This is the result of running a war like it isn’t a war, but a law enforcement problem.

Andy McCarthy:

In an astounding finale to the first military-commission trial, Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s personal aide, has been sentenced by a military commission to five-and-a-half years in prison — five-and-a-half years — upon conviction for the war crime of providing material support to al-Qaeda.

It gets worse. The military judge, Naval Captain Keith Allred, has decided that Hamdan should be credited with the five years he has already spent in custody.

In effect, the jury’s shameful 66-month sentence is thus reduced to a shocking six months — for key assistance to a terror network that has killed thousands of Americans and continues plotting to kill more.

~~~

In Hamdan’s case, we thus have a double problem. First, the jury of military officers somehow decided that material support to our enemies, by a guy who actually protected bin Laden and transported weapons for al-Qaeda, was worth only five-and-a-half years in jail. Second, the judge then made matters incalculably worse by effectively giving Hamdan what everyone (including the judge) must know will be taken as a get-out-of-jail card: i.e., full credit for the five years Hamdan has already been in custody as an enemy combatant. That turns the 66 months into six months.

Understand: there is no requirement to try captured enemy combatants for war crimes. As the laws of war have long provided, and as the Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed, wartime enemy combatants may be held without trial for the duration of hostilities. War crimes charges are an additional measure against combatants who commit egregious law-of-war violations.

Yet, that distinction has been lost in the media’s coverage. Absurdly, Hamdan is now in a better position as a convicted war-criminal than those who have merely been detained as enemy combatants without war crimes charges. The American military has managed to value terrorist war crimes as a less serious impropriety than terrorist war participation. Instead of highlighting Hamdan’s conviction, the government will now spend its time explaining why he is still being held after his sentence is over.

~~~

Hamdan’s commission has produced a trial that seems to have bent over backwards to be fair to the defendant — so much so that dubious evidentiary rulings and jury instructions may have caused an unmerited acquittal on one of the two charges. More significantly, it has resulted in a sentence that is stunningly unjust, by any measure, given the magnitude of the crime of conviction.

It’s too late to do anything about the horrible SCOTUS decision that brought this about but ensuring that Obama doesn’t get to nominate the next justice is now that much more important. Imagine the damage to this country a liberal court could do?

Just 2,737 copies sold thus far despite the full media blitz by the Speaker to boost sales.

Meanwhile, anti-Obama books are all the rage:

#1 on the Amazon list: “Obama Nation”
#3 “The Case Against Barack Obama”
#6 Dick Morris’s “Fleeced”

Recent comments left at the Amazon site describing the book may explain why sales are so flat:

• “If this book doesn’t wake up Americans about the shallowness of the people in power, nothing will. Read this and tell me how it’s possible this person could wield the political power she does. Might be time to migrate to New Zealand.”
• “A total waste of time and money. If you are thinking about buying this book, you’d get more enjoyment in tossing the money out the window of a car at 60 mph and watching it flutter in the wind rather than be tortured by the vacuous content of this work. Worst of the worst books I have ever read.”
• “This book was extremely helpful. I am serious it makes a good door stop. It could also be used to be placed underneath your AC when its not evenly aligned.”
• “I just finished reading this book. It was very hard to get through. I found it poorly written as well. With respect to what she wrote, I find none of it believable. “
• “Actually full disclosure my (very liberal) sister bought it as a gag birthday gift. ..One of the most damning things I can say about any book is that I found myself day dreaming while I was reading it; I was that bored. I found it difficult be read because Speaker Pelosi has perfected the art of using a bunch of words but not actually saying anything.”
• “I guess the real message to America’s daughters is “Don’t grow up to be an angry, bitter, botoxed anti-American liberal.”

Don’t worry Nancy. You can always force your Union buddies to buy this book by the crate and give out as souvenirs.

I’m not making this up but a Los Angeles “creative company” wants this to be Obama’s new salute!

