw from the race and resign his seat in Congress. He resigned on June 9, 2006, and sought to remove his name from the ballot. The court battle that followed forced him to remain on the ballot, despite having withdrawn from the race.

The second reference is to Denny Hastert, "covering up," for Mark Foley. I don't accept the premise that Hastert covered anything up. But the press did, and many Conservatives were ready to throw him overboard. From the Boston Globe:

WASHINGTON -- House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert , who has held together a fractured Republican caucus through one of the rockiest congressional sessions in memory, is now facing the most serious challenge to his leadership in nearly eight years as speaker, with a growing chorus of conservatives expressing outrage that he didn't act faster to address a scandal involving congressional pages.

Yesterday, The Washington Times -- often an important barometer of conservative opinion -- bluntly called on Hastert to resign his leadership post, saying he has ``forfeited the confidence of the public and his party" because of his response to the scandal involving Representative Mark Foley. Other prominent conservatives, expressing outrage that Hastert was slow to act to protect minors who work for Congress, have also said that the Illinois Republican should step down as speaker.

The third. Oh, the third. Where was it EVER proved that the Bush Administartion knew that Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction? No, I'm sorry.

Anyway, what about, say, Trent Lott? Made a simple statement at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday to make the old man feel good, and suddenly Lott is a segregationist? Republicans threw him overboard.

And what about Foley? Yeah, we threw him overboard, too.

But Dems? What about Ted Kennedy? Pick your scandal, but let's start with Mary Joe.

What about Barney Frank?

What about Bill Clinton?

The list goes on.

Give me a break.
__

Newsweek has published the results of their latest poll which idicates that Obama has finally got his bump, putting him ahead of McCain by 15 points.

The folks over at The Corner say don't believe the hype. Read why.

No other poll comes close to that result. Check them all out at RealClearPolitics.
__

Power Line highlights his radio address.
__

Obama and Rezko.
__

Power Line sniffs them out from Obama's latest ad:

In the ad, Obama claims credit for three pieces of legislation. In one case, the claim is reasonable. The other two are bogus.

Obama says that "I... cut taxes for working families," citing Illinois Public Act: PA 91-0700, the Illinois Earned Income Tax Credit of 2000. Given the collaborative nature of any legislation, Obama's claim that "I cut taxes" is pretentious at best. As it happens, though, Obama was only a minor player with respect to the Earned Income Tax Credit Act. In fact, he was not one of the bill's chief sponsors. He signed on as one of 37 co-sponsors on April 15, 2000, shortly before the act was signed into law on May 11.

In the ad, Obama also claims that "I…extended health care for wounded troops who had been neglected." Wow, that's quite an accomplishment for a single Senator. The ad cites Public Law 110-181, the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act. Funny thing, though: Obama didn't show up to vote on that bill in the Senate. So it's hard to see how Obama can take credit for having personally "extended health care for wounded troops."

But that's Obamaworld--the facts are optional.

Here's the ad:

__

From Reuters:

DUBAI, June 20 (Reuters) - The chief of the United Nations nuclear watchdog said in remarks aired on Friday that he would resign if there was a military strike on Iran, warning that any such attack would turn the region into a "fireball".

"I don't believe that what I see in Iran today is a current, grave and urgent danger. If a military strike is carried out against Iran at this time ... it would make me unable to continue my work," International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Mohamad ElBaradei told Al Arabiya television in an interview.

(Hat Tip: LGF)
__

Villainous Company's Cassandra posts this:

Came home. Went to sleep, eventually. Woke up to find the post-racial candidate playing the race card like it was the world's tiniest violin:

Barack Obama told supporters that Republicans will “try to make you afraid of me” in remarks he made Friday at a Florida fundraiser.

"The choice is clear. Most of all we can choose between hope and fear. It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy.

“We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run,” said the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. “They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. ‘He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?’"

In similar comments at a Chicago fundraiser last Thursday, Obama told supporters that Republicans would try to portray both him and his wife Michelle as "scary."

"They’re going to try to make me into a scary guy,” he said last week. “They’re even trying to make Michelle into a scary person. Right?" And so that drumbeat – 'we’re not sure if he’s patriotic or not; we’re not sure if he is too black.'

"I don’t know, before I wasn’t black enough," said Obama. "'Now he might be too black. We don’t know whether he’s going to socialize – well, who knows what.'"

I don't know. Could you work the words "fear", "afraid", "scary", and "black" in there just a few more times, Barry? Because I'm "afraid" voters might miss the point.

You know, that you're... like, totally ... black. And the bad, scary Republicans want us to be afraid of you. Because you're so ... black. Even though you're half white. Which we're not supposed to talk about, because that would be focusing on race and you were so hoping we could get beyond that, I know. Damned Republicans. If only they'd quit bringing up the fact.

That you're black.

Oddly enough for a man liberals keep saying is so likable and non-threatening he may well be our first woman president, you're also "scary". In a disarmingly feminine, non-threatening way, though.

Which is why the Republicans have to keep reminding everyone of your essential Blackitude and scariliciousness. It's subtle, man. Under the radar, sub rosa, float like a butterfly sting like a bee .... BAM!!! That's what makes you dangerous. You're a dangerous black man, with an Ivy League education. You use words like numchuks.

Boo!

For an ostensibly post-racial candidate raised by a white mother (mind you, this is the half of the parental equation which actually cared enough to stick around and make sure he was fed, clothed, and received an education) Barack Obama sure spends a lot of time talking about being black. It's almost as though he were trying to convince himself - or us - of his street creds. I don't get it.

This is the biggest reason Obama was nominated by his party. It follows the strategy of Liberals in recent years to put up front persons that are unassailable in the current politically correct environment. We saw them do it with the 9/11 widows known as the Jersey Girls, with Cindy Sheehan, and many others.

It goes like this: find yourself a victim, and then send them out to make Leftist policy pronouncements, and when Conservatives respond - to the policy pronouncements - paint them as uncaring, callous, racists, bigots, homophobes, or what-have-you.

Now, I haven't seen anybody on the right calling Obama scary because he's black, never mind the half-black, half-white thing. What I have seen is a lot of Conservatives caling him scary due to his ignorance, stupidity, and arrogance - coupled with an undeniable charisma that younger voters and uninformed moderate Democrats will fall for hook, line, and sinker.

The prospect of a second Carter term with its energy crisis, gas rationing, Iranian bullying, and blame America foreign policy is enough to scare any rational and informed American citizen.

Personally, I would love to see the first black president in the White House. Anytime. I would have proudly voted for Colin Powell. I would love to see the first female president in the White House. I would have proudly voted for Condeleeza Rice. She's black and female. And don't get me started on Clarence Thomas. And if Thomas Sowell ran for president, I'd try to make him king.

But they don't "count," do they? They're not "really," black. Which is like saying Secretary Rice isn't really female.

