A frequent, albeit, shallow argument, should you venture into a discussion of Islam and violence is that; Christians and Jews have violence in their histories just like Islam. The implication being that you can’t make the “violence” argument against Islam since all three faiths have a measure of violence in their history. That argument is based on the logic that three wrongs make a right and if someone else did it than it must be OK for me to do it too.

The intellectual disconnect revolves around what is history and what is doctrine. Clearly, violence is present in the histories of all three major monotheistic faiths. In Judaism and Christianity violence is a historical fact; however, there is no open ended doctrine urging the faithful to ongoing violence as a commitment to faith. This fact is the most important and most frequently ignored portion of the “everyone was violent” argument. In Islam, ongoing violence as a means to propagate the faith is well ensconced both historically and, most importantly, as a matter of doctrine. Both the Quran and the Hadith sanction violence both generally and specifically, there are 26 sections of the Quran dedicated to militarism and violence. Jihad is to be never ending until the world has recognized or submitted to the supremacy of Islam, Allah, and of the Prophet Mohammed as his messenger. As a matter of long standing doctrine, Infidels must be converted, subjugated or killed.

Further, if you consider the Islamic idea of abrogation where later verses of the Quran supersede earlier ones and apply that standard to the evolution of Judaism as the foundation for Christianity the relativity argument simply does not hold up. Christianity, as doctrine, calls on its adherents to “love thy neighbor”, “turn the other cheek” and so on. Violence as an institutional prerogative does not exist in Judaism or in Christianity. It can be argued that Christianity “abrogated” the violence of the Old Testament with the pacifism of the New Testament. The fact remains that in neither Judaism nor Christianity is the application of violence a matter of fundamental doctrine.

That is clearly not the direction abrogation took in Islam. In the earlier portions of the Quran the Prophet was frequently engaged with and was clearly influenced by Jews and Zoroastrians. This was a period of relative calm in Islam as the Prophet received his first visitations from the Angel Gabriel and began his mission of propagating Islam.

In later times as Mohammed encountered resistance, in some cases armed resistance; his visions took on a different tenor and began to adopt a distinctly militaristic tone. It is these verses that abrogate and replace earlier ones according to many Islamic scholars. It is clear that as Mohammed faced specific challenges, more violently orientated visions conveniently addressed the challenge of the day abrogating earlier ones more in line with the initial influences on Mohammed. The Imperialism of early Islam grew ever more dependant on the later versus of the Quran to justify ongoing violence.

In the case of both Christianity and Islam, Jesus and Mohammed, respectively, are held out as perfect examples of a perfect life. Violence, in the case of Jesus, is essentially absent from the telling of his life and teachings. Not so the case in Islam as the Hadith recounts many circumstances where Mohammed was involved in directing, motivating as well as participating in violence against those that stood against him. This is a fundamental rational in Islam regarding the acceptability of violence as the foundation of Jihad, a theme well evolved, interpreted and communicated by fundamentalists. If the Prophet engaged in any particular behavior, the Prophet, as a representation of a perfect life justifies the behavior in others.

The occurrence of violence is a fact in religious history but in Islam violence is a matter of prescribed doctrine.

 While we observe the ongoing search for politically correct justifications of Islamic behaviors, the facts of the belief system must also be considered. It is, thankfully, true that most Muslims eschew the violence we have seen over the last month. Consider however, that if only 10% of worldwide Muslims adopt a more fundamentalist view promulgated by Jihadists that 10% population represents over one hundred and twenty million people.

We all hope for that outcome; however you can be assured that the Islamist world is already pouncing on the statements by the Attorney General and the President as proof positive that KSM’s trial is nothing more than the show trial they have already predicted.  Rookie mistake gentlemen!

If this trial is supposed to demonstrate something positive about the American legal system to the Muslim world, a predetermination of guilt by its two senior legal officials will have the bloom off that rose in a big hurry and support the propaganda based stereotypes already well ensconced in the Muslim world.  “See we told you!” I hear Middle Eastern laughter as they absorb the message that non combatant terrorists on American soil will have better odds of surviving the murder of American citizens than if they engage American armed forces on the battlefield, but I digress.     

There are vagaries in our legal system; the game must be played to determine a winner.  Being both blessed and cursed by a status that does not include the title of lawyer we, nevertheless, venture forth reliant on common sense.

 What could possibly go wrong?

State of Mind:  Will KSM make the argument that due to enhanced interrogation techniques, he now suffers from a permanent mental deficit rendering him ineligible for a formal guilty verdict.  Could he be innocent by reason of insanity?  Well, yea, I think he’s crazy but no one asked.  The counter argument to that contention will be the extensive medical precautions taken during interrogation, but if that issue is introduced can we assume that other issues related to the interrogations can then be introduced as well?  If the interrogations required such extensive medical oversight can we assume that they were, in fact, brutal torture?  Why else provide all that medical oversight?  Will these contentions evolve to be a precedent at trial?  What will the cherry-picked “experts” say about KSM’s state of mind and can they create the context for reasonable doubt?  Will former public statements by KSM be judged as evidence for his lack of mental balance?

Change of Venue:  This issue has been much discussed, with a couple of little details left out.  Where might KSM find a jury of his peers?  The defense will no doubt argue that angry New Yorkers are not KSM’s peers.  Which venue might be appropriate?  There are a variety of Muslim enclaves in America; Northern VA, Detroit Mi, Minneapolis, MN and Southern California to name a few.  Will defense attorneys argue that those venues are the only appropriate ones?  It only takes one juror to hang a jury.

Jury Selection:  If you are an observant Muslim or one that, at least, sympathize with Jihadist ideology you believe that you owe no allegiance to “governments created by men”, only to Allah’s law.  Might you lie about your attitudes during the Jury voir dere?  As a Muslim you are not required to tell the truth to infidels.   

Intelligence Sources and Methods: Mr. Holder is firm in his assertion that security and intelligence issues have been carefully considered by his team.  We hope so, but Mr. Holder represents only one half of the legal equation.  Information has already leaked that the defense will, no doubt, hold the government accountable to; information that was supposed to be classified and is no longer. 

The Backdoor: Is this trial a backdoor method of getting the folks who performed the interrogations and structured the legal opinions associated with those interrogations into the courtroom, under oath?   Has Mr. Holder anticipated that this strategy will be employed by the defense with secondary benefits to him in terms of future prosecutions of the interrogators and lawyers who provided the legal opinions that were the basis for the interrogations?  His and the President’s intent on this issue has been clear for quite some time; is this the method for the madness?