“Our goal is to see a crowd of 75,000 people at Obama’s nomination speech holding their hands above their heads, fingers laced together in support of a new direction for this country, a renewed hope, and acceptance of responsibility for our future,” says Rick Husong, owner of The Loyalty Inc.
…
“We want to see it everywhere, but more importantly we want this sign to take the world by storm.”

Well, it certainly is good for a laugh. I guess the creative types in L.A. didn’t think what instant connotations a hole would have for their candidate who is so full of himself already!

Reality is something different.

Here’s Hillary with a group of her supporters in California at the end of July. In this first clip Hillary discusses what type of role she and her delegates (at least one of whom was in the group) wanted to have at the convention.

In this second clip she makes it even more clear:

Clearly things aren’t so great in Democrat unity land! Hillary Clinton supporters are NOT giving up and will make their voice heard in Denver.

Won’t that be fun!

Hillary’s camp is playing it well… innocently suggesting a good venting for her disgruntled supporters is the way to go. This, of course, means putting Hillary on the roll call and allowing a vote… even if she loses.

Exactly what the formal nominating process will look like at the convention remains an open question. Last week, Hillary Clinton told supporters in a meeting in Palo Alto, Calif., posted on YouTube, that she was looking for a “strategy” to keep the peace and that sometimes a “catharsis” is necessary. Her comments were read by some as suggesting that the process could require a roll-call vote that would enumerate her supporters, even though she would still lose the nomination.

“The best way I think to do that is to have a strategy so that my delegates feel like they’ve had a role and that their legitimacy has been validated,” she said.

“It’s as old as Greek drama,” Clinton said. “There’s a catharsis. Everybody comes, and they want to yell and scream and have their opportunity, and I think that’s all to the good.”

WaPo prefaced Obama’s reaction in a way that caught my interest…

But yesterday, Obama backed away from the idea of using a vote on the convention floor as a venting session.

“I’m letting our respective teams work out the details,” he told reporters on his campaign plane when asked about the convention standoff. “I don’t think we’re looking for catharsis. I think what we are looking for is energy and excitement about the prospects of changing this country, and I think that people who supported a whole range of different candidates during the primaries are going to come out of that convention feeling absolutely determined that we have to take the White House back.”

Just “yesterday”?? Was there a moment prior to this where he agreed a roll call vote was in order? And if he did, is it his less than impressive poll numbers that has caused him to change his mind?

The roll call vote is the hot night ticket… perhaps the only one worthy of watching. They project *if* it happens, it will be either Tuesday night or Wednesday.

Then, of course, there’s Teflon Bill… the former DNC darling who was reduced to being everyone’s pain in the butt this past primary.