What the Libs mean is that they aren't Leftists. And somehow, to Liberals, this undermines their "blackness,". Only on the Left will your hear discussions of how "black," someone is. Only on the Left will one's "real," race be determined by their adherance to an idealology.
__

Newsweek reports on the recent Israeli Military exercises:

(WASHINGTON) A large Israeli military exercise this month may have been aimed at showing Jerusalem's abilities to attack Iranian nuclear facilities.

In a substantial show of force, Israel sent warplanes and other aircraft on a major exercise in the Eastern Mediterranean early this month, Pentagon officials said Friday.

Israel's military refused to confirm or deny that the maneuvers were practice for a strike in Iran.

FoxNews's Jennifer Griffin also reported on this last night. She pointed out the exercises included mid-air refueling and the flights totaled about 900 miles, which is the distance from Tel-Aviv to the most likely target inside Iran.

Griffin also highlighted the fact that the U.S. has recently sold Israel a number of bunker-buster bombs capable of penetrating 20 feet of concrete and 40 feet of earth, which is significant due o Iran's defensive measure of burying their uranium enrichment facilities under ground.

This may be mostly over before 2009, which would be nice just in case Obama wins the election, and the Dems get control of both houses.

The Left seems to think (at least they at like they think) that the dangers our nation faces will dissipate or disappear once they are in power, as if our enemies will see what nice guys they are and suddenly be okay with things like, say, personal freedom, women's rights, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc.

This is why we need adults in Washington.
__

Summary
Obama announced he would become the first presidential candidate since 1972 to rely totally on private donations for his general election campaign, opting out of the system of public financing and spending limits that was put in place after the Watergate scandal.

One reason, he said, is that "John McCain's campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs."

We find that to be a large exaggeration and a lame excuse. In fact, donations from PACs and lobbyists make up less than 1.7 percent of McCain's total receipts, and they account for only about 1.1 percent of the RNC's receipts.

Factcheck.org via Newsweek.
__

__

"Hillary Clinton in the news. This week, Hillary Clinton posted a slideshow of campaign photos on her website, but none of the pictures show Bill Clinton. Yeah. Bill said, 'That's okay, none of the websites I go to have pictures of Hillary.'" --Conan O'Brien

"Barack Obama's staff and John McCain's staff are busy now negotiating when the presidential debates will take place. That's good, yeah. Yeah, Obama wants them to be in September, and McCain wants them to be after his nap, but before 'Wheel of Fortune.'" --Conan O'Brien

(Hat tip: Daniel Kurtzman)
__

Everybody on the left was all up in arms about this. Well, they really shouldn't have been. Those Muslim women have been connected to radical Muslim groups in the U.S. for years.

Thank to some awesome investigative reporting by Debbie Schlussel, we know these are "death-to-Israel-death-to-America" types.

But it just goes to show you who the radical Muslims support for president.

(Hat Tip: LGF)
__

From Power Line:

Barack Obama has announced that he will go back on his pledge to accept public financing for the general election, and instead spend whatever he is able to raise. Obama thus becomes the first major-party candidate to opt out of the Nixon-era public financing system.

Obviously, Obama understands that he has unlocked the greatest honey-pot in American political history. He can raise far more money than John McCain, and far more than the $85 million to which he would have been limited if he had accepted public money.

Toward the end of Obama's explanation for breaking his promise, he blames Republicans:

"It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections," Obama told supporters in a video message Thursday. "But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system."

Give me a break.

Read the whole PL post.
__

Another win for the security of the United States. The Libs caved.

(Hat Tip: Jawa Report)
__

Bill Clintons famous campaign mantra that Carville et al credit with getting him into the White House, can be retooled for McCain. Except McCain has two front's on which to attack. Energy and National Secuirty. National Security he has had. Energy? Not so much. But with his annoucment for suppor of repealing the federal ban on off-shore drilling, he seems to have gotten the message.

And now this. This is a biggie:

For years, McCain has opposed drilling for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

But McCain said he'd be willing to reconsider that stance as well.

"I would be more than happy to examine it again," McCain said.

No doubt Obama and company will scream flip-flop. But this cn easily be explained by saying, McCain's earlier opposition to drilling either off-shore or in ANWR was based on an oil price of $30-$60 a barrel, but at $130 a barrel, everything should at the very least be rexamined.

If Obama keeps blundering on National Secuirty, and McCain keeps drilling him on the drilling, we'll have a Republican in the White House. And Dems shouldn't worry too much, they'll controll both houses of congress, and with any Democrat competetior for president out of the way, McCain will be all to happy to reignite his love affair with the media by "crossing the aisle," and giving away the farm in order to win back their love.

But with McCain, at least we'll win the war on terror. Or at least give ourselves a fighting chance.

Truth be told, Obama is a dangerous and stupid man. Lacks historical knowledge, lacks a firm grasp of economics, lacks both personal and political judgment, and can't take a joke about his ears.

And you know what they say about people who can't take a joke.
__

Those of you who think (or thought) Obama was serious contender due o his "towering intellect," should start paying attention. It's not just watching him fumble and squirm when he's giving a speech without a teleprompter. It's becoming clearer and clearer that he's as close to an idiot as some of his leftist congressional colleagues.

And it's important to remember that he touts "judgment," (which he thinks he has), over "experience," (which he obviously doesn't). But as more and more of his relationships, both personal and political come under scrutiny, it becomes apparent that he has neither.

McCain's campaign finds it almost too easy to respond. In this statement recounted by TWS blog, ou can get the sense that hey are cautiously making this slam-dunk - almost as if they think it's some kind of a trap.

John McCain's campaign sent out this statement from the candidate this afternoon. "Senator Obama is obviously confused about what the United States Supreme Court decided and what he is calling for. After enthusiastically embracing the Supreme Court decision granting habeas in U.S. civilian courts to dangerous terrorist detainees, he is now running away from the consequences of that decision and what it would mean if Osama bin Laden were captured. Senator Obama refuses to clarify whether he believes habeas should be granted to Osama bin Laden, and instead cites the precedent of the Nuremburg war trials. Unfortunately, it is clear Senator Obama does not understand what happened at the Nuremburg trials and what procedures were followed. There was no habeas at Nuremburg and there should be no habeas for Osama bin Laden. Senator Obama cannot have it both ways. In one breath he endorses habeas for terrorists like 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and in the next he denies its logical conclusion of habeas for Osama bin Laden. By citing a historical precedent that does not include habeas, he sends a signal of confusion and indecision to our allies and adversaries and the American people.

"Let me be clear, under my administration Osama bin Laden will either be killed on the battlefield or executed. Senator Obama's failure to comprehend the implication of the Supreme Court decision he embraced and the historical precedent of Nuremberg raise serious questions about judgment and experience and whether Senator Obama is ready to assume the awesome responsibilities of commander in chief."

It's no trap. Obama and company just ain't that smart.

__

1) National Security - I can't believe Obama and his handlers are this stupid. They don't even seem to be trying. The unusual thing isn't that he believes what he says, it's that he says what he really believes, which lefists usually don't.

Here's a good enough round up of the latest exchanges.