The Government’s Lawyers:  According to Andrew McCarthy (prosecuted 1^st World Trade Center Bombing) the same lawyers who are involved in preparing this trial are the guys that fought the government over military commissions at Gitmo, pro bono, including Mr. Holder’s former firm.  Mr. Holder scoffed at the very idea, during the Senate hearing yesterday but this dynamic has been reported for months and never refuted.  Mr. Holder refused to agree to Senate requests that he provide information on which members of his legal team were involved in those Military Commission motions during the Bush administration.  Mr. Holder agreed “to consider the request”.  That is bureaucratic speak for “not in this lifetime buddy!” 

Direct Testimony:  We already know that the Muslim Chaplin population at Gitmo was seriously tainted.  Will they be called to testify on behalf of KSM and The Boys?  Will they introduce testimony on behalf of the defense that sets the stage for the possibility of dismissal on technicalities? 

Validity: Will the process be subjected to long arguments about the fundamental validity of the proceeding?  Muslims of an ideology consistent to KSM and The Boys do not accept the idea of Infidels sitting in judgment on them.     

Discovery: Will the defense inundate the government with discovery requests that are designed to stretch the process and set the stage for the demand of classified materials?  Will the government be faced with the Hobson’s choice of putting the prosecution in jeopardy to the refusal to provide classified documents?

Appeal:  Is this trial simply about getting the result to an appeals Court, from the view of the defense?  If it is, the entire trial will be about motivating errors by prosecutors.  It is much easier to argue errors than to argue innocence.  We’ve all seen some very strange technical rulings from the courts; enough to give us pause about what the realities of this trial will actually be and what it is actually about.  

Who’s on Trial; Is KSM on trial or are Bush administration methods on trial?  Outside of political considerations it’s difficult to understand the motivation for moving KSM to a criminal trial when other lesser Jihadist lights are being committed to Military Commissions by Mr. Holder.  Politically motivated trials have some history of going very wrong based primarily on the idea that the individual on trial is simply a means to a political or ideological end. Hoping that is not the case, but………?!?

Yea, OK, what could possibly go wrong?

Report from Fox News:

WASHINGTON — After months of maneuvering, the Senate stands at the brink of a historic battle over health care with President Barack Obama and his allies on one side and Republicans, outnumbered but unflinching, on the other.

“Now it’s America’s turn, and this will not be a short debate,” Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, warned after Majority Leader Harry Reid unveiled long-awaited legislation Wednesday night to extend coverage to 30 million more Americans and force insurance companies to take all comers.

“Higher premiums, tax increases and Medicare cuts to pay for more government. The American people know that is not reform,” McConnell said.

The Congressional Budget Office targets the 10-year cost of the health care bill at $849 billion, funded with new and higher taxes and Medicare cuts that ultimately also would cut the deficit by an estimated $127 billion, bringing the total cost of the legislation to just under $1 trillion.

This bill cuts the deficit by raising $127 billion in new taxes that you will pay. It does not reduce the deficit by cutting spending or cutting health care costs. This is an accounting joke.

Furthermore, the coverage in Reid’s plan doesn’t begin until 2014 but everyone will begin paying taxes on it immediately. There is a good variety of new ways in which the federal government will suck wealth from the private sector, we’ll know more after a little time reviewing the bill.

Once again, also an accounting joke to pay taxes on this legislation for around 5 years before it even goes into affect. Once again, this is to offset the obscene costs and manipulate the numbers.

Hot Air comments:

Another week, another “scoring” of a bill that (a) looks nothing like what it’ll look like in its final form and (b) almost certainly has been crafted to hide certain key costs (a la “doctor fix” in the House bill) to improve its “score.” Realistically, the only time a CBO score matters is when it’s bad: Were this to come in at over $900 billion or be judged a deficit-buster over the long term, it would be rejected for failing to meet the White House’s baseline demands. But this one just makes the cut, so look for the obligatory back-pat in this weekend’s presidential message about it being a “fine starting point” or an “encouraging beginning” or whatever. Reid managed to come up with a bill that isn’t too expensive … for Barack Obama. Congratulations.

Reid, like Pelosi, has introduced a terrible piece of legislation which includes government-run health care and the American need to take notice. They want to pass this quick, like Saturday quick, since that is the only way they can ram this garbage through.

Report from Politico:

In the Battle of the Health Bills, the Senate wins out, bulk-wise – weighing in at 2,074 pages.

The House health reform bill was a mere 1,990 pages when introduced.

That means the Senate bill — like the one in the House — runs more pages than War and Peace, and has nearly five times as many words as the Torah.

The table of contents alone is 14 pages.

“Read the bill!” was a rallying cry of some health reform opponents over the summer. And if Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) gets his way, senators will get a chance to hear every word of it. He’s threatening to the read the legislation from start to finish, which by some estimates could take as long as 48 hours.

Lets hope Coburn holds true on his promise to force the reading. This needs to be stopped and delayed any way it possibly can.

More to come today and tomorrow on this topic.

Update

Reid’s plan forces everyone on the Government-run health care plan to fund abortion:

Just like the original 2,032-page, government-run health care plan from Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) massive, 2,074-page bill would levy a new “abortion premium” fee on Americans in the government-run plan.

Beginning on line 7, p. 118, section 1303 under “Voluntary Choice of Coverage of Abortion Services” the Health and Human Services Secretary is given the authority to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run health plan. Leader Reid’s plan also requires that at least one insurance plan offered in the Exchange covers abortions (line 13, p. 120).

What is even more alarming is that a monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run health plan. It’s right there beginning on line 11, page 122, section 1303, under “Actuarial Value of Optional Service Coverage.” The premium will be paid into a U.S. Treasury account – and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services.

So like it or not, you could be forced on the government-plan and then forced to pay for abortions.

Report from the DC Examiner:

President Obama is claiming success through his $787 billion stimulus package by way of the administration’s website recovery.gov. Visitors to the website will find that hundreds of jobs have been created or saved all across the country. Here are some of the statistics reported by recovery.gov:

• $34 million in stimulus money has been spent in Arizona’s 86th congressional district in a project for the Navajo Housing authority, which is actually located in the 1st congressional district.
• In Oklahoma, recovery.gov lists more than $19 million in spending — and 15 jobs created.
• In Iowa, it shows $10.6 million spent – and 39 jobs created.
• In Connecticut’s 42nd district, the Web site claims 25 jobs created with zero stimulus dollars.

The problem is these districts do not exist.