Former president Bill Clinton is almost certain to play a role, perhaps on Wednesday, Aug. 27, advisers said, despite his lukewarm embrace so far of the Democratic candidate. His apparent reluctance to declare that Obama is qualified for the presidency in an interview with ABC this week left Obama aides rolling their eyes. Bill Clinton and Obama held their second phone conversation since the end of the primaries this week, aides said, part of a thawing process that the two sides hope will accelerate as the month goes on.

~~~

Aides are not yet specifying when Bill Clinton would make his appearance or how it would be shaped. Some Obama advisers have been vexed by the former president’s lackluster praise for the presumptive Democratic nominee: Last weekend, in his first extensive interviews since the primaries, Clinton offered tepid praise for Obama, describing him as simply “smart” and a “good politician” and saying there are demographic trends that would “work in any Democrat’s favor.”

Still, the Clintons — especially the senator, aides said — are eager to be seen making an enthusiastic push for Obama. Advisers said the two sides have agreed that, despite the recent awkwardness, the former president should be a part of the convention.

UPDATE: According to an MSNBC First Read breaking news, they say he has been offered a Wednesday speaking role.

Despite Clinton’s fall from favor with the party, when the man is on, he is on. I always thought he missed his calling… would make a great stand up comedian. But I suspect they’ll keep Bill’s presentations far from any Obama slot. The former President’s easy southern “charm” will easily dwarf Obama - a sharp contrast to Obama’s Chicago slick chic.

Larry Johnson was doing some comparing of Howard Dean to the ill-fated Titanic captain on his No Quarters blog today. He had an apt summary of His Messiahship, which echoes my thoughts that the convention may result in nothing but Obama fatigue.

The warning signs are everywhere. Barky Obama has no sense of humor, prickly thin skin, an ego the size of an artic iceberg, and is getting no traction in the pulls. In fact, the more folks learn about him the less they like him.

No… BHO will not want any competition from Bill.. or anyone. He can not risk appearing who he is by having another dynamic individual in close proximity.

Nights guaranteed to be the prozac nights? Monday, with Michelle O and Ted Kennedy… along with a biographical film on the latter. Somehow I’m quite sure that Chappaquiddick will not be part of that production…

Also “at least one” biographical film about Obama. Oh my word… does the world have to be subjected to more? Mercy.. I hope they let me know when that is so I can tune elsewhere…

The WaPo report does bring up an unavoidable fact. For a guy who’s trying to unite the country, so far he’s done a less than impressive job of uniting his own party. Here we are, a few weeks out from the convention, and they deftly avoided the Clinton supporters thus far.

I don’t see how Obama or the party can possibly deny HRC supporters the roll call vote, and still “desperately cling” to any “hope” of “changing” their minds about his candidacy.

UPDATE: According to an Aug 1st NY Daily News article, Hillary has decided against filing the letter of formal request, asking to be nominated. However during a roll call, delegates can cast their votes for whomever they wish. Sources are anticipating Hillary will release her delegates, but not until her convention speech. END UPDATE

The dangers of a roll call vote are obvious - it may point out just how razor thin a victory he has. In fact, so slim that it takes the supers to put him over the top for the required votes. And considering a hoopla of Obama extravaganza that’s tandamount to a “This is your life, Barack Obama” celebration, he may find he does little more than alienate a hefty portion of his own party with his inflated ego.

Then, of course, there is my favorite scenerio. They’ve got all the Obama glory moments and hype lined up, glossy and slick Hollywood productions of adoring crowds and Obama looking Presidential - all ready to air on the big screens… and poof! Supers, looking at the poll numbers, bolt to Hillary and totally screw up the schedule and presentation.

Ah… not likely to happen, I know. But one can dream, yes? The DNC would never allow it to happen. All that cost and preparation going down the drain. I have to wonder, are they calling supers now, making sure they are still promoting the right nominee?

It has been a whirlwind couple of weeks, as I reached out to other credentialed bloggers and began forming my strategy for this convention.

I am working closely with the Grizzly Groundswell to coordinate blogging, video feeds and talk radio coverage for this convention. I am looking forward to meeting other credentialed bloggers and working together to bring the Convention to you!

