Hillary Care?

Laura Ingraham lets us all in on a grip of Hillary's reality

Breakdown in Democracy

Venezuelans march against closure of TV station

By Brian Ellsworth

CARACAS (Reuters) - Tens of thousands of Venezuelan protesters marched on Saturday to the Caracas headquarters of an anti-government television station, which is being forced off the air after President Hugo Chavez's administration refused to renew its broadcasting license.
Waving flags with the logo of RCTV, demonstrators packed the streets of the capital where news anchors and soap opera stars slammed the imminent closure of the opposition channel.
"What is happening here is simply the silencing of a television station," shouted soap opera actress Gledys Ibarra.

If you want to get the attention of the masses, try taking away some of the basic freedoms that include the media. Venezuela, under "president" Chavez has replaced a popular television station with a government run program last week and the public is making it known that they are not pleased. So far, injuries reported on the street protest have been marginal with police and troops using water guns and rubber bullets, and tear gas.

Chavez has been the controversial leader in south America that has included insulting President Bush, and aligning himself with nations that are at odds with the United States. While pretending to be the president of a democratic nation, Chavez has used his verbal assault on the United States and his alliance with rouge nations to launch his diatribe of oppression on his own people.

Meanwhile in Mexico City, many in the crowd booed the US representative in a beauty pageant that some say was Mexico's protest of the immigration policies being debated by our legislators and the general public. It is not known whether this was an organized group that was booing or if it is the sentiment of the general population.

Either way, it seems there is some dissent that is simmering in the southern hemisphere.

Michael Yon's Memorial Day Message

Please read Michael Yon's message

Impeach the President

The Anchoress has posted a story that give us all the reasons to impeach the president, which would indeed correct many of the falacies printed and published in the slanted bias of the mainstream media. It is great reading and sets a lot of records straight.

"I haven’t read the thing, itself, but I have now read several accounts of Al Gore’s new book, Assault on Reason, wherein he wags fingers at people who watch TV (unless, of course, they’re watching him pimp his book) and the media (particularly those who don’t stick to reporting only his side, of the “manmade” global warming story) and - by all accounts - he trashes the Bush 43 administration from start to finish, enumerating all of Bush’s “lies” and mistakes."

"Oh, I think it’s definitely time. Let’s do it - let’s impeach President Bush, let’s have all of this brought forward and get it all investigated and put on the real, actual record, instead of in someone’s book of dreams and opinions or in a convenient, “bumperstickeresqe” meme. Let’s get all the tawdry lists and narratives together and finally get them “on the record and testified to.” We can start with the Gore/Behar list:.........(full story)

In Hog Heaven

An 11 year old took down this monster in Bama this month.......storys here

(update: Some people are making comments like--"I guess Rosie won't be returning"-----I think this is an insult to the pig.

Common Sense Prevails

House passes Iraq funding bill without timetable.

In a 280-142 vote, the House passed a $120-billion Iraq war funding bill that contains no timeline to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq. The bill is now sent to the Senate for final passage, "expected later Thursday night."

Senate passes funding bill 80-14-----Clinton and Obama among the 14 that have refused to support our troops.

Think Progress and lefty blogs besides themselves.

updates developing...............

Kennedy was sweatin' bullets all day acting like he was the majority leader and Harry was no where to be seen. I guess the Dems thought they better get something done (they thought they could brag about) before they got home this weekend to catch the ration from their constituents.

The trade-off was a pathetic and rushed immigration bill that will need to be refined/revamped........better than nothing? Who knows.

Now (at least) GW can tell General Petraeus the political games the left has been playing with the lives of his troops (and 30 million Iraqi) is over for a bit. Now the General has the summer to win the war/peace, 'cause it will be up to the Iraqi's to carry their own ball after that.

Three cheers for the sane portion of the democratic party that finally came to their senses, well most of them. Hillary voted not to support the troops and that may be a defining (Kerry) moment for her ambitions. MOVE-ON THAT!

update: Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters says "That Wasn't So Hard, Was It?"

update 2 Clinton and Obama offer no support

update 3 Dafydd's hatched his whole nest on this one at Big Lizzards

update 4 Dana at CSPT calls it a "Folding Chair Party"

This is TOO FUNNY!!!