It doesn’t stop there, we’re taking this embarrassment on the road:

The list of spending and job creation in fictional congressional districts goes beyond just the 50 states. Stimulus money and job creation and saving extend to U.S. territories as well. Here is what territories outside the U.S, have received from tax payers:

• $68.3 million spent and 72.2 million spent in the 1st congressional district of the U.S. Virgin Islands.
• $8.4 million spent and 40.3 jobs created in the 99th congressional district of the U.S. Virgin Islands.
• $1.5 million spent and .3 jobs created in the 69th district and $35 million for 142 jobs in the 99th district of the Northern Mariana Islands.
• $47.7 million spent and 291 jobs created in Puerto Rico’s 99th congressional district.

With reports like this, we know that the jobs numbers coming from the Obama administration cannot and should not be trusted. Recovery.gov, which cost $18 million by the way, was setup specifically to track the failing Obama stimulus plan yet it is riddled with errors.

My question in all this is where has the hundreds of millions of dollars gone that was allegedly spent in these non-existent districts? Is it a total sham, are the numbers being made up including jobs and the amount spent? Or, perhaps, are the dollars being spent, just not for jobs?

The Examiner also put together this handy map of fraudulent job claims around the country:

It is a joke to think that a government which cannot even orchestrate giving away taxpayer money for free could operate our health care industry. The evidence mounts on a daily basis as to why we need to fight for our personal freedoms against this incompetence.

Here’s a good flashback when President Obama was arguing vehemently for his stimulus plan to spur economic growth and create jobs.

Skepticism? Ya think? 49 states have lost jobs despite your failed stimulus plan. Many of us knew it was a sham from the beginning and now we have the data to prove it.

Maybe this has something to do with it:

Uncle Joe will always be good for a chuckle.

But, fear not!  The White House is organizing a “Jobs Summit”.  The problem here is that 12 months of policy must be reversed or the answer will be that there are no jobs, no now and not in the foreseeable future! There will not be jobs for some time to come begging the logical question. Why?

Stimulus opted for political pork over productivity a lost opportunity of major proportions for the administration.  The short term result of the administration’s policies is the triple whammy of weak macro economic fundamentals, a weak dollar and no structural incentives to produce or maintain jobs. Coming soon to a job market near you is the potential for deficit motivated inflation and additional job losses as costs skyrocket based on a weakening economy and essential dollar devaluation.  Everything will cost more!     

Small business was essentially left out of the stimulus package.  The opportunity to use the SBA as an alternative vehicle for credit provision is absent.  Government guaranteed loans would have cost the government only a small percentage of the actual loan amounts.  Absent, as well, are incentives related to job creation for small business.  With a history of creating 80% of the new jobs in America this absence is glaring and must lead one to question the actual intent of the stimulus if not the wisdom of it.  OK, folks move, on nothing to see here, no jobs here. 

The stimulus package did not address the re-industrialization of America; there was certainly enough money to motivate that process.  Immediate investments and associated credits could have been structured to create the conditions whereby long term job growth could have been created in a dying sector.  Nope, no joy on industrial production, and no jobs!

Stimulus could have been utilized to motivate the return of jobs shipped off shore over the past 10 years.  Jobs such as telephone call centers could have been brought back painlessly.  While call center jobs don’t have much sex appeal they do address the sectors where unemployment is most critical.  Incentives could have also addressed the most economically challenged geographic areas.  Nope, no jobs here!

 Micro Loans for small and home start up businesses is an idea that has worked the world over.  Not present in current programs.

Infrastructure spending does not create immediate job growth.  Even key Democrats are bemoaning the percentage of stimulus targeted to infrastructure, such as Pennsylvania’s Governor.  In New Hampshire the Democratic political structure is upset over the union mandates associated with stimulus related infrastructure spending.

In the push me, pull you department wind farms are held up by law suits to prevent the construction of transmission lines.  Farm jobs in California are disappearing at a startling rate in the interest of a law suit decided to protect water for minnows over jobs for farmers.  If it really is about jobs what’s going on here?

 The absence of credit availability for small and medium size business is real. While bank balance sheets may be improving that improvement is not seeing its way to the provision of credit.  Bank regulators, insisting on balance sheet recovery and conservative lending standards have dried up credit availability.  The administration has made it clear that “risk” is not really risk, it’s a fundamental flaw in the financial system.  The absence of credit means belt tightening, lay offs, position eliminations, elimination of expansion plans and results in a significant net loss in jobs and the arc of job growth.  The unemployment numbers over the past 12 months prove the premise.

Green jobs, green jobs, green jobs; there is no significant increase in green jobs on the immediate horizon.  You simply can’t talk jobs into being.  Green energy sources represent 1.5% of total energy production.  We are a long way from that percentage taking a huge leap forward based on current technology, environmental lobby push back and expected returns on investment as they currently exist.  Contradictions at every turn; shut down 40% of electricity generation by eliminating coal but don’t invest in nuclear.  Develop electric cars that will get their electricity from …. where? 

Economic history has been ignored.  The best way to stimulate an economy is to cut taxes, especially capital gains taxes and small business taxes.  Cutting taxes results in consumption, savings, investments and risk taking.  The history is clear, each and every time significant tax cuts occurred (Kennedy, Reagan and Bush) the economy grew, jobs grew, personal income grew, investment grew and reinvestment of profits grew.  There were no significant tax cuts in any of the bills passed so far.  It is true that there was a tax cut equating to about $12.00 a week for the average person; however the argument can be well made, based on the evidence, that tax cut was not significant in an overall economic sense.  Top wage earners are on the sidelines, hunkering down waiting for the promised tax increases and establishing off shore entities.   

Pending legislation creates uncertainty; uncertainty is guaranteed to produce conservative approaches to hiring by businesses and to investments in those businesses.

Card Check, is frightening to small and medium size businesses; those businesses assume, correctly, that the costs associated with unionization will be significant.  They will be.  Card Check will not motivate job growth and a check on the recent history of unionization argues that exactly the reverse will occur.  Card Check is a job killer.

Health Care, again based on the current proposals will result in mandates, new taxes, new regulation and business is scared of the impact.  When mandated costs to business go up dramatically, hiring retreats.  Health care is a job killer   

Cap & Trade will result in massive increases in energy costs; some estimates reflect as much as a 90% increase in utility costs.  A business with shrinking margins will wonder where the money will come from.  If the increase is even half of the estimate it is not difficult to assume that what little manufacturing we have left will be rendered uncompetitive.  Cap & Trade combined with an absolute refusal to take advantage of domestic energy resources will do more than eliminate massive numbers of jobs it could eliminate entire segments of the economy.  Cap & Trade is a job killer. Regulation is moving front and center based on nothing more than changes in definitions and administrative mandates.   Based on the histories and writings of the key people who guide administration policy there much more regulation coming down the pike, it will be aggressive and stealthy.  The assumption that regulation will be regressive is supported by the logic of the folks who will be writing the regulations. 