If you look at the tabs above the header image of MidnightBlue you will see a tab for “Mogulus.” This is an exciting new feature to the blog that I am developing to showcase my videos from the Convention.

What is Mogulus? The creators of Mogulus have this to say about their product:

Mogulus is the most powerful live broadcast platform on the internet. Producers can use the Mogulus browser-based Studio application to create LIVE, scheduled and on-demand internet television to broadcast anywhere on the web through a single player widget.

Free (ad-supported) and Pro (white-label, no-ads, pay for usage).

Unique features include the ability to mix multiple live cameras, imported videos clips, and overlay graphics.With Mogulus, producers can broadcast live from a mobile phone; use a customizable flash player with integrated chat; and develop a branded channel page on Mogulus.com that incorporates interactive chat.

I’ve found out some details regarding the type of internet access and its cost for the bloggers. Ed Morrissey provides the details in this Hot Air post:

Qwest will provide high-speed Internet access via an Ethernet connection within the Convention Complex.

This service is for public Internet access only. This service does not provide any security capabilities or protections. The customer should ensure that any computers connected are properly protected and secured.

Qwest will provide the customer with a RJ45 plug for each 10 Mbps and 100 Mbps service and a fiber optic SC/PC connector for each 1 Gbps service. The service does not provide any hardware or cabling beyond the plug. The RJ45 cabling provided will be approximately 6ft in length.

10 Mbps (Dedicated) - $850.00
100 Mbps (Dedicated) - $7,650.00
1 Gbps (Dedicated) - $53,550.00

I am looking into getting an ATT air card to use at this convention. The RNC Convention does provide free internet access at the Media Filing Center. I believe that is located across the street from the Xcel Energy Center. As with any adventure there are always complications, but I am confident that I will be able to work out my access issues.

As for the DNC Convention: It seems as though Send in the Clowns and don’t forget your PeaceBat are the order of business for the Convention.

Technorati Tags: GOP Convention

Tom Burnett Sr. entered the lion’s den on Saturday to oppose the crescent memorial to Flight 93 (now called a broken circle). An excerpt from the beginning of the Somerset Daily American’s banner headline story about division amongst the families:

“Tom Burnett Jr. led the effort to take the plane back,” his father said. “When I was on the design jury, I saw the red crescent of embrace and realized it was an obvious and blatant symbol of Islam. It does not properly honor our people — those Flight 93 heroes. I think it’s a travesty that it’s moved along so fast.”

He called for an investigation into the design. When he has brought up his concerns, some of the task force and advisory commission members have dismissed him, he said.

“This is a cataclysmic mistake,” he said. “I’m going to save you from yourselves. I’d like to ask for an unbiased, transparent, honest investigation. This is just a terrible, terrible mistake. I’m asking every American — we must stop this mistake. This panel doesn’t own the design, I don’t own it, Pennsylvania doesn’t own it, all of America and all of the world own it.”

He said he is also tired of the controversy, but that they must honor the heroes properly. It will reverberate in history.

“I’m not going to stop fighting this thing, it is very, very bad,” Burnett said. “Wake up. Get your heads out of the sand.”

Other Flight 93 family members roared back. What is usually a three hour quarterly meeting of the Memorial Project stretched to five hours as over twenty people signed up to speak on both sides.

One side wants scrutiny. The other is desperate to avoid it.

The pattern at the meeting was simple and consistent. Critics of the crescent design pointed out damning facts and called for independent investigation. Defenders of the broken circle insisted that there is nothing to investigate, and cried out for critics of the design to stop putting them through this agony.

If the claims of the critics are not accurate, independent investigation would end the agony. If the crescent/broken-circle does not actually point within two degrees of Mecca, then put this explosive claim to rest by showing where the crescent does point. If there are not actually to be 44 inscribed translucent blocks emplaced along the flight path (matching the number of passengers, crew, and terrorists), it is a simple matter of opening up the design drawings and counting.

If the defenders of the crescent had truth on their side, they would be eager to have it exposed. Unfortunately for them, the giant crescent does point to Mecca, and somehow they don’t want the public to know it.

Todd Beamer’s father is on the side of the crescent?

