WAR doesn’t change anything! How many times have we heard the claim from self-righteous leftists protected by their betters?
Tell the dead in Georgia that war changes nothing. Tell it to the 100,000 or so people driven from their homes. For that matter, tell it to Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin – he may finally crack a smile.
War doesn’t change anything? Wish it were true – but war has been humankind’s preferred means of effecting change.
We’re all – right and left – getting an in-your-face lesson about how the world really works. Passive resistance only has a chance when your opponent believes in the rule of law and respect for human rights. Gandhi was effective against law-abiding Britain, but he would’ve frozen to death in the Soviet gulag – if he’d lived long enough to reach the camps.
Putin believes in force. Just because we don’t share his values doesn’t mean he’s going to see the light. (Imagine a President Barack Obama pitted against Putin – the Left’s new messiah would be gobbled up in one bite.)
Putin doesn’t think we’re naive fools. He knows it.
That’s the contrast between theory and reality, fantasy land and the real world. No sane person wants war, but the reality is sometimes no alternative exists. If someone wants to exterminate you or make your country disappear from the map, what will dialog accomplish? A compromise? Like only exterminating half the people? Do you “dialog” with the rapist and try and understand their motives, and how their childhood drove them to savage acts? Or do you resist? (Hint: only one method works) As long as someone wants to kill you, dialog accomplishes nothing.
Evil exists, and must be confronted. Clicking your heals three times chanting “world peace” won’t accomplish much; the Georgia crisis is just the latest example illustrating the gulf existing between those living in reality, and those living on fantasy island (Let’s open up a “dialog” so we can “understand” their feelings — and while you’re at it here’s a cigar, and tell me about your mother, oh and are you going to eat the last slice of pizza?).
Will citizens realize the difference before the election and understand a leader must live in reality and deal with difficult situations, or elect Mr. Roarke, close their eyes, fly to fantasy island to meditate on whirled peas while the real world crumbles around them?
War changes everything. Sane people don’t want it, and we all wish for world peace, but the reality remains as long as one crazy person doesn’t accept the dream of living in harmony and peace with everyone on the planet it ruins it for the rest of us, and the wish remains fantasy. At least one greedy bastard always exists who will (without provocation) attempt to conquer lands and people in a quest for world domination. The question remains will you appease him in an attempt to quench the lust for power, or resist and defeat evil?
Appeasement never worked to stop greedy attempts for world dominion, and Einstein gave the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. What makes the appeasers think it will work in any future situation? “Give peace a chance” makes a great song, but terrible foreign policy; there’s always one person who doesn’t agree, starting conflict to feed their lust for power. How will you deal with it?
History teaches war is part of the selfish greed of the human condition, and two kinds of people exist — those that understand the lessons of history, the existence of evil, and the reality of confronting that evil, and those living with Mr. Roarke on fantasy island.
Much has been (and will be) noted about Biden/Obama, but several items stand out.
First, Hillary wasn’t even vetted — a slam on her supporters. Very few expected Obama to pick Hillary (since Michelle didn’t want her), but not even to consider her? Quite an in-your-face to Hillary supporters (about 1/4 of which say they’ll vote McCain, while less than half support Obama, if recent polls are correct).
And the choice of Biden admits Obama lacks experience and desperately needs someone who actually understands the issues, as Obama switches positions as most people change clothes (daily). After the disastrous performance at Saddleback, voters are left wondering — does this guy believe anything, or will he say anything to be elected?
Of course, Biden fits in well with the flip-flopping Obama. Biden (rightly) called Obama inexperienced and the Presidency isn’t on the job training. Biden also said he’d never accept the VP slot.
Biden must flip-flop on both of those issues to be on the ticket, so he’ll fit in well with Obama’s flip-flops on FISA, gun control, campaign finance, Jerusalem/Israel, and so on (Biden is actually a far better choice than Obama — the ticket really should be Biden/Obama, and not the other way around).
The reality is Obama is the choice — the VP doesn’t really do anything. No matter how many people Obama adds to his staff with actual experience, the reality is Obama himself is completely unprepared for the job he’s running for. Obama combines the elitism and arrogance of the Clintons, the naive and pathetic foreign-policy ideas of Jimmy Carter, the unstable flip-flopping of John Kerry, and the I’ll-raise-your-taxes popular with socialists and proponents of income redistribution — all in one flawed ticket, and the addition of Biden doesn’t minimize Obama’s inexperience or elitism.
