McCain/Palin '08

Part One:


Part Two:

Socialized Medicine Update

The Independent:

A devastating report on the state of Britain's maternity services has concluded that they put the lives of women and their babies at risk.

The first national inquiry into maternity care by the Healthcare Commission, the NHS watchdog, has revealed a critical shortage of midwives, obstetricians absent from wards, a lack of beds and poor continuity of care. These have contributed to high death rates in some units and threaten the long-term health of mothers and their babies in others.

Times Online:

The National Health Service is providing dying cancer patients with drugs that are five times less effective than those available privately and is refusing to treat them if they try to buy medicines themselves.

One drug for kidney cancer, routinely available through public health systems in most European countries but not to British patients, can reduce the size of tumours in 31% of patients, compared with just 6% of those prescribed the standard NHS drug.

The growing row over “co-payments” has prompted the government to reconsider the ban. Alan Johnson, the health secretary, has promised a “fundamental rethink” of the policy.

The shift comes as increasing numbers of cancer doctors defy the official Whitehall ban and allow patients to pay for drugs while still receiving NHS care.

The clincher from The Telegraph:

Overweight nurses are to get personal trainers and high street vouchers to encourage them to lose weight.

More than 200 NHS staff are being equipped with pedometers and offered motivational fitness coaches to help them slim down.

They have been promised £20 of high street store vouchers if they manage to keep the weight off during the year-long pilot.

The £250,000 scheme at Birmingham East and North Primary Care Trust is being run by American healthcare company Humana, which wants to roll the programme out across Britain.

Fight against "Government run health care" at every turn.

Taxes

From the Washington Post:



Common sense tell us that the more money you make, the more tax you pay. That explains why McCain's plan shows the highest wage earners getting the biggest cuts. Obama seems to want to punish success. Class envy is so last century.

How Biased is the American Media?

JB Williams has a very informative article here. Here's a sample:

The Media Sectors and their to-date 2008 Political Investments

* Computer & Internet - $24,255,207 (62% to Democrats)
* Books, Magazines & Papers - $12,187,548 (78% to Democrats)
* Computer Software - $8,922,053 (61% to Democrats)
* Motion Picture Industry - $7,523,136 (88% to Democrats)
* Cable & Satellite TV - $6,303,046 (63% to Democrats)
* Music Recording Industry - $2,983,755 (79% to Democrats)
* Television Production and Distribution - $2,322,587 (86% to Democrats)

And

Ever wonder why our education system is slanted hard left?
Here are some of the biggest publishers of educational materials.

* Reed Elsevier Inc. - $135,250 (69% to democrats) - Publisher and information provider, operating in four core segments: science and medical, legal, education, and business.
* Houghton Mifflin - $132,000 (97% to democrats) - Major publisher of textbooks, reference works, fiction, non-fiction, and educational software and video.
* National Geographic Society - $79,463 (95% to democrats) - provides free maps, photos, videos and daily news stories.

If you're not too depressed yet, here's some more:

Ever wonder why the news media has a hard left bent?

* General Electric/NBC/MSNBC/CNBC - (88% to democrats)
* Disney - (86% to democrats) - Walt Disney Studios, Touchstone, Hollywood Pictures, and Miramax; owns television interests including ABC, the Disney Channel and ESPN; runs dozens of local television and radio stations.
* ABC News - (99% to democrats)
* BBC International - (62% to democrats)
* CBS News – (99% to democrats)
* CNN News – (99% to democrats and Ron Paul)
* Newsweb Corp - (100% to democrats) - a publisher of ethnic and alternative newspapers in the United States, based in Chicago, Illinois.
* Cox Newspapers - (100% to democrats) - Publishers of sixteen local newspapers in Georgia, North Carolina, Texas, Florida, and Ohio.
* Time Inc - (66% to democrats) - the largest magazine publisher in the US.
* News Corp - (95% to democrats) – Rupert Murdoch's global vertically integrated media company includes properties in film, television, cable.
* (Donor facts provided by Open Secrets)

Check his link for links and commentary. Thanks JB!

h/t: XisDshizL

Those Critics Are Silent

David Petraeus

General David Petraeus's tenure in Iraq draws to a close at the end of the month, and it's a measure of his success that he is departing to far less political fanfare than when his tour began. In September 2007, MoveOn.org called him General "Betray-Us," and Hillary Clinton said his claims of progress weren't credible. Now those critics are silent.