 Taxes, especially for small business are critical as most small businesses report profits as personal income.  Reported profits for small business and what you actually put in your pocket can be two very different things.  The current tax proposals do not consider that equation and treat many small business owners as “rich folks”.      

Congress, regardless of the rhetoric actually anticipates job losses.  The evidence is in the actual legislation. The energy bills in both the House and Senate takes pains to provide money and programs related to job displacement.  Would you worry about job displacement if you really believed that Cap & Trade was good for the economy and would produce jobs in the short run?

Finally, there are economic fundamentals and the pregnant question.  Is it possible, in light of massive deficits, declining Federal tax revenues, high unemployment, no jobs related impact of the stimulus, a recessionary GDP, state and local budget deficits, a declining dollar, small business uncertainty, credit markets marginalized by government borrowing and  the specter of inflation to assume job growth?

 Will the Jobs Summit look to a diametric change in economic policy of a restructuring of unspent stimulus dollars?  Will the Summit end the political feeding frenzy and pay homage to economic history? Will that history trump ideology?

 As we stand now the “focus” on jobs has been nothing more than optimistic rhetoric long on style and short on substance.  The two sided equation of rhetoric and policy simply do not balance, and will not balance in the near term. The result; no jobs!

The Washington Post reports on the Medicare debacle:

A plan to slash more than $500 billion from future Medicare spending — one of the biggest sources of funding for President Obama’s proposed overhaul of the nation’s health-care system — would sharply reduce benefits for some senior citizens and could jeopardize access to care for millions of others, according to a government evaluation released Saturday.

The report, requested by House Republicans, found that Medicare cuts contained in the health package approved by the House on Nov. 7 are likely to prove so costly to hospitals and nursing homes that they could stop taking Medicare altogether.

Congress could intervene to avoid such an outcome, but “so doing would likely result in significantly smaller actual savings” than is currently projected, according to the analysis by the chief actuary for the agency that administers Medicare and Medicaid. That would wipe out a big chunk of the financing for the health-care reform package, which is projected to cost $1.05 trillion over the next decade.

How shocking that when you cut the amount of money Medicare pays for procedures, some facilities are likely to opt out of accepting it as a form of payment. Thus, seniors who are forced to rely on Medicare will have a dwindling amount of hospitals and primary care physicians which will agree to see them under the government system.

On another note, Politico is reporting that the Pelosi ObamaCare bill will increase health care costs, not actually reduce them. Wasn’t that argument the crux of the reasoning behind Obama’s desire for a government health care takeover? To reduce health care costs? Well it ain’t happening under this bill:

Democrats have promised that health reform would reduce health care costs, but legislation the House passed last week would increase costs over the next decade by $289 billion. By 2019, health costs would rise to 21.1 percent of GDP compared to 20.8 under current law, according to an actuarial report prepared by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

“With the exception of the proposed reductions in Medicare payment updates for institutional providers, the provisions of H.R. 3962 would not have a significant impact on future health care cost growth rates. In addition, the longer-term viability of the Medicare update reductions is doubtful,” the report said.

In other words, outside of Medicare payment cuts to hospitals, the bill doesn’t curb increasing health care costs. And even the Medicare payment cuts will be difficult to sustain.

The analysis is more bad news for Democrats, who are facing increasing criticism that their reforms don’t do enough to control costs. Republicans released the analysis and jumped on the news.

The argument that we need ObamaCare to help cut costs is non-existent at this point since all data indicates it will not achieve that objective, it will exacerbate the problem.

ObamaCare is a poison pill for America and there has been no statistical estimates to prove otherwise, in fact they are all knocking down the claims from President Obama and the Democrats in congress.

We do not need a government solution, we need government to get out of the way and help formulate a better private sector solution for health insurance. Instead what we’re getting is higher costs, more bureaucracy and less freedom to make health care decisions.

 Prior to being named Attorney General Mr. Holder’s law firm was pivotal in the law suits and motions that held up the implementation of Gitmo Military Tribunals; those same attorneys are now part of his staff at the Justice Department.  We hope they do as good a job of prosecuting KSM and the boys as they did of insuring the inability of Military Tribunals to proceed.

 Mr. Holder refused to bring Jose Padilla accomplice Binyam Mohammed to trial despite the assertion that valid war crimes charges could be brought.  Mr. Mohammed was transferred to British custody resulting in his release and eventual residence on the British dole.  Mr. Holder’s release of the “interrogation memos” is fresh in memory, as is his stated intention to prosecute some of the involved parties; this in the context of his assurances during Senate confirmation hearings of his heavily felt “responsibility for the safety of the American people.”

 Back in 2002, however, free of immediate political considerations it was a different story.  In a CNN interview Mr. Holder said the following in response to a question regarding terror detainees “It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Conventions. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohamed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not.”

 How Mr. Holder has moved from detainees not being eligible for Prisoner of War status to granting criminal trials, with constitutional protections on U.S. soil is a trail of logic that is, at best, difficult to follow, absent political considerations.   

 There is, as expected, dueling experts more orientated to political positions than legal ones, opining on the viability of a U.S. criminal court proceeding for KSM and the boys. 

 Concerns include the behavior of KSM and the boys, will they represent themselves? Will NYC be subjected to more terror attacks surrounding the trials?  Will security be an issue, what about the jury pool?  Will a change of venue be ordered, what about the cost?  There is a spectrum of issues that are rendered mute had the traditional application of Military Tribunals been allowed to proceed by Mr. Holder and his staff at the time.

 Expect KSM and the boys to take the position that as Muslims they refuse to recognize the validity of the U.S. court system.  Expect them to demand Sharia proceedings.  Expect them to make the most of their supposed “torture”.  Expect them to demand immediate execution as martyrs as they did in their Gitmo confessions. KSM and the boys told a military judge at Gitmo that they wanted to skip their commission trial, admit, no, brag about their guilt, and proceed straight to execution.”  The transcript of the confession is, to be kind, chilling.  No doubt the lure of those heavenly virgins is looking pretty good.

 All KSM and the boys have left, as far as they are concerned, is the opportunity to position themselves as Jihadist icons.  Mr. Holder is cooperating fully with their intent as we have, to all appearances, constructed an elaborate set and stage to allow for exactly that.  We have set the circumstances for this drama to be a decade long show. 

 It took three years to convict Zacarias Moussaoui, a thug of considerably lesser status, free of the taint of “aggressive interrogation methods”.  If a death penalty is imposed on KSM and the boys we get the show’s extended run in the form of a long series of appeals typically associated with the death penalty; all the while listening to KSM and the boys brag about their “accomplishments” and how evil we are. 