In short, Obama combines all the worst qualities of previous Democratic failures into one person, but without any of the positive qualities those failures possessed.
Finally, the choice of Biden just proves the “hope and change” theme is totally and completely dead and buried; the choice of yet another Washington old-time insider to Obama’s staff shows once again Obama is nothing more than a garden variety far-left liberal, who’s attempting to wrap himself in the “change” flag, while behind the scenes doing the same old Washington dance.
Nothing to see here, move along.
… others just shake their heads at the racism of anyone who could possibly have a problem with a very left-wing politician with almost no experience, who often sounds like his campaign slogan is: “People of Earth! Stop Your Bickering. I Am From Harvard, And I’m Here To Help.”
Perhaps therein lies the answer to this supposed mystery. Indeed, perhaps there’s no mystery at all, and Obama’s problems are the same problems Democrats always have at the presidential level: He’s an elitist.
Crazy idea for the day — McCain picks Hillary as VP, sweeping into office with an electoral landslide, as Obama only wins his home state (barely).
OK, maybe not, but a new McCain ad wonders why Obama never answers the questions which Hillary and Biden raised during the primaries (and which Biden will now flip-flop on).
John McCain’s campaign has decided to start some trouble between the Democrats just as they’ve gathered for their convention in Denver. Their new ad, “Passed Over”, asks why the woman who received 18 million votes for the nomination never even made it to the short list for the VP nomination. Team McCain’s answer? The ego of Barack Obama couldn’t handle it …
However, the McCain team found the right formula in this spot. Instead of just focusing on the injustice Hillary received, the ad makes it about Obama and his inability to deal with her criticisms. This calls into question Obama’s leadership and his ability to separate the personal from the job — as well as refloat all of the specific issues Hillary mentions in these clips.
After seeing Obama defend infanticide with the glib excuse that the question of when life begins is above his “pay-grade,” Rev. Jeremiah Wright announced that although he’s known Obama for 30 years, he only recently became aware of how extreme the senator’s viewpoints were. Wright, after all, has his reputation to consider.
Obama’s defenders spin his abominable performance in the Saddleback forum by saying he’s just too smart to give a straight answer. As Rick Warren charitably described Obama’s debate performance: “He likes to nuance things … He’s a constitutional attorney.” The constitutional lawyer “does nuance,” as Bill Maher said on “Larry King Live,” “and you saw how well that goes over with the Rick Warren people.”
But most stunningly, when Warren asked Obama if he supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, Obama said he did not “because historically — because historically, we have not defined marriage in our Constitution.”
I don’t care if you support a marriage amendment or not. That answer is literally the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard anyone say. If marriage were already defined in the Constitution, we wouldn’t need an amendment, no?
Say, you know what else was “historically” not defined in the Constitution? Slavery. The words “slavery” and “slave” do not appear once in the original Constitution. The framers correctly thought it would sully the freedom-enshrining document to acknowledge the repellent practice. (Much like abortion!)
But in 1865, the 13th Amendment banned slavery throughout the land, in the first constitutional phrase ever to mention “slavery”: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
On Obama’s “historical” argument, they shouldn’t have passed the 13th Amendment because the Constitution “historically” had not mentioned slavery.
Live by the nuance, die by the nuance. Obama without a teleprompter is just … well … umm … you know …. sometimes …. ummm …. generally … ummm …
Just answer the question, Mr. Obama, when does a baby deserve protection under the law? If you were president, how would you act? The American people deserve a real answer, not “it’s above my pay grade”. If that’s your answer, then you’re unqualified to be President.
Follow up question: If you can’t at least give an answer without the teleprompter, do you really believe you’re qualified to be President and sit across the table from Putin and handle the really difficult situations? Will a teleprompter be installed in the situation room for those 3AM situations?
Citizens deserve real answers, not “nuance” — when does a baby get legal rights? Your votes, senator Obama, contradict your statements and indicate the baby can be killed even after it’s delivered, all in an attempt to protect the pro-abortion position — a position so radical the senate voted 98-0 to pass a bill the same as you opposed.
So if the baby doesn’t get rights when it’s born, when do they come? At age 3? 4? 18? Can the mother terminate the baby anytime? (a sort of a retro-active abortion). If she decides she doesn’t want the baby a week later, can she terminate it? What exists after a week that didn’t exist at birth? Let’s hear a real answer, not “nuance”. When does a baby become a person?
