California Conservative

I’ve written about Sen. Biden’s op-ed, challenging much of his information based on what Sen. Lieberman said after returning from Iraq. I’ve now found several articles that discredits Sen. Biden’s information. Let’s start by comparing Rowan Scarborough’s Washington Times article, titled “U.S. Decimating Foreign Fighters,” with Biden’s op-ed.

Biden writes:

There is another critical question: As our soldiers redeploy, will our security interests in Iraq remain intact or will we have traded a dictator for chaos?

Then Scarborough’s article:

The U.S. is seeing significantly fewer foreign fighters on the battlefields of Iraq, because the coalition has killed or captured scores of terrorists in recent months and is doing a better job of securing the long border with Syria.

It seems like Biden’s op-ed isn’t based on facts as much as it’s based on wondering if worst-case scenarios might happen. Scarborough’s article cites specifics that tell us that terrorists will be killed before they get a chance to topple Iraq’s government and that the once-porous Iraq-Syria border isn’t porous anymore.

You can attribute much of the border security improvement on the dramatic impact of Operation Steel Curtain, under the leadership of Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch.

Here’s another way that the military is impacting border security:

Defense sources said the deployment of newly emerging Iraqi brigades along the Syria border and better aerial surveillance has slowed the flow of foreigners. “It appears there has been a downturn, and that is partly due to increased security along the border with Syria,” said a U.S. counterintelligence official, who asked not to be named. “Syria was the primary entry point for most of those foreign fighters. Stepped-up efforts to stem the flow is having an impact.”

In other words, Biden’s fears are based on a pessimistic mindset and his theories than on facts on the ground.
(more…)

We knew he took a beating at the recent special election, but we didn’t think our man Arnold lost his marbles.

However, after reading this troubling report, we now hold some serious reservations. If there’s strategery in this appointment, we’re missing it.

Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has hired Susan Kennedy, a top aide to former Gov. Gray Davis, as his new chief of staff, Capitol sources in both major parties said. The chief of staff’s position is considered the most powerful administrative position in state government, with broad authority over policy-making and the sprawling bureaucracy.

So much for a Total Recall. That’s not what we had in mind.

Michelle Malkin has more.

No one can argue that we don’t support the guy. We made a great effort to help promote his reform initiatives.

But this kind of move suggests Arnold may be desperate to make friends with Democrats. And that’s paving the road to hell, so to speak.

What’s next? Clemency for Tookie?

UPDATE:
Official Bio: Susan Kennedy

RELATED:
Gov. Schwarzenegger: “I Take Full Responsibility”
CA Special Election: Sad Results Indeed

Dear Retailers:

We, the undersigned, are writing to express our sincerest concerns about your store’s policy towards the recognition of Christmas — or, rather, the lack thereof.

While some may dispute our claims that the historical and religious significance of this very special holiday is under assault and being suppressed by atheists and secular activists promoting a political agenda for a faithless society, the examples of this taking place throughout America are too numerous to lack legitimacy. Unfortunately, the most visible examples are being witnessed in the retail marketplace.

From promotions and products to store displays and sales clerk greetings, “Merry Christmas” is steadily being replaced by “Happy Holidays.” And a few merchants are reportedly going so far as renaming a Christmas tree a “Holiday Tree.” Why?

Some are suggesting this new practice is in order to be more “inclusive,” but since when has this become necessary?

Christmas has been officially recognized and celebrated in America for over 150 years and, by some historical records, even since the first settlers arrived. Today, over 80% of Americans celebrate Christmas as identified Christians, and this includes our nation’s largest (and growing) immigrant population: Latinos. In total, reportedly 95% of Americans celebrate Christmas as the accepted year-end holiday for gift-giving.

As a celebration shared by countless millions around the world, since when has Christmas been exclusive? That would be like saying Hanukkah and Ramadan are exclusive. They are both sacred holidays, but anyone may participate. And since when have the demands of the few dictated the will of the majority?
(more…)

Using his Limbaugh Letter, Rush Limbaugh is shining the white-hot spotlight of truth on Chuck Schumer’s DSCC. That isn’t a place I’d want to be in.

In his latest must-read “Limbaugh Letter,” Rush writes that the media is continuing a cover-up of the scandal. Limbaugh notes that despite Schumer’s denial of any involvement, his organization is picking up the $400-an-hour tab for the pair’s attorney. The Senator from New York “has presided over a genuine scandal the Old Media has ignored,” Rush reports. “In a dirty tricks scheme worthy of the infamous Watergate ‘plumbers,’ two of Schumer’s DSCC staffers took their opposition research assignment to the max: preparing to smear Maryland Lieutenant Governor Michael Steel, a Republican candidate for Senate.”