2) Energy - It's looks like McCain finally got the message. Off-shore drilling for now. It's a step in the right direction. Alaska would be better, but at least we can distiguish the two candidates on this issue now.
__

From one of his latest columns:

Speaking personally, I don't want to remake America. I'm an immigrant, and one reason I came here is because most of the rest of the Western world remade itself along the lines Sen. Obama has in mind. This is pretty much the end of the line for me. If he remakes America, there's nowhere for me to go – although presumably once he's lowered sea levels around the planet there should be a few new atolls popping up here and there.

Full article well worth reading.
__

And short, too. From the WSJ:

The Boumediene five also ignored the Constitution's structure, which grants all war decisions to the president and Congress. In 2004 and 2006, the Court tried to extend its reach to al Qaeda terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay. It was overruled twice by Congress, which has the power to define the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Congress established its own procedures for the appeal of detentions.

Incredibly, these five Justices have now defied the considered judgment of the president and Congress for a third time, all to grant captured al Qaeda terrorists the exact same rights as American citizens to a day in civilian court.

Read it all.
__

Andrew McCarthy has a column today that slam-dunks Obama on this treat-terrorists-as-criminals line he's spewing:

This is June 2008. That means it marks the ten-year anniversary of Osama bin Laden's indictment.

He was first charged by my old office, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, in June 1998. That was before the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania (hundreds killed), before the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole (17 U.S. members of the U.S. Navy killed), and before 9/11 (nearly 3000 Americans killed). So it's fair to ask: How is that strategy of prosecuting him in the criminal-justice system working out?

That's a question Sen. John McCain ought to be putting to Sen. Barack Obama every day.

Read it all.

(Hat Tip: TWS Blog)
__

In an post from the Weekly Standard enitled, "Barak Obama Does Not Want to Make This Argument,":

Barack Obama said this today about prosecuting terrorists in an interview with ABC News. "And, you know, let's take the example of Guantanamo. What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks -- for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated."

No, not all of them. Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Iraqi native, was twice interrogated by the FBI and then allowed to walk away a free man. He fled the United States in the days after that attack and returned, with the assistance of officials at the Iraqi embassy in Amman, Jordan, to Baghdad. He lived openly in Baghdad with his father and a neighbor interviewed in 1994 by an ABC News/Newsweek investigative team told the reporters that he was working for the Iraqi regime.

Full article.
__

In case you were wondering why the ruling was so bad, ANdrew McCarthy spells it out at NRO.

Here's a taste:

The Court has decided that the combatants have constitutional habeas rights. If you can follow this, the bloc of liberal justices reasons that the framers designed our fundamental law to empower enemies of the American people to use the American people's courts as a weapon to compel the American people's commander-in-chief to justify his actions during a war overwhelmingly authorized by the American people's elected representatives . . . even as those enemies continue killing Americans.

McCarthy now calls for quick legislative action to prevent the country's national security from being decided by the courts.

Read it all.
__

... reminded me of a speech I saw on YouTube delivered at the Heritage Foundation by Evan Sayet a former writer for Bill Mahr (of Politically Incorrect). He was a Liberal until after 9/11. It's long so save it for when you have 45 minutes. But it's a fantastic 45 minutes.


__

This piece on American Thinker is a biting look at what's become of the Democrat party. A migration from Liberals to Leftsts.

Here's a taste:

At a glance, Obama's quick rise in the world of presidential politics is puzzling. His background, including his personal and political associations, is antithetical to the historical stature of the American presidency. It could also be said that given his non-traditional upbringing, his schooling in radical politics and his seeming preference for friends and mentors who view America disdainfully, he is antithetical to the traditional American Experience itself. Obama is young and he has less than one Senate term under his belt. Neither quality is particularly presidential. Questions of patriotism dog him, as do questions about his religious and ethnic heritage. Many of the people who tutored and supported him through his personal and political journeys from the backwaters of Indonesia to the main stage of US presidential politics are contemptuous of the US. Some of them publicly express outright hatred of the country Obama now seeks to lead.

So why is so controversial a candidate even in the running to be president?

Because he reflects his Party's leftist agenda, has unique, prodigious manipulative talents and equally impressive Hollywood attributes. These are indispensable in closing out the dangerous, deliberate game the Democrats have been playing with America's security and its perceived stature in the world. It is a game that has been going on beneath our noses since the election of 2000. Its object is simple: the acquisition of power regardless of cost to the Nation. It is something the American people must be reminded of, made aware of, before they enter the voting booth in November.

A great article. Read it all.
__

In his latest column, Dick Morris has some advice on how to win for Obama:

Obama, a private person who dislikes emotional displays in public, will have to speak from the heart about what America means to him. He will have to embrace our national sense of uniqueness and give voice to what Ronald Reagan said of us: “You can call it mysticism if you want to, but I have always believed that there was some divine plan that placed this great continent between two oceans to be sought out by those who were possessed of an abiding love of freedom and a special kind of courage.” American exceptionalism is deeply rooted in our national consciousness and it has been so offended by Rev. Wright’s characterization of the United States as a terrorist nation, a force of evil in the world, that Obama must assuage that hurt if he wishes to appease our fears.

Morris is right. But it's not going to happen. First of all, to Liberals, America is what's wrong with the world unless we follow Europe's lead, until we're leading Europe in being European. Second of all, for somebody whose wife just now became proud of America after it treated her husband as a serious candidate, talking about America they way Reagan did isn't going to come easily, if at all, and if he's able to spit it out for a speech or two, even Barry the Baritone will sound like he's talking around a mouth full of crushed glass.

The biggest problem, of course, is that thinking Americans know that Obama sat in the pew for 20+ years and listened and probably, like so many other members of the congregation, cheered for the bile that the racist, anti-American Jeremiah Wright bellowed from his pulpit.

On the other hand, they let Bill Clinton get away with the "I never inhaled," thing. And if there's ever been a politician the media has fallen more in love with than Bill Clinton, it's this guy, even though he's a warmed over Jimmy Carter policy-wise.

Morris finished his column with something I resoundingly agree with:

I doubt that this election will be close. Either Obama or McCain will probably win it in a landslide, depending on whether or not Obama can fulfill his existential mission of explaining to the American people who he really is.

Full article.
__

Israel "will attack" Iran if it continues to develop nuclear weapons, one of prime minister Ehud Olmert's deputies warned yesterday.

Full article.
__

Iran's government spokesman said on Saturday it would not accept any new incentives, proposed by the EU and world powers, in exchange for halting its uranium enrichment program.

Gholam-Hossein Elham told journalists "If the packet of incentives from the "six" contains demands for a suspension [of uranium enrichment], then we will not discuss it."

Full article.
__

Sounds like Obama did listen to some of Jeremiah Wright's preaching after all:

Barack Obama is warning supporters that the general election fight between him and John McCain may get ugly, but the Illinois senator is vowing not to back down.

"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun," Obama said at a fundraiser in Philadelphia Friday, according to pool reports.