You’ll have to make decisions much harder than that as President, are all those decisions “above your pay grade” also?
So what does Obama really believe? Let him speak for himself, from a Chicago Sun-Times Interview.
OBAMA:Right. Jesus is an historical figure for me, and he’s also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith, and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher.
And he’s also a wonderful teacher. I think it’s important for all of us, of whatever faith, to have teachers in the flesh and also teachers in history.
GG:The conversation stopper, when you say you’re a Christian and leave it at that.
OBAMA:Where do you move forward with that?
This is something that I’m sure I’d have serious debates with my fellow Christians about. I think that the difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and proselytize. There’s the belief, certainly in some quarters, that people haven’t embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior that they’re going to hell.
GG:You don’t believe that?
OBAMA:I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell. I can’t imagine that my God would allow some little Hindu kid in India who never interacts with the Christian faith to somehow burn for all eternity.
That’s just not part of my religious makeup.
Part of the reason I think it’s always difficult for public figures to talk about this is that the nature of politics is that you want to have everybody like you and project the best possible traits onto you. Oftentimes that’s by being as vague as possible, or appealing to the lowest common denominators. The more specific and detailed you are on issues as personal and fundamental as your faith, the more potentially dangerous it is.
GG:Do you believe in heaven?
OBAMA:Do I believe in the harps and clouds and wings?
GG:A place spiritually you go to after you die?
OBAMA:What I believe in is that if I live my life as well as I can, that I will be rewarded. I don’t presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. But I feel very strongly that whether the reward is in the here and now or in the hereafter, the aligning myself to my faith and my values is a good thing.
When I tuck in my daughters at night and I feel like I’ve been a good father to them, and I see in them that I am transferring values that I got from my mother and that they’re kind people and that they’re honest people, and they’re curious people, that’s a little piece of heaven.
GG:What is sin?
OBAMA:Being out of alignment with my values.
GG:What happens if you have sin in your life?
OBAMA:I think it’s the same thing as the question about heaven. In the same way that if I’m true to myself and my faith that that is its own reward, when I’m not true to it, it’s its own punishment.
Well, here we go again — a candidate contradicts what the records claim is true. If the candidate is correct, the records are forgeries and should be exposed as such. Or the candidate is deliberately misrepresenting his position for political gain. But either way, name-calling doesn’t accomplish much, Senator, as Amanda Carpenter notes:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is harshly accusing a pro-life group of “lying” about his record on abortion as a Illinois state senator, despite compelling evidence on the pro-lifers’ side.
Obama made the aggressive attack when Christian Broadcasting Network Senior National Correspondent David Brody asked Obama about documentation the National Right to Life Committee recently obtained of a 2003 committee vote on “born alive” legislation that would have required medical officials to give life-saving care to babies who survived abortion.
Obama has said again and again he voted against versions of that bill as an Illinois state senator because it did not include language to protect Roe v. Wade, as the federal version did which sailed through the U.S. Senate 98-0. The committee report, however, shows a 10-0 vote in favor of an amendment to add the same language to protect abortion rights that was added to the federal bill. That same committee report subsequently shows Obama voting the kill the bill in a “final action” vote.
Douglas Johnson, NRLC’s legislative director wants Obama to apologize to his group or prove the documents they obtained are erroneous. Obama must “either declare the newly discovered documents to be forgeries and call for an investigation of the forgery, or admit that he had misrepresented his record on the live-born infants legislation (not just once, but for four years), and apologize to those he’s called liars,” Johnson told Townhall in an email.
Seems simple enough. Either Obama voted for infanticide or didn’t. If he didn’t, the records the group believes it has are forgeries (a-la CBS and Bush’s military records), or Obama doesn’t recall the vote exactly as it happened, or knows what happened, and is trying to appear much more moderate than his pro-abortion all-the-time record indicates.
But simply calling the group liars doesn’t help to clear up the situation. Are the documents forgeries or not Senator?
UPDATE: From the New York Sun, Obama flip-flops again:
“They have not been telling the truth,” Mr. Obama said. “And I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying.”
He added that it was “ridiculous” to suggest he had ever supported withholding lifesaving treatment for an infant. “It defies common sense and it defies imagination, and for people to keep on pushing this is offensive,” he said in the CBN interview.
But after rigorous defense of the untruth for years, throw another position under the bus — here comes the flip-flop:
His campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate, and a spokesman, Hari Sevugan, said the senator and other lawmakers had concerns that even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law.