For all you conspiracy nuts.....here's one you can really believe

(editors note: I stole this from Curt at Flopping Aces)

Border Security a Priority

The Washington Times writes that (according to national polls) Americans number one priority is to secure the border:


Border security first, Americans tell polls
By Sean Lengell

Americans favor stronger border security and enforcement of existing immigration laws before any new immigration rules take effect, according to polls. But a tough stance on enforcement of U.S. policy doesn't mean the country is opposed to more immigration, pollsters say, as many surveys also show support for giving illegal aliens in the United States a path toward legal residency or citizenship. Opinion polls on the immigration debate vary and often contradict one another. But most surveys show that better border security and enforcement of current immigration law are priorities for Americans. Fifty-six percent of U.S. adults favored an "enforcement-only" approach to immigration reform with no path to citizenship for illegal aliens in the United States, according to a Rasmussen Reports poll conducted earlier this month. When a path to citizenship for illegal aliens was added to the mix, the Rasmussen survey showed 42 percent in support and 44 percent opposed. "Enforcement of existing laws is the No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 priority for immigration reform among Americans," said Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports. "That's what voters think immigration reform means."

A Los Angeles Times/ Bloomberg Poll from April shows that 40 percent support an enforcement-only approach to immigration reform, with 55 percent favoring an immigration policy that includes tougher enforcement of immigration laws coupled with a guest-worker program that would allow foreigners to work legally in the United States on temporary visas. In a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll conducted this month, 50 percent of those surveyed opposed the creation of a temporary-worker program that would allow foreigners to enter the United States for several months to work but would not allow them to apply for U.S. citizenship. The poll also showed 45 percent support for a 700-mile fence along the Mexico border. The same CNN/Opinion Research poll also revealed that 80 percent favored a program that would allow illegal aliens living in United States to stay and apply for U.S. citizenship if they had a job and paid back taxes. A USA Today/Gallup Poll conducted last month showed that 78 percent of respondents favored a program that would allow aliens living in the United States illegally to apply for citizenship if they met certain requirements.

"The U.S. is a nation of immigrants, but it's also a nation of laws," Mr. Rasmussen said. "It's not a conflict for Americans to want both open immigration and strict enforcement of immigration laws."

While the national polls show that Americans prefer to border security as a priority, they also believe that those who are here illegally (unlawfully) must make amends for ignoring existing immigration laws. It's a bad taste in the mouths of the working class that see any hint of a "free pass" for those who came here illegally, along with forgiveness for back taxes, social welfare giveaways, and fast-tracking the path to citizenship. Others also see the necessity of documentation for those already here.

The Senate also needs to slow down. The body that has always been considered the deliberative seems to wants to rush to political resolve like they have a hot potato in their pants. And both sides of the political spectrum are concerned with alienating a huge block of potential voters, inside and outside their "big tents".

The democratic party is (finally) figuring out that many in their voting block, (that put them into power in 06) did so because the promise of change in Iraq did not include outright surrender to a terrorist body that threatens western society. The Move-On and far left anti-war block (that has driven the Polosi-Murtha-Reid trainwreck) is losing their steam when many Americans realize that this world wide terrorism against the west is not going to go away with an outright withdrawal from the battlefield in Iraq.

The immigration issue seems to be just stuck in the forefront of foreign policy for the moment, and both partys appear to think they have the time to put it to bed before they return to priorities of securing this nations interest in the middle east. And all this while Iran gets to slide under the radar, (again).

White House Responds to Carter

Jimmy (the mouth) Carter recieved a response to his pot-kettle look in the mirror comment, throwing out a long honored tradition of not criticising a sitting President. The south just took a big hit on their reputation of having class.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto had declined to react on Saturday but on Sunday fired back.

"I think it's sad that President Carter's reckless personal criticism is out there," Fratto told reporters. "I think it's unfortunate. And I think he is proving to be increasingly irrelevant with these kinds of comments."