The highest profile defender of the crescent design was Mr. David Beamer, whose son Todd issued the “Let’s roll” signal to re-take Flight 93. Mr. Beamer, beloved by conservatives for his opposition to Congressman Murtha, had not previously taken a public position on the crescent design. He has apparently gotten involved in fundraising for the memorial, and announced at the meeting that he has undertaken two months of due diligence, looking into criticisms of the design.

Listeners expected Mr. Beamer to continue with a report on his fact-checking efforts, but he did not have a single word to say about any of the claims that Mr. Rawls and Mr. Burnett have put forward, launching instead into an extended condemnation of Alec Rawls for his “obsessive” persistence.

If he found that the giant crescent does not point to Mecca, surely he would have said so. Similarly for the terrorist memorializing block count, or the placement of the 9/11 date in the exact position of the star on an Islamic crescent and star flag. What better way to be rid of this dastardly Rawls fellow than to expose his claims as a fraud?

Mr. Beamer’s silence about what he found speaks volumes, and not just about the crescent design. Who could fact check these claims and then be silent about his findings?

Don’t look at the design drawings!

Every defender of the crescent had his own scheme of evasion and obfuscation. Patrick White, Vice President of Families of Flight 93, took Alec Rawls to task for holding up a 2005 graphic of the top of the Tower of Voices, where an Islamic shaped crescent soars in the sky above the symbolic lives of the 40 heroes. This old graphic should not be taken as indicative of the current design Mr. White suggested, as the design has evolving for three years now. Yet the exact same graphic was brought to the meeting by the Memorial Project itself, and was on display right outside the courtroom where the meeting was held.

That’s going to make some great video, as will one particularly scurrilous attack on Mr. Burnett, and the victim card played by Project Superintendent Joanne Hanley. Several videographers will be sending raw footage, which Alec will start putting together when he returns to California next week.

Big enough to check the facts yet?

How big does the conflict have to get before some major media outlet is willing to do their jobs and actually check the facts for themselves? David Dunbar and Brad Reagan of Popular Mechanics were willing to fact-check the “9/11 truth” morons, finding that most of their evidence is deliberately taken out of context, and that none of their claims stand up to the least bit of scrutiny.

Come on PM. If we are a bunch of frauds then we are just as much in need of debunking. We’ve even got Flight 93 family members at loggerheads and crying out for relief. What are you waiting for? (A handy dandy list of damning facts to check here.)

To join our blogbursts, just send your blog’s url.

Written by Alec Rawls

A man who authorities said was keeping weapons and military-style gear in his hotel room and car appeared in court Thursday on charges he threatened to assassinate Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Raymond Hunter Geisel, 22, was arrested by the Secret Service on Saturday in Miami and was ordered held at Miami’s downtown detention center without bail Thursday by a federal magistrate.

A Secret Service affidavit charges that Geisel made the threat during a training class for bail bondsmen in Miami in late July. According to someone else in the 48-member class, Geisel allegedly referred to Obama with a racial epithet and continued, “If he gets elected, I’ll assassinate him myself.”

Obama was most recently in Florida on Aug. 1-2 but did not visit the South Florida area.

Another person in the class quoted Geisel as saying that “he hated George W. Bush and that he wanted to put a bullet in the president’s head,” according to the Secret Service.

CNN’s: (click to see larger version)

And CBS:

UPDATED

As I guessed, CNN finally added the Bush threat but only after some two hours of hate spewed in the comment section directed at the evil white man. Bob Owens has the details:

Sometime later—perhaps the 8:19PM update now showing—CNN finally posted the entire story, including the threats made by the suspect against President Bush.

After 3-4 hours of letting half-truths percolate to establish the narrative, CNN then they filled in the rest of the story, after the damage was done.

Iraq and the U.S. are near an agreement on all American combat troops leaving Iraq by October 2010, with the last soldiers out three years after that, two Iraqi officials told The Associated Press on Thursday. U.S. officials, however, insisted no dates had been agreed.

The proposed agreement calls for Americans to hand over parts of Baghdad’s Green Zone — where the U.S. Embassy is located — to the Iraqis by the end of 2008. It would also remove U.S. forces from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, according to the two senior officials, both close to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and familiar with the negotiations.