In addition to the outrage from abortion opponents, a five-minute YouTube video now making the rounds highlights Mr. Obama’s opposition to the legislation. The clip, which has been viewed more than 230,000 times, features a testimonial from Jill Stanek, a former nurse who spearheaded the push for the bill in Illinois after witnessing a live infant discarded and left to die at the hospital where she worked.
The Obama camp continued misstating the facts even after the proof came out. Only after it’s obvious Obama failed to speak anything resembling the truth do they finally retract their original staunch defense of the absurdity and admit what they’ve been saying all along is … well … ummm … totally untrue.
Now you know who the “folks” are that were lying. (View the original documents yourself and see how the votes were recorded.)
Obama — pro-abortion, all the time (even if a baby survives and is born alive). What’s strange is after a baby is born, the idea it’s the woman’s choice about her body doesn’t exist anymore. So why be against legislation which doesn’t change the pro-abortion position, but protects innocent children?
We won’t call him a liar, but it’s another quick-reversal flip-flop with a full twist, just after he called people liars who were actually telling the truth. If Obama knew his claims were false (and just hoped he wouldn’t get caught), he’s represents not the hope of the future, but the worst of old-school politics. If he didn’t know his claims were false, he doesn’t have a firm enough grasp of the truth to be President, as he can’t even remember how he voted on critical issues.
With so many flip-flops, corrections, reversals, and “clarifications” issued by Obama, can you count on anything he says?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently called congressional Republicans who want up-or-down drilling votes “hand maidens of the oil companies.” Let’s call Pelosi what she is: House girl of the Big Wind boondogglers.
Though she seemingly backtracked on labeling drilling a “hoax” this week, Pelosi refuses to consider GOP energy proposals that don’t include massive government subsidies for so-called eco-alternatives that have never panned out.
Which brings us to Madame Speaker’s 2007 financial disclosure form. Schedule III lists “Assets and ‘Unearned Income'” of between $100,001-$250,000 from Clean Energy Fuels Corp. — Public Common Stock.
As reported on dontgomovement.com, Speaker Pelosi bought between $50,000 and $100,000 worth of stock in Pickens’ CLNE Corp. in May 2007 on the day of the initial public offering:
“She, and other investors, stand to gain a substantial return on their investment if gasoline prices stay high, and municipal, state and even the Federal governments start using natural gas as their primary fuel source. If gasoline prices fall? Alternative fuels and the cost to convert fleets over to them become less and less attractive.”
CLNE also happens to be the sponsor of Proposition 10, a ballot initiative in Pelosi’s home state of California to dole out a combined $10 billion in state and federal funds for renewable energy incentives — namely, natural gas and wind.
Methinks Madam Speaker doth protest too much by calling others in the pocket of “big oil”, while she has vested interests in something else.
And what about the citizen Pelosi holds hostage to high gas prices? She won’t even allow a vote or debate on the issue, instead taking a vacation (but has time for TV interviews). Here’s a novel idea, get back to Washington and do your job.
Is it any wonder Congress under Reid/Pelosi has the lowest approval rating …. ever (in single digits) — much less than half of one of the most unpopular presidents ever. Pelosi has been saying Democrats have a plan to lower gas prices. Where is it? Will it materialize after her vacation? What is she waiting for?
So much for leadership. But of course, if someone has a financial interest in a certain outcome, nobody should be surprised if they don’t represent what the vast majority of citizens want.
Remember years back the big fear was a new ice age? Recently the frenzy has been global warming — the ice caps are melting, polar bears dying, worldwide floods, doom doom doom, and so on. But the Chicago Tribune reports this current decade is the *coolest* since 1930.
Global cooling anyone? Let’s all buy a hummer so we don’t start an ice age!
August is the wettest and often the muggiest month of the year. Yet, summer heat continues in short supply, continuing a trend that has dominated much of the 21st Century’s opening decade. There have been only 162 days 90 degrees or warmer at Midway Airport over the period from 2000 to 2008. That’s by far the fewest 90-degree temperatures in the opening nine years of any decade on record here since 1930.
And Speaker Pelosi won’t open drilling because she wants to save the planet from global warming? Yeah, right. Once again, the do-nothing Congress lets down the American people by pushing their own agenda instead of citizens’, who want to increase energy production and develop alternatives. Drill here, drill now, pay less.
Get back to Washington and do your job. The American people are canceling their vacations while Congress takes a break.