"We don't have a choice but to win," Obama said, joking that he has heard "folks in Philly like a good brawl. I've seen Eagles games."

Obama again said that the GOP will make try to make him look "scary" to voters.

Obama pledging to swing back at the GOP drew much applause from the crowd.

Republican National Committee spokesman Alex Conant said Obama's rhetoric abandons Obama's campaign themes of hope and change.

"In the last 24 hours, he's completely abandoned his campaign's call for 'new politics', equating the election to a 'brawl' and promising to 'bring a gun,'" Conant said.

(Emphasis mine)

Conant has a great point. I thought this great uniter would be more interested in trying to talk to us about why we would feel he need to pull a knife and how he can change his behavior in order to not make us feel that way. Oh, wait - that's how he would deal with our nations enemies. John McCain gets "the gun".

Nice.
__

It's always been a theory of mine that we have known where Bin Laden is and have monitored him and his communications to keep another attack on the U.S. from manifesting. He is the evil we know and if he's still alive and in communication, he's still the leader. If we have been monitoring him for the past few years, it could be a big part of the reason why we have had no more attacks on American interests other than on the two battle fields.

It would also explain why the "warrantless wiretaps," were of paramount importance to U.S. national security. It would be a damn shame to monitor communications from BInLaden all the way through the network until the last link in he chain dialed a number with a U.S. area code and we had to tune out.

I'm the first to admit that might be wishful thinking on my part, but with al of our military capabilities, and the fact that we have pretty much known where Bin Laden is for the past six years makes me think we haven't killed him for a reason. And with our technological and surveillance capabilities, I find hard to image us not intercepting Bin Laden's communications if he has had any at all.

Anyway, it wold stil be nice to see his pelt on the wall.

President George W Bush has enlisted British special forces in a final attempt to capture Osama Bin Laden before he leaves the White House.

Defence and intelligence sources in Washington and London confirmed that a renewed hunt was on for the leader of the September 11 attacks. "If he [Bush] can say he has killed Saddam Hussein and captured Bin Laden, he can claim to have left the world a safer place," said a US intelligence source.

Bush arrives in Britain today on the final leg of his eight-day farewell tour of Europe. He will have tea with the Queen and dinner with Gordon Brown and his wife Sarah before holding a private meeting with Brown at No 10 tomorrow and flying on to Northern Ireland.

The Special Boat Service (SBS) and the Special Reconnaissance Regiment have been taking part in the US-led operations to capture Bin Laden in the wild frontier region of northern Pakistan. It is the first time they have operated across the Afghan border on a regular basis.

The hunt was "completely sanctioned" by the Pakistani government, according to a UK special forces source. It involves the use of Predator and Reaper unmanned aerial vehicles fitted with Hellfire missiles that can be used to take out specific terrorist targets.

Full article.
__

Thomas Sowell has some choice words for Barry the Baritone:

Now that Senator Barack Obama has become the Democrats' nominee for President of the United States, to the cheers of the media at home and abroad, he has written a letter to the Secretary of Defense, in a tone as if he is already President, addressing one of his subordinates.

The letter ends: "I look forward to your swift response."

With wars going on in both Iraq and Afghanistan, a Secretary of Defense might have some other things to look after, before making a "swift response" to a political candidate.

Because of the widely publicized statistic that suicide rates among American troops have gone up, Senator Obama says he wants the Secretary of Defense to tell him, swiftly:

"What changes will you make to provide our soldiers in theater with real access to mental health care?"

"What training has the Pentagon provided our medical professionals in theater to recognize who might be at risk of committing suicide?"

"What assistance are you providing families here at home to recognize the risk factors for suicide, so that they may help our service members get the assistance they need?"

"What programs has the Pentagon implemented to help reduce the stigma attached to mental health concerns so that service members are more likely to seek appropriate care?"

All this sounds very plausible, as so many other things that Senator Obama says sound plausible. But, like so many of those other things, it will not stand up under scrutiny.

What has been widely publicized in the media is that suicides among American troops have gone up. What has not been widely publicized is that this higher suicide rate is still not as high as the suicide rate among demographically comparable civilians.

Read the whole thing.
__

Can we be so lucky?

Dick Morris thinks so:

The vote of the Democratic rules committee not to seat the entire Michigan and Florida delegations — as Hillary had wanted — signals the end of the domination of the Democratic Party by Bill and Hillary Clinton. It began when Bill won the California primary in 1992 and ended this past weekend, on May 31, 2008. During this period, nothing moved unless the Clintons OKed it. Now the Party has declared its independence, shaking off their family fiefdom.

There is a lot more involved than just the fact that Hillary lost the primaries to Obama and trails him among elected and super delegates. Obama will now have an easy glide path to the nomination which he should wrap up by June 4th.

But the power in the party has moved from the Clinton family to a combination of institutional Democrats, labor unions, and strong left wing groups. The massive grass roots structure, built up by Move On.org and amplified by Obama’s online campaign has become the dominant force in the party. But they do not rule alone. The Clinton defeats have liberated the unions and state democratic parties, once under the Clintons’ thumb, to become independent power centers working in coalitions with each other and with the radical left. The Democratic Party is now up for grabs. If Obama is elected, he will impose his own vision on it. But if McCain wins, this weekends vote sets up a power struggle that should be interesting.

__

From Power Line:

Republican whip Roy Blunt put together this chart showing the practical effects of Democratic vs. Republican policies on the price of gasoline at the pump; click to enlarge:

Blunt's office adds this footnote:

Methodology: Retail gasoline prices are the result of literally hundreds of factors including crude oil supply, global demand, refinery capacity, regulation, taxes, weather, the value of the dollar, etc. Therefore it is impossible to say with certainty what one individual action will do to the overall price. However, based on what we know about the impact of crude oil supply and prices it is possible to develop some potential ranges of impact on gasoline prices for certain policy changes. For example, using the methodology employed by Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats that suspending shipments into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (between 40-77,000 barrels of oil a day) would reduce gas prices by at least 5 cents, bringing ANWR online (at least one million barrels of oil a day) could impact gasoline prices by between 70 cents and $1.60.

__

I think so, and Krauthammer articulates:

In his St. Paul victory speech, Barack Obama pledged again to pull out of Iraq. Rather than "continue a policy in Iraq that asks everything of our brave men and women in uniform and nothing of Iraqi politicians, . . . [i]t's time for Iraqis to take responsibility for their future."

We know Obama hasn't been to Iraq in more than two years, but does he not read the papers? Does he not know anything about developments on the ground? Here is the "nothing" that Iraqis have been doing in the past few months:

1. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki sent the Iraqi army into Basra. It achieved in a few weeks what the British had failed to do in four years: take the city, drive out the Mahdi Army and seize the ports from Iranian-backed militias.

2. When Mahdi fighters rose up in support of their Basra brethren, the Iraqi army at Maliki's direction confronted them and prevailed in every town -- Najaf, Karbala, Hilla, Kut, Nasiriyah and Diwaniyah -- from Basra to Baghdad.