Matt Drudge links Al-Reuters for the story of the decade, and both fail miserably to describe the worst president ever. The left have stooped to a knew low in American history.

developed Drudge tools coming soon.............no links supplied........look up the trash yourself

MARK STEYN'S TAKE ON IMMIGRATION

Mark Steyn's article written in the Chicago Sun Times runs the gamut of many:

Capitulation, from A------ to Z

by MARK STEYN

Are you a fine upstanding member of the Undocumented-American community? That's to say, are you (if you'll forgive the expression) an illegal immigrant? Great news! Being illegal is now perfectly legal! Just for being one of the circa 12 million people who shouldn't be here, you can now be here indefinitely! If you were living and working in America illegally before Jan. 1, 2007, you're now entitled to one of the new Z-1 "probationary" visas. And your parents and spouses are entitled to one of the new Z-2 visas, and your children to the new Z-3 visas.

Don't worry: It's not an "amnesty." Every politician in America is opposed to amnesty -- if not the concept, then at least the word. That's why the visa starts with the letter that's furthest away from the one "amnesty" begins with. "Z" stands for zellout . . . no, hang on, zurrender or Zapatista, or some other word way up the other end of the alphabet from "amnesty." But the point is, at a stroke there will be no more illegal immigrants. Because being illegal means you're now legal...........(complete story here)

Conservatives and Immigration

(Bumped to the top)

The reaction of conservatives to the immigration bill has been predictably swift. As usual, however, it's hard to know what the "conservative" position on immigration is. At times, it looks as though nothing short of the immediate and mass deportation of 12 million people will satisfy their anti-amnesty call. But let's take it more slowly. We should not be in a hurry to let National Review, Hugh Hewitt, and even the venerable Rush Limbaugh tell us what the conservative position on immigration ought to be.

Let us dispense first with the anti-McCain and disingenuous "I'm not endorsing Mitt Romney" wing, led by Hugh Hewitt. Now, I was thrilled when I first found Mr. Hewitt on the radio a year before the 2004 election; and I was similarly thrilled that his report on Election Eve that Rove had informed the President that Ohio was won, almost an hour before FNC called the state, was wonderfully accurate. I was less thrilled that his optimistic whistling past the graveyard in the early evening of Election Eve 2006 turned out more like standing on the deck of the Titanic, suggesting that it doesn't seem to be sinking as fast as has been predicted. Those familiar with Mr. Hewitt know that he has claimed for some time that the Gang of 14 cost Republicans the Senate. With little more than anecdotal support, it's hard to know why it wasn't the uttering of the single word "machaca" in the state of Virginia that cost Republican control of the Senate (Or a more familiar word, "Iraq"). So, when Mr. Hewitt predicts that the McCain-led immigration deal will do for Republicans what the Gang of 14 did for them in 2006, we have a right to be suspicious of Mr. Hewitt's claimed insight into the workings of the Republican electorate. So, I will leave Mr. Hewitt aside for the moment, as he continues his campaign for the recently discovered true conservative, Mitt Romney.

Apparently some conservatives -- perhaps this is Mr. Hannity's position -- think that anything less than the immediate execution of current law is amnesty. This, however, implies that anything less than the beginning of the immediate deportation of 12 million people counts as amnesty. Conservatives, like Mr. Hannity, pride themselves on being able to recognize and name evil when they see it. We should hope that they would also be able to recognize and name fantasy when they see it; and that is all that immediate deportation is -- fantasy. But at least this position has the virtue of being consistent.

Fantastic, out of touch with the real world...but consistent.A somewhat less fantastic, but considerably more puzzling position is the following. Don't deport; simply go after the employers. Close down the job opportunities, and the illegal immigrants among us will go back home. No one, not even Ann Coulter, has explained how we will find the resources to close down all such employment opportunities. This sounds to me a little bit like deciding to close down pornography web sites on the Internet. Neither one seems to have much chance of succeeding. And, if going after the source of the jobs were actually our official policy, it would seem such a policy was at the very least temporary amnesty -- perhaps long-term, temporary amnesty: You can stay until we get 'round to arresting your employer.

