a worthy watch

newt

was darwin wrong ?? the missing link to creationism found ?

this is an interesting story from our own backyard here in north texas.. as i am one to believe the Bible as truth and not question God's design for this world, i don't go seeking to get involved in battles concerning creationism or evolution. i think that natural selection takes place to certain degrees as animals adapt to their surroundings. i do not think we are descendants of apes. i like to keep it that simple. i understand that an all powerful God can create the world and it's inhabitants how he so pleases and i'm just fine with it all.


this story, however, is very interesting.. simply because the implications are so significant if it is proven out. what you see above is a picture of a human footprint overstepped by a dinosaur footprint. thus far, the tests run on this fossil have shown it to be original and of the same material other fossils from the area have been made of. so....


take it for what it's worth -- take a read:


A technical writer for Texas Instruments in Dallas, Lines said he’s no expert on rocks, but he said he has no doubt the Delk rock is real and the prints are legitimate.


“I have really worked hard to figure out how it could be faked,” said Lines.


Lines said his photographs also show the rock contains a number of fossils commonly found in North Texas such as small seashells and shellfish, a fact he said lends credence to the stone’s authenticity.

i heart john bolton..

this guy says what i think.. it's a very rare occasion that i've disagreed with ambassador bolton. it would be sublime to think of him as a vp candidate for mccain, but that would never happen. i do hope he will find himself somewhere in mccain's administration if elected
-------------------------

One world? Obama's on a different planet
The senator's Berlin speech was radical and naive.
By John R. Bolton

SEN. BARACK OBAMA said in an interview the day after his Berlin speech that it "allowed me to send a message to the American people that the judgments I have made and the judgments I will make are ones that are going to result in them being safer."

If that is what the senator thought he was doing, he still has a lot to learn about both foreign policy and the views of the American people. Although well received in the Tiergarten, the Obama speech actually reveals an even more naive view of the world than we had previously been treated to in the United States. In addition, although most of the speech was substantively as content-free as his other campaign pronouncements, when substance did slip in, it was truly radical, from an American perspective.

These troubling comments were not widely reported in the generally adulatory media coverage given the speech, but they nonetheless deserve intense scrutiny. It remains to be seen whether these glimpses into Obama's thinking will have any impact on the presidential campaign, but clearly they were not casual remarks. This speech, intended to generate the enormous publicity it in fact received, reflects his campaign's carefully calibrated political thinking. Accordingly, there should be no evading the implications of his statements. Consider just the following two examples.

First, urging greater U.S.-European cooperation, Obama said, "The burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together." Having earlier proclaimed himself "a fellow citizen of the world" with his German hosts, Obama explained that the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Europe proved "that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one."

Perhaps Obama needs a remedial course in Cold War history, but the Berlin Wall most certainly did not come down because "the world stood as one." The wall fell because of a decades-long, existential struggle against one of the greatest totalitarian ideologies mankind has ever faced. It was a struggle in which strong and determined U.S. leadership was constantly questioned, both in Europe and by substantial segments of the senator's own Democratic Party. In Germany in the later years of the Cold War, Ostpolitik -- "eastern politics," a policy of rapprochement rather than resistance -- continuously risked a split in the Western alliance and might have allowed communism to survive. The U.S. president who made the final successful assault on communism, Ronald Reagan, was derided by many in Europe as not very bright, too unilateralist and too provocative.

But there are larger implications to Obama's rediscovery of the "one world" concept, first announced in the U.S. by Wendell Willkie, the failed Republican 1940 presidential nominee, and subsequently buried by the Cold War's realities.

The successes Obama refers to in his speech -- the defeat of Nazism, the Berlin airlift and the collapse of communism -- were all gained by strong alliances defeating determined opponents of freedom, not by "one-worldism." Although the senator was trying to distinguish himself from perceptions of Bush administration policy within the Atlantic Alliance, he was in fact sketching out a post-alliance policy, perhaps one that would unfold in global organizations such as the United Nations. This is far-reaching indeed.

