"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."
President Ronald Reagan
Since 1986, when Pres. Reagan signed a one-time amnesty for those in the country illegally, we have seen a growth in illegal immigrants.
Why? The first reason is economics. The US economy has expanded significantly since then.
For example, despite 24/7 doom and gloom about our current economy, the US gross domestic product grew by 1.9% in the second quarter! (The Dems have now predicted 100 of the last zero recessions!)
The second reason is that no one cared. No one checked documents. No one protected the border.
What did people in Mexico, and elsewhere, do? They did what any of us would have done.
In other words, they came over and got a job at $6 an hour rather than the one in Mexico that paid $6 a day!
In 2006, Pres. Bush put the National Guard on the border. What happened? It was a lot tougher to get over!
Also, the Bush Administration has started to enforce employer sanctions. What happened? Employers are getting scared. They don't want raids on their premises.
A couple of years ago, we had a huge debate about immigration. Some people wanted to round up illegals and send them home. Some wanted to give them a free pass and let them stay.
Some of us said enforce the law and do a "guest worker" program so that Mexicans can legally work here.
Perhaps, we will finally come to our senses. We don't need an open border or to drag people out of their apartment buildings.
We just need to enforce existing laws and come up with a modern version of the old "brasero" program and everyone will be just fine!
Michael Young is playing hurt but he still drives in runs. Once again, Young drove in the winning run against Seattle.
Josh Hamilton continues his MVP season:
.304 average, 25 hrs and 104 RBIs in 104 games!
Hamilton has the numbers but he is playing for a team unlikely to get into the post-season. At the same time, is there another AL player having a better season?
If Hamilton does not get it then you have to give it to Carlos Quentin of the Chicago White Sox. He may lead the league in HRs and put the ChiSox in the post-season!
Ivan was the heart and soul of the Rangers' teams that won division titles back in the late 90s. Ivan was the AL MVP in '99 and one of the best defensive catchers in baseball history.
Texeira will help LA win the AL West and probably get in the World Series. It's hard to think a better AL team than the Angels!
The question remains: Will they sit home? Vote for McCain?
But it seems that the Ego Problem exacerbates the Women Problem.
These gals, after all, were the ones who rolled their eyes with Hillary Clinton and nodded their heads when she lambasted his goo-goo rhetoric as “just words.”
They don’t really like the King of the World shtick.
So the more the Ego meme takes hold, the worse the problem for him with luring the working class, middle-aged Hillary set."
How can a man like me pretend to understand women?
Why do I think that BO has a woman problem?
Let me try this politically incorrect conclusion: Many women don't think that BO is tough enough to stand up to some of the world's bad guys.
Perhaps, they think that he is too cute to be president.
After all, the US president is the only man in the planet who can unleash the world's deadliest nuclear weapons. Haven't you seen that military man carrying a brief case around Pres. Bush? He is carrying the nuclear codes!
Don't you know? Women love men who remember anniversaries but also pay the mortgage!
Women want a president who will protect their kids. They want somebody who will be tough enough to sit across from the Iranian delegation. This is my theory. Women don't think that BO is man enough!
""I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds."
$400 billion is a big figure until you relate it to our $13 trillion GDP! Our problem is not the budget deficit. Our real problem is entitlements, i.e. promises that must be kept to baby boomers collecting checks over the next 25 years!
"....Ann Marlowe ....has been to Afghanistan ten times, three of them as an embed with U.S. forces.
She argues that the situation in Afghanistan differs markedly from that in Iraq, such that an Iraq style surge is not called for.
In Afghanistan, she argues, the military solution does not lie in importing thousands of additional U.S. troops, but rather in using special forces to deal with the "bad guys" who are infiltrating from Pakistan.
This means hunting them with stealth over trackless mountainsides for which our infantry, cavalry, and airborne soldiers are not trained to operate.
In short, says Marlowe, "defeating the enemy is best accomplished by highly trained fighters who travel light."
Aren't we doing that? Didn't we just use a missile to take out a AQ leader in Pakistan?
How do we fight in Afghanistan?
First, we use special forces to take out leaders. We have the aerial technology to hit these people.
We rally the world to send in volunteers and missionaries to help the people. Let's see how committed the UN, EU and the rest of the world is to helping the poor!
Warning to Dems: Don't go into Afghanistan because you want to show the voters that you are tough enough to fight terrorists!
It's not so simple in Afghanistan! Check what Thomas Friedman wrote:
"For many Democrats, Afghanistan was always the “good war,” as opposed to Iraq.
I think Barack Obama needs to ask himself honestly:
“Am I for sending more troops to Afghanistan because I really think we can win there, because I really think that that will bring an end to terrorism, or am I just doing it because to get elected in America, post-9/11, I have to be for winning some war?”
Free trade, and economic reforms, are the keys to development south of the border.
The bad news is that reform comes slowly.
The good news is that there are some responsible leaders willing to push for reforms.
This is why BO stinks. BO doesn't understand what's happening south of the border. BO is as wrong on this as he was on the Iraq "surge".
IBD has an outline of BO's plans for Latin America. It stinks, unless you are one of those Latin lefties who loves "hope and change":
"What exactly would Obama say if he went to Latin America?
None of his top advisers pays much attention to the region, and Miami Herald columnist Andres Oppenheimer reports that Latin hands in his camp, including Richardson, don't have Obama's ear.
So it's little surprise the Obama offerings to the region are so unattractive.
• Mexico: Obama declared he would unilaterally scrap the North American Free Trade Agreement that Mexico signed in 1994, not only treating the pact with Mexico like toilet paper, but calling it "a bad trade treaty."
He's since backtracked, but still intends to muscle in new labor and environmental provisions.
Obama also promises "comprehensive immigration reform," a real thrill to Mexicans who get empty villages and broken up families from that.
• Guatemala: Obama can tell Guatemalans he voted "no" on their free-trade deal, attempting to shut the tiny democracy out of access to the world's biggest market, though it cost American workers nothing.
There's more: His endorsers in the AFL-CIO want Guatemala's treaty revoked permanently over a few labor violations instead of working with them to a solution.
• Brazil: Obama's got more walls — ethanol tariffs. As America reels from an energy crisis, Obama vows to keep the 52% tariffs on Brazil's sugar-based ethanol (McCain would scrap them).
He said it "does not serve our national and economic security to replace imported oil with Brazilian ethanol."
He'd rather buy oil from Venezuela's Hugo Chavez than replace some with Brazilian ethanol.
There's also no G-8 seat nor Security Council seat to reflect Brazil's growing achievements and global heft — as McCain vows to give.
• Panama: Another country whose free-trade reforms and years spent in treaty negotiations mean nothing to Obama.
His answer to this tiny nation that sits astride the strategically vital Panama Canal is to give U.S. handouts, rather than trade with them freely.
• Peru: Obama says he supported Peru's free-trade pact.
Maybe so, but, unlike other Democratic senators who actually OK'd the deal, Obama couldn't be bothered to show up for the vote.
• Colombia: A pact nearly identical to Peru's, with the same labor and environmental provisions that Obama said were lacking in the NAFTA agreement?
Nope.
Colombia is America's closest ally in the hemisphere, yet Obama shuts them out of free trade as punishment for a handful of violent acts against labor leaders.
He even accused President Alvaro Uribe, a national hero who brought peace to his country after 44 years of war, of being involved.
"I think until we get that straightened out, it's inappropriate for us to move forward."
So the blue-jeans factory workers and flower pickers in Medellin can forget about jobs, despite Colombia's 600-plus extraditions to the U.S. of criminals, or Colombia's putting of its own troops in harm's way to rescue Americans held hostage by vicious FARC terrorists who are on record as seeing Obama's election as a good thing.
These friendly nations get stiffed, but no such problems for the anti-American nations of the region that can look forward to quality face time with Obama.
"It is time to pursue direct diplomacy, with friend and foe alike, without preconditions," Obama told the Cuban American National Foundation last May.
Small wonder Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez both hope for a President Obama."
How many radio personalities have 20 million listeners? How many have successfully stayed at the top of the ratings? Who else makes you laugh with a parody like this: Obama Decisive by Paul Shanklin!
It does not happen often. In other words, the popular thing to do is not always the right thing to do. Can you say "surge spring 2007"?
Drilling for oil is the right thing to do, as well as the popular thing to do.
This is why Pelosi and Reid won't be able to hold their congressional majorities.
Reid has the luxury that most Dems are not up for reelection. Pelosi has every member running, specially those new Dems who took over conservative districts in 2006.
This is why Pelosi will not allow a vote. She is afraid that most Dems will walk out and vote for drilling! (Dems cracking on oil exploration?)
Keep an eye on this drilling issue. High gasoline prices are driving this election. The Dems are the wrong side of this one!
Down in Mexico, Pres. Calderon is desperately trying to reform PEMEX. Unfortunately, the Mexican left has the same short sighted attitude toward energy reform that our Dems have about Social Security.
PEMEX is the Mexican sacred cow. Social Security is ours.
A few days ago, there was a non-binding vote in Mexico City and the anti-reform forces won.
Again, it is non-binding but it reflects how the Mexican left is totally out of touch with reality. It also demonstrates how the Mexican left will play with misguided nationalism to stop reforms.
What does that mean to us? We better drill because Mexico may not be a reliable energy supplier. In other words, we may have to replace Mexican oil in the near future.
Let me make a shocking statement: We may have to sell oil to Mexico in about 25 years! We are already refining much of their gasoline!
"Crude production in Mexico could fall dramatically by 2015 if a reform bill before Congress is not passed, the head of state oil company Pemex said on Tuesday.
From today's production of around 2.9 million barrels a day (bpd), Pemex's production levels could fall by around 1.2 million bpd by 2015 without this reform," Jesus Reyes Heroles told journalists in Madrid."