3. Without any American ground forces, the Iraqi army entered and occupied Sadr City, the Mahdi Army stronghold.

4. Maliki flew to Mosul, directing a joint Iraqi-U.S. offensive against the last redoubt of al-Qaeda, which had already been driven out of Anbar, Baghdad and Diyala provinces.

5. The Iraqi parliament enacted a de-Baathification law, a major Democratic benchmark for political reconciliation.

6. Parliament also passed the other reconciliation benchmarks -- a pension law, an amnesty law, and a provincial elections and powers law. Oil revenue is being distributed to the provinces through the annual budget.

7. With Maliki having demonstrated that he would fight not just Sunni insurgents (e.g., in Mosul) but Shiite militias (e.g., the Mahdi Army), the Sunni parliamentary bloc began negotiations to join the Shiite-led government. (The final sticking point is a squabble over a sixth cabinet position.)

The disconnect between what Democrats are saying about Iraq and what is actually happening there has reached grotesque proportions. Democrats won an exhilarating electoral victory in 2006 pledging withdrawal at a time when conditions in Iraq were dire and we were indeed losing the war. Two years later, when everything is changed, they continue to reflexively repeat their "narrative of defeat and retreat" (as Joe Lieberman so memorably called it) as if nothing has changed.

It is a position so utterly untenable that John McCain must seize the opportunity and, contrary to conventional wisdom, make the Iraq war the central winning plank of his campaign. Yes, Americans are war-weary. Yes, most think we should not have engaged in the first place. Yes, Obama will keep pulling out his 2002 speech opposing the war.

Full article.
__

Excellent column by Miss Coulter this week:

In a conversation recently, I mentioned as an aside what a great president George Bush has been and my friend was surprised. I was surprised that he was surprised.

I generally don't write columns about the manifestly obvious, but, yes, the man responsible for keeping Americans safe from another terrorist attack on American soil for nearly seven years now will go down in history as one of America's greatest presidents.

Produce one person who believed, on Sept. 12, 2001, that there would not be another attack for seven years, and I'll consider downgrading Bush from "Great" to "Really Good."

Merely taking out Saddam Hussein and his winsome sons Uday and Qusay (Hussein family slogan: "We're the Rape Room People!") constitutes a greater humanitarian accomplishment than anything Bill Clinton ever did -- and I'm including remembering Monica's name on the sixth sexual encounter.

But unlike liberals, who are so anxious to send American troops to Rwanda or Darfur, Republicans oppose deploying U.S. troops for purely humanitarian purposes. We invaded Iraq to protect America.

It is unquestionable that Bush has made this country safe by keeping Islamic lunatics pinned down fighting our troops in Iraq. In the past few years, our brave troops have killed more than 20,000 al-Qaida and other Islamic militants in Iraq alone. That's 20,000 terrorists who will never board a plane headed for JFK -- or a landmark building, for that matter.

We are, in fact, fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them at, say, the corner of 72nd and Columbus in Manhattan -- the mere mention of which never fails to enrage liberals, which is why you should say it as often as possible.

The Iraq war has been a stunning success. The Iraqi army is "standing up" (as they say), fat Muqtada al-Sadr --the Dr. Phil of Islamofascist radicalism -- has waddled off in retreat to Iran, and Sadr City and Basra are no longer war zones. Our servicemen must be baffled by the constant nay-saying coming from their own country.

The Iraqis have a democracy -- a miracle on the order of flush toilets in that godforsaken region of the world. Despite its newness, Iraq's democracy appears to be no more dysfunctional than one that would condemn a man who has kept the nation safe for seven years while deifying a man who has accomplished absolutely nothing in his entire life except to give speeches about "change."

Full article.
__

Love the Liberal Majority on the court.

The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision Thursday declaring for the first time that Guantanamo detainees have a constitutional right to a hearing in U.S. courts is a milestone. It also reinforces a familiar court pattern in the post-9/11 world of insisting on judicial review of detainee cases.

The court's membership has changed in recent years, and it has zigzagged on high-profile social policy dilemmas. Yet a slim majority has voiced a consistent message on Guantanamo cases: Congress and the president cannot go it alone. The third branch must ensure that rights are not violated.

Dissenting justices have routinely denounced that message, and some have taken the extraordinary step of reading portions of their opinions from the mahogany bench. Dueling readings on Thursday showcased how narrowly divided the justices are on the controversial U.S. naval base in Cuba and the president's latitude on detainee policies. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote for the five-justice majority, read portions of his opinion aloud. Justice Antonin Scalia countered for the dissent.

"Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law," Kennedy wrote. He added "the political branches" may not "switch the Constitution on or off at will."

Scalia asserted that the decision will have dire consequences. He warned that some detainees will be freed and return to war against America: "The nation will live to regret what the court has done today."

Scalia is correct.
__

In order to support his maverick status, John McCain has sided with the Dems on drilling in ANWaR and off-shore. This could be the big winning issue for Republicans, but our presidential nominee is no different than the Democratic nominee on this one.

McCain loves to pander to he Left-Of-Center. But, side with them all he wants, he still gets no love.

Wouldn't it be great if he realized it before the general campaign got going real good?
__

In a 132-word videotaped pledge (still viewable on YouTube), Obama agreed to hollow out the U.S. military by slashing both conventional and nuclear weapons.

The scope of his planned defense cuts, combined with his angry tone, is breathtaking. He sounds as if the military is the enemy, not the bad guys it’s fighting. Here is a transcript:

“I’m the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning; and as president, I will end it.

“Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems.

“I will institute an independent defense priorities board to ensure that the Quadrennial Review is not used to justify unnecessary defense spending.

“Third, I will set a goal for a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal.”

You can bet that Obama will not make this sweeping indictment of our security forces again as he tries to move to the center in the general election. But this is what he thinks, and this is what he plans to do.

__

Liberals just do NOT understand the enemy. Here is a prime example:

Judge Ralph Kohlmann warned Mohammed he faces the death penalty if convicted of organizing the attacks on America. But the accused mastermind of the terrorist attacks said he can't accept U.S. lawyers — only Islamic "Sharia" law — and would welcome being executed.

"This is what I wish, to be a martyr for a long time," Mohammed said. "I will, God willing, have this, by you."

Ramzi Binalshibh, the alleged main intermediary between the 19 hijackers and al-Qaida leaders, responded similarly: "If this martyrdom happens today, I welcome it. God is great. God is great. God is great."

One of the civilian attorneys he spurned, David Nevin, told The Associated Press he would try to meet with Mohammed to "hear him out and see if we can give him information that is helpful."

Asked how any attorney can defend a man who wants the death penalty, the Boise, Idaho, lawyer said: "It's a tricky matter. I don't have a good answer for you."

It just doesn't compute with them that this man wants to die for his religion. Especially after they have tried and tried to reason with him.

While Conservatives might not "get" it, they certainly understand it. These are the same type of extremists we have ruling Iran (albeit Shia in that case). Surely we could send some smart Liberals over there to talk to them too? They've had a lot of success in Guantanamo.

