California Conservative

Joe Lieberman has written an op-ed in today’s OpinionJournal that excoriates the Democrats for their defeatist attitudes and policies. Here’s a key section from Sen. Lieberman’s op-ed:

Will we allow our actions to be driven by the changing conditions on the ground in Iraq, or by the unchanging political and ideological positions long ago staked out in Washington? What ultimately matters more to us: the real fight over there, or the political fight over here?

If we stopped the legislative maneuvering and looked to Baghdad, we would see what the new security strategy actually entails and how dramatically it differs from previous efforts. For the first time in the Iraqi capital, the focus of the U.S. military is not just training indigenous forces or chasing down insurgents, but ensuring basic security, meaning an end, at last, to the large-scale sectarian slaughter and ethnic cleansing that has paralyzed Iraq for the past year.

President Bush’s plan might not succeed but he’s at least trying to achieve victory. That’s a far cry from the Democrats’ position. Democrats should be chastised for opposing victory and for owning the defeatism market. It’s never been, nor should it ever be, acceptable for a major political party to attempt so strongly to ‘achieve’ defeat. (more…)

I wrote about the Democrats’ ignoring the Constitution Friday night because they’re attempting to rewrite the AUMF for Iraq and putting that legislation in “anti-terrorism legislation scheduled to be debated later. According to this Washington Post article, Mitch McConnell has let Reid know that that won’t happen. In fact, Sen. McConnell, who’s fast becoming my favorite GOP legislator, has some demands of his own:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) warned yesterday that a new Democratic effort to repeal the 2002 Iraq war resolution would meet the same fate as two previous efforts to limit President Bush’s authority: blocked by procedural obstacles, unless Democrats relent to GOP terms.

Speaking to reporters by conference call from his Louisville home, McConnell compared the latest Democratic move to “trying to unring a bell.” He warned that Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the U.S. military commander in Iraq, would “have to surround himself with lawyers” to comply with the new resolution that senior Democrats are drafting.

McConnell predicted he could muster Republican support to block the measure, unless Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-NV) allows a vote on a nonbinding GOP measure to guarantee troop funding.

McConnell’s got Reid painted into such a tight corner that he can’t move. Reid can’t afford to let the GOP resolution see the light of day because he’d be chastised by the anti-American Nutroots coalition. (more…)

I just started reading the transcript of Mark Shields and David Brooks. Shields is already sounding incoherent. Here’s what I zeroed in on:

JIM LEHRER: And to the analysis of Shields and Brooks, syndicated columnist Mark Shields, New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Mark, on Iraq, how important is the Tony Blair decision to withdraw troops?

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated Columnist: Well, it’s symbolically, I think, important, Jim. I mean, the reality behind the move is that, as Tony Cordesman from Strategic and International Studies said, Basra was lost a year ago, and Brits have had to withdraw to the airport.

It’s now just a Shia stronghold. There is no tension. There’s no civil war there, because there’s no Sunnis. And it’s a little bit like saying that there wasn’t any racial tension in Fargo or Moorhead, North Dakota, during the civil rights struggle. There weren’t any racial minorities.

What a dipstick. According to Shields, Basra was lost a year ago because everything was calm. There wasn’t any tension between Sunnis and Shia because there weren’t any Sunnis in any appreciable numbers. The British troops are turning over security to the Iraqis because the Iraqi military can maintain security in that region.

Furthermore, the British troops didn’t have to “withdraw to the airport.” As Captain Ed said today, NATO’s nations aren’t stepping up to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan so the British are sending troops there. The troops being pulled will likely rotate back to Great Britain while other troops rotate to Afghanistan. (more…)

AP reports:

Both President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his rival, former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, adopted a defiant tone as the world powers prepare to meet Monday in London to consider penalizing Iran for defying demands to freeze its uranium enrichment program.

The International Atomic Energy Agency reported Thursday that Iran had not only ignored a U.N. Security Council ultimatum to freeze the enrichment program, but had expanded that program by setting up hundreds of centrifuges. Enriched uranium fuels nuclear reactors but, enriched further, is used in nuclear bombs.

In Washington, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said he will travel to London on Monday to meet with the United States’ negotiating partners to try to draft a new resolution on Iran.

“It is effectively thumbing its nose at the international community,” he said of Iran.

Sound familiar? Saddam Hussein, R.I.P.

Meanwhile, Democrats are wasting time on non-binding resolutions for political theater, while Republican leadership continues to deal with clear and present dangers.

America has just witnessed another amazing episode of hypocrisy from the left, specifically, the recent controversy over former Vice-President Al Gore’s extravagant usage of a private jet. But while breathtaking, given his status as supposed high priest of environmental awareness, Gore’s behavior is also entirely typical. As such, it is illustrative of the real arrogance and indifference driving American liberals.