Neither the Hannity "deport now" nor the Coulter "arrest the bosses now" position seems remotely tenable.

But then it's hard to figure out exactly what the conservative position is. Mr. Limbaugh, too, has described this as amnesty. As I write, Mr. Limbaugh seems to be arguing the following. He thinks this bill is the end of the Republican party, and it is the end of our American, conservative value system. Apparently he thinks that all of these illegal immigrants, once they attain citizenship, will be Democratic voters. He thinks that all of these illegal immigrants will shift the demographics so much to people who will have no "incentive" to be conservative or Republicans; hence, Democrats will win elections as far as the eye can see.

Now, there are at least two bald-faced, empirical claims in this argument, for which Mr. Limbaugh has no evidence; if he does, he is not willing to share it. Earlier Mr. Limbaugh suggested that (at least some) proponents of the bill were claiming critics are racist. Some might, but there are clearly those willing to defend it on other grounds. But if Mr. Limbaugh chooses to criticize the bill on obviously empirical grounds, then we need to know what support he has for them.

Mr. Limbaugh is right about one matter; there is no particular reason that illegal immigrants ought to have a veto over American policy. Yet Mr. Limbaugh persists in characterizing and criticizing a bill -- sometimes in ways that are at odds with descriptions of the bill on news websites and in the morning paper -- while also claiming that no one knows what's in the bill. Mr. Limbaugh deserves our respect for singlehandedly changing the way the conservative view is represented in this country. But this is once that we shouldn't be too quick with our "ditto."

The accounts that I have seen of the bill say that it continues the building of the fence and increases technological and human policing of the border. That is, the bill attends to border security. To simply wave your hand and say "this will never happen" is question-begging. To then suggest that this bill is amnesty is to countenance obscurantism.One dictionary definition of "amnesty" is that no penalty is exacted for a legal violation. By this definition, this new bill is not amnesty. Since we cannot continue down the current path, conservatives who insist that it is amnesty ought to tell us what realistic, non-amnesty alternative they have in mind.

(Editors note: This was sent to me from guest-poster "East of Eden" )

Others blogging:

DJ Drummond at Wizbang

Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters

Dafydd at Big Lizzards

Test

test of the comments

Conservatives and Immigration

The reaction of conservatives to the immigration bill has been predictably swift. As usual, however, it's hard to know what the "conservative" position on immigration is. At times, it looks as though nothing short of the immediate and mass deportation of 12 million people will satisfy their anti-amnesty call. But let's take it more slowly. We should not be in a hurry to let National Review, Hugh Hewitt, and even the venerable Rush Limbaugh tell us what the conservative position on immigration ought to be.

Let us dispense first with the anti-McCain and disingenuous "I'm not endorsing Mitt Romney" wing, led by Hugh Hewitt. Now, I was thrilled when I first found Mr. Hewitt on the radio a year before the 2004 election; and I was similarly thrilled that his report on Election Eve that Rove had informed the President that Ohio was won, almost an hour before FNC called the state, was wonderfully accurate. I was less thrilled that his optimistic whistling past the graveyard in the early evening of Election Eve 2006 turned out more like standing on the deck of the Titanic, suggesting that it doesn't seem to be sinking as fast as has been predicted. Those familiar with Mr. Hewitt know that he has claimed for some time that the Gang of 14 cost Republicans the Senate. With little more than anecdotal support, it's hard to know why it wasn't the uttering of the single word "machaca" in the state of Virginia that cost Republican control of the Senate (Or a more familiar word, "Iraq"). So, when Mr. Hewitt predicts that the McCain-led immigration deal will do for Republicans what the Gang of 14 did for them in 2006, we have a right to be suspicious of Mr. Hewitt's claimed insight into the workings of the Republican electorate. So, I will leave Mr. Hewitt aside for the moment, as he continues his campaign for the recently discovered true conservative, Mitt Romney.