 This trial will be less about KSM and boy’s guilt than it will be about providing fodder for propaganda in the Jihadist world.  It is worth remembering that the well executed trials of the Blind Sheik and the embassy bombers were derided in the Jihadist world as nothing more than show trials, this one will labeled a show trial as well.  The often stated goal of “showcasing the American justice system” will have zero impact on people avowed to our destruction because they simply don’t accept the underling validity of any system outside of Sharia law.  

 If Mr. Holder and the President think that Bush Administration activities and policies only “provided for more aggressive recruiting of Jihadists”, just wait until this show gets rolling!. 

 If this is Mr. Holder’s idea of getting to “closure”, to hell with it!

One major point Giuliani made beyond the New York trials was that the Fort Hood shooting was indeed Islamic terrorism. Major Malik Nadal Hasan is a radical Islamic terrorist, that is not even a debatable notion. Political correctness prevented common sense in dealing with his ideological hatred and now innocent people are dead because of it.

 Asymmetric warfare in and of itself makes traditional definitions of military viability difficult, especially to the inexperienced or the reluctant.  Add to that consideration that warfare in Afghanistan is a domestic insurgency with foreign support and the problems become more daunting.

 One must consider the actual nature of the insurgency.  The insurgency is being fought in the context of two critical factors.  The first, religious based fervor and the motivation associated with that fervor.  The power of that motivation is well established as experienced by the British and the Russians. Secondly, the reality of tribal politics and local power struggles add to the degree of difficulty.  It is difficult to see how, exactly, a viable exit strategy would be defined, short of reducing the insurgency to the political and military equivalent of pulp.  If indeed the President is insisting on a politically acceptable exit strategy the delayed decision making process is easy to understand, but will be exceptionally hard to resolve.

 Geopolitical motivations factor into the equation as well. What are the actual Pakistani commitments in the FATA?  Can the U.S. convince the Pakistanis that India will behave in the event that troops are shifted, east to west?  Will the ISI continue behind the scenes support for the Taliban?  Will the rise in the level of domestic violence in Pakistan motivate a renewed commitment to snuff out Islamist terror operations and support infrastructure?  Will the bombing of ISI headquarters today motivate the ISI to question their role with the Taliban and come to the conclusion that fire burns all fingers?  Will the ISI move to “clean up” the radical Islamist influences within their organization in the aftermath of burning their finger in the Islamist flame?  

 The enemy, knowing well, American reluctance to pull for the long haul and being fully aware of domestic American political pressures, will apply their well documented patience to the situation and choose not to cooperate with an American exit strategy.  What they will do is focus on creating casualties as the Achilles Heel of American foreign policy.  Half measures will be welcomed by the insurgency as will any strategy that calls for anything short of a full out American effort to eliminate them as a threat.  

 Recent reports of an American offer to the Taliban to essentially “give” them specific provincial areas where they would essentially be left to their own devices was, reportedly, soundly rejected by the Taliban.  To assume that this is anything short of an all or nothing game for the Taliban would be naïve in the extreme; the religious motivations in play will not, cannot, tolerate a Western presence in an Islamic country.    

 In point of fact, the definition of an exit strategy may simply serve to define for the Taliban the parameters within which they must engage the Americans and to what extent.  The leaking of the exit strategy conundrum taking place in the White House will, no doubt, be a source of hope for the insurgency.

 A public exit strategy will create a clear definition of the time lines for engagement and the necessary threshold for enemy patience.

 Evidence of Maj. Hasan’s Jihadist ties and beliefs grow, so, in turn, does the energy aimed at casting the argument in some context other than the perception of premeditated terrorism. 

 There are fundamental, irreconcilable and consistent differences in perception at play.  Those who see evil in the world and in this situation are opposed by those who cannot breach their belief that there is no true or pure evil. There is only understanding and justifications based on some manner of perceived, correctable injustice.

 This difference in perception creates a dangerous quandary.  If we cannot agree on the underlying facts how do we address the problem? 

 Was Maj. Hasan picked on as the motivation for his actions?  Much of the currently available information tends to indicate that outside the possibility of an incident or two he was treated as part of a protected class; protected by a culture of political correctness that remains ignorant to consequences.

 If the real problem, as General Casey opined, is the possibility of a backlash against Muslim soldiers than the prescription must be yet more political correctness, more sensitivity to Islam and more protection of Muslims in the military and by extension throughout the intelligence and bureaucratic communities.

 If, however, the problem is a Jihadist, Salafist mentality and a commitment to radical interpretations, the recognition of the problem becomes significant and demanding.  The most critical demand being that the problem is addressed absent artificial “correctness”.  The addressment must be based, not on what we would like to be the case, but on what is actually the case.  If mass murder in the interest of and motivated by radical perceptions and beliefs is excused we insure more of the same.  We insure and participate in a tacit agreement with the radical justifications for such a horror.

 The question to those who embrace the idea of victim based justification is simple; how many lives are you willing to sacrifice to the unreality of blanket victimology and political correctness?  At what level of body count do we accept, as fact, what Islamists have unapologetically told us they intend for us?  Are those selfsame Islamists who are clear in defining their intentions and tactics to continue their status as a protected class?     

 The issue is not a peaceful interpretation Islam, it never has been.  The issue is the radical interpretation of Islam.  The issue is that evidence of a pervasive presence in government institutions of those who embrace radical interpretations represents many points of jeopardy. Maj. Hasan is just one of them and not the first!

 “Employment by a non-Muslim government of a Muslim investigator to investigate other Muslims places the investigator in the position of violating the tenets of his beliefs and may force his recourse to deception, lying and/or the giving of misleading impressions.”

 “A recurring and heavily emphasized theme in the Koran, the Hadiths and in Islamic Law is the prohibition against close association with Non-Muslims. There are grave legal and religious repercussions for the Muslim allying himself with Non-Muslims against Muslims.” 

 “Forsaking fellow Muslims in favor of Non-Muslims is an act of un-belief, nearly equating with apostasy having three profound consequences for the offending Muslim: loss of spiritual salvation, social isolation, and exposure to the risk of a death sentence.”

 “A Muslim has a positive duty to protect his fellow Muslims from unbelievers and he is permitted to lie in their defense.”

 One might reasonably assume that the Department of Defense would be capable of and indeed motivated, to extend and internalize  the tenets and conclusions of this briefing to other areas.  While the briefing specifically focused on investigative issues it also dealt in general with the teachings of Islam and the jeopardy inherent in Muslims serving a non-Muslim government.