We can rely on Canada. We can not rely on Mexico.
What is Speaker Pelosi waiting for? When will we have a vote about drilling for oil in the US?
It's time for the Dem Congress to get real about energy supplies and to stop pandering to the environmentalists who contribute to the party!
BO found a lot of love in Europe until he called on Germans to send troops to Afghanistan. Today, we learned this:
"On Sunday the Secretary General of the opposition German Free Democrats, Dieter Niebel, responded to Mr. Obama by telling the Bild am Sonntag that "Under no circumstances will the German taxpayer pay with more money and more troops for Afghanistan for tax cuts in the U.S."
Check out The WSJ:
"Welcome to President Bush's world, Senator Obama.
The myth is that Mr. Bush's "unilateralism" has so antagonized America's allies that they will rush to share more of the war burden once the Texan is back in Crawford.
But Europeans have long enjoyed the free ride of U.S. military protection while enjoying even more their freedom to criticize how that protection is provided.
Mr. Obama's attempt to link European security commitments to American tax cuts was the kind of "unilateral" political faux pas that won't make European defense burden-sharing any more likely."
Welcome to the real world, Mr. BO!
You will soon learn that it's a lot easier to blame Bush than to get the Europeans to deal with serious problems. Let's hope that Mr. BO reads this one from from Sec. Kissinger! ('Europeans Hide Behind the Unpopularity of President Bush')
The welfare state is a disaster, specially inner city schools.
What are the Dems doing about inner city schools? The answer is nothing and two-fold:
1) They send their kids to private schools. Check out the Obama girls, or Kerry's children, or the Clintons' daughter or Gore's kids. After all, why couldn't any of these Dems find a good public school?
2) They keep taking money from the teachers' unions, one of the party's most faithful supporters.
When will a Dem stand up to the teachers' union? Don't hold your breadth!
"The state of California just announced that one in three students in the Los Angeles public school system drops out before graduating.
Among black and Latino students in L.A. district schools, the numbers are 42% and 30%.
In the past five years, the number of dropouts has grown by more than 80%.
The number of high school graduates has gone up only 9%"
Again, where is Obama in all of this:
"A visitor to Mr. Obama's Web site finds plenty of information about his plans to fix public education in this country.
Everyone knows this is a long, hard slog, but Mr. Obama and his wife aren't waiting.
Their daughters attend the private University of Chicago Laboratory Schools, where annual tuition ranges from $15,528 for kindergarten to $20,445 for high school.
When the day arrives that these two candidates face off, we hope Senator McCain comes prepared to press his opponent hard on change, hope and choice in the schools."
Should we wait until the McCain-Obama debates?
Will the "media in the tank for Obama" challenge their preferred candidate on this?
Am I the only one who sees hypocrisy all over this? On one hand, the Dems love public schools and take huge amounts of money from the teachers' unions. On the other hand, they send their kids to private schools!
Just ask Obama a simple question: Weren't there any good public schools for your daughters in Chicago?
Secondly, shouldn't other black kids in Chicago have a "voucher" so that they can attend a nice school like BO's daughters.
"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there; in fact, I think it'll do the reverse. "
Obama is now saying that his Iraq policy will be based on conditions on the ground. He is also getting twisted on his explanations about the surge.
The good news is that BO is finally telling the truth about Iraq. The bad news is that he lied to the base in the spring when he ran to the left of everybody on Iraq.
Again, wonder how all of those anti-war people feel now?
There is a lot of excitement around here about the upcoming Cowboys' season.
I guess that time has healed the wounds of that loss to the Giants almost 7 months ago! Or the field goal fumble the year before! Or not winning a post season game since 1996!
Let's start with the schedule. This is a soft schedule. It tells you a lot about the weak NFC! The AFC has the Colts, Patriots, Steelers, Jaguars and Chargers. The NFC has Dallas. Green Bay and that's about it!
The first two games are Cleveland and Philadelphia. Make it 2-0 Cowboys!
Game 3 is at Green Bay. Make it 3-0 although it could be 2-1 because the Packers are always tough up there. The good news is that it won't be freezing cold in Green Bay in September.
So let's be fair. Let's say 2-1 after 3 games!
The next four are against Washington, Cincinnati, Arizona and St. Louis! Make it 6-1 after 7 games!
Tampa Bay and New York come next. Let's split these two because they play the Giants in NY.
Make it 7-2 after 9 games!
Game # 10 is in Washington. Let's be fair again and make it 7-3 because the Redskins usually split the season series.
San Francisco and Seattle come next. Make it 9-3 after 12 games!
They should beat the Steelers at Pittsburgh and the Giants in Dallas. Make it 11-3 after 14 games!
The Cowboys will beat Baltimore and Philadelphia and finish at 13-3!
I could be wrong. It may be 11-5 or 12-4 but they will win the NFC East and take a first round bye.
Are there any things to worry about? They need to get over the late season "fade"! The Cowboys have not played well in December for two years in a row!
Put me down as one of those who is predicting a trip to the Super Bowl. Can they beat the stronger AFC? I don't think so but the Giants weren't supposed to beat the Patriots last year either!
It's a shame that Pres. Truman and Mrs. Truman did not live to see it. He died in 1972 and Mrs. Truman passed away a few years later. It's sad that Mrs. Truman did not see how much her husband is appreciated today. She had to endure everything that was said and written about the former president.
Nevertheless, Pres. Truman is wildly popular these days. Again, who would have believed this in 1952 when everybody, including Dems, ran against him?
Jeff Jacoby wrote today that Obama is no Harry Truman!
Last week, the Congress had a ceremony remembering the desegregation of our armed forces, another of Pres. Truman's unbelievably difficult decisions.
Michael Barone recently wrote about the Berlin Airlift, one of the many incredibly tough Truman decisions. Like Bush's surge, Truman went against public opinion to ensure that Berlin would survive!
Why all of the interest in Pres. Truman? Because historians are looking back and seeing someone who made tough decisions even if it meant taking a hit in approval ratings.
Last, but not least, check out Pres. Truman's library. It is a great place to read about what happened between 1945-53. It was a tumultuous time and Pres. Truman looks pretty good today!
Again, it's a shame that he or Mrs. Truman are not around to see it all! I'm sure that they would be delighted to read something like this: Who is Today's Harry Truman? by Fred Schwarz!
I guess that's what happens when people stop going to church. They look for heroes to fill their empty lives. They look for people who make complex problems easy. They look for people who tell them what they want to hear!
Let's recall what Gov. Romney said of Europe during the primaries:
"Europe is facing a demographic disaster. That is the inevitable product of weakened faith in the Creator, failed families, disrespect for the sanctity of human life and eroded morality."(Mitt Romney's CPAC speech )
REX MURPHY is a Commentator with The National and host of CBC Radio's Cross-Country Checkup. This is what he saw:
"He has absolutely no record at all of involvement in foreign policy.
Correction: He did offer unqualified, insistent opposition to the Petraeus surge in Iraq, which turned the war around to the point that some of its most relentless critics now maintain "it cannot be lost."
In other words, on the one definitive issue, post-invasion, on his country's most important foreign involvement, the one decision the inarticulate and sublimely unhip Texan in the White House made alone, and got right, Mr. Obama was perfectly, publicly wrong."
Nile Gardiner is the director of the Margaret Thatcher Centre for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, DC. This is what he saw:
"Closely aligning himself with powerful labour unions, Obama has pronounced protectionist tendencies. He has opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement as well as a host of free trade treaties from Colombia to South Korea."
There you have it. Not everybody is wildly chanting "yes we can".
It is very funny and it also makes you think. Try this:
"It creeps me out that Obama’s rhetoric about America is so apocalyptic.
It is “the worst” this or “the most” that. He is a serial exaggerator – so much so it would be impossible for anyone to debunk all of his outrageous “doom and gloom” claims.
And what’s really, really creepy is that after addressing this litany of horrific evils perpetrated by Bush and the Republicans, he holds himself up as just the man to fix everything.
If the United States were as bad as he describes it, no sane person would want to live there. And yet, Obama will ride to the rescue and “restore” America.
Shining knights on white horses riding to save us is one thing – we’ve seen that before many times in American politics.
But Obama’s powers extend beyond Coolidge’s promise of a “chicken in every pot” to a promise to heal the souls of America and Americans.
I don’t know what’s creepier. The candidate saying it or his supporters believing it."
Good point Rick. It amazes how many people just want to believe this guy.
My question is this: Are these people really listening or digesting what he is saying?
Let's take his Iraq position. Are these supporters aware that BO's current plan is about the same as McCain?
"U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said in an interview published on Saturday the size of a residual U.S. force left in Iraq after the withdrawal of combat troops would be "entirely conditions-based."
In June 1970, The Beatles released their last LP called "Let it be". It included several tracks recorded the year before.
"The Long and Winding Road" turned out to be the last single released by the group.
There were other singles in the 1970's, such "Got to get you into my life" and "A day in the life". However, those were old songs reissued for one reason or another.
There were two versions of the song. This the one that became the # 1 single:
Another good song from the LP was "Across the universe". I understand that it was released as a single in the UK:
It was the end of The Beatles! It happened during the spring and summer of 1970!
Candidate BO travelled to Germany and found the time to tell 200,000 what they wanted to hear. However, he didn't have time to stop by the US Army Hospital and say "thank you" to wounded troops.
I'm sure that BO cares about the troops. Nobody is questioning his commitment to wounded troops.
I just don't understand how he didn't find the time to see them.
According to the BO staff, the Pentagon did not want pictures. What's wrong with that? Hospital visits are not supposed to be campaign appearances.
What will voters remember about this trip? They will remember that BO did not find the time to visit wounded soldiers.
"And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.