When General Petraeus took command 18 months ago, Iraq was sliding into chaos, and President Bush's "surge" was the last chance to bring the country under control. Last April, Majority Leader Harry Reid confidently declared, "The war is lost," and it would have been, if Mr. Bush had taken Mr. Reid's advice. Instead, he stuck with General Petraeus's counterinsurgency strategy, and now violence of every measure has been tamped down; Sunni-Shiite political reconciliation is underway; the Iraqi Army is growing in expertise; and the U.S. and Nouri al-Maliki's government are finishing negotiations toward a long-term security agreement.

However impressive, such gains remain fragile, as General Petraeus is noting in exit interviews this week. "It's not durable yet. It's not self-sustaining. You know -- touch wood -- there is still a lot of work to be done," he told Dexter Filkins of the New York Times.

American military engagement is crucial in the months and years ahead, and will fall now to the capable hands of Lieutenant General Ray Odierno, General Petraeus's chief deputy and co-prosecutor of the anti-al Qaeda success of the last 18 months. General Petraeus will leave Iraq to take control of Central Command, which includes Iraq and the wider Middle East theater including Afghanistan and Iran. With the resurgence of the Taliban, Americans are fortunate the General has signed up for more hard duty.

Hear, hear.

Separated at Birth?

Oh yes. I think so!

The Audacity of a Newbie

From the WSJ:

Barack Obama likes to portray himself as a centrist politician who wants to unite the country, but occasionally his postpartisan mask slips. That was the case at Saturday night's Saddleback Church forum, when Mr. Obama chose to demean Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Pastor Rick Warren asked each Presidential candidate which Justices he would not have nominated. Mr. McCain said, "with all due respect" the four most liberal sitting Justices because of his different judicial philosophy.


Mr. Obama took a lower road, replying first that "that's a good one," and then adding that "I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don't think that he, I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of the Constitution." The Democrat added that he also wouldn't have appointed Antonin Scalia, and perhaps not John Roberts, though he assured the audience that at least they were smart enough for the job.

So let's see. By the time he was nominated, Clarence Thomas had worked in the Missouri Attorney General's office, served as an Assistant Secretary of Education, run the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and sat for a year on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation's second most prominent court. Since his "elevation" to the High Court in 1991, he has also shown himself to be a principled and scholarly jurist.

Meanwhile, as he bids to be America's Commander in Chief, Mr. Obama isn't yet four years out of the Illinois state Senate, has never held a hearing of note of his U.S. Senate subcommittee, and had an unremarkable record as both a "community organizer" and law school lecturer. Justice Thomas's judicial credentials compare favorably to Mr. Obama's Presidential résumé by any measure. And when it comes to rising from difficult circumstances, Justice Thomas's rural Georgian upbringing makes Mr. Obama's story look like easy street.

Even more troubling is what the Illinois Democrat's answer betrays about his political habits of mind. Asked a question he didn't expect at a rare unscripted event, the rookie candidate didn't merely say he disagreed with Justice Thomas. Instead, he instinctively reverted to the leftwing cliché that the Court's black conservative isn't up to the job while his white conservative colleagues are.

So much for civility in politics and bringing people together. And no wonder Mr. Obama's advisers have refused invitations for more such open forums, preferring to keep him in front of a teleprompter, where he won't let slip what he really believes.

He's got balls, I'll give him that.

Daddy's Little Girl

I saw this on Facebook and thought some might enjoy reading it:

[( DADDY`S RULES )]
Rule One:
If you pull into my driveway and honk you had better be delivering a package, because you are sure not picking anything up.

Rule Two:
You do not touch my daughter in front of me. You may glance at her, so long as you do not peer at anything below her neck. If you cannot keep your eyes or hands off my daughter's body, I will remove them.

Rule Three:
I am aware that it is considered fashionable for boys of your age to wear their trousers so loosely that they appear to be falling off their hips. Please do not take this as an insult, but you and all of your friends are complete idiots. Still, I want to be fair and open minded about this issue, so I propose his compromise: You may come to the door with your underwear showing and your pants ten sizes too big, and I will not object. However, in order to ensure that your clothes do not, in fact, come off during the course of your date with my daughter, I will take my electric nail gun and fasten your trousers securely in place to your waist.

Rule Four:
I am sure you have been told that in today's world, sex without utilizing a "barrier method" of some kind can kill you. Let me elaborate, when it comes to sex, I am the barrier, and I will kill you.