 The Army and indeed many aspects of government departments involved in defense and intelligence might consider rereading the report absent concerns related to political correctness.  When political correctness takes lives as it’s “payment in kind” it’s time to reconsider.

 The Guardian in the U.K. is now reporting the same story with additional details and comments from both the IAEA and nuclear experts in Europe who seem, finally, to be seriously concerned.  The latest report is consistent to a wide variety of reports over the past two years, The Guardian, The London Times, Newsmax, The Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal, AP, ISIS and others have reported aspects of Iranian procurement and weapons development progress that, collectively, indicated Iran was much closer to a nuclear device than official Western intelligence estimates indicated or were willing to admit.  Access to top secret intelligence was not necessary to connect the Iranian dots.  

 The U.S. delivered evidence to the IAEA in the spring of 2008 contained on a smuggled lap top provided by an Iranian dissident group, NCRI.  NCRI blew the initial whistle on Iranian nuclear progress. The information demonstrated that Iran was in possession of and proceeding with weapons related technology.  The lap top further contained trajectory and altitude studies used to determine the optimum characteristics for a nuclear explosion. The lap top in question contained blue prints in Farsi that are exact duplicates of the blue prints used in the development of warheads related to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program.  A.Q. Kahn’s involvement in the Iranian nuclear program is well documented.

 Mohammed ElBaradei who, treated previous reports with distain continues to remain eerily calm in the face of recent reports and is quoted, in reference to those reports, as saying “it appears to have been derived from multiple sources over different periods of time, appears to be generally consistent, and is sufficiently comprehensive and detailed that it needs to be addressed by Iran”. 

 Addressed by Iran?  Addressed by Iran?  Mr. ElBaradei what, exactly, do you expect them to say in light of your six years of experience with Iran; that they are now suffering an epiphany of guilt followed by a commitment to “come clean” and see the error of their ways?  It may be too late, Mr. ElBaradei and his stewardship at the IAEA is one of the primary reasons why that is the case.

 In April of 2008, in addition to provision of information contained on the aforementioned lap top, a series of questionable procurements were exposed, including reports of items that have highly limited duel use applications such as ultra high speed photographic equipment used, mainly, to evaluate high speed implosion devices, materials related to neutron calculations, materials for evaluating the effect of shock waves on metal and isotope separation materials to name a few.  A German national was convicted of providing much of the equipment and information.  At the trial, German Foreign Service officers testified that there was evidence that Iran’s weapons development was continuing. 

 The Iranian answer to these charges and questions at the time was that they needed those resources to study airbags and the design of safety belts!  Even in the absence of realizing that there is a vast amount of open source information related to seat belts and airbags the answer was, in and of itself, an indication or Iranian subterfuge.

 The likelihood of an Iranian bomb and the capability to deliver it is now near at hand.  The negotiated appeasement of the past six years is about to come home to roost.     

 Previous reports of a North Korean presence and North Korean assistance regarding construction of underground nuclear testing facilities did not raise a cry for a tougher stance on Iran.  Neither did reports related to the presence of Russian nuclear scientists in Iran create a new momentum in support of stringent “engagement”.  Reported “rapid progress” in missile technology capabilities, as well, did not motivate a realistic approach to Iran’s intentions.

 Apparently, only actual proof of an Iranian nuclear device will motivate the proper degree of serious action.  That motivation will come with a bold headline “Too Little Too Late”!

Here’s video from Lieberman earlier today on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace stating that he will not allow a bill to come to the floor if it contains a public option:

Transcript of the exchange:

WALLACE: … will you support a Republican filibuster on final passage in the Senate?

LIEBERMAN: Well, there’s some good things in the House-passed plan. You know, I’m — I think we ought to do health care reform this year to deal with the two great problems that President Obama and others have talked about.

There are unsustainable continuing increases in the cost of health care. We’ve got to — we’ve got to stop that. And there are millions of Americans who don’t have health insurance.

But I’m afraid our colleagues in the House added a lot onto that that subtract from the genuine purposes of health care reform, and one was to create a public option plan.

The public option plan is unnecessary. It has been put forward, I’m convinced, by people who really want the government to take over all of health insurance. They’ve got a right to do that. I think that would be wrong.

But worse than that, we have a problem even greater than the health insurance problems, and that is a debt — $12 trillion today, projected to be $21 trillion in 10 years.

WALLACE: So at this point, I take it, you’re a “no” vote in the Senate.

LIEBERMAN: If the public option plan is in there, as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote, because I believe the debt can break America and send us into a recession that’s worse than the one we’re fighting our way out of today. I don’t want to do that to our — to our children and grandchildren.

That is at least the most honest talk I’ve heard from a politician in months.

The Wall-Street Journal chimed in on the Lieberman aspect as well:

In the Senate, Lieberman’s vote is critical because if he were to join Republicans to oppose health-care legislation, Democrats could fall short of the 60 votes needed to bring the bill to a vote on the Senate floor.

Lieberman said he was concerned about the new government spending that the health-care legislation would entail, saying government deficits have grown too large. “I don’t want to do that to our children and grandchildren,” he said.

Without 60 votes, the only option left is the “nuclear” reconciliation option for Reid if he so chooses. I can’t see that happening without some serious ramifications for 2010 and beyond, it would be political suicide to attempt. With the House passing the bill by a narrow 5 point margin, clearly even many Democrats know this is bad for the country.

Lieberman took a strong stand last week as well on Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer when he said that doing nothing is better than passing a public option:

With Lieberman’s help, the Republicans have a good shot at killing this government takeover over the health care industry and saving us all from higher taxes, stolen liberty and an increased government footprint into our lives. I pray that Lieberman will stand strong on this, no doubt Reid, Obama and Pelosi will be leaning on him to change his mind. Might be a good idea to call or email Lieberman’s office voicing your support for him as he’ll no doubt be getting a barrage from the left on this very issue.

Despite clear opposition from the American people in poll after poll, the House Democrats, seemingly drunk with power, chose to push the bill through on a Saturday night. There is no doubt the plan has been to pass something before 2010 since clearly many of the representatives who support this legislation will be finding a new line of work when they’re voted out.

Report from Politico:

The House of Representatives passed legislation for the first time Saturday night that would provide health coverage to almost every American after nearly a century of false starts and un-kept campaign promises.

The final vote was 220-215. In all, 219 Democrats voted to approve the measure in a largely party-line vote, with 39 Democrats voting no. One Republican supported the bill, Rep. Joseph Cao (R-La.).

The bill has a steep cost – both in dollars, $1.2 trillion, and political capital – but Democrats hailed its passage as the next chapter in a governing legacy that produced Medicare and Social Security.