Apparently some conservatives -- perhaps this is Mr. Hannity's position -- think that anything less than the immediate execution of current law is amnesty. This, however, implies that anything less than the beginning of the immediate deportation of 12 million people counts as amnesty. Conservatives, like Mr. Hannity, pride themselves on being able to recognize and name evil when they see it. We should hope that they would also be able to recognize and name fantasy when they see it; and that is all that immediate deportation is -- fantasy. But at least this position has the virtue of being consistent. Fantastic, out of touch with the real world...but consistent.

A somewhat less fantastic, but considerably more puzzling position is the following. Don't deport; simply go after the employers. Close down the job opportunities, and the illegal immigrants among us will go back home. No one, not even Ann Coulter, has explained how we will find the resources to close down all such employment opportunities. This sounds to me a little bit like deciding to close down pornography web sites on the Internet. Neither one seems to have much chance of succeeding. And, if going after the source of the jobs were actually our official policy, it would seem such a policy was at the very least temporary amnesty -- perhaps long-term, temporary amnesty: You can stay until we get 'round to arresting your employer.

Neither the Hannity "deport now" nor the Coulter "arrest the bosses now" position seems remotely tenable.

But then it's hard to figure out exactly what the conservative position is. Mr. Limbaugh, too, has described this as amnesty. As I write, Mr. Limbaugh seems to be arguing the following. He thinks this bill is the end of the Republican party, and it is the end of our American, conservative value system. Apparently he thinks that all of these illegal immigrants, once they attain citizenship, will be Democratic voters. He thinks that all of these illegal immigrants will shift the demographics so much to people who will have no "incentive" to be conservative or Republicans; hence, Democrats will win elections as far as the eye can see.

Now, there are at least two bald-faced, empirical claims in this argument, for which Mr. Limbaugh has no evidence; if he does, he is not willing to share it. Earlier Mr. Limbaugh suggested that (at least some) proponents of the bill were claiming critics are racist. Some might, but there are clearly those willing to defend it on other grounds. But if Mr. Limbaugh chooses to criticize the bill on obviously empirical grounds, then we need to know what support he has for them.

Mr. Limbaugh is right about one matter; there is no particular reason that illegal immigrants ought to have a veto over American policy. Yet Mr. Limbaugh persists in characterizing and criticizing a bill -- sometimes in ways that are at odds with descriptions of the bill on news websites and in the morning paper -- while also claiming that no one knows what's in the bill. Mr. Limbaugh deserves our respect for singlehandedly changing the way the conservative view is represented in this country. But this is once that we shouldn't be too quick with our "ditto."

The accounts that I have seen of the bill say that it continues the building of the fence and increases technological and human policing of the border. That is, the bill attends to border security. To simply wave your hand and say "this will never happen" is question-begging. To then suggest that this bill is amnesty is to countenance obscurantism.

One dictionary definition of "amnesty" is that no penalty is exacted for a legal violation. By this definition, this new bill is not amnesty. Since we cannot continue down the current path, conservatives who insist that it is amnesty ought to tell us what realistic, non-amnesty alternative they have in mind.

This was sent to me from "East of Eden"

Update: this essay was bumped to the top to allow comments

Ten Aces in Four Months

You read it right------10 ligitimate holes in one in for months:

Just How Amazing Is Jacqueline Gagne -- And Her 10 Golf Aces?

Jacqueline Gagne has had 10 once-in-a-lifetime experiences in less than four months.
Since Jan. 23, the 46-year-old from Rancho Mirage, Calif., has hit 10 holes in one, or just eight fewer than were hit on the entire Ladies Professional Golf Association tour last year.
Her local paper, the Desert Sun of Palm Springs, Calif., has corroborated Ms. Gagne's feat, running notes alongside articles from editors saying they're just as skeptical as readers, but everything has checked out.