Rule Five:
It is usually understood that in order for us to get to know each other, we should talk about sports, politics, and other issues of the day. Please do not do this. The only information I require from you is an indication of when you expect to have my daughter safely back at my house, and the only word I need from you on this subject is "early."

Rule Six:
I have no doubt you are a popular fellow, with many opportunities to date other girls. This is fine with me as long as it is okay with my daughter. Otherwise, once you have gone out with my little girl, you will continue to date no one but her until she is finished with you. If you make her cry, I will make you cry.

Rule Seven:
As you stand in my front hallway, waiting for my daughter to appear, and more than an hour goes by, do not sigh and fidget. If you want to be on time for the movie, you should not be dating. My daughter is putting on her makeup, a process that can take longer than painting the Golden Gate Bridge. Instead of just standing there, why don't you do something useful, like changing the oil in my car?

Rule Eight:
The following places are not appropriate for a date with my daughter: Places where there are beds, sofas, or anything softer than a wooden stool. Places where there are no parents, police officers, or nuns within eyesight. Places where there is darkness. Places where there is dancing, holding hands, or happiness. Places where the ambient temperature is warm enough to induce my daughter to wear shorts, tank tops, midriff T-shirts, or anything other than overalls, a sweater, and a goose down parka - zipped up to her throat. Movies with a strong romantic or sexual theme are to be avoided; movies that feature chain saws are okay. Hockey games are okay. Old folks homes are better.

Rule Nine:
Do not lie to me. I may appear to be a potbellied, balding, middle-aged, dimwitted has-been. However, on issues relating to my daughter, I am the all-knowing, merciless god of your universe. If I ask you where you are going and with whom, you have one chance to tell me the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I have a shotgun, a shovel, and five acres behind the house. Do not trifle with me.

Rule Ten:
Be afraid. Be very afraid. It takes very little for me to mistake the sound of your car in the driveway for a chopper coming in over a rice paddy near Hanoi. When my Agent Orange starts acting up, the voices in my head frequently tell me to clean the guns as I wait for you to bring my daughter home. As soon as you pull into the driveway, you should exit your car with both hands in plain sight. Speak the perimeter password, announce in a clear voice that you have brought my daughter home safely and early, then return to your car - there is no need for you to come inside. The camouflaged face at the window is mine.

From the Horse's Mouth

Actual numbers from the horse's mouth:

The U.S. has about the same number of private contractors in Iraq as uniformed service members, a new congressional report says — a history-making ratio that presents problems in keeping track of all the workers and highlights the difficulties of supporting extended military operations without a larger force.

The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan analytical arm of Congress,
issued a report Monday that provides the first detailed accounting of the number of civilian contractors working in the Iraq theater, often doing jobs that historically have been military responsibilities, such as administration and logistics.

“The extent of DoD’s contracting is particularly evident during prolonged, large-scale operations — like those in Iraq — where there may not be enough military personnel available to provide logistics support,” says the report, “Contractors’ Support of U.S. Operations In Iraq.”

Most of the attention and controversy has centered on the estimated 30,000 people hired by the State Department to provide private security — a mission traditionally the responsibility of U.S. military forces in combat zones.

“Providing security for all personnel, including contractors, is an inescapable aspect of U.S. operations in Iraq because of the instability and violence in that country,” the report says.

Under current policy, the military provides security for contractors deploying with a combat force or directly supporting the military’s mission, but nonmilitary agencies of the U.S. government and other contractors, like those involved in reconstruction, use private security.

The presence of private security companies has caused some consternation in military circles because some private guards are earning up to $1,222 a day, compared to $160 to $190 earned in pay and benefits by a midgrade military member with similar skills.

However, the report says private security is not necessarily more expensive because the guards don’t have to be paid when they are not being used, which would not be case if 30,000 more service members were to replace the security contractors in the Iraq theater.

The military also would be expected to have enough troops so that they could rotate personnel in and out of the war zone. Private security companies often do pay employees between deployments, the report says.

Using contractors to support military operations is not new, the report says, although the current one-to-one ratio that has 190,000 private contractors in the Iraq theater “is at least 2.5 times higher than ... any other major U.S. conflict.”

However, the ratio is similar to the heavy use of contractors during U.S. military operations in the Balkans in the 1990s, the report says.

Army Times

He Puts the 'Loon' in Clooney

Sources say the actor has tried to hide the pair’s friendship for fear his Left-wing views and playboy image would hurt the Presidential hopeful’s bid for the White House.


But Democratic Party insiders have revealed that Clooney and Obama regularly send texts and emails to each other and speak by phone at least twice a week.