“Today, as we all know, is an historic moment for our nation and for American families,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on the House floor hours before the vote.

President Barack Obama has made health care reform his signature legislative priority — and he put his personal prestige on the line Saturday by traveling to the Capitol to rally Democrats, telling them to answer the call of history by passing the bill.

But Republicans were equally sweeping in their objections to the bill. “This is perhaps the worst bill I have seen come to the floor in my 11 years in Congress,” said Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan.

Funny how Pelosi compared her bill to Social Security, another bankrupt government program they still haven’t fixed as they pile in trillions in more debt and wasteful spending.

Congressman Paul Ryan along with dozens of other Republicans argued passionately against the passage earlier today:

The next step will be for the Senate to kill the bill before it can be impugned on the American people and we systematically lose our health care freedom by Obama’s pen.

Report from Heritage:

On November 6, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that the unemployment rate had soared from 9.8 percent to 10.2 percent in October. Jobs losses in October–190,000–were higher than expected. As job losses mount, the monthly jobs report continues to demonstrate both the failure of the stimulus bill and the hollowness of the Administration’s claim that it created or saved 640,000 jobs. Congress and the Administration should encourage private-sector investment and entrepreneurship instead of attempting to plan a recovery from Washington.

The Heritage Foundation put together a fantastic chart showing how abysmally wrong the White House’s estimates were compared to the reality that is our new 10.2% unemployment number:

Here’s another graph illustrating Obama’s obvious failures:

This is further exacerbated for the administration given the falsities continuing to be uncovered in their claim of jobs being “saved or created,” which is total nonsense. Hot Air has a story showing that 25% of the “saved or created” jobs on California are bogus according to the Sacramento Bee.

First and foremost, this legislation contains an mandate that you maintain a “level of acceptable health insurance” all year or face fines and possible jail time for continued non-compliance.

The Republican members of the House Committee on Ways & Means highlighted this actual text from the legislation Nancy Pelosi is trying to cram down everyone’s throats by today:

Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.

In response to the JCT letter, Camp said: “This is the ultimate example of the Democrats’ command-and-control style of governing – buy what we tell you or go to jail. It is outrageous and it should be stopped immediately.”

Excerpts from the JCT letter explaining the madness:

Key excerpts from the JCT letter appear below:

“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]

“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2]

Here are the criminal penalties as outline in Pelosi’s Obamacare legislation:

Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:

• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.”

Apparently some members of the Senate Finance Committee worked to remove the criminal prosecution from any Senate versions of this bill. Speaker Pelosi did not take the same consideration:

When confronted with this same issue during its consideration of a similar individual mandate tax, the Senate Finance Committee worked on a bipartisan basis to include language in its bill that shielded Americans from civil and criminal penalties. The Pelosi bill, however, contains no similar language protecting American citizens from civil and criminal tax penalties that could include a $250,000 fine and five years in jail.

“The Senate Finance Committee had the good sense to eliminate the extreme penalty of incarceration. Speaker Pelosi’s decision to leave in the jail time provision is a threat to every family who cannot afford the $15,000 premium her plan creates. Fortunately, Republicans have an alternative that will lower health insurance costs without raising taxes or cutting Medicare,” said Camp.

According to the Congressional Budget Office the lowest cost family non-group plan under the Speaker’s bill would cost $15,000 in 2016.

It is stunning to me that Democrats are hell bent on passing this piece of trash and impugning it on the American people, those who they’re supposed to represent. Congress will not be subject to the same health care plan nor these same qualifications, they have a fantastic array of private health insurance plans to choose from. It is only the citizens of this country they’re going to force onto a government-run health insurance plan as they see fit, be it by fines, taxes or criminal prosecution.

I pray this does not pass and from many signs, the Democrats are having a civil war within their own party since some moderate Democrats are slightly concerned over this health control taxation bill and their chances for re-election. Pelosi cannot get members of her own party, in a majority in the House, to sign on and vote for this wretched legislation.

The GOP put together an excellent side-by-side comparison of the Pelosi Obamacare plan and the Republican plan, you can get it here as a PDF. Also see this.

In other news, President Obama’s wasteful $700 billion stimulus plan has now given us 10.2% unemployment, the highest in 26 years. I’m sure President Obama will defend his economic incompetence by blaming the previous administration.

Here’s a video of clips including some of the main speakers via Politico:

Report from Fox News:

As a crowd of protesters shouted “kill the bill,” House Republicans on Thursday rallied opposition against the Democrats’ health care legislation, even as President Obama touted two major endorsements from doctors and seniors groups.

The president interrupted the daily press briefing Thursday to note that the American Medical Association and AARP had just endorsed House Democrats’ health care plan.

“This is no small endorsement,” Obama said of the AARP’s backing. “They know it’s a good deal for our seniors.”

At the same time, Republicans decried the bill on the steps of Congress in a last-ditch bid to derail or at least delay the legislation heading toward a possible vote Saturday.

Thousands of protesters arrived by bus for the rally, which the GOP is calling an emergency “House Call.” The event drew the conservative “tea party” activists but unlike past rallies was officially sanctioned by House Republicans.

Republicans want those who attend to track down their elected representatives in Congress and put pressure on them to think twice about voting for the more than $1 trillion health care overhaul pushed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

“They’re going to listen,” said Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who originally called for the rally. “The biggest voice in the United States is your voice.”

According to a new report issued by the Congressional Budget Office, the newly offered Republican plan costs fractions compared to the Democrat plan, increases availability, lowers costs and provides increased access to insurance:

This evening, CBO released a preliminary analysis of a substitute amendment to H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, proposed by Representative John Boehner, the Republican Leader in the House of Representatives. CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that the amendment would reduce federal deficits by $68 billion over the 2010-2019 period; it would also slightly reduce federal budget deficits in the following decade, relative to those projected under current law, with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between zero and one-quarter percent of gross domestic product.

CBO anticipates that the combination of provisions in the amendment would reduce average private health insurance premiums per enrollee in the United States, relative to what they would be under current law-by 7 percent to 10 percent in the small group market, by 5 percent to 8 percent for individually purchased insurance, and by zero to 3 percent in the large group market. Those are averages, however, and they are subject to a great deal of uncertainty; some individuals and families in each market would see different results.

All this without another failing government program. Clearly it is one small step but it is a step which doesn’t destroy the private insurance market and force people onto a government insurance plan.

 Nope, gotcha! It’s the Democrats!

 Blue Dog Democrats, in the wake of the Tuesday elections are wondering which vial of hemlock to drink.  Should they drink the health care/cap & trade hemlock and risk general election defeats?  Or, should they refuse to go along and face the wrath of a variety of George Soros funded organizations, chief among them MoveOn.org.