The paper also asked a local statistician, Michael McJilton of the College of the Desert, to compute the odds against the feat. The result, which headlined the article: 113,527,276,681,000,000 to 1. And that was after just seven aces. I asked Mr. McJilton to repeat the computation after Ms. Gagne hit three more in the following couple of weeks, over a total of just 75 rounds. He returned the astronomical number of roughly 12 septillion (12 followed by 24 zeroes) to 1. Such an unlikely event should never happen. It's like winning the lottery four straight times. No wonder David Letterman came calling. (Full Story)

Now I've hit two in the hole off the tee in my lifetime-----one was a hole-in-one and the other was after I hit my first shot into the woods, yes it was a hell of a par. The feat that this lady has accomplished in just four months just boggles the mind.

Thompson Responds to Moonbat Moore

comments welcomed

The Players Championship

I've birdied the seventeenth hole at the TPC Sawgrass three times------(on my video game), but I think if I ever stood on that tee box for real, things may be a little different. The whole is intimidating even for the pros, where a tournament can be lost with one swing of the club.

The Players Championship features one of the strongest fields and the largest purse ($9,000,000) with over a million and a half going to the winner. Sean O'Hair sits atop the leader board at -9 starting the final round. Phil Mickelson will be paired with O'Hair one shot back. You can catch a full roundup of yesterday's action here. The final round will be telecast on NBC starting at 2:00 PM (Eastern Time) 11:00 am Pacific. You can also watch live video stream of all the players playing the infamous 17th at PGA Tour dot com , starting at 11:30 am eastern time. And catch the full leaderboard here. Oh, and that fella, Tiger Woods started the final round tied for 64th at 5 over par-----not a good week for the worlds #1. But the TPC at Sawgrass can humble even the best.

AND HAPPY MOTHERS DAY!

In Their Own Words

Sunday, 06 May 2007
By Hoshyar Zebari
Foreign Minister of Iraq

Last weekend a traffic jam several miles long snaked out of the Mansour district in western Baghdad. The delay stemmed not from a car bomb closing the road but from a queue to enter the city's central amusement park. The line became so long some families left their cars and walked to enjoy picnics, fairground rides and soccer, the Iraqi national obsession.

Across the city, restaurants are slowly filling and shops are reopening. The streets are busy. Iraqis are not cowering indoors. The appalling death tolls from suicide attacks are often high because of crowding at markets. These days you are as likely to hear complaints about traffic congestion as about the security situation. Across Baghdad there is a cacophony of sirens from ambulances, firefighters and police providing public services. You cannot even escape the curse of traffic wardens ticketing illegally parked cars.

These small but significant snippets of normality are overshadowed by acts of gross violence, which fuel the opinion of some that Iraq is in a downward spiral. The Iraqi people are indeed suffering tremendous hardships and making grave sacrifices -- but daily life goes on for 7 million Baghdadis struggling to take back their capital and country.

Recently, at an international summit on the future of Iraq in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, my government asked the international community to maintain its engagement in our country to help us achieve our goals of security and stability. We recognize that our request conflicts with a plethora of voices decrying the situation in Iraq and those in the British and American publics who seek an expeditious withdrawal from a war they claim is all but lost.

So why should the world remain engaged in Iraq?

There is no denying the difficulties Iraq faces, and no amount of good news can obscure the demons of terrorism and sectarianism that have risen in my country. But there is too much at stake to risk failure, and everything to gain by helping us protect our hard-won democratic achievements and emerge as a stable, self-sustaining country.

We remain determined in spite of our losses. Spectacular attacks may dominate foreign headlines, but they cannot change the reality that Iraq has made steady political, economic and social progress over the past four years. We continue to strengthen our nascent democratic institutions, pursue national reconciliation and expand Iraqi security forces. The Baghdad security plan was conceived to give us breathing space to expedite political and economic development by "securing and holding" neighborhoods across the capital. There is no quick fix, but there have been real results: Winning public confidence has led to a spike in intelligence, a disruption of terrorist networks and the capture of key leaders, as well as the discovery of weapons caches. In Anbar province, Sunni sheikhs and insurgents have turned against al-Qaeda and to the side of Iraqi security forces. This would have been unthinkable even six months ago.