One said last night: ‘They are extremely close. A number of members of the Hollywood community, including Brad Pitt, Ben Affleck and Matt Damon, offered to help raise funds for Barack but it was with George that he struck up this amazing affinity.

‘George has been giving him advice on things such as presentation, public speaking and body language and he also emails him constantly about policy, especially the Middle East.


‘George is pushing him to be more “balanced” on issues such as US relations with Israel.


'George is pro-Palestinian. And he is also urging Barack to withdraw unconditionally from Iraq if he wins.


‘It’s a very risky relationship. His hope of becoming America’s first black President depends heavily on winning over conservative voters and it would be suicidal for him to be perceived as a tool of a Hollywood Leftie, which is how they regard George.


‘But they text and email each other almost every day and speak on the phone at least a couple of times a week, often more.’

This would be hilarious if it wasn't so scary.

Lt Col Chessani

I received this story in my email and felt it important to share:

He has been defending our Nation for twenty years…often away from his wife and children… so that we could be safely with ours.

LtCol Chessani served three combat tours in Iraq. He served in the First Persian Gulf War, and in Panama. He is a committed Christian, husband, and father of 6 young children, ages 10 and under.

I am certain that when you hear the facts, you will be as outraged as I am about what our government is doing to this courageous and loyal Marine.

So please read on…

On November 19, 2005, at approximately 7:15 a.m., a Marine convoy was rolling through Haditha, Iraq — a terrorist stronghold. Suddenly, a roadside bomb went off destroying a Marine Humvee, killing one Marine and seriously injuring two others.

The Marines immediately received fire from the ambushing insurgents, who were shooting from nearby civilian-occupied homes.

A four-man fire team responded as trained; they cleared several houses occupied by the armed insurgents, and in the ensuing room-by-room, house-by-house gun battle, it was reported that 8 enemy were killed.

Tragically 15 civilians also died ─ in urban combat, where insurgents purposefully use civilians as human shields, civilian casualties are tragic, but not uncommon. In fact, sometimes the insurgents themselves kill civilians to achieve a propaganda victory by blaming the Americans.

LtCol Chessani was the battalion commander of these brave Marines ─ the 3rd Battalion (“The Thundering Third”), 1st Marines—one of the most decorated units in the history of the Marine Corps.

As the Battalion Commander, LtCol Chessani was responsible that morning for approximately 2000 American and friendly Iraqi troops in an area of operations just about the size of South Carolina.

He immediately reported the deaths of the 15 civilian Iraqis to his superiors.

Not one of LtCol Chessani’s superiors hearing of the 15 civilian deaths ─ including top generals ─ considered it unusual. Not one ordered a further investigation.

However, several months later, an inflammatory Time news article accusing the Marines of massacring innocent civilians caused public hysteria. The story was planted by insurgent propaganda operatives who knew too well that the liberal anti-war media hungered for such stories.

Anti-war Congressman John Murtha, who wields tremendous power over military appropriations, jumped in and echoed Time’s story.

He appeared on major television networks and publicly accused the young enlisted Marines of “cold blooded” murder and Marine officers of a “cover-up.” He blamed it all on the stress of being in Iraq too long.

Incredibly, these accusations were made even before the investigation was completed.

It’s clear ─ the government has turned the prosecution of Jeffrey Chessani into a never-ending persecution.

The trumped-up charge: failing to properly report and investigate the November 19, 2005 incident.

The government is doing everything it can to convict LtCol Chessani. He is the political scapegoat they must convict to satisfy Murtha and the press.

The vast resources of the military are at its disposal. The number of military investigators is virtually limitless. Government prosecutors can go anywhere, talk to anyone, and get anything, all at government expense. The Marine command structure is mandated to cooperate.

So far, the government has spent millions of our taxpayer dollars, employed over 65 Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) agents ─ the largest investigation in that agency’s history ─ and granted immunity to scores of witnesses, all in their attempt to make Jeffrey and the “Haditha Marines” political scapegoats.

But I’m sure you know that the impact of this case reaches far beyond the personal tragedy and injustice to Jeffrey and his family.

Lt. Colonel Paul Ware, USMC, an Investigating Officer who heard testimony in several cases involving the charged enlisted Marines blasted the credibility of the government witnesses and expressed concern that the allegations were nothing but a tactic “to erode public support of the Marine Corps and mission in Iraq.”

He went on to say:

“Even more dangerous is the potential that a Marine may hesitate at the critical moment when facing the enemy . . . .”

Retired General Thomas McInerney, former Joint Force Commander and Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force, called the prosecutions of the Haditha Marines “despicable.” He warned:

“We cannot fight a war like that . . . We’re not taking care of our people.”

Regardless of how you feel about the war, LtCol Chessani was in Iraq because his country sent him there. He defended us, now we must defend him.

Just to give you an idea what this Nation has lost by the prosecution of LtCol Chessani, and why he deserves your support, I want to give you a few excerpts from his official Combat Fitness Report.

This is a required annual evaluation of a Marine officer’s performance prepared by his superiors. It covers the period of September 2005 to February 2006 ─ which includes the date of the incident for which LtCol Chessani is facing criminal charges:

- “Leads Marines from front in every operation. Demonstrates moral courage everyday. Doesn’t hesitate to report bad news fast or contest unrealistic plans/poor concepts. Despite the complexity and size of his AO [area of operations], he always maintains a calm, cool demeanor.”

- “Always seeks advantage over complex, diverse insurgent enemy. Truly one of the finer thinkers in this COIN environment.”

- “One of the top 3” infantry/cavalry battalion commanders “of 13 who have served with RCT –2 [the regiment] during OIF. A superb leader, who knows his men, knows the enemy, knows his business. Doesn’t attract a lot of fanfare; just gets the job done to an exceedingly high standard.”

- “Long ball hitter; recommend selection for promotion to Colonel and TLS [Top Level School].”

The Reviewing Officer, Major General Huck added his comments: “Top notch officer with outstanding potential. Promote and select for TLS [Top Level School]. Post TLS slate for Regimental command and subsequent joint tour. Unlimited potential and value to the Marine Corps. Capable of the most challenging assignments.”

One distorted magazine article has devastated the life and family of this patriotic Marine officer… and could adversely affect our military for years to come.

Simply put…

This case is about how our military fights and will fight in the future.

LtCol Chessani has willingly answered the call to serve his country. That’s why he deserves the support of every Patriotic American today.

Click here to DONATE and HELP.

He's Growing Up So Fast

This used to be my little boy, my small fry, the baby I held in my arms. Wow.

Al Qaeda's Market Crash

IF you think the US markets have problems, look at the value of al Qaeda shares throughout the Muslim world: A high-flying political equity just a few years ago, its stock has tanked. It made the wrong strategic investments and squandered its moral capital.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Osama bin Laden was the darling of the Arab street, seen as the most successful Muslim in centuries. The Saudi royal family paid him protection money, while individual princes handed over cash willingly: Al Qaeda seemed like the greatest thing since the right to abuse multiple wives.

Osama appeared on T-shirts and his taped utterances were awaited with fervent excitement. Recruits flocked to al Qaeda not because of "American aggression," but because, after countless failures, it looked like the Arabs had finally produced a winner.

What a difference a war makes.

Yes, al Qaeda had little or no connection to Saddam Hussein's Iraq - but the terrorists chose to declare that country the main front in their struggle with the Great Satan. Bad investment: Their behavior there was so breathtakingly brutal that they alienated their fellow Muslims in record time.

Fighting enthusiastically beside the once-hated Americans, Iraq's Sunni Muslims turned on the terrorists with a vengeance. Al Qaeda's response? It kept on butchering innocent Muslims, Sunni and Shia alike. Iraq exposed al Qaeda as a fraud.

Read the rest.


h/t: Scott`

Democrats and the Surge

Democrats, then, have compounded their initial bad judgment about the surge with reckless obstinacy. As ethno-sectarian violence in Iraq rapidly declined, as al Qaeda absorbed tremendous military blows, and as political accommodation and legislative achievements have emerged, Democrats, rather than welcoming the progress, grew agitated. They embraced with religious zeal the belief that the Iraq war was lost; they therefore viewed the success of the surge as a terribly inconvenient development, one they sought to deny to the point that they looked silly and out of touch. Worse, Democrats acted as if they had a vested interest in an American defeat.

Rarely has a political party been so uniformly wrong, in such an obvious way, on such an important matter. And when Americans cast their vote on November 4, they should carefully consider how Barack Obama and the entire Democratic party fought ferociously and relentlessly to undermine a policy that has worked extraordinarily well and may yet prove to be among the most successful military plans in modern times.

Read it while liberals weep.


h/t: XisDshizL

Saddam Hussein Interrogation

I was asked about this recently so I thought I'd post it.


Part One

Part Two