Second, Obama used the Berlin Wall metaphor to describe his foreign policy priorities as president: "The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down."

This is a confused, nearly incoherent compilation, to say the least, amalgamating tensions in the Atlantic Alliance with ancient historical conflicts. One hopes even Obama, inexperienced as he is, doesn't see all these "walls" as essentially the same in size and scope. But beyond the incoherence, there is a deeper problem, namely that "walls" exist not simply because of a lack of understanding about who is on the other side but because there are true differences in values and interests that lead to human conflict. The Berlin Wall itself was not built because of a failure of communication but because of the implacable hostility of communism toward freedom. The wall was a reflection of that reality, not an unfortunate mistake.

Tearing down the Berlin Wall was possible because one side -- our side -- defeated the other. Differences in levels of economic development, or the treatment of racial, immigration or religious questions, are not susceptible to the same analysis or solution. Even more basically, challenges to our very civilization, as the Cold War surely was, are not overcome by naively "tearing down walls" with our adversaries.

Throughout the Berlin speech, there were numerous policy pronouncements, all of them hazy and nonspecific, none of them new or different than what Obama has already said during the long American campaign. But the Berlin framework in which he wrapped these ideas for the first time is truly radical for a prospective American president. That he picked a foreign audience is perhaps not surprising, because they could be expected to welcome a less-assertive American view of its role in the world, at least at first glance. Even anti-American Europeans, however, are likely to regret a United States that sees itself as just one more nation in a "united" world.

The best we can hope for is that Obama's rhetoric was simply that, pandering to the audience before him, as politicians so often do. We shall see if this rhetoric follows him back to America, either because he continues to use it or because Sen. John McCain asks voters if this is really what they want from their next president.John R. Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of "Surrender Is Not an Option."

obama blows off the troops..

the messiah has determined that visiting troops isn't worth his time since he can't have a photo op there..

When Obama found out he couldn’t use the visit as a photo op, he canceled:

One military official who was working on the Obama visit said because political candidates are prohibited from using military installations as campaign backdrops, Obama’s representatives were told, “he could only bring two or three of his Senate staff member, no campaign officials or workers.” In addition, “Obama could not bring any media. Only military photographers would be permitted to record Obama’s visit.”
The official said “We didn’t know why” the request to visit the wounded troops was withdrawn. “He (Obama) was more than welcome. We were all ready for him.”

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/25/why-obama-snubbed-the-troops-no-photo-op-allowed/

co2 scrubbers..

From conservative punk:

CO2 Scrubbers and the Environmentalists Who Oppose Them
By RizzutoThu Jul 24, 2008 - A technological breakthrough might just allow CO2 to be "scrubbed" from the atmosphere. This from the Guardian:

It has long been the holy grail for those who believe that technology can save us from catastrophic climate change: a device that can "suck" carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air, reducing the warming effect of the billions of tonnes of greenhouse gas produced each year.

Now a group of US scientists say they have made a breakthrough towards creating such a machine. Led by Klaus Lackner, a physicist at Columbia University in New York, they plan to build and demonstrate a prototype within two years that could economically capture a tonne of CO2 a day from the air, about the same per passenger as a flight from London to New York.

The prototype so-called scrubber will be small enough to fit inside a shipping container. Lackner estimates it will initially cost around £100,000 to build, but the carbon cost of making each device would be "small potatoes" compared with the amount each would capture, he said.

You would think that this would be an environmentalists wet dream. The perfect solution to their problem! Turns out...not so much.
This from the National Center for Policy Analysis:
While some see the scrubber as an efficient and economical way to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide, many environmentalists oppose the technology because it allows people to use fossil fuels and emit carbon in the first place.

Doesn't that go to the heart of the agenda of the environmentalists? They're not really interested in solutions, just control. People shouldn't be able to emit carbon whether it has an effect on the environment or not.

he ventured forth to bring light to the world..