The officials, who spoke separately on condition of anonymity because the talks are ongoing, said all U.S. combat troops would leave Iraq by October 2010, with the remaining support personnel gone “around 2013.” The schedule could be amended if both sides agree — a face-saving escape clause that would extend the presence of U.S. forces if security conditions warrant it.

Lots of caveats in the plan. Troops will be regulated to a support role in 2010 IF the Iraqi Army can shoulder the operational role on its own. All troops will be out of Iraq by 2013 IF the security conditions warrant it.

Basically it comes down to two plans. Obama’s earlier plan was bringing the troops home in defeat. Bush’s plan was bringing the troops home in victory.

Of course Obama has changed his plans after being proven wrong on the surge, but either way. One didn’t care if we ran and hid. The other wanted us home only after we won.

Allah makes some predictions:

Bush will, of course, emphasize that the time frame here is conditions-based (presumably with Obama’s approval), but expectations have a momentum all their own. Barring a severe deterioration in security, public pressure on the Iraqi government to enforce the timetable now that they’ve committed to it will be intense, if for no other reason than that Sadr is already making a stink about it and will demagogue it to gain leverage over them if they fail to follow through. Likely result: The IA will be pressed into a lead role before they’re ready and some of those “residual” U.S. troops will find themselves drafted back into a combat/peacekeeper role. That’s probably the most politically palatable solution for all sides, since it would maintain the all-important reduction in absolute numbers while allowing for a more vigorous presence below the radar than the timetable imagines.

Interesting prediction and one that I could definitely see coming if we do take out the combat troops before the Iraqi Army is ready. Austin Bay has a great interview with General Petraeus over at Pajamas Media and one of his questions deals directly with the huge gains made in Iraq and how those gains have made possible the reposturing of our forces:

MR. BAY: Well that that leads to my next question. It does strike me that we are in a moment of – strategic change. The military uses the term posturing reposturing–it’s a process but it’s a change from what coalition forces have been doing more of in the past to coalition forces doing less and Iraqi forces doing more.

In Iraq, are we at a time of strategic change?

GENERAL PETRAEUS: Well, we’ve been at moments of strategic change. I don’t think — these are not light-switch moments, Austin, and what you have is more of a rheostat — many, many rheostat moments where, in small areas, local areas, districts and eventually provinces, there is an ongoing transition, and has been an ongoing transition, for the Iraqi forces to step more into the lead and for the Coalition forces to step back and to provide support and enablings. And this has been ongoing for some time.

In fact, there’s no way that we could have achieved, and by “we” I mean now the Iraqi and Coalition Forces together, that we could have achieved the security gains of the past year, eighteen months, but particularly since we began reducing the surge forces.

The fact is that we’re at the lowest level of security incidents, and have been now, for over two months, since March of 2004, despite the fact that we had drawn down our forces by the five army brigade combat teams of the surge and the two marine battalions and marine expeditionary units and a handful of smaller units as well.

And what has enabled that is the damage done to Al-Qaeda, Iraq and its extremist allies and to the militia and so-called special groups and the steady growth in not just number but capabilities of Iraqi forces.

And it’s very important to remember that the Iraqi surge continues, and their surge was many multiples of our surge. They’re at 140,000 additional soldiers and police since we began the surge back in early 2007, and continuing to grow, and, more importantly, growing in terms of professionalism, in terms of capability and so forth.

Again, I don’t want to overstate this at all. First of all, the enemy remains lethal, resilient and very dangerous, and we’ve seen instances of that in recent weeks. And Iraqi forces remain uneven in many respects. But, over time, that unevenness is, frankly, less so, and what you have is many more Iraqi units doing a credible job and many of them actually doing quite well.

In fact, our leaders assess that over 110 of Iraq’s army combat battalion, this is just the army now, but including their special operations forces, over 100 of those battalions are actually in the lead on the ground. And that’s quite a considerable change over the years.