Contrary to popular belief, most government ministries are located outside the Green Zone, and employees drive to work every day despite death threats and attacks on colleagues and families. We government ministers are always at risk of assassination. When a suicide bomber attacked parliament last month, the legislators sat in defiance in an extraordinary session the following day. I am particularly inspired by the commitment of the young diplomats in the Foreign Ministry, a diverse mix of Sunni, Shiite, Christian, Arab and Kurdish men and women who serve their country without subscribing to religious or sectarian divisions.

Iraqis are standing up every day, and we persevere because there is no other option. We will not surrender our country to terrorists. They have failed to cripple the elected government, and they have failed to intimidate us into submission. Iraqis reject their vision of a future whose hallmarks are bloodshed and hatred.

Those calling for withdrawal may think it is the least painful option, but its benefits would be short-lived. The fate of the region and the world is linked with ours. Leaving a broken Iraq in the Middle East would offer international terrorism a haven and ensure a legacy of chaos for future generations. Furthermore, the sacrifices of all the young men and women who stood up here would have been in vain.

Iraqis, for all our determination and courage, cannot succeed alone. We need a healthy and supportive regional environment. We will not allow our country to be a battleground for settling scores in regional and international conflicts that adversely affect stability inside our borders. Only with continued international commitment and deeper engagement from our neighbors can we establish a stable democratic, federal and united Iraq. The world should not abandon us.

editors note: I found this story at the website of Duty in the Desert, a site ran by Air Force Pilot Lt Col Patrick (the story was also posted in the Washington Post) Please go visit Patrick's site and let him know we still support their efforts in this Nobel cause.

Clinton / Royal ----- No Difference?

A Clinton Puff Piece in Wapo:

The Washington Post ran a defensive story put out by her campaign staff that borders on hilarious. The context attempts to distance any similarities to the Clinton and her defeated counterpart in France, Ségolène Royal.

"But as presidential candidate Ségolène Royal was defeated by a conservative man who had been France's chief law enforcement officer, the Clinton campaign was quick to dismiss comparisons between their candidate and her Socialist counterpart across the Atlantic. "Other than the fact that they are both women, they don't have much in common," said Howard Wolfson, Clinton's communications director."

One has to wonder what the story would look like had Clinton's "Socialist counterpart" won a victory in a such a torned up society that the French are struggling with today. How many spin cycle settings are there on Clintons publicity machine? The very liberal and socialist policies that France has embraced under Chirac would have certainly continued under Royal. And the similarities to what Clinton's America would be, show many comparisons to that of Royal and Chirac. Tax-payer funded national health care ring any bells? Royal and Clinton have both embraced the centrist/Third Way policies that are only a form of appeasement that has produced nothing but failures.

"In the 1920s, Ludwig von Mises, considered by many to be the most important and consistent capitalist theorist, attacked the "middle way" of mixing capitalism and socialism. In his book Liberalism Mises wrote, "There is simply no other choice than this: either to abstain from interference in the free play of the market, or to delegate the entire management of production and distribution to the government. Either capitalism or socialism: there exists no middle way."

When you profess that it is the governments responsibility to provide the economic welfare to the masses, it also force's the government to set the social policies for such a re-distribution of wealth. That is called socialism! And this nation was not founded on these principals.

While Hillary Clinton tip-toes in her centrist/third-way modus, that appears to appeal to much of the democratic party and some moderate libertarians, the only way to implement these policies are to raise the tax base-----take more of our hard earned dollars out of our pockets. It never occurs to Clinton or the democratic party that tax-based revenues generated from a free market can supply most of the needs of an infrastructure in our society. And supply side economics works best when the government stays out of the picture.

Any government that injects it's policys into a free market driven economy is a recipe for disaster, and invites the un-employment rates the likes of France.

Will Wilkinson writes in the National Review Online via cbsnews:

"The French economy, suffering a snail's-pace economic growth and double-digit unemployment, is widely regarded as a bit of a basket-case compared to the United States and other healthy, developed economies. This lack of economic oomph is often justified by France and its friends as the price of the vaunted French "quality of life." But a study published last week by Deutsche Bank Research shows that the French people, far from feeling fantastic, report decidedly mediocre levels of happiness. A lack of economic dynamism is largely to blame."