This is classic and it's promising evidence that there are others who see through the words that tickle the ears of the longing..

a taste:

And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.
The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.
When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”

...

On the Seventh Day he walked across the Channel of the Angles to the ancient land of the hooligans. There he was welcomed with open arms by the once great prophet Blair and his successor, Gordon the Leper, and his successor, David the Golden One.
And suddenly, with the men appeared the archangel Gabriel and the whole host of the heavenly choir, ranks of cherubim and seraphim, all praising God and singing: “Yes, We Can.”

Obama promises to 'remake the world'

first - credit for the image to Tennyson Hayes from hot air. second - obama is out of control. he goes to germany to talk to the german people and what he comes up with is this nonsense:

“People of Berlin, people of the world, this is our moment. This is our time,” he declared, offering himself “not as a candidate for president, but as a citizen, a proud citizen of the United States and a fellow citizen of the world.”

“I know my country has not perfected itself.”

“But I also know how much I love America,” he said. “We are a people of improbable hope. With an eye towards the future, with resolve in our heart, let us remember this history, and answer our destiny, and remake the world once again.”
--------------------------
dear barry.. you're not running for world dictator - although that time may come. the majority of america understands the reasons why we declared independence from britain and european ideals as a whole. we are not made great by taking the ideals of the old world, but by embracing our own ethos and celebrating hard work and responsibility.. out of many, we are one. we don't care to be one with europe.

barry goes on and says it's time for everyone to get along.. dear barry - not everyone gets along. there will never be a day where everyone does, at least not on this earth. to get along would mean we would ultimately embrace the doctrine of the most violent group on earth.. it's the story of mankind - victory through strength.. not victory through rhetoric.

i think barack needs to go back and play with his lincoln logs some more.

Murder in the Family - Honor Killing in America

this is worthy.. FNC is running a special on honor killings -- this is from Atlas Shrugs and it is worthy of your time:
----------------------------
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/honor_killings_islam_misogyny/

spend some time at this link and look at what is done in the name of islam on a regular basis.

liar liar pants on fire..

"Now, in terms of knowing my commitments, you don't have to just look at my words, you can look at my deeds. Just this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, which is my committee, a bill to call for divestment from Iran, as a way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don't obtain a nuclear weapon."

But Obama is not a member of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. Obama just made that up so he could count the committee's action as one of "my deeds."

-----------------------------

QUESTION: Senator Obama, you said in AIPAC convention that the (INAUDIBLE) Jerusalem could continue to be the capital city. Then you changed it and clarified later on in the -- (INAUDIBLE) wonder.
How could you be sure if your other statesmen, that you are going to be committed to the security and safety of Israel and you're not going to change it even when you're the President of the United States?

OBAMA: First of all, I didn't change my statement.
I continued to say that Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel. And I have said that before and I will say it again. And I also have said that it is important that we don't simply slice the city in half. But I've also said that that's a final status issue. That's an issue that has to be dealt with with the parties involved, the Palestinians and the Israelis. And it's not the job of the United States to dictate the form in which that will take, but rather to support the efforts that are being made right now to resolve these very difficult issues that have a long history.

------------------------------------

At the AIPAC convention, Obama made the ringing declaration that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." "Must." Within 24 hours, however, his advisers scurried to take back Obama's commitment to an undivided Jerusalem, saying that he meant only that Jerusalem shouldn't "be divided by barbed wire and checkpoints as it was in 1948-1967," and that, in fact, Obama was open to Jerusalem also being the capital of the Palestinian state.

------------------------------------

further evidence that this guy says whatever the audience wants to hear to get elected.. a self absorbed liar who twists reality to fit his needs. the loving media laps it up. is this anything but a lie?? 'which is my committee' -- WRONG - not your committee.. just how would you get that confused ?? you wouldn't.

hat tip: The Fine Line Between Pandering and Lying

obama heckled..

you will be hard pressed to find this in the fawning american media - but obama was heckled at the wailing wall during his visit yesterday.. i've looked all over and found no sign of this in the mainly fail media in the us.