Again, all that we and the Iraqis have accomplished over the last year and half would not have been possible if we had listened to Obama in Jan of 2007.

Thank god no one listened to him. Now we have to hope he is equally ignored on the ballot come November.

The article even dares to broach the reason for the precipitous drop. In my mind, that can hardly be a question. Barack Obama has the most radical pro-abortion position in Presidential election history and the word is getting out.

How radical is it? Well for one thing, He opposed a ban on the killing of fetuses born alive during abortion in Illinois. Yes, you read that right. (This was started by the experience of a traumatized abortion nurse who was not even allowed to hold a surviving child, but instructed to put ‘it’ in the trash.) From Broder’s article, this was his rationale:

Mr. Obama has said he had opposed the bill because it was poorly drafted and would have threatened the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade that established abortion as a constitutional right. He said he would have voted for a similar bill that passed the United States Senate because it did not have the same constitutional flaw as the Illinois bill.

It was “poorly drafted”. How slippery can you get? He “would have voted”; how convenient! Have you noticed this is a pattern for him? It’s a clever way of appearing to be on both sides of an issue.

The other issue is “partial birth abortion”. This is a procedure wherein a baby is partially delivered with only the head in the womb. The base of the skull is then punctured, the hole is widened, and the brain is suctioned out, collapsing the skull, while the child is still living. Even if you are “pro-choice”, you can certainly see that this is beyond words. (Maybe we can have a discussion later about cutting up or burning alive babies over the course of hours inside the womb, but that’s another matter.)

Even some of the most liberal like Hilary Clinton couldn’t bring themselves to vote against banning that. You’d have to be pretty completely sold out to the powerful abortion lobby to stand up in public and support such a grisly procedure. [The ‘powerful’, government-supported, billion-dollar plus abortion business is the largest unregulated industry in our country and their political, lobbying and legal insinuation everywhere is truly mind-boggling. The only possible reason I can see for opposing this ban is feeling beholden to their influence.]

So what is Barry’s position on this? When the Supreme Court upheld the ban on partial abortion, Obama called a special press conference to attack the court for their terrible decision. He was one of the very few. In fact, this was a rare occasion when he lost his smooth veneer and showed considerable emotion over the audacity of the Court in making such a decision. This is radical; this is unprecedented in a Presidential candidate.

How can ANY Catholic, Church-going or not, (or any thinking, feeling human being for that matter) identify with this? We wouldn’t do this to our dogs or kittens! [It is against the law to do so, unlike our children.]

As for believing Catholics, I think Denver’s Archbishop summed it up well:

Archbishop Chaput wrote that Catholics could support a politician who supported abortion only if they had a “compelling proportionate reason” to justify it. “What is a ‘proportionate’ reason when it comes to the abortion issue?” the archbishop wrote. “It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life — which we most certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed.

Catholics have always highly valued and fought for “social justice” issues, while seeing the drawbacks of both socialism and untrammeled capitalism, and rightly so. Perhaps, there is a way you, as a Catholic, could twist your self into voting for some ‘pro-choice’ candidates and be able to justify this, approximating the standard outlined by the Bishop. However, can any person, even non-believers, see how a believer could, with any self-integrity, vote for a man who has gone as far as Obama?

Lately, Barack tried what amounted to a feint in the direction of pro-life Democrats. He said he would be able to oppose late-term abortions if the woman was only doing it for reasons of “feeling blue”. However, a later, very vague retraction later showed us this was merely a feint. This was that old, by now familiar, both-sides-of-an-issue ploy that leaves us all scratching our heads. It doesn’t really matter. How can anything he says now about anything matter at all? All we know about this particular issue is, he didn’t NEED to come out with a press conference supporting Partial Birth Abortion, and HE DID. That speaks volumes.

So, for all you Catholics out there who see Barry beckoning towards you enticingly, his refined fingers rolling towards himself, pinkie through index, his smiling face wreathed with seraphic light dreamily mouthing his inviting words, please notice that dripping from those stylish fingers is innocent blood.