What's really throwing them off, I bet, is the fact they have these guys completely isolated and removed from the Arab cultures they grew up in, pull them aside and can talk to them all they want, and they don't even want their help at trial.

It blows the Liberal mind. The sad part is, they will still figure a way to make this America's fault.
__

This is great:

Clint Eastwood says Spike Lee should "shut his face" about the lack of African-Americans in "Flags of Our Fathers."

"Has he ever studied the history?" Eastwood asked the U.K.'s Guardian in an interview published on Friday.

While promoting his own war movie, "Miracle at St. Anna," about the all-black 92nd Buffalo Division, which fought the Germans in Italy during World War II, Lee said Eastwood's Iwo Jima movie "Flags of Our Fathers" lacked a single African-American.

"There were many African-Americans who survived that war and who were upset at Clint for not having one [in 'Flags' or 'Letters From Iwo Jima']. That was his version: The negro soldier did not exist. I have a different version," Lee said recently at the Cannes film festival in France.

In response, Eastwood told the Guardian: "A guy like him should shut his face."

"He was complaining when I did 'Bird' [the 1988 biopic of Charlie Parker]. Why would a white guy be doing that? I was the only guy who made it, that's why. He could have gone ahead and made it. Instead he was making something else."

As for "Flags of Our Fathers," he says there was a small detachment of black troops on Iwo Jima as a part of a munitions company, "but they didn't raise the flag. The story is 'Flags of Our Fathers,' the famous flag-raising picture, and they didn't do that. If I go ahead and put an African-American actor in there, people'd go, 'This guy's lost his mind.' I mean, it's not accurate."

__

Time discusses why Hillary didn't get more of the women's vote and in doing so they break it down by older women (voted for Hillary) and younger women (voted for Obama) and those in the middle, which were split. The article then goes on to explain the difference between optimist feminists and pessimist feminists.

I think what they should do is break it down by married women and single women. But they don't. I think single liberal women are more likely to vote Obama.

I also find it amusing that the article makes an assumption that the only women who would vote Democrat is a feminist.

One of the Democratic campaign's great misperceptions has been that Clinton held an overwhelming advantage among women voters. But that isn't the case. As expected, Clinton captured the over-65 vote, and Obama won over younger women. But women in the middle split almost evenly between the two. And while both Senators boasted historic candidacies, Obama's seemed to resonate more deeply, translating into 70%, 80% and even 90% of the black vote in primary contests. No one expected Clinton to sweep 90% of Democratic women voters, but 60% wouldn't have been an unreasonable accomplishment for the first woman to have a serious chance of winning the presidency. Instead, Clinton won just over a majority of women's votes.

Full article.
__

You thought I was kidding? I know you've probably seen this commercial by now. These two Reverends tell us they disagree on EVERYTHING except ONE THING.

Nope, it's not Jesus Christ.

It's climate change.


__

But we'll have to fight this one again next year, and the year after that, and the year after that...

Senate Republicans on Friday blocked a global warming bill that would have required major reductions in greenhouse gases, after a bitter debate over its economic costs and whether it would substantially raise gasoline and other energy prices.

Democratic leaders fell a dozen votes short of getting the 60 needed to end a Republican filibuster on the measure and bring the bill up for a vote. The 48-36 vote failed to reach even a majority, a disappointment to the bill's supporters.

Majority Leader Harry Reid was expected to pull the legislation, in all likelihood pushing the congressional debate over climate change to next year with a new Congress and a new president.

The bill would have capped carbon dioxide coming from power plants, refineries and factories, with a target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 71 percent by mid-century.

"It's a huge tax increase," argued Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, a prominent coal-producing state. He maintained that the proposed system of allowing widespread trading of carbon emissions allowances would produce "the largest restructuring of the American economy since the New Deal."

Full article.
__

The U.S. military intercepted a ballistic missile Thursday in the first such sea-based test since a Navy cruiser shot down an errant satellite earlier this year.

The military fired the target, a Scud-like missile with a range of a few hundred miles, from a decommissioned amphibious assault ship near Hawaii's island of Kauai.

The USS Lake Erie, based at Pearl Harbor, fired two interceptor missiles that shot down the target in its final seconds of flight about 12 miles above the Pacific Ocean.

Full article.
__

Ann Coulter makes a point:

Words mean nothing to liberals. They say whatever will help advance their cause at the moment, switch talking points in a heartbeat, and then act indignant if anyone uses the exact same argument they were using five minutes ago.

When Gore won the popular vote in the 2000 election by half a percentage point, but lost the Electoral College -- or, for short, "the constitutionally prescribed method for choosing presidents" -- anyone who denied the sacred importance of the popular vote was either an idiot or a dangerous partisan.

But now Hillary has won the popular vote in a Democratic primary, while Obambi has won under the rules. In a spectacular turnabout, media commentators are heaping sarcasm on our plucky Hillary for imagining the "popular vote" has any relevance whatsoever.

It's the exact same situation as in 2000, with Hillary in the position of Gore and Obama in the position of Bush. The only difference is: Hillary has a much stronger argument than Gore ever did (and Hillary's more of a man than Gore ever was).

__

Questions Obama Needs to Be Asked [Mark Hemingway]

Barack Obama is going to be on with Brian Williams tonight, so I thought I'd start up the first of a periodic series here on The Corner where I suggest questions that the media might consider asking Obama:

Question: On your website you have listed Illinois State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias as a "bundler", having committed to raising between $100-200k for your campaign. He's also held fund raisers for your presidential campaign and he and his family have donated a considerable sum directly to your various campaigns and you endorsed his candidacy for state treasurer.

In 2006, while running for office Giannoulias admitted he personally oversaw the approval of $11.8 million in mortgage loans at his family bank to Michael Giorango, a convicted bookmaker and prostitution promoter, and $3.6 million of those loans were used by Giorango and another convicted felon to acquire a casino boat marina in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Giannoulias' family bank made other loans to Giorango going back to 1992, and his involvement in those loans has also been questioned.

What's more, while running for state treasurer in 2006, Giannoulias received a $5,000 campaign contribution from a Florida casino owner who owed $4.8 million to a bank Giannoulias has a stake in, and the Casino owner's uncle had ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and was gunned down in what appears to be a mob hit.

Are you confident Giannoulias doesn't have ties to organized crime, and should he be raising money for your campaign?

via The Corner
__

Are Barack Obama’s views shown by what he says during an election year or by what he has been doing for decades before?

The complete contrast between Obama’s election year image as a healer of divisions and his whole career of promoting far-left grievance politics, in association with America-haters like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, are brushed aside by his supporters who talk about getting back to “the real issues.”

There is nothing more real than a man’s character and values. The track record of what he has actually done is far more real than anything he says, however elegantly he says it.

Read the whole thing.
__

New RNC ad featuring only Democrats:

__

WASHINGTON, June 4, 2008 – Coalition forces detained nine suspects in central and northwestern Iraq today, including three wanted men and four of his associates, military officials said.