---------------------------------------------

Barack Obama heckled as he visits Western Wall

Orthodox men interrupted their morning prayers to catch a glimpse of the Illinois senator, reaching out to shake his hand as he passed them by. But not all were taken by the Democrat. One yelled out: “Obama, Jerusalem is not for sale!” before Mr Obama was whisked away to his waiting plane.

obama refuses to ensure Jews there will not be another holocaust..

This Is Not Good--Barack Obama refused to ensure Israel today that there will not be another Holocaust...Right after a tour of Yad Vashem Memorial

An Israeli journalist called out to Obama: “Can you ensure that there will be no second Holocaust?” Obama walked into the museum’s main building without responding...

Once again an Israeli journalist asked the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee how he’d help prevent a second Holocaust. "Senator can you assure Israel that there will be no second Holocaust despite Iran's threat to wipe us off the map?" he asked.

Obama demurred, saying that it wasn't appropriate to answer the question there.

"This is Yad Vashem!" the journalist responded.

Obama said he would answer the question at a later press availability.

obama says what he means..

"Let me be absolutely clear," Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, said today at a press conference in Amman, Jordan. "Israel is a strong friend of Israel's. It will be a strong friend of Israel's under a McCain...administration. It will be a strong friend of Israel's under an Obama administration. So that policy is not going to change."

------------------------

seriously, if this guy was a republican, obama would have surpassed dan quayle in published and broadcast mockery. dear united states, this guy is a fraud. in this case, however, he says exactly what he means. obama is no friend of israel

obamamessiah does maf

from your messiah:

"the objective of this trip was to have substantive discussions with people like President Karzai or Prime Minister Maliki or President Sarkozy or others who I expect to be dealing with over the next eight to 10 years.
"And it's important for me to have a relationship with them early, that I start listening to them now, getting a sense of what their interests and concerns are."

someone needs to tell obama that the presidency is only 8 years - presuming you first get elected once and then make it to a second term. not 10 years, it's 8 years.

from ABC - this classic line:

The notion that Obama will be dealing with world leaders for eighjt-to-ten years, possibly up through July 2018, suggests that either (a) he believes that not only will he be elected and re-elected, but the 22nd amendment will be repealed and he will be elected for a third term, OR (b) he was speaking casually and just meant two terms.

jihadi tractor... part 2

From the Washington Post
JERUSALEM -- A Palestinian rammed a construction truck into three cars and a bus near the Jerusalem hotel where Barack Obama is supposed to stay Tuesday, injuring four people before an Israeli civilian shot and killed the attacker, police and witnesses said
--------------------------------
another contribution that the 'palestinians' have made to the world.. they have invented the suicide bomber and now the backhoe bandit, or whatever you want to call this. all in the name of the religion of peace, mind you.

i think it's tragic that they are so misunderstood.

the son's of ishmael continue their legacy.

winner takes allah..

By JEREMY OLSHAN
Elected officials and straphangers called on the MTA yesterday to pull the Islamic subway-ad campaign being promoted by a controversial Brooklyn imam whom federal officials have linked to acts of terrorism. The push to promote Islam on the rails this September, in a $48,000 ad campaign sponsored by the Islamic Circle of North America, was reported in The Post yesterday. "I strongly believe the MTA should pull the ads," said Rep. Peter King (R-LI), a ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee. "They are especially shameful because the ads will be running during the seventh anniversary of September 11, and because the subways are considered a primary target of terrorists." Although the group says the ads - which will coincide with the holy month of Ramadan - aim to educate non-Muslims and reach out to those interested in joining the faith, many are incensed that Imam Siraj Wahhaj was chosen as the pitchman in a YouTube video for "The Subway Project." In 1995, federal officials named Wahhaj an unindicted co-conspirator in a plot to blow up city landmarks, although he was never formally charged. A former member of the Nation of Islam, Wahhaj also served as a character witness in the trial of convicted terrorist Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, and has said that he hopes one day all Americans are "persuaded" to become Muslims. MTA officials said the ads are protected as free speech under the First Amendment. Mayor Bloomberg agreed. "If you were to advocate becoming a Muslim, I assume the First Amendment would protect you," he said. The content of the ads themselves is not offensive or suggestive of violence or terrorism, officials said. They merely refer those interested in learning more about Islam to call (877) WHY-ISLAM or visit whyislam.org. Azzem Khan, assistant secretary general of the Islamic Circle, defended Wahhaj. "Siraj Wahhaj is a fine American and is respected by Muslims and non-Muslims alike," he said.