Limbaugh’s reporting on this in the Limbaugh Letter guarantees that the Agenda Media won’t be able to ignore this scandal anymore. The fact that the Agenda Media hasn’t covered this scandal for this long is nothing short of being a scandal in its own right.

Limbaugh’s speaking out on this in his letter means that he’ll likely talk about it during Tuesday’s show, which will trigger an entire wave of reporting on this. Don’t be surprised if Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly start sticking their noses into this. I suspect that the networks will grudgingly start reporting on this story but I’ll also predict that their reports won’t be informative and will focus on trying to distance Sen. Schumer from these lawbreakers.
(more…)

I just finished reading the AP’s article on Joe Lieberman’s trip to Iraq. What was most striking to me was the difference in Sen. Lieberman’s perspective on Iraq and Sen. Biden’s. For that reason, I’ve decided to compare their perspectives in this article. Let’s get started with that comparison.

In his Washington Post op-ed, Joe Biden says

“There is a broad consensus on what must be done to preserve our interests. Recently, 79 Democratic and Republican senators told President Bush we need a detailed, public plan for Iraq, with specific goals and a timetable for achieving each one.”

In Andrew Miga’s AP article, Joe Lieberman is quoted as saying:

“The country is now in reach of going from Saddam Hussein to self-government and, I’d add, self-protection,” the Connecticut Democrat said in a conference call with reporters. “That would be a remarkable transformation…I saw real progress there.”

It seems to me that Biden hasn’t acknowledged that real progress, both militarily and politically, is being made. Lieberman, however, is full of praise for the progress being made on the military and political fronts. I’m certain that the American people wouldn’t be upset with not getting a specific plan like Sen. Biden is asking for but would be happy knowing that “real progress” is being made in Iraq.

In his op-ed, Sen. Biden says:

“Over the next six months, we must forge a sustainable political compromise between Iraqi factions, strengthen the Iraqi government and bolster reconstruction efforts, and accelerate the training of Iraqi forces.”

Sen. Lieberman says in the AP article that:

“there are signs life is returning to normal, including a profusion of cell phones and satellite TV dishes on rooftops. “About two-thirds of the country is in really pretty good shape,” and that “If Iraqi forces continue to gain the confidence the American military sees there now…We will be able to draw down our forces…”

It seems to me that Sen. Lieberman’s report on Iraq’s current condition is detailed, optimistic and based on facts on the ground while Sen. Biden’s comments are more of a recitation of policies based on perception than on actual facts on the ground. Basing one’s opinions on perception rather than on facts is shoddy business.
(more…)

Ever since John Murtha’s tear-filled press conference announcing his proposal for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, Democrats have come out distancing themselves from his statement. The most noteworthy of these Democrats are Hillary, Barack Obama and Slow Joe Biden.

After reading Biden’s Washington Post op-ed; after reading Hillary’s and Obama’s comments, I’ve noticed a pattern: Distance yourself from Murtha’s statement, tell America that we can’t leave in such a hurried way AND then not talk about winning the war in Iraq.

It’s noteworthy that Obama, Biden and Hillary didn’t say a word about winning. They sounded reasonable. No questioning that. But they didn’t say a word about how we win in Iraq. They didn’t say what the next step is in the GWOT. The silence is deafening.

The reason why this is noteworthy is because it speaks volumes about how unseriously the Pacifist Party takes the GWOT. It speaks volumes about how devoid they are of ideas for protecting our homeland.

Remember what was said during the Democrats talked about the need for more first responders? The implication is that they wouldn’t do anything to prevent terrorist attacks but they’d supply all the first responders you’d need to clean up the mess that future terrorists would cause.

Remember John Kerry’s NYTimes Magazine interview last fall? In that interview, he said:

“We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they’re a nuisance,” Kerry said. “As a former law-enforcement person, I know we’re never going to end prostitution. We’re never going to end illegal gambling. But we’re going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn’t on the rise. It isn’t threatening people’s lives every day, and fundamentally, it’s something that you continue to fight, but it’s not threatening the fabric of your life.”

This analogy struck me as remarkable, if only because it seemed to throw down a big orange marker between Kerry’s philosophy and the president’s. Kerry, a former prosecutor, was suggesting that the war, if one could call it that, was, if not winnable, then at least controllable. If mobsters could be chased into the back rooms of seedy clubs, then so, too, could terrorists be sent scurrying for their lives into remote caves where they wouldn’t harm us.

“We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they’re a nuisance,” Kerry said. That is the epitome of naivete, silliness and unseriousness. At the time, I said that the terrorist threat was never a nuisance; that it was just treated that way by the Clinton administration.