Dunno what’s my favorite. I think it’s the portapotty raid, but the Electric Avenue one got me to laugh pretty well, and I REALLY laughed at the one where the guy’s peering into the serene video on a laptop when the (blank) appears and scares him.

7yrs of war…there’s gonna be some mistakes, and some dark humor in the face of adversity.
God love em!

Thanks y’all!!!

If YOU voted for a Democrat for Congress in 2006, YOU voted for higher gas prices!

Happy Now?

Ready for a change? Vote Republican in 2008!

President Bush greets children after lunch at the presidential Blue House in Seoul, Aug. 6. President Bush is in South Korea on the first leg of his Asian tour. Mandel Ngan-AFP/Getty Images

On the heels of “The One“, and his One World Rock Tour, comes President Bush, on his way to China for the Olympics.

Bottomline Upfront (who is now stationed in Korea, btw):

As President Bush arrived in Seoul, Korea today, the media predicted that Bush’s visit would be met with “large protests”.

The “progressives” and anti-U.S. civic groups thought the turn out opposing Bush would be huge:

“We predict more than 10,000 citizens will participate. We’ll show Korean people’s voice to Bush,”’ one member of the coalition said.

However, 374 conservative groups planned pro-American demonstrations welcoming Bush in Seoul Plaza, just a short distance from the progressive’s rally site.

Turns out, only a couple hundred protesters came out while 15,000 pro-U.S. Koreans came out to welcome Bush into the capital city of Seoul.

Visit Amy Proctor’s blog, for video footage from Korean TV news. Amy also notes,

None of the pro-Bush rallies were government sponsored; they were voluntary rallies by Koreans who appreciate Pres. Bush and the United States.

Reuters corrected it’s headline from: Bush arrives in Seoul, faces large anti-US protest to Bush arrives in Seoul amid minor protest

Korean moonbats:

Aug 5: South Korean protesters wearing masks of President Bush and South Korean President Lee Myung-bak perform during a rally against Bush’s visit in Seoul. South Koreans are concerned about the importing of U.S. beef and mad cow disease. Ahn Young-joon-AP

Ain’t freedom a wonderful thing?

Rather than mad cow disease, those protesters should be worried about the BDS koolaid in their water supply.

Fortunately, Korean war veterans don’t suffer from the same BDS malady that their moonbat brethren are afflicted with:

Aug 5: South Korean war veterans rally to welcome Bush’s arrival in Seoul.

They must share something in common with these heroes:

President Bush addresses military personnel at the U.S. Army Garrison-Yongsan in Seoul, Aug. 6. Gerald Herbert-AP

President Bush greets U.S. military personnel stationed at the U.S. Army Garrison - Yongsan in Seoul, before departing for Thailand. Larry Downing-Reuters

RALEIGH, N.C. — Former Sen. John Edwards has a deadline to save his spot on the national stage.

With two weeks to go before their national convention, a number of Democrats are saying that Edwards needs to publicly address National Enquirer stories that have alleged he had an affair with a campaign worker and fathered her baby.

If Edwards fails to clear up the story in short order, he risks party officials deciding not to have him speak or, if they do, creating a distraction from a week focused on Barack Obama accepting the nomination.

“If there is not an explanation that’s satisfactory, acceptable and meets high moral standards, the answer is ‘no,’ he would not be a prime candidate to make a major address to the convention,” said Don Fowler, a former Democratic National Committee chair.

Democrats gather in Denver on Aug. 25 and Edwards, as the 2004 vice presidential nominee and a presidential candidate who won delegates this year, ordinarily would be locked in as a speaker.

No way, no how, can the MSM ignore this story if he is ousted from his speaker role at the convention. They can spin it anyone they want, but the simple fact that the story is so controversial that it prevents him from speaking should wake the MSM up from their slumber. A slumber that usually only occurs when a big D is beside the perpetrator.

I love these two paragraphs in the story tho.

“He absolutely does have to (resolve it). If it’s not true, he has to issue a stronger denial,” said Gary Pearce, the Democratic strategist who ran Edwards’ 1998 Senate race. “It’s a very damaging thing. …

“The big media has tried to be responsible and handle this with kid gloves, but it’s clearly getting ready to bust out. If it’s not true, he’s got to stand up and say, ‘This is not true. That is not my child and I’m going to take legal action against the people who are spreading these lies.’ It’s not enough to say, ‘That’s tabloid trash,’ ” Pearce said.

I’m sure that same MSM would have handled the whole thing with kid gloves if it had happened to be Fred Thompson, or Mitt.

Laugh.