hat tip to http://www.snappedshot.com/ for the photo!

how Israel will deal with iran..

Israel is quickly coming up on the point of no return for how to deal with iran's nuclear program. if you look at the current geo-political climate, you would infer that the world community has not the will to take this problem on - leaving it for Israel to deal with. this, of course, is easy for political leaders with no sense of right and wrong. let Israel act unilaterally, point the finger at them, blame them for the consequences.. all the while happy that iran doesn't have the bomb. this is a tried and true strategy for the power brokers in the world. (read: osirak)

if you examine the bush policy of late, it seems somewhat disjointed and inconsistent. we have recently seen the united states take north korea off the state sponsor of terror list and also directly engage the iranian's in nuclear discussions. these are significant departures from the prior course of action. the question begs, is this a change of direction for us diplomacy? is this a change of heart by george bush?

i think, what we are seeing is bush setting the stage for an attack on iran's nuclear facilities. i think much of what is taking place right now is posturing and 'required' due diligence to demonstrate that every possible step that was needed was taken prior to an attack.

the us has rewarded north korea for their nuclear 'compliance' and now that model is being shown to iran. iran continues to ignore it. israel continues to be asked to give and give and give and they do so with minimal complaint.

the us and Israel have linked air defense systems and Israel is looped in to the missile launch early warning systems from the us - something that has happened prior to desert storm and iraqi freedom.

the united states is sending many mixed messages related to readiness and prospects of a 3rd front in the war, and most of them are negative. the united states wants a diplomatic solution, the united states doesn't want to open another front, the united states is looking to the world community, etc.. yet, there are threads of insight.

admiral mullen has said that iran would not be allowed to close the straits of hormuz. all indications have been given that the united states would defend Israel at all costs.

the world watches on..

some of my thoughts on the situation are as follows -
Israel has warned many, many times that the world needs to act on this and not leave it to Israel. history tells us that once you get through the self hating jews, Israel means what it says. when it's existence is threatened, which it has been, a cornered animal is a dangerous animal.

this tells me there are a couple of things that could be at play. first, if Israel attempts a conventional attack on iranian nuclear facilities unilaterally, that will certainly elicit a response from iran. the united states is sworn to Israel's defense, so united states involvement would be justified at that point. further consider iran's desire to hit at united states facilities in the region, that would draw the usa in without need for world body deliberations or painful posturing in the congress. that would be the green light for a massive counter attack in response to iran's attack on Israel and united states facilities. this, in my mind, is the best approach. it prevents many of the geopolitical drama created by the iraq war and the response is fully justified and can be from all angles and overwhelming.

Israel is justified in attacking iran's nuclear sites due to the rhetoric from iran. there is no further justification needed to take action. the iranian counter attack would include attacks on Israel from every front - north, south, east and west. Israel must prepare for that eventuality and possibly even take action in conjunction with an operation in iran - in lebanon and gaza. iran's response would surely include attacks on united states interests, which would result in an overwhelming, well planned counter punch to finish the job Israel started.

this approach assumes coordination between Israel and the united states - which is not atypical.

if the united states abandons Israel and leaves her to go this alone, the global consequences would be dire.