The Child was blessed in looks and intellect.
Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant.
And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.
When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders.
And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”
In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites.
And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth - for the first time - to bring the light unto all the world.
He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media.
He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world.
And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them.
And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.
From there he went forth to Mesopotamia where he was received by the great ruler al-Maliki, and al-Maliki spake unto him and blessed his Sixteen Month Troop Withdrawal Plan even as the imperial warrior Petraeus tried to destroy it.
And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child's very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light.
And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to speak with the Child and saw that the Child was the bringer of peace.
At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy ploughshares.
From there the Child went up to the city of Jerusalem, and entered through the gate seated on an ass.
The crowds of network anchors who had followed him from afar cheered “Hosanna” and waved great palm fronds and strewed them at his feet.
In Jerusalem and in surrounding Palestine, the Child spake to the Hebrews and the Arabs, as the Scripture had foretold.
And in an instant, the lion lay down with the lamb, and the Israelites and Ishmaelites ended their long enmity and lived for ever after in peace.
As word spread throughout the land about the Child's wondrous works, peoples from all over flocked to hear him; Hittites and Abbasids; Obamacons and McCainiacs; Cameroonians and Blairites.
And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child's journey.
Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over.
The Great Prophet Algore of Nobel and Oscar, who many had believed was the anointed one, smiled and told his followers that the Child was the one generations had been waiting for.
And there were other wonderful signs. In the city of the Street at the Wall, spreads on interbank interest rates dropped like manna from Heaven and rates on credit default swaps fell to the ground as dead birds from the almond tree, and the people who had lived in foreclosure were able to borrow again.
Black gold gushed from the ground at prices well below $140 per barrel. In hospitals across the land the sick were cured even though they were uninsured. And all because the Child had pronounced it.
And this is the testimony of one who speaks the truth and bears witness to the truth so that you might believe.
And he knows it is the truth for he saw it all on CNN and the BBC and in the pages of The New York Times.
Then the Child ventured forth from Israel and Palestine and stepped onto the shores of the Old Continent. In the land of Queen Angela of Merkel, vast multitudes gathered to hear his voice, and he preached to them at length.
But when he had finished speaking his disciples told him the crowd was hungry, for they had had nothing to eat all the hours they had waited for him.
And so the Child told his disciples to fetch some food but all they had was five loaves and a couple of frankfurters.
So he took the bread and the frankfurters and blessed them and told his disciples to feed the multitudes.
And when all had eaten their fill, the scraps filled twelve baskets.
Thence he travelled west to Mount Sarkozy. Even the beauteous Princess Carla of the tribe of the Bruni was struck by awe and she was great in love with the Child, but he was tempted not.
On the Seventh Day he walked across the Channel of the Angles to the ancient land of the hooligans.
There he was welcomed with open arms by the once great prophet Blair and his successor, Gordon the Leper, and his successor, David the Golden One.
And suddenly, with the men appeared the archangel Gabriel and the whole host of the heavenly choir, ranks of cherubim and seraphim, all praising God and singing: “Yes, We Can.”
Let me add this: On the 8th day, the Europeans and The NY Times started to measure time as BO (Before Obama) and AO (After Obama).
BO became the darling of the left by opposing the Iraq War. If elected, he will become the devil of the left by winning the war.
History is about irony.
If elected, Pres. BO will face a difficult dilemma:
1) Please the left and get out of Iraq; or
2) Win the war and move on to the next theatre.
Why will he choose option 2? Because Pres BO does not want to spend his entire first, and only, term consumed with Iraq.
As I have said before, we win now or go back to win later. In other words, we must win this Iraq War or we will be back to face Iran in Iraq!
I don't think that a Pres. BO wants to go on TV and announce that we are sending troops back in because the whole region is overrun by Iran.
Also, a mess in Iraq will mean that there won't be any time to pursue any domestic policies. It will mean greater oil instability. It will mean that terrorists are emboldened.
Victory in Iraq is now the best thing that could happen to a potential BO presidency.
"Already, Obama is changing his tune from his old, irresponsibly heated rhetoric about “immediate” withdrawal to talking about the need for policies that would adapt to the improving conditions in Iraq.
Given Obama’s ideological leanings and inexperience, there’s clearly plenty of potential for him to make costly mistakes.
But odds are he, too, would come to realize that America needs to win the war on terror and succeed in Iraq.
Hence the greatest irony. A successful Obama presidency would have the unintended consequence of making Bush’s memoir a success story."
Obama won't let Iraq fail because he doesn't want to go back. Bush will watch with glee as an anti-war Dem puts the exclamation point on Iraq!
Irony. The mother of all ironies.
P.S. It may be better for Dems to have BO lose the election. If he loses then he can always travel to Europe and get 200,000 to say that they love him and hate McCain!
Obama-mania has them jumping "yes we can" in German, French and whatever else they speak over there. (They are also saying "no we can't" to his requests for more troops but that was my post from yesterday)
"And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness."
I feel better. Someone in Europe can see this entire farce as well as some of us do.
I feel better. Someone understands that Europe has a lot bigger problems that Bush and way beyond the ability of "The Child" to fix.
I get it!
Unfortunately, millions over there don't get it.
They will get it when they realize a few things about "The Child":
1) He is owned by our unions (i.e. anti free trade)! Don't you remember Ohio and NAFTA?
2) He has a penchant for changing his views. He has gone back on just about promise made during the primaries.
3) He is not tough. He made a statement about refining his position on Iraq. The base chastised him and then he quickly ran out to reverse his position.
It won't be long before the Europeans learn that The Child is not the Messiah! He is just a BS-er telling them what they want to hear!
As a naturalized US citizen, I've always had a passion for everything about US history.
I think that the US is the greatest nation in history.
It has done more good for mankind than anyone else.
Its sons have liberated millions.
It's economy has brought more prosperity to more people than anything else.
Last, but not least, I don't have patience for those who take cheap shots at the US.
This great nation opened its arms to our family. It gave us a chance at a new life. It has given me so much. Therefore, I don't stand quietly when people take "cheap shots" at the US.
Let me recommend the new "John Adams" series on HBO. It aired recently and I watched all 7 hours this weekend.
The main character is John Adams, our first VP and second president.
The series covers the Declaration of Independence (a great segment), his trip to Europe, his service as VP, President and the retirement years when he reconciles with Thomas Jefferson.
You can not understand John Adams without understanding his amazing wife, Abigail.
During their long and very happy marriage, Abigail and John wrote an amazing number of letters. The "letters" have given historians so much background about the events and passion of that period. They tell the story of a man and a woman living in the early days of a new nation.
Here is a historical gem: John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were two of the key players for independence. They died within hours of each other on July 4, 1826, or the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
Watch it. You will love every minute of this great series.
If elected, BO will learn what Bush and Clinton learned the hard way.
The Europeans are not serious about dealing with difficult problems.
Clinton couldn't get the UN to do anything about Iraq, even after Saddam had kicked out the UN inspectors in 1998, violated the 1991 cease fire, laughed at a dozen UN resolutions and even shot at US-UK planes enforcing them!
Clinton bombed Iraq in Dec '98 for 4 days and couldn't get anyone, except the very reliable PM Blair of the UK, to go along with him!
On Bosnia, Clinton learned that the Europeans couldn't even get their act together on a problem in their own backyard. Eventually, Clinton had to go around the UN and send a NATO force made up primarily of US troops!
The Dems love to "fantasize" about the pre-Bush days when Europe and the US used to work together. It didn't happen during the Clinton years. In fact, Clinton couldn't get anymore cooperation out of the UN or the Europeans either.
The Europeans want to talk about "progressive things" like global warming and same sex marriage.
They don't want to talk about terrorism! That's for American cowboys!
They think that they can protect themselves against terrorism by hating Bush!
I would recommend everyone in that crowd to read this:
Yesterday, they cheered every line except the one about sending troops to Afghanistan.
Why is that important? Because Pres BO is going to have to repeat that line over and over again. It won't be long before they start seeing Bush in Obama:
"Reagan's speech is a lesson in the difference between popularity and statesmanship.
Watching Mr. Obama yesterday in Berlin, and throughout his foreign tour, was a reminder of how far the presumptive Democratic nominee has to go to reassure people he is capable of the latter -- "people," that is, who will actually get to cast a ballot in November."
We've written about the Obama-media love-fest. My guess is that serious members of the media have to be appalled at this poll:
"Nearly 7 in 10 Americans (67 percent) say they believe most in the media want Obama to win the November election—while a scant 11 percent think the media are pulling for John McCain.
Moreover, only about 1 in 10 (11 percent) volunteers the belief that the media is neutral on the race to become the 44th President of the United States.
When asked to rate the objectivity of media coverage of the campaigns, Americans feel Obama gets more of a positive spin by a better than 7-to-1 margin (46 percent more positive toward Obama; 6 percent more positive toward McCain).
Just under 4 Americans in 10 (36 percent) says both campaigns are being covered objectively."
Frankly, I have never seen anything like it. This is not good for the media. My guess is that most serious members of the media are just as appalled as I am!
Violence is down. Iraq's midterm prospects are better than ever. But BO can't say that he would have voted for the surge.
The Complex Success of the Surge By Randall Hoven is an outstanding summary of what has happened in Iraq. At some point, BO needs to face the facts and move on. It will do him well. It will probably stop all of the questions and scrutiny that he is under.
"In a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, 72 percent of Americans -- even most Democrats -- say Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., would be a good commander-in-chief of the military.
Perhaps even more urgent for the Obama camp, fewer than half -- 48 percent -- say Obama would be a good commander-in-chief, a significant weakness on this measure. "
Do you wonder why? Watch these two men discuss the surge, its success and Afghanistan!
How many times do Democrats have to step in this electoral hole until they learn their lesson?