Coalition forces disrupted al-Qaida's bombing networks in and around Baghdad when they captured two wanted men and detained two additional suspected terrorists. One wanted man reportedly was involved in weapons distribution and car bombings. The other wanted man was detained in Taji, north of the capital, and is believed to gather intelligence for a bombing network in the area.

In Tikrit, coalition forces captured a wanted man and four associates who are believed to be involved in organizing suicide bombings and facilitating the movement of foreign terrorists into Iraq. In addition, detainee reports led coalition forces to a foreign-terrorist bed-down site west of Mosul, where they discovered and safely destroyed two terrorist safe houses.

During operations in Iraq yesterday:

-- Soldiers from Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2nd Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment, attached to 1st Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Multinational Division Baghdad, captured two suspects in the Doura neighborhood of Baghdad’s Rashid district. The detainees were wanted by the Iraqi government for allegedly committing crimes and acts of violence against the Iraqi people and Iraqi and coalition forces.

-- In the Abu Tshir community of southern Baghdad, soldiers from 1st Battalion, 22nd Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Multinational Division Baghdad, captured a suspected terrorist.

-- Soldiers from Troop A, 7th Squadron, 10th Cavalry Regiment, discovered 30 mm mortar tubes, 60 mm mortar rounds, hand grenades, AK-47 assault rifles, homemade explosives, various ammunition, and a blasting cap during a security patrol in the Karb de Gla region of southeastern Baghdad. Five individuals were detained for questioning during the incident.

-- Coalition forces captured a wanted man and four associates in Mosul. Officials said the wanted man is an alleged security leader for al-Qaida in Iraq and is suspected of coordinating bombings against Iraqi police. Another man, wanted for allegedly facilitating suicide bombings and foreign terrorist movement for al-Qaida, was captured in Tikrit with one additional suspect.

-- Soldiers with the 1st Battalion, 3rd Brigade, 1st Iraqi Army Division seized several weapons caches in Baghdad’s Sadr City. The munitions included PKC magazines and rounds, AK-47 rifle magazines loaded with 7.62 mm rounds, anti-tank rockets, anti-personnel rockets, a missile, grenades and initiation fuses. Soldiers in the same unit found an RPG-7 and five anti-personnel rounds.

-- Iraqi soldiers in Sadr City seized numerous weapons caches that included Dishka rounds, a rocket-propelled-grenade launcher, an RPG warhead, 82 mm mortar rounds, 60 mm rounds, five 122 mm rockets, fire extinguishers, an armor vest with plates, AK-47 assault rifles, an RPK light machine gun, grenades, a 120 mm round, wire and a sniper rifle.

-- Iraqi soldiers discovered a homemade bomb in Baghdad’s Rusafa district. The bomb consisted of an electronic initiator and a box of homemade explosives.

-- In Baghdad’s Adhamiya district, Iraqi police found a GC machine gun and a sniper scope.

-- Iraqi national police detained a suspected insurgent in Baghdad’s Kadhamiya district.

-- In the Karkh district of Baghdad, Multinational Division Baghdad soldiers serving with 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division, seized hundreds of 37 mm rounds.

-- Iraqi soldiers seized rocket components, RPGs, MP-5 magazines, and an armored vest in Baghdad’s Karkh district.

-- In Baghdad’s Sadr City, soldiers from 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, discovered 60 mm high-explosive mortar rounds, 82 mm mortar rounds, RPGs, mortar tail booms, and a grenade.

-- In the Baladiat area of New Baghdad, Iraqi soldiers found a homemade bomb, rocket warheads, rocket-propelled grenades, an RPG launcher, 7.62 mm rounds, boxes of various ammunition, a PKC rifle and an AK-47, a rocket motor, radios, RPG motors, blasting caps, flak vests, and pounds of explosives.

-- A tip from an Iraqi citizen led 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, soldiers to a weapons cache in Adhamiyah. It consisted of anti-personnel mines and a 57 mm rocket.

-- Soldiers from 1st Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, seized 60 mm mortar rounds, 60 mm mortar tubes, homemade explosives, grenades, AK-47s, 120 mm mortars, an improvised rocket, improvised rocket tubes, and a blasting cap in Rashid.

-- In Kadhamiyah’s Shulla area, Iraqi soldiers, with soldiers from 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division, seized 82 mm mortar rounds while conducting a joint patrol. Members of 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division, also worked with soldiers from another Iraqi army division to discover a 155 mm mortar round, 100 mm mortar rounds, 60 mm mortar rounds, homemade explosives, a grenade, a mortar accelerant, detonation cord, and a cell phone charger in Kadhamiyah’s Khadra area.

In operations in Iraq on June 2, Iraqi special operations forces conducted an operation in eastern Mosul to capture a suspected terrorist who is believed to serve as a homemade-bomb-cell leader for al-Qaida. The man is suspected of numerous fatal car-bomb attacks against Iraqi and coalition forces.

via Global Security.org
__

National Security.

[N]either the Administration nor the telecoms need apologize for actions that most people, except for the ACLU and the trial lawyers, understand were Constitutional and appropriate in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001. [...]

We do not know what lies ahead in our nation’s fight against radical Islamic extremists, but John McCain will do everything he can to protect Americans from such threats, including asking the telecoms for appropriate assistance to collect intelligence against foreign threats to the United States as authorized by Article II of the Constitution.

Full story. (ignore Liberal headline)
__

Watch this video. This is the best look at the question I've seen. Plus, Daniel Pipes Conclusion that the U.S. should do it instead of Israel.

Great 7 minute video.
__

The portion of media bias the Clintons have received in favor of Obama I wouldn't call justice, exactly, but I would say it gives Bill and Hill a fair idea of what it's like to be a Conservative day in and day out. Is it a vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, Senator?

Bill can't handle it:

"It's part of the national media's attempt to nail Hillary for Obama," Clinton continued. "It's the most biased press coverage in history. It's another way of helping Obama. They had all these people standing up in this church cheering, calling Hillary a white racist, and he didn't do anything about it.

L.A. Times Full Story.
__

Read this short piece now, and understand more in the months to come.

(Hat tip: Pajamas Media)
__

Economics, Carbon Emissions, and Your Government.

(Hat tip: Power Line)
__

Barack Obama stands poised to clinch the Democratic nomination for president today and put in an appearance at St. Paul's Xcel Energy Center, where the Republican convention will be held this summer. It is a remarkable story for a man with such a thin public record and no tangible accomplishment in his 46 years other than writing a best-selling memoir.

Moreover, Obama is the most left-wing candidate the Democrats have nominated since George McGovern. If Obama wins the presidency, it is fair to say that it will be Jimmy Carter's second term. I think it is more accurate to postulate, however, that it will be George McGovern's first term. Even so, the Democratic Party has moved left since McGovern's defeat, and Obama is a product of the Democratic Party's post-McGovern left.