the second conclusion i can arrive at is that Israel is backed in to a corner and is forced to deal with iran alone and a new president or a liberal us congress does not back Israel. this would result in a far more overwhelming act from Israel to make sure that they set back iran's program by more than a few years.

what i'm taking about is the use of Israeli tactical nuclear weapons to attack iran's nuclear sites in a coordinated attack which would leave much of iran in disarray and would send a shocking and sobering message through the region.

if you threaten the destruction of Israel, you will face the full brunt of Israel's array of weaponry.

this would certainly set back iran's nuclear program, it would also elicit an overwhelming response from the world community. i think that is why Israel continues to say that it would be far better for the world community to deal with this problem than the Jews. Israel doesn't have a history of beating around the bush when it comes to the well being of the nation.

i think this is a real possibility. it would certainly force the united nations to act and it would significantly change the paradigm in the region.

if it does happen, i'm certain there will be much hand wringing and finger pointing.. but Israel has been clear from the very beginning. the world community needs to act before Israel is forced to act. the world community won't like what it gets for inaction.

NYT REJECTS MCCAIN’S EDITORIAL; SHOULD ‘MIRROR’ OBAMA

from drudge
NYT REJECTS MCCAIN’S EDITORIAL; SHOULD ‘MIRROR’ OBAMA
Mon Jul 21 2008 12:00:25 ET

An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES — less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

The paper’s decision to refuse McCain’s direct rebuttal to Obama’s ‘My Plan for Iraq’ has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican circles.

‘It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece,’ NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to McCain’s staff. ‘I’m not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.’

In McCain’s submission to the TIMES, he writes of Obama: ‘I am dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it... if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president.’

NYT’s Shipley advised McCain to try again: ‘I’d be pleased, though, to look at another draft.’

[Shipley served in the Clinton Administration from 1995 until 1997 as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Presidential Speechwriter.]

-----------------------------------------------------------------
the full McCain piece:

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

no more organics..

To stretch their food dollars, people are changing the way they shop. For some, that means buying fewer organic products or taking them off the shopping list entirely.

“Consumers are going from national brands to private labels and from more expensive produce, and that would include organics, to lower-priced produce,” he says.
------
first ice cream, now organics ??

hat tip michelle malkin

the power of prayer

"I never lost my faith. And God was with me from the first day to the end of this horrible experience. He's still with me. I pray every day, from the moment I have been released, I pray that He might give us the miracle of freeing the other ones, like He did for us. For me it was a miracle."

-- French-Colombian politician Ingrid Betancourt, just rescued from the FARC after six years in captivity

tax payers fleeced..

no pretty image here -- but this is a great article today in the WSJ outlining how we the taxpayers are getting absolutely screwed in these bail outs. this is primarily about fannie mae and freddie mac and not about the 300 billion in the works to bail out all of the irresponsible lenders and home buyers.. but they point is good. what do we get, as tax payers, for our bailout of these people ??
the article really takes to task democrats chris dodd and barney frank (gas). republican lawmakers haven't been a bright light on the topic, either. read the article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659681885068955.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks
----------------------------------------------
The real priority ought to be protecting taxpayers in return for bailing out these vehicles of Capitol Hill privilege. Taxpayers have already coughed up once, in the form of Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's explicit pledge last week to save the companies and let them tap the Federal Reserve's discount window. Now taxpayers are being asked to pay again, via legislation allowing the government to increase its credit line to the companies and to inject capital if needed to save them from failure.

For all of that, taxpayers have so far received nothing -- no stock warrants, no discipline for the management or shareholders of Fan and Fred, no guarantee that the companies won't pocket this bailout and emerge even more powerful down the road. At least Bear Stearns went out of business when it had to be saved by Uncle Sam.
...
They made this mess by creating these beasts that combine private profit with public risk. And they made the mess worse by fighting, over many years and despite accounting fraud, any limits on the ability of the companies to grow with taxpayer subsidies. Mr. Dodd and Congress owe Americans an apology, not more ransom demands.