In 2004, John Kerry was the darling of Europe. Ironically, this is the same Kerry who once blasted Europe for not supporting Pres. Clinton in Bosnia and Iraq '98. (I guess that the Euros have selective memories, don't they?) Anyway, we hear that Obama is carrying Europe by a landslide:
"Substantial majorities of citizens of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom say that they would like to see Democratic Sen. Barack Obama rather than Republican Sen. John McCain elected U.S. president, and also that it makes a difference to their country who is elected." (Gallup)
Now, let's analyze this: "it makes a difference"
How?
Is one of these candidates saying that the US will withdraw from NATO if the Euros don't live up to their responsibilities in Afghanistan?
Is one of the candidates saying that the US 6th Fleet will no longer patrol the Mediterranean and protect the Europeans?
What difference are we talking about? Trade? Global warming? What in the world are we talking about?
Here is the simple truth: Some Europeans are silly. Most of them live in Spain, France, Germany, Italy and the UK. Let's not forget Holland!
Here is the bottom line: It makes no difference to be so popular in Europe. Our most unpopular president in Europe was actually Reagan, the original "cowboy" diplomat before the title was passed to the current Bush!
Today, Dr. Williams wrote about the state of public education in Baltimore. Sadly, Dr. Williams' message applies to our welfare state anywhere in the country:
"Whether we want to own up to it or not, the welfare state has done what Jim Crow, gross discrimination and poverty could not have done.
It has contributed to the breakdown of the black family structure and has helped establish a set of values alien to traditional values of high moral standards, hard work and achievement."
Where in the world is BO? He is sending his daughters to private schools and taking money from the teachers' unions. Where are the Dems? They are promoting victim-hood and taking more money from the teachers' unions!
There is going to be a huge backlash against the media because of the "over the top" coverage of Obama's trip. In the meantime, we can enjoy this cartoon because it's funny and true.
His answer recognizes that violence is down but refuses to give Pres. Bush any credit for making the right decision.
How irrational is this? Bush always gets the blame but he never gets any credit!
During the Clinton years, I gave Pres. Clinton credit on Bosnia, welfare reform and a few others. I didn't vote for him but he did make some decisions that were ultiamtely good for the country.
Why can't BO say that he was wrong and let's move on to the future? He can't say it because the angry left would go nuts!
BO is truly a hostage of the irrational left that lifted him to the nomination. He won't stand up to them but wants us to believe that he'll be tough enough to stand up to the bad guys!
What a sound bite: "We took our eye off the ball"!
It sure sounds good on The Oprah Winfrey Show or before a bunch of "yes we can" screamers who aren't really listening to what their candidate is saying.
What exactly will a Pres. Obama commit us into? Let's hope that BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) does not drive us into an Afghan war that sounds a lot better at the anti-Bush rally than it does in real life.
If elected, Pres. Obama may painfully learn why Iraq was always a lot more important than Afghanistan.
First, look at the map. Iraq is in the center of the Middle East.
Second, look at the future. Iraq could turn into the South Korea of the Middle East, a middle class nation that exports oil! It already has a lot more infrastructure and development than Afghanistan ever had.
Iraq was destroyed by Saddam's mad 30 year dictatorship. However, the potential is there and ready to sprout. Iraq is a nation with a long history. Its economic potential is good.
Third, look at geopolitics. Iraq is next to Iran. Iraq's success could have a huge influence on reformers all over the Middle East, specially Iran.
Take a look at Afghanistan. It is sadly the same poor nation it has always been. Its mountainous terrain makes it inhospitable.
With all due respect to the good people of Afghanistan, this is a very poor nation with little if any potential for development.
The Afghan War offers nothing, except a nice sound bite for Dems trying to beat up Bush over Iraq!
Yes, let's fight Al Qaeda. But let's not fight it by getting wrapped up in a long and costly war that most Dems will not support.
Fact: Why do the Dems love the Afghanistan War?
Because Bush invaded Iraq!
Also, they want to show US voters that the Dems will fight for something, an important claim for a party carrying a national security burden since the failed Carter presidency!
If Bush had not invaded Iraq, the Dems would be calling on the US to get out of Afghanistan.
We would hear the same tired arguments about "a civil war", a "war is lost", there is "no military solution", etc.
They would also be saying that Bush is using our valuable resources in little Afghanistan and doing nothing about the big guy with WMDs in Iraq!
Here are the facts: We beat the crap out of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Some AQ elements have indeed moved into the Afghan caves and Pakistan border.
What do we do now? We keep them up in the caves. We nail them with our technology if they come down. We take out the leaders with special forces and aerial technology.
Do we send brigades into Afghanistan so that the Dems can prove to the world that they are tough enough to fight terrorism?
No.
Afghanistan needs the world's attention. It needs help from the UN, the world's charities and missionaries.
At best, Afghanistan is a very long term project because there is nothing there to build on in the short term.
An Afghan War will be long and very long. It will be a lot more frustrating than Iraq ever was. It will be impossible to measure progress.
Again, we must be very careful about jumping into a war because the Dems hate Bush!
McCain understands war, directly as a soldier and indirectly sitting in all of the relevant US Congress committees for the last 25 years. Obama understands sound bites and conducting foreign policy on the Oprah Winfrey Show!
The Dems will eventually "wimp out" and our allies don't have the staying power. We can't even get the French and Germans to fulfill their NATO commitments by sending troops today!
Again and again: The Dems don't have the stomach to fight a long war in Afghanistan.
They will wimp out as soon as Pres. Obama announces that we have to send more troops in!
"Before he jumps into Afghanistan with both feet, Obama would be well advised to consult with another group of officers.
They are the veterans of the Russian campaign in Afghanistan.
Russian officers caution that Afghans cannot be conquered, as the Soviets attempted to do in the 1980s with nearly twice as many troops as NATO and the U.S. now have in the country, and with three times the number of Afghan troops as Karzai can deploy.
Afghanistan never fell to the British or Russian empires at the height of the age of colonialism. Conquering the tribal forces of a vast, rugged, thinly populated country proved beyond their powers.
It may also well prove beyond the powers even of the energetic and charismatic Obama.
In Iraq, he is listening to what the Iraqis want.
In Pakistan, he is simply dictating policy in a somewhat bellicose fashion, and ignoring the wishes of those moderate parties whose election he lauded last February."
"Additional troops aren't the magic bullet. The insurgents can't win in a conventional stand-off against the U.S.-led forces.
Their strategy is limited to carving out space for lucrative trade in opium and gems and trying to wait us out."
Be careful BO. Foreign policy is for adults! Take a look at today's Washington Post editorial:
"Yet Mr. Obama's account of his strategic vision remains eccentric.
He insists that Afghanistan is "the central front" for the United States, along with the border areas of Pakistan.
But there are no known al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, and any additional U.S. forces sent there would not be able to operate in the Pakistani territories where Osama bin Laden is headquartered.
While the United States has an interest in preventing the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, the country's strategic importance pales beside that of Iraq, which lies at the geopolitical center of the Middle East and contains some of the world's largest oil reserves.
If Mr. Obama's antiwar stance has blinded him to those realities, that could prove far more debilitating to him as president than any particular timetable."
It's time for BO to get real about Iraq and the region. It's time for BO to tell his "we took our eye off the ball" base that he is running for president not playing center field for the Cubs!
Eventually, Obama-mania will fade. We will learn that BO can not do miracles.
BO can't create jobs or stop cars from burning in France.
BO can't fix the overvalued euro.
BO will anger the Europeans when he calls for more troops in Afghanistan. The US, UK and Canada can not carry NATO obligations in AFghanistan by themselves.
BO will eventually have to carry the US unions' water and that won't go over well with Europeans who need to export to the US.
BO-mania will pass and then we will get back to the real world, i.e. Europe can't defend itself and they hate our power because they don't have any!
The US is the sole superpower. Texas and California have bigger GDP's than most European countries.
It's a different world and Europe isn't in the center of it anymore.
They have nice museums and coffee shops for people to chat endlessly about US imperialism.
However, it is the US Navy in the Persian Gulf that guarantees that the Europeans will have oil for their economies!
"So Barack Obama, en fête around the world, will one day learn that there is no magical cure for the envy of others.
What makes America the indispensable power (and even more indispensable in the era of the new China), is precisely what makes anti-Americanism inevitable."
Get ready BO. You will soon wonder why all of those "Euro-groupies" turned on you.
Someday we will hear: Why did BO become just another US president?
He was so good when he was telling them what they wanted to hear!
Have you ever seen anything like this love affair with BO?
According to Rasmussen:
"The idea that reporters are trying to help Obama win in November has grown by five percentage points over the past month.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey, taken just before the new controversy involving the New York Times erupted, found that 49% of voters believe most reporters will try to help the Democrat with their coverage, up from 44% a month ago."(Belief Growing That Reporters are Trying to Help Obama Win)
Speaking of The NY Times, Sen. McCain went ahead and published it over at The NY Post. (Getting Iraq Right)
The bottom line is that McCain will get more readers! It is also being run all over the country by other newspapers who do not object to publishing something written by one of the two presidential nominees.
"The Project for Excellence in Journalism, which evaluates more than 300 newspaper, magazine, and television stories each week, found that from June 9 (after Obama had wrapped up the Democratic nomination) until July 13, Obama was more prominently covered every single week.
During one particular week, July 7–13, McCain was a significant presence in 48 percent of the stories—but Obama met that mark in 77 percent of the pieces.
Similarly, the Tyndall Report, a media monitoring group, found that Obama received substantially more media attention."
I think that we understand how some of Hillary Clinton's supporters felt during the primary.
Before the NH primary, I was touched by this endorsement from The Union Leader:
"What is most compelling about McCain, however, is that his record, his character, and his courage show him to be the most trustworthy, competent, and conservative of all those seeking the nomination.