"Why so glum? The numbers show that high average incomes, a low unemployment rate, extensive economic freedom, and relatively open labor markets tend to boost happiness levels, while generous welfare handouts, lower levels of inequality, and bigger government have little or no positive effect. The areas where the French do relatively well, such as low inequality and size of government, tend not to make its people feel much better, while the areas where they do poorly, such as unemployment and economic freedom, take a real bite out of happiness." Read Wilkinson's complete article here.

This is what we can look for if this nation falls for France's version of Hillary-Care.

Update: Ed Morrissey at CQ has a relevant post up titled Desperation Of The Left

What You Won't See From The MSM

Greyhawk from the Mudville Gazette has posted what most Americans will NOT see reported on the events in Iraq:

So - with the Commanding General in the U.S. this week, did the troops of MNF-I slack off?
Doesn't look like it:

Sunday, 29 April 2007 72 SUSPECTED TERRORISTS DETAINEDSaturday, 28 April 2007 US, Iraqi raid in Mahmudiyah nets Iranian-marked rockets, mortarsSaturday, 28 April 2007 Marines destroy truck bomb near Karmah Saturday, 28 April 2007 17 SUSPECTED TERRORISTS DETAINED IN IRAQSaturday, 28 April 2007 Baqubah: Local’s tips lead to successSaturday, 28 April 2007 Commandos, Baghdad Eagles detain suspected extremists, find caches and IEDsSaturday, 28 April 2007 Marne Forward Newscast – Soldiers work with Iraqi PoliceSaturday, 28 April 2007Iraqi Army-led mission nets large cacheSaturday, 28 April 2007 Operation Chalons emphasizes U.S., ISF coordinationSaturday, 28 April 2007 Weapons cache foundSaturday, 28 April 2007 FOUR SUSPECTED TERRORISTS DETAINED Friday, 27 April 2007 Operation Commando Dive leads to detentions, cache findsFriday, 27 April 2007 COALITION FORCES DETAIN NINEFriday, 27 April 2007 FOUR SUSPECTED SECRET CELL TERRORISTS DETAINEDThursday, 26 April 2007 Four terrorists killed, two suspects woundedThursday, 26 April 2007 TERRORISTS KILLED, VBIED NETWORK DISRUPTEDThursday, 26 April 2007 CCCI Convicts 41, Sentences 4 to death, 3 to life imprisonmentThursday, 26 April 2007 THREE TERRORISTS KILLED DURING OPERATIONS IN SADR CITYWednesday, 25 April 2007 Six suspected terrorists detainedWednesday, 25 April 2007 Al-Qaeda in Iraq security emir killedTuesday, 24 April 2007 10 SUSPECTED TERRORISTS DETAINED, CACHE FOUNDTuesday, 24 April 2007 VBIED detonates near Diyala’s provincial council headquartersTuesday, 24 April 2007 Correction - Fardh Al-Qanoon Update Efforts Against Extremists ContinueTuesday, 24 April 2007 Weapons cache found inside Baghdad mosqueMonday, 23 April 2007 19 TERRORISTS DETAINED IN COALITION RAIDSMonday, 23 April 2007 Troops assist neighborhood with fire damageMonday, 23 April 2007 Coalition Forces see progress in Diyala River ValleySunday, 22 April 2007 ONE TERRORIST KILLED, 19 SUSPECTS CAPTURED, BOMB-MAKING CACHE FOUNDSunday, 22 April 200715 TERRORISTS KILLED, SEVEN SUSPECTED TERRORISTS DETAINEDSunday, 22 April 2007 Clearing operation Nets Five Weapons Caches in Baghdad’s Mansour district

Meanwhile, back in America, hard working newspaper editors were diligently ensuring that virtually none of these stories would appear in their headlines.

As I reported here, violence over all in Baghdad and the Anbar province is down by nearly 50% in the last month. But how can we see these changes when all that the MSM cares to report is the "of it bleeds, it leads"? How do we support this effort when only half the story is reported?

A Dr. Scholl's Moment

I hear Fred's got big feet.

Cartoon by Gary Varvel