 MoveOn commenced their latest e-mail campaign today the goal being $3 million dollars by the end of the week.  The focus of the fund raising effort is to fund primary challenges to any Democratic Senator who “helps” Republicans block a health care vote.   Executive Director Justin Ruben is quoted as saying “It’s a clear sign of how angry progressives would be at any Democrat who helps filibuster reform.” 

 Considering the breadth of Soros supported organizations and the history of those organizations Democrats are, without doubt, taking the threat seriously.  Decisions, decision: which vial of hemlock to drink?

 At the same time some Congressional Democrats are threatening to do “whatever it takes” to defeat health care if items such as federal funding for abortions make their way through the conference process.  About 49 Democratic seats are in districts won by John McCain in the last election and those districts have voted, typically, center right. Those districts might accurately be called, wait for it…………moderates.  One has to wonder what MoveOn has planned for them?

 Liberal commentators have developed nice little second careers advising Republicans and Conservatives on how to fix the GOP.  We’d like to thank you folks for your efforts but it appears as if Democrats could use a little advice as well. Just saying!

Pundits have, clearly, been in acute election withdrawal.  It’s nice to see them get a fix to restore that good old fashion election euphoria, 12 months absent.  Potomac fever will be epidemic by the end of the day.

The election commentary spans the political spectrum, everything from “great victory”, to “pay no attention to the election behind the curtain”.   Virginia, ‘no big deal, off year opposition election victories are consistent history, Deeds was a dope.”  New Jersey; “the incumbent was struck down by the economy.”  “It’s not about the President it’s about local issues.” The losers say “take it with a grain of salt”, the winners say “it’s akin to a message from God.  It quickly approaches the point of distraction as each pundit, in essence, talks to his or her constituency, that constituency longing for reasons in support of pre-existing perceptions and bias.

Polls regarding the President’s popularity are all over the board; selective quotation being the order of the day.  Maybe it was, maybe it was not about the President, but in light his campaign schedule in, at least, N.J., his commitment was clear and expected, he did what he had to do.  In the N.Y. 23^rd the President succeeded, with the unwitting help of the GOP, in staging a Democratic victory with an expected life span of about one year.  One more vote in an overwhelming Congressional majority is not significant in light of the ineptitude of the GOP in the N.Y. 23^rd.

In Virginia, however, a highly significant issue has failed to garner attention from the pundits, the down ballot voting pattern.  It is clear, that a high degree of straight ticket voting was the order of the day, the Lieutenant Governor and Attorney General’s races pulled numbers in the high 50’s consistent with the head of the ticket.  Republicans made gains in state wide races as well.  That pattern, and the consistency of the pattern, in a purple state, can only occur where independents voted a straight Republican ticket.  Areas, such as Fairfax County, which were overwhelmingly for Obama in 2008, were essentially 50/50 in this election.  That number, in light of the high concentration of government employees in Fairfax County could also be telling we’re you to get beyond the cartoon punditry. 

The consistency of the down ballot patterns in Virginia does reflect on Washington, it has to.  This election represented one of only two opportunities for large voting populations to send a message and it appears that a message has been sent. 

The victims of these patterns, assuming the message is received are fundamentally economic.  Deficits, taxes, spending, the size of government and the inability of voters to perceive high levels of accountability are the issues on the table.  The details of the legislative agenda in 2010 will be held accountable to these general themes.  Most voters think in terms of general themes and context, these issues will clearly form that context. As always, independents, will decide the outcome in 2010 and self described independents are growing faster than either party.   

If the cartoon were to be drawn it would show an independent voter holding back both parties with the caption, “not so fast there big guy.”  It’s a question of who get’s the message and when.

Republicans also won huge in Virginia where Bob McDonnell has taken the governor seat in a 58% to 41% victory over Democrat Creigh Deeds. The Virginia Lieutenant Governor and Attorney General seats also went hard Republican winning by similar margins over their Democrat opponents. Republicans will also pick up seats in the state House of Delegates as well.

Report on VA/NJ from Fox News:

WASHINGTON — Republican gubernatorial wins in New Jersey and Virginia mark a troubling turn for President Obama, whose personal efforts couldn’t stop the fall of Democrats facing a voter backlash over the economy and a notable uptick in the government’s would-be role in people’s lives.

Obama’s 2008 victory in Old Dominion had marked an historic breakthrough for Democrats who hadn’t won Virginia’s electoral votes since 1964. The fight in the Garden State was more grueling than usually accompanies Democratic campaigns in the reliably blue state of New Jersey.

So the setbacks demonstrate the difficulty of presidential leadership following a campaign built on promises of unity followed by divisive policies and a relentless campaign approach toward big legislative issues like the stimulus and health care bills.

“What this is tonight, this victory here tonight, is a warning shot, and it says to the moderate Democrats in the House that they ought to think twice about continuing to pursue the policies of this White House and (House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi,” said Virginia Republican Rep. Eric Cantor.

In Virginia, Republican Gov.-elect Bob McDonnell roundly defeated Democrat R. Creigh Deeds while GOP Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling won a second term and Republican Ken Cuccinelli was elected attorney general. It was the first time the GOP took the top three spots since 1997.

“We have really had a run of wins and we got used to winning and that makes it tough,” said outgoing Virginia Democratic Gov. Tim Kaine. “We have to give credit where credit is do they ran a great campaign.”

“You guys are making this tougher than this has to be,” a resigned Deeds told the still chanting audience at his “victory party.”

In New Jersey, Republican Chris Christie pulled off a stunning upset over incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine, who was facing a backlash over property taxes and other economic issues. Independent Chris Daggett also pulled about 6 percent of the vote.

Here’s a clip of Bob McDonnell’s victory speech from Richmond, VA:

Here is Republican Chris Christie’s victory speech from New Jersey:

Update

Democrat Bill Owens was victorious over Conservative Doug Hoffman in the New York 23rd congressional seat race winning 49% to 45%.

With that, my predictions held up to be two-thirds correct. My guess is that Hoffman will return in 2010 with the full backing of the GOP to make a real run at this seat or perhaps another upstate New York congressional district.

All-in-all, the talk of some permanent Democrat realignment thanks to President Obama is total nonsense, the GOP won huge in the bluest of blue states, New Jersey. Furthermore, Virginia went hard conservative, very hard for a candidate with staunchly conservative positions who ran against big government liberal policies.

President Obama spent numerous days campaigning for Corzine and he was rebuked, as he was in Virginia, two states which went handily for Obama in 2008. If that doesn’t speak to the disgusted feelings from voters toward Washington, I don’t know what does.