How did Obama emerge from the pack of Democratic candidates first to challenge and then to vanquish Senator Clinton? Last month I offered six theses on Obama's emergence as the Democratic nominee for president. I take the liberty of reiterating them today as Obama comes to town.

1. The primary thesis of the Obama candidacy was that, in a multiparty field, he could stake a claim as the Ivory Soap candidate on the issue of Iraq. His opposition to the war was purer than the rest of the Democratic field's. Having been an Illinois state legislator at the time the roll was called in the United States Senate, he had not cast a vote to authorize it. Free of the encumbrance of responsibility at the time of the Senate vote, he could present himself to Democrats as a visionary opponent of a misguided war. That his presentation of his position on the war was not entirely accurate, as Peter Wehner demonstrated in "Obama's war," is beside the point.

2. The secondary thesis of the Obama campaign is that there was a substantial desire among Democrats to move on from the Clinton era. After Obama's Iowa breakthrough and his New Hampshire loss, this theme had legs.

3. Obama emerged as a messianc figure come to redeem the time. He is a quasi-religious figure for non-believers, playing to the same market that made films such as "Ghost" and "The Sixth Sense" such enormous successes. It is an element of the Obama campaign that many observers have noted and that I explored in "The return of Sister Flute."

4. Obama's claim to represent a new poltics ending partisanship and division is as pure a product of the Bush era as Jimmy Carter's "I will never lie to you" was of the Nixon era. These entirely mythical claims built or build on genuine insight into the will to believe among a significant part of the electorate.

5. Obama's race is an asset. Americans want to prove their racial good will. A black candidate whose race is incidental to his campaign and whose political skills are manifest is able to take advantage of a great moral yearning that lies deep within the American psyche. Shelby Steele, who has eloquently explored this theme in reference to Obama, refers to it as "the idealism that race is but a negligible human difference."

6. There is no substitute for organization in a competitive race. Making use of his ample financial resources, Obama developed an impressive field organization to crush Hillary Clinton in the caucus states. Obama's lead among Clinton in pledged delegates is almost entirely attributable to his deicisive advantage over her in caucus states. This is a particularly old-fashioned thesis to derive from a campaign predicated on a theme of new politcs. D.H. Lawrence's literary lesson can be put to good use here: Trust the tale, not the teller.

The first three of these theses have a somewhat limited applicability to the contest among Democrats. The second three also provide a solid basis for Obama's candidacy in the general election campaign. For comparison and contrast, see Bill Bennett's "My old party" and Victor Davis Hanson's "Autopsy of the primaries."

Powerline.
__

The Right Angle has an interesting piece on the Centrists vs. the Conservatives in the Republican party. Good, concise article. Here's a sample:

Conservatives don’t really dislike McCain as an individual; they dislike the fact that he is loved by those who despise the American right. McCain’s support comes from those who thought Reagan and Gingrich were too radical, those who thought Goldwater was a wacky warmonger, those who thought William F. Buckley was just a bit out there. McCain is the Prime Minister of Moderate Republicanism, the George H. W. Bush of the 2000s, the holy figure of political centrism. His nomination is the fruit of years of efforts by non-conservative Republicans to move the party away from all that right-wing Reagan stuff. If he becomes President, the centrist counterrevolution will proclaim, “Mission Accomplished.”

Conservatives might not want to hear this, but the leaders of the centrist counterrevolution will maintain power in the GOP for years to come. They lost power once, and they will fight like rabid canines not to lose it again. They will use their influence to force future conservative Presidential contenders to reinvent themselves as moderates in order to receive the GOP nomination. McCain’s victory will be a template for future GOP wins. Those hoping for the likes of Bobby Jindal to restart the Reagan era are in for a rude, harsh, brutal awakening. The centrist counterrevolution will force Jindal and other conservative-minded contenders to bend to their will—and if they don’t, they’ll be broken apart politically.

The centrist counterrevolution has essentially vanquished the American conservative movement. From now on, American voters will only have a choice between the moderation of the Republicans or the Marxism of the Democrats. For conservatives, this will be a nightmare. For the centrist counterrevolutionaries, this will be a dream come true.

__

(Havana, Cuba) Cuba has 59 blocks of deep Gulf of Mexico waters claimed in an economic exclusion zone fronting the United States. Of the 59, 28 have been reserved for exploration by seven foreign companies.

The latest to join is the Brazilian state oil company Petrobras which signed the agreement with the Cuban state oil company CUPET on Friday.

The US Geological Survey estimated the North Cuba basin could contain 4.6 billion barrels of oil, with a high-end potential of 9.3 billion barrels, and close to 1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

PDVSA of Venezuela is already a major partner of Cuba in oil, taking out blocks in the gulf and building and modernizing refineries. Others signing agreements include Spain's Repsol-YPF, India's ONGC and Nordsk Hydro, Vietnam state oil and gas group Petrovietnam, Malaysia's state-run Petronas and Canada's Sherritt International.

So, along with Venezuela, Spain, India, Vietnam, Malaysia and Canada, now Brazil will be drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Isn't it odd that the only country that can't drill in the Gulf of Mexico is the one which borders it on three sides? I think so.

From the JawaReport.
__

The state may hold 40 billion barrels of oil. Best of all: No burqas.

Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer has a plan to solve the oil crisism, the New York Post reported.

Drill.

The feds say there are 4.3 billion barrels in his state.

“They are always conservative,” said Schweitzer, who greeted me in his office dressed in jeans, a white shirt and a string tie. “There will be more. It’ll probably be more like 40 billion.”

And people of Montana would be happy to help out.

“We’ve been drilling out there for 70 years,” said Schweitzer of the Bakken area. “People there like new oil production. In fact, the city of Sydney [the county seat] wants to build a refinery. Where else in America do you have a community that says, ‘we want to build a refinery in our backyard?’ ”

As Cleveland Browns fans used to say: Do it, Pruett.

via Don Surber.

(Hat tip: Instapundit)
__

Iran expects a "different approach" from the next US president, whoever wins the November elections, President Mahmoud Ahmadenijad said in an interview published in Italy Wednesday.

"Whoever wins the elections, I'm sure that the United States will change, it will have a different approach," the Iranian leader told the Italian daily La Repubblica.

"The United States will have a reduced sphere of influence in the world," he predicted, adding: "The new president will have to respond to the real demands of the American people: 40 million American citizens do not have health insurance, the victims of the New Orleans hurricane still have no homes."

In addition, the United States "will have to withdraw the soldiers from Iraq (since) the American people will not tolerate continued spending of billions of dollars on weapons," said Ahmadenijad, in Rome to attend the UN food agency's summit on food security.

Asked whether he would negotiate with the new US leadership come January 2009, Ahmadenijad said: "It is they who cut off the links with us, hoping to suffocate us. Today Iran is an advanced country. We are ready for dialogue with anyone, except with the Zionist regime, in relations based on mutual respect and fairness."

Full article.

This is what happens when we let an idiot even run for president. Oh, well, that's democracy. So is electing the alternative.

I have a lot of problems with McCain, but I will be at the polls, punching my card for him.
__