Simply put, McCain can be trusted to make informed decisions based on the best interests of his country, come hell or high water."
The paper then related McCain's experience in a North Vietnam prison:
"When McCain was shot down and taken prisoner by the North Vietnamese, he was repeatedly beaten.
When his captors discovered that his father was a top U.S. admiral, they ordered him released for propaganda purposes.
But McCain refused, insisting that longer-held prisoners be released before him.
So they beat him some more.
He never gave in then, and he won't give in to our enemies now.
John McCain is the man to lead America."
Heck, we can't even get Obama to stand up to the teachers' unions!
We just saw BO despicably carry the unions' water and blame NAFTA for something that started 30 years ago in Ohio!
We just saw the Obama website remove comments that the candidate made against the "surge" in Iraq.
What does BO stand for? It depends and it depends!
Yes, candor and the Justices is what will matter in the fall.
BO will tell you what you want to hear. McCain will tell you what you need to hear.
On Iraq, or the war on terror, there won't be much of a difference between these two men.
BO is not going to withdraw prematurely from Iraq regardless of what he tells the base.
BO will disappoint the anti-war base just like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid buckled on Iraq.
The Dems are great at blaming Bush. They are not good at actually implementing their recommendations.
Why? Because BO and the Dems are not going to let Iraq collapse and be consumed by a volatile Middle East.
In other words, BO is not going to put himself in a position where he has to send troops back.
Again, we will be back in Iraq if we don't get it right!
On the economy, BO is not going to get anything done. Why? Because you can't raise taxes (i.e. universal health care) when Americans are paying $4 for gasoline.
Speaking of energy, BO will flip on drilling and nuclear power once in power.
What else is he going to do?
He is not going to let Americans pay $4 for gasoline while we wait for the tooth ferry to bring us alternative energy.
What will differentiate these two men? What are we really voting for?
First, candor. Who will tell us what we need to hear? By now, and specially given BO's penchant for position changes, it's clear that you can't count on BO to tell you the truth.
Secondly, what kind of Justices do you want in the Supreme Court? Do you want judges who believe in interpreting the Constitution? Or, do you want the kind that redefines marriage to say that marriage is no longer between a man a woman?
This election will be close for a while. By mid-October, it will be clear that the choice is between a man of conviction and someone who just wants to be president.
We are not the only ones. You can add Howard Kurtzto the list of honest journalists who see Obama-mania for what it is:
"On Sunday, Kurtz continued his finger-pointing by accurately stating, as it pertains to the focus on the junior senator's trip to the Middle East, "the media in general, not just the networks, are -- seem to me to be covering Obama as if he were already president."
I think that this is going to backfire big time! Just you wait!
It rejected to publish a McCain op-ed piece. It rejected McCain's piece after publishing something from Obama a few days ago.
The NY Times has every right to publish whatever it wants, even a hilarious rant by Mexican leftist presidential candidate Manuel Lopez-Obrador a couple of years ago.
However, The NY Times' excuse is a bit silly if not outright stupid:
"Times officials said that the decision not to publish Mr. McCain’s submission should not be considered a total rejection of the article by the presumptive Republican nominee.
Rather, David Shipley, editor of the Op-Ed page, kicked back the original version while offering suggestions for changes and revision."
The NY Times has no business suggesting "changes or revisions" to something written by one of the two presidential candidates.
McCain's piece was well written and did not have grammatical errors.
It happens every time we have an election. The Dems always say that the Republican president cut taxes for the rich. In fact, the "rich" are actually paying more under Pres. Bush! See Their Fair Share!
Our thanks to Claudia and Babalu for reminding us that Dr. Biscet turned 47 on Sunday.
Claudia had a wonderful post about Dr. Biscet's daughter:
"Many of us look up to our fathers as heroes and Dr. Biscet's daughter, Winnie is no exception, nor is she alone in considering her father a hero- many other people think he is, too.
But this year, as in past years, Winnie Biscet cannot celebrate this special day with her dad. There will be no cake, no candles, no party.
Just the same yearning that she and her family have had since her father was imprisoned."
Where are the civil libertarians in the US? Why aren't they calling for this man's release from the real prisons in Cuba?
"....played in the Futures Game at Yankee Stadium, been selected to play for the U.S. Olympic team in Beijing, and been called up to make his Major League debut on Friday.
On Sunday, he displayed his newest trick: one-man wrecking ball.
The rookie catcher coolly caught a shutout and broke up a perfect game in the sixth with a solo home run off Twins starter Scott Baker.
It was the game's only run as Texas pulled out a 1-0 victory while gnawing its fingernails to the quick."
Taylor will probably go back to AAA so that he can play in the Olympics and continue to get more experience.
Taylor had a great week and we are proud of our local kid! We wish him well in AAA and the Olympics!
McCain is exactly right. BO is traveling to Iraq because the surge has brought down violence. What would Iraq look like if we had listened to Obama?
What did PM Maliki say? There is a lot of wishful thinking over at the Obama camp. They are promoting the idea that PM Maliki agrees with a 16-month timetable?
"The even more important point is that Obama has been demanding a more or less immediate withdrawal from Iraq since at least October 2005.
If his counsel had been followed then, or at any time up to the present, the results would have been disastrous.
It is only because Obama's defeatist position did not prevail, and the administration instead implemented the opposite strategy as urged by John McCain, that it is now reasonable to talk about withdrawing most or all troops by late 2009."
Yes, we will bring some troops home in 2009.
Why? Because Pres. Bush did not read polls.
Obama and the Dem left were defeated in the US Senate. This is why we are able to talk about troop withdrawals in the summer of 2008!
Here is the good news: It's too late to surrender in Iraq:
"Barack Obama continues his overseas trip today in the Middle East, where the facts on the ground have recently been moving so fast hardly anyone in the U.S. has really kept up.
But unheralded press reports in recent weeks establish this new reality.
The war in Iraq is over.
America and her allies won.
Sorry, Barack, but it is too late for you and your misguided, uninformed, anti-American netroots to surrender.
The surge that Obama opposed and said would fail has succeeded spectacularly.
McCain was right about that from the beginning." (Ferrara)
Surrender is no longer an option. We won! This is why we can even talk about withdrawals!
P.S. By the way, which Pres. Kennedy will Obama quote in Berlin? Will it be the JFK who said this about people like Obama:
"Speaking on behalf of “the world of freedom,” Kennedy challenged the anti-anti-Communists and the peaceniks.
He chastised the “many people in the world who really don’t understand, or say they don’t, what is the great issue between the free world and the Communist world.”
He rebuked those “who say in Europe and elsewhere we can work with the Communists.” To all of them, Kennedy memorably said:
JFK would call on the defeatists to visit Baghdad and see how US forces have beaten the crap out of Al Qaeda. We have dealt AQ a mortal blow in Iraq and this is why we have the luxury of talking about sending brigades into Afghanistan.
I have a funny feeling that JFK would be in Lieberman's corner and supporting McCain in 2008!
Can we sit back, enjoy the lemonade and chill out about a meeting with Iran?
Indeed, the Bush administration has authorized some very limited talks with Iran.
Some conservatives are acting like we are giving away our sovereignty because of these talks.
Stand back and consider this.
Do you think that Pres. Bush and VP Cheney have turned into a bunch of "wimpy appeasers" at this stage of their second term?
I don't think so!
My money is on "no".
Why are we talking? Why did we have this meeting?
My guess is that there is something going on under the surface, such as some reform elements inside the Iranian government.
Perhaps, there are people inside Iran who understand that their country's economy can not survive its current course. It's a fact that the people of Iran are not happy with their leadership. They want "change" over there!
In the meantime, everybody needs to relax and stop drawing conclusions based on something that they don't know anything about.
Give Bush the benefit of the doubt here. He has earned it.
"With no more nuclear threat from Saddam, against a US government that has raised the stakes on Iranian attempts to hide nuclear development, and faced with an international community that largely agrees with our president that Iran must not get nuclear weapons, it is possible that Iran has run out of options and might actually be looking for a peaceful way out.
Because of Iran's recent history trust is out of the question.
But there is no reason not to find out what they have to say.
That's not weakness. It's negotiating from a position of strength."
Sooner or later, Iran has to stop building its nuclear program or the US will stop it for them!
P.S. Make sure that you vote for McCain because he understands that diplomacy without the threat of force is meaningless.
Our family came to the US in 1964. It didn't take long for my brother and I to get into Top 40 radio, which is what they used to call AM radio stations back then.
Between 1964 and 1967, the US music charts were dominated by British bands like The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Dave Clark 5, The Animals and so on. It was called "The British Invasion"!
Who stood up for the US during that period? What US group battled the British for the top of the charts?
"With twelve #1 pop singles, numerous gold recordings, soldout concerts, and regular television appearances, the Supremes were not only the most commercially successful female group of the Sixties, but among the top five pop/rock/soul acts of the decade."
Who else but The Beatles had that many # 1 songs? Again, it was The Supremes.
They were Diana Ross, Mary Wilson and Florence Ballard. They were great and part of what they used to call "The Motown Sound"!
It's hard to pick a favorite. Nevertheless, I loved "In and out of love":
My second favorite was "Love is here and now you're gone":
We know that many of them live in Israel, a nation that lives with the reality of rockets that kill her children often!
Israelis know terrorism. Unlike the Europeans, Israel can and will defend itself. Unlike many "sophisticated" Europeans who drool over "hope and change", the Israelis want straight talk.
In fact, the world owes Israel a great debt. It was Israel that blew up Saddam Hussein's nuclear plan in 1981. It may be Israel and the US who take out the Iranian nuclear facilities today!