Issues of the day are never determined as a result of the concerns and needs of the citizens, but rather by their ability to be utilized to further accrue prestige (and thus, power) to the political left. Within this framework, amazing “about faces” regularly occur. And some of them vastly eclipse former presidential candidate John Kerry’s schizophrenic proclamation of “I actually voted for the 87 billion dollars before I voted against it.”

On occasion, certain Democrats such as Hillary Clinton have strayed too far off of the liberal reservation, at which point they are taken to task for their duplicity. Since declaring her intentions to run for President, Clinton has had to perform an impressive political tap-dance away from her previously staunch support for the Iraq war.

Conservative leaders correctly characterize the Democrat Party as having a vested interest in securing defeat in Iraq. Consequently, any postures by Clinton that might appear to support America and thereby jeopardize the desired outcome, run counter to the current leftist orthodoxy and cannot be tolerated.

More often than not however, ideologues of the political left are content to ignore the glaring inconsistencies among their members, since they know that the “mainstream” media will never point such contradictions out to the general public. A few sterling examples of recent weeks, when considered in conjunction with the virtual media blackout in response to them, prove this point.

It is striking that, at the same time Gore’s fossil fuel squandering escapades are coming to light (at least among the “alternative media” and conservative circles), Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has brazenly voiced a demand for the Defense Department to provide her a Boeing 757, essentially for her personal use.

Her pretext for insisting on such lavish arrangements is that she needs to be able to travel coast-to-coast without stopping to refuel. Yet past speakers managed to scrape by with a commuter class Gulfstream jet, which is fully capable of making the non-stop trips to Pelosi’s home district in California, rendering her excuse to be wholly without merit.

So, where are the sincere liberal environmentalists (an oxymoron to be sure) who should be decrying Pelosi’s excesses along with Gore’s, as they callously risk the very future of the planet? Their cause being deemed so noble and worthy, Gore and Pelosi get a “pass,” as is invariably the case among liberal icons. (more…)

A woman holds up a flag of Kenya as Democratic presidential hopeful, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record), D-Ill., greets supporters during a rally in Austin, Texas, Friday, Feb. 23, 2007. (AP Photo/LM Otero)

How many Americans would vote for a presidential candidate who was the member of a church that professed the following credo?

1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the White Community
3. Commitment to the White Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the White Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.

The question is rhetorical, of course. The answer is that such a candidate wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting elected dog catcher (apologies to America’s animal rescue and public safety personnel) let alone President, because that candidate would be instantly branded a racist, among the most vile and frightening of white supremacists.

And those holding the branding irons would be 100% right.

Yet, in the “About” section of the U.S. Senate website for Barack Obama, Democratic senator from Illinois and contender for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States, it states that Obama and his family “live on Chicago’s South Side where they attend Trinity United Church of Christ.”

So…?

Well, to say that the Trinity United Church of Christ (http://www.tucc.org) is afrocentric in the extreme would be a gross understatement. It’s not simply afrocentric, it’s African-centric. In fact, one could argue that this organization worships things African to a far greater degree than they do Christ, and gives the impression of being a separatist “church” in the same vein as do certain supremacist “white brethren” churches – or even Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam.

Shocking? An overstatement? An overreaction?

One can see for oneself on the Trinity United Church website, which is replete with confirmation of what I present here. What follows is an excerpt from their Mission Statement:

“We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian… Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain “true to our native land,” the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

“Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:

1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the Black Community
3. Commitment to the Black Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.”

[Editor’s note: What defines the Black Value System?]

Sound familiar? Of course it is, since it’s identical to the 12-point list at the beginning of this column – the one from the theoretical white supremacist candidate’s church; the only difference is the substitution of the word “Black” for “White.”

Trinity United Church of Christ’s congregation also claims to hold to a “10-point Vision” which is similarly afrocentric, or if you will, separatist. Again, like the Nation of Islam, a white separatist church or the Branch Davidians, Trinity United more resembles a cult than a church. Only this one has as one of its most prominent members a serious contender for the White House.

And George W. Bush’s born-again Christian status scares people? Read the full report by Erik Rush.

UPDATE: (3/2)
VIDEO: Obama’s Pastor Embarrasses Entire Congregation

Yesterday, I talked about Democrats floating a trial balloon about how to ensure defeat in Iraq. I said then that I was speculating about how they would propose this redefinition of the military’s role in Iraq. This AP article clarifies how the Democrats plan on limiting the mission. Here’s what the AP tells us about Reid’s proposal:

The wording of the Democrats’ measure, for instance whether it would try to revoke Bush’s authority for the war or merely tailor it more narrowly, remains unsettled. One version would restrict American troops to fighting the al-Qaida terrorist network, training Iraqi army and police forces, maintaining Iraq’s territorial integrity and hastening the withdrawal of combat forces.