Based on both recent comments and comments made a year ago, Democrats keep saying the things that allow people to not take them seriously on national security.

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRing

Who would’ve guessed?

Beautiful Atrocities bring us the story that always seems oddly familiar: diversity doesn’t count when conservatives are being counted.

Addressing the Berkeley Public Library, Jeff writes:

You have 0 copies of Michelle’s 3 books, yet 33 copies of Al Franken’s books. Michelle even does her own research, unlike Franken. You have only 3 copies of Rush Limbaugh’s books, yet 30 copies of Michael Moore’s books, including Estupidos Hombres Blancos, presumably for the benefit of illegal aliens, who are tragically unable to read Michelle’s Invasion.

One might say they’re catering to their readers. Or one might say they are biased. Both are accurate conclusions.

RELATED:
Michelle Malkin’s Unhinged
Berkeley’s Famous Free Speech
Berkeley Gives “Veterans Day” The Finger
Safe In The Ivory Tower: UC Berkeley
Abuses The Memory of 9/11
More on Berkeley

My favorite military and geopolitical historian, Victor Davis Hanson has written a brilliant article for NRO titled ‘The Crying Game’ that’s aptly harsh on Democrats.

“The president misled us.” “Still no WMDs.” “If I had only known then what I do now…”
This is the intellectual level of Democratic wartime criticism about the Bush administration as we near the third Iraqi election, the one that will finally give faces to the first truly elected parliamentary government in the Arab world. So what is behind this crying game at home, when we are so close to achieving our goals abroad?

Yes, Prof. Hanson, that is the ‘intellectual’ level at which the Democratic Party ‘engages’ Republicans at. Fortunately for America and the Iraqis, Republicans engage at a more intelligent level, including basing their policies and opinions on verifiable information and actual reports from military leaders.

Put another way, Democrats have chosen to debate this in terms of political expediency instead of debating it on what’s the best longterm policy for Iraqis and Americans.

My belief is that Americans are noticing the difference because of several recent events, starting with the President’s Veterans’ Day speech, then continuing with Vice President Cheney’s speech, then crystalized by John Murtha’s Retreat speech. The administration has kept the heat on ever since, pressing forward, with a special assist going to J.D. Hayworth’s insistence on a ‘put-up-or-shut-up’ vote on what I mockingly call the Murtha Doctrine. Ever since getting challenged, Murtha’s been in full-fledged, unconditional retreat from his original statements.
(more…)

Who says men hate shopping?

AP reports: “AUGUSTA, Maine - In this town, window shopping is attracting a lot more guys than usual. A lingerie store called Spellbound is grabbing attention with live models in the window. Some people have complained, but police say there is nothing illegal about the lingerie models.”

The important question: Do they franchise?

“Spellbound owner Felicia Stockford said she has had no trouble finding staffers. She said the young women enjoy strutting their stuff in the shop window.”

And some readers were probably presuming this would have to be a man’s idea.

That’s equality.

Video here. Oh, boy!

Drudge, the news wires and many major papers have all been paying close attention to the fact that Arnold Schwarzenegger is contemplating granting clemency to Crips Gang founder “Tookie” Williams. While I don’t feel that I know enough to take a position on clemency, there is one item about the case that is constantly misrepresented.

Of the many articles about the case, the vast majority mention that Williams has been nominated for the Nobel peace prize 5 times. While that is true, I have yet to see a explanation of how the nomination process works. Once the process is understood, that claim may seem less impressive.

Here is the Nobel Prize’s own explanation of who can make a nomination:

Right to submit proposals for the Nobel Peace Prize, based on the principle of competence and universality, shall by statute be enjoyed by:

1. Members of national assemblies and governments of states;
2. Members of international courts;
3. University rectors; professors of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology; directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes;
4. Persons who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize;
5. Board members of organizations who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize;
6. Active and former members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; (proposals by members of the Committee to be submitted no later than at the first meeting of the Committee after February 1) and
7. Former advisers appointed by the Norwegian Nobel Institute.

By having thousands and thousands of people eligible to make nominations the Nobel Committee recieves over 1000 nominations a year.

Through this process Hitler was even nominated for not invading Austria!

While this is not a commentary on Williams case for clemency it does seem that a one sentence addition in the hundreds of articles mentioning Williams’ Nobel Peace Prize nominations would prevent clemency supporters from pointing to the nominations as a compelling reason for clemency.

After all, if all that was necessary to get politicians to commute death sentences was a Nobel Prize nomination it is safe to say that the many anti-death penalty members of academia eligible to make nominations would likely nominate other death row inmates seeking clemency.

Cross-posted at patricksemmens.com