Who does Israel want for US president? They don't want Elvis! They want McCain:
"While the European leg of Barack Obama’s much-touted overseas trip will take him to nations where he’s vastly more popular than John McCain, Obama is not nearly as well liked in Israel.
Polls there show Israelis prefer John McCain by as much as 20 percentage points. "
Is anybody shocked? Israel lives in the real world. They know that the US needs a president not some current version of Elvis!
The US Jewish vote is critical in states like Florida. Furthermore, Jewish Americans turn out to vote!
I guess that it's nice to know that there are serious people in the world after all. They don't live in Paris. They live in Israel!
In 1994, the Republicans took over the House and Senate. It was the best thing that ever happened to Clinton. Why? Because he was finally liberated from the left wing Dems that messed up his first two years in office. It was exactly the formula to get him reelected in '96!
In 2006, the Dems took over the House and Senate. It was the best thing that ever happened to Bush. Why? Because it demonstrated that the Dems do not have the guts to implement their Iraq policies.
So where are we 2 years after the Dems took over the Congress?
In fact, Gallup has more bad news for Nancy Pelosi:
"Approval of Congress has fallen below 20% only six times in the 34 years Gallup has measured it. Including the latest reading, four of those have come in the past year: in July, June, and May 2008, and in August 2007. "
Interestingly, it is Dems who are more unhappy:
"The most recent decline comes almost exclusively from Democrats, whose approval of Congress fell from 23% in June to 11% in July....."
Why are Dems so angry with their Dem Speaker? Because the Dems lied to their base about Iraq.
The Dems are great at criticizing Bush policies but they are not very good at implementing their own!
The Beatles came to the US in 1964. BO goes to Europe in 2008. I love what Gerard Baker said about all of this:
"He hasn't claimed to be more popular than Jesus yet, but looking at the latest opinion polls in secular Europe, it might just be plausible."
Obama-mania will take over Europe. They love BO because of his potential rather than any substantial achievement.
Let's hope that someone asks BO about free trade or the European failure to live up to their NATO operations. I'm not sure that the Europeans will like his answer!
Beyond that, have you ever heard of a US presidential candidate doing campaigning in Europe?
How would we feel is a European candidate came here to do campaign speeches?
It's one thing for BO to sit down with world leaders and introduce himself.
It's quite another for a US presidential candidate to speak before "campaign style" crowds over there.
Who does BO think that he is?
Someone should tell BO that being popular in Europe is not a good way of winning all of those "red states" that the Dems need to carry to get 270 electoral votes!
It did not work for Kerry, who won Europe by a landslide but carried 19 states over here!
BO needs to do a lot of listening rather than talking. BO has a lot to learn, specially from the current crop of pro-US leaders in France and elsewhere.
BO may learn that Pres. Bush has a lot of support from Pres. Sarkozy, PM Brown and Chancellor Merker. BO may be shocked to learn that "anti-Americanism" is in greater supply at The NY Times than with the new leaders of Europe!
BO will also learn that these European leaders are not interested in a premature withdrawal from Iraq or unconditional chats with Iran.
Again, he is not sitting down with Schoroeder or Jacques Chirac! Those guys are not around anymore!
They were thrown out by populations fed up with 10% unemployment!
BO will learn from France, Germany and Italy that over taxed and heavily unionized societies don't create jobs. In fact, he may learn that the new leaders want to "cut taxes for the rich" so that they invest at home rather than take their money elsewhere. (Europe Has an Economics Lesson for Obama By HENRY OLSEN)
BO needs to listen because he has a lot to learn about the real world.
Europe is a little different today than March 2003 when the Iraq War started.
They are a lot more realistic about terrorism than they used to be a few years ago.
They are scared to death of Iranian missiles and a more vocal Russia.
BO may learn that European leaders are pretty fond of US power.
Why? Because they can't defend themselves.
Europeans are very fond of the US 6th Fleet protecting The Mediterranean Sea!
After all, who is going to protect Europe from Russia or Iran? It won't be the United Nations!
Who is going to shoot down an Iranian missile headed for Paris? It will be the aforementioned US 6th Fleet rather than European diplomacy!
BO needs to do a listening in Iraq, too.
BO needs to talk to military commanders before he decides what he is going to do over there.
BO will likely learn that Gen. Petraeus has tremendous support and popularity back in the US. Petraeus, not BO, will have the last word on our Iraq policy.
Speaking of BO, I'm glad that he is not going to give a speech at the old Berlin Wall. What was he planning to say anyway?
The supporting cast -- a cheering audience and a few fainting frauleins -- would be a picturesque way to bolster his foreign policy credentials.
What Obama does not seem to understand is that the Brandenburg Gate is something you earn. President Reagan earned the right to speak there because his relentless pressure had brought the Soviet empire to its knees and he was demanding its final "tear down this wall" liquidation.
When President Kennedy visited the Brandenburg Gate on the day of his "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech, he was representing a country that was prepared to go to the brink of nuclear war to defend West Berlin."
Former Pres. Clinton spoke the most prophetic line of the 2008 campaign. Clinton called BO a "fairy tale".
BO is the greatest fairy tale since Cinderella or Snow White. You can add Dumbo and Bambi, too! Go ahead and throw in all of those Disney masterpieces that my kids watched years ago!
This is the greatest farce since the Ponzi scheme.
Unfortunately, the media is in the tank for BO. Who will tell the American people about this charlatan from Chicago?
"Mr. Obama has made a central basis of his candidacy the "judgment" he showed in opposing the Iraq war in 2002, even if it was a risk-free position to take as an Illinois state senator.
The claim helped him win the Democratic primaries.
But the 2007 surge debate is the single most important strategic judgment he has had to make on the more serious stage as a Presidential candidate.
He vocally opposed the surge, and events have since vindicated Mr. Bush.
Without the surge and a new counterinsurgency strategy, the U.S. would have suffered a humiliating defeat in Iraq."
Where would we be today without Pres. Bush's courage and Sen. McCain's unwillingness to read polls?
We would be sending more boys to Iraq. We would be drafting the "yes we can screamers" to put on a military uniform and go to the Middle East to put out the mess that BO and the Dems created.
Between now and election day, the country will come around on BO. They will see him as a lightweight who is obsessed with being president.
BO will never win. BO won't have to reverse himself and anger his supporters about Iraq. He will spend the next few years in the US Senate watching Pres. McCain conduct our foreign policy. He will also be reminding all of us that the US made a historical blunder by denying him the presidency.
P.S. These are the latest videos from McCain about BO and Iraq. It's great and to the point:
The unions forced BO to blame Mexico for Ohio's manufacturing collapse. Clinton and Obama cynically did it again in PA!
The teachers' unions are now forcing BO to support a failed public school system.
BO sent his kids to private schools. However, he wants everybody else's kids to go to the failing inner city schools.
Roland S. Martin is an award-winning journalist and CNN contributor. He is the author of "Listening to the Spirit Within: 50 Perspectives on Faith." His website is http://www.rolandsmartin.com/.
"Obama's opposition is right along the lines of the National Education Association, and the teachers union is a reliable and powerful Democratic ally.
But this is one time where he should have opposed them and made it clear that vouchers can force school districts, administrators and teachers to shape up or see their students ship out."
Like me, Mr. Martin does not see vouchers as a magic bullet. I do agree with him that something must be done to give poor black (and Hispanic) parents a chance at sending their kids to good schools.
My sons are OK. They attended an excellent suburban high school. We are not complaining!
Why can't poor black (and Hispanic) parents have the same opportunity to educate their children as the Obamas? or the Kerrys? or the Gores? or the Clintons?
The Dems love public education but private schools for their kids!
It's time for black leaders to call on Obama and the Clintons to deal with bad schools.
We've heard this one often: We took our eye off the ball!
We are not talking baseball. We are talking about going into Iraq rather than Afghanistan.
My question is this: Does the party of Barrack Obama and Barney Frank have the stomach to fight the kind of war necessary to defeat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan?
I don't think so. In fact, I am confident that the Dems will start "cutting and running" from Afghanistan as soon as it gets difficult.
Trust me. Going into Afghanistan will be difficult. Just read your history books!
I don't know whether Senator Obama really wants to try to militarily occupy Afghanistan even more than is now being attempted.
I wish he would talk to some old Russian officers who were there in the 1980s first.
Of course, it may be that this announced strategy is political and for the purposes of having something to say when McCain accuses him of surrendering in Iraq.
If the Afghanistan gambit is sincere, I don't think it is good geostrategy.
Afghanistan is far more unwinnable even than Iraq.
If playing it up is politics, then it is dangerous politics.
Presidents can become captive of their own record and end up having to commit to things because they made strong representations about them to the public.
I think Obama has a little bit of a tendency to try to fix his political problems by going overboard."
Don't get me wrong. I supported removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan. However, there is a difference between removing them from power and chasing terrorists from cave to cave.
Do the Dems understand how complicated a land war in Afghanistan will be?
I don't think so!
Will the anti-war left turn on BO when he gets mired in the Afghan mountains?
Yes, they will!
They will say that we need to bring the troops home and spend the money on liberal programs.
What should we do? I think that we should fence in Al Qaeda and keep them up in the caves.
Secondly, we should use our special forces to take out the leaders. In other words, every leadership meeting should be a target for a missile. We should put that kind of fear in their heads.
Third, we should use our air power to take out any band that comes down from the caves.
Al Qaeda can be contained in the mountains.
Would I send thousands of US troops to chase these guys in the mountains?
No I wouldn't!
Again, the Dems do not have the stomach to fight the kind of bloody and prolonged war in Afghanistan.
They say so today because they are trying to exploit the Iraq War for their advantage.
The left won't stand for it. It will turn on Obama.
My message to the anti-war left stands: Pray for a McCain victory so that you don't have to beat up Obama for keeping troops in Iraq and getting into a messy war in Afghanistan!
Obama faces two impossible tasks over Iraq and drilling. On one hand, reality is calling and Obama wants to listen. On the other hand, he can't flip anymore without throwing the entire convention into disarray.
"If Obama softens his aversion to drilling, it may be the final straw for some of his liberal supporters.
Where would they go? Nader is still a possibility.
But McCain can attract liberal votes.
He doesn’t need to bleed Obama only from the right.
His own stands against drilling in Alaska and torture of terror suspects and for immigration reform make him suspect on the right, but quite acceptable to the left.
If moderate liberals are disgusted by Obama’s obvious attempts at chicanery and repositioning, they might just cross the aisle."
He can't flip anymore no matter how much reality hits him between the eyes.
BO became the darling of the left because he was the anti-war candidate. Right now, he is burdened by a position that makes no sense given the undeniable changes in Iraq.
18 months ago, Bush and McCain stood against public opinion and told us what we needed to hear about Iraq.
BO read polls and told us what we wanted to hear. He certainly told Dems what they wanted to hear!
Today, it's Bush and McCain who look like leaders and BO looks like a talker who flips often!
"SO CAN OBAMA get his mojo back? Is he a reliable liberal or not? S
hould his backers still believe in him?
Oddly, the most sensible answer comes from his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, who told us that "He does what politicians do....He goes out as a politician and says what he has to say as a politician."
If liberals can only accept that image of Obama they might yet salvage the election; if not, their Denver convention might just be the site of a mile-high fall from grace."
Tony Snow was survived by a wife and 3 children. I just read that a trust was created to help Jill and the family. You can make checks payable to "The Tony Snow Family Trust" and mail it to:
It was Detroit. It was the evening of July 17, 1980.
It was Ronald Reagan accepting the Republican nomination. I could not get in as a delegate so I watched on TV. (I did manage to get in 1984 when the Republican convention was in Dallas!)
The Reagan-Bush ticket won 41 states in 1980 and 49 states in the 1984 reelection.
Reagan's stature as president goes up constantly. He was mocked for not reading books, for going to bed early, for cowboy diplomacy, being very unpopular in Europe and cutting taxes for the rich.
Do the Dems have anything new to say about a Republican? I guess not!
The "tax cuts for the rich" and being "unpopular in Europe" sounds just as silly today as it did against Reagan!
I guess that Reagan was the original "cowboy diplomacy president" who cut taxes for the rich. He was that man until they put that on Bush!
The Dems are silly and not very original!
During this speech, you will see wonderful video shots of Mrs. Reagan.
Didn't she look great?
You will see Pres & Mrs. Ford.
Reagan had considered Ford as VP. It was thankfully shot down as a constitutional nightmare. It was Ford who pushed for Bush to be the VP nominee. By 1980, Pres. Ford was extremely popular. I guess that 4 years of Pres. Carter will do that to any Republican, specially the one he narrowly defeated in 1976.
You will see future VP Bush. You will also see the current Bush and Laura sitting behind their parents.
I don't know. Is this the first time that 3 future presidents have been on a convention stage? It'd be an interesting research project!
This is Reagan at his best. He was optimistic and patriotic. I still love this speech 28 years later!
My favorite Reagan speech was on the 40th anniversary of D-Day. He went to France and spoke to the US Army Rangers who went to the ceremony:
The Democrats never understood Reagan's popularity.
They thought that Reagan was just a good speaker. Indeed, Reagan was "the great communicator" and he was very good on TV.
What they didn't understand is that Reagan actually believed what he was saying.
(This graph is from Hugh Hewitt) It used to be so easy for the Dems. They just sat in the bleachers and blamed everything on Bush! It was so much fun for the Dems to be the minority party! Those were the days of criticism and zero accountability! The Dems now have to deal with the reality that they run the House and Senate. They have to explain to their anti-war base why the anti-war Dems have funded the war and cracked on standing up to Bush over Iraq! What happened to all of those 2006 promises about ending the war in Iraq? What happened? The Dems didn't have the guts to do it!
Also, they are on the wrong side of a huge popular uprising over gasoline prices. The Dems have a choice: 1) They can waste their time, and our dollars, on committee hearings about impeaching Bush or getting Rove; or 2) They can join the rest of us in the real world and start drilling. It's up to the Dems. They already have the lowest approval rating in polling history! This is the Gallup out today: Congressional Approval Hits Record-Low 14%! The Dems are stuck with two unsustainable positions imposed by the party's left wing: Iraq and drilling. On Iraq, the progress is undeniable. It's a bad day for Dems when Michael O'Hanlon beats up BO over Iraq: ""To say you're going to get out on a certain schedule -- regardless of what the Iraqis do, regardless of what our enemies do, regardless of what is happening on the ground -- is the height of absurdity," said O'Hanlon, who described himself as "livid." "I'm not going to go to the next level of invective and say he shouldn't be president. I'll leave that to someone else." There is a lot more:
The New Reality in Iraq By FREDERICK W. KAGAN , KIMBERLY KAGAN AND JACK KEANE tells it all, whether the Dems want to believe it or not:
"All of the most important objectives of the surge have been accomplished in Iraq.
The sectarian civil war is ended; al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) has been dealt a devastating blow; and the Sadrist militia and other Iranian-backed militant groups have been disrupted.
Meanwhile, the Iraqi government has accomplished almost all of the legislative benchmarks set by the U.S. Congress and the Bush administration.
More important, it is gaining wider legitimacy among the population.
The attention of Iraqis across the country is focused on the upcoming provincial elections, which will be a pivotal moment in Iraq's development.
The result is that we have an extraordinary -- but fleeting -- opportunity to advance America's security and the stability of a vital region of the world."
It's also a bad day when the liberal The Washington Post beats up BO on Iraq, too:
"After hinting earlier this month that he might "refine" his Iraq strategy after visiting the country and listening to commanders, Mr. Obama appears to have decided that sticking to his arbitrary, 16-month timetable is more important than adjusting to the dramatic changes in Iraq."
What happened? The anti-war base went nuts. It sent a clear message: Stick to your anti-war position or we will leave you!
The second problem is drilling.
The Dems want to wait for alternative energy to kick in. What happens in between?
Do we pay $10 for gasoline until solar energy runs our cars?
Do we drive the price of corn through the roof in Mexico and everywhere else in the developing world? Iraq and energy demonstrate how left wing groups have taken over the party. These groups do not allow the party to look rationally at Iraq or the energy crisis. The Dems are stuck with BO and the left that took him to the nomination!
P.S. Keep an eye on Dems running in suburban and rural districts. They will soon start leaving Pelosi's chamber and call for drilling!
First, she had to back down on Iraq and the left is furious. Pelosi & Dems ran in 2006 on a plan to change the course in Iraq. They failed because they didn't have the guts to cut the funding. The Dems are all talk!
Second, she is about to lose huge members of her party over drilling.
The Democrats can't win on this energy issue. According to IBD, the country wants drilling and a lot less talk about global warming:
"Contrary to claims by Al Gore and others that global warming is the greatest challenge of our time, Americans by better than 3-to-1 say the price of gasoline is a bigger problem now, according to the latest IBD/TIPP Poll."
It won't be long before lots of Dems cut ties and argue for drilling.
It won't be long either before Obama finds a way to dance around everything that he said against drilling, too.
It won't be long before Nader is the only candidate against drilling and calling for a quick end to the Iraq War. (Can you say 2000 election?)
Beyond politics, drilling makes sense because of growing international demand and national security concerns.
The Dems are on the wrong side of this issue. By Labor Day, Pelosi will stand alone on this issue.
Like Pelosi and Reid, Obama will turn out to be a huge disappointment for the irrational anti-war base. They can blame themselves for following a candidate who told them what they wanted to hear!
What kid didn't dream of playing ball for the Yankees? I did. I loved Mickey Mantle. I recall reading about his 500th home run. I've watched the "61" over a dozen times.
Yankee Stadium is the perfect place for an All Star Game. It's even better to see all of the young guys making their first appearance.
Take Ben Sheets and Cliff Lee, the starting pitchers.
Have two first timers ever started the All Star game before?
What are my All Star memories?
In 1964, our family had just left Cuba and we were in Mexico City on our way to Jamaica and eventually the US. We got a chance to listen to the game on radio. We were introduced to Tony Oliva, the starting right fielder for the AL.
In 1965, I recall Willie Mays leading off the game with a home run.
My other memory is Pete Rose crashing into Ray Fosse to end the 1970 game.
I also remember Reggie Jackson hitting a monster home run in 1971.
It was great to see Henry Aaron play in Milwaukee in 1975.
What about Cal Ripken hitting a home run in 2001?
Now, let me talk about the pre-game introduction. It was the greatest one ever! I saw so many of my childhood heroes, such as Willie McCovey, Willie Mays, Henry Aaron and Jim Palmer.
Let's give an A-plus to whoever came up with this introduction.
Can't complain about George Steinbrenner throwing the first pitch either!
Why do Yankee boo BoSox players at an All Star game? Aren't they playing for the AL?
Last, but not least, don't tear Yankee Stadium down. Leave it as a museum so that future generations can see it.
Is Michelle Obama a modern version of Angela Davis? No, she is not!
BO is the most liberal member of the US Senate. Michelle Obama should take care of the couple's cute daughters.
I do not plan to vote for BO because I don't think that he has the experience or the stomach to make the decisions made in the Oval Office. Also, how can you trust a man who takes a position in March and then changes it in July because he wants to run as a centrist?
Nevertheless, this is a horrible cover. The New Yorker should apologize.
At the same time, every one should stop the tasteless humor that has been a part of our political life since Al Gore couldn't win Tennessee.
Tasteless humor? Over the last few years, we've had a movie about the assassination of Pres. Bush.
We have seen first class idiots marching with signs associating Bush with Hitler.
We have heard bigger idiots talk about a "Bush police state".
So let's stop it. The left should get over the 2000 election. The right should get over BO's middle name.
Let's have a discussion about BO's positions. I'm confident that we can win on that!
Last night, the entire world got a chance to see what we've been talking around here.
The Hamilton story is true. He was a high school superstar and the # 1 draft pick in 1999. After that, Hamilton got into drugs and nearly killed himself. He also spent the $4 million signing bonus. Eventually, he was saved by a caring grandmother who nursed him back.
Between 2000 and today, Hamilton played very little ball. Does this sound like the movie "The Natural"? It does to me!
This is a great baseball story. It's an even better human story of a man who fought his demons and won!
Again, we've been watching 500 foot drives in batting practice down here. We've seen a couple of his 450 ft real game home runs!
What about the 71 year old guy pitching to him? It was his old youth baseball coach.
Hamilton and his wife are now expecting a baby. Hamilton is talking to kids about the pitfalls of drugs. He is the mid-season favorite to win the AL MVP! What a story!
"28: Home runs hit by the Rangers' Josh Hamilton in the first round. That broke Bobby Abreu's record of 24 for one round.
3: Home runs of more than 500 feet hit by Hamilton in the first round, including a long of 518 feet.
13: Consecutive home runs hit by Hamilton in the first round."
In the end, Morneau, another wonderful young hitter, won the final round. Yet, it was a great night to see the Hamilton who we've watching down here at batting practice.
Sorry. PM Maliki did not call for a US withdrawal from Iraq.
Ed Morrissey corrected the news stories all over the US:
"Unfortunately, as the BBC notes, Maliki didn’t actually say that — although the fault really does not lie with Obama. In fact, the Maliki government doesn’t want date-certain withdrawal dates, and may not want a withdrawal at all...."
So let's put this nonsense, as well as talk of timetables. to rest!
"Obama’s op-ed is the effort of an arrogant and intellectually rigid man, one who disdains empirical evidence and is attempting to justify the fact that he has been consistently wrong on Iraq since the war began (for more, see my April 2008 article in Commentary, “Obama’s War“).
BO also writes that our troops have done a great job. Why is that? Because Pres. Bush did not listen to BO.
I don't know if the media will ask any hard questions. Let's hope that someone sits down and challenges BO on Iraq.
According to the bilingual dictionary, "pander" is:
"consetir los caprichos de alguien....."
BO's massive "pandering" of "la raza" is back and in full form.
"Coqueteo" is like flirting. It's telling people what they want to hear.
BO and the Dems are really good at it.
Watch BO at La Raza:
So ICE is snatching babies from nursing mothers? That's a lie and a bunch of crap.
First of all, BO is talking about federal officers carrying out orders to stop illegal immigration. Was Pres. Clinton wrong when he ordered ICE to conduct raids, too? Was Clinton "anti-raza" too?
Is BO, the guy running for president, calling our ICE officers a bunch of bullies and people who separate mothers from their babies at the point of nursing?
Please stop the crap!
Again, here is the question: How does Obama plan to deal with illegal immigration? We don't know.
How do the Dems plan to deal with illegal immigration? We don't know.
They can't blame Republicans anymore because this is the Pelosi-Reid Congress now! We remind you that Pelosi-Reid has the lowest support for any Congress in polling history. They are down to single digits! (Congressional Approval Falls to Single Digits for First Time Ever)
I remind you that it was the Democrats who killed the "brasero" program years ago because the unions got on Pres. Johnson's case about it.
The "brasero" program, started under Republican Pres. Eisenhower in the early 1950's, was the most sensible approach to dealing with the reality that we have employers and Mexico has workers.
It created a very sensible program for Mexicans to come over legally and work. It allowed many Mexican men to come over, make some dollars and go back to their wives and children.
"Brasero" was so good that the unions panicked.
Eventually, the unions forced Pres. Johnson to kill it.
For more on the "brasero" program and how the Dems killed it read Don't Run for the Border by John Fund!
Once again, we see the irrational influence of unions on Dems.
These are the same unions who forced BO and Hillary Clinton to blame Mexico for the fact that Ohio and PA have been losing manufacturing jobs since the 1970's.
Ohio and PA have lost manufacturing jobs to Alabama and Texas and it's all Mexico's fault!
Texas is full of PA, Ohio and NY license plates and it's all Mexico's fault!
Pander, pander and more pandering! These Dems are all about telling people what they want to hear!
Back to the raids.
ICE is raiding employers with a history of hiring illegal immigrants.
ICE makes every effort to take care of mothers and children.
At the end of the day, these employers and workers are breaking the law and we live in a nation of laws.
The Dems are great at telling people what they want to hear, i.e. "coqueteo".
They are not very good at getting anything done, which is why they have not done a darn thing about the illegal immigration problem since they took over Congress!
Like "coqueteo"? Vote Democrat! They have a masters' degree in telling people what they want to hear!
McCain is right. Let's protect our borders. Let's make sure that people come here legally. Also, let's not forget that there are many Hispanics serving in the US military!
My first memory of Yankee Stadium was 1972 and 1973. Our family travelled to New York to attend a Yankee-Orioles game. What about those dimensions? 462 ft in CF? Boog Powell hit a line drive that bounced around those monuments back there. Boog was a big guy and did not go for an inside the park home run. I think that any other batter would have had an easy inside the park HR. My second memory was the passion in the stands. Yankee fans tell you where they stand. There are no moderates at Yankee Stadium. They love or they hate you. It's hard to believe that this is it for Yankee Stadium. It's going to be tough to see this park go down. It's the closest thing to a cathedral in baseball.
Here is the good news. The Rangers are 50-46, which is a little bit better than most of us expected. They are 43-30 since the awful 7-16 start! It's hard to complain about a young team playing .589 ball over 73 games.
Here is the bad news. Texas is 7.5 games behind LA. I just don't think that the Rangers can win enough games to overcome that lead.
The Angels will win the West. The Rangers may be in contention for the wild card. Nevertheless, it's a long shot for Texas to be in the post season.
What's the plan? Keep developing young pitchers and shoot for 2009-10! Texas is not that far from being a legitimate contender.
In the meantime, enjoy Kinsler, Young, Hamilton and Bradley in the All Star Game. All of these four guys will be around next year and beyond!
Jonathan Alter has a suggestion for BO: Stand up to teachers' unions! Fight them! Give public education back to the parents! (Obama’s No-Brainer on Education)
Beyond politics and appealing to middle class parents, taking on the teachers' unions would be good for the country.
Our public schools are divided into two groups: the suburbs and inner city schools.
Suburban schools are doing fairly well. Inner city schools are a disaster!
How bad are inner city schools?
Where did BO send his daughters to school?
Why didn't BO choose a Chicago public school for his daughters?
Like the Clintons, Gore, Kerry, the Kennedys and most Dems, the Obamas sent their kids to private schools. For years, the Dems have gladly taken the unions' money but their kids go to private schools.
McCain will likely call for more school choice. This is good! However, nothing will happen until the Democrats stand up to the unions on public education.
What should BO suggest?
First, force the top ten urban districts to compete by giving parents a voucher. Force the districts to compete for students in much the same way that Internet services compete for subscribers.
Second, let parents use the vouchers in private or faith based schools. Let the parents decide. Besides, who cares about the school as long as kids graduate speaking English and ready for a global economy?
Memo to Obama: Show me some courage. Show me that you will fight for something! Show me that you will stand up to a liberal interest group!
I just saw that the shuttle is coming back. Does anybody care anymore about these missions?
Back in July 1969, everybody was talking about Apollo 11. We were glued to the TV from launch to the end of mission. Everyone was so overwhelmed by the idea that man would travel to the moon.
Bobby Murcer died today after a long bout with cancer. He was tough and showed us about living with cancer and fighting adversity.
In 1971, Murcer hit .331 with 25 hrs and 94 RBI's and played a great CF. He had other great years but 1971 was probably his best all around season. Murcer finished second to Tony Oliva in the batting race that year!
Bobby Murcer hit 252 career HRs with 1063 RBIs. He was a real fan favorite because of his personality and passion for the game. This is a video from 1971:
Murcer was supposed to replace Mantle. Who can do that? Eventually, he was traded to the Giants for Bobby Bonds. A few years later, he came back to the Yankees, retired and became an announcer. I remember watching this bottom of the 9th single against the Orioles in 1979:
Murcer never became Mantle or a superstar. He did have a few good seasons, such as 1971. However, he was a superstar in how he battled cancer.
Our sympathies go to the Murcer family and the Yankees!
Eventually, public opinion will overwhelm Congress. Unfortunately, there are too many Dems who are afraid of the environmentalists. It's up to Republicans to help centrist Dems who represent all those districts between San Francisco and NY City.
What will decide the 2008 election? It will be the candidate who understands that drilling here is good for supply and national security.
According to Hot Air, McCain and Obama have been invited to appear at a ".... nationally-televised town hall meeting next month organized by a coalition of support organizations."
Why doesn't BO want to have a debate with McCain about military matters?
Does BO seriously think that he can survive this election by simply giving packaged "hope and change" speeches?
We have to divide Obama's campaign into two time periods.
The first one is Before Hillary, or BH. This is when he was campaigning against HRC and pandering to every left wing group in the party. (As I wrote before, NRC foolishly pandered along with him!)
The second one is After Hillary, or AH. This is the "shift to the center" period. This is when Obama does not recognize a word that he said before.
Why doesn't BO fulfill his promise to debate McCain anywhere?
Also, why doesn't BO appear on The O'Reilly Factor, the cable news show with the largest prime time audience?