Reid, (D-NV), intends to present the proposal to fellow Democrats next week. He is expected to try to add the measure to anti-terrorism legislation scheduled to be debated later.

This is clearly unconstitutional because the Legislative Branch is micromanaging the war, telling the Commander-in-Chief how troops should be deployed, what limits the troops must obey. In other words, Senate Democrats are trying to assume the role of Commander-in-Chief. (more…)

That’s Madeleine Albright’s contention of the Iraq War, thereby exposing her blind loyalty to the Clintons. I suspect that she’s also saying that to embellish her ‘legacy’.

“I think that Iraq is going to go down in history as the greatest disaster in American foreign policy,” Albright said, with former President Jimmy Carter at her side in one of a series of “Conversations at the Carter Center.” “We have lost the element of goodness in American power, and we have lost our moral authority,” she said. “The job of the next president will be to restore the goodness of American power.”

Albright, who was part of Carter’s national security team in the 1970s, long before she was the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and secretary of state under President Bill Clinton, said many Americans believe that they should be loved around the world. “We don’t have to be loved,” she said. “But we shouldn’t be feared. We should be respected.”

I didn’t know that Albright was part of Carter’s national security team but I’ll admit that it makes sense. Here’s an astonishing statement:

“We don’t have to be loved,” she said. “But we shouldn’t be feared. We should be respected.”

That runs contrary to what I call the Reagan Principle, which he used to bring down the Soviet Union. Stated simply, the Reagan Principle says that you don’t negotiate with your enemies until you’ve scared them into making major, longlasting concessions. The Carter/Albright ‘doctrine’ is the opposite belief, believing that appeasement and ‘modesty’ are the best methods to ensure a false stability. (more…)

Since I’m on a global warming kick (not actually…this is basically just a continuation of the other day’s post), I’ve decided to show Al Gore (mainly Gore and his “environmentalist” Democrat cohorts) and his “carbon credits” scheme for the absolute frauds they are.

The first news to set me off on this tangent was that Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth was Paramount Studios’ most profitable release ever (via Variety). How absolutely sad is that? What’s even sadder is that Paramount, AFAIK, own all rights and distribution of all the Star Trek movies and series. So, Al Gore’s science fiction is more popular than Star Trek? The only thing inconvenient about An Inconvenient Truth is how many of the competing global warming theories it leaves out. According to Gore, there is only one truth, and it’s that “the sky is falling.”

Read the whole thing at TexPundit.

According to this Reuters article, Bank of America is defending its decision to issue credit cards to illegal aliens. I must say that their responses haven’t been very persuasive. Here’s an example to illustrate my point:

For its part, Bank of America has not seen “any unusual business activity” resulting from responses to the pilot program, spokeswoman Alexandra Trower said. “Some (customers) are very supportive, while others are not supportive,” she said. “That is why we undertake pilots.”

Here’s what makes her statement unpersuasive:

William Gheen, director of the National Illegal Immigration Boycott Coalition, said his group has collected hundreds of e-mails from people vowing to cancel accounts and move mortgages. The group said it has more than 11,000 signatures on its petition calling for a boycott of Bank of America.

Bank of America is kidding themselves if they think this won’t dramatically impact their profits. You can’t fight impassioned customers, which their CEO admits he’s feeling:

In his Thursday opinion piece, Lewis admitted it is not pleasant to be caught a century later in the “heated” national immigration debate, and that he was “feeling the passion.”

That’s spin for “I’m taking a hit for this.” It’s safe to say that he’s wishing that they hadn’t tried this program. What’s baffling to me is why he thought that this wouldn’t be controversial. Why didn’t Mr. Lewis think that anti-illegal immigration activists would take this personally?

Even if it isn’t illegal, the move is foolish from a bottom line perspective. They’ve stirred up alot of anger amongst its customers, which is the opposite of what a business should do if it hopes to maximize its profits.

Meanwhile, CNN host Lou Dobbs, another illegal immigration opponent, has called the card program “outrageous,” and the idea that Bank of America isn’t marketing to illegal immigrants “fundamentally, absolutely and unequivocally a lie.”

I don’t often agree with Lou Dobbs but I wholeheartedly agree this time. Don’t expect this program to last long.

Technorati Tags: Bank Of America, Illegal Immigration, Lou Dobbs, CNN

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog